Bedford and the Normalization of Deviance
1–10 of 23 posts
Re: Bedford and the Normalization of Deviance
#2Corporate aviation is a very different place than Part 121.
It is cool to see the author point out that the Part 121 world has largely insulated itself from the "corrosion" of the normalization of deviance. (And that acknowledgement coming from people like us who chafe under the structure and rigidity of 121, but still give a shit about actual risk mitigation.)
The topic is interesting since the "dark ages" mentality of so much of corporate aviation is worth exploring as what stunts its growth, innovation, etc. (And I'd extend that to Part 135 too.)
Re: Bedford and the Normalization of Deviance
#3Corporate aviation is a very different place than Part 121. It is cool to see the author point out that the Part 121 world has largely insulated itself from the "corrosion" of the normalization of deviance. (And that acknowledgement coming from people like us who chafe under the structure and rigidity of 121, but still give a shit about actual risk mitigation.) The topic is interesting since the "dark ages" mentality…
For those of us who are not as steeped in the world of aviation can you perhaps share what Part 121 and Part 135 are?
Re: Bedford and the Normalization of Deviance
#4> There are several factors which tend to sprout normalization of deviance:
> First and foremost is the attitude that rules are stupid and/or inefficient.
This is a great reason why to try your hardest to avoid implementing stupid rules. When some rules are stupid and become ignored, other rules lose their power.
Re: Bedford and the Normalization of Deviance
#5Corporate aviation is a very different place than Part 121. It is cool to see the author point out that the Part 121 world has largely insulated itself from the "corrosion" of the normalization of deviance. (And that acknowledgement coming from people like us who chafe under the structure and rigidity of 121, but still give a shit about actual risk mitigation.) The topic is interesting since the "dark ages" mentality…
For those of us who are not as steeped in the world of aviation can you perhaps share what Part 121 and Part 135 are?
Part 121 - Air carrier / Airline
Part 135 - Charter
Part 91 - Small and non commercial
Re: Bedford and the Normalization of Deviance
#6> There are several factors which tend to sprout normalization of deviance: > First and foremost is the attitude that rules are stupid and/or inefficient. This is a great reason why to try your hardest to avoid implementing stupid rules. When some rules are stupid and become ignored, other rules lose their power.
If you think the world doesn't contain a large number of people whose attitude is that they are smart enough to decide what to do for themselves, and all the rules are made by stupid people, you have another think coming.
And blaming the rules for the behavior of those people is not the correct position.
(see also: why the only thing many HN users know about G.K. Chesterton is the fence thing)
Re: Bedford and the Normalization of Deviance
#7One of the most important talks I've ever seen is Richard Cook's "Resilience In Complex Adaptive Systems"[1], in which he explains the fundamental abstract mechanism that causes the normalization of deviance.
Re: Bedford and the Normalization of Deviance
#8Nice startup idea in the article for anyone interested:
>A better model would be that of the FOQA program, where information from flight data recorders is downloaded and analyzed periodically in a no-hazard environment. The pilots, the company, and the FAA each get something valuable. It’s less stick, more carrot. I would also add that this sort of program is in keeping with the Fed’s recent emphasis on compliance over enforcement action.
Re: Bedford and the Normalization of Deviance
#9> There are several factors which tend to sprout normalization of deviance: > First and foremost is the attitude that rules are stupid and/or inefficient. This is a great reason why to try your hardest to avoid implementing stupid rules. When some rules are stupid and become ignored, other rules lose their power.
If you think the world doesn't contain a large number of people whose attitude is that they are smart enough to decide what to do for themselves, and all the rules are made by stupid people, you have another think coming. And blaming the rules for the behavior of those people is not the correct position. (see also: why the only thing many HN users know about G.K. Chesterton is the fence thing)
I'm sorry you read that into my comment, but that's not what I meant to imply. I simply meant that there's a balance to keep in mind when making rules.
Re: Bedford and the Normalization of Deviance
#10Whats the purpose of a 2015 article and itsnt a history lesson ? Nkt