Safety stuff

[eejit]

Heard a rumour that there are some proper old fashioned grumblings at techy training central. Seems there are attempts being made to create the definative list of what is an unsafe practice. How can this be done?

 

[propersplitbrainme]

It is done by sitting down and thinking up every possible scenario and permutation by which a careless, casual or stupid trainee can place themselves or their colleagues in danger, or threaten the safety of an aircraft.
Walking under a suspended load
Applying power without following correct process
Failure to observe safety and maintenance notes
Using own tools
Tampering with ejection seat pins
And so on into an increasingly obscure list of cock-up situations.
It is needed so that the review board that decides what to do with an errant trainee when he screws up has something 'written down' which they can point to and say 'aha, that constituted a 'safety fail' because it says so here'. A simple statement from the instructor on report explaining what happened is not deemed good enough, if it doesn't state anywhere that what the individual did constitutes a safety fail, then the review board can't 'safety fail' him/her.
We are back to the thread started a couple of days ago on process fixation.

 

[Tin basher]

It is done by sitting down and thinking up every possible scenario and permutation by which a careless, casual or stupid trainee can place themselves or their colleagues in danger, or threaten the safety of an aircraft.

That's an endless and ever open list that can never be complete or final. In these times of government cut backs seems techy central managment have created a job for life. I mean just when you think you have envisaged every possible c0ck up along comes an inventive trainee who makes a horlicks of the job in a new and unexpected way. A situation you can't legislate for. There could be another deeper more subtle reason if you give "them" the list of possible errors then all the reponsiblity for chopping a student, or not, now rests with you not them therefore it cannot be their fault if it all goes wrong. How safe is YOUR pension.

 

[Harry B'Stard]

A simple statement from the instructor on report explaining what happened is not deemed good enough...because this would require an instructor to have an opinion, and we can't have that!DT_Xtremez_30:

Seriously though eejit, our opinions have been asked for because apparently over the years the phrase 'Safety Fail' has melted away from the legislation that is used... leaving us open to massive repercussions should we get rid of someone for a safety fail... who then goes on to ask his MP to ask the question in parliament 'Where is your definition of a safety fail?'

So, our input consists of an overarching statement about what a safety fail is (see PSBM's comment about injury/damage because that's about right) and then each subject gives a list of areas of danger and a few examples. We've recommended that the list is non-exhaustive and that instructors opinions count... because a comprehensive list would be unworkable.

Hope this helps ease your mind..

HTB

 

[Rigga]

Erm... I know I'm not good at "Grammer" - but don't you mean a safety failure rather than a safety fail?
Or is this yet another americanism encroaching on British language?

And if I am having difficulty understanding this language - maybe your trainees are too?

In other words - can you explain the term "safety fail" to me?

I agree with Harry that a list of dangerous situations is not what is required for trainees.

Surely the proper education of safety principles to students is Cosford's main job. The use of a list will lead to litigation when items not on the list are found to be hazardous.

 

[propersplitbrainme]

Erm... I know I'm not good at "Grammer" - but don't you mean a safety failure rather than a safety fail?

By safety 'fail' we mean in the sense that one 'fails' an exam; a 'safety fail' means a misdemeanour which is deemed significant enough to invoke a report highlighting the incident.

And if I am having difficulty understanding this language - maybe your trainees are too?

Our trainees know what is required of them, none has ever over-analysed the language being used (well not to date anyway!) DT_Xtremez_42:

Surely the proper education of safety principles to students is Cosford's main job. The use of a list will lead to litigation when items not on the list are found to be hazardous.

Precisely.

 

[Rigga]

PSBM - thanks.

Just knocked this up...as a principle...

Safety:

The measured use of defined principles, rules and practices to attain a required standard or result.

A “lack of safety” can be defined as the abuse of principles, rules and practices for perceived short-term advantage. Long-term effects of working outside safety values will inevitably result in unforeseen failures that may hazard people, property or environment.


Discuss.

 

[SirSaltyHelmet]

You will probably find that it is RISK MANAGMENT that is heading towards. Big thing post Hadden-Cave, and someone somewhere will be trying tosort out where the risk lies, and more importantly who owns that risk.

 

[Tin basher]

You must remember this is taking place in a building where only this week one particular office failed an elf' n' safety check because the corners of the office desks were deemed to be to sharp and pointy.




No I'm not kidding

 

[propersplitbrainme]

You must remember this is taking place in a building where only this week one particular office failed an elf' n' safety check because the corners of the office desks were deemed to sharp and pointy.

Fear not, we will be planing the corners off the desks, sticking foam spongy stuff over them and hanging warning flags later this morning.

 

[propersplitbrainme]

PSBM - thanks.

Just knocked this up...as a principle...

Safety:

The measured use of defined principles, rules and practices to attain a required standard or result.

A “lack of safety” can be defined as the abuse of principles, rules and practices for perceived short-term advantage. Long-term effects of working outside safety values will inevitably result in unforeseen failures that may hazard people, property or environment.

Its good and it works as a principle for me. It also fulfils this requirement:

Seriously though eejit, our opinions have been asked for because apparently over the years the phrase 'Safety Fail' has melted away from the legislation that is used... leaving us open to massive repercussions should we get rid of someone for a safety fail... who then goes on to ask his MP to ask the question in parliament 'Where is your definition of a safety fail?'

