Following the completion of the 1st phase of the RAAK PRO project Aviation Safety Metrics, during which the researchers mapped the current practice in safety metrics and explored the validity of monotonic relationships of SMS, activity and demographic metrics with safety outcomes, this report presents the concept for the design of new metrics. Those metrics will be based on the hypothesis that the greater the gap between Work-As-Imagined and Work-As-Done the lower the safety performance, and they correspond to a set of references from academic literature, challenges in professional practice,depiction of system structure, and consideration of “soft” organizational aspects. Along with the design of the alternative metrics, this report explains the respective concepts referred in the literature but excluded from the current research, as well as the process and possible difficulties in ensuring various validity types of the new metrics.
Safety and Security (S&S) have the same goal, that is to maintain the integrity of human, infrastructure, hardware, software, capital and intangible assets of a system. However, literature and practice indicate that the relationship between S&S has not yet been clearly defined and their boundaries remain blurry. The current paper presents a short review of academic and professional literature about the relationship between S&S. This relationship is examined by looking at the S&S dependencies, their similarities and differences, and the role of the human element in achieving and maintaining the desired S&S levels. The review of literature showed that (1) there is a tendency to emphasize on the effects of security on safety and underestimate the opposite, (2) human factors are not part of security training to the extent are addressed in safety training, (3) security and safety problems can be the result of both internal and external disturbances and agents, (4) the intentionality or not of outcomes, and not of the action, can stand as a valid criterion to classify an event as a security or a safety one correspondingly, (5) S&S issues can result in negative implications internally and externally to the system, and (6) the synergy between S&S is of paramount importance for achieving the optimum levels of system protection. The positions of this paper might comprise a basis for enriching educational programmes around S&S and igniting relevant research.
In this paper we present a review of existing aviation safety metrics and we lay the foundation for our four-years research project entitled “Measuring Safety in Aviation – Developing Metrics for Safety Management Systems”. We reviewed state-of-the-art literature, relevant standards and regulations, and industry practice. We identified that the long-established view on safety as absence of losses has limited the measurement of safety performance to indicators of adverse events (e.g., accident and incident rates). However, taking into account the sparsity of incidents and accidents compared to the amount of aviation operations, and the recent shift from compliance to performance based approach to safety management, the exclusive use of outcomes metrics does not suffice to further improve safety and establish a proactive monitoring of safety performance. Although the academia and aviation industry have recognized the need to use activity indicators for evaluating how safety management processes perform, and various process metrics have been developed, those have not yet become part of safety performance assessment. This is partly attributed to the lack of empirical evidence about the relation between safety proxies and safety outcomes, and the diversity of safety models used to depict safety management processes (i.e. root-cause, epidemiological or systemic models). This, in turn, has resulted to the development of many safety process metrics, which, however, have not been thoroughly tested against the quality criteria referred in literature, such as validity, reliability and practicality.
Nature-based coastal management is mainstream in the Netherlands. About 12 Mm3 of sand is added annually to the coast to compensate coastal erosion and maintain high safety levels against flooding. This amount will likely increase to compensate for accelerated sea level rise. (Mega-)Nourishments may also strengthen and support biodiversity and recreational values of the coastal zone and associated wetland areas. However, the ecological and societal impacts of mega-nourishments on open coasts are not well established, hampering comparison of pros and cons of different nourishment strategies. This knowledge gap is largely due to the lack of suitable methods to monitor and predict the spreading of nourishment sand along the coast and into tidal basins. Ameland Inlet provides us with a unique opportunity to develop and test novel approaches to fill this knowledge gap in close collaboration with our consortium and stakeholders. In 2018 the first tidal inlet mega-nourishment (5 Mm3) was placed in the Ameland Inlet ebb-tidal delta, and geomorphic and biotic responses nearby are closely monitored in the Kustgenese 2.0 and SEAWAD programmes. Our research builds on the insights gained, will gather new data to investigate off-site effects (linked with SIBES/SIBUS sampling), and build a common knowledge-base with stakeholders. We will develop novel luminescence-based methods to monitor the temporal and spatial dispersal of nourishment sand. These insights will be combined with an inventory of off-site biotic responses to nourishment and the role biota play in the mixing of nourishment sand with natural sediments. Combined results will be used to develop and validate models to trace transport paths of individual grains and improve morphodynamic predictions. Throughout the project, we will collaborate and interact intensely with coastal managers and (local) stakeholders to address concerns and exchange insights, creating a platform for co-assessment and optimization of nourishment designs and strategies.
