Originally Posted by framer
We need a distinct 'fit and proper person' requirement for the leaders of this industry and ongoing requirements for them to demonstrate active management of their company's 'safety culture'.
When ICAO and the FAA publicly acknowledge that aircraft accidents are just as often caused by poor leadership within the company as they are by operational staff making 'one off ' mistakes, then the pressure might come on to regulate those with the greatest influence on safety, the heads of our Airlines.
Well … that has been, is now, and is likely to continue to be well beyond my pay grade – but, I think you’re on the right track. I’ve said, several times now, that in all but the biggest of “no-brainers,” most airline officials will do
only what the regulations require … and precious little more – if any at all.
If those in the job functions I’ve described earlier, can get together, repeatedly, regularly … perhaps with smaller groups a couple of times a year, and the larger, more international kinds of gatherings perhaps every other year, or so … I think that a legitimate set of understandable and logical standards could very likely be developed. If those standards can be put into meaningful and understandable regulatory language – any airline manager is going to have to comply or be in violation of those regulations.
The “trick” (if you will) is to find language that provides for the development of logical competence (for all of those who must undergo some kind of regulatory required training, evaluation, or observation – pilots, flight attendants, instructors, evaluators, mechanics, and so forth…) that sets out the minimum training time requirement (i.e., number of hours – usually broken into segments of training/evaluation) before being able to be released “for duty,” BUT allowing a demonstration of a specifically defined set of performance requirements or standards to preclude the necessity of continued training time that would have been clearly unnecessary – depending on the voracity of the prescribed “demonstration of performance.” As you would expect, the KEY here is the language used … and a clear, and unambiguous understanding of what that language means.
Yes – there could be attempts to circumvent such standards – but if these standards are carefully worded and policed correctly by those who fully understand the meaning of the terms used and are honest in their characterizations of what they see in the performance of those undergoing that training, any attempt to subvert these authorizations can be more easily recognized for what such efforts really are attempting to do.
It shouldn’t take long to determine whether or not the language used is doing the service intended and it would logically be affected any time an adjustment is warranted due to a change in operations, a change in equipment capabilities, or other such alterations from the initial examinations. BUT, there are some who believe this effort – or something very similar – is one of the few ways in which a meaningful set of standards can be developed, used, and ultimately produce the kinds of human performance we all would like to see occur.
Will it break/falter? Certainly there will be times where closer attention may be needed – which is ONE of the reasons I’m recommending a regular, periodic re-gathering of the appropriate personnel to review, and revise when/where necessary, to ensure the program is producing what it was/is intended to produce … capable, productive, competent professionals to run, manage, supervise, and ultimately, reflect proudly on an industry that has few rivals for the kinds of self-worth recognized by those involved, while providing a determinedly needed service to the general public.
I, for one, want to do all I can to find some way to make right what we all know is right - and do it honestly, directly, (and hopefully, with the willing cooperation and participation by ALL involved) but in the end, I'd very much like to see it occur ... period.