www.airengineers.org

Issue 2SUMMER 2016Released

To ServiceThe AEI Safety Newsletter

Welcome to issue two

EASA and AEI

Risk Culture

IN THIS ISSUE...

� Can aviationbecome safer?

� EASA and AEI: A partnership forAviation Safety

� 44th AEI AnnualCongress

� Snag in a blizzard

Safe air travel is not inevitable, it is theproduct of professional behaviour mergedwith lessons learned...

Aviation safety is difficult to achieve ifworking alone, but it is much easier whenworking together as a team. For thisreason, it is EASA’s strategic pursuit towork jointly and more closely with AEI...

This study is about an argument forintroducing ‘Risk Culture’ as a newcomponent of ‘Safety Culture’...

2 RTS Summer 2016

WELCOME

WELCOME to the second edition of Released to Service

EASA and AEI: A Partnership for Aviation SafetySafe air travel is not inevitable, it is the product ofprofessional behaviour merged with lessons learned. The moment this relationship is broken or even slightlyweakened, accidents are more probable. Air travel is setto increase dramatically in the coming decade and sowith commercial pressure becoming ever more influentialin terms of how we manage engineering andmaintenance, a huge team effort will be required toensure flying remains safe. Licensed Aircraft Engineershave the ability to positively influence safety andtherefore have a significant role to play. Yet to achievethe best results, support from both industry andregulators is required. These subjects remainedprominent during very positive discussions with theEuropean Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) with both AEIand EASA recognising that by working more closelytogether, safety will benefit most. Following my recentmeeting with the EASA Executive Director, Patrick Ky, hekindly agreed to write an article related to theimportance of the regulator supporting and increasingco-operation with licensed engineers. This is to bewelcomed and the opportunity it offers to enhance safetyshould be embraced. However, it isn’t a one way streetand engineers need to play their part too by beingconsistently professional and vigilant to safety lapses.Indeed, safety lapses should always be reported via theappropriate reporting system. ‘EASA and AEI, apartnership for safety’ can be found on page 3.

Risk CultureHigh risk levels are often accompanied by a poor safetyculture. Although there are now regulations in forceaimed at properly assessing and mitigating risk, theseremain focussed primarily on data from past events

according to Cengiz Turkoglu from the ‘Cranfield Safetyand Accident Investigation Centre’ (CSAIC). There is anargument however these models do not specifically aimto explore how risk is perceived and managed at different levels in organisations. Cengiz has chosen the topic of ‘Risk Culture in Commercial Air Transport’ for his PhD research. Cengiz who is Chairman of theInternational Federation of Airworthiness (IFA) Technical Committee (of which AEI is a member) is also a Licensed Aircraft Engineer. Cengiz would verymuch appreciate your support for his research into riskculture by completing his survey. AEI has endorsed this survey as it has the potential to really benefit notonly Licensed Engineers going about their work but also safety.

Please assist Cengiz by completing his survey. Articleand link to the survey can be found on page 18.

Robert Alway, AEI President

Finally, AEI have released a promotional video whichcan be viewed by CLICKING HERE. The video will beproduced in a number of languages and these will beavailable soon on the AEI website. Please assist inmaking sure we reach out to every engineerupholding safety wherever they work in the world.

Contact usWhat did you think of this article? Please emailinsight@cimaglobal.com with editorial comments,questions and suggestions. Please emailadvertising@cimaglobal.com for advertising questionsand rates.

Insight is the global emagazine for managementaccountants. It is sent to over 170,000 members,students and other professionals every month.

Aviation safety is difficult to achieve if working alone, butit is much easier when working together as a team. Forthis reason, it is EASA’s strategic pursuit to work jointlyand more closely with AEI.

EASA strongly believes in this partnership, as the role ofengineers in the aviation system cannot beoverestimated. They have an important role to play asthey ensure that aircraft airworthiness is maintained.However, this is not their most critical role. Their crucialfunction is that of the ‘eyes and ears’ in the system;sensing what is actually taking place in aviation. Aircraftengineers are one of the largest and most robust safetybarriers in the system, having first-hand information aboutpossible safety risks in the maintenance environment.

We see opportunities to develop a constructiverelationship with AEI and we are confident we will seemore active participation from the association. The AEIand the Agency are on the same side, making all possibleefforts to ensure that no misconduct activities areperformed during the qualification of applicants for Part-66 licences. A robust safety reporting system can make abig difference towards achieving safety. However, for areporting system to function, it is essential thatorganisations fully embrace a safety culture, not blamingbut promoting the reporting of occurrences.

During the review of our regulations the Agency relieson the active input from all stakeholders to advise howrules can be best improved; making them more pragmaticand concurrent with operational reality. This is what weare currently seeking with the work on Part-66 and Part-147. As an outcome EASA and AEI want to see a strongPart-66 licensing system, supported by appropriaterequirements for Part-147 maintenance trainingorganisations. Adequate requirements are also needed

for the assessment of the competence of certifying staffwithin maintenance organisations. The Agency recognisesthat work is still needed to better define the functions andresponsibilities of these staff, for example in relation tothe level of supervision and coordination expected beforea certificate of ‘release to service’ can be issued. For this reason we have already started working towardsbringing change1.

It is a fact that more regulations will not necessarilybring more safety. The more proportionate, well-thoughta rule is, the more effective it will be towards addressingthe risks. To make a rule effective, one needs knowledgeof the environment in which it will be applied and how itcan be best targeted to achieve its intention. In thisexample the input from AEI will be invaluable.

During the October AEI conference in Reykjavik Iceland,the Agency will be there to provide an update on thelatest activity and to listen to the input of AEI’s members.We see our participation in the conference as aspringboard to move our partnership further, joiningforces in the common effort of aviation safety.

In the last months the relationship between EASA andAEI has gone through considerable positive changes.After our meeting, Robert Alway and myself are confidentthis cooperation will be further reinforced, becoming asynergy for safety. We have established quarterlymeetings between EASA and AEI and we have welcomedthe active contribution of AEI in our working groups. Webelieve that by joining forces in sharing informationopenly in a constructive manner we will work as aneffective team, towards ensuring a high level of safety.

1 This is being discussed within the existing rulemaking task

RMT.0097 (145.024), where an NPA 2014-11 has already being issued.

EASA AND AEI: A partnershipfor Aviation Safety English

EASA Executive Director, Patrick Ky

3The AEI safety newsletter

4 RTS Summer 2016

La seguridad aérea es difícil de conseguir trabajando ensolitario, pero es mucho más sencillo cuando se trabajaconjuntamente, como un equipo. Por esta razón, LAEASA busca trabajar de forma más cercana y conjuntacon la AEI.

