ICAO Pushing SMS will send the industry broke
Thread Starter
ICAO Pushing SMS will send the industry broke
Barry Aylward, the Chairman of Aircraft Electronics Association, has written a very interesting article (see here). Specifically, note the comment regarding the ridiculous extra paperwork that is required.
Of course, many posters on this site will know that this is what I have been on about for many years. That is, we have to reduce unnecessary costs, not increase them. We will soon find that even in the major capital cities there won’t be an electronics organisation that can service our equipment. This is because the costs they have to charge to cover the ridiculous ICAO-type paperwork and requirements which Australia seems to be copying means they cannot run a viable industry – in effect, they go broke and provide no service at all.
“It is driven by ICAO and ostensibly focused on the air transport world; however, aviation authorities are zealously applying SMS requirements to all facets of aviation. All major regulatory authorities worldwide are caught up in this panacea. There is absolutely no concern whatsoever for the efficiency and competitiveness of business. Callous disregard would be more accurate!”.
Of course, many posters on this site will know that this is what I have been on about for many years. That is, we have to reduce unnecessary costs, not increase them. We will soon find that even in the major capital cities there won’t be an electronics organisation that can service our equipment. This is because the costs they have to charge to cover the ridiculous ICAO-type paperwork and requirements which Australia seems to be copying means they cannot run a viable industry – in effect, they go broke and provide no service at all.
Regulators have realised they can by simply mandating it so, get industry participants to do the regulating for them.
National Regulators seem as though they have lost the genuine aviation knowledge and simply repeat 'parrot' fashion from which ever regulation they deem appropriate.
National Regulators seem as though they have lost the genuine aviation knowledge and simply repeat 'parrot' fashion from which ever regulation they deem appropriate.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The aviation industry is unique in that it is the most exposed industry to high oil prices.
It is the rising price of oil which will send the industry broke, long before any ICAO safety compliance type paperwork.
We may have affordable safety, but we have run out of affordable oil.
(Regarding safety compliance costs, at least Australia is behind most of the World in introducing SMS - that should save the industry some money).
It is the rising price of oil which will send the industry broke, long before any ICAO safety compliance type paperwork.
We may have affordable safety, but we have run out of affordable oil.
(Regarding safety compliance costs, at least Australia is behind most of the World in introducing SMS - that should save the industry some money).
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
biased
Dick,
The article you have referenced is perhaps one of the most biased articles that I have ever read. The author clearly has little concept of what SMS is all about.
For the record SMS is a positive for the industry, as it ensures operators clearly document their policies, procedures and practices. Basically, SMS is all about ensuring that an operation has in place a system that allows hazards to be identified and risks managed in a structured and consistant manner.
From a regulatory perspective a formally documented SMS ensures that an operator has in place policies that reinforce safety at all levels of an organisaiton, a method for recording hazards and their associated risks, and a strucutred way of reviewing safety (audit processes).
Further a SMS is not a one size fits all approach to safety. Small organisations (with several aircraft) are not required to have a SMS that is as complex as a large operator (as ICAO clearly states). An SMS is not a whole bunch of processes that are new to operators. In the most part just about every airline will already be doing all of what is required under a formally documented SMS. All they need to do is tie their various processes together.
Before launching into an attack on SMS, perhaps some reading on what SMS is all about would be in order. Clearly your understanding is limited on this issue. I would be happy to provide you with further information on the benefits of SMS should you require it.
The article you have referenced is perhaps one of the most biased articles that I have ever read. The author clearly has little concept of what SMS is all about.
For the record SMS is a positive for the industry, as it ensures operators clearly document their policies, procedures and practices. Basically, SMS is all about ensuring that an operation has in place a system that allows hazards to be identified and risks managed in a structured and consistant manner.
From a regulatory perspective a formally documented SMS ensures that an operator has in place policies that reinforce safety at all levels of an organisaiton, a method for recording hazards and their associated risks, and a strucutred way of reviewing safety (audit processes).
