If you wish to contribute or participate in the discussions about articles you are invited to join SKYbrary as a registered user



Safety and Justice/Consequences 7

From SKYbrary Wiki

< Toolkit:Safety and Justice
A repeating offender?
You again.png

It is him again... Yes, he does have a problem following rules. The credibility of his competence for the job is dwindling. Who trained him?

What are you correcting

Repeating offenders are a clear danger to a good safety culture.

How are you correcting

Formal written warning, negative mark in appraisal,

Explanation consequences
Now you are at the level of the Just Culture consequences that we are suggesting.

If you feel these consequences are not appropriate, maybe you could consider going back up the navigator and trying some other branches.

Substitution Test
The Substitution Test helps to assess how a peer would have been likely to deal with the situation.

Johnston (1995), a human factors specialist and an Aer Lingus training captain, has proposed the substitution test. When faced with an event in which the unsafe acts of a particular individual were clearly implicated, the judges should carry out the following thought experiment. Substitute for the person concerned someone coming from the same work area and possessing comparable qualifications and experience. Then ask: 'In the light of how the events unfolded and were perceived by those involved in real time, is it likely that this new individual would have behaved any differently?' If the answer is 'probably not' then, as Johnston (1996:34) put it, 'apportioning blame has no material role to play, other than to obscure systemic deficiencies and to blame one of the victims'. A useful variant on the substitution test is to ask of the individual's peers: 'Given the circumstances that prevailed at the time, could you be sure that you would not have committed the same or a similar type of unsafe act?' If the answer again is 'probably not', then blame and punishment are inappropriate.