Publications

  • The Benefits of Bowtie Risk Management in Compliance Systems

    Bob Dodd, Senior Director of Safety & Risk Management, Aloft Aviation Consulting, conducted a webinar along with partner EtQ to record-setting attendance. The webinar reviewed the best practices in defining proactive and reactive risk factors for an organization and the critical areas where risk can be applied in EHS initiatives to ensure the highest level of quality and compliance.

  • Risk Management: the Weak Link in SMS?

    Risk Management is the core of safety management. A lot of SMS effort, put forth by both operators and regulators, is focused on process. But the real challenge lies in the content: unidentified hazards can’t be managed, and assigning the wrong risk level misdirects attention.

  • The Aerospace Performance Factor (APF) Developing the EUROCONTROL ESARR 2 APF

    The Aerospace Performance Factor (APF) represents a new methodology that moves away from performance measurement that relies on a single or limited number of measures. Instead, the APF aims to aggregate multiple operational safety risks, expressed as the sum of reported incidents, in a weighted manner, into one value that can vary over time.

  • Implementing an Effective Airport Safety Management System

    Can a simple SMS be implemented effectively at a reasonable cost without creating a massive new program? The answer is yes. In 2008, Aloft Aviation Consulting decided to test that theory so we started a pro bono joint effort with Cape Fear Regional Jetport (KSUT) to assess the feasibility of implementing a simple SMS for a small operator. Our interest was to enhance safety, build the first workable SMS in the U.S., and prove it could be done without creating a costly massive new program. Following are the results of that effort…

  • Making Sense of Shared Safety Information

    In October 2010 the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), the International Air Transport Association (IATA) and the US Department of Transportation signed a memorandum of understanding to “create the framework and path forward to launch the Global Safety Information Exchange”. This agreement sets up the capability to share and protect safety data from around the globe to advance the cause of aviation safety.

    Nobody doubts the significance and importance of this agreement. And, nobody should doubt the intention of all concerned to ensure that the promise of improved identification and management of safety issues is delivered. But this paper will argue there are reasonable questions about whether sharing more data will, in of itself, ensure better safety outcomes if the approach to using that data remains the same approach that has accompanied sharing of safety data in the past.

  • Enterprise Risk and SMS in an Airline

    We need tools that give the CEO a good picture of risk, but we know that flight safety risk is critical to airline success. We need a framework that integrates across the enterprise both functionally and organisationally. That same approach also supports drilling down into a single slice at the flight safety level delivering the same powerful consolidation, monitoring and reporting capability. But there are challenges….

  • Aviation safety an evolution of change

    Everyone who is involved in aviation, regardless of our roles, has always considered safety to be our first priority. Whether we are air traffic controllers, pilots, dispatchers, maintenance professionals or other members of the aviation community, our actions are driven by the principle “safety first.” Interestingly however, when we are asked, “is it safe?” our unanimity ends, since we all see safety in different ways. When I ask an aviation professional, “is your system safe?” the universal answer, after a pause, is “yes” followed very quickly by the comment “but it could be safer.” When you ask the follow-up question “how would you measure that?” the answers become less definitive.

  • International Air Safety Seminar: Making Sense of Shared Safety Data (2011)

    Building a mountain of safety data does not guarantee improved outcomes. In fact, the challenge of getting good value from safety data, already never easy, is probably getting harder. There are reasonable questions about whether sharing more data will, in of itself, ensure better safety outcomes if the approach to using that data remains the same approach that has accompanied the sharing of safety data in the past.

    This paper will examine why, at the operator, state and global level we have not been as successful as we could be at getting the best out of data. It will argue that the issue is that the data we collect and share is designed around the way we collect it, not the risks we need to understand. As such, the information does not add up to a better risk picture. We have both the knowledge and the capability to develop models of safety risk causality that are appropriate for both operators and states to better understand and thereby manage their risk. In turn, those models can and should drive the way data is collected, stored and analyzed to ensure a continuous improvement in the understanding of and monitoring of the key risks faced by the global aviation industry.