Safety Managers-asset or not

An aviation safety manager can be given many different titles. There are Directors of Flight Safety, Vice Presidents of Safety, Director of Occupational and Operational Safety, Manager of Station and Facility Safety, Manager of Safety Training and Awards, Manager of Cabin Safety and Health, and the list goes on. All of these different areas have certain duties and responsibilities that are common between them. This blog will focus on why they are an asset and how they can be valuable to the airline industry.

To start from the top, the Vice President of Safety has the authority to establish and modify policies, procedures, and programs within the Safety Division. Some of the responsibilities of this position include: monitoring the daily operation to identify hazards, provide guidance to all departments to ensure safety is integrated into all aspects of the operation, and maintain an effective safety analysis program.

The Director of Occupational Safety is right under and reports to the VP of Safety. He is primarily responsible for safety at all locations. He conducts audits, investigation, and monitoring of records, in addition to ensuring all personnel, equipment, and facilities are in compliance with airline policies and procedures and with applicable local, state, and federal regulations. Basically, this is the right hand guy, or "workhorse", of the VP of Safety.

The Manager of Station and Facility Safety is the subject matter expert on facility safety, and serves to reduce industrial injuries and accidents in the workplace. He reports directly to the Director of Occupational Safety, and uses many of the same tools(audits, accident investigations, job hazard analysis) as that Director does to ensure everything and everyone is in compliance with regulations. This position would be responsible for an individual facility, which makes it different and fall underneath the Director of Occupational Safety who is in charge of all facilities.

The previous 3 positions have an overall responsibility to the facilities they are over in regards to safety. Here is a model of the safety input process, and how a company can benefit from it.

Within the facility, certain safety management positions are created. One such position is the Manager of Safety Training and Awards, which is responsible for resolving deficiencies in employee training as they relate to safety. In addition to the standard of ensuring safety training is in compliance with local, state, and federal regulations, this position is also responsible for recognizing individuals and the groups they represent for their contribution to the airline safety program and will assemble and publish the quarterly airline safety magazine.

The Manager of Cabin Safety and Health oversees cabin safety and health issues within a safety organization. He works to reduce injuries to the cabin crew, flight-deck crew, and ground crew while working in the aircraft's cabin. He makes recommendations for change, and ensures personnel, equipment, and aircraft are in compliance with applicable regulations and airline policies and procedures.

This list of positions could go on for much longer. It is more prudent to say that safety manager positions in airline safety are put in place to ensure an overall safe operation. Whether it is the VP overseeing the entire safety of the airlines operations, or the manager recognizing and awarding safe performance on the line, it is important to have these positions to support a safe workplace.

References

"Safety Management Systems - Information Session - Presentations - Day 1 - Safety Management Systems (SMS) - Information Session - Safety Management Systems (SMS) - Information Session - Safety Management Systems (SMS) - Technical Program Evaluation and Co-ordination - Standards - Aviation Safety - Air Transportation - Transport Canada." Welcome Page | Page D'accueil. Web. 14 May 2010.

Wells, Alexander T., and Clarence C. Rodrigues. Commercial Aviation Safety. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003. Print

OSHA and EPA regulations

To define their direct impacts, OSHA and the EPA can initiate regulations and take recommendations from other government agencies. Proposals are listed in the Federal Register to allow comments from the public. Agencies then review the comments, make changes where appropriate, and issue a final rule. These regulations often effect ground operations and their economical accomplishment.

With EPA Entering the Picture, Deicing Gets More Complex

This is the headline from an aviation safety article in Aviation Today. This is a great example of how ground safety operations can have an economic impact. The chemicals which are used in deicing, such as ethelyne glycol or propylene glycol, are mandated by the FAA. It was realized that those chemicals, when combined with storm water runoff, create water-quality issues in the receiving waters. So in these cases, the airlines are the ones doing the deicing, and the airport authorities are going to have to deal with the runoff. As such, the cost has to be absorbed by someone. Airport authorities have to make sure that the runoff is either contained or treated before it mixes with storm water. They would probably impose restrictions on airlines or companies providing deicing to accomplish this. Some airlines have already taken initiative to make technological and process innovations to reduce the amount of runoff from planes or runways that needs to be treated or collected.

Another area of economic impact to general aviation is the use of lead in avgas. It was noted that 34,000 tons of lead were emitted between 1970 and 2007 from 14.6 gallons of leaded avgas consumption. As AOPA states, 100LL avgas is necessary for safe flight in general aviation aircraft. Any alternative fuels may compromise safety, have an economic impact(higher manufacturing costs), and be subject to the FAA approval process. Current initiatives are being proposed with the public having 60 days to make comments on the proposals as noted in the process description above.

