ACSF Safety Symposium 2016

ACSF 2016 Safety SymposiumACSF Safety Symposium 2016

Register now for the 2016 Air Charter Safety Foundation Safety Symposium at the NTSB Training Center in Dulles, VA. The event takes place March 8-9, 2016. Don’t miss out!

The event will explore Safety as A Smart Investment for a Rich Future:

  • Maximizing Safety Bang for the Buck–Lessons Learned from NASA

Charlie Justiz, Ph.D., Managing Director, JFA Inc.

  • Standardization–Why Bother?

Dann Runik, Executive Director, Advanced Training Programs, FlightSafety International

  • System Safety

Curt Lewis, President, Curt Lewis & Associates

  • Reducing Risk

Chairman Chris Hart, NTSB Board Member

  • Safety Metrics

Troy Smith, Special Agent, U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation

  • And Much More

Call Bryan Burns at (202) 774-1515.

Onsite registration is available.

Registration Includes

Admittance to the ACSF Symposium both days, all scheduled group meals, breaks, and social functions, and transportation to and from hotel to symposium events.

Member Fee: $625

Nonmember Fee: $795

Online registration requires immediate payment by credit card.

Substitutions are permitted at any time.

Visit www.acsf.aero/symposium for more information and to register online today!

SOAR+® Approved

cropped-Captain-Major-Web-Image-1080x300Patrick S. Major, medical In is pleased to announce that SOAR+® is an officially and finally Registered Trademark. Sextant Readings Solutions works closely with Patrick S. Major Inc. in supporting aviation safety management globally.

When using term SOAR+, Soar+, or otherwise referencing Patrick S. Major, Inc.’s proprietary safety of operations audit and resolution of safety issues process, and/or its flight data monitoring (FDM)-based safety of operations assessment, risk management, airmanship enhancement, and asset protection processes, kindly depict as follows “SOAR+®,” with the ® prominently displayed.

SOAR+, a practical, results-oriented, approach to the art and best-practice of aviation, represents the foundational underpinning for next generation safety management systems (SMS).

Safety manager or Safety coach?

Safety Manager or Safety coach?

Source: March 15, 2015 Jan Peeters S/R/M BLOG,

What’s in a name?

The term safety manager is used to denominate the individual responsible for the development, operation and continuous improvement of the safety management system (SMS) deployed by an operator/service provider. He acts as a focal point for safety management issues in the organization.

In this post I’d like to address the term Safety manager and what the term implies versus what actually needs to be done to improve safety performance. The purpose being to provoke some thinking of what the role means and what kind of skill and toolset might be needed to perform well in this role.

Before, the person managing the Flight Safety and Accident Prevention Program was called the Flight Safety Officer. There were several good reasons for the shift to the term “Safety Manager”. First of all the Flight Safety Officer tended to report to the Flight Ops Manager, and his area of concern was the flying part of the operation, in practice that meant he or she was mostly talking with and about pilots. Sometimes there would also be a Maintenance Safety Officer, and a Cabin Safety officer.

The Safety Management System was introduced because, to be effective, the organization needed to address the management of safety systematically, throughout the organization.

A safety management system (SMS) is a systematic approach to managing safety, including the necessary organizational structures, accountabilities, policies and procedures. (ICAO)

The Flight Safety officer’s remit was mostly limited to Flight Operations. Safety events or issues seen by the Flight Operations department might be a manifestation of a long organizational chain of contributing factors originating in different departments.

A problem that could occur was that safety recommendations remained limited to the Flight Operations department, dealing with symptoms rather than the root causes which originated elsewhere. Another issue that the “Safety Manager” title addressed was one of representation. With the position of “manager” came also more access to management meetings, and with that a chance to influence the decision-making process to take into account safety relevant info.

Drawbacks

One of the drawbacks of the title “safety manager” however is that the term contributes to the misunderstanding as to who actually manages safety.

A safety manager does not, nor should (s)he, have any authority to make decisions in the management of the company. As such a safety manager, does not directly manage safety. The safety manager, in spite of his name, does not have a manager’s authority, budget or resources to do anything but manage the SMS itself which is in essence a data gathering and measurement machine.

