Is QANTAS still a safe airline?

[Quickstatus]

take solace in the regulators

Often the regulators get involved only after something hits the fan and I would prefer if the regulators didn’t need to be involved. But yes there is supra-organisational oversight.

 

[justinbrett]

Often the regulators get involved only after something hits the fan and I would prefer if the regulators didn’t need to be involved. But yes there is supra-organisational oversight.

That's just not true. A big part of regulators is.. regulations. I'd prefer they remain involved.

 

[Quickstatus]

I'd prefer they remain involved.

Sorry I think I have not expressed myself properly.

The regulators are alway involved on one level. What I meant was it would be better a failure did not happen in the first place so the regulators don’t HAVE to get involved after the fact to try and sort out the causes of the failure.I would rather they be involved pre facto

As the book I suggested implies, it often not until after an incident/failure that the regulators (and others) realise that the threats to safety existed way before the incident and then they get involved

 

[antycbr]

I just hope that while any airline (including VA/ZL and other international airlines here, not just QF) are in operational meltdown/crisis that the Board, CEO and CxO roles dont lose sight of safety systems and processes. I don't expect any untoward pressure to ignore safety imperatives or override regulations, but I think that the C suite is not likely to be prioritising it when the scheduling, resourcing and customer service areas are so broken.

 

[Quickstatus]

lose sight of safety systems and processes.

The problem is that safety is more than just a tick box exercise. When the work environment becomes stressed, under pressure, time poor and then add in distractions, dynamic changes to routine, threats to safety then arises. All the regulatory boxes can be ticked off and even verified and still errors can happen.

It is a well known source of error. When a human employee is stressed, tired, hungry, distracted, doing multiple tasks at once, his/her cognitive bandwidth deteriorated rapidly and errors then happens. Most errors are less consequential than other more serious ones. But unfortunately when errors occur we can usually trace it back to a variety of factors which in hindsight were visible before the error

 

[SCM]

You can however take solace in the regulators and really any Australian based airline is going to be operating world best practices WRT safety standards.

No about of ranting about lost bags or long call waiting times is going to change that; we have thousands of professionals employed to ensure that is the case.

What difference does it make that it's an Australian airline, if heavy maintenance is outsourced to contractors in a different country, who have no incentive to give a damn?

The problem is that safety is more than just a tick box exercise. When the work environment becomes stressed, under pressure, time poor and then add in distractions, dynamic changes to routine, threats to safety then arises. All the regulatory boxes can be ticked off and even verified and still errors can happen.

It is a well known source of error. When a human employee is stressed, tired, hungry, distracted, doing multiple tasks at once, his/her cognitive bandwidth deteriorated rapidly and errors then happens. Most errors are less consequential than other more serious ones. But unfortunately when errors occur we can usually trace it back to a variety of factors which in hindsight were visible before the error

+1 and this is what people who work outside of engineering have a hard time grasping. You cannot have a situation where there is a culture of cutting corners and constant budget cuts, and assume that quality of any given thing (including safety) won't suffer.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I think pilots are 'an' arbiter of safety but are limited by what they know.

Many accident investigations have shown pilots are limited by what they are told by the airline, or the manufacturer tells the airline. They don't know what they don't know.

Safety is *everyone* coming together.

 

[Quickstatus]

Safety is *everyone* coming together.

And having the same mental model wrt to whatever is the agenda.

One of the problems of complex and highly technical workplaces is that the board’s / manager’s concept of the worker’s job and what they do is often very different to the worker’s concept of their job.

The different job conceptualisations lead to disparities including time allocated to perform a process vs time actually needed, effect of distractions and interruptions which are often not factored into “job descriptions” and of course safety.

This is not easy for any organisation including airlines to get right.

 

[straitman]

I think pilots are 'an' arbiter of safety but are limited by what they know.

Many accident investigations have shown pilots are limited by what they are told by the airline, or the manufacturer tells the airline. They don't know what they don't know.

Safety is *everyone* coming together.

Is this any different to anyone at any level of the airline?

 

[Quickstatus]

airline, if heavy maintenance is outsourced to contractors in a different country

I’m uncertain that outsourcing to a non Australian provider necessarily mean unsafe compared to a local non outsourced in-house provider.

