How Safe is Too Safe?

           As a response to the crash in 2009 of a Colgan flight near Buffalo, the US Congress passed a bill called the “Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010”. The Colgan crash was characterized by “rookie” mistakes made by grossly inexperienced pilots. The intent behind the congressional act is to outline updated requirements for both the FAA and airline pilots to ensure that similar accidents do not occur. The proposed requirements encompass a wide variety of changes including pilot service record keeping systems, FAA inspection type and frequency updates, professional development training for pilots, requirements for the development and implementation of safety managements systems (SMS), and increased flight and duty restrictions for commercial airline pilots (US Congress , 2010). As an aviation management student who is particularly interested in industry safety, I can see the implementation of required safety management systems potentially affecting my career and my learning institution’s future greatly.

            Safety management systems are an approach to the management of safety that is comprehensive and systemic in nature. SMS has developed from the understanding that safety management can only be as successful as upper management officials within an organization will allow it to be, through funding and the utilization of time and resources. Safety management requires money that the return on which is difficult to identify and is, accordingly, often not a top priority for board members and CEOs until there has been a safety breach. The proposed requirement of the adoption of safety management systems includes a measure that will hold upper level managers financially and criminally responsible for safety related negligence (Federal Aviation Administration, 2010). This measure will undoubtedly get the attention of industry managers, and will likely add some of the necessary motivation to actively oversee these programs. How implementing SMS industry wide could affect my and other future aviation manager’s careers is potentially great.

            SMS is made up of four key components including formal hazard identification methods, risk assessment guidelines, program assessment metrics, and the promotion of corporate safety culture (Federal Aviation Administration, 2010). Many current part 121 operators are using most of these methods in their current safety programs. However, these current programs are often run and evaluated separately. SMS requires that all programs are run and evaluated as a complex system. This systematic approach will require current aviation managers get specialized training. Fortunately, for me and other current students of aviation management some part 141 schools have already implemented SMS classes as part of the required curriculum. We have an advantage over current managers because we have not been managing safety systems a different way for many years, as they have. In addition, college-level training courses often allow more time to study and learn a given topic, compared to training workshops that industry professionals often have to accomplish on top of their current duties. Current students will likely graduate with an increased value to potential employers than those of the past. This value may come at a cost to educational institutions, though.

            The FAA has classically identified needs in the aviation industry, and created regulatory requirements accordingly. The regulation of aviation management has historically been minimal. There have regularly been manuals developed for outlining how a program should be developed and run by aviation managers, yet specified training has been kept to a minimum. As the prevalence of management requirements increases, such as adoption of SMS, there could likely be closer regulation relating to training required for aviation managers. This could result in educational institutions having to hire new staff members and make comprehensive changes to curriculum. Though these costs would likely pale in comparison to the expanded pilot training requirement costs, they will be new costs to an already cash strapped educational system.

            The proposed changes encompassed in the congressional act are sweeping, comprehensive, and will likely be very costly. Though the act states that it is a response to the Colgan crash in Buffalo, it is really in response to the findings of the subsequent NTSB investigation. This investigation resulted in the identification of many unsatisfactorily unsafe conditions throughout the aviation industry. Though no one proposed change was unanimously agreed upon by the experts involved in researching the benefits of their implementation, nearly all of them were agreed upon by the majority of the experts. When deciding if costly changes to the aviation system are worth their effort, one has to consider the cost of not making the changes. In this case, the cost could likely be the deaths of many people that we will suspect could have been avoided.     