This management of safety is done by the day-to-day decision making of the management team, hopefully based on good information from the SMS which the Safety Manager effectively communicates to the management team. As I explain in another post, having an SMS does not automatically mean that you are managing safety well. The SMS is a tool for the task of safety management.

The problem that I have observed in various organizations is that the management team considers the safety performance of the organization as the safety manager’s problem. Like financial performance, safety performance is an outcome of the day-to-day decision making and efforts of the organization to increase safety performance.

The output of the SMS is data about the organization’s safety performance and helps the management team in their day-to-day decision making, like the financial management system generates data for other dimensions of the business. This is where I think that the term Safety Coach reflects a lot better what this particular function actually is about.

In my personal journey from consultant to coach I have discovered that increasing performance  through coaching is something that is well established and understood through parallels with sport, business and life. Coaching is not a practice restricted to external experts or providers, managers and leaders in the organization can be just as effective as externally hired coaches. Provided they have a structured approach they can add value, and help develop the management team’s skills and abilities in managing safety.

In some organizations, coaching is still seen as a corrective tool, used only when things have gone wrong. But in many companies, coaching is considered to be a positive and proven approach for helping others explore their goals and ambitions, and then achieve them.

I believe a safety coaching approach is key to obtain better safety performance and develop the management of safety as a skill.

If we want to increase the safety performance of our organizations, I believe that framing the function of the Safety Manager as that of a coach to the organization is more productive. It can remove conflicts and clarifies the role of the Safety Manager as one of the people that are able to give the players on the field better overview and focus for the game they are playing. Exactly the fact that the Safety Manager is not directly involved in the day-to-day operations and the fighting of the many crises that seems to entail, allows them to take a step back and look at the whole system, focusing on solutions that benefit the whole group not just individuals.

Any other ideas for how we should denominate Safety Managers?

SOAR Next-Generation SMS Audit & Safety Issue Resolution

SOAR+

is a computer-based safety of operations audit, risk assessment and resolution of safety issues (ROSI) process supporting E-IOSA, IASA, ISBAO as well as SAIs, EPIs, DOD, ICAO, regulatory compliance, NetJets, internal QA/evaluation, and/or custom audit protocols.  SOAR+ raises the bar by risk-ranking audit standards, then reporting results in an intuitive, executive-friendly format that establishes a means for quantifying returns on investment (ROI) in safety.

SOAR+ is imminently configurable; e.g. A CASE version of SOAR+ is set to be installed at a major US based Maintenance & Repair Operation (MRO) soon; providing services to Pratt & Whitney, the US Air Force and UPS among others.  SOAR+ is also under consideration to support the US Department of Transportation’s (DOT’s) Federal Transit Authority (FTA) implementation of safety management systems (SMS) in US municipal transit and rail operations.  Could also work for airports, shipping, and hospitals it: wherever safety and compliance is linked to performance.

SOAR “AAP” is a flight data monitoring (FDM)-based safety of operations-assurance, risk management, airman-ship assurance and asset protection utility incorporating the identical ROSI process as SOAR+.  Unconstrained by traditional flight operations quality assurance (FOQA) paradigms, SOAR AAP optimizes the use of aircraft flight data recorders, the so-called “Black-Boxes,” before the crash: to optimize operations, training, and to actually prevent accidents by making practical application of information that is traditional used only to conduct forensic inquiry…after the fact.

SOAR+ Attributes –

  • Audit standards can be derived and/or imported into SOAR+ from any source: from ICAO, host country regulations, to internal airline oversight, quality control and quality assurance processes.
  • A gap analysis and corrective actions tool exemplary of highest standards in SMS.
  • Supports SAIs, EPIs, specific regulatory requirements (SRRs), as well DOD and Enhanced-IOSA requirements.
    • Also available as an IOSA-attainment sub-routine providing a sequential guide to air, ground and maintenance operators in achieving and maintaining IATA registration.
  • Standards and findings are risk-ranked in advance of the audits, and after, to guide in prioritizing effective action plans.
  • Reports are normalized to 100% to facilitate effective communications with non-technical stakeholders, and to
    • Establish a basis for quantifying return on investments in safety.
  • Both SOAR+ and SOAR AAP fill significant lapses in virtually all existing SMS computer-based utilities,
    • Can be integrated into existing SMS software.
  • There are Enterprise versions,
    • And versions capable of supporting-
      • Mobile devices,
      • Laptop PCs and
      • “Cloud-based” access.
    • The ROSI process includes prioritization of findings on the basis of safety and/or business, political and economic concerns, supporting unparalleled root cause analysis, safety risk assessment (SRA) and corrective actions implementation, validation, and assurance processes.