One of the pros of outsourcing is that often the foreign maintenance provider has a higher case load and therefore experience. Airlines have put forward this as a reason but I suspect it is not the primary reason which is cost. If it’s more costly to outsource but in return get a service that is based on greater experience and quality, would airlines use that?. I hesitate to say yes based on recent examples with the QF call centres.

Governance and quality assurance at various levels can protect/ensure quality of work. I’m sure all airlines do put in place these quality assurance programs and monitor them. The Boeing example to use South Carolina labour to build their 787 is a good example of quality assurance not working as expected.

I agree though that the primary reason for outsourcing is price rather than quality. Whether safety deteriorates as a result of price reduction via outsourcing though is always a vexed question.

 

[Vic]

Nothing in that article questions safety. Safety happens despite management, not because of it - it's the professionalism from front line captains and FOs and a positive safety culture that keep Qantas a safe airline.

I've heard a few people trying to use the Perth fuel issue as another stone to throw at Qantas and frankly it just makes it obvious that person doesn't know what they're talking about.

As you created this post to talk about safety I'll leave that there, the rest belongs in one of the many rant threads.

did you read all the way to the end? Of course it questions safety!

The two questions consumers want answered: Will ticket prices or safety be affected?​

Then they get experts to give their expert view. The safety experts view is a massive red flag to anyone who has worked in the safety area (and I don't limit that to just engineering):

...but Webber argues the airline's safety record will never knowingly be compromised.

KNOWINGLY!!!!
HOLY F...!!

That is a damning indictment, the problem here is what's NOT said. Not deliberately compromising safety does not address "unknowingly" compromising safety.
Tom's story points to serious culture issues to do with being time poor and stressed. No potable water? Oh we're going to load 15 more containers, when already late? How does Tom know that load sheet doesn't have a mistake due to time pressures?

I know you're a qantas defender, but really I can't see anything in your numerous posts in thread that show an appreciation of safety or a qualification to comment on safety. I'll just attribute missing a number of implied safety questions in the article down to your faith in Qantas.

@jb747 I suggest "Tom" as the final arbiter of safety is only as good as the information he's given.

You can however take solace in the regulators and really any Australian based airline is going to be operating world best practices WRT safety standards.

That's just not true. A big part of regulators is.. regulations. I'd prefer they remain involved.

sorry, I wanted to debunk this as well. In my industry sector the regulators are often the least capable to assess safety. Many have little or not operational experience, getting qualified in an area and then moving into regulation after a couple of years. We often see fundamental mistakes in their suggestions about "risks" that need to be managed. The good regulators know when they need help, and are prepared to listen.

Why is this, because the job pays poorly. It's a government job. I've recently looked at a very senior regulator job, and 25% pay cut. CASA is government as well.

In my industry 99% of the people working in the area strive for the best safety practice. This is a safety culture where industry and employees lead the safety process. the regulator's role in this is to monitor and be hands off. I expect the same is true for aviation, as reflected in the idea that aviation wouldn't "knowingly" compromise safety.

 

[Vic]

This is probably my favourite bit of the article, it gets to the core of the issue with Qantas.

McLean emphasises the need for Qantas to show it can be relied upon. "It must be embedded in everything they do because that's what the public expects of the Qantas brand," he says.

 

[RooFlyer]

sorry, I wanted to debunk this as well. In my industry sector the regulators are often the least capable to assess safety. Many have little or not operational experience, getting qualified in an area and then moving into regulation after a couple of years. We often see fundamental mistakes in their suggestions about "risks" that need to be managed. The good regulators know when they need help, and are prepared to listen.

Thats true in my former industry - mining - as well. The regulators (people) have little experience in working in mines. They are bureaucrats who are administring 'regulations' . As long as the boxes in front of them are ticked, then they are happy. The Beaconsfield mine disaster ended up with the Mines Dept here being totally reamed (to coin a phrase).

We saw in the USA how their regulator was asleep at the wheel in respect of approving the MAX.

I'd love to believe that our aviation regulator is much better and proficient - I'm sure for the most part they are, but I bet they rely heavily on whats reported to them by the airlines, who are driven by the bottom line. If the airlines cut costs here and there and skip a few steps here and there, outsource to the lowest tenderer and then (unknowlingly) report to the regulators that everything's hunky-dory, then its a problem. The old holes in the swiss cheese lining up thing. I can't see how you can incessantly cut costs, especially by sacking employees & then outsourcing and not risk a safety issue, even with the best 'regulations'.

