Panic Attack Man Tries To Storm Cockpit
[QUOTE]You seem to believe that any measure that improves (no matter how slightly) safety ought to be implemented (no matter how expensive) - forgive me if I've misunderstood,/QUOTE]
You have misunderstood, but i do forgive you.
3 greens summarized it well;
You have misunderstood, but i do forgive you.
3 greens summarized it well;
airline management uses (sophisticated) cost benefit techniques to decide what is safe enough .... There will always be a trade off in calculating acceptable safety ... pax understand this and don't like the 'safety is our priority' spin.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ok, when was the last time anyone on board died due to smoke in the cabin whilst in flight?
When did a lifevest last save an airline passenger? Same answer.
If we are talking risk management, the probability is extremely low and the incident severity is potentially fatal, so it must be considered. Note the select committee comment that the chief accident investigator travelled with his own smoke hood, he might just know a bit about aviation risks.
However, it is completely irrelevant to my argument, which is that the provision of smokehoods cannot be justified by the extremely low probability of occurence, so we accept the risk if we wish to travel by air.
This trade off, accepted by airlines and passengers alike, demonstrates that safety is not the number one priority, but a competing factor in a carefully crafted set of trade offs.
I agree with extrang when he says the airline industry has performed excellently in this aspect.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Durham/UK
Age: 66
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is the first thing that comes to mind in relation to the following companies?
White Star Line
Townsend Thoresen
Union Carbide
Occidental Petroleum
Pan American World Airways
Sadly, it will likely be the disasters and huge loss of life due to totally or in part of alleged negligence and breaches of safety of those companies.
It would be tantamount to corporate suicide to compromise safety as the above organisations can testify - well those that still exist anyway. The cost of safety failure within a company not only affects the balance books, but the negative image and reputation will never be eradicated.
As alluded to earlier in the thread, 'killing people is bad for business'!
The most significant cost in safety failures is sadly human pain and suffering - not just for the immediate victims, but also their families.
With airlines in particular, once passenger confidence in safety within an organisation has diminished, that company will find it difficult to survive.
Of course, there are certain regions and indeed some airlines that have a higher prevalence of incidents. If you are concerned, you can then perform your own risk assessment by deciding if you are prepared to fly with an airline that has a higher than average rate of accidents.
Is it worth paying the extra cost and making the additional effort of rerouting or changing flights to avoid that airline that may or may not be more prone to an accident/incident? That could be perceived as a personal cost/benefit analysis.
I am unsure if the following applies to aviation, but in occupational health & safety, there is what is known as the 'Heinrich Triangle Theory'
In 1931, H.W. Heinrich reported on a study of accidents that he classified according to severity. His report showed that for each serious-injury incident, we could expect about 29 minor injuries and 300 near-miss or property-damage incidents. His conclusions are often depicted with a pyramid or triangle indicating a single serious incident at the peak and a broad base of non-injury incidents.
This principle may not apply totally to the aviation industry due to the fact that one lapse of safety could result in catastrophe and I would not expect such a high number of incidents as detailed in the triangle, however, I am sure someone could provide statistics.
I will also refer to the occupational health and safety principles of control. It is well established that personal protective equipment (PPE) is ALWAYS the last resort and is ALWAYS at the bottom of the hierarchy of preventative measures.
The principles of control are usually elimination of the risk, reduce, isolate etc. etc. again, with PPE being the last measure.
This is simply because if you need to use PPE, the other preventative measures and controls have either failed or have not been 'reasonably practicable' to implement. This would likely have been determined following a risk assessment/cost benefit analysis of the exposure to the risk.
I would suggest that applying those principles to aviation, four point seatbelts, smoke hoods etc could be deemed as personal protective equipment and as such are the last resort as they would be protecting the pax that is already exposed to the hazard/risk.
Eliminating and controlling risks by using physical engineering controls and safeguards is more reliable than depending on people.
I am not questioning the ability of the people responsible for flight safety, but I am referring to the passengers response to an incident which would likely result in a panic situation.
It would be the cabin crew who I am confident would control such a situation by virtue of their training (another control) although lets not totally disregard that human failure is sometimes a major contributory factor in some incidents.
