Situational Awareness :The Aircrew Incident Reporting Scheme (AIRS) by AJAY GIRI

1 Background
This briefing note presents a definition of situational awareness. It explains the complex process of maintaining situational awareness, focuses on how it is lost and proposes prevention and recovery strategies.
This briefing note is intended to help the reader gain and maintain situational awareness, to prevent falling into the traps associated with its loss and to avoid the negative effects of its loss on flight safety.

2 Introduction
A widely accepted definition of individual situational awareness comes from Endsley (1988) :

Situational awareness is The perception of the elements in the environment within a volume of time and space, The comprehension of their meaning and The projection of their status in the near future.

The Aircrew Incident Reporting Scheme (AIRS) model in Figure 1 illustrates the most common factors that determine a pilot’s situational awareness. As developed by Airbus and British Airways, AIRS contains various personal, informational, environmental and organizational influences that affect crew actions and, in turn, can be affected by how the crew performs.

Figure 1: Elements of Situational Awareness



The main components of situational awareness are:

• Environmental awareness: Awareness of other aircraft, communications between air traffic control and other aircraft, weather and terrain.
• Mode awareness: Awareness of aircraft configuration and flight control system modes. The latter includes such aspects as speed, altitude, heading, in armed/acquire/hold modes and the state of flight management system (FMS) data input and flight-planning functions.
• Spatial orientation: Awareness of geographical position and aircraft attitude.
• System awareness: Awareness of the aircraft systems.
• Time horizon: Awareness of time with respect to when required procedures or events, such as time to initial approach turn, will occur.

3 Data
Situational awareness is not just a theoretical notion. It is pertinent to most accidents or incidents, it is real, and its absence causes accidents. Research from The Australian Transportation Safety Board (ATSB) indicates that human factors are a contributing cause in around 70 percent of all incidents and accidents. Approximately 85 percent of incident reports include a mention of loss of situational awareness. Degraded situational awareness can lead to inadequate decision making and mistakes. This is illustrated in Table 1, which identifies causal factors in approach and landing accidents identified in the Approach and Landing Accident Reduction (ALAR) Toolkit.
Table 1. Causal Factors in Approach and Landing Accidents

Factor	% of Events
Inadequate decision making	74%
Omission of action or inappropriate action	72%
Non-adherence to criteria for stabilized approach	66%
Inadequate crew coordination, cross-check and back-up	63%
Insufficient horizontal or vertical Situational Awareness	52%
Inadequate or insufficient understanding of prevailing conditions	48%
Slow or delayed action	45%
Flight handling difficulties	45%
Deliberate non-adherence to procedures	40%
Inadequate training	37%
Incorrect or incomplete pilot/controller communication	33%
Interaction with automation	20%

4 Issues and Factors Involved
Gaining and Maintaining Situational Awareness
Situational awareness is having an accurate understanding of what is happening around you and what is likely to happen in the near future. As shown in Figure 2, Endsley’s definition suggests that situational awareness includes three processes:

1. The perception of what is happening (Level 1)
2. The understanding of what has been perceived (Level 2)
3. The use of what is understood to think ahead (Level 3)

Figure 2: Gaining and Maintaining Situational Awareness

• Level 1 — Perception: Scanning and Gathering Data

To build a mental model of the environment, it is necessary to gather sufficient and useful data by using our senses of vision, hearing and touch to scan the environment. We must direct our attention to the most important aspects of our surroundings and then compare what we sense with the experiences and knowledge in our memory. It is an active process and requires significant discipline, as well as knowing what to look for, when to look for it and why.

• Level 2 — Representation: Understanding and Creating Our Mental Model

Our understanding is built by combining observations from the real world with knowledge and experience recalled from memory. If we successfully match observations with knowledge and experience, as shown in Figure 3, we have developed an accurate mental model of our environment. This mental model has to be kept updated with inputs from the real world by paying attention to a wide range of information.

Figure 3: Understanding the Situation by Matching Mental Model and Real World

• Level 3 — Projection: Thinking Ahead and Updating the Model

Our understanding enables us to think ahead and project the future state of our environment. This step is crucial in the pilot’s decision-making process and requires that our understanding, based on careful data gathering, be as accurate as possible.

Situational Awareness and the Decision-Making Process
Situational awareness is strongly related to the decision-making process. Figure 4 shows a simple model of the tight coupling between situational awareness and decision making. Situational awareness must precede decision making because the operator has to perceive a situation in order to have a goal.