Further a SMS is not a one size fits all approach to safety. Small organisations (with several aircraft) are not required to have a SMS that is as complex as a large operator (as ICAO clearly states). An SMS is not a whole bunch of processes that are new to operators. In the most part just about every airline will already be doing all of what is required under a formally documented SMS. All they need to do is tie their various processes together.
Before launching into an attack on SMS, perhaps some reading on what SMS is all about would be in order. Clearly your understanding is limited on this issue. I would be happy to provide you with further information on the benefits of SMS should you require it.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick's problem with SMS, my opinion
(1) He doesn't understand the economies that can be created by systemised safety management
(2) He is not a professional pilot (not employed to fly) so does not understand first-hand the relationship between a pilot, their employer and their management system.
(3) Recent developments in Safety Maangement Systems started NORTH of the Canadian/U.S. border
(2) He is not a professional pilot (not employed to fly) so does not understand first-hand the relationship between a pilot, their employer and their management system.
(3) Recent developments in Safety Maangement Systems started NORTH of the Canadian/U.S. border
4 Greens,
Very true in reagrds to the regulator(s) and I think this is one the key dangers. SMS is indeed a very positive thing and something as mentioned that can be tailored to the size of the operation. However, with they way it is being pushed by some regulators it seems as though for them it is a tool to extricate themselves from their own responsibilities.
In Indonesia the DGCA seems very keen for all operators to establish an SMS, the problem is it appears that in doing so they hope for this to address the huge concerns about their oversight of the industry. SMS introduction is this case should not be at the expense of the regulator getting their own house in order.
Very true in reagrds to the regulator(s) and I think this is one the key dangers. SMS is indeed a very positive thing and something as mentioned that can be tailored to the size of the operation. However, with they way it is being pushed by some regulators it seems as though for them it is a tool to extricate themselves from their own responsibilities.
In Indonesia the DGCA seems very keen for all operators to establish an SMS, the problem is it appears that in doing so they hope for this to address the huge concerns about their oversight of the industry. SMS introduction is this case should not be at the expense of the regulator getting their own house in order.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Confusion reigns. Does an SMS improve safety levels, or is it just a hollow shell? Is it a positive development that means we are 'ICAO compliant,' with quantifiable benefits, or does it mean, according to Dick, that we are expending additional money for no gain; other than we have an 'ICAO compliant' SMS?
I tend to side with Dick on this. It sounds like bureaucratic wall-paper. The illusion of 'doing something.'
I tend to side with Dick on this. It sounds like bureaucratic wall-paper. The illusion of 'doing something.'
Australianguy
Perhaps you might like to post some of those benefits here.
What does it do that isn't being achieved now. At this point I tend to agree with Dick and Howabout.
Could you mean a bureaucratic mirage? 
I would be happy to provide you with further information on the benefits of SMS should you require it.
What does it do that isn't being achieved now. At this point I tend to agree with Dick and Howabout.
It sounds like bureaucratic wall-paper. The illusion of 'doing something.'
Nothing to be scared about.
People are running scared of the SMS - particularly in North America (and south of that border!) from what I saw there recently.
But really most companies should already have an informal SMS in existance. It's the sensible safe way of doing business.
One poster above has summarised it well - but to shrink that to a paragraph for those with short attention spans (and ironically who are usually the most vocal):
What the SMS is really about is recording the process that you (should) already undertake to stay safe, finding any gaps, and make sure it works and reviewing it. If you think that a SMS will send your company broke, then you should not be in the air.
It is nothing to be scared of Dick, and it will not send the industry broke. Of course there are people around who want to flog different products and have their own money making agendas, but they are not necessary.
But really most companies should already have an informal SMS in existance. It's the sensible safe way of doing business.
One poster above has summarised it well - but to shrink that to a paragraph for those with short attention spans (and ironically who are usually the most vocal):
What the SMS is really about is recording the process that you (should) already undertake to stay safe, finding any gaps, and make sure it works and reviewing it. If you think that a SMS will send your company broke, then you should not be in the air.
