Ownership of risk

[staircase]

I will perhaps receive a fair amount of derision for this, but once I had left the service, I was asked what differences I had noticed between civil operation and military.

Apart from the obvious ones such as not being TacEvaled in my airline, or the risk of being shot down, it seemed to me that every time my commercial aeroplane moved it was in the hope of making money. Contrast that with a military aeroplane that costs money to fly.

So my point is, that if you give this decision to the local military commander ask yourself what is in it for him to ‘put his head above the parapet’ and assume the risk?

If there is no accident, then normal operations continue and no one notices. If there is an accident the chances are that his career is finished.

The answer maybe is to take the airfield and make it dual operations. A civil authority to oversee the civil aspect and issue wind limits as at Madeira, and let the military issue their own wind limits.

[beardy]

I recall something that happened some time ago: Following a successful landing in a strong crosswind at Mount Pleasant an ex FAA Air Atlanta 747 captain was summoned to OC Ops office. Said captain entered, sat on a corner of OC Ops desk and said 'hello.' He was interrogated about 747 crosswind limits, his reply was along the lines of 'none of your business.' End of interview.

[Cows getting bigger]

Having jumped across to the civil world some 10 years back, I find that all roads lead to the Company Ops Manual. That's my bible.

[glad rag]

It may well be that until policy is revisited by higher authority their hands are tied. Or it may have already been...If the FG want to open up the islands to tourism then a reliable air connection would be a priority,

[Aurora Australis]

I had a quick look at GE and see there are some 500 m hills about 6 nm NW of MPA. Are these the hills generating the "rotors"?

Yes, these are the hills generating the rotors. And please, do not think that I am denying that rotor streaming is real, and that it is hazardous.
What I would question is the frequency that hazardous rotor streaming actually occurs, compared to how often it is forecast.

Now that people have absolute clarity regarding their personal responsibilities, we're seeing a weakness in teaching and understanding of Risk Management. Consequently, DDHs may be (are?) being overly risk averse.

Yes, I think that is the problem - but I would have thought it was the responsibility of the Airfield Operator to make the Aircraft Operator aware of the hazard, rather than to mandate the operating limits.
The trouble is that actually, no-one is taking personal responsibility, as the Airport Operator bases the decision on the TAF, and the TAF is based on the computer met model, so in practice, it is all down to what the computer says. The problem is that the computer predicts a P30 severe turbulence any time there is a hint of a Northerly, and in fact, the rotor streaming is a much more rare occurrence.

It comes down to the "Ownership of risk". I am sure that if the ownership of the risk was given to the Aircraft Operator (as the majority of crews I have discussed it with think makes sense), then on a day with the aircraft fuelled, loaded and ready to go, with a 15kt NWesterly with no gusts, and a TAF of P30 tempo severe turbulence, the aircraft would depart, rather than being held for 24 hours, as has happened on more than one occasion.

The comments above about "crippling commercial air transport", and "a reliable air connection" being a priority, hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately the suggestion of having dual operating authorities at MPA is not likely, due to the small size of the civilian administration here. While the airport is nominally a joint civil/military facility, in practice there is not enough traffic to warrant duplicating resources.

Anyway, from the comments above, it does seem that MPA is unique with respect to the Airport Operator setting the met limits, and limits being rigidly based on forecasts rather than actuals.

[Bing]

The Airfield Operator doesn't own risk under the MAA construct, however they are responsible for providing a Safe Operating Environment for the aircraft that use their airfield. It sounds like they're being overly conservative in their approach to that rather than ensuring the operators have all the information they need to make their own decision.

[India Four Two]

Yes, these are the hills generating the rotors. And please, do not think that I am denying that rotor streaming is real, and that it is hazardous.

AA,

Sorry, bad wording on my part. I didn't mean to imply any denial on your part. I should have written "rotor streaming" as it is a term I have never seen before. Does it mean something different from the rotors associated with lee wave activity?

I have a lot of experience with flying gliders and tow planes in rotors and have a great deal of respect for them. A very experienced tow pilot friend of mine used to say "The rotor is not rough unless you get rolled inverted!"

PS I’ve answered my own question:

https://ams.confex.com/ams/10Mountai...aper_40697.htm

[alfred_the_great]

The problem is what risk you are talking about - the risk to the aircraft or the risk to closing the only strategic airhead into a Crown Dependency which has been invaded within living memory.

The Station Commander MPA doesn’t exist to make a commercial pilot’s life easier, he exists to enable the rapid reinforcement of teh Falklands when necessary. And on that basis, this seems an entirely reasonable risk decision.