Damn, got to legit now - fire brief in 5 mins!

 

[Dave-exfairy]

A "Safety Fail"? What the feck is that? And this in a military force which uses stuff in various forms which goes BANG? What next? Pitot heads deemed too sharp and pointy? Idiots.

 

[fat lazy techie]

Perhaps some wording in the I Specs with regards to the standard expected of the trainee when carrying out a task or even individual KLPs that make up the IS. May I be so bold as to suggest "Without error in all aspects of safety"?.

We all know what's safe and what isn't, don't we?

 

[Ex-Bay]

Originally Posted by Rigga
Just knocked this up...as a principle...

Safety:

The measured use of defined principles, rules and practices to attain a required standard or result.

A “lack of safety” can be defined as the abuse of principles, rules and practices for perceived short-term advantage.
Long-term effects of working outside safety values will inevitably result in unforeseen failures that may hazard people, property or environment.
----------------

May I suggest a possible alternative ?
Safety:
The application of defined principles, rules and /or practices to attain a required standard or result in an otherwise uninjured person or equipment.

Long-term effects of working outside certain values that may result in unforeseen failures and thus constitute a hazard to people, property or environment.

---------------
Definitions of safety on the Web:

• the state of being certain that adverse effects will not be caused by some agent under defined conditions; "the reciprocal of safety is risk"

 

[Harry B'Stard]

Erm... I know I'm not good at "Grammer" - but don't you mean a safety failure rather than a safety fail?
Or is this yet another americanism encroaching on British language?
PSBM answered that one for me!


And if I am having difficulty understanding this language - maybe your trainees are too?

I'd like a 'Safety Fail' statement that didn't sound like it was made up by a lawyer never mind the trainees!


I agree with Harry that a list of dangerous situations is not what is required for trainees.

In addition, a new instructor will spend more time staring at a list of possible incidents than he would supervising the trainees.

Surely the proper education of safety principles to students is Cosford's main job. The use of a list will lead to litigation when items not on the list are found to be hazardous.

It is our main concern at all times... I thought that you'd be pleased that we are trying to rectify the situation!

Teaching our future technicians is no easy matter. We have to ensure that the demands of the trade sponsor, OFSTED, elf in safety, Duty of Care, new management, QCIT/LEAN/QUEST and a desire from many of us to improve the quality of the teach that leads to little nuggets like this cropping up.DT_Xtremez_30:

HTB

 

[Tin basher]

As Harry suggests this particular can of worms is very convoluted and very large and could have all sorts of knock on effects. The simple notion of what constitutes safe is becoming a many headed beast with more variations than there are layers of management. T'was all so simple once safety was like pregnancy you either were or you weren't, not now sadly.

 

[propersplitbrainme]

We all know what's safe and what isn't, don't we?

Yes we do, and thats the kick in the sack. Anyone, instructor or not, could go out into our hangar, observe a group of trainees at work and spot immediately if one of them did something unsafe. But in so far as our reoprting process is concerned it seems that the instructors statement of events and description of what the individual did isn't good enough if 'whatever it was they did' isn't prescribed in some tablets of stone type list as being an act that consitutes a failure on safety grounds.

 

[fat lazy techie]

Yes we do, and thats the kick in the sack. Anyone, instructor or not, could go out into our hangar, observe a group of trainees at work and spot immediately if one of them did something unsafe. But in so far as our reoprting process is concerned it seems that the instructors statement of events and description of what the individual did isn't good enough if 'whatever it was they did' isn't prescribed in some tablets of stone type list as being an act that consitutes a failure on safety grounds.

At the moment I'm having no issues getting my failures to stick, could it be down to the fact that when I raise TPR (basically a formal statement of failure as well as other things for those who don't know) I mention the potential consequences of said individuals actions in the real world.

 

[PaddingtonStare]

I might be getting completely to wrong end of the stick here, but surely the requirement is that students should be able to spot an unsafe act or working situation, rather then being able to quote verbatim a list of things that are unsafe?

Having just undertaken a MIST course, it became painfully apparent, in rather a short time, that the RAF pays little more than lip service to safety at times compared to other industries.

Example: Go and work on that jet
: I'll need staging as this constitutes working at height
: Get on with it and stop being a difficult git
: No I need staging
: Right I'll get some one else more gullible to do it, and this will appear in your SJARS

 

[Harry B'Stard]

I might be getting completely to wrong end of the stick here, but surely the requirement is that students should be able to spot an unsafe act or working situation, rather then being able to quote verbatim a list of things that are unsafe?

Having just undertaken a MIST course, it became painfully apparent, in rather a short time, that the RAF pays little more than lip service to safety at times compared to other industries.

Yes you are right... we try to emphasise the consequence of actions and make them think for themselves, especially where safety is involved. However, it is always easier to ask for a list of safety precautions in an exam!

Yep, we don't let anyone on top of an aircraft on jacks anymore... however, I remember my last unit provided staging for such an occurrence which would only serve to break your neck BEFORE you hit the groundDT_Xtremez_30:

HTB