References

Administration Federal Aviation. (2012, February 29). Pilot Certification and Qualification Requirements for Air Carrier Operations. Retrieved January 25, 2013, from gpo.gov: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-02-29/pdf/2012-4627.pdf

Federal Aviation Administration. (2010, October 29). Safety Management Systems: Proposed Requirements. Retrieved January 25, 2013, from faa.gov: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/afs/afs900/sms/media/newsletter/nprm_reg_text.pdf

US Congress . (2010, August 1). Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Expansion Act of 2010. Retrieved January 25, 2013, from gpo.gov: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ216/pdf/PLAW-111publ216.pdf

 

Astronomical Impacts Of an Expanding International Airline Market

               Emergence of airline growth internationally could be setting the stage for major changes to commercial aviation, as we know it. The introduction of new money and markets could inject new life into airline operations in America and Europe, or could prove to be costly and detrimental hurdles. At stake are potential market growth opportunities, commercial aviation safety, and key cultural and political relationships. If constructive business relationships are developed as new international players emerge, we can expect to see a steady improvement in all three categories.

                As Chinese, Indian, African, and Middle Eastern airlines are introduced and developed, more opportunity for growth is also developed for existing airlines. These new entities are the result of an expanding global marketplace that has created new users of the aviation industry. The Brooking’s Institution released the results of a study of passenger numbers in the United States from 1990 to 2011 that showed that international flights had a 117% passenger growth as opposed to a 53% increase in domestic passengers (Jones, 2012). These statistics show a growth in international travel in the infancy of the global economic changes. This growth will almost certainly increase faster in the coming years. Constructive airspace and airport use and development agreements could lead to access to twice as many commercial airline users, as well as economic partnerships from sources not considered in the past. Poor international relationships could lead to big competitive troubles, considering that Asia is the largest economy in the world. Healthy relations with international markets also allow for constructive communications related to standards and quality, which is vital to commercial aviation safety.

               There is no doubt that safe operation is paramount to the success of commercial aviation. In a recent interview with a writer from Aviation Week & Space Technology, Director and CEO of the International Air Transport Association, Tony Tyler, reported that the aviation industry was on track to achieve record safety performance for the third consecutive year in 2012. Mr. Tyler also mentioned that some regions were not performing to these standards (Warwick, 2012). This is something that many international travelers may not give much thought to. Once out of America, which airlines are safe? The FAA produces an annual list that can be found on its website that places countries into one of two categories, countries that meet International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) safety standards and those that do not. Unfortunately, it is not always easy to determine from which country an airline is based. The European Union publishes a list of airlines that do not meet ICAO standards as a tool for its citizens (Stoller, 2011). The EU’s list includes at least forty Middle Eastern airlines alone, and its 65 pages are noticeably more comprehensive than the one page FAA counterpart is. The development of constructive international business relationships in commercial aviation allows for clear lines of communication of safety expectations and responsibilities. If these boundaries and expectations are not established, the aviation industry safety trend could take a dramatic turn as more airlines develop internationally. More money and better safety are not the only benefits that can come from these constructive business relationships. These relationships can potentially bring world peace.

                From Innovation to industry development, aviation has always been pushing the boundaries of what humanity can achieve. It really does not surprise me that this industry may be one key element in really beginning to help international borders and cultural differences begin to fade away. The global market has made it easier for everyone to see that we are all striving for the same goals, and if we work together, we will be far more successful. I would prefer to avoid detailing the possible results of competition driving our cultures further apart.  

Sources

Jones, C. (2012, December 05). Airlines, airports cater to international travel. Retrieved January 22, 2013, from USA TODAY: http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/2012/12/02/airlines-growth-abroad/1738099/

Stoller, G. (2011, June 17). How safe is that foreign airline? Retrieved January 22, 2013, from USA TODAY: http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/story/2011/06/How-safe-is-that-foreign-airline/48517212/1

Warwick, G. (2012, December 31). IATA Chief's Overview Of Airline Sector. Retrieved January 22, 2013, from Aviation Week & Space Technology: http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_12_31_2012_p96-530265.xml

Introduction

Hello, and welcome to the blog of an aspiring aviation management professional. My name is Jay Dankoff and I am a senior at Eastern Michigan University in Ypsilanti Michigan. I am majoring in Aviation Management and minoring in General Business (I may also attain a second minor in Psychology). My intent is to focus my career efforts on advancing and improving safety in aviation at the operational level. How operational safety came to be my focus is an interesting story that is worth telling.