[glad rag]

Originally Posted by alfred_the_great

The problem is what risk you are talking about - the risk to the aircraft or the risk to closing the only strategic airhead into a Crown Dependency which has been invaded within living memory.

The Station Commander MPA doesn’t exist to make a commercial pilot’s life easier, he exists to enable the rapid reinforcement of teh Falklands when necessary. And on that basis, this seems an entirely reasonable risk decision.

...not sure if were into beadwindow territory...

[Cows getting bigger]

Originally Posted by alfred_the_great

The problem is what risk you are talking about - the risk to the aircraft or the risk to closing the only strategic airhead into a Crown Dependency which has been invaded within living memory.

The Station Commander MPA doesn’t exist to make a commercial pilot’s life easier, he exists to enable the rapid reinforcement of teh Falklands when necessary. And on that basis, this seems an entirely reasonable risk decision.

Err, the Crown Dependancies are Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man. Conversely, the Falklands are a British Overseas Territory. The difference is the former has it's own laws where the latter complies with British law.

The stuff implying "Don't use the runway because we may have to use it" reminds me of the storemen of old.

[cattletruck]

the Airport Operator bases the decision on the TAF, and the TAF is based on the computer met model, so in practice, it is all down to what the computer says.

Which met office runs the computer model? Recently I bumped into the ex CEO of the UK Met Office and he talked about how he transformed the role of his forecasters (a word he despises because it implies their job ends for the day after issuing that bit of paper) to become more effective by placing them inside the control centres of their customers to help them develop better decision/knowledge systems in relation to the meteorological information that is available.

Seems to have been hugely successful, the only problem is that there aren't many of these meteorologists to spread around the place so the benefit needs to be substantial to UK interests to get a buy in.

[langleybaston]

Originally Posted by cattletruck

Which met office runs the computer model? Recently I bumped into the ex CEO of the UK Met Office and he talked about how he transformed the role of his forecasters (a word he despises because it implies their job ends for the day after issuing that bit of paper) to become more effective by placing them inside the control centres of their customers to help them develop better decision/knowledge systems in relation to the meteorological information that is available.

Seems to have been hugely successful, the only problem is that there aren't many of these meteorologists to spread around the place so the benefit needs to be substantial to UK interests to get a buy in.

from the official Met Office Annual Report this year:

Significant governance and control issues
As a result of a report from a whistle-blower, management undertook both internal and independent reviews. These reports identified management control and governance failings in a limited number of areas of the business, which do not impact on the operations of the Met Office and the services it provides. Major control weaknesses were addressed at that time. Additional internal and independent audits were commissioned in order to investigate further, to establish the full extent of the issues. These audits concluded that the major failings were limited to a narrow area of the business and included lack of enforcement of established controls around travel expenditure and expenses, and a lack of appropriate and comprehensive management response to the concerns raised by staff. These matters were identified as having operational proximity to the former Chief Executive and his employment was terminated with effect from 1 March 2018. Control weaknesses and governance issues identified are being addressed robustly, under my personal oversight, with a view to minimise future impacts.

[A and C]

One afternoon I find myself landing and then taking off in a jet airliner from a compacted snow runway that had had hot sand applied to bring up the braking action with a 180 fare paying pax.

The next day I am prohibited from taking off in an SEP from a military runway in the UK because there is a little frost on the ground.

Risk in the RAF has become based on how hazardous is this to my career and has moved away from sensible aviation decision making. Unfortunately I can see why this is so, the Lawyers circle govenment departments like vultures waiting for something to go wrong in the hope of a big payday. I can quite understand and sympathise with those making the decisions and only another war will change the situation.

[cattletruck]

langleybaston, yes I am already aware of his ignominious removal from office, however I found his dedication and enthusiasm for his old organisation to be very strong, so much so that I wouldn't be surprised if he gets his old gig back, much to the chagrin of the jobsworths that are too frightened to embrace his vision. Now aint that the issue here in a nutshell.

[langleybaston]

Originally Posted by cattletruck

langleybaston, yes I am already aware of his ignominious removal from office, however I found his dedication and enthusiasm for his old organisation to be very strong, so much so that I wouldn't be surprised if he gets his old gig back, much to the chagrin of the jobsworths that are too frightened to embrace his vision. Now aint that the issue here in a nutshell.

