Where Birds Don't Fly

Conventional wisdom is that safety is to be protected from harm to a person or property, without knowing who the protector is, or how they are protecting a person or property from harm. Safety is a word with indefinite limits in protecting a person or property, and a word that encompasses all virtual events. When the word safety is used in communication its meaning is unlimited, but also restricted by imagination. A person is looking forward to a safe flight, which is to be protected by someone while airborne and deplane without experience harm to their person or to the aircraft. Safety has become a responsibility of someone unknown rather than the person who expects to be safe. Accepting risk is a way of life, and there is an inherent risk in flying, but when it is removed from the equation, safety in aviation becomes an uphill battle.  Safety in aviation, being airlines or airports, is not the absence of accidents or events, but the reliability of their processes, and expected proces

Operational safety decisions in the aviation industry are based on internal or external pressure, social media ratings, customer opinions, or investors demands. Safety has become a fashionable word in the context of airline and airport operations. Conventional wisdom is that regulations are minimum safety standards and justify reasons for more regulations to improve safety. Regulations are neutral and may not by itself compatible with the safe operation of an airport or aircraft. What makes regulations effective is how it allows for operational processes. It wasn’t until the accountability within a safety management system in aviation became a regulatory requirement that airlines and airports could assess their operational processes to conform to regulatory requirements. The airmail act of 1926 is a prime example how promoting new regulations supported efficient and safe air transportation by applying the latest technology to airnavigation and airport improvements. This new regulation