Taking Safety Management Systems and Risk … Annual Schedulers & Dispatchers Conference San Diego, CA – January 15th – 18th, 2012 Taking Safety Management Systems and Risk Assessment

23rd Annual Schedulers & Dispatchers ConferenceSan Diego, CA – January 15th – 18th, 2012

Taking Safety Management Systems and Risk Assessment tothe next level

Tuesday 17 January 2012 0900-1015Mark Antunes, MGM Resorts Safety Officer

Gary Cooke, CVS , Safety Offficer

Kent Jackson, Partner Jackson & Wade, LLC

Safety Management System (SMS)

Components:

– Flight Assessment Tool (FAT)

– Risk Assessment Tool

– Just Culture

Department Overview

• Fleet: BBJ, G550, G450, two G350’s

• 2011, 2,800 Flying hours

• 2 captains, 1 flight attendant on each flight

– Flight duty days exceeding 14 hours – heavy crew assigned, 3 captains, 2flight attendants

• Maintenance Technicians launch and recover each flight

• Operations Specialists on duty 24/7

• Operations Specialists receive mission requests, “shape” the mission andassign it to flight crews

• For international flights, Operations coordinates all requirements withoutside support

• General Operations Manual offers organizational guidance

Flight Assessment Tool (FAT)

• Purpose of a Flight Assessment Tool?

– Proactive identification of possible hazards

– A management tool used to help mitigate risk.

– Provide ways for operators to determine which flights have more riskand allow operators to intervene and reduce risk when possible.

– Provide a simple way to implement proactive risk management.

Flight Assessment Tool (FAT)

• Once an operator has established the parameters of the tool, theyshould create operational thresholds and establish a “risk number” foreach flight. This risk number should be used to control risk before aflight takes place.

– The FAT cannot guarantee a safe flight—safety is ultimately theresponsibility of the pilot and operator.

– However, it does provide an additional tool to help the pilot andoperator make sound safety decisions.

Flight Assessment Tool

Date: _____/_____/________ Trip #: __________ Aircraft #: ____________

Trip Captains Initials: ___________ Leg 1 _____ / _____ Leg 2 ______ / ______Risk

ValueFlightValue

Operational Planning (Section 1)Leg 1

Leg 2

1. Pilot with less than 200 hours in type or less than 30 days in department 32. Augmented Crew -33. Airport Risk Value (Enter Airport Risk Value from block 32 if applicable)

4. Split Duty Day 25. Greater than four flights flown in duty day 26. Scheduled flight time (Greater than 10 hours in the duty day) 37. Crew Rest (Less than 10 hours prior to the duty day) 5

8. Operating during circadian low 5

Total Factor Value – Section 1 (Not to exceed a Risk Value of 10)

Operating Environment (Section 2)9. No ILS 310. Circling approach (best available approach) 511. No published approaches 512. Mountainous airport (other than LAS) 513. Control tower not operational at ETA and ETD 414. Uncontrolled airport 515. International operation 216. Night operation 217. Elevation of primary airport greater than PA 7,500ft. 318. Wet runway 319. Contaminated runway 520. No weather reporting within 25nm 321. Thunderstorms in vicinity of departure and/or destination 3

22. Ceiling & visibility at destination less than 800 ft. / 2 nm 323. Heavy rain at departure and/or destination 324. Frozen precipitation at departure and/or destination 525. Icing (moderate) 526. Wind gusts greater than 25 knots 327. Landing/Takeoff exceeding Max Demonstrated X- Wind G550-24 G350/450-28 KTS BBJ-36 KTS 528. Duty Day >12 hours 329. Duty Day >14 hours 530. Miscellaneous Factors Subjectiv

e

Total Factor Score – Section 2

Equipment (Section 3)31. MEL / CDL Items 2


Flight Value of 20 or greater, notify CP or ACP

Flight Value of 30 or greater requires Director of Aviation authorization TOTALS

32Airport

RiskValues

APC=4, BUR=2, DET=3, DFW=2, LGA=3, MIA=1, OXR=3, SDL=3, SAN=3, SMO=5 SNA=1,ASE=5(See GOM), TEB=3, UGN=3, VNY=2, CRQ=3, INTERNATIONAL=3

