my feeling is that Athenberry appears to have provided an environment in which a competent quad/LUV operator could complete their tasks. — Darren Cottingham

That is my feeling too. How much is a person liable for someone who they don't know is on their property, who is operating contrary to their own company policy and training, and best practice guidelines?

Safety is just one aspect of a company culture, not an entity in and of itself. That said, I'd reply to you comments:
1. Intangible? Yes, so what? So is goodwill, and that makes up a significant part of some companies' balance sheet. While you cannot manufacture it, you can certainly drive towards it to 'make it happen'
2. While discussions around it lack consensus, just about every one of us will recognise a good culture when we see it. It is the wording that lacks consensus, not the concept.
3. So you'd argue that healthy and open reporting, discussions, a just reporting system aren't necessary to improve safety.
4. I agree with this comment, and I think that it comes from people expecting a 'quick-fix', which just isn't achievable. It takes time, and sometimes you need to have obstructive people to move on out of the company so you can improve the culture. Look at how society's tolerance to smoking or drink driving (as a whole) has changed over the last 15-20 years - that's how long it takes to change the culture of a country - it requires generational thinking, not an annual focus.

After thinking about it, I have to agree with Nadine - there should always be that tension between safety and cost. I'm not sure if it is a sign of a 'safety culture' as such, but it is certainly a good sign that risk management is being properly carried out.

What are hard hats required for protection against?
Is it against falling objects (where it is definitely a hardhat that is required) or against walking into head-height obstructions (where a bump-hat is appropriate, and a turban might well offer sufficient protection)?

This is good for the first stage of the response; depending on your industry there will be other scenarios that you need to include. These will be a case of running 'what if' scenarios on your highest rated risks (particularly any that have a rating that is higher than would normally be acceptable).

I's also include some information on returning to normal operations after an emergency. Rushing back to normal ops post-emergency can introduce other dangers. This is one of the many areas where H&S is a part of other good management practices (i.e. disaster recovery).

Maybe I'm being a bit naive, but isn't health an aspect of safety, although maybe one that takes time to develop?

Hi All,
I'm Aaron Marshall, and I'm an independent Aviation Consultant, currently primarily focused on Safety Management Systems. One of the big things that we are facing is educating about the difference between the Safety Management System, and Health and Safety.
I'm hoping to pick up a lot of tips regarding the Health and Safety aspect, and find some better ways to integrate the two.

CAA SMS doesn't consider Health, because the Health and Safety at Work Act adequately covers it. For that matter, SMS doesn't cover a lot of what he HSaW covers; it isn't concerned with what happens on a day-to-day basis, that doesn't cover aviation risks. Although there is a lot of overlap with the HSaW, in that there is enough commonality in methodology, the focus of the SMS is Aviation Safety, and really outwardly focussed, while HSaW is inwardly focussed.
I's be interested to hear who you have been dealing with, as at the recent CAA SMS forum, it was made very clear that a company's SMS should be their manual and system, and preferably combined with the H&S policies. I'd stand your ground with that issue. CAA are a very different regulator to Worksafe - they are (in my experience) are a lot more open to different ways of complying.
P.S. if they're charging for you to talk to them, then you're talking to the wrong group. The SMS team generally aren't charged out.
Happy to talk off-forum if you want to discuss specifics.