Sofema Aviation Services (SAS) considers key elements related to Safety Culture Behaviour within an EASA Compliant Part 21J organisation considering also challenges, best practices and general issues.
Introduction
The integration of safety into the design process requires deliberate effort to prioritize safety alongside cost and performance.
By employing a range of analysis tools and techniques, design organizations can ensure that safety is maintained without sacrificing innovation or economic viability.
- Safety must be considered early, reviewed continuously, and rigorously tested to avoid compromises later in the process.
- The need for a safety culture within a design organization is of the highest order throughout the aircraft design, certification, and production processes.
Case Study – See Sofema Library – Part 21 SMS – United Airlines Flight 811
Challenges
Integration of Safety into Design Processes: In a design organization, incorporating safety into the early stages of the design process can be difficult, particularly when balancing safety with other factors such as cost and performance.
- Ensuring that safety is a priority throughout every stage is critical but often challenging due to competing demands.
Communication Across Departments: Safety culture requires clear and open communication across various teams (design, engineering, quality assurance, etc.).
- Miscommunication or siloed working can lead to gaps in safety considerations, resulting in design flaws or oversights.
Regulatory Compliance Pressure: Regulatory requirements create a structured framework that design organizations must follow however conflicts can occur between safety guidelines, deadlines & client demands.
Change Resistance: Employees and teams within design organizations might resist changes to processes, particularly those that introduce additional steps or reviews focused on safety.
- Overcoming this resistance is crucial to fostering a proactive safety culture.
Human Factors and Accountability: In the design stage, human errors can occur, and if the culture doesn’t emphasize safety accountability, these errors can propagate throughout the design lifecycle, leading to significant safety risks.
Best Practices & Considerations
Leadership Commitment: Strong leadership commitment to safety is key to building and maintaining a robust safety culture.
- Leaders should continuously communicate the importance of safety and demonstrate it through their actions, resource allocation, and decision-making.
Safety in the Design Management System (DMS): Design organizations under EASA’s Part 21 must implement an effective Design Management System (DMS) that integrates safety management principles, as outlined in ICAO Annex 19.
- This system ensures that safety is not only a compliance requirement but embedded in the organizational processes.
Proactive Safety Reporting: Encouraging open and proactive reporting of safety concerns, design flaws, or potential hazards without fear of retaliation helps identify risks early and allows for timely mitigation.
- Establishing non-punitive reporting systems is essential.
Training and Competency Development: Regular training and competence development in safety-related areas for staff at all levels ensures that safety remains a core consideration in their work.
- Training should include understanding how safety integrates with design regulations and performance criteria.
Cross-Functional Safety Teams: Creating safety review boards or teams that include members from different functional areas (design, quality, safety, production) can provide a holistic view of safety concerns and promote integrated safety solutions across the organization.
Continuous Improvement and Learning: Organizations must foster a culture of continuous improvement, where lessons learned from safety reports, incidents, or near misses are incorporated back into the design processes.
- Regular audits and reviews help ensure that the organization evolves and strengthens its safety culture.
Balancing Safety and Innovation: Design organizations often face the challenge of balancing cutting-edge innovation with safety requirements.
- While innovation pushes the boundaries, it must not come at the expense of safety.
External Pressures (Time, Budget): Budget constraints and tight project timelines can push organizations to cut corners, potentially undermining safety. It is essential to establish that safety cannot be compromised, regardless of external pressures.
Cultural Differences: In global organizations, differing national or regional safety cultures can create inconsistencies.
- Aligning these differences and creating a unified safety culture across the entire organization is essential.
Key Concepts in Safety Integration
Safety by Design: Embedding safety considerations into the early stages of design ensures that products are inherently safer.
- The goal is to avoid retroactive safety modifications, which are often more expensive and less effective.
Concurrent Engineering: Safety should be treated as a parallel concern rather than something to be checked later.
- It runs concurrently with cost, performance, and other design considerations, helping balance competing demands.
Tools and Techniques for Safety Integration
Hazard Identification (HAZID) and Risk Assessment (RA)
- HAZID: This tool helps to systematically identify potential hazards at the design stage.
> It provides a structured approach to analyze areas that could lead to accidents or incidents, particularly before they are built into the system.
- Risk Assessment: Once hazards are identified, they are evaluated in terms of likelihood and severity.
> Risk matrices and bow-tie diagrams can be used to visualize and categorize risks to determine which require immediate design adjustments.