Figure 4: Situational Awareness and Decision Making

The Decision-Making Loop
Our actions are driven by goals. To help us act to achieve our goals, we use our mental models to anticipate the outcome of our action. This can be thought of as feedforward.
The more we anticipate accurately, the more efficient we become in our tasks, the more energy we save, and the more we can preserve resources for unexpected situations. Conversely, by comparing the results of our actions with set goals, we can modify our actions or, if necessary, our goals. This feedback is vital to the success of the process.
Feedback and anticipation help keep our mental picture of the world aligned with the real world.

A major loss of situational awareness occurs when inappropriate mental representations are activated in spite of real world evidence. People then act “in the wrong scene,” and seek cues confirming their expectations, a behavior known as confirmation bias.

In other words, situational awareness influences our decision making and allows us to stay ahead of the aircraft:

1. It helps us develop a mental picture of the world around us and use that mental picture to anticipate the future, to feed-forward.
2. Because of the close coupling of real-world feedback, mental anticipation and adaptation of actions, we adjust our mental picture and modify our actions, and sometimes our goals, in response to differences between what we expect to happen and what is really happening. That is why we often feel that we have lost control when what we expect to happen does not happen.

5 Losing Situational Awareness and How to Deal With It
Many factors can cause a loss of situational awareness. Errors can occur at each level of the process previously described. Table 2 lists a series of factors related to loss of situational awareness, conditions contributing to these errors and guidelines to prevent them. Refer to the Situational Awareness Quick Reference and Reminder for a more exhaustive list of best practices, prevention strategies and lines of defense. Accident and incident reports provide a good basis for determining the relative effect of the various factors on situational awareness.
Table 2. Factors involved in Loss of Situational Awareness

Factors	Prevention Guidelines
Level 1: Perception
Data are not observed, either because they are difficult to observe or because the observer’s scanning is deficient due to: Attentional narrowing Passive, complacent behavior High workload Distractions and interruptions Visual Illusions Confirmation bias: Information is misperceived. Expecting to observe something and focusing our attention on this belief can cause you see what you expect rather than what is actually happening.	Scanning requires discipline: Actively scan for new data, use alternative sources Have a wide area of attention Use checklists Reduce workload and share tasks If distracted, return to the starting point Communicate information Be aware of and anticipate the existence of visual illusions. Cross-check with flight instruments. Trust the instruments. Never trust your expectations. Always check your observations and expectations with other sources of data or other crewmembers. Regularly update your mental model.
Level 2 and 3: Understanding and Thinking ahead
Use of a poor or incomplete mental model due to Deficient observations (Level 1 problem) Poor knowledge/experience Use of a wrong or inappropriate mental model, over-reliance on the mental model and failing to recognize that the mental model needs to change.	Understanding is improved with experience because there are more memory situations — patterns and associations — to use in the comparison. Don’t rush assessments; always question your mental model by: Checking for contradictory elements. Checking the reliability of each piece of information Projecting the future state and comparing it with your goal Setting markers for confirmation

6 Key Points

• Situational awareness is essential for flight safety, and its influence and impact are pervasive.
• Situational awareness is gained by using the senses to scan the environment and compare the results with mental models.
• Planning, communication and coordination for upcoming flight phases, goal setting and feedback are essential ingredients of situational awareness and decision making.
• Inattention, distraction and high workload threaten situational awareness.
• Three proven ways to prevent the loss of situational awareness are to:
  • Implement proven best practices
  • Adhere to ICAO recommendations
  • Follow company standard operating procedures

Indian govt’s FDI measures watershed, courageous: US

New York, Sept 25: 

The US has termed as “watershed” and “courageous” the Indian government’s decision to allow FDI in multi-brand retail, saying that the new reforms will send out the “right message” to global investors.

It said the steps will convince investors that India’s economic environment is conducive to foreign investments.

The announcement by the Indian government that it will open its retail, broadcasting, aviation and power sectors to foreign investment provides a “new optimism” to the country’s growth story, Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy and Environment Robert Hormats said at the 9th annual Indian Investment Forum here yesterday.

“The Government of India’s courageous decision last week on regulations to pave the way for expanded participation in the multi-brand retail sector as well as more foreign direct investment in aviation, power grids, and broadcasting are in my view watershed decisions,” Robert Hormats said.

These reforms would lead to a stronger, more efficient, resilient and inclusive Indian economy, he added.

He said when history is written about the modern economic growth story in India, the date when the reforms were announced would figure prominently in the narrative.

Robert Hormats said US businesses are attracted to investment destinations based on the investment climate, transparency and the ease of doing deals.

However, India still lags behind when it comes to the ease of doing business.