OSHA has the responsibility to make sure that work environments are safe and workers are provided with the necessary equipment and area to achieve safety. One area of OSHA is the Voluntary Protection Program(VPP). This is a status that is granted to a company has engendered a culture of health and safety within an organization, a self-policing philosophy that allows OSHA to cut back on its direct oversight. Specifically, this is when management accepts the OSHA responsibility to implement an effect workplace health and safety program that meets an established set of criteria. The economic impact is that as a result of a safer workplace, fewer workers have to miss work from work related injuries. Delta Airlines has implemented the system, and, in 2002, TechOps beat its OSHA recordable injury reduction goal by 23%, and its lost workday cases reduction goal by 33%. They had 175 fewer injuries in 2002 than in the previous year. So, the overall economic impact to their company, $1.2 million in savings per year.




"Aviation Today :: With EPA Entering the Picture, Deicing Gets More Complex." Breaking News and Analysis on Aviation Today. 17 Apr. 2006. Web. 15 May 2010.

Aviation and Airport Development Law : Aviation Lawyer & Attorney : Chevalier Allen & Lichman Law Firm : Airport Development, Environmental Law. Web. 15 May 2010.

Safety in Ground Operations

There are many programs designed to ensure the safety of the many diverse ground operations. The areas covered here will be: hangars, ramp operations, specialized services, and runways.
Pictured to the right is a United Airlines regional jet that was being taxied around the airport for maintenance and the mechanics lost situational awareness and ran over a maintenance truck. Had they been using a wing walker, or had a ground spotter, or follow me truck, this could have been avoided.

Many things can contribute to an accident/incident. The most significant human factors issues for ground damages are:

-Time pressures/task saturation

-Skill based errors-over/under skilled

-Customer satisfaction

-Direct rule based violations

-Environmental i.e:illuminations, visual obstructions, noise levels

-Communications breakdowns

-Loss of situational awareness

Hangars are covered by many state, federal, and local building codes which served to protect people in and around them and make them safe. Such things as fire extinguishers, hoses, sprinkler control valves, and fire alarms are required. Many hangars contain hazardous or flammable substances. These must be handled with care and properly stored and disposed of. The CFR has guidelines which define this in depth, and give very specific directions on what is allowed. Other areas that may not be in the common hangar include: material handling equipment such as cranes, fork trucks, and hoist units. These may be seen more in a maintenance hangar, and not a storage hangar. Still, the guidelines are necessary to ensure the operation is safe.

Ramp operations are one of the most accident prone areas in ground operations. When talking about ramp operations, this includes: taxiing, towing, chocking, parking, tie-down, aircraft refueling, baggage and cargo handling, and routine checks and maintenance. This area is of importance to airlines, as an estimated $5 billion a year in damage costs is due to ramp damage, typically collisions between ground service vehicles and parked aircraft or jet ways. According to the International Air Transport Association, about 92% of incidents can be traced to lack of adequate training and airfield congestion. To minimize the risk, such initiates being enacted are: making a significant investment in airfield lighting thus increasing the safety of ramp operations at night, mandatory reflective outwear(vest) program increasing visibility of ramp workers, Ramp Safety Hotline giving ramp workers a place to call in their issues and concerns, Ramp Safety DVD(pictured right) with formal training, and publications including monthly safety newsletters, safety alerts notices, and safety posters promoting safe practices. All of these efforts serve to further make ramp operations more safe.

Specialized services include aviation fuel handling, aircraft rescue and fire fighting, and deicing. Fuel handling procedures are covered in the CFR, with detailed guidelines to protect the environment and the workers handling the fuel. Major concerns with fuel handling are:
-Health hazards to fuelers
-Fuel contamination
-Explosions and fires during fueling or fuel transfer
-Explosions and fires during fuel tank repair
-Hazards from spills
Procedures, such as the following, have been developed to minimize the risk in fuel handling and transfer: Connect the grounding cable, avoid pumping contaminated fuels, and reduce flow rates to allow static charge to dissipate. Sparks are another chief concern when handling fuel. Batteries should never be serviced during fueling operations. Ground power units should be as far away as possible from fueling points. Finally, no smoking rules are strictly enforced. No welding, cutting, or hot work should be conducted within 35 feet of fueling, and fuel pits should be located at least 50 feet away from a terminal building.

Finally, runway incursions are predicted to be the cause of nearly 800 jet aviation related deaths over the next decade. This makes it a top concern when considering airfield and passenger safety. One area where air traffic control has made significant improvement is with the new ASDE(Airport Surface Detection Equipment) system. This enables aircraft to be tracked via ground radar, as long as they are taxiing with their transponder on. In addition to ASDE, there is AMASS(Airport Movement Area Safety System) which enhances ASDE by providing controllers with aural and visual alerts to potential collisions on the runway. Some of the other control strategies implemented under the National Blueprint for Runway Safety are training, technology, communications, procedures, signs, data, and local solutions. Precision runway monitoring helps provide faster radar data than existing surveillance radars. Using this system, controllers are able to monitor the progress of each aircraft in real time and issue directions as required to maintain safe aircraft separation. These systems and others help minimize runway incursions.