EASA cree firmemente en esta asociación, ya que no sepuede subestimar el papel de los Técnicos deMantenimiento de Aeronaves en el sistema aéreo. Ellosdesempeñan una importante función, ya que garantizanque se mantenga la aeronavegabilidad de la aeronave.Sin embargo, esta no es su función mas critica. Su funciónmás crucial es la de ser los ‘ojos y oídos’ del sistema;detectar lo que sucede realmente en la aviación. LosTécnicos de Mantenimiento de Aeronaves son una de lasbarreras de seguridad más grandes y sólidas dentro delsistema, al tener información de primera mano acerca de los posibles riesgos de seguridad en el entorno del mantenimiento.

Vemos oportunidades para desarrollar una relaciónconstructiva con la AEI y estamos seguros de queveremos una participación más activa de la asociación. LaAEI y la Agencia están del mismo lado, el de hacer todoslos esfuerzos posibles para garantizar que no se produzcaninguna mala praxis durante el proceso de cualificaciónde los solicitantes de licencias Parte 66. Un sistema deinformación sobre la seguridad robusto puede marcar lagran diferencia en el objetivo de lograrla. Sin embargo,para que funcione un sistema de notificaciones esesencial que las organizaciones inculquen plenamenteuna cultura de la seguridad, que no culpe, sinopromocione el que se produzcan las notificaciones.

Durante la revisión de nuestras normativas la Agenciaconfía en las aportaciones de todas las partes interesadasrespecto a cómo pueden mejorarse las normas;haciéndolas más pragmáticas y concurrentes con larealidad operacional. Esto es lo que buscamos en estosmomentos con el trabajo en la Parte 66 y la Parte 147.Como resultado, la EASA y la AEI quieren ver un sistemade licencias Parte 66 fuerte, sustentado por unosrequisitos adecuados para las organizaciones deformación de mantenimiento Parte 147. También sonnecesarios requisitos adecuados para la asegurar la

cualificación del personal certificador en lasOrganizaciones de Mantenimiento. La Agencia reconoceque todavía se debe de trabajar para definir mejor lasfunciones y las responsabilidades de este personal, porejemplo, en relación con el nivel de supervisión y decoordinación que se esperan antes de que puedaemitirse el certificado de ‘listo para el servicio’. Por estarazón, ya hemos empezado a trabajar con el fin de poneren marcha el cambio1.

Es un hecho que más normativas no produciránnecesariamente más seguridad. Cuanto másproporcionada y bien pensada sea una norma, más eficazserá con vistas a hacer frente a los riesgos. Para hacer queuna norma sea eficaz necesitamos  conocer el entorno enel cual  será aplicada  y cómo se puede  enfocar máseficazmente para lograr lo que se propone. En estesentido, las aportaciones de la AEI serán inestimables.

Durante la conferencia de la AEI en Reikiavik, Islandia,el próximo mes de Octubre, la Agencia estará disponiblepara proporcionar una puesta al día de la actividad másreciente y para escuchar las aportaciones de losmiembros de la AEI. Vemos nuestra participación en laconferencia como un trampolín para llevar nuestraasociación más lejos, al unir nuestras fuerzas en unesfuerzo común por la seguridad aérea.

En los últimos meses, la relación entre la EASA y la AEIha pasado por una serie considerables de cambiospositivos. Después de nuestra  reunión, Robert Alway y yomismo nos sentimos confiados de que esta cooperaciónse fortalecerá aún más, convirtiéndose en una sinergia enpro de la seguridad. Hemos establecido unas reunionestrimestrales entre EASA y AEI y hemos acogido consatisfacción la contribución activa de la AEI en nuestrosgrupos de trabajo. Creemos que, al unir nuestras fuerzas,compartiendo abiertamente la información de una formaconstructiva, trabajaremos como un equipo eficaz, convistas a garantizar un alto nivel de seguridad.

1 Esto se está tratando dentro de la tarea existente RMT.0097

(145.024), para crear la normativa, en la que ya se ha emitido una

NPA 2014-11.

EASA Y AEI: Una asociación para la seguridad aérea Spanish

5The AEI safety newsletter

EASA VE AEI: Uçuş Emniyetiiçin Bir Ortaklık Turkish

Havacılıkta emniyeti sağlayabilmek, tek başınaysanızbaşarması zor bir iştir, ama bir takım olarak hareketederseniz, çok daha kolay hale gelir. Bu nedenle, EASAstratejisini izlemek adına AEI ile daha yakın ilişkiler kuracakve birlikte daha sıkı çalışacaktır.

EASA, bu ortaklıkta şuna kesin olarak inanıyor kihavacılık sisteminde uçak bakım teknisyenlerinin görevidoğru değerlendirilmelidir. Teknisyenler uçakların uçuşaelverişli tutulması konusunda önemli bir roloynamaktadırlar. Ama onların asıl kritik görevi havacılıktaneler olup bittiğini gören ve duyan ‘gözler ve kulaklar’olmalarıdır. Uçak bakım teknisyenleri bakım ortamındagüvenlik riskleriyle ilgili bilgileri ilk elden alabileceğiniz ensağlam emniyet bariyerlerinden biridir.

Biz AEI ile kurulacak işbirliğinde muazzam fırsatlargörüyoruz ve kurumun faaliyetlerimizde daha aktif yeralmasını sağlayacağız. EASA ve AEI, part-66 lisanslarınınbaşvurusu ve edinilmesi konusunda ki uygunsuzluklarıengellemek için çaba sarf ederken aynı safta yertutmaktadır. Sağlam bir emniyet bildirim sistemi emniyetisağlamak için büyük farklar yaratabilir. Fakat bildirimsistemlerinin faaliyete geçmesi için şirketlerin olayraporlama faaliyetinin desteklemesi ve kişileri suçlamakyerine sistemi teşvik etmesi gerekmektedir.

Kurallarımızı gözden geçirirken kurumsalortaklarımızdan, bu kuralların geliştirileceği yön hakkındaher zaman aktif tavsiyeler alırız ki operasyonel gerçeklik iletam uyumlu olabilsinler. Şu anda Part-147 ve Part-66konularında da benzeri bir arayış içerisindeyiz. Yaptığımızgörüşmelerin sonucunda hem EASA hem AEI yeterlişekilde part-147 bakım eğitimi kuruluşları tarafındandesteklenen güçlü bir part-66 lisanslandırma sistemigörmeyi can-ı gönülden istemektedir. Ayrıca bakımkuruluşlarında yetkilendirilecek onaylayıcı personelindeğerlendirmeleri için gerekliliklerin belirlenmesigerekmektedir. EASA, bir ‘bakım çıkış sertifikası – CRS’yayımlanmadan önce gerekli olan süpervizyon vekoordinasyon seviyelerinin belirlenmesi gibi durumlarınnetleşmesi için bu personel grubunun görev vesorumluluklarının yeniden tanımlanması gerektiğini farketmektedir. Bu sebeple çoktan bazı değişiklikleri hayatageçirmek için çalışmaları başlattık1.