The World Bank has ranked India 132 out of 183 countries on the ease foreign companies have in doing business in India.

The government of India must help create an environment that makes it easier for all investors – including those from the United States – to invest in India, Robert Hormats said.

“Of course, in order for our companies to provide the top technology, managerial expertise, and know-how to India, the government of India must help create an environment conducive to their investment. That is why last week’s decisions on FDI are so consequential,” he said.

“They send the markets the right message – that foreign investors are welcome and encouraged to participate in India’s economic growth story,” he added.

However, Robert Hormats said the US remains concerned about the local content requirements in the FDI in retail policy that require investors to source 30 per cent of inputs domestically but said he believes these challenges can be overcome.

Other limits governing foreign direct investment in retail, including a state-by-state opt-out clause, a minimum $100 million in-country investment and some provisions excluding small towns in India would also be acceptable to investors, he said.

“These reforms have the potential to change – for the better – the way goods are sold and produced, transported, and brought to market in India,” he said.

Incremental progress toward adoption of modern cold storage practices can help to dramatically reduce the estimated 40 per cent of crop spoilage across India, Robert Hormats said.

Indian farmers partnering with US companies to learn best practices could expand crop output while reducing water and fertiliser inputs resulting in higher quality crops and more income for farmers, he added.

“A true win-win scenario. Expansion of investment by both domestic and international operators in retail will make retail in India more sustainable, more inclusive, and will help lift millions of citizens out of poverty,” Robert Hormats said.

He added that the new economic policies will create investment opportunities and foster permanent partnerships between Indian and American firms.

“I have full confidence that American companies will be committed co-innovators with their Indian partners, as India transforms its retail landscape. We know that India’s domestic consumption story continues unabated,” he said.

Outlining the pivotal role that US has played in India’s economic growth; Robert Hormats said the $24 billion in US foreign direct investment has provided innumerable benefits to the Indian economy.

US investment in India’s infrastructure is modernising supply chains, building new airports and power plants, and is helping to forge the Indian economy of the future, besides bringing world-class technology and know-how to India.

The United States is equally focused on attracting growth and investment to its shores, he said.

Indian FDI into the US reached $3.3 billion in 2010, up over 30 per cent from the previous year.

Indian firms have created over 30,000 jobs in the United States and US subsidiaries of Indian firms account for an estimated $700 million in exports.

What Is Dearness Allowance (D.A.)?

he dearness allowance is a part of the total compensation a person receives for having performed his or her job. For example, workers in India might have a base salary or pension, along with an allowance for housing and the dearness allowance. D.A. is a percentage of the original salary. The percentage is reviewed and may be changed on a six-month cycle.
One explanation for D.A., according to work guidelines, is that the Dearness Allowance is provided to help against rise in prices for those on pension. This allowance may also be provided to family members receiving benefits from a worker’s pension. For example, a central government order might change the Dearness Allowance by 6 percent for employees of the main branch of government, due to new information about living expenses and price increases. The amount might be paid in a lump sum at some point to bring the overall pension and allowances up to what they should be.
There are also times when a new level of Dearness Allowance might be established along with housing and transportation allowances. This generally occurs when the overall pay schedule is revised. Base salary levels are reported separate from the various allowances. In India the D.A. has a history dating back to World War II. At that time, many of the lower-paid employees received D.A. based on their wages or salaries. Many changes to Dearness Allowance and its computations have occurred over the last 60 years, according to both private and governmentstudies. One guideline suggests that the D.A. is paid twice each year (January and July) based on a percentage of pay in two specific months. Numbers used to calculate the D.A. include 12-month average of pay and a set index level to get the percentage increase in prices/cost of living. Dearness Allowance is paid on a range of base-pay levels.
According to the systems developers at tech company Taranaga, the combination of a Dearness Allowance with base pay was approved by the Indian government in New Delhi in 2007. What happened was that the D.A. (that protects pensioners in case of a cost-of-living increase) was combined at a 50 percent level with base pay. One of the details included in the decision also set a “ceiling” for certain benefits. The decision means that those benefits will be calculated on base pay plus daily allowance, rather than just on base pay.
There are similar cost-of-living adjustments and indexes in the United States and other countries. Some of these operate in the same way as the Dearness Allowance in India, giving percentage increases to make up for rising costs. Others are allowances for workers who must live and work in areas where the general cost of housing and meals is higher than a certain base amount. For example, some federal government employees are paid an “overseas” allowance that makes their total pay a bit higher than what they might receive in the U.S. These allowances vary with the country and the location an employee is assigned to.

What is Competency? The Answer Seems Subject To Change.