Therefore, IMHO, I believe that by targeting the potential/likely causes of accidents and incidents by reducing or eliminating risks which airlines do, that greatly decreases the need to use smoke hoods, rear facing seats and four point belts.
I honestly believe that having to implement the use of such equipment on a mandatory basis is completely disproportionate to the risk.
White Star Line
Townsend Thoresen
Union Carbide
Occidental Petroleum
Pan American World Airways
Sadly, it will likely be the disasters and huge loss of life due to totally or in part of alleged negligence and breaches of safety of those companies.
It would be tantamount to corporate suicide to compromise safety as the above organisations can testify - well those that still exist anyway. The cost of safety failure within a company not only affects the balance books, but the negative image and reputation will never be eradicated.
As alluded to earlier in the thread, 'killing people is bad for business'!
The most significant cost in safety failures is sadly human pain and suffering - not just for the immediate victims, but also their families.
With airlines in particular, once passenger confidence in safety within an organisation has diminished, that company will find it difficult to survive.
Of course, there are certain regions and indeed some airlines that have a higher prevalence of incidents. If you are concerned, you can then perform your own risk assessment by deciding if you are prepared to fly with an airline that has a higher than average rate of accidents.
Is it worth paying the extra cost and making the additional effort of rerouting or changing flights to avoid that airline that may or may not be more prone to an accident/incident? That could be perceived as a personal cost/benefit analysis.
I am unsure if the following applies to aviation, but in occupational health & safety, there is what is known as the 'Heinrich Triangle Theory'
In 1931, H.W. Heinrich reported on a study of accidents that he classified according to severity. His report showed that for each serious-injury incident, we could expect about 29 minor injuries and 300 near-miss or property-damage incidents. His conclusions are often depicted with a pyramid or triangle indicating a single serious incident at the peak and a broad base of non-injury incidents.
This principle may not apply totally to the aviation industry due to the fact that one lapse of safety could result in catastrophe and I would not expect such a high number of incidents as detailed in the triangle, however, I am sure someone could provide statistics.
I will also refer to the occupational health and safety principles of control. It is well established that personal protective equipment (PPE) is ALWAYS the last resort and is ALWAYS at the bottom of the hierarchy of preventative measures.
The principles of control are usually elimination of the risk, reduce, isolate etc. etc. again, with PPE being the last measure.
This is simply because if you need to use PPE, the other preventative measures and controls have either failed or have not been 'reasonably practicable' to implement. This would likely have been determined following a risk assessment/cost benefit analysis of the exposure to the risk.
I would suggest that applying those principles to aviation, four point seatbelts, smoke hoods etc could be deemed as personal protective equipment and as such are the last resort as they would be protecting the pax that is already exposed to the hazard/risk.
Eliminating and controlling risks by using physical engineering controls and safeguards is more reliable than depending on people.
I am not questioning the ability of the people responsible for flight safety, but I am referring to the passengers response to an incident which would likely result in a panic situation.
It would be the cabin crew who I am confident would control such a situation by virtue of their training (another control) although lets not totally disregard that human failure is sometimes a major contributory factor in some incidents.
Therefore, IMHO, I believe that by targeting the potential/likely causes of accidents and incidents by reducing or eliminating risks which airlines do, that greatly decreases the need to use smoke hoods, rear facing seats and four point belts.
I honestly believe that having to implement the use of such equipment on a mandatory basis is completely disproportionate to the risk.
Last edited by passy777; 2nd Feb 2010 at 12:55. Reason: Addition
Guest
Posts: n/a
Passy777
Interesting post; Unless I am missing something, etrang, you and me are saying pretty much the same thing, in different words.
I have used Heinrich as well, AFAIK the airline industry often uses the 'Swiss Cheese' model of Prof. James Reason of Manchester in a similar way.
I would use the words 'mitigation of impact risk response' to describe these pieces of equipment, as opposed to 'mitigation of probability risk response', which says prevention is better than the cure.
In terms of physical design, are you citing Poka Yoke and Shingo ? I ask, because I would be very interested if you have an alternate reference.
My only slight query on your list would be White Star Lines, where I believe that they did identify and assess the risk event that sank the Titanic, but due to lack of experience with the new fangled watertight compartments and this particular failure mode (many small hull penetrations over a considerable distance) their assumptions proved tragically flawed; Perhaps you mean the lifeboat capacity, though.
