MINUTES OF THE RAIL HF MEETING

HELD ON

20TH JUNE 2008

AT THE CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY

AVIATION HOUSE, GATWICK

AT

13.30 P.M.

Present:

Nicole Svatek (NS)-RAeS HFG, Chair CRM SG

Ann Mills (AM)-RSSB

Roger Luckins (RL)-RSSB

Richard Heybroek (RH)-RAeS HFG, Secretary

John Barnett (JB)-RAeS HFG

Andrew Taylor (AT)-Heathrow Express, RSSB

Apologies

Captain Roger Benison (RB)-RAeS CRM Advisory Panel

Carey Edwards (CE)-RAeS HFG

Rick Newson (RN)-CAA SRG

  1. Minutes of the Previous Meeting

RH apologised that Minutes of his earlier meeting with AM and RSSB staff were not available. AM gave a brief overview of the history and evolution of the Rail HF Group from the initial cross-industry conferences in 2000 and 2001 to her presentation to the RAeS HFG Committee in 2007. She noted current interest in the T718 driver training review and the decision to move ahead with a joint project and launch conference in May 2009.

RL explained that driver training (T718) had not changed significantly in more than 3 decades. It was now necessary to provide guidance on training to operators. AM said that this requirement was synergistic with the need to simplify the rule book, but noted that to achieve this, competencies and skills may need to be TEM-based instead of ‘a rule for all eventualities’. RL noted in reply to a question that the rule book was used for training but was not intended or designed for that purpose. AM agreed with NS that it was also used as a disciplinary document adding that incidents were not investigated properly from an HF p.o.v.

  1. Matters Arising from the Minutes not on the Agenda

N/A.

  1. Main Agenda

RH said that there were two agenda items: to review the structure of a joint rail/aviation working group, and to start planning a joint conference for May 2009.

  1. Structure of Standing Group
  2. Involvement of RAeS HFG
    RH proposed that the Standing Group be a Rail HF group with a support vector from the RAeS HFG CRM SG chaired by NS. This would remove issues of control or patronism. The HFG would see a Rail HF WG which initially maps directly onto the Rail HF Group. In time this would become less important structurally while still (RL) providing support for external input. The Rail industry would see a Rail HF Group with co-opted HFG/aviation members. NS compared this to a midwife role.
  3. Involvement of Rail Authorities, Agencies and Operators
    AM reported that Network Rail involvement was still TBD. RIAC used to provide a rail forum for HF discussions but this no longer exists. RG noted that competence management is a major rail issue. RH suggested looking at Safety Reporting systems if CIRAS was not performing as expected. AT said CIRAS was perceived as more about large issues and whistleblowing. AM said CIRAS was now an RSSB responsibility and was improving.

There was a general discussion of HF-related issues – these are reported in the conference planning section.

Agreed to have a two-part Standing Group, the core rail HF group and the HFG support Standing Group hosted by NS’ CRM SG. Initially these will be two views of the same Standing Group but it is anticipated that the Rail HF group remit will expand in future.

  1. Launch Conference Planning
    Background
    AM discussed HF Awareness training for accident investigators to help them appreciate the role of HF in investigations.
    AM noted the need to review our investment in drivers. In Australia they have invested in significant training to know what they can expect when reporting incidents – error, not punitive – which was very successful.
    AT pointed to the good responsse to the Focus presentation by RSSB. AM explained that Focus deals with SA and the SA process. Not about “no blame” – theme has to be a response to different behaviours.
    NS pointed to the evolution of “Just Culture” and added that in aviation it was possible even now for people to be managed in a way that directly contradicts their operational requirement.
    RL pointed out that we prefer to tick the boxes for compliance but undervalue competence because compliance is the area seen as most risky. AT/RL noted long-term effects of Ladbroke Grove disaster and enquiry were in some respects distorting best practice. RL noted that the requirement to submit Safety Cases to ORR should cover the threat of judicial enquiry.
    Dates
    JB asked if there would be a conflict with the Lisle HF conference. AM replied that Lisle was a Eurorail conference addressing questions like MMI design, and of interest to professionals rather than trainers. Some overlap, only a handful of people who might chose one rather than another.
    Topics
    AT suggested an emphasis on Just Culture in incident reporting.
    NS believed that it would be too early to address competencies as an issue – technical, terminology, might be hard to undo an early negative response. TEM, on the other hand, works, good starting point, easy to blend from that into competency issues later.
    AT/RL: Simulator usage, use to make and model errors instead of stopping session immediately an error occurs. Learning how to stop at a station, for example, is a process of trial and error.
    RH: ‘Blame, no-blame or Just Culture in Reporting Systems’. Could be e.g. a CIRAS launch opportunity.
    NS: Aviation example – software problems with confidentiality reporting, proposed Mike O’Leary (ex BA Safety Manager) as speaker. Also, NHS has same problem.
    AM: SMIDS problems and ongoing review.
    AT: Amy Rail’s reporting system has tripled the number of reports – powerful tool.
    RH: Second topic might be TEM, from earlier discussions. Third topic might be ‘Creative Use of Simulators for Training’.
    RL: If you SPAD a signal on a sim you will be taken off driving immediately. [The consensus was that this was poor training, damaging and counter-productive.]
    AT described the Cognisco system being introduced by NR. AM noted problems with signallers, “I passed but they didn’t tell me what I got wrong”. This led to NS: ‘Training to the test vs. training to the task’.
    [At this point CE arrived]
    Theme
    CE: Need to identify the key message as conference theme.
    NS: ‘Lessons from Aviation – Do They Work?’
    RL: Training, Competence and Management.
    AM: Get rail to incorporate aviation’s example to get commercial buy-in.
    AT suggested a restatement: ‘Potential Value of Aviation HF Training in the Railway Industry’. JB said this might be seen as parochial.
    CE: ‘Recognizing the Potential Value of Rail and Aviation HF Training: Similarities and Differences’.
    RH: Make subtext ‘Just Culture, Training for the Task, Threat and Error Management’?
    CE: This is an issue we wrestle with. Little or no validated proof. But facts are: no UK aviation accident for 20 years, and UK has best HF training in the world.
    RH: Example of Delta Airlines Ramp Management FOD initiative which had large unexpected beneficial impact on bottom line from turnaround time reduction.
    CE: As a general rule it might be better to replace “CRM” with “Non-Technical Skills”. CRM is not well-accepted due to poor introduction and alien terminology. AM agreed to review HF awareness material, trainer training guidance etc. for terminology issues.
    Conclusion: Agreed working title “Recognizing the Potential of HF Training in the Rail and Aviation Industries”..
    Speakers
    Paul Field’s Cranfield paper. Action CE
    Mike O’Leary on BA BASIS wars Action NS
    Colin Budenberg – creative use of simulators (see RL for rail background) Action CE
    NHS HF Introduction Action NS
    Lifeboat HF implementation and Sim Use Action NS
    Keynote Speaker: Jim Reason Action NS
    Backup to Keynote – TBA
    HF and Single Pilot Operations: Rick Newson Action NS
    Guest List
    RL: Matt Watson, Southern Rail Director looking for culture change. Also Alison Forster, Safety Director First Group. Action RL
    Venue
    Locating a venue for 120 max delegates, cost per head not to exceed £75. Action AM
    Possible use of RAeS HQ if costs can be reduced Action RH
    RL asked whether York might be better than London. NS advised that it would discourage aviation participation.
    CE: Might use RAF Club, RAFMuseumAction CE
  1. Any Other Business

N/A

  1. Date of Next Meeting
    September 12 at CAA Gatwick. Action NS to book