DCM, where risk management is concerned, the object of the exercise is not to make it right, but to move forward in light of facts. The problem with most H&S regulation is it is just that - regulation. It is not Law - a definitive statement of what is, and is not, allowed.
When H&S Regulation is released, it is interpreted by professional H&S risk professionals and that interpretation is what we implement. That's why we get these *cough* recommendations that all makes us smile - banning conkers in the playground, or speed bumps in the road. However, once something does happen, and the matter goes to court, a judge will make a ruling. This becomes a re-definition of the Regulation, and we all go back to ensure that we are doing something better, or different, to further reduce the risk. Piper Alpha, and its impact on offshore oil platforms in the UK (at least!) is one such example, as is the Herald of Free Enterprise and its impact on Ro-Ro ferry design. Before those accidents, the risks were assessed and the safety systems were implemented as the standard. When the proved inadequate in a court of Law, the systems were changed and/or improved to make a new standard.
So, what we need to do is to set a standard. We might suggest that we conduct a test, informed by experts, that shows that a certain design will contain LiPo debris, and then set that standard for LiPo 'sacks' or starter box cases or whatever. That would show we had tried to mitigate the risks, and give us something to demonstrate our responsibility. If our actions are shown to be insufficient in a future incident, we have to update our mitigation. Why is it so hard to get people to do something, or is it just easier to sit there and type out some excuse for staying on our arses typing into computers...?
If you want this to go away, it won't. If you want it to be suitable for your class/Section, start thinking and acting, before someone does it to you. Just my 2p...
|