Safety Committee Resources
- Safety Committee newsletter (August 2024)
- Safety Committee newsletter (March 2025)
Is Your Go Team Ready?
We all can agree that the loss of any human life is a tragedy, regardless of if they are an airline passenger, or flying on a privately owned airplane. Aircraft accident response requires a large amount of preparation to be ready for the unthinkable (NBAA). All organizations can understand the importance of having personnel prepared to handle an emergency, however the difference between resources available in-house for private operators compared to their airline counterparts with regard to response, is immense.
ALPA provides a tremendous amount of support for affiliated airlines in accidents, whereas business aviation operators are left to their own devices. In a major accident, the Safety Board (NTSB) will typically extend party member status to organizations who can provide technical assistance to the investigation (including the operator). Having a team of people available who are trained and ready to be involved in an accident is crucial so you can help solve imminent safety concerns, identify the root cause and ultimately allow for the best recommendation moving forward. This participation is in the interest of your individual operation’s risk identification, but also for the aviation industry as a whole moving forward.
Business operators understand the significance of being involved in an investigation, but many simply do not have manpower to comply with best practices. Having management flying the accident aircraft, your own team being investigated for cause, and several staff having personal connections with the deceased are just a few of the challenges that small operators face. It’s no surprise that just trying to keep the remaining business afloat takes all the resources that some operations have.
Don Chupp, CEO of Fireside Partners Inc., has expert insight on the differences between the framework of actions following an airline and business aviation emergency response. He described that airlines have a culture of openness and honesty with regard to accidents, near misses and lessons learned. It is largely agreed upon that any accident in their sector of the industry affects the industry at large, regardless of which airline was specifically involved.
Aviation safety in general is promoted as “learning” and “just,” a system that learns from accidents so we all can be safer at the end of the day. However, without a union binding business aviation operators together, it becomes difficult if not impossible to build the same trust and value that airlines gain from sharing insight. Chupp describes that what we need in our industry (business aviation) is “unapologetic honesty.” Safety should not be competitive, and we need to use each other, and our shared insight to prevent the next accident.
Fireside Partners asks operators important questions such as:
- Is your ERP a truth telling document? Are positions listed not only well trained to carry out their responses to any emergency, but do they have the authority and autonomy to carry out what is needed in a response?
- Does your team have Go Team members who are not only trained for what to expect, but ready to contribute to an investigation? Do they understand their rights as a party member? Do they understand what they will need to do to assist crews, and passengers affected?
- It’s irrefutable that emergency preparation is important for business aviation, the question that remains from operator to operator is how will they practice to ensure business continuity when the worst happens?
Sources for Emergency Preparedness Training:
Safety First - Even On the Ground
Operators spend a lot of time and resources to fulfill audit standards measuring flight safety, while seeing insurance claims coming in year after year for hangar rash, or FOD ingestion. Damage to aircraft on the ground is seen often from air bridges causing damage and towing, often affecting the landing gear, wings or empennage.
Recently, Part 91 and 135 operators have been seeking IS-BAH compliance as self-handlers, whereas former ground handlers to seek implementation were almost all FBOs. Bank of America is the first to successfully implement IS-BAH as a self-handler. Operators are discovering the significance of ground handling procedures within their own teams. Despite it’s significance to our bottom line, and to the safety of our operation, there is a fraction of IS-BAH auditors when compared to IS-BAO. With potential for towing mishaps, misfueling, and a plethora of other potential risks, there is no doubt that more ground handling standardization will be one of the areas of industry focus in years to come.
Read more about IS-BAH certification.
Read more about Bank of America’s successful IS-BAH implementation.
AvMassi has led the charge with both consultation, and auditing ground handling services for operators. Lou Sorrentino is an experienced aviation safety professional, and has led many safety initiatives including consulting for NATA’s Ground Handler SMS. Read more about Lou Sorrentino.
Normalization of Deviation in Business Aviation
Even well-intentioned pilots deviate from SOPs, due to lack of knowledge, training gaps, or from habit. A study conducted by United Airlines found that pilots average two unintentional deviations per flight (Flight Safety Foundation). In business aviation, these risks are heightened by operational pressures. Unlike the airlines, when flights do not go according to plan, writing up squawks, delaying or cancelling for weather, the crew is responsible for problem solving and breaking bad news to passengers. This puts a higher workload on the crew and may increase the temptation to bend the SOPs to make the flights happen, leading to increased risk for accidents.
This potential for deviatiation exists inside maintenance shops as well. In 1990, a British Airways BAC-111 climbing through 17,300 feet had the left windscreen blown out – sucking the PF partially out the window. It was determined in the investigation that the wrong size bolts had been used. The maintenance crew that performed the work had been understaffed, had only 1.5 hours of sleep the night prior, and were out of stock of the specified bolt, causing them to ultimately make the short cuts they did. Miraculously, the pilot of this airplane survived this disaster, and we can benefit from the lessons learned.
A prevailing root factor seen in ASAPs and near misses is self-inflicted pressure. Regardless of if we fly the plane, maintain the plane, or schedule the trip, we all are eager to keep flying, and to get the passenger where they’d like to go. We all need to remember that even with good intentions, safety needs to remain the priority.