Interesting post; Unless I am missing something, etrang, you and me are saying pretty much the same thing, in different words.
I have used Heinrich as well, AFAIK the airline industry often uses the 'Swiss Cheese' model of Prof. James Reason of Manchester in a similar way.
I would suggest that applying those principles to aviation, four point seatbelts, smoke hoods etc could be deemed as personal protective equipment and as such are the last resort as they would be protecting the pax that is already exposed to the hazard/risk.
In terms of physical design, are you citing Poka Yoke and Shingo ? I ask, because I would be very interested if you have an alternate reference.
My only slight query on your list would be White Star Lines, where I believe that they did identify and assess the risk event that sank the Titanic, but due to lack of experience with the new fangled watertight compartments and this particular failure mode (many small hull penetrations over a considerable distance) their assumptions proved tragically flawed; Perhaps you mean the lifeboat capacity, though.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Durham/UK
Age: 66
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My only slight query on your list would be White Star Lines, where I believe that they did identify and assess the risk event that sank the Titanic, but due to lack of experience with the new fangled watertight compartments and this particular failure mode (many small hull penetrations over a considerable distance) their assumptions proved tragically flawed; Perhaps you mean the lifeboat capacity, though.
Of course, many lives were indeed lost as a result of the limited numbers of lifeboats - a serious and unacceptable failing and had that issue been assessed and addressed appropriately, remedial action (the provision of lifeboats in proportion to the passengers carried) would have significantly reduced the number of souls lost.
What is relevant to this thread is that all of the controls that should have prevented such a disaster had failed with only lifeboats available to the lucky ones.
The life jackets although doing their job by keeping victims afloat, could not protect them from the freezing Atlantic.
It could also be argued that the White Star Line were negligent as they had obviously overestimated the ships capabilities and not identified its limitations - that view is compounded by the company's claim that the ship was unsinkable.
Let's not forget there were human failings that were also contributory factors - none more so than the Captain himself and the company who seemingly put him under pressure to arrive on schedule.
I think the White Star Line fully deserves to be on my list.
Like many disasters, lessons were learnt which ensures safer travel today whether it be on a train, boat or plane. We learn from previous failings and implement more safety features into all of our modes of transport and the aviation industry should be proud of its safety record, although let us never forget the lives lost that have made air travel as safe as it is today.
Sadly, there will likely be more incidents in the future, but I am confident that when I step onto an aircraft that I will arrive at my destination safely, although (like all modes of transport) there will always be an element of risk.
Last edited by passy777; 3rd Feb 2010 at 09:24. Reason: Clarification
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, the argument is that safety can't be the airlines' #1 priority because it is subject to cost-benefit trade-offs. But stating that x is our #1 priority implies that there are also #2, #3, #4, ... priorities. For an airline these will include making a profit, delivering customer satisfaction, keeping staff motivated etc.
Now, if I can make a small improvement to my #1 priority, but at the cost of a significantly greater reduction in some lower priority item, it seems to me that I might choose not to make that improvement and yet still legitimately claim that it remains my #1 priority. Only if I reject the opportunity to improve my #1 priority because of a lesser negative impact to some lower priority item have I demonstrated that it is not really my #1 priority.
And I don't see that this has yet been shown to be the case regarding airlines and safety.
Now, if I can make a small improvement to my #1 priority, but at the cost of a significantly greater reduction in some lower priority item, it seems to me that I might choose not to make that improvement and yet still legitimately claim that it remains my #1 priority. Only if I reject the opportunity to improve my #1 priority because of a lesser negative impact to some lower priority item have I demonstrated that it is not really my #1 priority.
And I don't see that this has yet been shown to be the case regarding airlines and safety.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Pax
I hate to have to break the news, but when constraints compete, the factor that drives the decision is the #1 priority.
The details of the trade off are irrelevant.
You are making a fatuous argument here, as no one is saying that safety is not a very high priority or that the airlines take unreasonable risks, I re-iterate that they make very sound decisions.
But if safety was the number one priority, it would be more important than profit and we might have sprinkler systems, smokehoods etc.
The effect of this would be to make air travel much more expensive and unattractive/unaffordable to many.
