Warning ramble (wanderings of a halfwit) follows.
Aye; but is it safe?
There's that word, the constant use of which is beginning to seriously annoy me - SAFETY. The topic is subjective, definition open to personal interpretation, influenced by so many external factors as to render it practically useless; except of course in a 'legal' matter. A 'safe' conviction being one which renders appeal nugatory. There has to be a 'nicer' way to define 'level of risk', must be. But who are the true masters of 'risk analysis'? I thought perhaps the insurance crowd may have a handle on such matters; so, thought to action, I made a call to an old mate.
Well worth the cost of the call; two pints long and highly educational. At street level an insurance policy, for say your car, may seem like a fairly straightforward deal. The mathematics and legal input to that routine document are somewhat more complex than I ever imagined; and bear in mind, the underwriters expect a profit. They ain't in the business of charitable largess. I digress, the point is that 'safety' is not in their vocabulary; they operate on (for ease of reference) a 'risk assessment matrix'. Which, IMO makes excellent sense.
The first line is always related to what is their exposure i.e. worst case payout scenario, followed by the cost of a court case, the risk of loosing the same and the final overall cost involved weighed (gambled) against the premium cost. Next cab off the rank - Risk analysis. Close inspection of the percentage chances that worst case eventuates and policy will be paid out (maybe). This is, in simple terms, (as it was explained to me) what senior management pilots do (or should do) to assess the operational risk of a proposed series of flights and set a policy which minimises the risk matrix. For example; this is done on an almost daily basis by flight instructors - first solo - imminent. Check list - required hours (tick) any holes in the standard required (tick) weather suitable (tick) traffic density (tick) - and so off they go for the final line in the risk matrix; satisfactory on the day (tick) "off you go then - two circuits and back to the barn". High risk on face value, reduced to an acceptable level of risk by elimination of those elements which are deemed 'high risk'. Is it safe? Maybe, maybe not, who'd know. BUT the level of risk has been reduced (within reason) to an acceptable level.
Now, before I ramble on; lets just say no one is ever completely 'safe' there are no iron clad guarantees that you will even wake up in the morning, let alone survive the road trip to work. One can do one's very best to mitigate the risks, reduce the probabilities; and, gods willing, weather permitting arrive back home in one piece to find a cold Ale waiting.
The word 'safety' must (really should) be removed from all documents relating to 'matters aeronautical' it is far too nebulous. A graded 'risk matrix' from extreme to acceptable (back to the insurance boffins) for each discipline in the aeronautical library would be of great value; and (dare I say it) improve overall 'safety'. For example:- If you stand on the railway line waiting for your 0815 to town you fall into a high risk zone, stand on the platform close to the edge you are in a medium risk zone; stand back a little way - low risk. Racing up the stairs running late? High risk on three fronts.
Just a twiddle; trying to unscramble the hidden uses of the 'safety case' - whatever that may be. Buckley wants a 'safety case' defined - operational or legal safety; and for whom? Nebulous, and difficult to define don't come close to resolution, too much wriggle room built in..
Toot - toot.
Aye; but is it safe?
There's that word, the constant use of which is beginning to seriously annoy me - SAFETY. The topic is subjective, definition open to personal interpretation, influenced by so many external factors as to render it practically useless; except of course in a 'legal' matter. A 'safe' conviction being one which renders appeal nugatory. There has to be a 'nicer' way to define 'level of risk', must be. But who are the true masters of 'risk analysis'? I thought perhaps the insurance crowd may have a handle on such matters; so, thought to action, I made a call to an old mate.
Well worth the cost of the call; two pints long and highly educational. At street level an insurance policy, for say your car, may seem like a fairly straightforward deal. The mathematics and legal input to that routine document are somewhat more complex than I ever imagined; and bear in mind, the underwriters expect a profit. They ain't in the business of charitable largess. I digress, the point is that 'safety' is not in their vocabulary; they operate on (for ease of reference) a 'risk assessment matrix'. Which, IMO makes excellent sense.
The first line is always related to what is their exposure i.e. worst case payout scenario, followed by the cost of a court case, the risk of loosing the same and the final overall cost involved weighed (gambled) against the premium cost. Next cab off the rank - Risk analysis. Close inspection of the percentage chances that worst case eventuates and policy will be paid out (maybe). This is, in simple terms, (as it was explained to me) what senior management pilots do (or should do) to assess the operational risk of a proposed series of flights and set a policy which minimises the risk matrix. For example; this is done on an almost daily basis by flight instructors - first solo - imminent. Check list - required hours (tick) any holes in the standard required (tick) weather suitable (tick) traffic density (tick) - and so off they go for the final line in the risk matrix; satisfactory on the day (tick) "off you go then - two circuits and back to the barn". High risk on face value, reduced to an acceptable level of risk by elimination of those elements which are deemed 'high risk'. Is it safe? Maybe, maybe not, who'd know. BUT the level of risk has been reduced (within reason) to an acceptable level.
Now, before I ramble on; lets just say no one is ever completely 'safe' there are no iron clad guarantees that you will even wake up in the morning, let alone survive the road trip to work. One can do one's very best to mitigate the risks, reduce the probabilities; and, gods willing, weather permitting arrive back home in one piece to find a cold Ale waiting.
The word 'safety' must (really should) be removed from all documents relating to 'matters aeronautical' it is far too nebulous. A graded 'risk matrix' from extreme to acceptable (back to the insurance boffins) for each discipline in the aeronautical library would be of great value; and (dare I say it) improve overall 'safety'. For example:- If you stand on the railway line waiting for your 0815 to town you fall into a high risk zone, stand on the platform close to the edge you are in a medium risk zone; stand back a little way - low risk. Racing up the stairs running late? High risk on three fronts.
Just a twiddle; trying to unscramble the hidden uses of the 'safety case' - whatever that may be. Buckley wants a 'safety case' defined - operational or legal safety; and for whom? Nebulous, and difficult to define don't come close to resolution, too much wriggle room built in..
Toot - toot.