2004
Volume 1, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 2589-6725
  • E-ISSN: 2589-6733

Abstract

Abstract

Risk management is considered as the core process of an effective safety management system for identifying hazards and assessing risks. However, recent fatal hull loss accidents appear to have resulted from a combination of factors, none of which can alone cause an accident or even a serious incident. Therefore, traditional safety risk assessment processes, risk matrices, hazard logs and conventional risk management methodologies that mainly address individual risks, in some cases remained less effective in preventing major accidents that resulted from cumulative risks. Consequently, air operators have the need not only to proactively identify the ‘initial’ and the ‘residual’ risk of a hazard, but also to recognize the ‘current’ or ‘actual’ risk state of their system and to take the necessary mitigation actions for preventing an accident or a serious incident that may result from a combination of factors. The aim of this paper is to present and explain the concept of Dynamic Risk Management Dashboards (DRMDs), a tool which is a combined, real-time basis, a cross-departmental effort for managing risks resulting from a combination of factors. DRMD could concurrently examine and visualize the actual risk state of an aerodrome, an aircraft, an aircrew or an air traffic route based on a set of pre-defined Risk Acceptance Criteria that have been developed and tailored by each operator. The DRMDs have been implemented and evaluated by the safety department of a large military aviation organization as a proactive safety tool that complements the existing risk management process. Anecdotal results after a six-month trial period showed that DRMD assist decision makers in identifying the cumulative risks of particular missions and effectively in responding to unacceptable risks before authorizing or dispatching a particular flight.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/ADV2018.1.004.PANA
2018-05-01
2022-11-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/25896725/1/1/04_ADV2018.1.PANA.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5117/ADV2018.1.004.PANA&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. EASA, (2017). AMC and GM to Part 21, [online] European Aviation Safety AgencyCologne. Retrieved 20 October 2017 from: https://www.easa.europa.eu/regulations.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. EASp (2014). European aviation safety plan 2014-2017. [online] European Aviation Safety Agency. Cologne Retrieved 29 October 2017 from: https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/sms-docs-European-Aviation-Safety-Plan-(2014-2017).pdf.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. FAA (2007). Flight Risk Assessment Tool, US Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration Info Paper 7/3/2007. Retrieved 23 November 2017 from: https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/info/all_infos/media/2007/inFO07015.pdf.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. IASS (2016), ‘Higher Risk Operations and Dynamic Risk Management Dashboards’, presentation at the 69th annual International Air Safety Summit (IASS), Dubai, UAE, November 14-16, 2016. Retrieved 14 November 2017 from: http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/3734.pdf.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. ICAO (2009). Safety Management Manual, ICAO Doc 9859-AN/474. 2nd ed. [online] International Civil Aviation Organisation. Retrieved 13 October 2017 from: http://www.icao.int/safety/fsix/Library/DOC_9859_FULL_EN.pdf.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. ICAO (2013). Annex 19, Safety Management. [online] International Civil Aviation Organisation. Retrieved 4 November 2017 from: http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/2422.pdf.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. ICAO (2013a). Safety Management Manual (SMM), Doc 9859/AN/474. 3rd ed. [online] International Civil Aviation Organisation. Retrieved 25 Oct 2017 from: http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/644.pdf.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. ISO (2009). International Organization for Standardization. ISO 3100-2009 Risk Management-Principles and Guidelines. Retrieved 04 October 2017 from: https://www.iso.org/iso-31000-risk-management.html.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Leveson, N. (2015). A systems approach to risk management through leading safety indicators. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 136, 17–34.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. NATO (2017). Strategic airlift capability (SAC). [online] NATO Support and Procurement Agency. Retrieved 26 Sep 2017 from: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_50105.htm.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. NSPA (2017). NATO Airlift Management Programme. [online] NATO Support and Procurement Agency. Retrieved 23 October 2017 from: http://www.nspa.nato.int/en/organization/NAMP/home.htm.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Panagopoulos, I., Atkin, C. and Sikora, I. (2016). Lean Six-Sigma in Aviation Safety: An implementation guide for measuring aviation system’s safety performance. Journal of Safety Studies, 2(2), 30.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. ReasonJ. (1990). Human Error. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/ADV2018.1.004.PANA
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/ADV2018.1.004.PANA
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error