For your info, as a management consultant, I worked in the business side of a major airline for nearly 12 months and got involved in making recommendations that balanced cost, time and safety.
I hate to have to break the news, but when constraints compete, the factor that drives the decision is the #1 priority.
The details of the trade off are irrelevant.
You are making a fatuous argument here, as no one is saying that safety is not a very high priority or that the airlines take unreasonable risks, I re-iterate that they make very sound decisions.
But if safety was the number one priority, it would be more important than profit and we might have sprinkler systems, smokehoods etc.
The effect of this would be to make air travel much more expensive and unattractive/unaffordable to many.
For your info, as a management consultant, I worked in the business side of a major airline for nearly 12 months and got involved in making recommendations that balanced cost, time and safety.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Durham/UK
Age: 66
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There seems to be veiled assumptions that because airlines are not refitting aircraft with four point seat belts, rear facing seats etc etc, that they are compromising the safety of their passengers.
The cost/benefit analysis has been discussed ad nauseam, however, I am more content that safety budgets are targeted at the areas where there is potential to prevent accidents in the first place.
Disasters such as Kegworth, Flixborough, Ladbroke Grove for example, all had elements of human error as a major contributory factor into their causes.
Where there is human involvement, it is impossible to achieve a 100% accident free industry. Of course, company's such as Du Pont believe that every accident/injury is preventable which to some degree is true, but due to erratic human nature and its potential failings, safety is not an exact science.
You can have the safest equipment in the world, the best policies and operational procedures in place but as soon as the human being comes into the equation - there the weakest link lies unfortunately.
A competent and sensible person who is normally totally professional at his/her job can be affected by outside factors such as family or health issues or other personal or indeed work matters.
There are other elements that can also induce human errors in certain circumstances such as poor design of equipment, ineffective policies and procedures, misinformation and poor communication.
Unfortunately when human or organisational shortcomings have been discovered, it is usually in the aftermath of an accident. It is the result of aviation accidents and incidents and sadly, the loss of thousands of lives over many years that we have learnt and adapted to make air travel much safer.
Design flaws can be engineered out, policies and procedures can be reviewed and amended if necessary, but it is the reducing of human error that is the biggest challenge, although improving the organisational factors will help. That assertion also applies to ground personnel such as ATC and maintenance teams.
There are strict medical requirements and stringent training for Pilots with regular monitoring of both health and competence.
Cabin Crew also have to undergo a strict regime of training.
The cost of keeping an aircraft airworthy will undoubtedly cost a phenomenal amount and maintenance is obviously a priority.
All of the above are costly but are vital in getting an aircraft off and on the ground safely.
I am not suggesting that an airline would compromise any of the above and there are regulatory bodies that ensure maintenance, training and operational requirements are complied with, however, would placing the financial burden of redesigning seats, fitting new seat belts and providing smoke hoods really improve the operational safety of an aircraft?
Would RF seats, modified seat belts and smoke hoods have been of any use in some of most recent major air disasters AF/ET? Sadly, no.
Was the cause of those accidents attributable partly or wholly to human error or organisational failings? That remains to be seen.
Are the safety features (including the crew) we currently have in mitigating the consequenses of a survivable aircraft accident sufficient in relation to the risk? Yes.
Every time I see the images of AF358 in Toronto just confirms that view.
F3G I am a great believer in prevention rather that cure due to the fact that when an epidemic occurs, some people do not survive the disease.
The cost/benefit analysis has been discussed ad nauseam, however, I am more content that safety budgets are targeted at the areas where there is potential to prevent accidents in the first place.
Disasters such as Kegworth, Flixborough, Ladbroke Grove for example, all had elements of human error as a major contributory factor into their causes.
Where there is human involvement, it is impossible to achieve a 100% accident free industry. Of course, company's such as Du Pont believe that every accident/injury is preventable which to some degree is true, but due to erratic human nature and its potential failings, safety is not an exact science.
You can have the safest equipment in the world, the best policies and operational procedures in place but as soon as the human being comes into the equation - there the weakest link lies unfortunately.
A competent and sensible person who is normally totally professional at his/her job can be affected by outside factors such as family or health issues or other personal or indeed work matters.