What is Competency? The Answer Seems Subject To Change.

In a previous blog, I discussed the difference between competency and awareness in an occupational health and safety management system (OHSMS).  In that blog, I used the ISO 9000:2000 definition of competence as “demonstrated ability to apply knowledge and skills” since OHSAS 18001:2007 does not include a definition.
It seems that the appropriate definition of competence is now subject of some debate within ISO and may be subject to being “re-defined.”
Competency is a significant component of at least four standards currently under development within ISO –

• ISO 10018 – Quality management: Guidelines on people involvement and competencies
• ISO 14066 – Greenhouse Gases – Competency requirements for greenhouse gas validators and verifiers
• ISO 17021 Part B – Conformity assessment – Requirements for third-party certification auditing of management systems
• ISO 19011 (revision) – Guidelines for management system auditing

Interestingly, each of these standards has apparently rejected the dictionary definition, as well as the ISO 9000 definition, and each ISO Technical Committee appears to be in the process of developing its own concept of competence.
ISO 10018 is apparently focusing on how “human factors” impact the effective functioning of management systems with the definition of competency being passed to a subcommittee.  ISO 14066 is structured to set out detailed lists of the skills and knowledge that must be possessed by GHG verification and validation teams – with the focus on team rather than individual competency.  The initial committee draft of ISO 17021 defined competence as “personal attributes and ability to apply knowledge and skills” with a heavy focus on personal attributes and generic audit skills but essentially no guidance as to the needed discipline-specific knowledge (e.g. quality, environmental, OH&S).  The revision of ISO 19011 has just begun; however, the issue of auditor competency has already been identified as one of the “hot-button issues” associated with revision of this standard.
A review of the various standards and other reference materials appear to set out three different, and distinct, attributes that underlie competency:

• Attitude and personality traits –who you are
• Knowledge – what you know
• Skills – what you can do

Where the ISO standards seem to diverge is in the relative importance to be given to each attribute (personality vs. knowledge vs. skill) as well as in the specifics of what is actually required and how it should be demonstrated.

The Forgotten R

It is common for the clauses of the management system standards – including OHSAS 18001 – to be known by “shorthand” names.
Clause 4.4.5 of OHSAS 18001 is known as “document control”; clause 4.5.2 is known as “CAPA” (corrective action and preventive action).
Similarly, clause 4.4.1 is often referred to as roles & responsibilities or “R2A2” – roles, responsibilities, authorities, and accountabilities.
What is left out?  The first R – RESOURCES.
OHSAS 18001 requires that the organization [a.k.a. “top management”] “ensure the availability of resources essential to establish, implement, maintain and improve the OH&S management system.”  These resources include human resources and specialized skills, organizational infrastructure, technology and financial resources.
Although there is a great deal of focus these days on reducing cost, the truth is management systems cost money.   An organization can strive to achieve the best value for the money spent; however, spending money is not optional.
One of the mistakes I often see organizations make is attempting to implement an OHSMS “on the cheap” – often by piling additional work onto already overworked staff and by attempting to “repurpose” existing infrastructure, such as data management software.    Although I am all about being cost effective, there is more to an OHSMS then creating documentation using a global search on someone else’s procedures to replace your organization’s name for theirs.  Similarly, the human resources needs of an occupational health and safety management system include individuals with a certain level of competence, specialized skills, and AVAILABLE TIME.  Attempting to save money by using jerry-rigged databases often causes user frustration and results in incomplete and/or meaningless data being collected for analysis.
Nor is an OHSMS a one time purchase. The resource needs of an OHSMS continue and change over time.
As OHSAS 18002 points out (in section 4.4.1) – “Resources and their allocation should be reviewed periodically, via management review, to ensure they are sufficient to carry out OH&S programmes and activities ….the adequacy of resources can be at least partially evaluated by comparing the planned achievement of OH&S objectives with actual results.”

Category: Emergency Preparedness

Checklists Save Lives

Checklists are essential to successful business operations.  Checklists are an integral part of an occupational health and safety management system.  More importantly, checklists save lives.
There are numerous uses of checklists in OH&S management systems.  In fact, checklists are one of the most effective way of creating management system procedures and work instructions to meet the OHSAS 18001 requirements.
Some of the OH&S uses of checklists include –

1. Inspection checklists – for forklift trucks, fire extinguishers and other safety-critical devices, equipment and supplies.
2. Plans and permits – for confined space entry, hot work and equipment lockout where the sequence of tasks and adequacy of precautions are critical.
3. Emergency preparedness – for making sure equipment, materials and personnel will be ready and available when an incident occurs.
4. Risk assessments – for evaluating the hazards and risks associated with materials, equipment and tasks.
5. Internal audit protocols – for making sure that OHSMS audits are complete, inclusive and cost-effective.

