Of Swiss cheese and the holes therein.
The word 'safety' is bandied about – a lot. Indeed there are so many versions and opinions on 'what' is 'safe' it would confound even AI (which ain't too bright anyway). 'Risk' is another much overused term. These terms whilst terrifying those unfamiliar with 'risky' situations, to a point where they develop their own theory of the 'dangers' without even a basic knowledge of the mitigaters in place. Or, of the hard won 'common sense' base for those known (built in) elements which reduce or even cancel the 'perceived' risk. There are some stark facts which govern all risk mitigation; a simple example is the moment you are born. From the moment of that first breath, there are some serious risks; all of which are well beyond your control. Yet, thousands of babies are born, all over the planet, every day, and go on to live perfectly normal, healthy lives. But all are at risk, from cradle to grave, every moment they live in this world.
“I never think of the future - it comes soon enough.”
When 'aviation' was first whelped, much like the first baby ever born; no one knew or understood the 'risks' to its survival. Trial and error, followed by more error and more trial, led to unintended consequence, to more error to more trial etc.. But, eventually over the decades, the wrinkles and the risks were reduced by significant numbers; providing the 'almost' bullet proof systems we see today. Not perfect of course, but every loss provides more data, that becomes added to the store of mitigation action. Lessons learned, action taken and we progress toward nirvana. In theory at least. Here endeth the fools ramble: almost.
"Whoever wishes to foresee the future must consult the past; for human events ever resemble those of preceding times. This arises from the fact that they are produced by men who ever have been, and ever shall be, animated by the same passions, and thus they necessarily have the same results."
Aye, so much for theory; the preceding ramble really only applies to folk who have no agenda or masters and can actually bring about the desired results. Aviation has taken some large steps toward, being as close to an 'ideal' safety system as possible – nearly. Close, but no cigar, not yet. 'Why not?' is a bloody good question for the public to ask. For that answer they must look to the politicians, the big money end of town and the 'departments' tasked with ensuring public safety whilst traveling. They say that 'money is the root of all evil' but there are a couple of 'other' underlying elements which add to the equation and unbalance it.
“One must divide one's time between politics and equations. But our equations are much more important to me, because politics is for the present, while our equations are for eternity.”
Mostly, it all boils down to agenda; albeit, finance plays a serious role in the drama; yet when it come to aviation and a gold standard, even the poorest of nations are offered assistance, expertise and even policy and rule-sets by those with 'more' as part of a universal effort to ensure as much risk as possible is minimised. The availability of informed, considered advice from the ICAO is phenomenal. There are specialised teams in all disciplines who can and will, on invitation, willingly assist in improvements toward a 'safer' operational environment; better rules and practices. Not 'perfect' but perfection is their goal.
“Persons attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot.”
Why then would a nation as close to the precipice as Australia choose not only to write their own 'rules', spend a fortune doing that, make a pigs ear of it, and then, flatly refuse to join the world leading nations toward an efficient, 'safer' operational standard? By 'safer' I mean an across the board safety, for operators and for the victims of unforeseen events. For example; why spend over a million dollars (all up) prosecuting a pilot who had an engine failure; not his fault – poor maintenance proven to be the culprit – wouldn't happen in an ICAO based system, unless it was proven that 'he' failed the engine due to -(insert whatever). Would it not be better to ensure that the engine would not fail: and if it did, then address that element. Cause, effect and consequences. Or, the chicken and the egg, if you like it simple.
“What's the use you learning to do right when it's troublesome to do right and ain't no trouble to do wrong, and the wages is just the same?
That's about it, except; if you have operated into LA or San Fran you may have noticed the number of aerodromes in the area – lots of, and little in the way of 'drama'. Here, in the land of OZ we have a new international port; within a stones throw of this, there are three secondary airports; two have their own dedicated ATC and airspace. I can't be bothered posting the Pprune forums discussions; but for our USA readers; please read (and quietly weep) at the airspace fiasco developing. I live here and have problems understanding the 'drama'; my American friends just roll their eyes and offer their sympathies. “Ring a bell and wake 'em up” came from a long standing friend to the BRB; he read Pprune for seven minutes before sighing and ordering another round. I rest my case M'Lud.
“God damn you to hell, Sir, no, it's indecent, there are limits! In six days, do you hear me, six days, God made the world. Yes Sir, no less Sir, the WORLD! And you are not bloody well capable of making me a pair of trousers in three months!'
'But my dear Sir, my dear Sir, look at the world and look at my TROUSERS!”
Now, my Ale is warm, the dogs are queued up at the door, it is a lovely winters evening and I still have my boots on. No excuses then; how is it the dogs know exactly when I'm done with this blurb? Best crack on, while there's still time left for an Ale before 'dinner'. Away you go dogs;
Selah.-.