It is nothing to be scared of Dick, and it will not send the industry broke. Of course there are people around who want to flog different products and have their own money making agendas, but they are not necessary.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All, I am not a heretic, but would really appreciate knowing what the value is over and above what happens now.
There will always be rogues - check out the taxi industry - but the majority are honest and seek to put airworthy aircraft on the flight-line that fly the travelling public around and get them back safely. Check out the number of tourists that have been accommodated out of DAR in the last 20 years to places like Kakadu, BTI, the SW and beyond. How many fatalaties?
I am willing to be educated, but cannot see what slavish adherence to ICAO is going to do for us. Some African states are 'ICAO members' and the last thing I'd do is set foot in one of their aircraft.
There will always be rogues - check out the taxi industry - but the majority are honest and seek to put airworthy aircraft on the flight-line that fly the travelling public around and get them back safely. Check out the number of tourists that have been accommodated out of DAR in the last 20 years to places like Kakadu, BTI, the SW and beyond. How many fatalaties?
I am willing to be educated, but cannot see what slavish adherence to ICAO is going to do for us. Some African states are 'ICAO members' and the last thing I'd do is set foot in one of their aircraft.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A point of confusion
Too many operators think that the expectation of the local regulator or ICAO is that an SMS will be a cure all for the organisation. Nothing could be further from the truth because without a cultural shift in the organisation the SMS is nothing but a manual sitting on the shelf.
By formalising an existing system or establishing a new one that embodies the intent of the ICAO structure, the operator lays the groundwork for the things that do make cultural change.
Some of the benefits are:-
(1) a just reporting system that helps to eliminate risk by encouraging reporting and compelling the operator to make positive change therefore demonstrating the value of employee input
(2) Greater safety awareness through ongoing training
(3) The underlying quality system of an SMS also contributes to greater economy in the wider organisation.
(4) Reduced insurance premiums and greater customer acceptance particularly with large companies (especially in the mining sector) that have had their own SMSs for a number of years.
(5) Reduced wear an tear on company assets (aircraft or GSE) as employees demonstrate greater ownership because of the improved culture.(FDAP)
(6) Increased individual performance due to enhanced understanding (both by the employee and and employer) of human factors especially fatigue
The stats are out there on SMS, you only have to look at organisations like Boeing for them. I would urge any of the sceptics to look a bit further afield than just blaming ICAO or CASA because things are changing.
By formalising an existing system or establishing a new one that embodies the intent of the ICAO structure, the operator lays the groundwork for the things that do make cultural change.
Some of the benefits are:-
(1) a just reporting system that helps to eliminate risk by encouraging reporting and compelling the operator to make positive change therefore demonstrating the value of employee input
(2) Greater safety awareness through ongoing training
(3) The underlying quality system of an SMS also contributes to greater economy in the wider organisation.
(4) Reduced insurance premiums and greater customer acceptance particularly with large companies (especially in the mining sector) that have had their own SMSs for a number of years.
(5) Reduced wear an tear on company assets (aircraft or GSE) as employees demonstrate greater ownership because of the improved culture.(FDAP)
(6) Increased individual performance due to enhanced understanding (both by the employee and and employer) of human factors especially fatigue
The stats are out there on SMS, you only have to look at organisations like Boeing for them. I would urge any of the sceptics to look a bit further afield than just blaming ICAO or CASA because things are changing.
Last edited by flying-spike; 28th Jul 2009 at 11:38. Reason: added a bit
Actually on this one Dick, I think you might be wrong.
Having done a couple of courses on SMS, I am positive that it will bring benefits to all operators, be they maintainers, airports, airlines or small charter companies.
I liken the benefits of an in-house SMS to those offered by an in-house check and training organisation; it offers a great deal of flexibility to the company, and affords them the opportunity to customize the SMS for their particular operation. More importantly, it offers the chance to integrate the SMS at all levels of the business (not just those that CASA might look at). Furthermore, it requires management (and board) commitment to SMS principles, and holds them directly accountable.