As regulations, activities and organizations become more complex, checklists become increasingly important for ensuring that nothing is missed.  This is why pilot checklists were developed in aviation in the 1930s.  This is why surgical checklists are being aggressively promoted in medicine today.  This is why most OH&S management systems would benefit from the use of appropriately-designed checklists.

New Requirements for Risk Assessment

New Requirements for Risk Assessment

Section 4.3.1 of OHSAS 18001 (Hazard Assessment, Risk Assessment & Determining Controls) was completely changed during the revision process.  Overall, these changes align OHSAS 18001 more closely with other OH&S management system standards such as ANSI/AIHA Z10:2005.
This section now sets out additional details on both the inputs to be considered and the methodology to be used for the hazard identification and risk assessment process.  In addition, specific requirements have been added related to “management of change” and for determining appropriate controls to reduce the OH&S risks that are identified.
The standard now clearly links the requirements in 4.3.1 with those set out in 4.4.6 (operational control) so it is clear that the controls identified during the OH&S planning process need to be implemented and maintained as an integral part of operational control.
Overall, the process can be visualized as set out below:

In addition to these substantive changes to the standard, the definitions of hazard, risk and risk assessment have changed.  Hazard is now defined as a ”source, situation or act with a potential for harm in terms of human injury or ill health, or a combination of these.”  Risk is defined as the “combination of the likelihood of an occurrence of a hazard event or exposure and the severity of injury or ill health that may be caused by the event or exposure.”  Risk assessment is defined as the “process of evaluating the risks arising from a hazard, taking into account the adequacy of any existing controls, and deciding whether or not the risk is acceptable.”
It should be noted that other standards and guidance documents may define ”risk assessment” to include the entire process of hazard identification, risk analysis and selection of measures for risk reduction (i.e. “determining controls”).  OHSAS 18001 refers to each of these processes separately and uses the term risk assessment to refer to the risk analysis process only.
There are many different ways and approaches for conducting hazard identification and risk assessment.  Therefore, no one approach will suit every organization.  An organization with limited hazards is not required to implement complex risk assessment procedures.  In addition, different types of hazards may require different risk assessment strategies.  For example, the methodologies for evaluating the risks associated with employee exposure to noise may be distinctly different from the ones used for evaluating equipment safety.  The methodologies selected need to be appropriate for the hazards identified.

What is Accountability?

What is Accountability?

In the 2007 revision of OHSAS 18001, a requirement was added for allocating, documenting and communicating account abilities — as well as responsibilities. While accountability is not defined in OHSAS 18001, it is an important concept in a management system.  The dictionary definition is “the state of being accountable, liable or answerable.”  According to wikipedia, the word “accountability” is an extension of the terminology used in money lending systems that first developed in Ancient Greece.  One would borrow money from a money lender and would then be held responsible for their account to that party.
It is worthwhile, in this context, to explore the differences between authority, responsibility and accountability in an organization:

• Authority is the right to make a decision or take an action
• Responsibility is the obligation to ensure that an action is taken
• Accountability is to be answerable for a particular activity or action to a particular entity

Although clearly related, these terms are not synonymous.  One may have the authority to take a certain action – for example, to spend money on behalf of the organization – but not be obligated to take that action.  Similarly, an individual may have an obligation to do something – for example, to ensure the organization complies with a particular legal requirement — but not be accountable.  The organization may lack a mechanism to hold that individual responsible (answerable) even if compliance is lacking.  Similarly,  an individual may be held accountable – e.g. fired for a particular action – even if he or she did not have the authority or the responsibility to accomplish the activity in question.
There are five key elements of an effective accountability system:

1. Clearly specified standards for authority and responsibility
2. Adequate resources to meet the assigned responsibilities
3. Monitoring and assessment of individual performance
4. Appropriate consequences for taking or failing to take action
5. Consistent and unbiased application of accountability standards

  It should be noted that accountability is not necessarily the same as blame.  Often, organizations seek to assign accountability only when they are looking for someone to blame.
How can you distinguish the difference?
In most organizations, much of what is done requires a group effort where no one person is completely responsible for a particular action or decision.  In addition, accountability goes hand-in-hand with authority and responsibility.  This means that, generally, those with the greatest accountability will be highest up in the organization.  Therefore, if you are truly attempting to identify who is accountable, the result will be a list of people that includes individuals at the top, as well as the bottom, of the org chart.  If you are seeking to assign blame, usually finding a single “fall guy” will be sufficient.

