Re safety concerns (comfort level) #179, the study - ‘
Distress call from the flight deck: Cross-Cultural survey of aviation professionals reveals perception that flight safety is decreasing’, identifies the issues.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268271017
A short extract for those who cannot get full access:-
Safety in numbers
In response to the question “Do you think aviation is safe?” several people responded “yes…”, paused, seemingly conflicted, and then qualified their response with explanations like: “it is statistically safe” or “safer than all the other modes of transportation”. They generally described behavioural, procedural, and operational examples of “safety” in their daily work. This revealed a distinction between safety as the active experience of an activity (e.g. flying) in contrast to the “safety level” described by statistics reflecting the outcomes of that activity (e.g. fatalities or hull losses). A review of the interview data reveals that, with very few exceptions, safety was discussed as the qualitative, tangible experience of the risk involved in the activity, and this risk is compared to some cognitive or affective baseline – what could be considered the “comfort level” of the individual. Although it may seem obvious that practitioners will not discuss safety in terms of trends and statistics, it is relevant to our community of researchers and decision-makers to occasionally remind ourselves of the distinction. Accident statistics based on outcomes are used as the universal measure of safety presented to the public as well as for risk management and in decision-making. The interview data highlights the disconnect between quantitative safety statistics and ‘real-time safety’ as part of the ongoing, dynamic, daily activities of pilots, controllers, and other aviation professionals. Logically it seems that the two are not independent: if the work is not carried out in a conservative, consistent, conscientious manner (i.e. “safely”) then the statistics should reflect that and aviation’s laudatory safety record will not be maintained. Over time. But who can afford to wait for the statistics to prove the veracity of these warnings?
Conclusion
Through this study of the differences in perspectives and beliefs of aviation professionals across national cultures, the trade-off between economic and safety interests was identified as a common concern. According to a diverse sample of pilots and controllers, while aviation statistics may still portray a healthy industry, the operational reality is another matter altogether: the impact of economic scarcity and the ever-increasing focus on profits has reduced safety through changes in management practices, organisational structure, and regulations.
With very low accident rates, should the regulators change their safety perspective?
In this incident, assuming that either a mechanical restriction
or crew interaction contributed to the situation (presumably unforeseen), then is risk viewed as a threat - regulatory, statistical risk management, or as a managed risk with a successful outcome; non fatal normal landing ?
‘… when an employee feels at risk he or she also is at risk. Thus, “the risk of accidents are increased not because of a biased perception of risk, but rather because risk is perceived ‘correctly’, i.e. is in accordance with objective [Regulatory statistical ?]
risk”
https://safety177496371.wordpress.co...on-and-safety/