IATA to kick out several members for failing safety audits

[Panama Jack]

Acording to this Flight Global Article (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/02/20/322897/iata-to-kick-out-several-members-for-failing-safety.html), 21 IATA members have failed their IOSA audits and IATA is reviewing whether they have sufficient remedies to pass, or should be kicked out of IATA. Does anybody know which airlines?

[barnflee]

It'll be interesting to see if IATA stands by it's principals and kicks them out (whoever they are) and looses thier membership revenue, or 'fudges' some through and kicks the rest out - an interesting balance between reputation and revenue.

I hope they stand by thier principals - erroding IOSA is a slippery slope for the industry.

[layinlow]

Having been deeply involved with the IOSA inspection of our company I can tell you it is no picnic and quite extensive. The inspection itself is done by an independent company, in our case Argus Pros, and they are no slouches and work independent of IATA in their insuring the ISARPs are complied with. Just because an airline goes bankrupt has nothing to do with them complying, or not complying with the ISARPs. I am already prepping for a new round of inspections due this summer.
Several countries now use the ISARP and being on the IOSA register in deciding whether to allow those airlines into their airspace. Chile is just one example and there are now 21 other countries that have signed on to the concept and that number is growing. Like it or not IOSA is the future for a lot of countries.

[Doodles]

Independent auditors my ar*e. Its a money making scam akin to the banking fiasco where all the stonemasons pat each other on the back.

here here!

[Siguarda al fine]

Self governance is a contradiction of reasonable logic and corrupt from the out set and allways will be.

[RevMan2]

here here!

Where where?

[Doctor Cruces]

The point being, one shouldn't have to "prep" for an audit. If everything is OK in the first place, then there is no need for a couple of months intensive work to make it so. Followed by losing your licence four months later because for the rest of the year the outfit is cr@p.

Doc C

[G-WHOT]

A trade body is not the same as a national authority. They have no mandate therefore no enforcement, other than the potential harming of an airlines public perception so loosing it business. All this is the opposite of a trade organisations aim of trying to promote a particular business sector to help make its members more profitable.
With locos doing their own thing, IATA are clutching at straws to maintain there own position!?

[davidjohnson6]

I am somewhat surprised by the comments here. In most industries, self-regulation by a recognised industry body is usually regarded as a good thing - it helps keep down the cost to the taxpayer funded national authorities, and also discourages (not prevents) some of the worst excesses of behaviour. Inspections from the likes of the CAA, FAA and others certainly have their place - but there is no harm in the odd bit of self-policing.

In theory, a company that passed an audit last year and is well run, should not need to prep for an audit the following year. However, if you had to retake your driving test every 5 years, could you be certain that you haven't picked up any minor bad habits and resist the temptation to have a glance through the Highway code the night before ?

[lomapaseo]

This particular body is nothing more than a self appreciation society. For those who struggle to face up to reality like the previous poster......READ NATIONWIDE

I wish that I knew what this meant for I can probably learn something.

this body:confused:

NATIONWIDE :confused:

[davidjohnson6]

SafetyConcerns - my point in mentioning a driving test, was that a driving test and a safety audit both achieve 2 things - namely an attempt at verifying certain procedures and processes are carried out properly, or that the person / organisation is capable of doing so.

A driving test in the UK is an unusual form of safety audit, in that having passed the test aged 17, one does not need to recertify for at least another 50 years, giving great scope for adopting lax standards by the time of middle age. I would guess that many people aged 37 since passing a driving test at the age of 17 might have let some of their procedure following standards slip a little over a period of 20 years - and thus if they had to recertify themselves might want some kind of informal review before a formal test.

In the same way, within any large organisation, it is inevitable that commercial pressures, laziness, ignorance, or any combination may lead to minor slips in following formal procedures. That formal audit is costly, cannot be easily repeated and may have damaging consequences in the event of serious failure on audit points. Further, an audit does not in itself make for a safe operation - it only validates the following of process and procedure. An internal and informal self-validation is far more likely to find lax procedure following - it essentially brings a wayward organisation as a whole closer to a reasonable standard.

It would be nice if all airlines, large and small, in rich countries and poor, were capable of doing a full internal audit without external prompting, but commercial pressures - and possibly also lax supervision from Govt authorities suggest otherwise in some cases. The Govt of Chad for example if it has a bit of spare cash could spend it on monitoring airline engineering teams, or it could add to existing spending on literacy programmes and refugee camps - I know what I'd choose.

If an airline feels the need to do internal preparation prior to an audit, this signifies one of 2 things:
a) The airline takes the audit and its outcome seriously
b) The airline believes credibly that internal standards might have slipped a little since 12 months ago and considers it a useful exercise to undergo a period of self monitoring

Yes, Nationwide was a shocking case, but I would guess:
1) The South African Govt authorities were possibly being too lax prior to the time the engine fell off.
2) If IATA did not do audits, there may well have been other more dramatic cases of this in other countries with weak Govt supervision anyway. The audit just discourages bad practice - it cannot prevent it completely.

[Desert Diner]

The audit just discourages bad practice - it cannot prevent it completely.


An audit attempts to identify bad practices. Only management can discourage bad practices. Preventing them is another matter.

[407370]

If an airline feels the need to do internal preparation prior to an audit, this signifies one of 2 things:
a) The airline takes the audit and its outcome seriously
b) The airline believes credibly that internal standards might have slipped a little since 12 months ago and considers it a useful exercise to undergo a period of self monitoringYou appear to have missed item "C":
Airline has a short time to paper over the cracks to create the illusion of point "A" or "B"

CHEERS

[MrNosy2]

You can be as cynical as you like about IOSA audits and certainly no audit can guarantee safety but audit firms do need to ensure that they do a proper job since there may be the potential for them to be sued by plaintives if there is an air crash - could IATA also be sued in these circumstances? Another 'deep pocket' for the lawyers to go after!

Another comment. Why do you think everyone is spending all this time and money on audits by non-government organizations? It's because not all States have the ability or can be trusted to carry out proper over sight of their airlines.