SM, “Since that Flight article was published their have been yet more fatal accidents and a series of engine accidents with Qantas, so the rate is worsening.” (#57)
You appear to misunderstand the term ‘rate’; in the same period there have been vastly more successful operations; rate depends on the ratio.
“SMS is the solution that will get the airline industry again making year on year safety improvements.” (#57)
You avoid or fail to comprehend the point in my post #56 – “If the very low accident rate is an indication of an ‘almost totally safe transport system’”
If so, then ‘SMS’ or any other ‘conventional’ safety system is unlikely to achieve a measurable year-on-year improvement.
A risk of applying a rigid SMS to a operational system in equilibrium (almost totally safe) is that it will be disturbed. See Amalberti‘s conclusions –
“… it is also important to recognise that these systems are nearing the end of their life and should not be placed off balance by requiring operations to take place within unreachable performance and safety objectives.”
Thus an innovative view should consider how much if any of current SMS thinking should be applied (a flexible response), and if SMS’s are at the end of their life, what should replace them.