The word 'safety' is bandied about – a lot. Indeed there are so many versions and opinions on 'what' is 'safe' it would confound even AI (which ain't too bright anyway). 'Risk' is another much overused term. These terms whilst terrifying those unfamiliar with 'risky' situations, to a point where they develop their own theory of the 'dangers' without even a basic knowledge of the mitigaters in place. Or, of the hard won 'common sense' base for those known (built in) elements which reduce or even cancel the 'perceived' risk. There are some stark facts which govern all risk mitigation; a simple example is the moment you are born. From the moment of that first breath, there are some serious risks; all of which are well beyond your control. Yet, thousands of babies are born, all over the planet, every day, and go on to live perfectly normal, healthy lives. But all are at risk, from cradle to grave, every moment they live in this world.
“I never think of the future - it comes soon enough.”
When 'aviation' was first whelped, much like the first baby ever born; no one knew or understood the 'risks' to its survival. Trial and error, followed by more error and more trial, led to unintended consequence, to more error to more trial etc.. But, eventually over the decades, the wrinkles and the risks were reduced by significant numbers; providing the 'almost' bullet proof systems we see today. Not perfect of course, but every loss provides more data, that becomes added to the store of mitigation action. Lessons learned, action taken and we progress toward nirvana. In theory at least. Here endeth the fools ramble: almost.
"Whoever wishes to foresee the future must consult the past; for human events ever resemble those of preceding times. This arises from the fact that they are produced by men who ever have been, and ever shall be, animated by the same passions, and thus they necessarily have the same results."
Aye, so much for theory; the preceding ramble really only applies to folk who have no agenda or masters and can actually bring about the desired results. Aviation has taken some large steps toward, being as close to an 'ideal' safety system as possible – nearly. Close, but no cigar, not yet. 'Why not?' is a bloody good question for the public to ask. For that answer they must look to the politicians, the big money end of town and the 'departments' tasked with ensuring public safety whilst traveling. They say that 'money is the root of all evil' but there are a couple of 'other' underlying elements which add to the equation and unbalance it.
“One must divide one's time between politics and equations. But our equations are much more important to me, because politics is for the present, while our equations are for eternity.”
Mostly, it all boils down to agenda; albeit, finance plays a serious role in the drama; yet when it come to aviation and a gold standard, even the poorest of nations are offered assistance, expertise and even policy and rule-sets by those with 'more' as part of a universal effort to ensure as much risk as possible is minimised. The availability of informed, considered advice from the ICAO is phenomenal. There are specialised teams in all disciplines who can and will, on invitation, willingly assist in improvements toward a 'safer' operational environment; better rules and practices. Not 'perfect' but perfection is their goal.
“Persons attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot.”
Why then would a nation as close to the precipice as Australia choose not only to write their own 'rules', spend a fortune doing that, make a pigs ear of it, and then, flatly refuse to join the world leading nations toward an efficient, 'safer' operational standard? By 'safer' I mean an across the board safety, for operators and for the victims of unforeseen events. For example; why spend over a million dollars (all up) prosecuting a pilot who had an engine failure; not his fault – poor maintenance proven to be the culprit – wouldn't happen in an ICAO based system, unless it was proven that 'he' failed the engine due to -(insert whatever). Would it not be better to ensure that the engine would not fail: and if it did, then address that element. Cause, effect and consequences. Or, the chicken and the egg, if you like it simple.
“What's the use you learning to do right when it's troublesome to do right and ain't no trouble to do wrong, and the wages is just the same?
That's about it, except; if you have operated into LA or San Fran you may have noticed the number of aerodromes in the area – lots of, and little in the way of 'drama'. Here, in the land of OZ we have a new international port; within a stones throw of this, there are three secondary airports; two have their own dedicated ATC and airspace. I can't be bothered posting the Pprune forums discussions; but for our USA readers; please read (and quietly weep) at the airspace fiasco developing. I live here and have problems understanding the 'drama'; my American friends just roll their eyes and offer their sympathies. “Ring a bell and wake 'em up” came from a long standing friend to the BRB; he read Pprune for seven minutes before sighing and ordering another round. I rest my case M'Lud.
“God damn you to hell, Sir, no, it's indecent, there are limits! In six days, do you hear me, six days, God made the world. Yes Sir, no less Sir, the WORLD! And you are not bloody well capable of making me a pair of trousers in three months!'
'But my dear Sir, my dear Sir, look at the world and look at my TROUSERS!”
Now, my Ale is warm, the dogs are queued up at the door, it is a lovely winters evening and I still have my boots on. No excuses then; how is it the dogs know exactly when I'm done with this blurb? Best crack on, while there's still time left for an Ale before 'dinner'. Away you go dogs;
Selah.-.