|
Post by Telemachus on Mar 10, 2019 10:47:36 GMT
If you are working in a group, a “toolbox talk” can make some sense. If you are working alone, who are you going to talk to?the guy at the airport who gave you a copy of the risk assessment. when you visit his airport you become part of his team. proper risk management using the techniques I have described is intended to establish a line of command and responsibility, as well as minimising risk. He knows nothing about flying an ex military jet on a display sequence. “Line of responsibility” aka who we can punish when things don’t work out as expected. Punitive culture. Of course the oil industry is racked with it. Anyway, you are clearly an expert in the subject. Why not get in touch with Andy and Shoreham airport and explain to them how they should be doing it.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Mar 10, 2019 10:49:38 GMT
The pilot did not set out that day to do harm. It was an accidental consequence of his actions .................... usually defined as 'negligence', particularly in the case of a skilled professional whose decisions and actions fall below those that the public should expect of him that I would consider to be a ridiculous statement. Any situation where a judgement has to be made on a complex set of variables is occasionally going to come out with the wrong result. It is not possible to guarantee a 100% certainty when complex variables are involved ..... by anybody !!! however skilled....., it is a judgement and as such is fallible. to claim anything else is daft. It's certainly not negligence cross posted with faster typists
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Mar 10, 2019 10:53:38 GMT
As others might surmise, my career was to some extent blighted by oil industry “armchair pilots” telling us how we should do things (on the basis that they are paying) when clearly the arrogant morons hadn’t a clue what they were on about.
|
|
|
Post by bodger on Mar 10, 2019 11:29:31 GMT
the guy at the airport who gave you a copy of the risk assessment. when you visit his airport you become part of his team. proper risk management using the techniques I have described is intended to establish a line of command and responsibility, as well as minimising risk. He knows nothing about flying an ex military jet on a display sequence. “Line of responsibility” aka who we can punish when things don’t work out as expected. Punitive culture. Of course the oil industry is racked with it. So the responsible airport management put on an airshow where the flight plans are drawn up in the absence of any knowledge of flying a vintage fighter jet, and then do not discuss the plan with the skilled pilot, leaving him to decide if it is safe? Total abdication of responsibility. It is easy to denigrate the whole process and to suggest it is about armchair experts and passing-the-buck by management. Unfortunately that attitude is the consequence of nobody having a sincere belief in the benefits of proper documented safety management. Your comments confirm in my mind exactly why a proper risk assessment by all the parties involved is essential as part of good management process. I am sure you are very conversant with the oil industry where agency staff are regularly thrown into unfamiliar situations. Without proper (and documented) safety assessment undertaken by the whole team there would be many more accidents. I recall a joint exercise in a multi-company gas development in Burma where the site paramedic in a Land Rover and the standby helicopter were required to respond to an imagined incident just after dawn where there was low cloud and mist obscuring the mountainous route. In the event the helicopter did not fly because the pilot correctly identified that the risk to the aircraft was unacceptable, and the whole incident was concluded solely by the paramedic crew. The de-briefing established in everyone's mind the need for joint planning, and for a proper understanding by site management of the principles of operating a helicopter in remote terrain. Everyone was satisfied with the result and a side effect was the team-building that took place between the helicopter crew and the construction teams.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Mar 10, 2019 11:50:53 GMT
then the whole concept is wasted. It is essential that a pre-work briefing is undertaken ("toolbox talk") based on the generic assessment and all members of the work crew are invited to contribute. The airport management should learn how to do it properly. If you are working alone, who are you going to talk to? Pointing-And-Calling standard is a safety standard used in Japan by railway companies and industry as for example Toyota.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Mar 10, 2019 11:54:33 GMT
So a good reporting culture ..otherwise known as 'whistle-blowing' sees you getting the sack.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Mar 10, 2019 12:52:41 GMT
So a good reporting culture ..otherwise known as 'whistle-blowing' sees you getting the sack. You miss the point. The reporting I am talking about is self-reporting.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Mar 10, 2019 12:59:12 GMT
He knows nothing about flying an ex military jet on a display sequence. “Line of responsibility” aka who we can punish when things don’t work out as expected. Punitive culture. Of course the oil industry is racked with it. So the responsible airport management put on an airshow where the flight plans are drawn up in the absence of any knowledge of flying a vintage fighter jet, and then do not discuss the plan with the skilled pilot, leaving him to decide if it is safe? Total abdication of responsibility. It is easy to denigrate the whole process and to suggest it is about armchair experts and passing-the-buck by management. Unfortunately that attitude is the consequence of nobody having a sincere belief in the benefits of proper documented safety management. Your comments confirm in my mind exactly why a proper risk assessment by all the parties involved is essential as part of good management process. I am sure you are very conversant with the oil industry where agency staff are regularly thrown into unfamiliar situations. Without proper (and documented) safety assessment undertaken by the whole team there would be many more accidents. I recall a joint exercise in a multi-company gas development in Burma where the site paramedic in a Land Rover and the standby helicopter were required to respond to an imagined incident just after dawn where there was low cloud and mist obscuring the mountainous route. In the event the helicopter did not fly because the pilot correctly identified that the risk to the aircraft was unacceptable, and the whole incident was concluded solely by the paramedic crew. The de-briefing established in everyone's mind the need for joint planning, and for a proper understanding by site management of the principles of operating a helicopter in remote terrain. Everyone was satisfied with the result and a side effect was the team-building that took place between the helicopter crew and the construction teams. You clearly have no idea what the term “flight plan” means. It is easy to denigrate the whole process - because it is trying to substitute reams of paper, for good judgement and common sense. That only has any benefit If the starting point is bad judgement and no common sense. In the case of the oil industry, I can see that contract staff arriving to do a job on an unfamiliar and complex offshore installation would need extensive briefing to make sure they didn’t accidentally do something catastrophic. But it is arrogant to presume that a particular industry’s way of working is so fantastic that it must rammed down the throats of everyone else, regardless of applicability. In flying, there are far too many variables to be covered by reading reams of paper in the cockpit. Can you show us your SMS and risk assessments for the most dangerous thing you do, ie driving a car? in you Burma scenario, the pilot did what every competent pilot would do - used his judgement on the day. He doesn’t need reams of paper residing on a dusty shelf to carry out his work competently. Of course, good communications between different elements of a team are always going to be beneficial, but it doesn’t have to be formalised into risk assessments.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Mar 10, 2019 13:12:46 GMT
..otherwise known as 'whistle-blowing' sees you getting the sack. You miss the point. The reporting I am talking about is self-reporting. So you have to give yourself the sack. What's the difference?
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Mar 10, 2019 13:17:48 GMT
You miss the point. The reporting I am talking about is self-reporting. So you have to give yourself the sack. What's the difference? Did you read what I wrote earlier?
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Mar 10, 2019 13:55:23 GMT
Well, I skimmed it, but got the general gist. You are right, and Badger is right too. We all know we can't live in that perfect world of risk analysis and timetables at the same time. Something has to give way. I think the tyres on my bus should be checked once a week - I think they get checked two times a year when the winter ones come off and the summer ones go on. I do bang them with a hammer every morning to listen to the sound to determine if any have a puncture.
|
|
|
Post by bodger on Mar 10, 2019 14:30:05 GMT
Of course, good communications between different elements of a team are always going to be beneficial, but it doesn’t have to be formalised into risk assessments. I agree, but in real world scenarios unless there is a compulsory requirement for a formal risk assessment shit will happen. I recall a situation in Turkey where a supervisor decided to hire a couple of guys with a wheeled concrete mixer and agricultural tractor to mix and place some concrete deep in a mountain range. He took a short cut and hired the crew in the local town square, to be paid cash in hand, loaded the kit in the back of a couple of tipper trucks and hauled them up the steep road leading to the mountain pass. No written contract, no safety induction, no HSE training. The next day there was a tractor rolled over at the side of a remote mountain track on a down-slope, smashed to pieces by the heavy un-braked concrete mixer it had been towing, two men who were sitting on the mudguards were dead and the driver critically ill in hospital. The supervisor admitted that he was fully aware of the shortcomings of his actions when he hired the crew. He realised and admitted, albeit after the event, that if he had followed procedure the job would have taken one day more, and everybody would still have been alive. The risk assessment would have identified that men should not travel as passengers on the back of a tractor, and a light tractor should not tow a heavy un-braked trailer except for manouevring around the site. Mitigation - he could easily have transported the mixer and the men to the site on the tipper trucks, an additional journey of about 10km. Was he to blame - yes 100%. The crew had no knowledge of the location and were left to their own devices miles away from any support or means of communication. Without a requirement for a formal process such an event would happen regularly.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Mar 10, 2019 14:44:30 GMT
that is a lovely story but completely irrelevant
those were known problems with fixed risks. you are trying to equate that system to one where the risks are not fixed but variables, where the actual safe route is not a fixed line but one that changes and moves with the particular conditions that only exist at that one precise moment.
As ships pilots advising the route through a contorted passage where the conditions of wind and current are continuously changing, have vast experience and are extremely capable ..... but ships end up going aground ..... because it is not possible to predict everything, a judgement call has to be made ..... and sometimes it goes wrong
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Mar 10, 2019 14:48:58 GMT
And any risk assessment should of been carried out by the organisers and breifed to the pilots at the safety meeting.
|
|
|
Post by bodger on Mar 10, 2019 14:59:02 GMT
And any risk assessment should of been carried out by the organisers and breifes to the th pilots at the safety meeting. EXACTLY !!
|
|