Techniques:
- Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA): Identifies potential failure modes in the system and their effects on safety. It assigns a risk priority number (RPN) based on the severity, occurrence, and detectability of each failure, ensuring high-priority risks are addressed early.
- Fault Tree Analysis (FTA): Used to understand the paths that can lead to a system failure or safety incident.
> It helps designers visualize how component failures contribute to the overall system risk.
- Design Failure Mode Effect and Criticality Analysis (DFMECA): This extends FMEA by also considering the criticality of different failure modes.
> Critical systems that would have a large impact on safety if they failed are flagged for more detailed scrutiny.
- Cost-Safety-Performance Trade-Off Analysis
> Achieving the right balance between safety, cost, and performance is critical.
> The Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) tool is often used for trade-off analysis between different priorities.
- Value Engineering: A systematic approach to analyzing the functions of a design to find cost-effective solutions without compromising safety.
- Optimization Algorithms: These can be used to find an optimal balance between competing demands. For example, using constraint-based optimization methods (e.g., linear programming), designers can maximize performance while meeting safety and cost constraints.
- Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA): This helps in quantifying the financial benefits of safety interventions compared to their costs. It ensures that the cost of integrating additional safety features is justified by the reduction in risk.
- Human Factors and Ergonomic Analysis – The integration of human factors into the design process ensures that safety is not only considered in terms of technical solutions but also how humans interact with the design. Human Reliability Analysis (HRA) assesses the likelihood of human errors that could compromise safety.
- Cognitive Task Analysis (CTA): Identifies and assesses cognitive demands on operators and designers, ensuring that human error does not undermine system safety.
- Usability Testing: Evaluating how users interact with the system in real-world scenarios ensures that the design is intuitive and minimizes the risk of user-related errors.
Prototyping and Simulation
- Early-stage prototypes and simulations offer a tangible way to test safety assumptions without committing to costly production phases. Simulations can predict how a system might fail and highlight potential safety risks.
- Digital Twins: Virtual models of systems are used to simulate and test different design configurations under various conditions. They allow safety testing in environments that might be difficult or impossible to test physically.
- Finite Element Analysis (FEA): Particularly used in structural designs, this technique simulates how a component will behave under stress, strain, and other operational conditions, highlighting potential safety concerns.
Regulatory and Compliance Tools
- Design organizations working under frameworks such as EASA’s Part 21 must ensure compliance with regulatory requirements from the beginning of the design process. Tools like Compliance Matrices help track whether safety-critical regulatory requirements are being met.
- Safety Audits and Reviews: Periodic audits ensure that safety requirements are being integrated at every stage of the design. It also ensures that the organization remains compliant with industry and regulatory standards.
- Configuration Management Systems (CMS): These tools help track changes in design and ensure that safety-related decisions are properly documented and controlled, especially when multiple revisions of a design are being produced.
Addressing the Challenges of Safety Integration
- Early Safety Engagement:
- Involve safety engineers from the initial concept stages to ensure that safety isn’t an afterthought. Safety reviews should be part of every design review gate.
- Cross-Functional Teams:
- Establish teams with members from safety, design, engineering, and cost management. This ensures that safety considerations are discussed in parallel with performance and cost factors.
- Safety KPIs:
- Defining key performance indicators (KPIs) related to safety allows for quantifiable tracking of how safety is being maintained during the design phase. Examples include the number of hazards mitigated at the design stage and the reduction in risk level after design iterations.
- Cultural Shift Towards Safety:
- Building a culture that values safety as highly as cost and performance is a challenge but essential. Promoting safety leadership, open communication, and continuous safety training helps embed safety deeply into the organization’s ethos.
Next Steps
Follow this link to our Library to find & download related documents for Free.
Please see the following Training Course – EASA Part 21 Subpart J Safety Management System Implementation – 2 Days or visit www.sassofia.com . For inquiries please email team@sassofia.com
Tags:
Regulatory Compliance Pressure, EASA Part 21 Subpart J Safety Management System, Safety KPIs, Configuration Management Systems, Finite Element Analysis, Usability Testing, Cognitive Task Analysis, Human Factors and Ergonomic Analysis, Cost-Safety-Performance Trade-Off Analysis, Failure Mode and Effects Analysis, HAZID, Safety Integration, Cultural Differences, Aviation Training, Change Resistance, United Airlines Flight 811, Aviation Design Organisation, EASA Compliant Part 21J organisation, Safety Culture Behaviour, Aviation Safety Culture, Design management system, SAS blogs, Fault Tree Analysis, Aviation Safety Reporting, Safety Audits
