Posted in by .

The aviation industry here in Australia has been in the headlines recently, for all the wrong reasons. One airline was forced to ground its fleet because of safety violations. The other airlines were quick to say something like “we will never compromise on safety”.

Then there was a volcano in Chile that erupted, sending ash into the atmosphere at the height airplanes fly. It circled the globe twice, and twice disrupted air travel in Australia and New Zealand. How did the airlines respond? Well, one grounded its fleet when the ash cloud was present, and another flew under and around the cloud. For two companies that “will never compromise on safety” the response could not have been more different.

It did get me thinking … companies often will not compromise on safety, but will they compromise on “extra” safety?

Returning to the airline example, I recently flew a single aisle plane (something like a Boeing 737 or an Airbus A320) from Melbourne to Perth. The flight goes “under” Australia, and has a very significant over water portion of the 4 hour flight. I noticed a bulge in the ceiling, and when I asked what it was, the flight crew told me it was the life rafts. Looking out the window, and barely seeing the essentially unpopulated southern coast of Australia, I found the life rafts re-assuring.

I also recently flew on another airline in the same type of single aisle plane. It was very new, and the in flight entertainment system had not yet been added. It looked great, but it did not have a bulge in the ceiling. I asked the flight crew why this plane was not configured to fly from Melbourne to Perth, and they said it was. !?! When I asked “where are the life rafts?” I was told they were not needed, that the flight was close enough to land for them to not be required. I was not happy to think about my plane going down off the southern coast of Australia, and having to rely on my flotation vest for hours instead of minutes. I developed an opinion (NOTE: this is my opinion, and it is NOT supported by law or fact, just my reasoning) that flotation vests are to be used for (say) 15 minutes, but not (say) 150 minutes. If I was going to spend 150 minutes in the water, I would want a life raft. And looking at the southern coast of Australia, it could easily take a rescue boat hours to reach us.

I quickly came to what I think is a reasonable conclusion … one airline was following the law, and one was exceeding the law. Neither compromised on safety, but one compromised on extra safety.

I have started reading the flight safety cards and I have discovered that they are also different, varying from airline to airline (on the same type of plane). For the rear door, in an emergency, one airline had the flight crew open the door, while the other airline would allow a passenger to open the door. Again, one airline was following the law, and one was exceeding the law. Neither compromised on safety, but one compromised on extra safety.

In looking back over my career, I started to think about the companies I had worked for that did not compromise on extra safety, and found they were excellent companies to work for. The difference between (say) two and three layers of protection (according to the law) when only two are needed can be expensive, but looks like an excellent investment when an incident occurs.

I have come to the conclusion that these decisions to not compromise on extra safety must originate from the board, and filter down. Given the numerical accuracy of many ALARP requirements, it can easily be defined in advance when safety is “met” and when safety is “exceeded”. And clearly exceeding what is needed will cost more. Is this a case where intuition is better than numerical accuracy? Maybe, and the economic pressure to reduce extra safety will continue as the need to be economically competitive grows.

Returning to my airline example, I now am starting to understand more of the reasons why their air fares are slightly different. Essentially I am paying slightly more to fly in an aircraft with life rafts. By the way, the airline that grounded its fleet during the ash cloud is the one that has the life rafts. It did not surprise me either.