Bir gerçek var ki daha fazla regülasyon daha fazlagüvenlik getirmez. Daha uygun ve iyi düşünülerekhazırlanmış bir kural riskleri belirlemekte daha etkiliolacaktır. Doğru bir kural koymanın yolu o kuralın amacınaen iyi şekilde ulaşması için ilgili düzenlemenin geçerliolacağı ortamı bilmek ve faaliyete ilişkin bilgilere sahipolmaktan geçer. Bu örnekte AEI’ın katkıları paha biçilmez değerdedir.

Ekim ayında Reykjavik İzlanda’da yapılacak AEIkonferansında, EASA da yerini alacak, AEI üyelerinidinleyecek ve faaliyetlerinin güncel durumu hakkında bilgiverecek. Bizim fikrimizce konferansa katılımımızortaklığımızı bir sıçrama tahtasına çıkartarak, uçuş emniyetiiçin güçlerimizi birleştirmemize vesile olacaktır.

Son aylarda EASA ve AEI arasındaki ilişki oldukçaolumlu yönde gelişti. Rober Alway ile yaptığım toplantıdauçuş emniyeti için işbirliğini geliştirerek güçlendirmeküzere karşılıklı güvene dayalı bir ortaklık planladık. Üçayda bir yapacağımız AEI – EASA toplantıları sayesindeçalışma gruplarına yönelik fikirlerimizi görüşeceğiz.İnanıyoruz ki birlikte en üst seviyede güvenlikstandartlarına sahip bir havacılık için iyi bir takım olacağız.

1 Bu konu, mevcut RMT.0097 (145.024) numaralı çalışma grubunda

tartışılmaktadır. Ayrıca aynı grup NPA 2014-11 i yayımlamıştır.

6 RTS Summer 2016

Flugsicherheit ist alleine schwer zu erreichen, jedoch vieleinfacher zu bewerkstelligen, wenn man als Teamzusammenarbeitet. Deshalb strebt die EASA ausstrategischen Gründen nach einer engerenZusammenarbeit mit der AEI.

Die EASA glaubt fest an diese Partnerschaft, da dieFunktion von Prüfern von Luftfahrtgerät gar nicht hochgenug eingeschätzt werden kann. Eine wichtige Rollespielt dabei, dass sie die fortlaufende Lufttüchtigkeit einesLuftfahrzeuges sicherstellen. Dies ist jedoch nicht ihrewichtigste Aufgabe. Eine entscheidende Funktion bestehtdarin, ihre ‘Augen und Ohren’ im System zu haben, indemsie erfassen, was aktuell in der Luftfahrt vor sich geht.Prüfer von Luftfahrtgerät bilden eine der größten undstabilsten Sicherheitsschranken im System, da sie überInformationen aus erster Hand verfügen, welchemöglichen Sicherheitsrisiken im Wartungsbereichbestehen.

Wir sehen die Chance, eine konstruktive Beziehung mitder AEI zu entwickeln und sind zuversichtlich, dass wir vonder Organisation weitere Unterstützung erfahren werden.

Die AEI und die Agentur stehen auf derselben Seite undunternehmen alle nur möglichen Anstrengungen umsicherzustellen, dass während der Qualifikation vonBewerbern für Part-66 Lizenzen alles seine Richtigkeit hat.Ein stabiles Berichterstattungssystem kann einen großenUnterschied beim Erhalt der Sicherheit in der Luftfahrtbedeuten. Damit dieses System funktionieren kann, ist esvon grundlegender Bedeutung, dass die Organisationeneine Sicherheitskultur einführen, bei der die Meldung vonEreignissen nicht verurteilt, sondern unterstützt werden.

Bei der Überarbeitung unserer Vorschriften verlässt sichdie Agentur auf aktive Beiträge aller Interessensvertreter,wie die Vorschriften am besten verbessert werden können,indem man sie so gestaltet, dass sie praxisnaher sind undsich mehr an der operativen Realität orientieren. Diesmöchten wir zurzeit mit der Arbeit am Part-66 und Part-147erreichen. Als Ergebnis wünschen sich EASA und AEI einstarkes Part-66 Lizenzsystem, das durch geeigneteAnforderungen an die Part-147 Instandhaltungs TrainingsOrganisationen unterstützt wird. Ebenso bestehtRegelungsbedarf bei den Voraussetzungen zur Bewertung

von Kompetenzen, wenn es darum geht, Personalinnerhalb der Instandhaltungsorganisationen zuzertifizieren. Die Agentur ist sich bewusst, dass an einerbesseren Definition der Funktionen undVerantwortlichkeiten dieses Personals gearbeitet werdenmuss, zum Beispiel im Zusammenhang mit dem Grad derAufsicht und Koordination die erwartet wird, bevor einZertifikat zum Flugbetrieb ausgestellt werden kann. Ausdiesem Grund haben wir bereits damit angefangen daranzu arbeiten um hier Änderungen herbeizuführen1.

Es ist eine Tatsache, dass mehr Vorschriften nichtunbedingt größere Sicherheit bedeuten. Jeverhältnismäßiger und durchdachter eine Vorschrift ist,umso effektiver wird sie Risiken angehen. Damit eineVorschrift Sinn macht, benötigt es Kenntnisse über denBereich für die sie eingesetzt werden soll und wie sie ambesten angewandt werden kann. Bei diesem Beispiel wirdder Beitrag vom AEI von unschätzbarem Wert sein.

Die Agentur wird an der AEI-Jahreshauptversammlungim Oktober in Reykjavik, Island, teilnehmen, um über denjüngsten Stand der Aktivitäten zu berichten und dieMeinung der AEI-Mitglieder zu hören. Wir sehen unsereTeilnahme an der Versammlung als Sprungbrett um unserePartnerschaft zu vertiefen, indem wir unsere Kräfte zurErhöhung der Sicherheit in der Luftfahrt, bündeln.

In den letzten Monaten fanden in der Zusammenarbeitzwischen EASA und AEI bemerkenswert positiveVeränderungen statt. Nach unserem Treffen sind RobertAlway und ich zuversichtlich, dass diese Zusammenarbeitweiterhin wachsen und einen Synergie-Effekt auf dieSicherheit in der Luftfahrt haben wird. Wir habenvierteljährliche Treffen zwischen EASA und AEI vereinbartund begrüßen den aktiven Beitrag der AEI in unserenArbeitsgruppen. Wir glauben, dass wir durch eineZusammenarbeit, bei der wir offen und konstruktivInformationen austauschen, ein effektives Team zurWahrung eines hohen Sicherheitsstandards bilden werden.

1 Dies wurde bei der bestehenden Aufgabe zur Ausarbeitung von

Vorschriften RMT.0097 (145.024) diskutiert, wobei die NPA vom

November 2014 bereits herausgegeben wurde.

EASA UND AEI: eine Partnerschaftzur Sicherheit in der Luftfahrt German

7The AEI safety newsletter

AESA ET AEI: Un partenariatpour la sécurité aérienne French

La sécurité aérienne est difficile à réaliser si on travailleseul, mais beaucoup plus facile lorsqu’on travailleensemble en équipe. Pour cette raison, l’AESA a pour butstratégique de travailler conjointement et plusétroitement avec l’AEI (Aircraft Engineers International).