I'm all for it.
Having done a couple of courses on SMS, I am positive that it will bring benefits to all operators, be they maintainers, airports, airlines or small charter companies.
I liken the benefits of an in-house SMS to those offered by an in-house check and training organisation; it offers a great deal of flexibility to the company, and affords them the opportunity to customize the SMS for their particular operation. More importantly, it offers the chance to integrate the SMS at all levels of the business (not just those that CASA might look at). Furthermore, it requires management (and board) commitment to SMS principles, and holds them directly accountable.
I'm all for it.
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I spend a lot of time in the mining industry, and I can tell you that the mining industry has developed the SMS into a time consuming and expensive effort. Safety is certainly a priority, but it has been developed into a whole industry of its own. You can have systems in place to identify, report and fix safety issues, but given time, interested parties can put more paperwork and non nonsensical rubbish, for little to no benefit,in your way. all for the sake of having an SMS.
I thought we already had an SMS in place. its called an Operations Manual. If you have concerns that some procedures are not as safe as the could be, bring it to attention of your safety officer or chief pilot. The ops manual should then be reviewed and amended. If that does not have the desired results, your local FIO should be the next stop.
Paperwork for the sake of paper work does not make a safer work place, and in fact will on occasion make things less safe. Ask anyone who has worked in the mining industry where safety has become its own industry. I sh!t you not, I have seen written procedures for lifting a bucket and opening a packet of welding rods.
I thought we already had an SMS in place. its called an Operations Manual. If you have concerns that some procedures are not as safe as the could be, bring it to attention of your safety officer or chief pilot. The ops manual should then be reviewed and amended. If that does not have the desired results, your local FIO should be the next stop.
Paperwork for the sake of paper work does not make a safer work place, and in fact will on occasion make things less safe. Ask anyone who has worked in the mining industry where safety has become its own industry. I sh!t you not, I have seen written procedures for lifting a bucket and opening a packet of welding rods.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SMS is all about ensuring that an operation has in place a system that allows hazards to be identified and risks managed in a structured and consistant manner
God forbid we ever get as safe as the mining industry, can't drive that Ford pickup or 70 series Landcruiser on site, it's got a V8!
PS Don't forget to chock your vehicle in the visitors carpark.
PS Don't forget to chock your vehicle in the visitors carpark.
Wiz, you speak a deal of reality with respect to the mining industry. It has become an industry in itself - but ask yourself why? Who is driving that? There was no regulator doing it....
Also the ops manual and procedures you outline do form a large part of the SMS. But the SMS goes a bit further as outlined in several posts above.
A good safe aviation company will already have most of a SMS in place. It's just not formalised and standardised as such.
It does not have to be time consuming and onerous - or expensive. I set up ours and it's been in place for nearly 2 years now. It does not take much of my time to keep it ticking over and it has seen the scrutiny of several govt departments and industry audits.
Those bleating the loudest about the cost should ask themselves about how serious they currently are about analysing their present operation instead of the, "She'll be right, won't happen to me" approach.
Also the ops manual and procedures you outline do form a large part of the SMS. But the SMS goes a bit further as outlined in several posts above.
A good safe aviation company will already have most of a SMS in place. It's just not formalised and standardised as such.
It does not have to be time consuming and onerous - or expensive. I set up ours and it's been in place for nearly 2 years now. It does not take much of my time to keep it ticking over and it has seen the scrutiny of several govt departments and industry audits.
Those bleating the loudest about the cost should ask themselves about how serious they currently are about analysing their present operation instead of the, "She'll be right, won't happen to me" approach.
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but ask yourself why? Who is driving that? There was no regulator doing it....
Those bleating the loudest about the cost should ask themselves about how serious they currently are about analysing their present operation instead of the, "She'll be right, won't happen to me" approach.
)