Safety Management System

The backbone of a safety oriented industry is the safety management system (SMS). A quality safety management system provides a framework to which every member of a company can use to aid in the decision making process. There are four components of a SMS: Safety Policy, Safety Risk Management, Safety Assurance, and Safety Promotion.
Safety Policy must be demonstrated and adhered to at all levels of an organization, including the most senior managers. If managers advocate for a safety conscious environment in emails and staff meetings, but are seem cutting corners and violating policies themselves, then their workers will mirror their behavior and not their words. In this policy must be a reporting and resolution system for employees to follow when they witness unsafe behavior or are issued instructions that they feel would compromise safety.
Safety Risk Management is the process of determining the probability of a certain action resulting in an accident. This probability then is used to comprise an assessment of acceptable risk. A certain level of risk is inherent is many jobs; however, that in no way can be used as an excuse to take needlessly unsafe action. Risk management is essential to determining ways to mitigate inevitable risks. Identify the hazards (brainstorm), assess the risk (how bad), analyze the risk (how often), then control the risk (eliminate or reduce).
Safety Assurance is the process of evaluating the safety structure that is already in place and identifying the new hazards that were not accounted for in it. Is the SMS structure in place producing the safety goals of the organization? Adjust and modernize as needed based on the data that is uncovered.
Safety Promotion is critical if the SMS is to be adhered to. Managers must follow the system themselves and employees must be given the necessary reoccurring training on the SMS. Communication is vital to ensuring the current safety management system is being followed and uncovering ways to improve it.

Wells, Alexander, & Rodrigues, Clarence. (2003). Commercial aviation safety. McGraw-Hill Professional.

Safe Ground Operations

Ironically, one of the most sought after safety goals relating to flight involve aircraft that are not even in the air. To accommodate more departures and arrivals as the aviation industry grew, airports have increased in size and complexity. While airports have evolved to have multiple intersecting runways and complex taxiways, the resources available to pilots to find their way to the correct runway via the correct taxi route have evolved little. Although taxiway diagrams and airport signage have proven reliable, they are extremely unforgiving of human error. Unfortunately, as the number of departures and arrivals increase so do the chances of a human error occurring while on the ground. These errors often result in runway incursions.
A runway incursion as defined by the FAA and ICAO is “Any occurrence at an aerodrome involving the incorrect presence of an aircraft, vehicle, or person on the protected area of a surface designated for the landing and take-off of aircraft.” Runway incursions have claimed the lives of hundreds of aircrew and passengers and for this reason several new procedures are now in effect.
Previously, when instructed to “taxi to runway 20 via bravo,” the taxiing aircraft could cross any runway intersected by bravo until he reached the hold-short line of 20. However, the new regulation states that the taxiing aircraft must automatically hold-short of all runways unless specifically told they were allowed to cross, “taxi to runway 20 via bravo, cross runway 16-34.”
Other procedures in affect include the requirement to read back all hold-short instructions to ATC to confirm that the hold-short message was received. Also, progressive taxi instructions are available for pilots who are unfamiliar with the airport layout.
Through utilizing all available resources and giving the same attention to ground operations that is given to other phases of flight, runway incursions can be significantly reduced.

Wells, Alexander, & Rodrigues, Clarence. (2003). Commercial aviation safety. McGraw-Hill Professional.

Human Factors

It is said that 3 out of 4 aircraft accidents are the result of human error. Clearly, man is the weak link in the interface between man and machine. The study of this relationship and finding ways to make the two work more harmoniously is known as human factors science. At the heart of this science is the SHEL (software, hardware, environment, liveware) model.
Software-Liveware is interaction between the human and intangible components of operating the machine. For example, the font and size of checklist items, different GPS systems have different procedures to follow, and the layout of glass-cockpit instruments, are all factors that could potentially lead to an accident if the pilot was unfamiliar with those for a specific airplane.

Hardware-Liveware relates to how a person physically fits into the machine. In the early years of aviation, the machine was built and then man was forced to adapt to the machine. Now, after years of research and study into human factors, it was found that accidents could be greatly reduced if the machine was built to fit the man, and not vice versa. Through designing cockpits around the human element, switches could more easily be reached, flight controls more easily manipulated, and visibility through cockpit windows increased.

