Score your company's safety culture, and then post your thoughts...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: London
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Score your company's safety culture, and then post your thoughts...
Colleagues,
May I invite you, with my virginal post, to visit the following link, and score your organisation's safety culture?
Afterwards, please discuss here...
Safety Culture Survey
(With thanks to Professor Reason).
Best wishes,
CP
May I invite you, with my virginal post, to visit the following link, and score your organisation's safety culture?
Afterwards, please discuss here...
Safety Culture Survey
(With thanks to Professor Reason).
Best wishes,
CP
Not all are applicable but 15.5
Safety culture and safety processes are an easy job once committed, however they still don't achieve zero risk.
The worse thing you can have after a major news worthy incident is the employees losing respect among themselves.
If you find that is the case then either you have been kidding yourself or your process are burried so deep that only you can vouch for them.
The biigest hurdle in front of a useful safety process is the legal dept who doesn't like failures lurking around in safety related data banks.
In some legal cultures the best defense seems to be ignorance or obfuscation rather than the safety proffesional's process and dedication.
The subject poll might have probed more deeply into this wart.
Safety culture and safety processes are an easy job once committed, however they still don't achieve zero risk.
The worse thing you can have after a major news worthy incident is the employees losing respect among themselves.
If you find that is the case then either you have been kidding yourself or your process are burried so deep that only you can vouch for them.
The biigest hurdle in front of a useful safety process is the legal dept who doesn't like failures lurking around in safety related data banks.
In some legal cultures the best defense seems to be ignorance or obfuscation rather than the safety proffesional's process and dedication.
The subject poll might have probed more deeply into this wart.
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety is a joke and a very bad one at that.
Safety comes in two flavors. Predicted safety and operational safety. In the former the level of safety of the airframe is predicted by the use of weird mathematics and the manipulation of failure rates from programs and equipments that have no relationship to the airframe in question.
The predicted safety is in effect much higher than that required by the certification authorities. And, the certification authorities accept whatever the airframe manufacturers provide them assuming that the level of safety can be traced to the predicted failure rates and that the analyses were performed in accordance with the procedures established by the certification authorities.
In the Safety predictions the manufacturer has to show that a single point failure can occur no more frequently that 10 9 or one time in a billion hours. The weird mathematics I mentioned previously can show that the frequency of failure is as high as 10 12 or even higher.
Take for instance Jesus Christ was born 17,546,290 hours ago +/-. There is no mechanical system that can last for 10 9 without failing. The 10 9 figure is for an entire fleet of a given aircraft operating over the life of the fleet. It is still impossible to reach that level of safety.
What happens when an aircraft crashes and the lawyers start to circle their wagons outside the main entrance of the airframe manufacturer. I understand that on this forum lawyers are not held in very high esteem but these lawyers are representing the families of those injured or killed in the accident. The manufacturer has lawyers that will try to counter the lawsuits brought against them and this is only fair. However, there is a law firm that is held on retainer by almost all airframe manufacturers and, they specialize on obfuscation, illegally destroying test records, destroying the supporting documentation for the safety analyses and any other piece of paper that would incriminate the manufacturer to include outright lying to the investigating authorities as well as to the law firms bringing the lawsuits.
Now, you can address operational safety and how you scored on the test.
The predicted safety is in effect much higher than that required by the certification authorities. And, the certification authorities accept whatever the airframe manufacturers provide them assuming that the level of safety can be traced to the predicted failure rates and that the analyses were performed in accordance with the procedures established by the certification authorities.
In the Safety predictions the manufacturer has to show that a single point failure can occur no more frequently that 10 9 or one time in a billion hours. The weird mathematics I mentioned previously can show that the frequency of failure is as high as 10 12 or even higher.
Take for instance Jesus Christ was born 17,546,290 hours ago +/-. There is no mechanical system that can last for 10 9 without failing. The 10 9 figure is for an entire fleet of a given aircraft operating over the life of the fleet. It is still impossible to reach that level of safety.
What happens when an aircraft crashes and the lawyers start to circle their wagons outside the main entrance of the airframe manufacturer. I understand that on this forum lawyers are not held in very high esteem but these lawyers are representing the families of those injured or killed in the accident. The manufacturer has lawyers that will try to counter the lawsuits brought against them and this is only fair. However, there is a law firm that is held on retainer by almost all airframe manufacturers and, they specialize on obfuscation, illegally destroying test records, destroying the supporting documentation for the safety analyses and any other piece of paper that would incriminate the manufacturer to include outright lying to the investigating authorities as well as to the law firms bringing the lawsuits.
Now, you can address operational safety and how you scored on the test.