There are other elements that can also induce human errors in certain circumstances such as poor design of equipment, ineffective policies and procedures, misinformation and poor communication.
Unfortunately when human or organisational shortcomings have been discovered, it is usually in the aftermath of an accident. It is the result of aviation accidents and incidents and sadly, the loss of thousands of lives over many years that we have learnt and adapted to make air travel much safer.
Design flaws can be engineered out, policies and procedures can be reviewed and amended if necessary, but it is the reducing of human error that is the biggest challenge, although improving the organisational factors will help. That assertion also applies to ground personnel such as ATC and maintenance teams.
There are strict medical requirements and stringent training for Pilots with regular monitoring of both health and competence.
Cabin Crew also have to undergo a strict regime of training.
The cost of keeping an aircraft airworthy will undoubtedly cost a phenomenal amount and maintenance is obviously a priority.
All of the above are costly but are vital in getting an aircraft off and on the ground safely.
I am not suggesting that an airline would compromise any of the above and there are regulatory bodies that ensure maintenance, training and operational requirements are complied with, however, would placing the financial burden of redesigning seats, fitting new seat belts and providing smoke hoods really improve the operational safety of an aircraft?
Would RF seats, modified seat belts and smoke hoods have been of any use in some of most recent major air disasters AF/ET? Sadly, no.
Was the cause of those accidents attributable partly or wholly to human error or organisational failings? That remains to be seen.
Are the safety features (including the crew) we currently have in mitigating the consequenses of a survivable aircraft accident sufficient in relation to the risk? Yes.
Every time I see the images of AF358 in Toronto just confirms that view.
F3G I am a great believer in prevention rather that cure due to the fact that when an epidemic occurs, some people do not survive the disease.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Passy777
Agree completely about prevention.
Ultimately it comes down a pragmatic view of what is achievable.
Rear facing seats (although some authorities are unconvinced), smokehoods, sprinkler systems etc etc etc may, under certain circumstances, save lives or serious injuries, but the cost is prohibitive and commercially unjustifiable as those events happen so infrequently.
I also agree about the human factor; Chernobyl reminds me of the capacity for people to cause disaster by deliberately overriding safety mechanisms.
Airlines tend to profile their crew very carefully to avoid the above syndrome.
Agree completely about prevention.
Ultimately it comes down a pragmatic view of what is achievable.
Rear facing seats (although some authorities are unconvinced), smokehoods, sprinkler systems etc etc etc may, under certain circumstances, save lives or serious injuries, but the cost is prohibitive and commercially unjustifiable as those events happen so infrequently.
I also agree about the human factor; Chernobyl reminds me of the capacity for people to cause disaster by deliberately overriding safety mechanisms.
Airlines tend to profile their crew very carefully to avoid the above syndrome.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: A whole new world now!!
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you F3G re your post on cabin crew being different to airline management.....spot on 
Thats maybe why etrang thourght I was being emotional. When I spend every single working day putting safety as my top priority and working with Pilots who do the same it is hard when you read on here that pax think that all we are interested in is profit above all else.
I don't doubt that in my own, and probably most other airlines their are middle managers and execs who would rather not have to consider safety above profit as for them it is irritating as their annual bonus depends on the airlines profit.
Thankfully for all of us, crew and pax, they are the meat in the sandwich. Above them are the CAA who do all the stuff re cost/benefit that is way above my paygrade but these managers are answerable to them. They have to comply with what the CAA say.
Below middle management are the Pilots and CC, the people who you guys meet on every flight. We go nowhere if the plane is not airworthy as the Pilot just would not accept it for flight regardless of delay costs. In addition I have been on numerous flights where we have been delayed on the ground because of "minor" issues which needed sorting out and signed off by our engineers. They don't rush this because of our on time performance/costs..... it takes as long as it takes.
Whatever your opinions of airline management motives please remember that at the end of the day your safety on that flight depends on the crew rostered on it. I have yet to meet any Captain in all my years of flying that would take any cr*p from the beancounters re profit over safety.
LCD
Thats maybe why etrang thourght I was being emotional. When I spend every single working day putting safety as my top priority and working with Pilots who do the same it is hard when you read on here that pax think that all we are interested in is profit above all else.