•     Indeed, SOAR+/SOAR APP may represent a credible foundation for what can best be described as “Next-generation SMS.”

SOAR+ is deliberately configured to be useful measuring the attainment of standards in virtually any environment. For example, SOAR+ could be a useful means to measure attainment of implementation standards in Ebola prevention and treatment procedures, methods and protocols, to report results in an imminently intuitive executive-friendly format, to measure the risk of failure to implement complete and comprehensive corrective measures, to conduct safety risk assessments on proposed corrective measures, to document approval of an accountable individual before deploying proposed corrective actions, to verify and validate implementation, controlling performance creep by means of a continuously renewable improvement process, and to quantify return on investment in health and safety of the population.  We would need to dissect Ebola prevention and treatment protocols to identify standards and then deploy auditors to record their observations in the SOAR+ safety of operations, risk assessment and resolutions of safety issues utility.

NBAA Safety Committee Identifies Top Safety Focus Areas for 2014

NBAA Press Release

Washington, DC, March 5, 2014

For the second consecutive year, the National Business Aviation Association’s (NBAA’s) Safety Committee has published a list of recommended safety priorities for the business aviation industry. The list is intended to promote safety-focused discussion and advocacy among NBAA Members and the business aviation industry.

The list of NBAA Top Safety Focus Areas for 2014 is (in no particular order):

  • Professionalism
  • Positive Safety Culture
  • Single-Pilot Safety
  • Fitness for Duty
  • Airport Safety
  • Airmanship Skills
  • Distraction Management
  • Public Policy
  • Talent Pipeline
  • Technology Management

The committee developed the list with input from many of NBAA’s other standing committees, as well as from the FAA, the National Transportation Safety Board, the Flight Safety Foundation’s Business Advisory Committee and regional business aviation groups.

The list is first intended to serve as a conversation starter. “We want to start having discussions in our various spheres of influence on what each of these topics means on a personal basis,” said NBAA Safety Committee Chairman Eric Barfield. “But perhaps more importantly, we want to provoke a meaningful discussion among colleagues within the flight department and with the corporate office. It’s a conversation that goes both up and down the chain of command.”

The list also will serve to guide the Safety Committee’s work in support of safety advocacy for the year to come, providing a useful framework for developing future NBAA resources and education efforts in the coming months.

“Sometimes people don’t know what they don’t know when it comes to business aviation safety,” Barfield said. “We’re trying to educate them on those areas, as well as point out tools to help them continuously improve their safety processes and outcomes.”

First published in 2013 under the moniker “Top 10 Safety Focus Areas,” this year’s list was renamed to recognize the diversity within business aviation and give equal weight to all items listed. “This is no longer a prioritized list of concerns. Everybody has different priorities,” said Barfield. “Instead, these are key areas where the committee believes more discussion is warranted.”

The 2014 topics themselves are largely unchanged from 2013. Where changes to the list were introduced, they typically served to enhance or expand on topics and focus area descriptions from the previous year.

For example, “fatigue” is now aligned under a larger “fitness for duty” umbrella along with aeromedical issues and the growing concern with improper use of over-the-counter medications. ”Distraction management” is a new topic encompassing not only task saturation and situational awareness, but also distractions created by pressures stemming from the home and office. “Airmanship skills” and “airport safety” remain on the list, but have been expanded in scope.

Review NBAA’s Top Safety Focus Areas.
Learn more about the NBAA Safety Committee.

Civil Aviation Authority Safety Review for Offshore Rotor Operations

In September 2013, following a number of incidents involving offshore helicopter operations, the UK CAA, in conjunction with EASA and the Norwegian Civil Aviation Authority, conducted a safety review. The review examined the risks and hazards of operating in the North Sea and considered how these could be managed more effectively.

