PHILIPPINE STATE COLLEGE OF AERONAUTICS

INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

Aircraft Maintenance Technology Department
Module 2 (Prelim): SAFETY MANAGEMENT FUNDAMENTALS (PART 2)

AMT 2105 - AVIATION SAFETY

Module 2
SAFETY MANAGEMENT FUNDAMENTALS
(PART 2)

1
PHILIPPINE STATE COLLEGE OF AERONAUTICS
INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
Aircraft Maintenance Technology Department
Module 2 (Prelim): SAFETY MANAGEMENT FUNDAMENTALS (PART 2)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Ref. no Page

People, Context and Safety
5
SHELL model: 1&2
Software (S)
Hardware (H)
Environment(E) 7
Liveware (L)
Honesty Clause 10
Activity 11

2
PHILIPPINE STATE COLLEGE OF AERONAUTICS
INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
Aircraft Maintenance Technology Department
Module 2 (Prelim): SAFETY MANAGEMENT FUNDAMENTALS (PART 2)

TABLE OF REFERENCES

References No.
ICAO Doc 9859 Safety Management Manual –
AEX.ru. (2013) Available from: https://www.aex.ru > 1
files
Safety Management Manual (SMM) – ICAO. (2008)
2
Available from: https://www.icao.in > safety

TIMEFRAME:

You should be able to complete this module including all the self-assessments, research works,
assignments, and other performance tasks within 3 hours.

3
PHILIPPINE STATE COLLEGE OF AERONAUTICS
INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
Aircraft Maintenance Technology Department
Module 2 (Prelim): SAFETY MANAGEMENT FUNDAMENTALS (PART 2)

Learning Outcomes

Course Learning Outcomes [CLO]

Module Learning Outcomes [MLO]

CLO 1. Discuss the overview of fundamentals
of safety management concepts.
CLO 2. Cooperate and comply with the Topic Learning Outcomes [TLO]
MLO 1. Analyze the interaction of multiple
entire task given during activities to be able system components and its relationship
the students to understand the real life between humans and other workplace
setting in aviation industry. TLO 1. Discuss and understand SHELL
components.
model its components and interfaces.
CLO 3. Integrate and discuss professional, MLO 2. Analyze the interaction of multiple
ethical and social responsibilities that come system components.
with the aviation industry.

Introduction

The aviation system includes product and service providers and State organizations. It is a complex system
that requires an assessment of the human contribution to safety and an understanding of how human
performance may be affected by its multiple and interrelated components.

The aviation industry is well aware of the concept of system safety. Supporting and enhancing the continued
safety of the flying public underlies nearly all training, regulation, and working procedures in the industry.
Most of this emphasis, however, is placed on the airworthiness of equipment and crews. Safety is also
relevant to the maintenance workplace. The aviation maintenance system is not safe until all of the system's
components are safe, including the maintenance workers.

In this module, the safety management fundamentals are discussed in relation to aviation maintenance to
understand SHELL model its components and interfaces.

4
PHILIPPINE STATE COLLEGE OF AERONAUTICS
INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
Aircraft Maintenance Technology Department
Module 2 (Prelim): SAFETY MANAGEMENT FUNDAMENTALS (PART 2)

PEOPLE, CONTEXT AND SAFETY

Aviation workplaces are multi-component, multi-feature, complex operational contexts. Their functions and
performance involve complex relationships among their many components in order for the system to achieve
its production goals.

To understand the human contribution to safety and to support human operational performance necessary
to achieve the system’s production goals, it is necessary to understand how human operational performance
may be affected by the various components and features of the operational context and the interrelationships
between components, features and people.

A very simple example is presented in Figure 1 The

caveman is representative of operational personnel, and
the mission (or production goal of the system) is to deliver
packages to the other side of the mountains. The different
components and features of the operational context and
their interaction with the caveman and among themselves
will impact the safety and efficiency of the delivery of
packages. Thus, the interaction of the caveman with the
lions may have detrimental effects in such delivery, unless
the caveman is properly equipped to deal with the lions.

Figure 1. People and Safety

Transiting though the mountains on a probably circuitous and unpaved road without footgear will detract from
efficient performance (delays in delivering the packages), and may lead to injuries, thereby raising safety
concerns. Braving the possible weather without raingear is also a source for potential deficiencies in safety
and efficiency.
It is thus evident that proper consideration and analysis of the operational context is a source of valuable
information in order to understand operational performance, to support it and to enhance it.

5
 PHILIPPINE STATE COLLEGE OF AERONAUTICS
INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
Aircraft Maintenance Technology Department
Module 2 (Prelim): SAFETY MANAGEMENT FUNDAMENTALS (PART 2)

The need to understand operational performance within the

operational context it takes places in is further illustrated
through another example in Figure 2A.

