Safety Managment Systems [Archive]

View Full Version : Safety Managment Systems

plus expenses

31st Oct 2008, 16:30

I have just been studying the CAA Guidance for Implementation of SMS and I am very impressed.

Does anyone know if an SMS is available for download or use?

Perhaps this is an opportunity for our disposed of over 60's to supplement their income by writing an SMS for sale?

Speaking of which, I wonder where in the Safety System Matrix I am supposed to fit 'Get rid of most experienced and capable pilots for no discernible effect'?

Presumably next to 'No prosecutions for illegal public transport'

I wonder who audits the auditors?

Encyclo

31st Oct 2008, 16:44

Hello P.E.

On the IHST website, they have a good document that explains SMS and at the end they have a "generic" SMS than can be adapted to your specifics.

IHST - Safety Management System (http://www.ihst.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=43&Itemid=31)

Enjoy :ok:

Miles Gustaph

31st Oct 2008, 22:09

Plus Expenses
PM me if you need some more info

IHL

1st Nov 2008, 01:28

If you're interested here is guidance material from Transport Canada's website:

http://http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/SMS/guidance.htm (http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/SMS/guidance.htm)

plus expenses

3rd Nov 2008, 15:18

Thanks everyone, got what I needed!

Spunk

4th Nov 2008, 08:04

Just out of curiosity, where in JAR OPS-3 does it say that you, as a helicopter operator, have to have an sms system?

Karl Bamforth

4th Nov 2008, 08:08

I think it is an ICAO requirement that all aviation related organisations implement an SMS. Long term it is safer and should reduce costs.

plus expenses

4th Nov 2008, 10:20

Safer? Really? Does more paperwork = safer flying?

Look at maintenance companies where the senior engineers are upstairs doing paperwork while the unsupervised trainees are doing the actual work, has this improved safety?

Tell me one way that FLYING will be more safe.

Will an SMS stop someone from flying into the side of a hill? I'm pretty sure such behaviour is already discouraged.

Personally I think the SMS will be not be a bad thing, with the proviso that it is implemented correctly, in my case we are a small company and we could easily be overburdened by the SMS especially with rapidly increasing CAA fees and increasing competition from 'private' flights, which would then have the opposite effect from its intention.

verticalhold

4th Nov 2008, 10:44

plus expenses;

Flying will become totally safe when the weight of the paperwork means that the aircraft can't leave the ground and we all with out the lights and go home

The cowboys will still be doing their thing and the rest of us will watch the mayhem from the safety of the sidelines. The AOC operators will be bullied into another level of red tape, while the guardians of aviation safety in the UK will spend their time and our money making sure we have dotted al the i's and crossed all the t's rather than getting out and policing aviation properly. Stopping the illegal PT and sheer stupid activities of the uncaring, uncontolled minority rather than giving us another level of bureaucracy would make me feel that our over-inflated AOC fees havesome value, rather than looking like they'e just been flushed away again.

To the FOIs. You all come from a commercial background. Why the hell can't you help commercial aviation rather than helping the Authority screw us all the time. To a man you are all nice blokes, plase remember where you came from and how the rest of us struggle against the illegal operators you seem powerless to stop.

Rant over. PE no doubt you and I will have a further rant together on Thursday night. First large scotch on me.

VH

Rigga

7th Nov 2008, 22:10

Plus Expenses said:

"Look at maintenance companies where the senior engineers are upstairs doing paperwork while the unsupervised trainees are doing the actual work, has this improved safety?"

Thats a really interesting statement. A bit like "Lots of pilots watching the telly today".

If you really saw this happening you should ask what the Senior Eng might be signing-off, or complain. Or are they really cheap? In which case - you get what you (don't) pay for.

I also find it interesting that VH would prefer pilots to be "stopped" rather than being prevented for erring in the first place. Be careful of what you wish for...you might get it.

Whilst I agree that SMS for small operations can be a bureaucratic system, it is often the only way to record errors and events made by those people that need to be monitored, because "they" always do it wrong, or to prove that some "systems" just don't work!

The whole point of SMS is that, if you can think of a better way to do it - suggest it! It is supposed to encourage an open reporting system. See if it works.

Yes, it may mean that pilots have "something else to do" - the same happened when someone introduced compulsory weather forecast checking or MORs. Get over it.

We are all trying to get to a "best practice" for our particular operation. Try joining it instead of sneering at it.

Rigga
A smallish heli-operator and maintenance QA and SMS manager.

Now that's what I call a rant!

hostile

7th Nov 2008, 23:15

Quality programs with SMS,

I know it takes time to have everybody accept the system if it is new in whole company. After all it will help all parties in company and works only if all have willingness and a chance to take a part of it. It is (it should) be a tool for everybody to take part of operation. Main thing is that Quality Manager is trained or have good personal skills lead the system. Whole system should be build for your company matters. Don't just steel the system from somebody. Good luck:ok:

Hostile

Karl Bamforth

8th Nov 2008, 00:25

Plus expenses,

You have just demonstrated that that you have little understanding about SMS.

Please take the time to read and understand what it is trying to do. It is there to help you and not hinder you. It is compulsary so you will have to implement it anyway, why not get some benefit from it?

If you are running a small company, your SMS only needs to be a small document.

It is not something that has been thought of recently. This has been in use in the Nuclear and Oil industries for years, we know it will improve safety and reduce costs if used correctly.