Environment-Liveware comes from the fact that humans operate best at 1 G and 1 atmosphere of pressure. As aircraft began increasing in speed and altitude the deficiencies of the human body became apparent. The study of this interaction aims to allow humans to more comfortably operate in cold, noisy, and extreme environments through the application of human sciences. Pressurized cabins, G-suits, oxygen equipment, and air conditioning are all targeted towards the E-L relationship.

Liveware-Liveware is the most complicated of all the relationships because it involves the interaction of two people. This can come in many aviation forms including the use of a two pilot crew operating an airliner, the pilot & controller interaction in a GA aircraft, or between a maintenance technician and an aircraft owner. How effectively people interact at all levels of aviation has a huge impact on the safety of flight.

Wells, Alexander, & Rodrigues, Clarence. (2003). Commercial aviation safety. McGraw-Hill Professional.

Safety Data Systems

Collecting accurate data pertaining to aviation safety is imperative in identifying accident and incident trends. There are various collection systems in place run by different agencies to collect different data. There’s the Accident/Incident Data System, Near Midair Collision System, and various runway incursion systems sponsored by both private and federal agencies. However, the most effective system in gathering accurate safety data is the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) run by NASA. The key difference between ASRS and other safety reporting systems is the quality of the data that is uncovered. The highly accurate data collected by ASRS is made possible by two factors: it allows pilots to confess to safety related issues while remaining anonymous and the system is run by NASA. Previous safety data collection systems were plagued with erroneous data relating to incidents because pilots would lie or withhold information that could be seen as incriminating or a statement about their piloting ability. With ASRS, the person providing the data remains completely anonymous and is free to report any violation of a regulation or procedure on their part without fear of punishment. The second critical aspect of ASRS is the fact that it is run by NASA, which has no regulatory authority. It was feared that an anonymous system run by the FAA (which has a great deal of regulatory authority) would still make pilots hesitant to report seemingly incriminating evidence. Giving NASA the responsibility to run ASRS further provides the confidence to reporting pilots that their reports will be used to further aviation safety, not take punitive action against them.

Wells, Alexander, & Rodrigues, Clarence. (2003). Commercial aviation safety. McGraw-Hill Professional.

Evolution of FAA Laws and Safety Effectiveness

Although America was home to the first successful flight of an airplane, it soon began to lag behind other countries in the years that followed. The onset of WWI made this deficiency apparent as the United States did not have any fighter-type aircraft and only a handful of pilots to lend to France and Britain. However, during the war hundreds of pilots were trained and following its completion, they returned to the U.S. and brought with them their aircraft. As barnstormers, stunt pilots, and instruction flights filled the unregulated skies, it become apparent that aviation had the potential to be incredibly dangerous. Taking note of this, individual states began passing laws pertaining to certification of airmen and aircraft registration. However, because of the ability of aircraft to cover multiple states in a relatively short amount of time, it became clear that federal law was needed to provide uniform regulation throughout the nation.
In 1926, Congress passed the Air Commerce Act marking the beginning of federal regulation of aviation. This Act gave the Department of Commerce regulatory authority over commercial aviation and the responsibility to promote the newborn industry. However, the Act did little to diminish the number of aircraft accidents and the need to promote the industry was cited as the cause. In 1934, the Air Commerce Act was amended to mandate that public reports be issued after investigating aircraft accidents. In essence, this placed safety ahead of protecting the image of aviation and laid the foundation for all aviation laws to follow. As the aviation industry continued to grow and adapt, so did the agencies that govern their safety. Eventually in 1966 the Federal Aviation Administration was formed and has been providing safety oriented regulations since. Although the airline industry was freed from excessive economic regulation by deregulation in 1978, safety regulations still remain alive and abundant in the industry today. To an extent, these regulations are the reason why air transportation is one of the safest forms of pubic transportation available to this day.

Wells, Alexander, & Rodrigues, Clarence. (2003). Commercial aviation safety. McGraw-Hill Professional.