I can't get the dog to fetch a stick or a ball, but I have taught her
one new trick. I can get her to bay and howl 'on command'. I stumbled
upon it by accident .(It's got to be a deeply-buried atavistic reflex
implanted in the cortex aeons ago in case dogs ever took up flying.)
Whatever, she'll howl all right. I just have to whisper in her ear,
'Rogue'.
My brother-in-law is an Obstetrician, delivers babies. He keeps the
record of every birth until the child has grown to adulthood - age 21.
Only then, when he can be certain (under law) that no Court will hold
him liable for a medical condition that might be found attributable to a
want of competence on his part during the delivery, does he ditch the
record. (He lives amongst boxes, the medical records and his indemnity
insurance policies.)
Two fairly recent fatal accidents out here have been attributed to GLOC
(G-induced loss of consciousness) during aerobatic practice. I went
around to a school where aerobatics are taught and asked about their
GLOC teaching. 'What's GLOC,' asked an instructor.
In Israel a year ago, as the opening ceremony for the Maccabean Games
got underway, a pedestrian bridge, carrying athletes from all around the
World, collapsed. Several Australian competitors died as a result, and
others were seriously injured. The trial is now underway, the charge,
manslaughter. Five people are so charged. They include not only the
design engineer and the construction supervisor, but the CEO of the
Games organisation itself. Imagine how he took the news. In London two
doctors are facing the same charge, for operating 'without sufficient
competence.' In a nearby region, a licenced aircraft maintenance
engineer has also been charged with manslaughter. He was the supervisor
of a competent apprentice, who unaccountably failed to properly secure
an engine control linkage. The engine failed in flight, all on board
died. The engineer described how his absolute faith and trust in a
diligent and highly-skilled subordinate had led him to only occasionally
'look over his shoulder' and double-check his work.
Read closely what I said in my last. It was not, 'This is the law,
according to me.' It was, 'Here are some possibilities, check them out
for yourself, talk to a lawyer about them.' We all owe it to ourselves,
our families, not to mention those we teach and advise. The reality may
not be palatable, but it's the reality nonetheless. Denial is in action
when a preferred version of the status quo is superimposed over an ugly
truth.
Chris has been commendably open about a very difficult and sensitive
situation. In many such cases, the individual under scrutiny might
complain as to this level of disclosure - and consequent prejudice to
repute and/or character. In safety-critical operations, the law will not
afford the protections of defamation (or libel) in such natters. We are
expected to put the facts out into the open and actively seek resolution
of any problems thus disclosed.
Indeed, as a CRM leader, Chris would be in the proper position were a
Rottweiler-lawyer to ask, 'And what advice did you seek, what steps did
you take?' (Not that I'm suggesting that was his motive for inviting our
comments. His doing that was simply and admirably professional.)
Along similar lines, when risk to public safety is the issue, the 'duty
of care' provision acts so as to say, 'Ground the pilot (or train
driver, or explosives engineer) first, investigate second.' By all
means, ensure there is no prejudice, that a thorough and balanced
investigation takes place, without pre-judging, and that the person
involved is given support and representation. But first, you have to
ground them. And if a responsible executive fails to ensure that
happens, refer to the above. If a key adviser happens not to pass on
that message, refer to the above. If the CRM program chief ... But,
again, please don't just take my word for it, check it out for yourself,
talk to your lawyer.
Gotta go now, dog wants attention, so she's chewing through the modem
lead. My she's a r.... !
Cheers
Doug