A little advice for when you write yours, remember this is about saving lives NOT trailing extension leads and paper cuts.

Keep it simple.

Take care and good luck with your SMS.

Hobbit

8th Nov 2008, 10:05

At its simplest an SMS encourages senior management buy in to the Company safety culture, I don't think that's a bad aspiration. It should encourage open reporting meaning that we can all become aware of latent problems in the system that may be lurking to 'get us'.
At its best it is a quantum leap forward in flight safety, where I work the worst kind of lip service is payed to it to tick Authority boxes.

unstable load

8th Nov 2008, 10:16

I had nothing but full blown scepticism for SMS until I actually sat down and had it explained and disected for me. The fact that I "own" any report that I open and have final say as to whether it can be closed off or not is a vast improvement in my opinion, plus the fact that reports can be submitted completely unanimously if needed.

I am probably what can be called a believer now, with the only obstacle being the fact that it is another form to fill out..:ugh:

SASless

11th Feb 2009, 14:04

What is the controlling document for drawing up Safety Management Programs these days?

Is it CAA's CAP 712 document (Safety Management Systems For
Commercial Air Transport), some FAA standard, or is it ICAO document 9589 (Safety Management Manual)? Does EASA have a new standard yet that supplants the CAA and other European standards?

Does an operator have a choice in the system they draw up or must it comply with a specific set of documents?

Is the industry seeing added costs due to changing standards with the creation of CAA/JAA/EASA or are they using common standards?

What Limits

11th Feb 2009, 14:16

We are one of the industry leaders in SMS implementation for helicopter operators and if you have a look at Transport Canada's (http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/sms/menu.htm) website, this gives some guidance on what to do.

To say that costs are increased by this implementation would be an understatement.

SASless

11th Feb 2009, 14:28

What standard is the Canadian program based upon?

ICAO standards or Canadian Standards without reference to any other controlling documents?

What Limits

11th Feb 2009, 19:20

In the absence of guidance from TCCA (no change there) we are using ICAO DOC 9859

SASless

11th Feb 2009, 21:12

Anyone still using CAA CAP 712?

Reference: CAP 712
Title: Safety Management Systems for Commercial Air Transport Operations
Description: Please see Safety Management Systems | Operations & Airworthiness | Safety Regulation (http://www.caa.co.uk/sms) for up-to-date information on Safety Management Systems.
Status: Withdrawn on 23 September 2008
Review Comment: This document is out of date and has been withdrawn.

zalt

14th Feb 2009, 18:04

zalt

14th Feb 2009, 18:10

GenuineHoverBug

14th Feb 2009, 21:36

For those interested, EASA's proposal for (Safety) Management System may be found i NPA 2008-22c (http://www.easa.eu.int/ws_prod/r/doc/NPA/NPA%202008-22c%20-%20Part-OR.pdf) under OR.GEN.200 and the associated AMCs. Some parts of this is also found in NPA 2009-02, such as Risk assessment of SOPs in OPS.COM.270 and AMCs (http://www.easa.eu.int/ws_prod/r/doc/NPA/NPA%202009-02B.pdf) and detailed in such as GM OR.OPS.100.GEN(d) (http://www.easa.eu.int/ws_prod/r/doc/NPA/NPA%202009-02C.pdf). "Risk Assessment" and "Safety Management" is also called for in several other parts of Part OPS.

As far as I can see, EASA refers to one common Management System, which appears to include many of the aspects that are in need of management (such as safety/risk and quality).

Note that the comment period is still open, so this is a good opportunity and there is ample time to voice your opinion!

tony 1969

15th Feb 2009, 10:46

Just trying to get my head around an SMS system for a small operator and like you have been struggling for a definitive controlling document,
The IHST have a very readable toolkit and other resources see www.ihst.org/SMStoolkit/.
Why is it so complicated to come up with a controlling Document and stick with it.......:ugh::ugh::ugh:
Let you know if I come up with anything

vfr440

17th Feb 2009, 17:12

Aside from the requirement for all operators, I wonder if you were aware that there is 'encouragement' for such a documet for the Part 145 provider? Beggars belief, and the easiest way woud be a cross-reference to the MOE and H & S manual. HOWEVER, CAA gone deaf on this suggestion. Yes I applied the IHST toolkit to such a proposal but got turned down. What's the matter with these turkeys? Where did common-sense go then? ~ VFR

EN48

2nd Jan 2010, 19:31

With Safety Management Systems becoming all the rage, I dont want to be left out! Been thinking about how to do this in a practical and useful way given that there is no "organization" other than the owner/pilot. Have been looking at the IHST Helicopter Safety Recommendation Summary for Small Operators (www.ihst.org (http://www.ihst.org)) and thinking about how to adapt this to a single owner/pilot situation. I have become convinced that there is a payoff in terms of safety and insurance premiums. Will soon test the insurance part. Anyone have any ideas/suggestions/opinions, pro or con, on this topic? :rolleyes:

Lloyd Vandermeer

2nd Jan 2010, 23:43

I worked for a Aviation consulting company here in Canada have developed 8 manuals for helicopter operators here, went on a course for sms which a ex transport guy did, you have to do a course now they tell me to be an ops manager, so I have a good template which I mod for each operation. I'm a heli pilot also, been ops mgr and chief pilot and yes a crusty over 50 year old.