I don't doubt that in my own, and probably most other airlines their are middle managers and execs who would rather not have to consider safety above profit as for them it is irritating as their annual bonus depends on the airlines profit.
Thankfully for all of us, crew and pax, they are the meat in the sandwich. Above them are the CAA who do all the stuff re cost/benefit that is way above my paygrade but these managers are answerable to them. They have to comply with what the CAA say.
Below middle management are the Pilots and CC, the people who you guys meet on every flight. We go nowhere if the plane is not airworthy as the Pilot just would not accept it for flight regardless of delay costs. In addition I have been on numerous flights where we have been delayed on the ground because of "minor" issues which needed sorting out and signed off by our engineers. They don't rush this because of our on time performance/costs..... it takes as long as it takes.
Whatever your opinions of airline management motives please remember that at the end of the day your safety on that flight depends on the crew rostered on it. I have yet to meet any Captain in all my years of flying that would take any cr*p from the beancounters re profit over safety.
LCD
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
when constraints compete, the factor that drives the decision is the #1 priority
And FYI, I'm never impressed by the "I'm a management consultant, don't you know how important I am?" line. I've met quite a few able and competent folks who called themselves management consultants - and a lot of crap ones, too.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Pax Vobiscum
I mentioned that I had worked with an airline as a management consultant to avoid giving the impression that I was/had been an airline manager, which would have been false.
Nonetheless, I did have to investigate options to solve problems and justify my recommendations to airline managers.
That is where I learned about how airlines make trade offs.
Now tell me, how much experience have you working inside an airline?
I mentioned that I had worked with an airline as a management consultant to avoid giving the impression that I was/had been an airline manager, which would have been false.
Nonetheless, I did have to investigate options to solve problems and justify my recommendations to airline managers.
That is where I learned about how airlines make trade offs.
Now tell me, how much experience have you working inside an airline?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dolly
I never saw any behaviour like that.
What I did see was the knife edge economics of running an airline severely constraining options.
Even the CAA is very careful about introducing 'asymmetric requirements' that would allow other airlines in other jurisdictions to have an advantage, something that becomes clear if one reads Hansard from 1999 (the committee I mentioned earlier in the thread.)
As I said before, the airlines do a very good job of making trade offs.
I don't doubt that in my own, and probably most other airlines their are middle managers and execs who would rather not have to consider safety above profit as for them it is irritating as their annual bonus depends on the airlines profit.
What I did see was the knife edge economics of running an airline severely constraining options.
Even the CAA is very careful about introducing 'asymmetric requirements' that would allow other airlines in other jurisdictions to have an advantage, something that becomes clear if one reads Hansard from 1999 (the committee I mentioned earlier in the thread.)
As I said before, the airlines do a very good job of making trade offs.
it is hard when you read on here that pax think that all we are interested in is profit above all else.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: A whole new world now!!
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
etrang yes I did "bother to read" your post thank you, all of them in fact as I've found pax perceptions on this thread very interesting.
I misunderstood? Maybe? But I'm not the only one am I? Pax Vobiscum you "forgive" for misunderstanding you and AbusingtheSky also "struggles" to get your point as it seems am I. Maybe it has something to do with the way you are coming across if a few people are apparently
here.
Regarding your quote from my post above. This is the pax forum is it not? Your post 13 and 32 clearly alludes to profit being placed above safety as does F3G's post 47 or have I misunderstood these as well?
I did my search as you suggested. 242 results came up. Not one of them from the safety forum so I didn't look further. Safety is what is being discussed here right?
F3G you have never seen the behaviour I described as a management consultant. Why am I not surprised at that?
. I'm not doubting the accuracy/integrity of your post BTW.
This thread is rapidly turning into a who can have the last word on safety being the number one priority.
IMHO Tightslot did in post #16 very well on reflection.
I misunderstood? Maybe? But I'm not the only one am I? Pax Vobiscum you "forgive" for misunderstanding you and AbusingtheSky also "struggles" to get your point as it seems am I. Maybe it has something to do with the way you are coming across if a few people are apparently
here.Regarding your quote from my post above. This is the pax forum is it not? Your post 13 and 32 clearly alludes to profit being placed above safety as does F3G's post 47 or have I misunderstood these as well?