FlightAssessment Tool

Fl ight A ssessment T o o l



ValueFlightValue

Operational Planning (Section 1)Leg

1Leg





Operating Environment (Section 2)9. No ILS 310. Circling approach (best available approach) 511. No published approaches 512. Mountainous airport (other than LAS) 513. Control tower not operational at ETA and ETD 414. Uncontrolled airport 515. International operation 216. Night operation 217. Elevation of primary airport greater than PA 7,500ft. 318. Wet runway 319. Contaminated runway 520. No weather reporting within 25nm 321. Thunderstorms in vicinity of departure and/or destination 322. Ceiling & visibility at destination less than 800 ft. / 2 nm 323. Heavy rain at departure and/or destination 324. Frozen precipitation at departure and/or destination 525. Icing (moderate) 526. Wind gusts greater than 25 knots 327. Landing/Takeoff exceeding Max Demonstrated X- Wind G550-24 G350/450-28 KTS BBJ-36 KTS 528. Duty Day >12 hours 329. Duty Day >14 hours 530. Miscellaneous Factors Subjective

Total Factor Score – Section 2Equipment (Section 3)31. MEL / CDL Items 2




32Airport

RiskValues


Completed byOperations Specialist


Components of Tool

– Section 1: Operational Planning, Dispatch

• Hours in type, contract crew members

• Airport Hazard Designation

• Duty Day & Rest

• Total Flight Time, & total flight segments




ValueFlightValue


1Leg








ValueFlightValue


1Leg










32Airport

RiskValues


Completed by

Flight Crew


Components of Tool

– Section 2: Operating Environment, Flight Crew

• Airport Information (Approach, TWR)

• Terrain

• Weather

• Miscellaneous Factors




ValueFlightValue


1Leg










32Airport

RiskValues


Completed byMaintenance


Components of Tool

– Section 3: Equipment, Maintenance

• MEL or Special flight limitations

Analysis of FlightAssessment Tool

Take into consideration a“Miscellaneous Factors” with a“Subjective Score” as your toolevolves

27 Landing/Takeoff exceeding Max Demonstrated X- Wind G550-24 G350/450-28 KTS BBJ-36 KTS 528 Duty Day >12 hours 329 Duty Day >14 hours 530 Miscellaneous Factors Subjective

Total Factor Score – Section 2Equipment (Section 3)

31 MEL / CDL Items 2




32Airport Risk

ValuesAPC=4, BUR=2, DET=3, DFW=2, LGA=3, MIA=1, OXR=3, SDL=3, SAN=3, SMO=5 SNA=1, ASE=5(See GOM), TEB=3, UGN=3, VNY=2, CRQ=3,

INTERNATIONAL=3

Operating Environment (Section 2)1. No ILS 32. Circling approach (best available approach) 53. No published approaches 54. Mountainous airport (other than LAS) 55. Control tower not operational at ETA and ETD 46. Uncontrolled airport 57. International operation 28. Night operation 29. Elevation of primary airport greater than PA 7,500ft. 310. Wet runway 311. Contaminated runway 512. No weather reporting within 25nm 313. Thunderstorms in vicinity of departure and/or destination 314. Ceiling & visibility at destination less than 800 ft. / 2 nm 315. Heavy rain at departure and/or destination 316. Frozen precipitation at departure and/or destination 517. Icing (moderate) 518. Wind gusts greater than 25 knots 319. Landing/Takeoff exceeding Max Demonstrated X- Wind G550-24 G350/450-28 KTS BBJ-36

KTS5

20. Duty Day >12 hours 321. Duty Day >14 hours 522. Miscellaneous Factors Subjectiv

e


Equipment (Section 3)23. MEL / CDL Items 2



Flight Value of 30 or greater requires Director of Aviation authorization

TOTALS

32Airport

RiskValues


Tool Development

Established the parameters & threshold

• Results in “point value” for each flight segment

• Risk Value = Max Number for line item• Used to control prior to conducting flight

• Flight Value = Actual number for line item

• Total Value = Requires approval or notification at certain level

• Allow the tool to evolve

SAFETY is ultimately the responsibility of the pilot and operator.The FAT doesn’t guarantee safe flight. However, it does provide

the additional support to make sound safety decisions.