This comprehensive analysis of North Sea helicopter operations and safety performance proposes a series of actions and makes a number of important recommendations for the industry. The focus is now on managing the changes arising from the report in a considered and systematic way.

Although focused on oil and gas operations in the North Sea, the Review has indirect relevance for offshore Search and Rescue (SAR) too and will arguably be of interest to other offshore oil and gas locations around the world.

The Review contains 32 Actions which the UK CAA have committed to but more widely 29 Recommendations. Of these, 13 are to EASA, 12 to the Helicopter Industry (AOC Holders, MROs, ATOs and manufacturers), 3 to the oil and gas industry and one collectively to all three of these

Read the full report

ACSF and ARGUS International Collaborate to Offer Two Results with One Combined Audit

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                  FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT
Bryan Burns
President
888-723-3135
bburns@acsf.aero

ACSF and ARGUS International Collaborate to Offer Two Results with One Combined Audit 

Alexandria, VA,  March 4, 2014 — The Air Charter Safety Foundation (ACSF) and ARGUS International, Inc. have been working together to offer the charter and fractional ownership industry a single audit combining both the ACSF Industry Audit Standard (IAS) and the ARGUS Platinum Standard. Both the ACSF and ARGUS are pleased to announce they have reached an agreement in principle.

In the near future, ARGUS will offer an Industry Audit Standard (IAS) module as an add-on to its proprietary Platinum Audit Standard. The IAS module will contain operational requirements that have been extracted from best practices used by the FAR Part 121 community and have applicability to the Parts 135 and 91K marketplace. Operators that successfully complete the audit performed against the Platinum standard, including the IAS module, will receive the ARGUS Platinum rating and be added to the ACSF registry.

Both ACSF and ARGUS believe this will be a win-win relationship for the Charter and Fractional operators as they work together to reduce operational risk and redundant workload associated with multiple audits. The two standards will mesh well together as the ARGUS Platinum standard has become the most recognized symbol of an operator’s overall quality to charter buyers around the world, and the IAS is focused on operational and maintenance initiatives that are applied and refined in an effort to assist the commercial business aviation marketplace in achieving safety metrics found in the U.S. Air Carrier marketplace.

ACSF Chairman Jeff Baum said, “The Air Charter Safety Foundation IAS recognized that the scheduled airline community, in part through the use of the IATA Operational Safety Audit (IOSA) and FAR Part 121, has demonstrated the best safety record in the aviation industry. ACSF Accreditation recognizes a Part 135 operator or Fractional Manager that is utilizing many policies and procedures common to their Part 121 counterparts to further enhance their overall Safety Management System.”

“It is through a cooperative effort and shared mission of safety, that the Air Charter Safety Foundation and ARGUS have been able to bring this program to the marketplace through a single on-site audit event, thereby accomplishing an objective core to the mission statement of the ACSF,” noted Baum.

“ARGUS Platinum has for years now, represented the most sought after rating by charter consumers around the world,” said Joe Moeggenberg, President and CEO of ARGUS. “Yet we recognize that some operators require or desire compliance with other standards, yet dread the thought of the time and money associated with multiple audit events. ARGUS is very pleased to cooperate with the ACSF on their Industry Audit Standard (IAS) initiative, and happy to once again uniquely offer the marketplace the ability to perform one audit event with an outcome pertinent to both Platinum and ACSF requirements.”

“This will represent a significant decrease in both time and cost for each participating charter company, without any compromise to either standard or actual audit,” added Moeggenberg.

Dassault delivers first Falcon 2000S in Brazil

Dassault delivers first Falcon 2000S in Brazil

Dassauly Falcon 2000SDassault Falcon Jet recently delivered its first Falcon 2000S in Brazil following certification by ANAC, Brazil’s aviation regulatory authority, late last year.

³The Falcon 2000S is a terrific option for customers in Brazil and elsewhere in South America,² said John Rosanvallon, president and ceo of Dassault Falcon Jet. ³It can reach any two cities non-stop anywhere within South America and can readily handle the remote airstrips and the hot and high conditions the continent is known for.²

Full story