NBAA - National Business Aviation Association. Web. 5 May 2010. .

http://www.nbaa.org/ops/safety/hangar/aircraft-ground-damage-prevention.ppt

Wells, Alexander T., and Clarence C. Rodrigues. Commercial Aviation Safety. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003. Print

"Airport Ramp Safety." A.P.S. Safety - Training & Consulting. Web. 03 May 2010.

Human errors in aircraft accidents

Human error, as it is defined, is much like mechanical failure. It is when a task, or task element, is not performed in accordance with its specifications. Incident surveys in aviation have attributed 70% of incidents to crew error, citing pilot error as the root cause of an aviation accident. First, we will discuss some of the different factors of human errors as they relate to aircraft accidents. Next, engineering and administrative control strategies are the two general methods used to address and reduce human error. Under these two areas are many systems, and we will evaluate how effective they are.




Human error is apparent in all areas of aviation. These can be classified into such groups as: 1.)the task not performed when required, 2.) the task performed when not required, 3.) the task performed incorrectly, 4.) the task(s) performed out of sequence, 5.) or the task performed late. In addition to these classifications, within each category a label of severity can be added, which would depend on the degree of "bad" it falls within. For example, structural damage caused by skipping a scheduled maintenance overhaul would be classified as an incident. If this resulted in passengers/pilot being injured by the plane falling out of the sky, it would be an accident. If death resulted, it would be catastrophic.

The most prevalent method of creating engineering control strategies is through increased automation. Human error, as caused by human factors, are cited as the most common contributing factor or cause of incidents and accidents. Advances in automation seek to remove the human element and replace it with more consistency, to be performed by machines. First, cockpit standardization seeks to modernize displays and make certain instruments, digitized displays, weather radar, and radios more common or standard to one format, regardless of the type of aircraft, which may look like this ---->
Other areas include cockpit automation, which includes more advanced autopilot systems, electronic flight instruments, and even fully automated landing systems. Advanced warning and alerting systems have provided another tool to assist the pilot in maintaining awareness of the aircraft and its surroundings. This may include, fuel monitoring systems, ground proximity warning systems, and aircraft proximity warnings. Also, the FMS(Flight Management System) allows for more expedient access to navigation databases, checklists, weather reports, and flight plans. One potential advancement is ADS-B, which deals with the advancement of automated communication and GPS tracking of aircraft. This systems would enable the controlling of aircraft by means of messages being sent directly to the aircraft and acknowledged without any voice communication. It would also enable aircraft to have more real time updates on weather and data on other aircraft, and to be tracked via GNSS(Global Navigation Satellite System). More information can be found at http://www.ads-b.com. Although human interaction will still be required to initiate, monitor, and control these systems in the event of equipment failure, their implementation helps create many lines of defense between safety and human error.

Although turning many flight functions over to a computer may seem like the best approach, there is another angle that attempts to control the human factor. This final area which mitigates human error is through administrative control policies. A few of these policies, which are developed and enforced by company managers, are training, employee selection, procedures, and checklists. These are normally designed and updated through human error, but they attempt to make sure the same mistakes are not repeated. This is where a common phrase of "checklists are written in blood" comes from, as it is often not until an incident or accident occurs that recognition is given to a potential unsafe piece of equipment or procedure needing to be updated. Next, communication is very important, and must be supported at all levels. Company leaders must ensure that crew members are updated on procedures and company goals, and that they will be enforced. Communication between crew members ensures that less items go missed, and each others actions are backed up. These policies all serve to reinforce the importance of doing the right thing. Even though a slight compromise of safety may be overlooked administratively, it could still result in an accident if not properly addressed.

References

Wells, Alexander T., and Clarence C. Rodrigues. Commercial Aviation Safety. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003. Print

"YouTube - Managing Human Error." YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. Web. 22 Apr. 2010.

Woods, David D. Behind Human Error: Cognitive Systems, Computers, and Hindsight. Dayton], Ohio: Crew Systems Ergonomics Information Analysis Center, 1994. Print.

About ADS-B." ADS-B.com. Web. 26 Apr. 2010. .

How safety is measured

There are four major organizations that collect and analyze aviation safety and safety-related data: the FAA, the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), the NTSB, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Here we will discuss a few of the systems from each organization used to track and collect this aviation safety data.

