Subtle, but crystal clear.
IATA urges stakeholders to reinforce aviation safety commitment
The International Air Transport Association (IATA) has requested aviation safety stakeholders to strengthen their commitment to a safety framework based on global standards, cooperation and dialogue, and effective use of data.
IATA claim over 400 ‘strategic’ partners and to represent 265 airlines (or) 83% of total airline traffic.
The call from IATA to reinforce safety commitment is significant, not only in relation to the national ‘safety program', but more directly to accident investigation. Thankfully, not many have been through an ‘accident’ process – from soup to nuts. In the end it always come down ‘insurance’ and liability. The court room battles are the stuff of legal legend and have made many fortunes for those who slug it out. There is one common factor amongst the 265 airlines represented by IATA – they all have it – insurance.
Big business – huge, massive beyond belief. With the indulgence of the ‘experts’ let’s take a layman’s look at what ‘insurance’ means. For ease of reference, think of a flow chart in the ops manual, say the one which relates to aerodrome lighting and alternate requirement. You go in at the top left; follow the lines through the decision boxes and pop out at the bottom with the answer. Insurance ‘risk’ matrix may be thought of in this way, the ‘risk’ is quantified and the premium required for insurance is determined by the ‘risk’ or the financial exposure to the insurer that risk presents.
Now, lets say there is a ‘pattern’ a trend if you will emerging, in, for example baggage doors on aircraft being left open at pushback. One incident will not upset the insurers risk assessment; shit happens right. However, once this has happened a few times, and several claims have been paid out, the small alarum bell in the risk assessors office rings. This fellah now wants to know what’s going on. When this ends in court the ‘official’ (read ATSB) report will be relied on. If that report says that the one person only was ignoring the company SOP, then the risk matrix is unruffled. If that report says that the company had a flawed procedure, which has been addressed and the risk of a repeat has been mitigated, then the risk matrix may ‘keep an eye’ to make sure of this, but the risk assessor is now wide awake. Then, one grim day an aircraft ploughs in due to a large door being left open; this rings the big bell. Preventable accident. The quality of the ‘official’ reports on previous incidents and the categorisation of the same are suddenly important. The insurer may, rightfully argue that the reporting had failed to identify an increased risk trend, passing it all off as a one company, one man aberration.
When the chips are down and there is big money on the table the probity, clarity and accuracy of ‘official’ reports becomes significant; this questions the ‘categorisation’ of incident. Had the first few incidents been categorised and analysed correctly, could the accident have been prevented? How is the risk assessor to evaluate the potential for a serious event against flawed, fluffy reports. Expand this to a world wide IATA level and you can see why there are little bells ringing in the big end of town.
Not that it matters, not in the long run; bulldoze the wreck, bury the dead, add few bucks to the cost of a ticket, a couple of legal companies make some more dough and the Earth continues to spin in its orbit. But you can see why IATA is calling for ‘reinforcement’ of safety commitment ; the big end of town need a reliable donkey to pin a tail on, government statements make this beast easy to identify. The fattest being the beast which will be sued for the recovery of claim monies.
Toot - apologies to the experts - toot.
IATA urges stakeholders to reinforce aviation safety commitment
The International Air Transport Association (IATA) has requested aviation safety stakeholders to strengthen their commitment to a safety framework based on global standards, cooperation and dialogue, and effective use of data.
IATA claim over 400 ‘strategic’ partners and to represent 265 airlines (or) 83% of total airline traffic.
The call from IATA to reinforce safety commitment is significant, not only in relation to the national ‘safety program', but more directly to accident investigation. Thankfully, not many have been through an ‘accident’ process – from soup to nuts. In the end it always come down ‘insurance’ and liability. The court room battles are the stuff of legal legend and have made many fortunes for those who slug it out. There is one common factor amongst the 265 airlines represented by IATA – they all have it – insurance.
Big business – huge, massive beyond belief. With the indulgence of the ‘experts’ let’s take a layman’s look at what ‘insurance’ means. For ease of reference, think of a flow chart in the ops manual, say the one which relates to aerodrome lighting and alternate requirement. You go in at the top left; follow the lines through the decision boxes and pop out at the bottom with the answer. Insurance ‘risk’ matrix may be thought of in this way, the ‘risk’ is quantified and the premium required for insurance is determined by the ‘risk’ or the financial exposure to the insurer that risk presents.
Now, lets say there is a ‘pattern’ a trend if you will emerging, in, for example baggage doors on aircraft being left open at pushback. One incident will not upset the insurers risk assessment; shit happens right. However, once this has happened a few times, and several claims have been paid out, the small alarum bell in the risk assessors office rings. This fellah now wants to know what’s going on. When this ends in court the ‘official’ (read ATSB) report will be relied on. If that report says that the one person only was ignoring the company SOP, then the risk matrix is unruffled. If that report says that the company had a flawed procedure, which has been addressed and the risk of a repeat has been mitigated, then the risk matrix may ‘keep an eye’ to make sure of this, but the risk assessor is now wide awake. Then, one grim day an aircraft ploughs in due to a large door being left open; this rings the big bell. Preventable accident. The quality of the ‘official’ reports on previous incidents and the categorisation of the same are suddenly important. The insurer may, rightfully argue that the reporting had failed to identify an increased risk trend, passing it all off as a one company, one man aberration.
When the chips are down and there is big money on the table the probity, clarity and accuracy of ‘official’ reports becomes significant; this questions the ‘categorisation’ of incident. Had the first few incidents been categorised and analysed correctly, could the accident have been prevented? How is the risk assessor to evaluate the potential for a serious event against flawed, fluffy reports. Expand this to a world wide IATA level and you can see why there are little bells ringing in the big end of town.
Not that it matters, not in the long run; bulldoze the wreck, bury the dead, add few bucks to the cost of a ticket, a couple of legal companies make some more dough and the Earth continues to spin in its orbit. But you can see why IATA is calling for ‘reinforcement’ of safety commitment ; the big end of town need a reliable donkey to pin a tail on, government statements make this beast easy to identify. The fattest being the beast which will be sued for the recovery of claim monies.
Toot - apologies to the experts - toot.