Monday, 5 October 2015
It is 17th July, 2015, the first
anniversary of the destruction of Malaysian Airlines MH17 in Ukrainian airspace. It is generally accepted that the aircraft
was shot down by a missile fired from the ground by one of the combatants,
although Russia claims that it was a Ukrainian fighter aircraft with an air to
air missile. Whatever is finally
proven, it is a criminal act which must be properly investigated and the
perpetrators condemned.
But who is responsible in the end? The man who fired the missile, the
politicians who are prolonging the war on the ground, the Ukrainian government
for failing to close their block of airspace to civil airlines, the airline
itself and the Captain of the aircraft for having decided to fly through that
airspace in the full knowledge that there was a war in progress?? Who should be held responsible?
Perhaps it is a flawed system of aviation safety being
challenged at every turn by commercial considerations and immense financial
pressures.
What has this issue of air safety versus commercial
pressures got to do with MH17 you may ask?
Well, actually quite a lot!
Malaysian Airlines, like many others, would have been
aiming to fly the shortest route between Amsterdan and Kuala Lumpur on that
fateful night. In the highly
competitive world of airline operations, it aimed to reduce operating costs by
minimising the amoung of fuel burned during the flight. So it planned a direct flight which took it
over the Ukarainian territory. They had
been told it was safe to fly above 32,000 feet (considered to be above the
height that any weapons known to be in use in the conflict, could reach). Other airlines also followed the same route
before and after the shoot down occurred.
However, several airlines chose to avoid the airspace altogether and
flew around Ukrainian airspace, so adding some time to their flight plan and
burning more fuel which would add to the cost of their flights.
There have been cases of pilots being rewarded with
cash bonuses by their airlines if they saved fuel. This is an incentive to make decisions based on economic return
rather than the best safety case. It is
an abhorrent concept and totally contrary to a proper safety culture.
It is well known in the airline industry that profit
margins are slim. The liberalisation of
airspace over the last couple of decades and the relaxation of restrictions on
the number of airlines allowed to operate has generated an intensely
competitive market for the airline companies.
Witness the massive discounts offered by the airlines to attract your
business. It is now possible to fly
between two destinations for significantly less than it would cost to drive
your car over the same distance.
Some major national carriers have gone through very
difficult economic times and you can see that almost all of the major airlines
in USA have been through, or are currently operating under Chapter 11
bankruptcy protection.
Many airlines have been forced to take decisions and
form alliances which would have been unthinkable in past years, because of competitie pressures and the removal of
national government protection which they previously enjoyed.
Many new passengers, who have never flown before, have
been attracted to the skies by lower cost travel and businesses are reducing
their travel budgets by paying for the lowest available fares.
But the big question now is, should you feel safe when
flying on a very low cost ticket or even a free one? Do the same rules not apply to air travel as to other
commodities? Isn’t it true that you
get what you pay for?
Airlines generally are categorised as “Legacy
Carriers” being the old established and well known airlines of many nations
which are usually the national flag carriers, and which provide a full in
flight service with well experienced crews.
This experience and service usually comes at a higher price to the passenger.
And then we have the relatively new “LOW COST
carriers” or LCCs or Budget Airlines.
Think about the names, “LOW COST” and “BUDGET”. Doesn’t that tell you something about their
culture? Of course there is not a
single low cost carrier in the entire World which would agree that it operates
at anything less than the same full and professional safety standard required
by international and national regulations and by the insurance companies. But it worries me when an airline considers
charging for a visit to the toilet during a flight, or when I have to pay a flight attendant for a
blanket when the cabin temperature is set too low.
Pilots salaries are lower now than they were before
the advent of LCCs and there are some airlines where the pilots pay for the
opportunity to gain flight experience on their services[1]. How many passengers would know that,
sometimes, their pilot is also paying for his flight?
But we have national aviation regulators, or civil
aviation authorities to ensure that all the rules and regulations are followed
and to protect the innocent passenger who does not know anything about the
technicalities and actual dangers of flight.
Or do we?
It is an unfortunate fact that many of the Worlds’
national aviation regulators are lagging behind the industry and are not
sufficiently resourced by their governments.
They are often short staffed, e.g. not enough air safety inspectors or
air traffic management specialists and frequently the regulators technology is
not up to pace with the industry, yet they are required to approve and certify
air operations, pilots, engineeers, and many other critical operational matters
which, in some cases, they are not properly qualified to do.
Some countries are hiring in, on a part-time basis,
inspectors who are actually pilots with the airlines they are required to
regulate. Is it possible that there is
a conflict of interest here?
Now turn back to MH17, QZ8501 and other similar
incidents.
Are the pilots under pressure from the management of
the company to save money “at all costs”?
Do they have to undergo an inquisition if they should divert or turn
back from their assigned route for “safety reason”?
The safety culture of any organisation, particularly
an air operator, starts with the senior management and directors of the
company. The CEO and the Chairman are
responsible for ensuring that a good safety culture should permeate the entire
organisation. But, in the reality of
the commercial World we live in, is this entirely possible? Often the directors and senor management
of airline businesses may not be aware of the costs of having an accident.
It soon becomes apparent, if they have an accident
that it is much more expensive and disastrous than the costs of enuring that
safety is the first priority.
If the bottom line is the most important issue for the
management, it is likely to be communicated to the operations staff and pilots
of the airline and they will feel pressured to make decisions based on
financial considerations rather than pure safety considerations. Some airlines even try to take the safety
decision from the pilots and require them to radio their operations staff for
approval to divert or turn back.
Should MH17 have diverted and flown an extra hour to
ensure it was clear of the war zone?
Should the pilots of Air Asia QZ8501 have turned back to Surabaya when
they saw the massive storm system on their path and so avoided placing the
aircraft in a dangerous situation?
In either of these cases would the pilots have still
had their jobs the following day or would they have been penalised for adding
to the costs of their flights?