L’AESA croit fermement en ce partenariat car le rôle destechniciens-mécaniciens dans le système aéronautique nepeut pas être surestimé. Ils ont un rôle important à jouercar ils assurent le maintien de la navigabilité des aéronefs.Cependant, ceci n’est pas leur rôle essentiel. Leurfonction principale est d’être ‘les yeux et les oreilles’ dansle système - à savoir, détecter ce qui se passe réellementdans l’aviation. Les techniciens-mécaniciensaéronautiques représentent l’une des barrières desécurité les plus importantes et les plus robustes dans le système, disposant d’informations de première main sur les risques potentiels dans l’environnement de la maintenance.

Nous voyons des possibilités d’établir une relationconstructive avec l’AEI et nous sommes confiants qu’il yaura une participation plus active de l’organisation. L’AEIet l’Agence sont du même côté, déployant tous les effortspossibles pour s’assurer qu’aucune mauvaise conduite nepuisse avoir lieu au cours de la qualification des candidatsaux licences Partie-66. Un système robuste de rapports desécurité peut faire une grande différence dans laréalisation des objectifs de sécurité. Cependant, pourqu’un système de rapports fonctionne correctement, il estprimordial que les organisations adoptent pleinementune culture de sécurité, avec pour but d’encourager lesignalement des incidents plutôt que de le blâmer.

Au cours de la révision de nos règlementations,l’Agence s’appuie sur la rétroactivité de toutes les partiesprenantes pour recommander la meilleure manière dontles règles peuvent être améliorées, les rendant ainsi pluspragmatiques et plus concomitantes avec la réalitéopérationnelle. C’est ce que nous cherchons actuellementà accomplir avec les travaux sur les Partie-66 et Partie-147.Comme résultat, l’AESA et l’AEI souhaitent voir unpuissant système de licences Part-66, appuyé par desrequêtes appropriées pour les organismes de formationen maintenance Partie-147. Il est également nécessaire

d’avoir des exigences adaptées pour l’évaluation de lacompétence du personnel de certification au sein desorganismes de maintenance. L’Agence reconnaît qu’ilreste encore à faire pour mieux définir les fonctions et lesresponsabilités de ce personnel ; par exemple, en ce quiconcerne le niveau de supervision et de coordinationprévu avant qu’un ‘certificat de remise en service’ nepuisse être délivré. Pour cette raison, nous avons déjàcommencé à œuvrer pour le changement1.

Il est évident que plus de réglementationsn’apporteront pas nécessairement plus de sécurité. Plusune règle est proportionnée et bien réfléchie, plus ellesera efficace dans la gestion des risques. Pour qu’unerègle soit efficace, on a besoin de bien connaitrel’environnement dans lequel elle sera appliquée et lamanière dont elle peut être mieux ciblée pour réaliser sonobjectif. Dans cet exemple, les commentaires de l’AEIseront précieux.

Au cours de la Conférence de l’AEI, en octobre 2016 àReykjavik, Islande, l’Agence sera présente pour faire lepoint sur les récentes activités et recueillir lescommentaires des membres de l’AEI. Nous considéronsnotre participation à la Conférence comme un tremplinpour faire avancer notre partenariat, unissant nos forcesdans un effort commun pour la sécurité aérienne.

Au cours des derniers mois, la relation entre l’AESA etl’AEI a connu des changements positifs considérables.Après notre rencontre, Robert Alway et moi-mêmesommes convaincus que cette coopération sera renforcéedavantage pour devenir une synergie pour la sécurité.Nous avons mis en place des réunions trimestrielles entrel’AESA et l’AEI et nous avons salué la contribution activede l’AEI au sein de nos groupes de travail. Nous croyonsqu’en unissant nos forces en partageant ouvertement lesinformations d’une manière constructive, nouscollaborerons comme une équipe efficace pour assurer unniveau élevé de sécurité.

1 Ce processus est en cours d’étude au sein de la tâche existante en

matière réglementaire RMT.0097 (145.024), au cours de laquelle un

avis de proposition d’amendement NPA 2014-11 a déjà été émis.

8 RTS Summer 2016

A segurança da aviação é difícil de conseguir setrabalharmos sozinhos, mas é muito mais fácil quando setrabalha em equipa. Por este motivo, é estratégia daEASA procurar trabalhar em conjunto e maisestreitamente com a AEI.

A EASA acredita firmemente nesta parceria, dado queo papel dos engenheiros no sistema da aviação não podeser sobrestimado. Estes têm um papel fundamental adesempenhar visto assegurarem a manutenção daaeronavegabilidade das aeronaves. No entanto, este nãoé seu papel mais importante. A sua função crucialconsiste em serem os ‘olhos e ouvidos’ do sistema;sentirem o que está verdadeiramente a acontecer naaviação. Os engenheiros de aeronaves constituem umadas maiores e mais sólidas barreiras de segurança dosistema, possuindo a informação em primeira mão sobre os possíveis riscos de segurança no ambiente da manutenção.

Vemos oportunidades para o desenvolvimento de umarelação construtiva com a AEI e estamos confiantes deque iremos assistir a uma participação mais ativa porparte da associação. A AEI e a Agência estão do mesmolado, envidando todos os esforços possíveis no sentidode assegurarem que nenhumas atividades de condutasimpróprias sejam realizadas durante a qualificação doscandidatos para as licenças da Parte-66. Um sólidosistema de elaboração relatórios de segurança pode fazeruma grande diferença na aquisição de segurança. Noentanto, para que um sistema de elaboração de relatóriosfuncione é vital que as organizações adotem totalmenteuma cultura de segurança, não culpando mas antespromovendo a elaboração dos relatórios de ocorrências.

Durante a análise dos nossos regulamentos a Agênciaconta com o contributo ativo de todas as partesintervenientes no sentido de prestarem aconselhamentosobre a melhor forma de melhorar as regras; tornando-asmais pragmáticas e concomitantes com a realidadeoperacional. É isto que procuramos atualmente com otrabalho nas Parte-66 e Parte-147. Como resultado aEASA e a AEI pretendem ver um forte sistema delicenciamento da Parte-66, apoiado por requisitosadequados para as organizações de formação de

manutenção da Parte-147. São também necessáriosrequisitos apropriados para a avaliação de competênciasda certificação do staff no interior das organizações demanutenção. A Agência reconhece que ainda é precisotrabalho para definir melhor as funções eresponsabilidades deste staff, por exemplo, relativamenteaos níveis de supervisão e coordenação esperados antesque possa ser emitido um certificado de ‘aptidão para oserviço’. Por este motivo já começámos a trabalhar comvista à realização de alterações1.

