Icelandic Volcano - Are the Authorities Being Overcautious Regarding Air Travel?

photo : Virtualtourist.com

Over the last couple of days, I've heard from many friends and colleagues stuck in various desitnations, either on business or vacation.

We've all read about the issues for travellers and for the airlines. There are also a great many other businesses, mine included, which are totally dependent on overseas travel.

So clearly, the human and economic costs are very high. Against this backdrop, I keep asking myself two questions - Firstly, Are the authorities being too cautious in deciding to ground air traffic? Secondly, would I be willing to fly in European Airspace right now?

The Financial Times has a very interesting article, with some major questions regarding the validity of the computer models used in Europe and the comparisons between the European and US approach to aviation safety.

In the chemical industry, we tend to start with the precautionary principle but then use a combination of theory and data to give a quantified analysis of the risk. Risk can never be eliminated but we can make decisions on whether or not it is acceptable.

If the models are flawed, we need to systematically collect data, such as that generated from the various test flights over the last few days and any other data which we deem necessary. We should then use this to validate or challenge the models (whilst checking whether the jet engines have suffered any damage).

What we can't afford to do is sit around, rely solely on the existing models and hope the problem will go away, particularly when there are other potentially active volcanoes in the same area.

As for whether I would be willing to fly - well I wouldn't want to fly around the volcano but would be willing to accept the assurances given to me by the airline companies and fly if they believe that it is safe to do so.

Failure to Understand Reactive Chemistry Hazards Leads to Fatal Accident

A fatal blast in 2007 at the T2 MCMT plant (a fuel additive) resulted from a fundamental lack of understanding of the reactive chemistry hazards - according to the investigation carried out by the US Chemicals Safety Board (CSB). In yet another excellent video, the CSB outlines the events that led up to the incident and explains the causes. The CSB investigation found that the company, T2, did not understand the reactive chemistry hazards, having scaled up their process from a bench scale. This meant that appropriate safeguards such as adequate relief systems, safety instrumented systems, back up cooling supplies were either inadequate or not in place and consequently staff training and operating procedures did not address this risk.

Two operators were killed instantly and two were killed by flying debris. 32 people in the vicinity were also injured. The plant was destroyed.

There is a wealth of published material on this subject, such as the guide produced by UK Health and Safety Executive. However figures show that in the US alone, 167 serious incidents of this type occurred between 1980 and 2001

Operating companies must understand and manage their risks. This type of tragic incident should not be happening in our industry.

H1N1 Swine Flu - Is Industry Prepared?

According to a recent report by the Ernst and Young Item Club, a London based think-tank, swine flu could devastate the UK economy.

Apparently swine flu could cause Britain's economy to shrink by 7.5% this year and dash hopes of recovery next year. According to Peter Spencer, chief economic advisor to the Ernst & Young Item Club "If the worst-case scenarios of the threat of swine flu are fully realised, gross domestic product could fall by as much as an additional 3% this year and another 1.7% in 2010”.

If this is true for the UK, then the same could apply to all major economies.

It is now widely acknowledged that the virus cannot be contained so management strategies are necessary.

From discussions with my contacts, it seems that across the industry, levels of preparation vary significantly, ranging from no preparation at all, to providing a handful of anti-bacterial sprays to having a full business continuity plan in place.

Regarding the latter, best practice is to carry out a thorough risk assessment based on the various possible scenarios for the spread of the infection. Plans need to be in place for dealing with employees, for operational planning in case of widespread absence and for possible supply chain disruption.

Whilst this is a considerable exercise and will take time and effort to perform well, it is much easier to implement such a plan if it has been well thought through in advance.