3 Reasons Why Written Procedures May Sometimes Jeopardise Safety
In aviation, safety procedures are written and adjusted by the very people using them. But what happens when humans, who are bound to make mistakes, write the procedures? Are the procedures always a reflection of safety? Or does reality sometimes beat the writing?
In our profession, everybody strives to ensure safety, follow procedures, and comply with regulations. However, there is an inherent risk for errors or ‘blind spots’ when it comes to procedures written by humans.
Human Factors. Scarce resources. Lack of knowledge. Complacency. All these factors can sometimes result in procedures which do not fully align with the actual work or operational demands. This might unintentionally generate safety risks.
In this article, we explore the main reasons why written procedures may sometimes jeopardise safety.
Do Your Procedures Reflect Reality – or Your Perception of Reality?
In the ideal world, procedures are based on best practices and extensive knowledge while also considering the dynamic, unpredictable, and flawed nature of the real world.
In other words, the procedures must reflect reality and not just the organisation's perception of reality.
To ensure this as best as possible, organisations must conduct regular reviews of their procedures and ask for feedback from their employees. This way, there is a greater chance that the procedures actually reflect the demands of the operational environment – and not just the organisation’s perception of reality.
Audits, feedback, and continuous improvement are crucial in Safety Management Systems and must also be considered when writing and using procedures. SMS is one measure that contributes to identifying and correcting gaps between the written procedures and the real world.
Read more: Is Your SMS Reactive, Proactive, or Predictive?
If organisations incorporate insights from the people who actually have to comply with the procedures when they write and adjust the procedures, it becomes much easier to ensure that the procedures are relevant, practical, and aligned with the defined safety objectives.
This approach helps mitigate the inherent risks associated with human limitations in terms of writing procedures.
3 Ways in Which Written Procedures Jeopardise Safety
Essentially, written procedures can negatively impact safety if the procedures are:
- Unrealistic
- Overly rigid
- Failing to account for operational complexities
This can easily lead to confusion and unsafe deviations from procedures.
To mitigate the negative impact, we must consider the 3 main reasons why written procedures may sometimes jeopardise safety:
1. Human Factors: Procedures are developed and written by humans. But the thing is that we carry all sorts of biases, misconceptions, assumptions, and knowledge gaps with us every day. This may lead to oversights, inaccuracies, or outright flaws in the written procedures.
2. Lack of Adaptability: Written procedures are by nature rigid and may not account for the variable and complex nature of the operational environment. So, when maintenance engineers, pilots, or cabin crew members find themselves in situations that do not align perfectly with the written procedures, they may become unsure or even improvise unsafe decisions.
3. Insufficient Employee Feedback: Oftentimes, procedures are developed with no or minimal input from the people who actually perform the job subject to procedures. If management fails to include their experiences and input, the procedures are likely to disregard practical challenges. When procedures stray from reality, it becomes difficult for employees to follow the procedures – and this leads to workarounds which may compromise safety. In fact, a survey found that when people deliberately deviated from procedures, 48 percent attributed this deviation to the procedures being too restrictive. And 62 percent said that if the procedures were followed to the letter, the job could not be done in time. (Source: Human Reliability Associated Ltd, included UK CAA CAP 716).
Addressing the three factors above can help organisations improve and align the procedures with safety requirements and real-life scenarios.
This way, procedures written by humans are more likely to reflect reality – and thus enhance safety.
Read more: Safety Management: Make It Simple and Easy to Speak Up
Employee Inputs Are Crucial to a Functioning SMS
How does your organisation identify, assess, and mitigate safety risks? Our guess is that you encourage your employees to report any safety-related issues or hazards. If that is the case, you have grasped the concept of SMS.
Is Your SMS Reactive, Proactive, or Predictive?
Safety Management Systems are here to stay. Essentially, SMS is crucial to our industry because it ensures the highest level of safety in a profession where failure can turn fatal. But why do we distinguish between three different approaches to SMS?
How to Promote a Just Safety Culture
A just safety culture is crucial to a functioning Safety Management System. But how can you ensure and promote a just culture throughout your organisation?
Safety Management: Examining the Four Pillars of SMS
A just safety culture is crucial to a functioning Safety Management System. But how can you ensure and promote a just culture throughout your organisation?
How to Overcome the Obstacles that Prevent Successful SMS Implementation
How can EASA Part-145 maintenance organisations who are in despair and desperate to implement SMS as easily as possible overcome the challenges before deadline?
Safety Management: Make It Simple and Easy to Speak Up
In aviation, SMS is a requirement to be reckoned with. But its success is contingent upon employee inputs, valuable feedback, and the safety culture. The question is how your organisation can encourage employees to speak up about safety?