É um facto que mais regulamentações não irãoconduzir, necessariamente, a uma maior segurança.Quanto mais equilibrada, mais bem pensada uma regrafor, mais eficaz será a abordagem dos riscos. Paraelaborar uma regra eficaz, é necessário conhecimento do ambiente no qual esta será aplicada e de que formapode ser melhor direcionada para a consecução do seu objetivo. No exemplo dado o contributo da AEI será inestimável.

No decorrer da conferência da AEI em outubro emReiquiavique, Islândia, a Agência estará lá para forneceruma atualização sobre as atividades mais recentes e ouviros contributos dos membros da AEI. Consideramos anossa participação na conferência como um trampolimpara expandirmos a nossa parceria, juntando forças noesforço comum da segurança da aviação.

Nos últimos meses a relação entre a EASA e AEI passoupor consideráveis mudanças positivas. Após a nossareunião, Robert Alway e eu próprio estamos confiantesque a cooperação atual será ainda mais reforçada,tornando-se uma sinergia para a segurança. Marcámosreuniões trimestrais entre a EASA e a AEI e acolhemos acontribuição ativa da AEI nos nossos grupos de trabalho.Acreditamos que, juntando forças na partilha deinformações abertamente de uma forma construtivairemos funcionar como uma equipa eficaz, no sentido deassegurarmos um elevado nível de segurança.

1 Isto está a ser discutido no âmbito da atual tarefa de elaboração da

regulamentação RMT.0097 (145.024), na qual já está a ser emitido um

NPA 2014-11.

EASA E AEI: Uma parceria paraa Segurança da Aviação Portugese

9The AEI safety newsletter

At the AEI Annual Congress in Hamburg 2010 I made apresentation on the subject. I tried to tickle the delegateswith some ideas about how to improve our status. Even though we have been under pressure for many years we can also see some improvements that need to be acknowledged. We’ve had big influence on thedevelopment of regulations in the EASA system and weare now taking the next step in the relationship withEASA as the major stakeholder for engineering andmaintenance professionals. We also know that ourAmerican, Australian friends and other nationalassociations are doing a great job with their legislators.Never the less, I am confident that we all gain from being a part of an international association.

We have also witnessed a growing interest in our field from academics around the world, maybe because of our participation in different internationalconferences and meetings? Compared to the operationalpart of aviation, engineering and maintenance is stillunder-represented in academic research but that willhave to change.

First of all we have to ask ourselves, are we reallyprofessionals? To find out, I looked up different definitions of ‘professionals’. For instance, do we live up to the following labels?• Extensive education, knowledge and skills• Members of a professional association• We are licensed (at least some professions

have a personal license)• Autonomy• Prestige• High status

I strongly believe we should be able to tick the boxes forall the above, even if we have more or less weak spots,depending on where we are located on the globe. We alsoknow that all six areas have been under pressure for along time. To maintain, or to improve the situation wehave to start with ourselves as individuals. How do weact and present ourselves? Are you ‘just a mechanic’? Isthe impression people get when they meet you incoherence with the knowledge, skills and responsibilityyou have? If not, we have to do what we can to changethe situation. Some examples of areas you may have to consider:• Knowledge and awareness about your authority and

responsibility as a licensed engineer is paramount. • Make sure people, other than your fellow engineers, get

the right impression of your profession. Everythingcounts, from your outfit to the way you act.

• Be a member of a professional association for licensed engineers.

• Make sure your association is affiliated with AEI.

This struggle will continue and I will follow up this articlewith some ideas for the future of AEI. It is quite possiblethat this will be a topic when we meet at the AnnualCongress in Iceland in October! Not the first time this hasbeen discussed but this time I hope we can make someprogress in order to take AEI to the next step as aninternational and professional association.

Ola BlomqvistVice President of Aircraft Engineers International (AEI)

Chairman of the Swedish Association of LicensedAircraft Engineers (SFF)

PROFESSIONAL STATUS– the never ending struggleAEI and many affiliated associations are working hard to maintain and to improvethe professional status of the licensed aircraft engineer. It is a never ending taskfor us. But it’s not only a mission for representatives of AEI or the nationalassociations. It should also be a mission for every individual licensed engineer.

Flugvirkjafélag Íslands FVFÍ is proud to host the44TH AIRCRAFT ENGINEERS INTERNATIONAL

(AEI) ANNUAL CONGRESS – 2016in Reykjavík Iceland

TO BE HELD 10-14 October 2016

at Icelandair Hotel Reykjavík NaturaNautholsvegur 52101 Reykjavík

Contact AEI for further details

FVFÍ is looking forward to welcoming the delegates... See You In October!

11The AEI safety newsletter

Behind the glamour, aviation is atremendously competitive businesscontinuously seeking ways to lowercosts. Perfectly acceptable as longas aviation doesn’t draw the wrongconclusions from the latest safetyfigures. Many will be aware of theheadline statistic but much fewerwill be aware there still remainsmany incidents that for one reasonor another do not make it into the public domain by becoming an accident.

Aviation has learnt many lessonsfrom accidents and incidents overthe past 100 years or so. The resultof which being a firm understandingof the physics, dynamics and risksassociated with flying. Add to the

mix the constant improvement intechnology and training, the highlevel of regulatory oversight andone has an incredibly safe form oftransport. With air travel expectedto increase significantly in the nextdecade, keeping aviation safe willbecome even more challenging.

Therefore regulators the worldover are now placing moreemphasis on the safety performanceof an organisation rather thansimply checking for proceduralcompliance with regulations. Thedifficulty though is ensuring theperformance data collected isaccurate and does indeed present atrue view of the organisation beingaudited. This obviously requiresresources at a time when regulatorybudgets are being reduced. Thecurrent fixation on cost cutting(under the guise of efficiency) is akinto the regulator having all its teethremoved and so is left with no bite.Within Europe this problem isexacerbated in that nationalregulators are still trying to find theright balance in order to addressthe impact of EASA (EuropeanAviation Safety Agency) and EUlegislation coming into existence.

The aviation industry is currentlyevolving much more quickly thanthe regulatory world. Consequently

there is a need to ensureregulations and oversight remain fitfor purpose otherwise regulatorswould continue applying outdatedinspection philosophies. Inengineering and maintenance termsthis could reduce safety levels asairlines are constantly seeking thelowest price contract forcingmaintenance organisations todeliver to a set price rather than aset standard.

Airlines will be buoyed by thelatest statistics. Yet for LicensedEngineers maintaining aircraft, thiswill undoubtedly manifest itself as alack of consistency from airlines intheir commitment to actually dowhat is expected in terms of safety; particularly if there is a cost attached.

The task is to ensure airlines donot lose sight of what is important.Despite all the safety improvementsover the past 100 years or so, thesmallest mistake can still havecatastrophic consequences.Therefore the challenge facingaviation is to continue to improve itssafety culture in order to eliminateaccidents and reduce incidents.After all safe flying is good for business.