The FAA uses a program to record and track U.S. Civil aircraft incident data, called the FAA Accident Incident Data System. Here is a link to the FAA website where this can be accessed
http://www.faa.gov/data_research/accident_incident/. The system used by the NTSB is known as the Aviation Accident Data System. Here is the link to their website
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/aviation.htm (this is the same website we have used throughout our class to locate accidents/incidents). In comparison, these 2 systems both track aviation safety data. The differences are that the NTSB system contains all U.S. civil aircraft accidents and selected incidents, while the FAA system has fewer accident records but substantially more incident data than the NTSB system. The FAA uses their system to assess whether or not corrective action is required in the aviation system, while the NTSB uses their system to determine probable causes and make recommendations to the FAA.

Here is an example of how data collected from an aircraft accident investigation is used. This is the recreation of Eastern Airlines Flight 401(yes, back from the day when some of our folks were just learning what an airplane was) that crashed due to several factors, but primarily lack of situational awareness:


There are numerous other systems used to track aviation safety data. The Enforcement Information System tracks the complete history of each enforcement case, allows it to be input from the field, and keeps copies of all documentation. The Service Difficulty Reporting System is used to identify aircraft failures or malfunctions. These reports are required by regulation, and are kept on record for 10 years. They help to identify short-term safety problems and track trends in reports for repetitive malfunctions to specific aircraft and component types. The Air Operator Data System, unlike most other systems, has no regulatory requirement for reporting to the FAA. The information that is reported refers to air carriers and other commercial operators and the structure of their organizations. This data helps to analyze air carrier operating practices, by individual company or industry-wide, and help give a view of areas such as scheduling pressure on aircraft, engine reliability data, and maintenance and operating procedures.
One final area of reporting safety data is the Aviation Safety Reporting System, which is run by NASA. The system was designed to gather the maximum amount of information without discouraging the reporter from filing. As such, reports filed in this system are voluntary and confidential, and can not result in punitive actions being taken on an employee. Reports are submitted from pilots, controller, and others, and they discuss accounts of safety related aviation incidents. The analysts of this data collected, primarily experts in aircraft operations and air traffic control, provide insight into the nature of the human error or other underlying factors in the incidents.

References

Wells, Alexander T., and Clarence C. Rodrigues. Commercial Aviation Safety. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003. Print

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. Web. 19 Apr. 2010.

National Transportation Safety Board. Web. 20 Apr. 2010.

FAA: Home. Web. 20 Apr. 2010.

Evolution of Federal aviation safety laws

The safety of flight in air carrier operations, and in all areas of aviation, is attributable to the development of the FAA and Federal aviation safety laws and regulations. We could say that this all started with the Air Commerce Act of 1926. This Act put aviation regulation under the Secretary of Commerce. From 1926 to 1958, aviation regulation went through many identity changes, but eventually came to be known as the Federal Aviation Agency. This Agency was too spread out, so President Johnson formed the DOT and consolidated the FAA(Agency) into one central area, which we know today as the Federal Aviation Administration.


As the age of jet airline travel approached,
many Americans recognized the need for more
concerted effort to safeguard civil aviation.
A sever midair collision over the Grand Canyon
in 1956 underscored the necessity. in 1958,
the Federal Aviation Act created the FAA, an
independent agency combining scattered safety
responsibilities. On November 1, 1958, Elwood R
Quesada took the oath as FAA's first Administrator.(left)

Since the development of the FAA, numerous initiatives have been proposed and enacted to increase safety in air carrier operations. One example of how this is initiated is often a result of an aircraft accident. The following article from the Washington Post illustrates how certain deficiencies are identified, and safety laws and regulations are proposed to address problems and improve safety:
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/30/AR2009093003002.html
The specific issues identified here were lax pilot hiring practices, problems related to training and fatigue and superficial regulatory oversight by the Federal Aviation Administration.

Through the creation of new aviation regulations, air safety has improved. This can be identified by the 2007 press release on NTSB website, citing that in 2006, after air carriers logging more than 19 million flight hours, there were only 31 accidents, which was down more than 20% from 2005. In comparison to general aviation, air carriers average 1 accident every 630,000 hours flown, while GA accidents averaged 7.5 accidents every 100,000 hours. As air carriers are more stringently regulated than General Aviation, this would conclude that there is an advantage, from a safety perspective, to the evolution air carrier regulation.

References

Princeton University website(www.princeton.edu) Safe Skies for Tomorrow:Aviation Safety in a Competitive Environment Chapter 3/Regulatory and Institutional Framework – Website link: http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk2/1988/8834/883405.PDF

The Federal Aviation Administration website. www.faa.gov/about/history

The National Transportation Safety Board website. www.ntsb.gov. 2007 Press Release: "Annual Statistics Show Continued Improvement in Aviation Safety