State Safety Programme (Draft).
“Safety”: that dreadful word is trotted out, once again. Mitigating or reducing the risk levels to the travelling public would be a more accurate, honest description. Much has been written about and lip service paid to the myth of ‘safety’. Is flying safer now than when the Wright brothers started – of course it is. Can we make it 100% accident free? No, we cannot. But can we reduce the percentage chances further? We can indeed. How?
Well, a good place to start is with ‘incidents’ which could, potentially, develop into accidents. Take the recent Jetstar ‘incidents’ as example, where incorrect weights were provided, it’s a simple example of how things can and do, on occasion, go wrong. No one died, but through error, the percentage risk factor increased. That risk could have been mitigated had the crew been aware; the risk factor would have increased had any one of a number of things ‘gone wrong’. The radical – root cause – of the increased risk factor must be eliminated if the ‘risk equation’ is to be returned to the ‘norm’.
I only bang on about this because it is the underpinning tenet of personal perceived ‘safety’ against a logical reduction in ‘increased’ risk factor. The mystique of ‘air safety’ versus the cold clear logic of minimising those risk factors over which we have direct control. So we need – IMO – in the interests of ‘safety’ to call it what it is and begin there; if we are to expend funds and have a return on that investment.
As I read through the SSP, two active thoughts must be beaten down; (i) Bollocks, the same old mantra, regurgitated; (ii) we have been trying for change now for almost three decades and neither the underpinning cynicism or determination to dilute and defer real change has altered. So I must, reluctantly, for the sake of fairness, put these thoughts aside. I shall try, however, the first statement in the mandarins missive sets my teeth on edge. It stands word weasel perfect and philosophically flawed.
There is some talk of PAIN drafting a submission, this requires research and study. There are over 40 pages to consider; the question, “is the game worth the candle” needs answering. It is not a though we have never seen such rhetoric and lip service paid to the subject matter, or seen the intention wain and the platitudes increase. The Senate recommendations and the Forsyth review being the latest casualties. That is a historical , demonstrable fact. However; as requested, I shall study the Draft State Safety Programme 2016. – HERE. But, I expect the BRB indaba will make it all worthwhile – can’t wait for that.
Toot toot.
Exeunt stage left, mildly cursing all and sundry from P1 to P1066…
.... ...
Quote:1. Safety is the primary consideration of Australia’s aviation agencies and industry in the performance of their functions;
“Safety”: that dreadful word is trotted out, once again. Mitigating or reducing the risk levels to the travelling public would be a more accurate, honest description. Much has been written about and lip service paid to the myth of ‘safety’. Is flying safer now than when the Wright brothers started – of course it is. Can we make it 100% accident free? No, we cannot. But can we reduce the percentage chances further? We can indeed. How?
Well, a good place to start is with ‘incidents’ which could, potentially, develop into accidents. Take the recent Jetstar ‘incidents’ as example, where incorrect weights were provided, it’s a simple example of how things can and do, on occasion, go wrong. No one died, but through error, the percentage risk factor increased. That risk could have been mitigated had the crew been aware; the risk factor would have increased had any one of a number of things ‘gone wrong’. The radical – root cause – of the increased risk factor must be eliminated if the ‘risk equation’ is to be returned to the ‘norm’.
I only bang on about this because it is the underpinning tenet of personal perceived ‘safety’ against a logical reduction in ‘increased’ risk factor. The mystique of ‘air safety’ versus the cold clear logic of minimising those risk factors over which we have direct control. So we need – IMO – in the interests of ‘safety’ to call it what it is and begin there; if we are to expend funds and have a return on that investment.
As I read through the SSP, two active thoughts must be beaten down; (i) Bollocks, the same old mantra, regurgitated; (ii) we have been trying for change now for almost three decades and neither the underpinning cynicism or determination to dilute and defer real change has altered. So I must, reluctantly, for the sake of fairness, put these thoughts aside. I shall try, however, the first statement in the mandarins missive sets my teeth on edge. It stands word weasel perfect and philosophically flawed.
There is some talk of PAIN drafting a submission, this requires research and study. There are over 40 pages to consider; the question, “is the game worth the candle” needs answering. It is not a though we have never seen such rhetoric and lip service paid to the subject matter, or seen the intention wain and the platitudes increase. The Senate recommendations and the Forsyth review being the latest casualties. That is a historical , demonstrable fact. However; as requested, I shall study the Draft State Safety Programme 2016. – HERE. But, I expect the BRB indaba will make it all worthwhile – can’t wait for that.
Toot toot.
Exeunt stage left, mildly cursing all and sundry from P1 to P1066…
.... ...