Incidents vs. Nonconformities in OHSAS 18001:2007

One of these significant changes is the clarification of the role of incident investigation in an occupational health and safety management system (OHSMS).  In particular, incident investigation is now a separate subsection of section 4.5.3 — Incident investigation, nonconformity, corrective action and preventive action with its own specific requirements.

An incident is not the same as a nonconformity.

First, the definitions are not the same.  OHSAS 18001 uses the ISO 9000 and ISO 14001 definition of a nonconformity – the non-fulfillment of a requirement.  An incident is defined in OHSAS 18001 as a “work-related event(s) in which an injury or ill health (regardless of severity) or fatality occurred, or could have occurred.”  An accident is a particular type of incident in which an injury or illness actually occurs.  A near-miss is an incident where no injury or illness occurs.  Therefore, an incident can be either an accident or a near-miss.

An incident may relate to a nonconformity – but then again, it may not.  It is possible to have accidents and near-misses even if an organization has fulfilled its occupational health and safety management system requirements.  Similarly, an organization may have nonconformities, e.g. “paperwork” issues, which would not be considered incidents.

Not all incidents are the same

• Some incidents are catastrophic disaster events (i.e. emergencies) such as bridge collapses or explosion.
• Some incidents involve unseen hazards, e.g. exposure to chemical releases or biological agents.
• Some incidents involve human factors or behaviors, some involve equipment failure, some involve faulty procedures or processes, and some involve all of these.
• Some involve multiple injuries and deaths; in others, there are no injuries.

Therefore, an organization’s incident investigation procedure needs to be flexible enough to deal with a variety of different types of incidents.

Continually Improving Your OH&S Management System

Continually Improving Your OH&S Management System

What about continual improvement of your occupational health and safety management system?
Section 4.1 of OHSAS 18001:2007 sets out five general requirements for an OH&S management system –

1. establishing a management system
2. documenting your management system
3. implementing your management system
4. maintaining your management system
5. continually improving your management system

The first three of these tasks (establishing, documenting and implementing your OHSMS) are typically completed up-front when an organization makes changes to its existing OH&S programs to conform to OHSAS 18001.  Maintaining and continually improving the occupational health and safety management system are different – they are on-going tasks that are never done.  They are the requirements that transform an OHSMS from “a dusty binder on a shelf” to a meaningful part of an organization’s overall management system.
Continual improvement is an important requirement of an OHSAS 18001 management system.  It is one of the commitments an organization must make in its OH&S policy.  It is a major reason why an organization sets OHSMS objectives (section 4.3.3) and measures OH&S performance (section 4.5.1).  It is “the lenses” through which outputs from management review are viewed.  Section 4.6 of OHSAS 18001 states “The outputs from management reviews shall be consistent with the organization’s commitment to continual improvement….”
So what is continual improvement?
OHSAS 18001:2007 defines it as the “recurring process of enhancing the OH&S management system in order to achieve improvements in overall OH&S performance consistent with the organization’s OH&S policy.”

Worker Health and Safety Principles

 Worker Health and Safety Principles

 1.       Health and Safety Focus
Worker health and well-being is an important organizational resource to be protected through the prevention of injury and ill health.
 2.       Leadership Commitment
Top management needs to provide the leadership and resources necessary for effective management of OH&S issues
 3.       Worker Engagement
Workers need to have the information, opportunities and accountability necessary for them to actively participate in ensuring their own safety
 4.       Factual Approach to Decision Making
Decisions and actions related to evaluating and controlling OH&S risks should, to the extent feasible, be based on the analysis of factual information
 5.       Prioritization of Controls
Hazards should be controlled using process, equipment and facility controls before administrative controls and personal protective equipment are utilized
 6.       Prevention Instead of Reaction
Establishing systematic processes to identify and address OH&S risks is more effective than waiting until after an incident has occurred to react
 7.        Supply Chain Accountability
Organizations need to act ethically when transferring OH&S risks to ot

Organizations are striving to become “knowledge-based.”

What is Knowledge?

There is a great deal of emphasis on managing “knowledge” these days.

• Organizations are striving to become “knowledge-based.”
• Corporate mission statements are focused on “creating knowledge.”
• Thousands, if not millions, of dollars are being spent on “knowledge management.”

