Airport Ground Operations SMS - Evolution of Safety Thinking: Traditional vs. Modern Safety Approaches

Sofema Online (SOL) www.sofemaonline.com considers the evolution of Safety Thinking related to Ground Operations Safety Management Systems

Introduction

The evolution from traditional to modern safety thinking represents a significant paradigm shift in aviation ground operations.

• Today’s safety systems are focused on proactive risk management, systems thinking, and learning culture, moving beyond the blame-oriented, reactive approaches of the past.

• Ground operations that embrace this modern mindset are more likely to experience fewer incidents, better safety performance, and enhanced operational efficiency, ultimately driving a safer and more resilient aviation environment.

Safety thinking in aviation, including ground operations, has undergone significant transformation over the years, moving from traditional safety approaches to more modern, systems-based methods.

Traditional Safety Thinking - Main Characteristics:

Traditional safety management approaches, particularly before the 1990s, focused on addressing the immediate causes of accidents or incidents. This reactive approach was often event-driven and blame-oriented.

• Focus on Human Error and Technical Failures

>> Traditional thinking primarily attributed accidents to human error, such as mistakes made by pilots, ground handlers, or other personnel.

>> Equipment failures, such as malfunctioning ground support equipment or issues with the aircraft, were also seen as a leading cause of accidents.

• Maintenance deficiencies and equipment reliability were the primary focus areas.

Example: If a ground support equipment failure caused damage to an aircraft, the investigation would focus on finding the faulty component, fixing it, and blaming the personnel involved.

• Reactive Nature

>> Traditional safety thinking focuses on investigating accidents after they occur to understand the direct cause and assign responsibility.

>> Safety improvements were implemented only after incidents, meaning the process was reactive rather than proactive.

>> Learning was often based on the specific accident itself rather than understanding underlying trends or systemic issues.

• Compliance-Based Approach

>> In this approach, safety was primarily ensured by compliance with prescriptive regulations and procedures.

>> Ground operations were focused on meeting the minimum regulatory requirements set by authorities like ICAO or the FAA.

>> Safety procedures were treated as a checklist to be completed, with less emphasis on continuous improvement or deeper risk assessments.

• Individual Blame

>> When incidents occurred, the tendency was to find and blame individuals (e.g., ground handlers, technicians) who were perceived to have caused the problem.

>> This often led to disciplinary actions without addressing the broader systemic factors contributing to the incident.

Example: A ground worker operating a tug may have been blamed if a collision occurred, with little attention to whether fatigue, poor communication, or organizational factors played a role.

Modern Safety Thinking

Modern safety approaches have shifted towards a system-based, proactive, and risk-oriented mindset. This evolution has been heavily influenced by developments in Safety Management Systems (SMS), the Reason Model (Swiss Cheese Model), and the recognition of human factors.

• Systems Thinking Approach

>> Instead of focusing solely on individual errors, modern safety thinking considers the entire system within which ground operations take place. (Holistic View)

>> This includes organizational factors, procedures, technology, and the working environment.

>> Modern approaches acknowledge that many incidents result from the interaction of multiple factors (human, technical, organizational) rather than a single point of failure.

Example: If a piece of ground support equipment causes damage, the investigation looks at why the equipment was faulty (maintenance schedules, procurement policies), how the operators were trained, and whether organizational culture allowed for reporting issues.

• Proactive Risk Management

>> Modern safety thinking emphasizes the anticipation of hazards through risk assessments and the management of potential risks before they lead to accidents. It involves ongoing hazard identification and mitigation.

>> The use of data analytics, trend analysis, and leading indicators allows organizations to detect potential hazards early and address them before incidents occur.

Example: A near-miss reporting in ground operations helps identify trends that could lead to accidents, allowing for preventive actions (e.g., upgrading faulty equipment or improving training).

• Human Factors and Organizational Culture

>> Modern safety management recognizes that human errors are inevitable but can be mitigated by understanding the underlying causes, such as fatigue, stress, communication issues, or poor design of equipment or processes.

>> The shift towards a "Just Culture" encourages the reporting of safety concerns without fear of punishment.

>> Employees are encouraged to report unsafe conditions, and organizations focus on fixing systemic problems rather than blaming individuals.

Example: If a ground handler is involved in an incident, the modern approach will investigate whether they were properly trained, whether they were overworked, or if there were environmental factors (like poor lighting) contributing to the error.

• Safety Management Systems (SMS)

>> SMS formalizes safety thinking by integrating safety into every aspect of ground operations. SMS includes continuous monitoring, regular safety audits, risk assessments, and proactive safety promotion.

>> Four Pillars of SMS:

• Safety Policy: Strong leadership commitment to safety.

• Safety Risk Management: Continuous identification and management of operational hazards.

• Safety Assurance: Regular monitoring of performance and adapting systems to emerging risks.

• Safety Promotion: Continuous education, training, and communication to enhance safety awareness across the organization.

Example: An SMS in ground operations would include regular reviews of incidents, near-misses, and risk assessments to ensure that ground support equipment is always maintained in good condition and that personnel are adequately trained and rested.

• Learning Organization

>> Continuous Improvement - Modern safety thinking promotes a culture of learning from both successes and failures. Organizations learn from near-misses, incident investigations, and external best practices, adapting their operations accordingly.

>> Benchmarking -  Comparing safety performance metrics with industry standards and competitors ensures that the organization is continually improving.

• Safety as a Value, Not a Cost

>> Modern safety thinking recognizes that investing in safety brings long-term returns, such as reduced accidents, better operational efficiency, and lower insurance premiums.

>> Safety is seen as an organizational value rather than a cost to be minimized.

>> Organizations are increasingly recognizing the financial and operational benefits of a robust safety culture, including fewer disruptions, lower accident-related costs, and improved customer confidence. (Return on Investment (ROI)

Example: A modern ground operations system might invest in more advanced training simulators or data analytics tools to proactively identify risks, knowing that this upfront investment will lead to cost savings through fewer incidents and disruptions.

Comparison: Traditional vs. Modern Safety Thinking

Aspect	Traditional Safety Thinking	Modern Safety Thinking
Focus	Human error and technical failures	Systems thinking, human factors, organizational culture
Approach	Reactive, focused on incidents	Proactive, focused on risk identification and mitigation
Blame	Individual blame culture	Just culture, focus on systemic issues
Safety Management	Compliance-based (meeting minimum regulatory standards)	SMS, continuous improvement, data-driven
Learning	Learning from accidents and incidents	Learning from near-misses, proactive safety improvements
Risk Management	Limited, reactive risk management	Continuous, proactive risk management
Safety Investment	Viewed as a cost	Viewed as an organizational value with long-term ROI

Next Steps

For more information and training support on SMS, consider our Aviation Safety & Safety Management System (SMS) portfolio. For questions and comments, please email [email protected].