In this case, the system’s production objective is the delivery

of packages by runners between points A and B. It is a basic
assumption in the design of the system that runners will follow
the shortest route, which is represented by the straight dotted
line.
Figure 2A Understanding human performance

No investment is spared to optimally resource the system. The

Figure 2. Understanding human performance
best available human resources, in this case the runners, are
selected, trained, indoctrinated and equipped with the best
available running gear (technology). As part of the system
design, monitoring of operations in real time is included. Once
design steps have been completed, operations begin. Shortly
after system operational deployment, monitoring of operations
in real time begins. Much to the dismay of system managers,
real time monitoring discloses that most runners do not follow
Figure 2B. Understanding human performance
the intended path, along the dotted straight line, but rather a
zigzagging path. As a consequence, delays in delivery take
place, and also incidents occur. (Figure 2B)
Figure 2. Understanding human performance
At this point, system managers have two options. One option is
to follow the traditional perspective and allocate blame and
punish the runners for failing to perform as expected. The other
option is to analyse the operational context to see if there are
components and features of the context that might be the
source of adverse interactions with the runners. In following the
second option, valuable information about certain components
and features within the context will be acquired (Figure 2C),
which will allow for the readjustment of design assumptions and
Figure 2C. Understanding human performance the development of mitigation strategies for the safety risks of
the consequences of unforeseen components and features of
the context. In other words, by acquiring information on hazards in
the operational
Figure 2. Understanding context and understanding their interactions with people, system managers can bring the
human performance

system back under organizational control.

It is thus proposed that proper understanding of operational performance and operational errors cannot be
achieved without a proper understanding of the operational context in which operational performance and
errors take place. This understanding cannot be achieved unless clear differentiation is made between
6
 PHILIPPINE STATE COLLEGE OF AERONAUTICS
INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
Aircraft Maintenance Technology Department
Module 2 (Prelim): SAFETY MANAGEMENT FUNDAMENTALS (PART 2)

processes and outcomes. There is a tendency to allocate a symmetry to causes and consequences of
operational errors which in real practice does not exist: the very same error can have significantly different
consequences, depending upon the context in which the operational error takes place. The consequences
of operational errors are not person-dependent but context dependent (Figure 2-8). This concept has a
significant impact in mitigation strategies: efficient and effective error-mitigation strategies aim at changing
those features and components of the operational context that magnify the consequences of errors, rather
than changing people.

The right portion in the example of Figure 3 also

illustrates a scenario where the two managerial
options might apply. Following the traditional
approach would lead to reminders about being
careful when leaning (or not to lean) on windowsills;
about the dangers in pushing flowerpots out of the
window, to re-writing of procedures to the previous
effects, or to punishment for pushing flowerpots out
of the window (failure to perform as expected, or to
perform safely). On the other hand, the
Figure 3. Processes and outcomes organizational approach would lead to installing a contention net
under the window, the windowsill would be broadened,
flowerpots could be made of the frangible type, traffic under the window may be re-routed or, in extreme
Figure 2. Understanding human performance
circumstances, the window would be fenced. The bottom line is that by removing or modifying the error-
inducing features in the context, an exponential reduction in the probability and severity of the consequences
of operational errors is achieved.

A simple yet visually powerful conceptual tool for the analysis of the components, the features of operational
contexts and the possible interactions with people is the SHEL Model. The SHEL model (sometimes referred
to as the SHEL(L) model) can be used to help visualize the interrelationships among the various components
and features of the aviation system. This model places emphasis on the individual and the human’s interfaces
with the other components and features of the aviation system.

The SHEL(L) Model contains the following four components:

a) Software (S): procedures, training, support,

b) Hardware (H): machines and equipment;
c) Environment (E): the working environment in which the rest of the L-H-S system must function; and
d) Liveware (L): humans in the workplace.

Figure 4 depicts the SHEL(L) model. This building block diagram is intended to provide a basic
understanding of the relationship of individuals to components and features in the workplace.

7
PHILIPPINE STATE COLLEGE OF AERONAUTICS
INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
Aircraft Maintenance Technology Department
Module 2 (Prelim): SAFETY MANAGEMENT FUNDAMENTALS (PART 2)

Liveware. In the centre of the SHELL model are the humans

at the front line of operations. Although humans are remarkably
adaptable, they are subject to considerable variations in
performance. Humans are not standardized to the same
degree as hardware, so the edges of this block are not simple
and straight. Humans do not interface perfectly with the various
components of the world in which they work. To avoid tensions
that may compromise human performance, the effects of
irregularities at the interfaces between the various SHELL
blocks and the central Liveware block must be understood. The
Figure 4. The SHELL model — components and other components of the system must be carefully matched to
interfaces humans if stresses in the system are to be avoided.

