With our experience in airport operations, safety, security and certification meet FAA safety and certification requirements and the TSA security mandates.
If there is a specific SMS topic that you would like to read about, or if you have any questions, please send us an e-mail. And of course, if you like what you are reading, please forward this e-mail to a friend!
As the 2011 year unwinds, it's an appropriate time to look back at your operation and learn from the mistakes and near hits that occurred. Beyond that, it is also a good time to resolve any conflicts or say what needs to be said to end those conflicts. From the safety officer's perspective, the end of the year is time to take a look at the following:
Incident/near-hit reports
Accident reports
ASAP reports
Industry statistics
State of morale and department goals
We will use all of those reports to determine if we achieved "continuous improvement." Are we better off than last year, did we have fewer incidents this year, more delays, more fractious relationships, more fun, less professionalism, etc.
As safety officer, it will be your job to make the case with the goals and purpose of the SMS in mind:
GOAL
Build a positive safety culture
Strive for continuous improvement
PURPOSE
Identify potential hazards
Mitigate to ALARP (as low as reasonably practical)
Sharpen your pencil and find the good, the bad, and the ugly and resolve to do better. Remember that complacency leads to the Normalization of Deviance, which leads to predictable surprises.
The notion of including Change Management as part of your Safety Management System (SMS) is to identify potential hazards and develop solutions to mitigate and resolve those potential hazards that may result as part of a new procedure or process. Change Management can be as a simple as brainstorming with team members to identify potential hazards that may develop as a result of a change that the organization is considering. Reviewing change is important, but what about existing processes and procedures? Just because an organization has no documented incidents or safety event data does not mean that an existing process or procedure won't result in a hazard.
An example of an existing hazard that exists for many operators is cabin entry door frames. A recent survey of flight crew and passengers indicated that there is potentially a serious safety issue with passengers and flight crew hitting their head on the cabin entry door frame when entering and exiting Regional Air Carrier Airplanes.
If we truly embrace SMS, then addressing events like passenger entryway door head strikes would be easily mitigated with the installation of a product like Head Guard. Maybe this is not being addressed, because there is no operational/safety data? Survey results say otherwise! Of greater concern is that the aviation industry still follows a reactive rather than a proactive approachñnothing in the database says there is a problem, so leave it alone. Well maybe no one bothered to report the problem or felt it was a minor concern. Sooner or later this approach may come back to bite those who think this way. Hopefully SMS will help drive all aviation organizations to conduct an in-depth "What If" exercise on all their existing operational, maintenance, and safety procedures and programs.
Dr .Bill Deming, credited with introducing Total Quality Management in the 50's said, "You can't inspect quality into a product; you have to design it in." Well you can't inspect safety into an organization; you have to design safety in. So when it comes to new manuals, procedures, aircraft or systems, we should ask, "If we do this process this way or design this system this way, what happens if it doesn't work exactly like this and where could things go wrong? Where can we put controls in place; where can we do things better?" But it may not make sense for an organization to take this approach before they start everything. However, it is a good thing to use this approach when the operational data is indicating that there is a problem. If you have a problem with an aircraft departing with open log book items, then get in there and look at your system, analyze it and see where the latent conditions exist. If you are dispatching airplanes with too many open Minimum Equipment List items (MELs), analyze the data and see where the problems exist.
So let's go back to the passenger and flight crew head strike safety issueñ68% of 215 respondents to the survey question said they hit their head on the top of the main cabin entry door of a commercial airplane. Eighty-eight (88) % of the respondents said they witnessed individuals hitting their heads entering the aircraft. Of this latter group, two thirds said they had witnessed these occurrences more than five times. Yet it appears that operators have no strategy in place to address this issue. Perhaps this is because it is not a new problem and the head strikes are not being documented. Maybe the change that needs to be implemented is to have flight attendants submit safety reports when these events take place so the problem can be mitigated?
The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is working with the Safety Collaborative Assistance Networks (SCAN), the Runway Safety Program and Fatigue Risk Management Systems to identify and eliminate hazards in 2012.
ICAO will continue to collaborate with established regional organizations, such as Regional Aviation Safety Groups (RASGs) and Regional Safety Oversight Organizations (RSOOs), and to promote the training and support necessary to address emerging safety issues.
With the renewed growth in commercial flights and the expected increases in air travel, ICAO will maintain its strong focus on initiatives that would further improve safety measures in the future.
ICAO will develop and refine more proactive and risk-based methods to further reduce the global accident rate, enabling the safe expansion of air travel in all regions.
The number of accidents attributed to scheduled commercial flights increased in 2010 to 121, compared to 113 in 2009.
This resulted in an accident rate of 4.0 per million departures, a marginal increase compared to the accident rate of 3.9 per million departures in 2009.
While the overall number of fatalities in 2010 was below those in 2005 and 2006, there has been an increase in fatalities over the past three years. This trend serves as a reminder that cooperation between the various stakeholders is a key part of reducing the number of aviation accidents and related fatalities, says ICAO.
The ICAO Universal Safety Oversight Audit Program (USOAP) continues to promote the systematic implementation of ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs).
As of the end of 2010, the USOAP had completed assessments of 93% of ICAO Member States, accounting for 99% of the air traffic.
ICAO noted that the resurgence of traffic experienced in 2010 was coupled with an increase in the number of accidents, resulting in an accident rate of 4.0 per million departuresóa marginal increase compared to the previous year.
In partnership with the international aviation community, ICAO will put more emphasis in improving safety performance in those regions experiencing significantly higher accident rates or having specific safety challenges.
New federal regulations are in the works that will require nearly all U.S. businesses to proactively demonstrate compliance with safety laws, and more. Specifically, under the new rules, safety professionals would be required to develop a comprehensive Injury and Illness Prevention Plan. This new initiative from the Department of Labor (DOL) is known as "Plan/Prevent/Protect" (or "P3"). It will require every entity covered by the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) to make written plans ("Plan"), create processes ("Prevent"), and test the processes with designated compliance employees ("Protect"). The bottom line: The DOL is looking to shift some of their workload onto to you. Employers who fail to take steps to meet the requirements will be considered out of compliance and subject to penalty.
Since many aviation organizations have commercial vehicles and employ drivers, it is important to note a new U.S. Department of Transportation rule that restricts Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV) drivers from holding a cellular phone to make a call, dialing a cellular phone by pressing more than a single button, or reaching for a cellular phone in an unsafe manner. Essentially, a CMV driver must be ready to conduct a call on a compliant (e.g., "hands-free") cellular phone before driving the vehicle.
Employers are also banned from requiring or allowing a CMV driver to use a hand-held cellular phone while operating.
The fine for violating the rule is up to $2,750 for drivers and up to $11,000 for employers. Additionally, a driver who is convicted of using a hand-held cellular phone or a Commercial Driver's License holder convicted of two or more serious traffic violations may be disqualified from operating CMVs under the rule.
SMS Partners is the combined expertise of several organizations to provide its customers with worldwide customized SMS solutions that will improve your safety record, prepare you for future regulatory requirements, and save you time and money. For more information, go to the SMS Partners' website.
