Re: [SystemSafety] NYTimes: The Next Accident Awaits

From: Peter Bernard Ladkin < >
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 23:18:27 +0100

> On 3 Feb 2014, at 22:46, "Tom Ferrell" <tom_at_xxxxxx >
> The biggest reason I would suggest for a relatively low amount of
> confirmation bias in the current aerospace designee-oriented system is

I'm glad we agree on that.

Simply put, it seems that, in the US and Europe, in the statistically safest safety-critical industry, it suffices to designate a valued company colleague to look at our design carefully, and tell us where we may have screwed it up. And say "OK" when we fix it, if heshe thinks it needs fixing.

I agree, of course, that there are lots of dangers to avoid with this approach. And I'm glad we avoid them.

My conclusion, again: Confirmation bias just doesn't seem to be an important issue that needs to be addressed to get it righter than in other industries.

PBL Prof. Peter Bernard Ladkin, University of Bielefeld and Causalis Limited



The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety_at_xxxxxx Received on Mon Feb 03 2014 - 23:18:50 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Mon Apr 22 2019 - 19:17:06 CEST