FAA and SMS
Last week, I attended a Safety Management Systems (SMS) seminar at Aviation Industry Expo that was co-sponsored by NATA and AMTSociety.
During the course of the seminar, an FAA representative discussed how the FAA and the aviation community need to get past the “blame game” of the past, and move forward towards a safety culture where the FAA and industry work together to identify risks and develop an even safer aviation system. He encouraged more sharing of incident and accident information between industry and the FAA.
Maybe it’s just me, but how can the FAA be both a regulator, an enforcer of the rules, and a safety partner at the same time? Aren’t the two mutually exclusive? The FAA can either focus on regulatory enforcement and oversight, or on carrying the torch of SMS. I don’t believe it can do both.
Take Southwest Airlines for example. The airline self-disclosed that it had missed some inspections. A true SMS attitude would have taken that information, figured out the root cause of the missed inspections, and implemented corrective actions to prevent such an occurrence from happening again.
Instead the blame game attitude prevailed, and a $10.2 million fine was imposed on Southwest.
If I were an airline and saw what happened to Southwest, why on earth would I want to self-disclose any information to the FAA? And without the airlines and aviation companies self-disclosing information, an effective SMS system is only a pipe dream.
What do you think? The FAA — enforcer or safety champion?
Thanks for reading,
Joe Escobar
Sounds like parenting…I make the rules, enforce them and grow along with my kids!
It goes back to the FAA’s original charge, which was to foster the growth of aviation first, then regulate the resulting industry. They can do both, but only if there are two distinct divisions in the FAA- one for safety and the other for enforcement. They should only interface with each other when there is a clear threat to safety. There must also be a NASA-like barrier between them, as the case should have been at SWA. Barring that, I fear a stifling of information exchange out of fear for reprisal, to the safety detriment of the industry. SMS is too good an opportunity for safety enhancement to die on the vine just to satisfy some bureaucrat’s desire for publicity. The NASA immunity process needs to be expanded immediately (if that’s possible in the FAA) to include the self-disclosure program. Otherwise, safety will suffer as maintenance documentation diminishes.
They the FAA need to stay away from the enforcement game and stay with safety.The FAA seems to forget they are not a police force. What happens to the 10.2 million? I hope it would go to fund safety programs.
Presently we have companies that have that “catch me if you can” attitude. With SMS they will be in control, not the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). If the company controls the “indicators” within SMS that will notify the CAA of a pending problem, then the CAA will have no reason to visit the company. No wonder the executives of the companies are embracing SMS. But if you talk to the company QA personnel or Inspectors that have to force the company to comply with the regulations, or their own SOP, most would rather have the CAA oversight system hard at work. I believe that it will take a generation; at least, to have a SMS that meets the concept put forth by the CAA. Until then, you have to understand that Aviation Safety is everyone’s responsibility.
The FAA is not the go to guy’s when a company such a those involved have this grievious of an incident. This wasn’t one airframe flown on one flight! It was multiple airframes flown on multiple flights. The safety of the public and the public’s trust have been harmed and a stern corrective action must be applied. You can bet if one A&P had messed up on a scale like this they would be history. The management at this “airline” must be equally corrected and any and all financial gains eliminated from all who gained.