As a former aviation safety regulator, I read with interest an article which appeared in Flight International magazine recently. Entitled, F
AA Oversight Role Slammed, the article outlined some of the issues facing the FAA as it evolves from being a forensic to a prognostic aviation safety agency.
FAA Associate Administrator, Nick Sabatini was quoted as saying that (inter alia), the days of randoming touching an airplane and hoping to find somthing are long gone; this was on the eve of a US congressional hearing called, "Critical Lapses in FAA's Safety oversight of Airlines". Apart for the usual change management issues, the problem appears to be the FAA's reliance with the Air Transportation Oversight System (ATOS) which relies heavily, but not entirely upon voluntary reporting mechanisms by the airlines themselves.
Alegations of "cosy" realationships, and matters appropriately raised by FAA whistleblowers have fueled the current round of dissatisfaction with the oversight arrangements. The FAA have countered with a plan to address perceived deficiencies. Of interest, is a restriction that will prevent Inspectors being recruited to an airline which they are or were responsible for oversighting. Other initiatives include regular rotation of Supervisory Inspectors, the establishment of a national review team to look into safety issues raised by FAA staff, and periodic reviews of the FAA Oversight functions.
Having been involved in this type of change, I see many similarities in what has occurred in Australia over the past 15 years or so. I have come to realise that law makers like the concepts (often because it saves money - and most can see sense in a holistic and scientific oversight strategy), but quickly get nervous and may revert to a preference for a simplistic objective oversight approach preference when the going gets tough (something significant occurs).
All common sense, research and experience indicates that a safety oversight strategy which relies heavily or entirely on "touching the airplane" (commonly called product audit), is at best lucky to find significant issues before they become failures. Conversely, a sytem that relies entirely on a systems methodology is also not fully effective. A good system relies on both, competent Inspectors, an analytical capability, good management and sound governance.
The lawyers who prosecute or defend play a deft hand in assessing the role of the regulator; on one hand they are critical of simplistic and unscientific approaches, and on the other, are also critical of what may be characterized as an over-zealous regulatory approach. The perspective is often determined by the circumstances of their client.
Notwithstanding all of the above, often this sort of change is not well managed and goes too far too quickly, or implodes into an incompetent mess. I guess the system is working when someone identifies the problems and adjustments are made, so that eventually a better system is established.
The role of the safety regulator is not an easy one; there is no need to articulate the reasons for they are well known. Their role is more difficult when change is required, and someone has the fortitude to implement them.
Comments
Post has no comments.