I did my search as you suggested. 242 results came up. Not one of them from the safety forum so I didn't look further. Safety is what is being discussed here right?
F3G you have never seen the behaviour I described as a management consultant. Why am I not surprised at that?
. I'm not doubting the accuracy/integrity of your post BTW.This thread is rapidly turning into a who can have the last word on safety being the number one priority.
IMHO Tightslot did in post #16 very well on reflection.
Last edited by lowcostdolly; 7th Feb 2010 at 14:51. Reason: typing/numerical error
Guest
Posts: n/a
F3G you have never seen the behaviour I described as a management consultant. Why am I not surprised at that?
Once again, airlines take very cautious decisions on matters involving safety and the track record of modern flying is testament to that, it is extremely safe.
I thought Tighslot's summary in #16 was very good too.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I may have lost my way a little with this thread. I didn't realise one needed to be a management consultant working in the airline business to identify an obvious logical error. For the avoidance of doubt, I've never worked for an airline, either as an employee or a consultant. I actually rather doubt that safety, while undoubtedly important, is the single most important factor in the management thinking of airlines - if it were we wouldn't see so many of them operating so close to the minimum safety standards imposed by the relevant authorities (which are, of course, already extremely safe).
But the existence of a possible safety feature (such as the provision of smoke-hoods) that has not been implemented does not of itself prove that safety is not the number one priority (although it does demonstrate that safety is not the only priority, which should not surprise anyone). That is all I have been endeavouring to point out.
But the existence of a possible safety feature (such as the provision of smoke-hoods) that has not been implemented does not of itself prove that safety is not the number one priority (although it does demonstrate that safety is not the only priority, which should not surprise anyone). That is all I have been endeavouring to point out.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: A whole new world now!!
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pax I too have lost my way a little with this thread. I totally get where you are coming from though
"Management thinking of airlines" struck a cord with me because the "thinking" of my managers is sometimes very different to my reality on board a plane as an SCCM. At all times safety is my #1 priority.
I'm met with many situations where I have competing company priorities. At my mob this is usually safety, profit and on time performance (OTP).
Hypothetical example is the night Ibiza. It's running on time and is full of young party goers who have already had a drink or few in the terminal. They are also anxious to get started on the bar on board which is very lucrative for the company and the CC......we can earn loads of commision on these flights and the company's profit per seat rockets so management is happy
A few (say a party of 10) start kicking off on the ground. They get off and if we have to call the Police to do this we do. There goes our OTP and all the profit per seat we might have got from this lot in the interests of safety. If this happened in the air we would divert.....Simples!! Safety would be the #1 priority here
That is why I also get where F3G is coming from on this. It is the priority at the time that drives decisions.
If I make a decision based on safety vs profit vs OTP I have to justify this to my managers via a Cabin Safety Report which is signed off by the Captain. Even then sometimes I'm called in for a "chat" to talk about why I took the decisions I did to a CC manager.
F3G I've never worked as a management consultant but I have dealt with consultants outside aviation as a Manager. What is said to outside scrutiny/consultation by managers is sometimes different to reality for the people at the sharp end. That is why i did not doubt your post in any way or was I surprised at what you said re management behaviour.
"Management thinking of airlines" struck a cord with me because the "thinking" of my managers is sometimes very different to my reality on board a plane as an SCCM. At all times safety is my #1 priority.
I'm met with many situations where I have competing company priorities. At my mob this is usually safety, profit and on time performance (OTP).
Hypothetical example is the night Ibiza. It's running on time and is full of young party goers who have already had a drink or few in the terminal. They are also anxious to get started on the bar on board which is very lucrative for the company and the CC......we can earn loads of commision on these flights and the company's profit per seat rockets so management is happy
A few (say a party of 10) start kicking off on the ground. They get off and if we have to call the Police to do this we do. There goes our OTP and all the profit per seat we might have got from this lot in the interests of safety. If this happened in the air we would divert.....Simples!! Safety would be the #1 priority here
That is why I also get where F3G is coming from on this. It is the priority at the time that drives decisions.
If I make a decision based on safety vs profit vs OTP I have to justify this to my managers via a Cabin Safety Report which is signed off by the Captain. Even then sometimes I'm called in for a "chat" to talk about why I took the decisions I did to a CC manager.