Robert Alway,AEI President

Can aviation become safer?With commercial airlineaccident rates being thelowest ever in 2015, theaviation industry could beforgiven for allowingitself a huge pat on theback. Yet there is aparadox. A lack ofaccidents can oftennegatively influence oursafety thinking byinstilling an overinflatedsense of security.

English aertecsolutions.com/category/blog-en/?lang=en

Flugvirkjafélag Íslands FVFÍ is proud to host the44TH AIRCRAFT ENGINEERS INTERNATIONAL

(AEI) ANNUAL CONGRESS – 2016in Reykjavík Iceland

12 RTS Summer 2016

Au-delà du glamour, l’aviationreprésente une activité commercialequi cherche constamment à baisserses coûts. Cela est tout à faitacceptable, tant que ce secteur netire pas les mauvaises conclusionsdes récentes statistiques en matièrede sécurité. Beaucoup connaissentles chiffres qui font la une, mais trèspeu de personnes sont informéesdu fait que beaucoup d’incidents seproduisent toujours, bien que, pourdifférentes raisons, ils ne sont pasconnus du public si aucun accidentn’a lieu.

L’aviation a tiré de nombreusesleçons des accidents et incidentsdes 100 dernièresannées,notamment une excellentecompréhension des principes de laphysique, de la dynamique et desrisques associés au vol. Ajoutez àcela les améliorations constantes dela technologie et de la formation, le

haut niveau de surveillance de laréglementation et vous obtenez unmoyen de transport incroyablementsûr. Avec les prévisions d’unecroissance significative du traficaérien au cours de la prochainedécennie, conserver la sécuritéaérienne sera encore plus ardu.

Par conséquent, les régulateursaccordent une plus grandeimportance aux performances liéesà la sécurité d’une organisation, etne se contentent plus de vérifieruniquement le respect desprocédures requises par lesréglementations. Toutefois, ladifficulté est de s’assurerde l’exactitude des donnéesrelatives aux performancescollectées et que celles-ci offrentvéritablement une image réelle del’organisation contrôlée. Celarequiert évidemment desressources, alors que les budgets deréglementation connaissent descoupes. L’actuelle fixation sur lesrestrictions budgétaires, souscouvert d’efficacité, reviendrait àlaisser les régulateurs les mainsliées.En Europe, le problème estexacerbé car les régulateursnationaux cherchent encore le bonéquilibre afin de faire face à l’impactdes nouvelles législations de l’AESA(Agence européenne de la sécuritéaérienne) et de l’Union européenne.

L’industrie de l’aviation évolueactuellement plus rapidement queles autorités de réglementation. Ilest donc nécessaire de s’assurer queles réglementations et les contrôles

restent adaptés pour éviter que lesrégulateurs mettent en œuvre desméthodes d’inspection obsolètes.En matière d’ingénierie et demaintenance, cela pourrait fairebaisser les niveaux de sécurité carles compagnies aériennes cherchentconstamment les meilleurs contratsen terme de coût, obligeant ainsi lesentreprises de maintenance àfournir des services à un coût donnéplutôt que de répondre à unenorme donnée.

Les compagnies aériennes vontbénéficier des dernièresstatistiques. Toutefois, pour lesingénieurs agréés réalisant destravaux de maintenance, cela semanifestera sans doute par unmanque de cohérence de la partdes compagnies aériennes dans leurengagement à faire le nécessaire enmatière de sécurité, en particulier sicela représente un coût.

L’important ici est des’assurer que les compagniesaériennes ne perdent pas de vuel’essentiel. Malgré toutes lesaméliorations réalisées en matièrede sécurité au cours des 100dernières années, la plus petiteerreur peut toujours avoir desconséquences catastrophiques.C’est pourquoi, le défi que l’aviationdoit relever est de continuer àaméliorer sa culture de la sécuritéafin d’éliminer les accidents et deréduire les incidents. Après tout,voler en toute sécurité est bon pourles affaires.

Robert Alway, AEI President

L’aviation peut-elledevenir plus sûre?Sachant qu’en 2015le taux d’accident dansl’aviation commercialeétait le plus bas jamaisenregistré, l’industrie del’aviation peut seféliciter. Toutefois, ilexiste un paradoxe.Cette situationréjouissante a souventune influence négativecar elle décuple notresentiment de sécurité.

Frenchaertecsolutions.com/category/blog-en/?lang=en

13The AEI safety newsletter

A pesar de todo su glamour, laaviación es en realidad un negociotremendamente competitivo, quebusca constantemente formas dereducir costes; algo perfectamenteaceptable siempre que el sector noextraiga conclusiones equivocadas delas recientes cifras de seguridad. Lasestadísticas publicadas en los grandestitulares son bien conocidas, mientrasque son pocos los que están alcorriente de los numerosos incidentesque, por una u otra razón, no llegan aconvertirse en accidentes y, por tanto,no llegan a la luz pública.

La aviación ha aprendido muchaslecciones de los accidentes eincidentes de los últimos 100 añosaproximadamente. El resultado ha

sido un profundo conocimiento de lafísica y la dinámica, así como de losriesgos asociados a volar. Si a estoañadimos la combinación de laconstante mejora de la tecnología yde la formación y el alto nivel desupervisión reglamentaria, elresultado es un medio de transporteincreíblemente seguro. Teniendo encuenta que se espera un incrementosignificativo del transporte aéreo enla próxima década, el mantenimientodel actual nivel de seguridad en aviación constituirá un reto aún mayor.

Por consiguiente, los organismosreguladores de todo el mundo hacenmás hincapié en los resultados deseguridad de una organización, enlugar de limitarse a verificar que losprocedimientos cumplen lanormativa. La dificultad consisteen garantizar que los datos derendimiento son precisos y querealmente ofrecen una visión fiel dela organización auditada. Esto,evidentemente, requiere muchosrecursos en un tiempo de recortes enlos presupuestos de los organismosreguladores. La actual fijación por lareducción de costes (disfrazada deeficiencia) está dejando a losorganismos reguladores sinherramientas con las que intervenir.En Europa este problema se veexacerbado porque los reguladoresnacionales aún están intentandoencontrar el equilibrio adecuado parahacer frente a las consecuencias de lacreación de la Agencia Europea deSeguridad Aérea (AESA) y de lalegislación comunitaria.

En la actualidad, el sector de laaviación evoluciona mucho más

rápidamente que la normativa. Y,como consecuencia de ello, esfundamental garantizar que lareglamentación y la supervisiónsiguen estando adaptadas a supropósito, ya que, de lo contrario, losorganismos reguladores seencontrarían aplicando filosofías deinspección obsoletas. Esto podríareducir los niveles de seguridad eningeniería y mantenimiento, puestoque las aerolíneas estánconstantemente buscando elcontrato más barato, lo que obliga alas organizaciones a cargo delmantenimiento a cumplir con unprecio predeterminado en lugar decon un nivel de serviciopredeterminado.