                 There are probably not many aspiring aviation professionals that say they want to become an aviation manager, much less an operations safety manager. Piloting or designing airplanes are far more attractive and obvious choices. Unlike many aviation professionals, I have not always had a fascination with aviation or flying. In fact, a little more than ten years ago, I had never even considered aviation as a possible career field. This is most likely due to the malady that has always affected my life, the need to have a sense of purpose. The first purpose that I chose champion was environmental stewardship. Growing up in southeast Michigan I spent nearly all of my free time hiking, fishing, camping, and exploring the woods. Both of my parents were hard working professionals so, the woods and lakes really raised me. Nature’s simple beauty and complex relationships had always fascinated me, and had spurred my interest in the sciences. Accordingly, I began to study environmental science when I first got to college. My studies, however, were quickly interrupted by the attacks of September 11, 2001. I was in my dorm room that morning, and watched the buildings fall on T.V. I was shocked, sad, scared, and angry. So I did what any overly confident twenty year old young man would do, I joined the military.

                Now, my family did not have any military members in it and I had almost no idea how the military worked. I did know a lot about the water, having spent many hours in boats and fishing, so the Navy seemed a smart fit. After taking the military job placement testing, the placement specialist told me that I would be a good aircraft mechanic. I was surprised to hear that the Navy had airplanes, but accepted the position because I could be deployed relatively quickly. Once I got started working on airplanes, I absolutely loved it. This job required scientific understanding, muscle, skill, and attention to details. I quickly became qualified in many areas and amassed many responsibilities. I loved the demanding environment of wartime aviation, and the reward of knowing I was accomplishing the important mission of defending the Constitution of The United States Of America. I was going to be in Navy aviation until they would not let me anymore. That was, until another interruption happened.

                One night, while doing one of the many dangerous jobs related to maintaining an aircraft, I was seriously hurt due to a machine failure. There had been a small explosion that had sent a large piece of metal into my face at very high speeds. I had suffered a shattered nose, damage to my right eye, a fractured skull, and trauma to my brain. My next two years were spent in inpatient and intensive outpatient neurology, ophthalmology, physical rehabilitation, speech pathology, psychology, and brain injury clinics. Meanwhile, the military had conducted an investigation into what had happened to me and found some things that were disappointing. The investigation report stated that there had been four other sailors that had been seriously injured by the same machine within the past few years, and that there were other incidents that had gone unreported. This meant that had the known incident reports been analyzed more quickly, and had these unreported incidents be reported, my injuries would likely have been mitigated. An article outlining these events was the cover story of Mech magazine in winter 2005-2006. Mech magazine is an aviation safety magazine published for Navy and Marine Corp mechanics by the Naval Safety Center. I was subsequently retired from the military due to my injuries, and gained a newfound interest in safety management systems.

                Though recovering from the effects of my injury is long and ongoing, I have come along further than expected. I regularly hear from people that they “really never would have guessed that I had experienced a head injury at all”. My story does have power, it has moved me, and has moved others as well. Last year, while at a safety seminar at the Great Lakes International Aviation ConferenceGreat Lakes International Aviation Conference Homepage, I thought to ask the keynote speaker Dr. Tony Kern how I might be able to have the greatest impact on operational safety in aviation, career wise. His reply was something like, “Send me your information, and we will talk about it”. I sent the information, and he hired me as an intern safety consultant at his firm Convergent Performance. With Convergent Performance, I have been going to flight operations and sharing my story with the maintainers, managers, and pilots. The story helps people realize just how dangerous all the things we do as aviators are, and helps them be open to some more progressive safety behaviors and thoughts.

                An old adage says, “A smart person learns from his mistakes, a wise person learns from other’s mistakes”. I hope to help many other people be wise.