The consequences of being sued are twofold: 1) you may have to pay money
to people who are injured by the actions (which is in large part covered by
insurance so the costs have already been paid) ; 2) the uglier consequence
of having someone take a long hard look at one's actions and hold those
actions up to public scrutiny.
So, the purpose of CRM must be to insure the expectations of safety
of the public at large are met by the actions of the crew.
Tom.
>>> Doug Edwards <dougwds_at_b022.aone.net.au> 07/10/98 02:36AM >>>
Stephen
I guess I should have paid heed to the wise person who counselled
against acting with animals and children. Occupational Health and
Safety legislation does aim to secure a safe workplace. So it applies to
workers, like flight crew and maintenance engineers, as in, no sharp
objects in the cockpit. (You can say that again!) I am suggesting to CRM
and safety practitioners that they review the legal situation that
arises when a passenger is injured or worse, and that might apply to
them and/or their clients. It will vary. But, in general terms, in
jurisdictions originating from the British system, a great deal of that
law resides in the Common Law, wherein one precedent rests/builds on
another. For example, OH&S legislation might oblige a shopping mall
owner to provide a safe working environment for employees. However, if a
shopper slips and is injured because of poorly-designed walkways, the
action is likely to be under the Common Law or Personal Injury
legislation based on it. There is a lot of precedent in medical cases,
public buildings, and in consumer goods, but so far, little in the
aviation field. But it's abuilding- the Dash 8 crew in New Zealand, for
example, the 'Cali' 757 another. My recommendation is that CRM and
safety practitioners have a talk with a lawyer (or Ralph Nader) about
such things. (No-one should have any trouble finding a lawyer. They're
about one-in-five in the population at large.)
But maybe this is drifting off the aim point. Some of our leaders in
this group remind from time to time that we need to be able to turn our
talk into 'tools'. Here are some that rely on these legal issues for
some of their motivating force. To use Prof James Reason's term, tools
can also be seen as 'defences'. In my case, I teach safety and CRM
skills to pilots, introducing them to a series of exercises and
information sources, and encouraging continuing skill practice and quest
for related knowledge. I get them to keep a log of their exercising and
reading, in just the same way as they log their flying and supporting
activities. I also have them complete pre- and post-flight checklists of
safety threats that might affect the flight and to review specific
defences against them, every flight. At the end of my 12 week course,
they get a certificate of the Safety Foundation. I'll now use Vince
Mancuso's Situation A/B model.
Situation A. There's an accident, passengers are hurt, they sue. The
pilot produces a written record of continuing safety practice certified
by a recognised professional association. It goes back over years, and
shows weekly skill exercise and extensive study. The Court considers the
reasonable expectations of duty of care question and finds the pilot has
surpassed the standard, had done all that could have been done.
Situation B. There is no record of safety attainment. The pilot tries to
describe, from memory, how particular defences might have been developed
within him. And so on.
My aim is to get pilots to adopt a lifetime of safety practice. Getting
them to understand the legal position assists them to find the
motivation to do exercises that can be discomforting. (I would hope that
their professional dedication would be the stronger force.) In addition,
I have a personal interest in ensuring my duty of care standard is the
highest.
To connect this to CRM, there's another series of learning opportunities
and exercises I conduct, based on discovering the role of emotion in
decision-making. (EG, the 'psychic reward' aspect of pressing on under
cloud vs turning back.) It's fascinating stuff, and I'm not sure I've
yet got the full story. But there is a CRM skill involved - managing the
situation when receipt of information is so unwelcome or offensive as to
trigger an emotional reaction sufficient to diminish or completely
disable co-operative co-ordinated crew performance. Getting people to
experience that - and it must be done with great sensitivity - is, I
think, valuable CRM skill training.
Cheers
Doug