Risk Assessment Matrix

Risk Assessment– A risk assessment of 1,2 or 3 is unacceptable.

– This is a NO-GO SITUATION

– A Risk assessment of 4 is undesirable– A decision from management is required

– A risk assessment of 5or 6 is acceptable– However management should review the assessment

– A risk assessment of 7 or 8 is acceptable– And the GO decision can be made by the individual

Just Culture

James Reason describes a Just Culture as an atmosphere of trust

which people are encouraged, even rewarded, for providing

essential safety-related information, but in which they are also clear

about where the line must be drawn between acceptable and

unacceptable behavior.

Benefits of a Just Culture– Increased reporting

– A Just Culture can lead to not only increased event reporting, butit can aid in identify trends that will provide opportunities toaddress latent safety problems

Benefits of a Just Culture

• Trust Building

– Patrick Hudson noted in 2001 that “most violations are caused by adesire to please rather than willfulness.”

– Do front-line workers have a clear understanding of whichprocedures are ‘red light’ rules (never to be broken) and which are“yellow light” rules (expect to be broken, but will be punished if anaccident occurs).

Benefits of a Just Culture

• More Effective Safety and Operations Management

– Just Culture can allow an organization to better determine whetherviolations are occurring infrequently or if deviation from establishedprocedures has become normalized among its front-line employeesand supervisors

Recap: True or False

• A Flight Assessment Tool will ensure a safe operation?

– False

• (it does provide additional support to help the pilot and operatormake sound safety decisions)

• A Flight Assessment Tool that works for one flight department will workfor another?

– False

• (the FAT should be tailored to the flight department and the department’smission)

• A Risk Assessment Tool is a Go No-Go gauge?

– True

• Operation Specialist are the hardest working members of a flightdepartment?

23rd Annual Schedulers & Dispatchers ConferenceSan Diego, CA – January 15th – 18th, 2012

Taking Safety Management Systems and RiskAssessment to the next level

Tuesday 17 January 2012 0900-1015

Mark Antunes, MGM Resorts Safety Officer

Gary Cooke, CVS , Safety Offficer

Kent Jackson, Partner Jackson & Wade, LLC

•7000+ Retail Pharmacies in 47 States DC&PR•Nations largest provider of Prescriptions•75% of the U.S. population lives within threemiles of a CVS/pharmacy

•550+ MinuteClinics in 27 States•Pharmacy Benefit Management (PBM)

•Established Nationwide•200,000+ Colleagues in 44 States

Flight Department

Flight Department

ISBAO STAGE III CERTIFIED

Flight Department Safety Officer

•Line Pilot-Safety Officer•NTSB Training•USAF Flight Safety Officer•USAF, ALPA Trained AccidentInvestigator•NBAA Safety Committee

Web Based Scheduling

On-line Flight Planning

Safety Management On-line

Safety Management On-line

CVS/Caremark Aviation SMS Program

• The Safety Officer is responsible for the overall effectiveness of theCVS/Caremark SMS.

• All department personnel are active members of the safety team

• We each share responsibility for the safety of aviation operations

CVS/Caremark Aviation SMS Objective

•To prevent human injury or loss of life, and to avoid damage tothe environment and to property

CVS/Caremark Aviation SMS Elements

• Unambiguous safety policy ensuring the senior managementcommitment to safety

• Hazard identification and risk assessment using state-of-the-artrisk assessment methods

• Safety reporting systems used to collect, analyze and shareoperational safety related data

• Competent investigation of safety occurrences with sole purposeof identifying systemic safety deficiencies

CVS/Caremark Aviation SMSFlying Safety Program Implementation

• Safety Education

• Safety Inspections

• Hazard Reporting

Safety Culture

• The way safety is perceived, valued and prioritized in anorganization.

• It reflects the commitment to safety at all levels in theorganization

• Therefore:

Organizations that experience zero accidents have a good safetyculture?

FAA Safety Management System

• Successful implementation of SMS is critical to meetingchallenges of a rapidly changing and expanding aviationsystem.

Taking Safety Management Systems and Risk … Annual Schedulers & Dispatchers Conference San Diego, CA – January 15th – 18th, 2012 Taking Safety Management Systems and Risk Assessment

Documents