Yes: But….
Well caught P2; the ’rub’ clearly defined; however we are only scratching at the high gloss paint covering. Making effective use of the SMS requires all parties – ATSB included to contribute. The ‘law’ supporting SMS is ‘robust’ and drags top level management into the spotlight and ensures that ultimate ‘responsibility’ cannot be delegated. At the end of the session, the ‘buck’ has a place to stop.
One of the little problems ATSB have is that their ‘recommendations’ have no legal bind on company management. A small shift in ‘thinking’ could remedy that. An ATSB recommendation to the company SMS system would need to be acknowledged and considered through the SMS. Say ATSB recommended that pilots wear Pink socks on Tuesday and Blue on Friday. This is fed into the grass roots level of the SMS; the system is then triggered. This is a legitimate call by the government safety agency and cannot be denied entry. So the ATSB recommendation is duly considered; dealt with and the system decides it’s a crock. This is fine, but should the next incident involve pink socks, not blue, then there is a paper trail leading right to the top mans door. If a middle level decision to deny the recommendation was made it matters not – at the end of the shift the responsibility lays with the top dog. That is how a SMS is structured.
If the aircrew don’t file a report into the system, then little can be done – unless someone else spots the deviance or the deficiency; but once that report is in ‘the system’ it must go through process, before being binned (by who and why) That ‘binning’ is now part of the system and may be called up as part of an investigation into why an event has occurred; part of a causal chain, if you will. All fully auditable, clear lines of responsibility and nowhere to hide.
A healthy company would embrace the SMS, make it real, make it live, make it useful; it is a very sound notion. Tiger have used theirs, responsibly; and, made the requisite changes. Of course the incident will happen again; there are always ‘little’ problems like the one mentioned, particularly with ‘paper-work’. The trick is to reduce the reoccurrence ratio in a demonstrable, systematic, quantifiable way.
“In 2015 we had 24 reported instances of paper-work bungles; in 2016 we had 8, in 2017 we had 3”.
Bravo, big cheer all around – the SMS at work and doing it’s job. What could be wrong with that?
Toot toot.
Well caught P2; the ’rub’ clearly defined; however we are only scratching at the high gloss paint covering. Making effective use of the SMS requires all parties – ATSB included to contribute. The ‘law’ supporting SMS is ‘robust’ and drags top level management into the spotlight and ensures that ultimate ‘responsibility’ cannot be delegated. At the end of the session, the ‘buck’ has a place to stop.
One of the little problems ATSB have is that their ‘recommendations’ have no legal bind on company management. A small shift in ‘thinking’ could remedy that. An ATSB recommendation to the company SMS system would need to be acknowledged and considered through the SMS. Say ATSB recommended that pilots wear Pink socks on Tuesday and Blue on Friday. This is fed into the grass roots level of the SMS; the system is then triggered. This is a legitimate call by the government safety agency and cannot be denied entry. So the ATSB recommendation is duly considered; dealt with and the system decides it’s a crock. This is fine, but should the next incident involve pink socks, not blue, then there is a paper trail leading right to the top mans door. If a middle level decision to deny the recommendation was made it matters not – at the end of the shift the responsibility lays with the top dog. That is how a SMS is structured.
If the aircrew don’t file a report into the system, then little can be done – unless someone else spots the deviance or the deficiency; but once that report is in ‘the system’ it must go through process, before being binned (by who and why) That ‘binning’ is now part of the system and may be called up as part of an investigation into why an event has occurred; part of a causal chain, if you will. All fully auditable, clear lines of responsibility and nowhere to hide.
A healthy company would embrace the SMS, make it real, make it live, make it useful; it is a very sound notion. Tiger have used theirs, responsibly; and, made the requisite changes. Of course the incident will happen again; there are always ‘little’ problems like the one mentioned, particularly with ‘paper-work’. The trick is to reduce the reoccurrence ratio in a demonstrable, systematic, quantifiable way.
“In 2015 we had 24 reported instances of paper-work bungles; in 2016 we had 8, in 2017 we had 3”.
Bravo, big cheer all around – the SMS at work and doing it’s job. What could be wrong with that?
Toot toot.