This is ironic because knowledge doesn’t actually exist – at least not in any physical sense.
Knowledge is personal.  As one blog commenter put it – “Information becomes knowledge when it gets to your brain.”
Can an organization have knowledge?
In the future, the answer may be “yes” –  if computers advance to become the independent artificial intelligence (‘brains”) of organizations.
Today, the answer is “no.”  Organizations can be filled with knowledgeable individuals.  Organizations can promote the development of knowledge.  Organizations can facilitate the sharing of knowledge.  Organizations can’t, however, be knowledgeable since they do not have what is needed for knowledge – a brain.
Can an organization create knowledge?
This is a little like asking if one can create love – or anger or fear or any other state of being or personal attribute – within another individual.  The answer is “no.”  Companies can facilitate the creation of knowledge; however, becoming knowledgeable remains a personal choice.
One of the common excuses given by senior management to justify why they are not responsible for organizational malfeasance is, “I didn’t know.” (Consider Rupert Murdock of News Corporation and Bob Diamond of Barclays Bank).  This “I didn’t know” excuse would have no validity for avoiding liability if, in fact, organizations can create knowledge.
Why is this important for OH&S management systems?
To have an effective occupational safety & health management system, an organization must put processes in place to promote the development of personal knowledge sufficient for individuals to make the appropriate decisions – and be held accountable.
Knowledge does not exist simply because procedures have been uploaded to a corporate database.  Knowledge does not exist because an e-mail has been sent or a training program was uploaded to the intranet.  Knowledge does not exist because a report has been created.  All of these are simply the creation of information.  Knowledge only exists when information reaches an individual.
One of the focuses of an OH&S management system is taking steps to ensure senior management becomes knowledgeable.  Personal knowledge is needed for making the decisions necessary for Management Review (see Section 4.6 of OHSAS 18001).  Personal knowledge is also needed to ensure the availability of the resources essential for maintaining and improving the management system (see Section 4.4.1 of OHSAS 18001).  One of the benefits associated with implementing an effective OHSMS is that the “I didn’t know” excuse is no longer appropriate – nor should it be necessary.

Risk Management Requires ACTION

Risk Management Requires ACTION

Although planning is an important part of an occupational health and safety management system, planning alone will not result in improved safety performance unless what is planned is actually done.
There is often a huge gulf between what an organization says about safety and what it actually does.  It is not unusual for the OH&S Policy statement to commit an organization to best-in-class performance when the day-to-day reality is not even close. This is the gap between intention and results.
Implementing a functioning OHSMS means making hard decisions about how an organization is going to use the resources it has available – time, money and infrastructure (e.g. software).  Even if an organization has unlimited funding, It is not possible to actually do everything immediately.  It still takes time, personnel and, very often, infrastructure improvements and organizational culture changes to accomplish lasting improvement in OH&S performance.
Prioritization of what will be done right now is what is critical.
Saying you are going to take action “someday” does not manage risk.  Writing procedures that set out tasks that cannot actually be completed because the personnel needed to do them are not available does not manage risk. Implementing inspection programs without having the resources available to track and fix the problems that are identified does not manage risk.  Managing risk requires action.
This is why section 4.3.1 of OHSAS 18001 requires that the organization identify the controls that are needed to reduce OH&S risks to acceptable levels and then implement and maintain these controls within the OHSMS.
Obviously, this means implementing the selected control measures.  It also means having “checking” processes in place to ensure that the controls are both maintained (e.g. continuing to be done over time) and actually effective in reducing OH&S risk to acceptable levels.
Many organizations miss this “checking” component associated with implementing OHSAS 18001; yet, it is critical to managing risk. For example –

• Safety lockouts may fail – yet no one notices or reports the failure since it is “not their job.”
• Inspections or preventive maintenance is scheduled and tracked – but not actually completed when scheduled because production equipment cannot be shut down.
• Facility inspections are no longer done – individuals assume that since no one ever reviews the results why bother continuing to do them.
• Procedures continue to be followed – but the actions being taken do not address the activities or conditions that actually create the real risks (e.g. having two processes that inspect vehicle tires but none that replace windshield wipers).

Yes – plan.  But don’t stop there.  You then need to act and check that the actions being taken actually work.  If they don’t, revise your plans and try again.  In other words – Plan, Do, Check, Act.

Each year the International Day of Peace is observed around the world on 21 September.

Dear all,

Towards the ideals of peace

Each year the International Day of Peace is observed around the world on 21 September. The General Assembly has declared this as a day devoted to strengthening the ideals of peace, both within and among all nations and peoples.

Sustainable Peace...

This year, world leaders, together with civil society, local authorities and the private sector, met in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil for the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development to renew political commitment to long term sustainable development.
It is in the context of the Rio+20 Conference that “Sustainable Peace for a Sustainable Future” is the theme chosen for this year's observance of the International day of Peace.
There can be no sustainable future without a sustainable peace. Sustainable peace must be built on sustainable development.