Las recientes estadísticas serviránde estímulo para las aerolíneas. Sinembargo, para los ingenierostitulados que realizan elmantenimiento de las aeronaves,esto sin duda se manifestará comouna falta de consistencia en elcompromiso de las aerolíneas parahacer realmente lo que se espera deellas en el ámbito de la seguridad,sobre todo si esto implica un coste.

El reto será conseguir que lasaerolíneas no se olviden de loimportante. A pesar de todas lasmejoras en seguridad logradasdurante el último siglo, el mínimoerror aún puede tener consecuenciascatastróficas. Por consiguiente, elreto de la aviación será seguirmejorando su cultura de seguridadcon el objetivo de eliminar losaccidentes y reducir el número deincidentes. Después de todo, volar esbueno para el negocio.

Robert Alway, AEI President

Es posible aumentar laseguridad en la aviación?

Spanish

Teniendo en cuenta quela siniestralidad en lasaerolíneas comercialesmarcó un mínimo históricoen 2015, es comprensibleque el sector de laaviación se muestre algocomplaciente. Y, sinembargo, nosencontramos ante unasituación paradójica. Amenudo, un reducidonúmero de accidentespuede tener una influencianegativa en nuestraopinión sobre laseguridad, ya que creauna exagerada sensaciónde seguridad.

aertecsolutions.com/category/blog-en/?lang=en

14 RTS Summer 2016

For those of you not familiar with Norwegiangeography, Vardø is far north and far east, at N 70.34 and not far from Russian waters.

It’s the only place on mainland Norway thatis in the arctic climate zone, which means thatnone of the months in a year has an averagetemperature above 10 degrees Celsius. Theweather this day was gale force with gusts of

strong gale, and a temperature of minus twodegrees Celsius with heavy showers of snow. A perfect day to work outside.

I was thinking of our union brothers workingfor Norwegian Air Shuttle in the Caribbeanislands, sweating in that awfully hot climate.To get at least some shelter from the weather,we borrowed a wheel loader with a foldable

SNAG in aBLIZZARD

The aircraft and the wheel loader with the snow plow used as shelter.

In January, a colleague and I had totravel to Vardø for an AOG with a nosewheel steering system problem.

15The AEI safety newsletter

Blowing snow, the aircraft seen from the terminal.

snow plow from Avinor, the airport operator,and placed it with its wings around the noseof the aircraft as a windbreak.

When we were ready to depart we hadshuffle away a snow-dune to get the aircraftmoving, after being parked a few hours.

Jan-Kristian Hansen, NFO

The weather this day was galeforce with gusts of strong gale,

and a temperature of minus twodegrees Celsius with heavy

showers of snow. A perfect dayto work outside.

Me working in the nose wheel well.

Before departure we had to shuffle the snow immediately in front of the landinggear by hand, because the wheel loader could not get to it due to the propeller.

Some shelter from the weather.

16 RTS Summer 2016

To get at least someshelter from the

weather, we borrowed awheel loader with afoldable snow plow

from Avinor.

SNAG in a BLIZZARD

Our tool box, after arrival at our home base.

All photos by Svein-Erik Vading

Despite the shelter, there was enough blowing snow.

17The AEI safety newsletter

To get at least someshelter from the

weather, we borrowed awheel loader with afoldable snow plow

from Avinor.

18 RTS Summer 2016

The surveyThe ICAO SMM and many otherguidance materials published by theregulatory authorities around theworld refer to models such as ‘4Components of Safety Culture’(Reason, 1997), three categories oforganisation culture (Westrum),‘Culture Ladder’ (Hudson, 2001) and‘Just Culture’ model (Dave Marx –Outcome Engenuity, 2015). As aresult, the stakeholders in aviationhave so far considered theseperspectives in terms of measuring,assessing and developing their safetyculture. While these models are validand – when effectively applied – canhave significant impact onorganisations’ safety performance, itcan be argued that they seem to bevery much focused on collection ofpast event data and they do notspecifically aim to explore how risk isperceived and managed at differentlevels in organisations. For example,what/how risk decisions are taken byfront line operators and if senior

management is presented with thesame risks front line staff faces, wouldthey take the same/similar decisions?In other words, have different groupsin different levels in organisationsmore risk averse or more risk takingattitude than each other? If so, what does it mean from a safetymanagement perspective as well as for the overall business?

About CengizCengiz started his career as an aircraftmaintenance engineer and worked indifferent airlines and maintenanceorganisations both in Turkey and inthe UK. He held aircraft maintenancelicenses from Turkish DGCA, FAA andUK CAA. He then worked as a QualityEngineer for SR Technics UK Ltd(Formerly FLS Aerospace UK Ltd) until2005 and subsequently held the‘Continuing Airworthiness PostHolder’ position for Flightline, a UKcharter airline. In 2008, Cengiz joinedCity University London as a SeniorLecturer and also Wake QA as a part

time IOSA (IATA Operational SafetyAudit) auditor. Since then he had theopportunity to visit many airlines inAsia, Middle East, Africa and Europeand audited their Quality & SafetyManagement Systems. In September2015, Cengiz joined the ‘CranfieldSafety and Accident InvestigationCentre’ (CSAIC). He has been amember of the UK Flight SafetyCommittee since 2010 and recentlyjoined the ‘Executive Board’ as theVice Chairman. He has been chairingthe Technical Committee of theInternational Federation ofAirworthiness since 2011 andrepresenting IFA in the EuropeanCommercial Aviation Safety Team. Hecurrently holds BEng (Hons) Degree inAircraft Engineering from KingstonUniversity and MSc Air TransportManagement from City UniversityLondon. Cengiz chose the topic of‘Risk Culture in Commercial AirTransport’ for his PhD research, whichhe is currently starting at CranfieldUniversity, UK.

‘RISK CULTURE’ – the missing link in ‘Safety Culture’?

This study is about an argument for introducing ‘Risk Culture’ as anew component of ‘Safety Culture’.

Cengiz started his career as an aircraf

t maintenance engineer and worked in different

airlines and maintenance organisations both in Turk

ey and in the UK

Find the survey at www.riskculture.org

19The AEI safety newsletter

This means risk decisions are oftencomplex and difficult decisions. Theyalso involve a considerable degree of‘subjectivity’ due to perception ofrisk and the biases of the individuals’making such decisions.

So I am going to share with you acouple of my own experiences andobservations from the 1990’s as wellas a case study from 2000’s in orderto demonstrate to you why I decidedto conduct the ‘Risk Culture Surveyin Commercial Air TransportIndustry’ and why you shouldconsider participating. BECAUSEYOUR EXPERIENCE MATTERS!

