High court finds air traffic controllers guilty over JAL near miss accident

[Slo Moe]

What if the student studying law made a mistake during his/her practising at some court ?

Is there a tendency nowadays to think that decisions should be perfect from the beginning?

What is the sentence that should be given to bankers or managers when they
err on behalf of their company so that the company or national economy loses billions?
And as a result some people lose jobs, lose their homes, and ultimately
lose their hope for the future. How many lives will be lost? Who
should be blamed for all this? If there is no criminal activity involved , then
not a single person should EVER be blamed.
Everybody should only be appreciated for doing their best.
Regardless of the outcome. The next time somebody will have learned something.

Should the managers and leaders not make mistakes ever?
Common sense tells us that mistakes are a powerfull way of learning.
If mistakes are forbidden by threats of legal actions, then how on earth will
a society go towards the way of a better future then?

If/when the computers do the job for the human (i.e. decisions), the
mistakes most likely will be called programming errors. Who should be
blamed then? The systems designer or the programmer or the user?
Not a single person.

There is most likely a manager who approved the training system for
the Japanese controllers. I think they should only be appreciated for their actions.
Or inactions.

There is a person responsible for designing the structure of how the
controllers are trained.
How about them?

There is somebody responsible for designing an airspace, where
there are possibilities for occurrences.
They should also be free to do their work enhancing safety.

If it is humanly possible to design a flawless air space structure
why has it not been implemented?
If it is humanly possible to do one's work without any mistakes,
why is that person not yet found?
Is it possible to find a student, who does not make errors?

The person who has the courage to take the initiative and make
the daily decisions in the challenging ATC world should only be encouraged.
The person who has the courage to learn by doing should only be appreciared.
Only this way it is in sync with the theories of how human beings learn and implement
effectively the things they learned.

The results that arise from an "Appreciative culture" are far better
than those from a "blamin' and a flamin' culture".
"Appreciative culture" or "Just-Culture" or "AP-Culture" is a working culture where everybody
gives their contribution for the safety and everybody is appreciated for
doing exactly that.
If anyone wants the safety NOT to get better, then the best way of
doing it is to implement a culture with very harsh criticism,
punishments and threats of litigations.
(Does this sound familiar to anybody...)


There is a REASON why "AP-culture" (Appreciative culture) is justified in ATC.

"AP-Culture" leads to FAR BETTER SAFETY.


Is there any way to lobby these legal systems people to think humanly?
If there is a possibility to interpret the laws so that making a mistake
is illegal, then should the laws be written more clearly to prevent this?

All the help should be given to the Japanese ATCOs so that they
can continue their good work for better safety in the skies,
in the spirit of appreciating everyones' work.