Originally Posted by airac
It all went down hill when they started giving people 'oligies'
"just safety culture".
Why can't we be left to just get on with the job.
It now takes months to get a "New and Better " bit of kit up and running because we now have to write a tome on Which way it is " Newer and better " and what we will do if it goes wrong compared to what we would do if the present system went wrong , ETC, ETC, ET bl00dy C .
The MOR system will suffice it aint broke why fix it
If it does come in then I hope the who came up on this revalation gets strung up by the B@lls .
airac, I'm assuming that you're from the UK because of your extract from the books and reference to the MOR scheme.
The problem is that in the UK there is a fairly good and just safety culture in most ATC units and in the CAA. The MOR scheme, for example, has for the most part been managed by sensible people with a good understanding of how to use the information collected to improve overall safety rather than to apportion blame. Elsewhere the same very definitely cannot be said. The work going on across Europe now to develop a good and just safety culture is to try and inculcate a similar level of maturity to that which exists in the UK and a handful of the other states. Sadly, setting a few rules and then saying get on with it cannot deliver a maturity that has evolved over, for example in the UK, 30+ years of experience and for most of that time sound management.
Where I would agree with you completely is the way that ATC safety cases are being handled by the CAA. Here we seem to have a culture that essentially weighs the documentation before even considering the content. I have seen people from the CAA who have insisted that the safety case be done the same way as NATS (even though it's not coming from NATS), rejected paperwork because of a minor administrative error (OK, I grant you that it should not have got through but I tend to think that a date not updated in a page footer of one chapter is not particularly major sin) and comments on submitted documents such as 'this is not acceptable' without any hint of why. Rarely have I seen constructive comments on the safety arguments presented. To be fair, it depends very much on who you deal with in the CAA. But generally we seem to be going way overboard on the safety case thing with very little apparent benefit.