‘Data Driven’ or good judgement.
From the Senate hearings as reported by WSJ, 29 Oct, criticising the FAA’s role in the 737 Max.
After Lion, the FAA’s analytics showed a good chance that ‘the same malfunction would crop up again’, - presumably AoA failure, but neither the data source or method of analysis was stated (‘a rigid and well defined process’). Thence the reliance on checklist and crew action (Boeing) - the FAA, waits for the report, for more data.
After Ethiopian, ‘the FAA began a fresh risk analysis’ - ‘seeking to quantify the likelihood of a third such emergency’. ‘The FAA maintained … that the specifics (data) were to unclear to merit decisive action’. Thence becoming the last authority to ground the Max.
“We (FAA) have said all along that we are a data-driven organisation.”
Our industry appears to becoming data driven. Do we rely too much on data - statistical analysis, risk management, critical safety calls.
Being data-driven depends on the availability and suitability of data, and choice of analytical technique, both of which involves understanding and judgement.
The final analysis and decision reviewing the output and choosing a course of action is, or should be, an entirely human judgement.
Are we choosing to be driven by data, derogating judgement to a machine, or driven by data as a consequence of modern operations, or not really thinking about the invidious use of ‘data’ and its potential to bias safety action ?