A Plan For The Corrective Action Plans (CAP) And Processes

By Didrik Strand offroadpilots@gmail.com
A fix is for the malfunction, while a repair considers malfunction in addition to the malfunction.  

An Enterprise without a Plan for the Corrective Action Plans (CAP) is being lost in a Maze of Corrective Options.  The Maze of Corrective Options is a place of traditions and familiar operations, and it is a "safe place" to make decisions. It's a maze because for each decision made there is a fork in the road without a direction sign.


CAPs are not just for making changes after surveillance findings of non-regulatory compliance, but also as internal corrections of processes that are giving non-desired outputs. There are generally speaking two types of CAPs. One is an immediate fix and the other is a long term repair. A fix considers the malfunction but not the cause, while a repair considers the problem in addition to the the process which lead to the malfunction.  

A fix is compatible to dumping a task on someone, while a repair is a delegation of organizational authority and responsibility to repair processes.  An Enterprise that has a clear commitments and directions of processes  when arriving the  fork in the road,  is avoiding the continuous dumping of  fixes  on whoever is most convenient available.  

A process repair must be tailored to the vehicle it is intended to serve. 
It might be tempting for an Enterprise to stay within the safety of an established process and fixing malfunctions.  By taking this approach  there is no one in the organization who accepts accountability and there is always  someone else who can be blamed when things go wrong.

There are times when a CAP repair may not be effective. However, an Enterprise with a Plan for the Corrective Action Plans (CAP) has a map of how to make it back to fork in the road where  they took the wrong turn. 

BirdsEye59604

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Accepting or Rejecting Risks

By Didrik Strand offroadpilots@gmail.com
Image
Accepting or rejecting risks is a fundamental principle in a successful safety management system (SMS). A person managing the safety management system is expected to maintain a process for identifying hazards to aviation safety and for evaluating and managing the associated risks and ensuring that personnel are trained and competent to perform their duties as they apply to the safety management system. This includes training for both the accountable executive and SMS manager, in addition to other airport and airline operations personnel. A level of risk is an inherent element of aviation safety and there are several types of risks to consider when accepting or rejecting risks. One type of risk may take precedence over another type even if it is not directly associated with operations. Risk control strategies are beyond accepting or rejecting a risk, it is to justify control actions based on defined criteria. There are five categories of risks. The total risk is the sum of identified an
Read more

Lawless

By Didrik Strand offroadpilots@gmail.com
Image
A safety management system (SMS) is a regulatory requirement for airport and airline operators, the SMS regulations are performance-based, processes must conform to regulatory requirements, but still, a healthy SMS is lawless. In a lawless system events are unrestricted, actions are reactive to immediate threats, and data are collected by random chance. A safety management system contains multiple components to conduct research study of patterns. Research study design is a framework, or the set of methods and procedures used to collect and analyse data on variables specified in a particular research problem. A safety management system research study designs comes in many shape and forms, with advantages and limitations. A rule-based SMS is an overcontrolled system to justify an expected definite and unambiguous output. A system where predetermined results exists, is a system without trust, without learning, without accountability, and a system where information sharing impossible. A la
Read more

Human Factors

By Didrik Strand offroadpilots@gmail.com
Image
Human factors and human errors are two separate things but are often used interchangeable in conversations and in the aviation industry. Human errors are attached to a person who could be linked to an occurrence. In addition, the severity of the outcome is a predetermining factor how important it is to assign human error as the root cause after an accident.  Human error root cause analysis has widespread support from the aviation industry. However, with the implementation of the Safety Management System (SMS) regulations, accountability came into play, and it became impossible to justify human error as the root cause.  A healthy SMS looks at the organization and its systems, and the fact that a person overlooked, or missed an item is no longer a root cause, such as a pilot missing a checklist item. Checklists are required and are used for any flight, but there is no evidence a missed checklist item was the root cause of any accidents. At the other end of the spectrum, completing the ge
Read more