Premium On Safety - Issue 10, 2013 - (Page 4)

The Accident Number tion use these statistics to determine risk and develop meaningful solutions? A few suggestions might apply. Regarding the pilot time in model experience statistic, should your operation recognize this factor and utilize appropriate risk controls? It would be easy to identify this as a risk factor on a FRAT and/or in scheduling management. Perhaps a night flight to a challenging airport in marginal weather is not the best situation for a PIC with 125 hours in model. It might sound obvious (or not) but isn’t it often things like this that seem fine upfront yet look so bad in hindsight. If an undesirable event occurs it might be a “we got away with one there” situation or something worse. I’m not stating this low model hour pilot scheduling situation shouldn’t be done, just that it’s (continued from page 3) worthy of consideration. For the maintenance experience hazard the same type of assessment should be performed to uncover the specific risks involved. An increased inspection program might be a suitable solution until a technician gains sufficient experience. Training programs should also be identified and targeted towards these risks so the requisite experience can be accelerated. Examination of the information for turboprop accidents indicated the primary causal factor is related to single pilot versus multi-pilot crewing. The accident rate increases significantly for a single pilot aircraft, accounting for 73 percent of the accidents during the analysis period. This certainly points toward the value of a second cockpit crew member. Statistics often twist with interpretation and can even manifest deception, but it seems like a few valuable nuggets were revealed by this analysis. They are worthy of consideration and might make a difference in managing the risks faced by your operation. Steve Witowski is PRISM’s Vice President of Business Aviation Safety Systems. PRISM’s world-class SMS services are available to USAIG policyholders through Performance Vector. Safety Wire is just part of a dynamic array of PRISM resources designed to inform and enhance safety in flight organizations of all sizes. Visit USAIG.com to learn more about Performance Vector options, including PRISM SMS! Reprinted with permission from PRISM Safety Wire © February 2013 Putting It All on the Line ACCIDENT PREVENTION BY PAUL RATTÉ Aircraft towing tends to get a lot of safety attention and that’s clearly important, but this data implies it’s at least equally important to scrutinize where and how you park, and who exactly will be manipulating equipment near your aircraft. There’s an old saw about the guy who worked for 30 years as a postflight pumper of airplane lavatories. Asked why he never sought a more esteemed vocation, his reply was, “What, and leave my career in aviation?” Our industry has many dedicated people who are passionate about their jobs, but there’s no mistaking a shift in attitudes over the past decade. Today’s workers aren’t necessarily striving to become good at one thing and hone their reputation at it with one employer. They seek varied experience and skills, grow restless quickly, and will pivot toward new opportunities without much worry about the symmetrical ideal of a “career path.” It’s rare to run into anyone resembling our lavatory pumper in line service today. So who’s out there, towing and servicing your aircraft? What are the implications to loss control and safety? Airport hangars and tarmacs are dynamic places. Aircraft are designed to fly and that makes them ungainly to deal with on the ground. Start by parking dissimilar aircraft in proximity, add a mix of tow tugs, service carts, passenger vehicles, and fuel trucks, fold in workers of limited experience and training, sprinkle in some environmental challenges and schedule pressure, and you’ve got a hearty risk stew. We tend to think in terms of preventing operational accidents but can miss the torture-by-a-thousand-pinpricks of things that go bump, scrape, and “ouch” on the line. In the mid-2000s the Flight Safety Foundation’s Ground Accident Prevention (GAP) initiative illuminated a pervasive attitude that line mishaps were simply a cost of doing business. Further study revealed those costs approached $5 billion annually; a staggering sum for overhead. While scheduled carriers bear the major share, corporate operators were estimated to suffer $1 billion of that line servicerelated damage annually. The numbers nearly double when the related cost of (continued on page 5) 4 https://www.usau.com/caf_safety_performance_vector.php

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Premium On Safety - Issue 10, 2013

Premium On Safety - Issue 10, 2013
Contents
Best Practices: The Accident Number
Accident Prevention: Putting It All on the Line
ASI Message: Push the Buttons—Capiche?
Flight Vis: Wildlife Awareness
ASI Online: Heads Up! Improving Runway Safety

Premium On Safety - Issue 10, 2013