Re: Confidentiality Issue

inmae (inmae_at_house.com.ar)
Fri, 10 Jul 1998 08:57:07 -0300


Kerry Douglas wrote:
>
> Hi Chris
>
> Useful reminder for the group. However, since this discussion has been
> around the world how many times in the last few days. The `rogue' may have
> been identified and aware he has been the basis of discussion. Hope
> everyone involved has checked up on their `liability or malpractice
> insurance'.
>
> Also, passengers can and have litigated in Oz and in Asia after an
> accident/incident. I'm not sure what the Group's policy is about what
> happens to all this `knowledge' we now have. I hope everyone acts in a
> responsible and ethical manner.
>
> In the meantime any trips I do to NZ will be by boat.
>
> Cheers
>
> Kerry Douglas
>

Good and challenging point Kerry,
1. In this globalized world and when any other mean to stop a rogue
person proof insufficient, the "international preasure" by a scientific
or technical community may be an interesting road to explore. I imagine
some safeguards:
2. In these hipothetical cases perhaps we must protect the messager,
begining with a posting
by a third and distant (10.000 miles away) colleague.
3. The uncurables Bud Hollands we all have in our organizations are
tough to remove and are unreachable
from the traditional crm procedure, and the conspiracy of silence that
use to exist in aviation organizations prevent a direct action, in case
the will to take action is provided. But if the high managment of the
company or organization is aware that the reckless operational behavior
of some old-timer and "untouchable" pilot of his fleet is vented in the
internet, things may change (don«t know if for good or worst :-)
4. The same informal pressure may be applied to aviation organizations
(under 121 or 135). Recently we suffered the worst aviation accident of
our history (DC9-32, 74 deaths). The insurance companies are asking
questions about crm instruction of those pilots. The crm instrucction
was absolutely light, insufficient, because the company didn«t "waste"
money in that. Know they have a problem, and they will have worst
problems.
5. In our jargon (slang) we say "persuation or percution". CRM must be
proceduralized (and also legalized) just as technical aviation
instruction. Human Factors are the responsable of the vast majority of
accidents after all, aren«t they?

PS: Would like to read Dan Maurino«s opinions on this issue, the meeting
organized by Muir and Morrison would be fundamental, a bit expensive for
south hemisferican budgets -:)

Best

Hugo
National Institute for Aviation Medicine
Buenos Aires - Argentina



------------------------------------------------
National Institute for Aerospace Medicine (INMAE)
Tel/Fax: (+541) 778-0353/2
http://www.house.com.ar/users/hf_crm