MAA Regulatory Article 1210
Dear Ministry of Defence,
MAA Regulatory Article 1210 makes it clear that,
(1) ADHs are legally accountable for the safe operation of systems in their AoR and for ensuring that RtL for 1st, 2nd and 3rd parties, which includes the general public, are both ALARP and Tolerable.
(2) The validity of an ALARP argument can only be decided definitively by the courts, in the event of an accident.
Can you advise me as to which courts the latter refers. Clearly, a Service Inquiry can not be considered as a court.
Yours faithfully,
James Jones
Dear Mr Jones
Thank you for your email dated 26th July.
Your request has been logged under our reference FOI2019/08845 and the
target date for response is 27th Aug 2019.
Regards
DSA Secretariat
Dear DSA-Enquiries (MULTIUSER),
Many thanks for your prompt reply.
Can I assume the that 'Coroner's Court' also covers Fatal Accident Inquiries in Scotland?
Yours sincerely,
James Jones
Thank you for contacting the Defence Safety Authority
Your enquiry will be forwarded to a DSA Staff Officer who should respond
to you within twenty working days.
In the unlikely event that you do not receive a response within this time
please re-send your email clearly labelled second request.
Please note that if your enquiry relates to the MAA MRP it should be sent
to the DSA-MAA-MRP enquiries mailbox.
If you are trying to contact The Disposal Services Authority, they can be
contacted at the following address [1][email address]
If your query relates to Low Flying, please contact the Low Flying
Complaints and Enquiries Unit at [email address] - Telephone -
01780 417558 - Address - RAF Wittering, Peterborough, PE8 6HB or visit
Gov. UK at the following link
[2]https://www.gov.uk/low-flying-in-your-ar...
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. https://www.gov.uk/low-flying-in-your-ar...
Dear Mr Jones,
I can confirm that is correct.
I hope that helps
Kind Regards,
DSA Secretariat & Comms
-----Original Message-----
From: James Jones <[FOI #592706 email]>
Sent: 14 August 2019 09:47
To: DSA-Enquiries (MULTIUSER) <[email address]>
Subject: Re: FOI2019/08845
Dear DSA-Enquiries (MULTIUSER),
Many thanks for your prompt reply.
Can I assume the that 'Coroner's Court' also covers Fatal Accident Inquiries in Scotland?
Yours sincerely,
James Jones
-----Original Message-----
Dear Mr Jones
Please see attached response to FOI request FOI2019/08845
Regards
DSA Secretariat
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #592706 email]
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the latest advice from the ICO:
https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will be delayed.
If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear DSA-Enquiries (MULTIUSER),
With reference to the 2012 Moray Firth collision, can you advise me in which court the ALARP argument was validated?
I note that at para 1.4.6.605(b)(3) of the SI report the panel state that the No 1 Group mitigation was not ALARP. A point that the Convening Authority (DG MAA) appears to reject.
Yours sincerely,
James Jones
Dear Mr Jones
Thank you for your email dated 10th September.
Your request has been logged under our reference FOI2019/10683 and the target date for response is 8th Oct 2019.
Regards
DSA Secretariat
-----Original Message-----
From: James Jones <[FOI #592706 email]>
Sent: 10 September 2019 10:48
To: DSA-Enquiries (MULTIUSER) <[email address]>
Subject: RE: FOI2019/08845
Dear DSA-Enquiries (MULTIUSER),
With reference to the 2012 Moray Firth collision, can you advise me in which court the ALARP argument was validated?
I note that at para 1.4.6.605(b)(3) of the SI report the panel state that the No 1 Group mitigation was not ALARP. A point that the Convening Authority (DG MAA) appears to reject.
Yours sincerely,
James Jones
-----Original Message-----
Dear Mr Jones,
I can confirm that is correct.
I hope that helps
Kind Regards,
DSA Secretariat & Comms
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #592706 email]
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the latest advice from the ICO:
https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will be delayed.
If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear DSA-Enquiries (MULTIUSER),
Many thanks for your reply.
For the avoidance of any doubt I was not seeking an opinion, just factual information.
From your answer I have to assume that in the case that I mentioned the ALARP statement was not validated in a court of law, as per RA1210. Validation would have involved the 2* Duty Holder and I am sure his involvement would have been documented.
Yours sincerely,
James Jones
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now