I worked for a company that was practically in the
forefront of embracing Human Factors, big program
citing the virtues, admitted that the bean counters were convinced by the dollar-saving potential, but so what? Many of us were thrilled
that our main goal-safety-would be heightened by
an understanding management that would now magically back us up on any call that had a remote
safety concern. They spent a bundle, even had
fuellers, catering, etc. on the training program.
This seems like a good idea after having a caterer
tell me he "didn't hit it that hard" after turning
a 146 aileron into a chip bag. I took training as
an "incident investigator" (Rat Patrol to some of
the non-believers). I would be paid up to 4 hours
overtime to investigate in-house incidents. All
results would be considered by a "board", and only
out-and-out negligence would be grounds for disciplinary action. In my opinion, the two main
results were: 1- all concerns went out the window when a Supervisors on-time-performance bonus was at stake 2- a lot of the guys laughed behind everyones backs after being absolved for incidents
that were well-known to be the result of incompetence. Roll out the "Company Norms" line,
and walk away with a smile. It is definitely one
thing to say you have a Human Factors Program, and
another thing altogether to implement one intelligently. I still believe very strongly in
the concept, but I think it needs a lot of work.
I remember reading about a program at Qantas, which left the developement of the program to a
group of Engineers, and it seemed to be, on paper
at least, one of the more "real" programs. It seems that HF can become one of those little industries of its own, and end up with too many
people involved that have no knowledge of what really takes place in Aircraft Maintenance. The
idea that it must start someplace is valid, but
perhaps accepting HF on other peoples terms is not
in the best interests of those directly involved.