Pe te r N. Ste in Jo hnso n Co ntro ls, I nc . F lig ht Sa fe ty - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Pe te r N. Ste in

Jo hnso n Co ntro ls, I nc . F lig ht Sa fe ty F

• unda tio n

Go o d Mo rning

“T he future b e lo ng s to tho se who pre pa re fo r it to da y”

Quo te : Ma lc o lm X

K no wle dg e vs. Skills

SMS

I CAO

E xpe rt K no wle dg e ≠ Critical Thinking

K no wle dg e vs. Critic a l T hinking

K no wle dg e

• Co nc e pts
• Princ iple s
• I

nfo rma tio n

Critic a l T hinking

• Pro b le m So lving
• E

va lua tio n

• Re a so ning

Critic a l T hinking – Pre do mina nt No tio n

Ab ility to mo nito r a nd e va lua te yo ur o wn thinking

“T hinking Ab o ut Yo ur T hinking ”

Critic a lly T hinking ?

F a c t-finding

Do yo u a c c e pt sta te me nts a t fa c e -va lue ?

Risk Asse ssme nt

Do yo u re ly o n yo ur intuitio n?

Co rre c tive Ac tio ns

Do yo u de live r with e mo tio n a nd a utho rity?

Co re Pro c e ss: I nc ide nts & Ha za rds

Inve stig a tio n

Ana lysis Advic e

I nve stig a tio n

Hypo the tic a l: Sa fe ty Re po rt

Safety Report

“the a irc ra ft struc k a de e r during la nding ro llo ut” “if the a irpo rt ha d fe nc ing , the inc ide nt wo uld no t ha ve ha ppe ne d”

I nve stig a tio n – Prima ry Go a l

So und fa c tua l re c o rd b a se d

• n re po rts, inte rvie ws,

do c ume nts, da ta , a nd

• b se rva tio n

K e y Cha lle ng e s

F a c t o r Opinio n?

F ACT Ob je c tive ly ve rifia b le e ve nt o r thing “T he a irc ra ft struc k a de e r during la nding ro llo ut” OPI NI ON A judg me nt – ma y

• r ma y no t b e

b a se d o n fa c t o r kno wle dg e “if the a irpo rt ha d fe nc ing , the inc ide nt wo uld no t ha ve ha ppe ne d”

He a rsa y - “Wo rd o f Mo uth”

• Bo b ’ s “T

ruth” o r fa c t

• Me mo ry
• Pe rc e ptio n
• I

nte rna l Bia s Unre lia b le

T

• m

Bob

He a rsa y – Hypo the tic a l Sa fe ty Re po rt

ST AT E ME NT S: VE RI F I ABL E ? CRE DI BL E ?

“there are lots of animals near the airport” Source?

T

• m

“Tom said lots

• f animals are

crossing the runway every day” Hearsay

Bo b

“I swe a r - it’ s a fa c t - I sa w the a nima ls c ro ss the runwa y with my o wn two e ye s”

E ye witne ss Sta te me nts

I nno c e nc e Pro je c t

“E ye witne ss miside ntific a tio n is the sing le g re a te st c a use o f wro ng ful c o nvic tio ns [in the Unite d Sta te s], pla ying a ro le in ne a rly 75% o f c o nvic tio ns

• ve rturne d thro ug h DNA

te sting .”

So urc e : www.inno c e nc e pro je c t.o rg / unde rsta nd/ E ye witne ss-Miside ntific a tio n.php

E ye witne ss Sta te me nts – Unre lia b le ?

So urc e : www.inno c e nc e pro je c t.o rg / unde rsta nd/ E ye witne ss-Miside ntific a tio n.php

Me mo ry ≠ Tape Recorder I mpa c t F a c to rs

• L

ig hting

• Dista nc e
• Stre ss
• Ob se rve r’ s Ag e
• T

ime L a pse

I nve stig a tio n - T a ke a wa ys

• F

a c ts no t o pinio ns o r c o nje c ture

• Ob je c tive
• Ve rifia b le
• Se nsitive to the pro b le m with He a rsa y
• Writte n
• Spo ke n
• E

ye witne ss sta te me nts ma y no t a lwa ys b e re lia b le

• I

nde pe nde nt ve rific a tio n

• Co nside r impa c t fa c to rs (e .g . dista nc e )

Ana lysis

Ana lysis – Prima ry Go a l

• Asse ss Risk
• De te rmine Ca usa tio n

K e y Cha lle ng e

T ra ining * E xpe rie nc e * I ntuitio n

I ntuitive vs. Ra tio na l (Critic a l) T hinking

I ntuitive

• Sub je c tive , fe e ling ,

e xpe rie nc e

• “Go ing with yo ur g ut”
• F

a st, b ut no t fla wle ss

Ra tio na l

• Co nside r o ptio ns, we ig h

c ho ic e s

• L
• g ic a l a lte rna tive s
• Slo we r, me tho dic a l

90% ??

Ava ila b ility Bia s

• Pro b a b ility o f a n
• c c urre nc e is de te rmine d

b y the e a se o f re c a ll

• E

a se o f Re c a ll

– Prima c y & Re c e nc y – Sa lie nc e o r Vividne ss

• Sta te d a no the r wa y:

– “te nde nc y to fo rm a judg me nt

fro m wha t re a dily c o me s to mind”

Ava ila b ility Bia s - E xa mple s

“I think it’ s sa fe r if we drive inste a d

• f flying ”

“De lta Airline s is a lwa ys la te ”

Ava ila b ility Bia s – Why I mpo rta nt?