F3G I've never worked as a management consultant but I have dealt with consultants outside aviation as a Manager. What is said to outside scrutiny/consultation by managers is sometimes different to reality for the people at the sharp end. That is why i did not doubt your post in any way or was I surprised at what you said re management behaviour.
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On the western edge of The Moor
Age: 67
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This phrase is commonly used in any safety decision, which will not be someones bright idea but carefully researched and risk assessed.
or in other words if the cost of improving safety is high in relation to the actual improvement or the risk is low it can be discounted.
I'm fairly sure the aviation authorities are aware of this!
Reasonably practicable
What is reasonably practicable is a question of fact. The Court of Appeal held in 1949 that:[13][14]
What is reasonably practicable is a question of fact. The Court of Appeal held in 1949 that:[13][14]
... in every case, it is the risk that has to be weighed against the measures necessary to eliminate the risk. The greater the risk, no doubt, the less will be the weight to be given to the factor of cost.
— and:– Lord Justice Tucker
Reasonably practicable is a narrower term than 'physically possible' and seems to me to imply that a computation must be made by the owner in which the quantum of risk is placed on one scale and the sacrifice involved in the measures necessary for averting the risk (whether in money, time or trouble) is placed in the other, and that, if it be shown that there is a gross disproportion between them - the risk being insignificant in relation to the sacrifice - the defendants discharge the onus on them.
– Lord Justice Asquith
I'm fairly sure the aviation authorities are aware of this!
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Durham/UK
Age: 66
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This phrase is commonly used in any safety decision, which will not be someones bright idea but carefully researched and risk assessed.
Quote:
Reasonably practicable
What is reasonably practicable is a question of fact. The Court of Appeal held in 1949 that:[13][14]
I'm fairly sure the aviation authorities are aware of this!
Quote:
Reasonably practicable
What is reasonably practicable is a question of fact. The Court of Appeal held in 1949 that:[13][14]
... in every case, it is the risk that has to be weighed against the measures necessary to eliminate the risk. The greater the risk, no doubt, the less will be the weight to be given to the factor of cost.
– Lord Justice Tucker
— and:Reasonably practicable is a narrower term than 'physically possible' and seems to me to imply that a computation must be made by the owner in which the quantum of risk is placed on one scale and the sacrifice involved in the measures necessary for averting the risk (whether in money, time or trouble) is placed in the other, and that, if it be shown that there is a gross disproportion between them - the risk being insignificant in relation to the sacrifice - the defendants discharge the onus on them.
– Lord Justice Asquith
or in other words if the cost of improving safety is high in relation to the actual improvement or the risk is low it can be discounted.I'm fairly sure the aviation authorities are aware of this!
The "so far as reasonably practicable" wording has been a long standing feature of English law and predates even the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (HSWA). It introduces flexibility into the law and contrasts with some other Member State legal systems where the law is written in absolute terms.
The EC's complaint is based upon section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 which states that it shall be the duty of every employer to ensure "so far as is reasonable practicable" (SFAIRP) the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees. The EC considers the SFAIRP qualification placed upon the employers' duty is incompatible with Articles 5(1) and 5(4) of the Directive.
The Framework Directive Article 5(1) imposes a duty to ensure the health and safety of workers in every aspect related to the work.
Article 5(4) provides that the Directive "shall not restrict the option of Member States to provide for the exclusion or the limitation of employers' responsibility where occurrences are due to unusual and unforeseeable circumstances, beyond the employers' control, or to exceptional events, the consequences of which could not have been avoided despite the exercise of all due care."
The ECJ rejected the EC's claim.
Had the European Directive been implemented here in the UK, then potentially, there could have been repercussions for cost/benefit analysis and a nightmare for those responsible for health & safety- and they keep telling us to 'keep it simple' which is an ideal concept, but due to the myriad of legislation and a more litigious society, just impossible to realise.
What is a pain here in the UK is that we have to adopt EU health & safety directives alongside our own effective and well established laws.
Just like most things here in Britain, any EU legislation that benefits the general public or will be costly to implement will be rejected, any new rules that brings extra money into the government’s coffers to the general public’s detriment will be efficiently brought in.
We are either in Europe or not - seemingly only when it suits!