Zoekresultaten

Review of existing aviation safety metrics

Evaluating the horizontal alignment of safety management activities through cross-reference of data from safety audits, meetings and investigations

Vertical and horizontal alignment within organizations are seen as prerequisites for meeting strategic objectives and indications of effective management. In the area of safety management, the concept of vertical alignment has been followed through the introduction of hierarchical structures and bidirectional communication, but horizontal alignment has been given little attention. The principal goal of this study was the assessment of horizontal alignment within an aviation organization with the use of data from safety investigations, audits and meetings in order to explore the extent to which (1) causal factors recorded in safety investigation reports comprised topics discussed by safety committees and focus areas of internal safety auditors, and (2) the agendas of safety committees include weak points revealed during safety audits. The study employed qualitative and quantitative analysis of data collected over a 6 years’ period at three organizational levels. The results suggested a low horizontal alignment across the three pairs of the corresponding safety management activities within each organizational level. The findings were attributed to the inadequacy of procedures and lack of a safety information database for consistently sharing safety information, cultural factors and lack of planning for the coordination of safety management activities. The current research comprises a contribution to the literature and practice and introduces a technique to assess the intra-alignment of safety management initiatives within various organizational levels. Future research is needed in order to investigate the association between horizontal alignment of safety management practices and safety performance.

Critical review of safety performance metrics

Various tools for safety performance measurement have been introduced in order to fulfil the need for safety monitoring in organisations, which is tightly related to their overall performance and achievement of their business goals. Such tools include accident rates, benchmarking, safety culture and climate assessments, cost-effectiveness studies, etc. The current work reviews the most representative methods for safety performance evaluation that have been suggested and applied by a variety of organisations, safety authorities and agencies. This paper discusses several viewpoints of the applicability, feasibility and appropriateness of such tools, based on the viewpoints of managers and safety experts involved in a relevant research that was conducted in a large aviation organisation. The extensive literature cited, the discussion topics, along with the conclusions and recommendations derived, might be considered by any organisation that seeks a realistic safety performance assessment and establishment of effective measurement tools.

Safety at Work

In this document, we provide the methodological background for the Safety atWork project. This document combines several project deliverables as defined inthe overall project plan: validation techniques and methods (D5.1.1), performanceindicators for safety at work (D5.1.2), personal protection equipment methods(D2.1.2), situational awareness methods (D3.1.2), and persuasive technology methods(D4.1.2).

Tracing New Safety Thinking Practices in Safety Investigation Reports

Modern safety thinking and models focus more on systemic factors rather than simple cause-effect attributions of unfavourable events on the behaviour of individual system actors. This study concludes previous research during which we had traced practices of new safety thinking practices (NSTPs) in aviation investigation reports by using an analysis framework that includes nine relevant approaches and three safety model types mentioned in the literature. In this paper, we present the application of the framework to 277 aviation reports which were published between 1999 and 2016 and were randomly selected from the online repositories of five aviation authorities. The results suggested that all NSTPs were traceable across the sample, thus followed by investigators, but at different extents. We also observed a very low degree of using systemic accident models. Statistical tests revealed differences amongst the five investigation authorities in half of the analysis framework items and no significant variation of frequencies over time apart from the Safety-II aspect. Although the findings of this study cannot be generalised due to the non-representative sample used, it can be assumed that the so-called new safety thinking has been already attempted since decades and that recent efforts to communicate and foster the corresponding aspects through research and educational means have not yet yielded the expected impact. The framework used in this study can be applied to any industry sector by using larger samples as a means to investigate attitudes of investigators towards safety thinking practices and respective reasons regardless of any labelling of the former as “old” and “new”. Although NSTPs are in the direction of enabling fairer and more in-depth analyses, when considering the inevitable constraints of investigations, it is more important to understand the perceived strengths and weaknesses of each approach from the viewpoint of practitioners rather than demonstrating a judgmental approach in favour or not of any investigation practice.

Measuring safety in aviation

A literature review conducted as part of a research project named “Measuring Safety in Aviation – Developing Metrics for Safety Management Systems” revealed several challenges regarding the safety metrics used in aviation. One of the conclusions was that there is limited empirical evidence about the relationship between Safety Management System (SMS) processes and safety outcomes. In order to explore such a relationship, respective data from 7 European airlines was analyzed to explore whether there is a monotonic relation between safety outcome metrics and SMS processes, operational activity and demographic data widely used by the industry. Few, diverse, and occasionally contradictory associations were found, indicating that (1) there is a limited value of linear thinking followed by the industry, i.e., “the more you do with an SMS the higher the safety performance”, (2) the diversity in SMS implementation across companies renders the sole use of output metrics not sufficient for assessing the impact of SMS processes on safety levels, and (3) only flight hours seem as a valid denominator in safety performance indicators. At the next phase of the research project, we are going to explore what alternative metrics can reflect SMS/safety processes and safety performance in a more valid manner