I think that we have to rethink this logic. Some who say safety is unncessary or what want proof that safety is necessary are not using good logic.
Safety recommendations do one very special thing that no other recommendation does. Safety recommendation give us SOP modifications, checklists and limitations that help us to do our operation more correctly.
Some of you may say, "Don't you mean more safely?"
I would respond by saying, "No, not more safely, but more correctly." Why? Remember that our stated goal in all operations is safety-not 90% safety but 100% safety.
So when we figure out how to do operations safer, it is really most often soon adopted as SOP. Safety finds new and better ways to operate and then training, ops and standardization offices figure out how to turn that "safety innovation" into a New SOP, limit or checklist.
Right? Isn't our SOP being revised all the time? Aren't our Jeps procedures being revised regularly? Do we not see constant improved regulations all the time?
Did all of these improvements in SOP, Jeps, limits, regs really cost us all that much money? How much money did we waste to mishaps using flawed SOP's?
So Safety is not as expensive as some would try to make us believe. In fact, more often than not, safety has reduced our costs, reduced our expenses, make our operation more correct, effective and greatly more efficient.
Remember the sight of the Delta L1011 crash in Dallas on the front page of the papers? Remember the United DC 10 crash in Sioux City all over every TV stations for weeks? Look at Tenerife, a classic air tragedy. Look at TWA 800; all over the news for months. Look at the dozens and dozens of microburst related mishaps and the hundreds of dead.
Safety helps us to do our job better. Do those that claim that "safety is guilding the lily" with unnecessary and expensive changes really have a case?
Does their argument really "hold water?" In fact hasn't safety made our operations more correct?
Safety recommendations do one very special thing that no other recommendation does. Safety recommendation give us SOP modifications, checklists and limitations that help us to do our operation more correctly.
Some of you may say, "Don't you mean more safely?"
I would respond by saying, "No, not more safely, but more correctly." Why? Remember that our stated goal in all operations is safety-not 90% safety but 100% safety.
So when we figure out how to do operations safer, it is really most often soon adopted as SOP. Safety finds new and better ways to operate and then training, ops and standardization offices figure out how to turn that "safety innovation" into a New SOP, limit or checklist.
Right? Isn't our SOP being revised all the time? Aren't our Jeps procedures being revised regularly? Do we not see constant improved regulations all the time?
Did all of these improvements in SOP, Jeps, limits, regs really cost us all that much money? How much money did we waste to mishaps using flawed SOP's?
So Safety is not as expensive as some would try to make us believe. In fact, more often than not, safety has reduced our costs, reduced our expenses, make our operation more correct, effective and greatly more efficient.
Remember the sight of the Delta L1011 crash in Dallas on the front page of the papers? Remember the United DC 10 crash in Sioux City all over every TV stations for weeks? Look at Tenerife, a classic air tragedy. Look at TWA 800; all over the news for months. Look at the dozens and dozens of microburst related mishaps and the hundreds of dead.
Safety helps us to do our job better. Do those that claim that "safety is guilding the lily" with unnecessary and expensive changes really have a case?
Does their argument really "hold water?" In fact hasn't safety made our operations more correct?