After obtaining my ICAO Type IIlicense from Turkish DGCA in 1990, Istarted my career working as anaircraft maintenance technician in asmall charter company operating asmall fleet of B737-200’s. At thetime, commercial air transport

industry in Turkey was quite smalland running profitable airlines waschallenging. Soon after I joined thecompany, I was faced with the realityof receiving my wage late everymonth. In those days, manycompanies in Turkey used to send acertifying engineer on boardparticularly to those destinationswhere there is not technical supportor when it was more cost effective. Afew months after I joined, one of mysenior colleagues, joined the flightcrew to fly to a European destinationand back. When they arrived at theirdestination, during walk-aroundcheck, he found a relatively largepart of a fan blade missing. Heimmediately called the Captain toshow the damaged fan blade. Afterthe initial assessment, since therewere no abnormal indications duringthe last flight, they decided to carry

out an engine ground run, which alsoshowed no abnormal engineparameters either. Considering thepotential cost of cancelling the flightand sending the passengers to hotel,the captain and the engineer made ajoint decision to fly the aircraft backto Istanbul. When the aircraft arrivedin Istanbul, a borescope inspectionrevealed that the engine was beyondeconomical repair. Obviously it isimpossible to prove that if thedecision was made not to fly theaircraft back to Istanbul, the overallcost of engine repair and the indirectcost of flight cancellation wouldhave been considerably lower thanthe overall cost of purchasing anengine. Nevertheless such riskdecisions – and in my view certainlyexcessive/unnecessary risk taking –are never made rationally andheavily influenced by multiplefactors.

My second example is from the1990’s when we used to join theflight crew as a duty engineer onboard. There was often confusionabout the company policy where wewere supposed to sit during the flight

‘RISK CULTURE’ – the missing link in ‘Safety Culture’?

RISK CULTURE SURVEY IN COMMERCIAL AIR TRANSPORTINDUSTRY! WHY SHOULD YOU PARTICIPATE?

People’s attitude towards risk fascinates me. The term‘Risk’ – in a safety domain – is usually defined by twokey words, ‘likelihood’ and ‘severity’ but particularly inthe business world risk is also associated with‘uncertainty’ as well as ‘opportunity’.

�

20 RTS Summer 2016

as we were not an active member ofthe flight crew. Occasionally thecaptain and the engineer whowished to sit in the observer seat inthe cockpit clashed with each other,which resulted in engineer sittingsomewhere in the cabin and havinga sulk. In one of these occasions, oneof my friends, who was refused bythe captain, wound himself up all theway to their European destination.When they arrived, as he wascarrying out the walk-around check,he thought he would give thecaptain who upset him, a littlesurprise during the next short leg,which was supposed to be only a 30minute journey before the final legback home. He then disconnectedthe ‘Autopilot Aileron ServoConnectors’ thinking that theyshould fly manually instead of theluxury of autopilot. After take off, hewas called into the cockpit by thecaptain but this time he refused togo in. Eventually he connected theservos before their final leg backhome and they completed theirjourney with no incident. In my view this is another example of

unnecessary risk taking and perhapsaccording to some people clearly ‘areckless behaviour’. But this examplealso proves or disproves ahypothesis. The idea is that peopleare more risk averse when they arephysically exposed to hazards maybe true most of the time but thereare certainly many examples ofpeople (pilots and engineers) takingrisks despite they themselves are atrisk as well.

My last example is about areasonably well-known case study. A B747 – on a night flight from LosAngeles to London in 2005 –experienced a surge and flame outon number 2 engine just after takeoff. According to a book written byNancy Regan ‘The RCM Solution:Reliability-Centred Maintenance’,“The pilots successfully shut downthe affected engine and notified theheadquarters. The managementdirected Flight 268 to carry on withthe flight to London. SeniorManager of B747 fleet said: “Thedecision to continue flying was acustomer service issue. The plane isas safe on three engines as is on four

and it can fly on two.” The companyquickly assessed the consequencesof the failure. If they had delayed orcancelled the flight, it would havecost the company up to severalhundred thousand dollars inpassenger compensation because ofa recently passed Europeanregulation regarding long flightdelays or cancellations.“Nevertheless, the aircraft crossed theAtlantic safely and had to divert toManchester due to short of fuel.Subsequently regulatory authoritieshad discussions about whether theaircraft was airworthy or not and ifthe aircraft should have returnedback to Los Angeles.

So I believe the better weunderstand the factors (intrinsic andextrinsic) driving or encouraging risktaking behaviour the more likely wewould be in a position to addressthose factors. Because as the sayinggoes, “The first step in solving anyproblem is recognising there is one”.So the ultimate question I aim toanswer is if such excessive risktaking, negligent or recklessbehaviours happen in today’s

Find the survey at www.riskculture.org

21The AEI safety newsletter

environment and what other difficultrisk decisions today’s pilots andengineers need to take on a regular basis.

At the beginning of April, Ilaunched the 1st ‘Risk Culture Survey’questionnaire to collect data frompilots, engineers and their managers.The questionnaire is mainly abouttwo fundamental questions.‘Accepted/Acceptable Risk’ and‘Rejected/Unacceptable Risks’ andthe factors encouragingprofessionals to take risks but alsoexpects the respondents to sharetheir experiences and observationsabout mitigation strategies. So far Ireceived just under 150 responses.Although the response rate has beendisappointing and perhaps theresults may be statisticallyinsignificant, I am delighted to seesome very interesting andenlightening responses frompragmatic point of view. Thequestionnaire can be completedanonymously but one of the ways Itried to increase the number ofrespondents was to offer theopportunity to enter a bursary draw

to attend a professional course atCranfield University if the respondentis willing to provide an email address.This will also give me the opportunityto be able to collect data from thesame population every year as I aimto conduct a longitudinal study,which hopefully will enable us toidentify some trends or emergingissues in the industry. Moreinformation about the concept of‘Risk Culture: the missing link inSafety Culture?’ and the link toaccess the questionnaire can befound @ www.riskculture.org

Regarding the analysis of the datacollected so far, I aim to share thedetails as soon as possible but aquick review of the responses to oneof the questions clearly indicates thatthe brutal competition (as described

by one of the industry executives)and some of the external pressuressuch as consumer protectionlegislation continually put pressureon front line operators. The goodnews is that despite the respondentsindicate their opinion about thecommercial pressure quite clearly,their responses to ‘accepted risks’ didnot include the examples similar towhat I shared at the beginning of thisarticle. But equally the responses to‘rejected risks’ also confirm that theexpectations to accept considerablerisks do exist in order to keep theflying schedule. How risks can bemitigated and how commercialpressure can be managed isultimately key to maintain theremarkable safety performance theindustry has achieved.

SO YOUR EXPERIENCE MATTERS! PLEASE SHARE IT FOR OTHERS TO

LEARN FROM YOUR RISK MITIGATION IDEAS AND STRATEGIES!

The questionnaire is mainly about two fundamental questions. ‘Acc

epted/Acceptable Risk’ and

‘Rejected/Unacceptable Risks’ and the fa

ctors encouraging professionals to take r

isks but also expects the

respondents to share their experiences a

nd observations about mitigation strategies.

�

RTSwww.airengineers.org