Discussing Numbers
Post by CatalinaNJB
Analysis of data in aviation is an application of historical data to predict future events. This data is applied to predict hazards, but is not available as a tool to predict incidents or accidents. Incidents or accidents cannot be predicted since there is no capability within a data analysis to assign time and location of a future incident or accident.
 |
| Reporting hazards is SMS painting a picture of the operations |
A high volume of reports for one operator does not necessary
conclude that this operator is a higher risk than another operator. Raw data of reports are often assumed to be a
higher risk and assigned a value without further analysis of the data itself.
SMS has become a tool where competitors could apply this as their competitor
advantage in a contract bid that they have fewer reports than their
competition. Anyone who is unfamiliar with the function of an effective SMS
could easily buy into this scam that fewer reports equal lower operational
risk. This is backwards of what SMS is. Without data, there is a zero-confidence
level of the safety culture, or how healthy operational safety is. On the other
hand, with collected data the confidence level of how safe operations is can be
established by a statistical process control analysis. However, a high volume
of reports does not automatically ensure safe operations, but provides more
data for analysis of an SMS to implement processes for continuous safety
improvements.
 |
|
Analyzing an SMS more than
discussing numbers.
|
Let’s take a moment and analyze reports from three small
airports. These airports are similar in size, operations and movements and are
within 200 NM of each other. The first airport reported 7 events the last 15
years, but did not make any report submissions the last 5 years. The second
airport reported 66 events during the same period, with last reported event this
year. The third airport reported 264 events during the same timeframe as the
other two.
At the first glance, it appears that airport #3 is a high-risk
airport compared to the other two. This raw data does not tell a story or
provide any valuable information to make statements of operational confidence
level. Only by analyzing the data is it possible to paint a picture of operational
safety and make statements related to a confidence level of safety in
operations.
An initial analysis of the operations shows that airport #1
quit reporting 5 years ago. Based on trends this imply that the airport stopped
all reporting and not that the events stopped happening. The reason is not
known until a further inquiry into airport operations is conducted.
Airport #2 is continuing to report and the numbers of reports
are steadily decreasing in numbers these last 15 years. Airport #3 shows a
steady reporting structure chart where the numbers of annual reports are variable,
but are moving above and below the average line in the chart. Airport #3 has
therefore a healthier reporting culture than the other two airports.
When analyzing facts, opposed to opinions, airport #3 is an
airport with accountable process for airport users to rely on information and
data from this airport in their decision-making processes. Airport #3 can with
a high level of confidence state that they have in place operational processes
that paints an accurate picture of their airport operations. The other two
airports have no supporting documentation to support their opinions that the
SMS pictures painted are accurate pictures of their operations.
Data, information, knowledge and comprehension of
operational processes are vital components for continuous safety improvements. Analyzing
SMS is more than discussing numbers, where the group or person with a louder
voice and better vocabulary wins the argument. When applying strategies and
solutions to airport safety it is not the numbers of events that becomes the
issue, but the comprehension of airport operations.
CatalinaNJB
No comments:
Post a Comment