Originally Posted by
highrpm
...it is one thing to understand the theory, and quite a different skill to apply it daily and effectively in decision making. This in itself should be a key learning point.
Trust me, this is covered in that particular course.
Originally Posted by
highrpm
...when you have elevated yourself to being a public figure and authority on safety, as well as a most senior figure in one of the largest onshore operators, people will naturally hold you more accountable to your actions.
I don't know if we can call him a public figure, he hasn't been on Strictly Come Dancing yet
AFAIK. But seriously, is there such a thing as 'more accountable'? You either are or you're not. In this situation the aircraft commander is the person who is accountable when a flight doesn't go as planned, and an accountable manager is where the buck stops when the situation warrants the attention of any kind of authority. We tend to hold persons in positions such as these to certain higher standards, but is that fair? I mentioned in an earlier post that even though someone has lots of titles on his or her business card, when it's your behind on that flight deck seat you're just another pilot stuck with the same limited information that any pilot has and having to take the same split-second decisions that every other pilot will have to make on a day to day basis. And that process is just as liable to include errors of any kind as any other process that includes humans. I would even go so far as to state that having an extra responsibility within a company can make the process of taking those decisions even more daunting as you can't push the job of explaining everything to the client/boss/authorities towards someone else.
Originally Posted by
highrpm
I strongly believe that in order to generate a healthy safety culture, where the size of the organisation permits, the post-holder of safety manager should not be the flight ops manager, the accountable manager, or the MD/CEO of the company due to the detrimental effect it can have on an open and honest reporting/investigating culture.
I agree, but as you already mentioned, it depends on the size of the organisation. Yet, this is something that the company has already addressed, see 'Safety Actions' on page 64 of the report.
Originally Posted by
highrpm
I’m keen to know whether this view is supported in Cranfield’s evidence based teachings on the role of leadership and structure in a mature safety management system.
We're linking two different topics here as the outcome of this particular safety investigation and the subjects taught in a particular Cranfield course are not in itself connected to each other. Having said that, based on my participation in that course a few years ago I would say that the role of leadership and the structure of the SMS system are very much part of the course, were discussed extensively and I was under the impression that no subject was taboo. The lecturers (it wasn't just one person lecturing during those five days) were all very open in discussing incidents and accidents that were relevant to the subject at hand and personal experiences were very much a part of those stories. Because of this I would not be surprised if the G-LAWX incident under discussion here will be addressed during that course, but the only way to find out is to go there and take part in the course.
Originally Posted by Undecided
Why should it be acceptable for a senior manager and pilot who held the very rules which he preached with such disregard himself be allowed to reach atonement by lecturing other people on why they must follow the rules?
You don't go into lecturing to reach any kind of atonement. Also, does that mean that a lecturer cannot make any mistakes, and is not allowed to have made any mistakes at any point in the past? I'm playing devil's advocate here but in my personal opinion, someone who does know what it is like to be involved in a sticky situation may well be the better lecturer on that subject. Also, please do not forget that it takes a brave person to stand up in front of a group of professionals and admit that you have done the unthinkable at some point in the past. The whole culture that we are trying to achieve within aviation is one where we can have adult conversations about these topics, where we can admit that yes, we have perhaps erred at some point in the past and where we can take this experience and learn from it so that it doesn't happen again. I don't see where doing this in front of a classroom instead of within the company is in any way wrong.