Originally Posted by
Dick Smith
Arthur D, it is almost as if you believe that if all the regulations are followed that aviation will be “safe”. Nothing could be further from the truth.
For example, look at ETOPS operations. Under ETOPS there can be an engine failure and the aircraft can keep flying as a single engine aircraft for many hours to landing. Is there a chance that the second engine could fail? Of course there is. If this is over a remote ocean at night, the consequences will be serious.
One day it will probably happen because the ETOPS equation is based on probability.
Dick, that is NOT what I am saying, far from it. The basket case we call regulations were never intended to and are far from a ‘how to’ guide on running a safe operation. However the Regulator does have an obligation to oversight an operators SMS.
An effective SMS being the very key to safe operations. Being a system, an effective SMS should never stand still in striving for continuous improvement. That system should manage Risk to an acceptable standard. If the standard is trending in the wrong direction, then action should be taken.
Ultimately the Board are the owners of the system and accountable as such.
In the case of CASA, the chairman owns the system which oversee’s the aviation industry’s SMS’s. I would hate to think that post an accident the Chairman of CASA stated that he/she expected that any day........
You are quite right with respect to ETOPS, probability is a key factor, as it is in any risk equation. Having said that, reflecting on recent accidents / serious events ie QF 32, AF 447, MH17, US Airways 1549, in all cases the number of engines was irrelevant. In all cases the flight crew played a pivotal role in the outcome, in success and otherwise. For me the debate is whether the results were a product of the airlines systems or outlying individuals (ie Sully).