The SHELL Model is useful in visualizing the following interfaces between the various components of the
aviation system:

a) Liveware-Hardware (L-H). The L-H interface refers to the relationship between the human and the
physical attributes of equipment, machines and facilities. The interface between the human and
technology is commonly considered with reference to human performance in the context of aviation
operations, and there is a natural human tendency to adapt to L-H mismatches. Nonetheless, this
tendency has the potential to mask serious deficiencies, which may become evident only after an
occurrence.

b) Liveware-Software (L-S). The L-S interface is the relationship between the human and the
supporting systems found in the workplace, e.g. regulations, manuals, checklists, publications,
standard operating procedures (SOPs) and computer software. It includes such issues as recency
of experience, accuracy, format and presentation, vocabulary, clarity and symbology.

c) Liveware-Liveware (L-L). The L-L interface is the relationship among persons in the work
environment. Since flight crews, air traffic controllers, aircraft maintenance engineers and other
operational personnel function in groups, it is important to recognize that communication and
interpersonal skills, as well as group dynamics, play a role in determining human performance. The
advent of crew resource management (CRM) and its extension to air traffic services (ATS) and
maintenance operations has created a focus on the management of operational errors across
multiple aviation domains. Staff/management relationships as well as overall organizational culture
are also within the scope of this interface.

d) Liveware-Environment (L-E). This interface involves the relationship between the human and both
the internal and external environments. The internal workplace environment includes such physical
considerations as temperature, ambient light, noise, vibration and air quality. The external
environment includes operational aspects such as weather factors, aviation infrastructure and
terrain. This interface also involves the relationship between the human internal environment and its
external environment. Psychological and physiological forces, including illness, fatigue, financial
uncertainties, and relationship and career concerns, can be either induced by the L-E interaction or

8
PHILIPPINE STATE COLLEGE OF AERONAUTICS
INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
Aircraft Maintenance Technology Department
Module 2 (Prelim): SAFETY MANAGEMENT FUNDAMENTALS (PART 2)

originate from external secondary sources. The aviation work environment includes disturbances to
normal biological rhythms and sleep patterns. Additional environmental aspects may be related to
organizational attributes that may affect decision-making processes and create pressures to develop
―workarounds‖ or minor deviations from standard operating procedures.

According to the SHELL Model, a mismatch between the Liveware and the other four components contributes
to human error. Thus, these interactions must be assessed and considered in all sectors of the aviation
system.

9
PHILIPPINE STATE COLLEGE OF AERONAUTICS
INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
Aircraft Maintenance Technology Department
Module 2 (Prelim): SAFETY MANAGEMENT FUNDAMENTALS (PART 2)

Honesty Clause

My signature below constitutes my pledge that all of the writing is my own work, with the exception of those
portions which are properly documented.

________________________ _____________________

Students Name and Signature Parent/Guardian Signature

10
PHILIPPINE STATE COLLEGE OF AERONAUTICS
INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
Aircraft Maintenance Technology Department
Module 2 (Prelim): SAFETY MANAGEMENT FUNDAMENTALS (PART 2)

Activity

1. Picture analysis.

Analyze the picture below and relate it on how human operational performance may be affected by
the various components and features of the operational context and the interrelationships between
components, features and people to achieve the system’s production goals. (You have 1 hour to complete
this task.)

11
 PHILIPPINE STATE COLLEGE OF AERONAUTICS
INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
Aircraft Maintenance Technology Department
Module 2 (Prelim): SAFETY MANAGEMENT FUNDAMENTALS (PART 2)

ESSAY RUBRIC

CRITERIA INADEQUATE ADEQUATE ABOVE AVERAGE EXEMPLARY SCORE

(Below Standard) (Meets Standard) (Exceeds Standard) (Far Exceeds
65%-74% 75%-84% 85%-92% Standard)
93%-100%
Organization Writing lacks logical Writing is coherent and Writing is coherent Writing shows high
organization. It logically organized. and logically degree of attention to
shows some Some points remain organized with logic and reasoning
coherence but ideas misplaced and stray transitions used of points. Unity
lack unity. Serious from the topic. between ideas and clearly leads the
errors. Transitions evident but paragraphs to create reader to the
not used throughout coherence. Overall conclusion and stirs
essay. unity of ideas is thought regarding the
present. topic.
Level of Content Shows some thinking Content indicates Content indicates Content indicates
and reasoning but thinking and reasoning original thinking and synthesis of ideas, in-
most ideas are applied with original develops ideas with depth analysis and
underdeveloped and thought on a few ideas. sufficient and firm evidences original
unoriginal. evidence. thought and support
for the topic.
Development Main points lack Main points are present Main points well Main points well
detailed development. with limited detail and developed with developed with high
Ideas are vague with development. Some quality supporting quality and quantity
little evidence of critical thinking is details and quantity. support. Reveals high
critical thinking. present. Critical thinking is degree of critical
weaved into points. thinking.
Grammar & Spelling, punctuation, Most spelling, Essay has few Essay is free of
Mechanics and grammatical punctuation, and spelling, punctuation, distracting spelling,
errors create grammar are correct and grammatical punctuation, and
distraction, making allowing reader to errors allowing reader grammatical errors;
reading difficult; progress the essay. to follow ideas absent of fragments,
fragments, comma Some errors remain. clearly. Very few comma splices, and
splices, run-ons fragments or run-ons. run-ons.
evident. Errors are
frequent.
GRADE
(score/4)

12