 

[jb747]

Tom remains the final arbiter of safety, simply because, he, and nobody else, can take the aircraft flying. Yes, he’s reliant upon what he’s told, and the systems that are supposed to handle things like load sheets, and maintenance, etc, but if he’s lost confidence in them, should he then take the aircraft flying? I’d suggest not. And there would be no action against him if he did decide that way, simply because it would be an enormous headline. And if he has lost confidence, then why? If he’s at that point, he should be knocking on CASA’s door. Take a reporter if he really wants media attention.

But, I remain sceptical. There is no such thing as a “senior pilot”. It’s a term that might come from someone trying to give credence to a story, or from someone making stories up.

 

[RooFlyer]

But, I remain sceptical. There is no such thing as a “senior pilot”. It’s a term that might come from someone trying to give credence to a story, or from someone making stories up.

Fair enough, but it could be just journo-talk for a pilot with a lot of experience, rather than suggesting some hierarchical rank. "Senior Cabinet Minister" and the like.

 

[Quickstatus]

Senior apparently means most experienced and most skilled. I beg to differ
In my line of work, the most safety conscious are actually the recently graduated.

Here is one way to think about seniors vs juniors performance:

The most senior rely on experience which is often manifested as rapid, automatic and probability thinking - fast. So a lot of them portray “decisiveness”. And they sometimes become bold, and often faster. Most of the time they win the probability game but as with all chance they will get it wrong eventually, sometimes often - you can’t always beat the house.

The younger ones due to inexperience are generally slower thinking, requiring effort and higher cognitive bandwidth but they often have less error. They portray carefulness

Which is better?. Is fast better than slow?. Mix of both?. Sometimes need fast and automatic but often slow deliberate is required. Decisive vs careful

Our seniors are also off the on call roster after 60yrs (age). They don’t perform as well generally in the out of hours space compared to the juniors.

Here is an interesting article on fast and slow thinking and Heuristics (error) in the medical field.

That’s one reason why checklists have memory items at the top (fast) but line by line later (slow)

 

[VPS]

Senior apparently means most experienced and most skilled. I beg to differ
In my line of work, the most safety conscious are actually the recently graduated.

Here is one way to think about seniors vs juniors performance:

The most senior rely on experience which is often manifested as rapid, automatic and probability thinking - fast. So a lot of them portray “decisiveness”. And they sometimes become bold, and often faster. Most of the time they win the probability game but as with all chance they will get it wrong eventually, sometimes often - you can’t always beat the house.

The younger ones due to inexperience are generally slower thinking, requiring effort and higher cognitive bandwidth but they often have less error. They portray carefulness

Which is better?. Is fast better than slow?. Mix of both?. Sometimes need fast and automatic but often slow deliberate is required. Decisive vs careful

Our seniors are also off the on call roster after 60yrs (age). They don’t perform as well generally in the out of hours space compared to the juniors.

Here is an interesting article on fast and slow thinking and Heuristics (error) in the medical field.

That’s one reason why checklists have memory items at the top (fast) but line by line later (slow)

The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right : Gawande, Atul: Amazon.com.au: Books Great book about checklists

 

[Melburnian1]

You’re free to think whatever you like. My point is that safety is an intra and extra organisational issue that is affected by all sorts of factors both within and outside of the airline’s control.

Again, im not a safety expert but I know there is more to the subject

While I don't want to go OT, a classic example is the propensity of mainland Chinese travellers to stand en masse on long haul aircraft for lengthy periods.

If there's sudden turbulence, some may well be injured. It'd be different if only one or two were standing: they could grab onto a seat back to steady themselves.

So airlines that ask passengers not to do this in such numbers tend to be more safety conscious.

 

[Melburnian1]

"Tom" never questioned safety. The journalist did, and was given answers by Webber and "Tom" that addressed these concerns.

But interviewees can decline to speak. It's voluntary.

 

[drron]

But interviewees can decline to speak. It's voluntary.

Or make some answers "off the record". Which basically means the reporter will work it into the story without attribution.