Risk = Se ve rity x Pro b a b ility

E ASY RE CAL L DAT A

Miscalculate risk and recommend either an inadequate or incorrect mitigation

Co nfirma tio n Bia s

• Se le c tive ly c o nside ring

e vide nc e to suppo rt

• ne ’ s pre c o nc e ive d

c o nc lusio n

• Sta te d Diffe re ntly:
• L
• o king fo r info rma tio n

tha t c o nfirms o ur b e lie fs a nd ig no re info rma tio n tha t is c o ntra ry to tha t b e lie f

Co nfirma tio n Bia s - E xa mple s

“Alie ns fro m o the r pla ne ts ha ve visite d the E a rth” No vic e Ac c ide nt I nve stig a to rs

Co nfirma tio n Bia s – Why I mpo rta nt?

Ca usa tio n De te rmina tio n:

• Hig h pro b a b ility
• Ob je c tive fa c ts
• Ra tio na l Ana lysis
• I

nc o rre c t o r ine ffe c tive mitig a tio n

• Ove rc o nfide nc e

CONF I RM CONT RADI CT

Ove rc o nfide nc e

• T

e nde nc y to b e mo re c o nfide nt in yo ur sub je c tive judg me nt a b o ut future e ve nts tha n wa rra nte d b y the fa c ts

• Sta te d Diffe re ntly:
• I

ndividua l a sse ssme nts trump the o ve ra ll b a se ra te

• Pre fe r the “inside ” vie w
• vs. o utside sta tistic a l

vie w

Ove rc o nfide nc e - E xa mple s

E ntre pre ne urs & I nve sto rs Unsta b le Appro a c he s & Go -Aro und De c isio ns

Ove rc o nfide nc e – Why I mpo rta nt?

SUBJE CT I VE BE L I E F S ST AT I ST I CS

Ove rc o nfide nc e

• Ove re stima te

K no wle dg e

• Unde re stima te Risk
• E

xa g g e ra te Ab ility * I na ppro pria te , inc o rre c t, o r ine ffe c tive mitig a tio n stra te g y

I nte rna l Bia se s – F ixe s

• Se e k o ut e vide nc e tha t c o ntra dic ts yo ur vie w
• Ask q ue stio ns tha t c ha lle ng e yo ur

c o nc lusio ns

• Se e k o ut pe o ple a nd pub lic a tio ns tha t o ffe r

diffe re nt vie ws

• Pa y a tte ntio n to b a se ra te s
• K

e e p a n o pe n mind to ne w po ssib ilitie s

Advic e

Advic e – Prima ry Go a l

• Cle a r, Pre c ise L

a ng ua g e

• So und, L
• g ic a l Re a so ning

K e y Cha lle ng e s

Advic e = Arg ume nt

• Pe rsua sio n b a se d o n so und re a so ning a nd lo g ic
• T

ruthful c o nc lusio n flo ws fro m truthful pre mise s

L

• g ic a l F

a lla c ie s

• E

rro r in Re a so ning

• De fe c t tha t we a ke ns yo ur

a rg ume nt

• Ve ry c o mmo n
• Ca n b e ve ry pe rsua sive

Appe a l to E mo tio n

“Unsa fe !” “L e g a l L ia b ility!”

“I f we do n’ t insta ll synthe tic visio n, o ur

• pe ra tio n wo n’ t b e

sa fe !”

Atte mpt to pe rsua de tha t c o nc lusio n is va lid b a se d o n e mo tio n a nd no t re a so ning

Appe a l to Autho rity

Re lying o n a n a utho rity who is no t re a lly a n a utho rity o n the sub je c t ma tte r o f the a rg ume nt

“Our CE O a g re e s with … “T he Re g ula to r a g re e s …

Use o f L a ng ua g e – Writte n o r Spo ke n

• E

xe c utive s, Ope ra tio ns

• Re g ula to rs, L

a wye rs

Audie nc e

• Sta te me nt susc e ptib le o f

two me a ning s

• Co nte xt se nsitive

Amb ig uity

• Ove rly b ro a d, unc le a r
• Co ve r-up fo r la c k o f fa c ts
• r a rg ume nta tive stre ng th

Va g ue ne ss

Advic e – T ips

• L
• g ic a nd so und re a so ning
• Suppo rte d with o b je c tive a nd ve rifia b le fa c ts
• Pre c ise , c le a r la ng ua g e – writte n o r spo ke n
• Do c ume nts we ll o rg a nize d
• Co nside r a udie nc e a nd c o nte xt

Critic a l T hinking – I n Sum

I nve stig a tio n

Do n’ t a c c e pt sta te me nts a t fa c e -va lue .

Ana lysis

Do n’ t re ly so le ly o n yo ur e xpe rie nc e & intuitio n.

Advic e

Ba se d o n so und re a so ning a nd no t e mo tio n o r a utho rity.

Pe te r N. Ste in

Jo hnso n Co ntro ls, I nc . F lig ht Sa fe ty F

• unda tio n

pe te r.n.ste in@ jc i.c o m ste infly@ me .c o m