Sat Oct 10, 2020 5:34 pm
#1801875
In most safety systems the reporting of "near misses" is as important as the reporting of accidents or incidents. It is widely accepted there is a direct relationship between deaths and near misses in the ratio of for every 600 near misses there will be 30 incidents that might result in 10 accidents of which one might be a serious accident or death. It doesn't matter if some use a different ratio - that is really beside the point. There is a direct relationship between near misses and deaths. If the causes of near misses are understood and addressed the number of deaths can/should be reduced.
In our particular branch of aviation accidents and major incidents are investigated by the AAIB (because that is an ICAO responsibility), but who receives near miss reports, analyses them and promulgates any conclusions/recommendations? Airproxes are dealt with over there, Chirp does other stuff over here, MORs go somewhere (sometimes it appears like into a black hole), who looks into maintenance and aircraft design issues? How does a recreational pilot know what to report where? I suspect most don't know and report nothing. Why isn't the analysis of near misses of all types to do with light aviation brought together to reduce the overall accident rate?
This train of thought has been set off by the thread on infringements. The logical (but improbable) extension of an infringement is a collision between an airliner and a small aircraft. The current thinking appears to put all the emphasis on the recreational (amateur) pilot to avoid restricted airspace, and to punish us when we transgress. If the accident investigation machinery were to investigate near miss reports also would there be some pressure on other aspects of airborne collision avoidance pie to improve overall outcomes? My own beef is airspace design, but there are other areas. Also procedures, training and perhaps regulation could could be highlighted and improved in other areas that the recreational aviation population perceive as dangerous (circuit joining procedures come to mind, but there are many others) before a fatal accident if the data were collected in an integrated manner?
Clearly the funding of any integrated near-miss/incident/accident investigation authority is an issue. But when the World seems to be expanding the application of safety (management) systems it seems curious to me that the way our branch of aviation handles near misses is so out of step with good safety management practice.
In our particular branch of aviation accidents and major incidents are investigated by the AAIB (because that is an ICAO responsibility), but who receives near miss reports, analyses them and promulgates any conclusions/recommendations? Airproxes are dealt with over there, Chirp does other stuff over here, MORs go somewhere (sometimes it appears like into a black hole), who looks into maintenance and aircraft design issues? How does a recreational pilot know what to report where? I suspect most don't know and report nothing. Why isn't the analysis of near misses of all types to do with light aviation brought together to reduce the overall accident rate?
This train of thought has been set off by the thread on infringements. The logical (but improbable) extension of an infringement is a collision between an airliner and a small aircraft. The current thinking appears to put all the emphasis on the recreational (amateur) pilot to avoid restricted airspace, and to punish us when we transgress. If the accident investigation machinery were to investigate near miss reports also would there be some pressure on other aspects of airborne collision avoidance pie to improve overall outcomes? My own beef is airspace design, but there are other areas. Also procedures, training and perhaps regulation could could be highlighted and improved in other areas that the recreational aviation population perceive as dangerous (circuit joining procedures come to mind, but there are many others) before a fatal accident if the data were collected in an integrated manner?
Clearly the funding of any integrated near-miss/incident/accident investigation authority is an issue. But when the World seems to be expanding the application of safety (management) systems it seems curious to me that the way our branch of aviation handles near misses is so out of step with good safety management practice.