...From Sustainable Development...

The root causes of many conflicts are directly related to or fuelled by valuable natural resources, such as diamonds, gold, oil, timber or water. Addressing the ownership, control and management of natural resources is crucial to maintaining security and restoring the economy in post-conflict countries.
Good natural resource management can play a central role in building sustainable peace in post-conflict societies.

...For a Sustainable Future

The International Day of Peace offers people globally a shared date to think about how, individually, they can contribute to ensuring that natural resources are managed in a sustainable manner, thus reducing  potential for disputes, and paving the road to a sustainable future, the "Future We Want".

Conversion of Single Stage GV System to 2-Stage GV System for CO2 Removal In Ammonia Plant-I

 Conversion of Single Stage GV System to 2-Stage GV System for CO2 Removal In Ammonia Plant-IIFFCO AONLA

 

Ammonia is manufactured by steam reforming of natural gas. During the process, CO₂ is formed in the gaseous mixture and the same is removed from the  gaseous mixture in the CO₂ Removal Section designed by M/s. Giammarco Vetrocoke (GV) of Italy.

Original system

In the original system, the process gas containing CO2 enters at the bottom of GV absorber. GV solution enters the Absorber at the top and absorbs CO2 from the process gas while flowing down though the packed beds. CO2 free gas comes out from the top of Absorber and sent down to Methanator for further processing. Rich GV solution containing CO2 is sent to Regenerator operating at around 1.0 kg/cm2g. Here dissolved CO2 is separated from the solution by flashing. CO2 is further removed from the cascading solution, by stripping action of rising steam/vapors. The lean GV solution collects at the bottom of Regenerator. From the Regenerator bottom lean GV solution goes to a Flash Drum operating at 0.6 kg/cm2g. Here again, any dissolved CO2 in the solution is separated. The separated CO2 is fed to Regenerator from the Flash Drum with the help of LP steam ejectors. The lean GV solution is pumped from Flash Drum to GV Absorber. The separated CO2 comes out from Regenerator top and is cooled in coolers. After cooling and separation of condensate, CO2 is sent to Urea Plant.  The schematic diagram of original system is as given below:

Modified System

The main features of the modified 2-stage GV process are (1) Absorption by lean & semi lean solutions (2) High pressure & low-pressure stripping. The features result in better absorption of CO2 in Absorber and lower energy consumption for regeneration of the solution in Regenerators.

In the modified system, the process gas containing CO2 enters at the bottom of GV Absorber. Lean GV solution enters the Absorber at the top and absorbs CO2 from the process gas while flowing down though packed beds. CO2 free gas comes out from the top of Absorber and is sent down to Methanator for further processing. Semi lean solution enters at the middle of Absorber above the second bed and absorbs CO2 from the process gas. When the GV solution reaches the bottom of Absorber, it becomes rich in absorbed CO2.

The rich GV solution containing CO2 is sent to HP Regenerator operating at around 1.0 kg/cm2g. Here, part of dissolved CO2 is separated from the solution by flashing. First part of GV solution is sent from HP Regenerator top take off tray to LP Regenerator top operating at around 0.1 kg/cm2g. Second part of GV solution is sent 

from HP Regenerator semi lean draw off pan (located below two packed beds) to LP Regenerator semi lean solution sump. Balance GV solution in HP Regenerator is reboiled in GV Reboilers. Vapors from Reboilers again enter the HP Regenerator bottom for stripping the GV solution. Live LP steam is also injected into HP Regenerator for stripping the GV solution. Solution from Reboilers is sent to HP Regenerator bottom. Lean solution from HP Regenerator bottom is sent to LP Regenerator bottom.

Semi lean solution from LP Regenerator draw off pan, is pumped to GV Absorber and enters above the top of second bed for absorption of CO2. Lean solution from the bottom of LP regenerator is cooled in a heat exchanger with DM Water and pumped to GV Absorber top.

CO2 from LP regenerator is boosted upto HP regenerator pressure with a CO2 Blower and sent to Urea plant alongwith CO2 from HP regenerator. Schematic diagram of the modofied system is given below:

Benefits of the modification

Major benefits of the modification are:

1.       Reduction of CO2 slip through Absorber by around 600 ppm, which has resulted in:

·         Higher availability of CO2 for urea production

·         Decrease in hydrogen consumption in Methanation Section

2.     Decrease in LP steam consumption in CO2 Removal System from 38 MT/hr to 15 MT/hr.