Vanity Fairs article on Human Factors in aviation

A very good article on the Human Factors in aviation by William Langewiesche.  Narrated in an engaging way that paint a vivid and complex picture of a very tragic disaster, a must read.

Photo Illustration by Sean McCabe

Advertisements

Human Factors Arch Lab Rap

Excellent and humorous music video on human factors and ergonomics.

Thanks Arch Lab! 🙂


Need for speed

Training and qualification for HSC watercraft operations

Earlier this year we had an article published at the Fast Patrol and Interception Craft Conference.

Introduction

Where are the gaps when it comes to training crews operating High Speed Craft? How can the dangers be mitigated through enhanced training methodologies? And what is preventing military forces from working together as effectively as possible? We asked the experts…

 

nefs

 

Please download full article here: Need For Speed.

 

Kind regards

/Fredrik Forsman


New Article in Maritime Journal on DYNAV Manager course

I am glad to see that the Maritime Journal has an article on next course in Dynamic Navigation (DYNAV) held by FRC-INT 3-5th December, Southampton.

Please read more at Maritime journal.

????????????????????????????

 


Small Craft Emergency Response and Survival Training for Arctic Conditions

Another nice article at Shock Mittigation Directory on a project we are running called SMACS – Small Craft Emergency Response and Survival Training for Arctic Conditions.

The primary objective of the SMACS project is the development of a safety and survival training programme specifically focused on the needs of small-craft Arctic mariners. It is currently difficult to access Arctic-specific small-craft training and the aim of the project is to address this problem.

Read more at Shock Mitigation Directory or visit SMACS-project.eu.

shock

logo_smacs1

 


Dissemination of research in high speed navigation – DYNAV

Just recently we held a course DSC_0298
in high speed navigation safety aimed for managers of organizations who work with small and fast boats. The perspective is that to be able to make sound and good decisions about crew and boats one need to understand the circumstance man have to cope with onboard. Too often the human in the system is forgotten and not knowing how humans function under adverse conditions is a common culprit. Even though the picture is from practical training this course was based on simulations and lectures. Please read more at Shock Mitigation Directory.

phpThumb_generated_thumbnail

  Liggande_ord_bildmarke_Avancez-CHA_svart

SSRS_MELLAN

kind regards
/Fredrik


On boxing, free will and rules.

In today’s paper I read about the Swedish professional boxer Frida Wallberg who after a TKO in a professional boxing fight is in very bad condition. gp.se claims Frida is suffering from what they call cerebral hemorrhage and she underwent surgery at a hospital in Stockholm.

My thoughts are with Frida and I wish her a quick recovery, nevertheless I want to elaborate a couple of thoughts on safety and free will.

Boxing as a sport is to some extent hazardous in its nature. The aim is to cause damage to your opponent. The very specific word used for boxing matches is the word fight. Thefreedictionary.com defines fight as:

  1. To attempt to harm or gain power over an adversary by blows or with weapons.
  2. Sports To engage in boxing or wrestling.

This says something about the nature of boxing.

One thing I find peculiar is that there was another fight that started after that Frida had been injured. Imagine this as an accident at work. Then the Protection Officer probably should have stopped operations  to take precautions in order to avoid the accident from happening again. Especially if there were more work to be conducted of exactly the same sort.

Professional boxing is an occupation by definition but there seem to be another standard when it comes to occupational health and safety.

One can argue that the boxers know the risks and are aware of the conditions. It is their own choice. But what risks are we prepared to take within our society? It is against the law to drive your car unbuckled.  Here society has made a statement that you will be punished if you violate a rule which sole purpose is the protection of the individual. The seat belt is an example of paternalism but when does paternalism counter act its fundamental purpose of the greater good?

My intention is not to moralize about boxing but Fridas unfortunat accident made me come to reason a bit about rules, paternalism and safety.

In the context were I am, safety is of great importance. Safety probably is one of the fundamental values of the society I live in. The major trends to enhance safety in many cases are to introduce rules and regulations. There is no question about the greate progress that has come thanks to this development. On the other hand there are no free lunches. With a lot more rules and regulations the room for adaptation is decreasing and this might be a new risk in it self. The irony is that the more complex society grows the more we must rely on adaptations to be able to succeed under various conditions and to then answer with more constraints doesn’t seem as the wisest way.

I don’t think rules and regulations or paternalism is the sole answer. Depending on the values and priorities in the society in question safety might not even be desired and thus the question must first be understood from that perspective. Or else it we might impose a system on a group of people that is apart from their culture. This argumentation can be seen as a bit apart  it selves but when we are boiling it down to the law of use of seat belt and if professional boxing should be allowed it is in its place.

Another perspective is that man has a free will and is thus responsible for her own actions and should be free to make her own decisions. But when the impact is a lot more people killed in traffic by not using the belt, should it then be up to the end user to make that decision? One might have made a conscious choice to sacrifice some safety in trade for comfort.

Not many would argue against the law of using seat belt but there are many more risks that might be reduced by paternalism, rules and regulations. How do we find the point of balance, when are we enough safe but still free to make our own choices? The choises that constitute the ability to adapt.

Comments are as always very welcome!

/Fredrik Forsman