I retired voluntarily in 1996 so I don't know what "the vision" is, but if it is about embedding Met staff within their customers' structures, I am all for it.
Such a policy was being quietly and unobtrusively pursued by the RAF and the Met Office in the early 1990s by such mechanisms as Hon Membership of squadrons and semi-automatic Mess membership. Out of the blue, the modest financial incentives for Met staff on detachment to live in Mess were withdrawn. Thus the liaison at meal times and in the bar ceased, and detachees were forced [by very substantial financial considerations] to live in pubs, hotels, bedsits etc. Guess what: at more cost to the Treasury.

Sorry about the digression, but worth clearing up I think.

[Could be the last?]

Noting that the ridge of high-ground to the North of the military airfield is significant and plays a key part in producing Rotors, the ability to accurately forecast the severity and specific location of the turbulence is currently very difficult. Therefore, regardless of what the Met People state, once 56//// is in their forecast it will invoke restrictions. There is however several things that could be done:

- Move the high-ground.....airfield!

- Undertake a more robust investigation into the phenomenon at MPC and generate the facts that will placate key elements of the FIG who are financially disadvantaged by delayed civ air into the military airfield. This research should include physical trials of ac flying in the 56//// conditions with key protagonists on board.

- Complement the met office with better technology to forecast with more accuracy etc, LIDAR??

- Have the FIG spend the revenue generated by fishing licences etc pay for Stanley to be opened fully. Noting that they get the use of the military airfield for more or less free. (Yes they do!)

- Suck it up!

Just my 10 pennies worth.

[Cows getting bigger]

Originally Posted by Could be the last?

Noting that the ridge of high-ground to the North of the military airfield is significant and plays a key part in producing Rotors, the ability to accurately forecast the severity and specific location of the turbulence is currently very difficult.

Yep, the airfield has only been there for about 30 years. One would think that by now they had enough empirical data to support a sensible risk assessment. Indeed, I stand by to be corrected, but I cannot recollect any wind related incident at MPA.

MPA is benign compared with many other airfields challenged by high ground influenced wind. Here's one I took earlier; the predominant wind is from the right (West) and the nearest IFR diversion is about 2.5hrs away. Someone needs to take a dose of reality and revisit their risk assessment.

[Cows getting bigger]

You missed my point. For sure, almost every airfield can provide a scare. My point was that the one above (Flores) is far more tricky than MPA and has no additional limitations applied. MPA seems to have had a big fat dose of Nanny State.

[Aurora Australis]

Have the FIG spend the revenue generated by fishing licences etc pay for Stanley to be opened fully. Noting that they get the use of the military airfield for more or less free.

CBTL - you make a point of repeatedly referring to it as a military airport. While you are certainly correct that it is operated by the military, it is Mount Pleasant International Airport. It comes under the jurisdiction of the Falkland Islands DCA, and while the majority of the day to day running is done by the military, the justification for building it in the first place was that in addition to allowing the defence of the islands, it would help to make the Falklands economy viable by being an International gateway.
You say

regardless of what the Met People state, once 56//// is in their forecast it will invoke restrictions

- at the risk of repeating what I have suggested earlier in this thread, I do not agree with that. It seems reasonable to me not to depart from Cape Verde to a destination that in 10 hours time has a possibility of severe turbulence that would require a diversion to Montevideo, but the way the military apply their rules, regardless of actual conditions at the time, they will not permit an aircraft to depart during a period of forecast 56//// even when the actual conditions clearly are not anywhere near those that produce the turbulence. And also will not allow a civilian flight, airborne with 20 minutes to run, during benign conditions, to make an approach.

And High Spirits, yes there have been go-arounds at MPA due to turbulence, but that is not unique to the Falklands - just look at the number of Youtube videos of bumpy crosswind approaches and go-arounds at Leeds Bradford. (By the way, 5-10 minutes after a go-around before an announcement to the passengers does not seem particularly unusual - they have a few more pressing things to discuss before letting you know what is going on).

[Cows getting bigger]

OK, I'll be more specific. Someone will (should?) have done the math. How many aircraft have steamed-off the side of the runway or punched the undercarriage through the wings? This should be an integral part of the RA in order to identify the likelihood of an event/occurrence/incident. You could argue that go-arounds should be part of this assessment but that question really needs to sit with the aircraft operator (how many approaches, diversion options/risks? etc).

Perhaps Total Safety is part of the issue here? If one is to apply that concept, which is MOD policy, you need to work with all stakeholders which in this case would include the aircraft operators. Funchal is a very good example of risk management. There are endless videos of aircraft going around and some diverting; there are not endless videos of smouldering wrecks.