Originally Posted by
Capn Bloggs
HNH, I can't agree with any of that. The ONLY reason federal regs are written is to set a standard that anybody can operate to/in/with and be safe. This idea that a major US carrier shouldn't have operated into DCA because it might be dangerous, depending on how the airline assesses it, and is therefore sue-able, when the FAA itself allows it, doesn't gel IMO. The sole job of the regulator is to ensure the airspace and it's procedures will allow a safe operation. ...............
I can see exactly where you are coming from
Capn Blogs so I don't blame you at all for your comment above! After all, you can say exactly the same for Aircraft Certification too....... This is my take on it which I put out there...............
This is where a SMS needs to look again at things and then decide what else, if anything, needs to be done. Part of my background is from Safety Engineering (where I was put through a SE MSc in the 1990's by my then employer) and processes such as Hazard Analysis takes into account both material failure as well as operational failure - and here we have "airspace design" and then the "operation of that airspace". When designing a bit of kit you apply the Regs as part of the design hazard analysis. But that is the minimum (tick VG) - after that we then ask "And is it actually safe?". Regs generally provide for a "minimum safe standard" which, all being well, will see us through - 100%. If not, we'd have aircraft falling out the sky with regular abandon! But that's assuming that those who write the Regs have got it right (or, in this case "designed the airspace" and then created the "operational rules" for that design). They can make mistakes as much as anyone else. One would hope for rigorous QA checks and so on ......... but this is where even organisations such as the FAA can, over time, become institutionalized with poor practices/cost cutting/etc/etc.
On an operational side of things, I've often, as an Engineer, reduced servicing intervals to less than those recommended where I've had issues with a bit of kit on a particular airframe*. I've released the aircraft back into service with an Engineering Limitation which has called for more frequent inspections than the Rules ask for while we try and ascertain what the issue is and if there really is a trend starting. If as an operator you believe something to be unsafe, you must address it. How did I know to reduce the servicing intervals? Sometimes it was a Maintenance Engineer calling me over and saying "Hey, Boss, have you seen this? What do you think?". Other times it's because trawling through Stats, a trend has started to show which, in the noise of day-to-day operations, was invisible - but look back over 6 months in a Spreadsheet and, hey, what have we here? We used to get regular print-outs from our Maintenance databases for just this reason - in the 1980's!
The FAA, in the wake of this accident I suspect, has issued
this on the considerable extension of SMS's - but only in Apr 2024. But this is not new stuff - SMS's have been around for years. My first brush with it all was way back in 1980 - we called it something different then but that's what it was! Here in the UK, the CAA published CAP 795 - Safety Management Systems - Guidance to Organizations back in 2015, the purpose of which "
.......... is to provide guidance on the implementation of Safety Management Systems (SMS). It has been developed to give sufficient understanding of SMS concepts and the development of management policies and processes to implement and maintain an effective SMS. It applies to Air Operator’s Certificate (AOC) holders, continuing airworthiness management organisations, maintenance organisations, air navigation service providers, aerodromes and approved training organisations.".
Originally Posted by
Capn Bloggs
........ I think what you are suggesting, that AA have worked out, by itself, that operating into DCA is unsafe, won't happen these day because the almighty dollar rules. The minimum standard, set by the FAA, will more often that not, be complied-with. Most company restrictions of the type you mention don't involve simply not doing it, which is what is being suggested here.
Now, this is where you are absolutely spot on and is also what I said in my previous post - such additional "safety nets" will almost inevitably cost more so the Finance Director is none to keen. The usual "Operations/Engineering vs Finance" standoff.......! The long-debated issues at Boeing is also being blamed on exactly this over in "Rumours & News". What's that saying? "If you think safety is expensive, wait till you have an accident!".
Anyway, that's my take FWIW and hopefully it explains why I said what I did! Cheers,
H 'n' H
Originally Posted by
WillowRun 6-3
H 'n' H.
Ordinarily I have no objection to lawyer bashing (and I've been known (in non-anonymous mode) to tell one or more good lawyer jokes)........... How is it then that only the lawyers do well? The argument is not about whether big-ticket damage awards can replace a lost loved one. The argument is about whether only the lawyers do well. "Grief" begins with the same four letters as "Grievance" and the crash victims' families certainly are individuals aggrieved by the negligence of some or all of the defendants. Maybe we can split semantic fibers over whether having their grievance abated by significant financial compensation is within the meaning of "doing well" - but under the facts of this case and their tragic losses, I think they will be at least "doing better". And so not only the lawyers.
This all having been said, apologies accepted, naturally.
WR 6-3
WR 6-3, again, my apologies and please rest assured my comment was very tongue-in-cheek hence my initial apology! That those who suffered from this tragic accident receive recompense as a very poor substitute to not still having their loved ones with them is absolutely essential! My comment was more along the lines that it looks like determining culpability will be quite convoluted...... hence the "lawyer" quip. If it came across as otherwise I, again, unreservedly apologise!
* Re increased servicing, even that has to be approached with care. In the late 1970's, we lost a helo when someone applied more grease then they should have as "....... well, a bit more will be even better!". Murphy's Law can be a right bu&&er!