Adapting Theory to Reality

Writing a blog is a wonderful experience.  Posts on my theory of “Stepping Back from the Edge” have brought me into discussions that have helped enlighten my thoughts on the matter. Comments from people whom I respect as serious EH&S professionals have made me re-think this theory.  From the evidence presented by these folks I have had to broaden the theory to cover what I now see as the whole spectrum of the working population.

When I conceived “Working on the Edge” I was solely involved with what might be called a traditional manufacturing setting.  By traditional I mean a typical factory setting where products are fabricated or assembled.  It might have been a warehouse where products were distributed or possibly a research facility with laboratories and associated support.  My message to employees in this setting is to never “work on the edge” as there is no reason to do so.  We have spent many years determining what is acceptable safe and/or environmentally sound behaviors for these types of jobs.  These jobs have tasks that are repeatable, predictable and almost always well understood.  Because of these job attributes there is a well defined body of knowledge that outlines acceptable approaches to performing assigned duties.  My point, which I still vehemently believe to be very valid, is that in this setting there is almost never a need to “work on the edge”.   Over time and unfortunately on the backs of those who have been injured we have learned how to “step back from the edge”.  Through on the job experiences and more recently through much improved risk analysis techniques we have build a body of rules that if followed will keep us safe and the environment clean.  These rules are applied through regulations and job know-how gained by training and experience.  Within the traditional manufacturing setting the theory holds true. It is validated by injury and illness rates that are dropping year over year.

Additional Input

However, it has been pointed out to me that there are many other working environments that cause the “Step Back From The Edge” theory to be found problematic.  There are many occupations that, by the nature of the work to be performed, forces those engaged in these activities to work on the edge.  As an example in  public service we have police and firefighters who, when they start a shift, have no idea as to what they will encounter that day.  The next call for a policeman (or woman) might involve a deranged person with a gun and every intention of using it.  A firefighter responding to a blaze might have to enter the burning building to rescue a child trapped inside.  Although these dangerous situations do not present themselves on every shift worked, these folks are required to “work on the edge” due to the nature of their job.  They don’t have the luxury to do otherwise and still perform their job.  So my” Step Back From the Edge” theory just wouldn’t work here.  There has to be something else added to the theory that encompasses these types of jobs.

Another example of  working on the edge are the astronauts who man the International Space Station. They are completely dependent on mechanical systems to keep them alive, never mind safe.  Just to keep the International Space Station supplied with food and other necessities requires use of equipment that itself is on the edge of design capability.  Look at the last two attempts to deliver supplies to the space station by United States based companies.  On October 28, 2014 an unmanned rocket was launched from Wallops Island, Virginia by Orbital Sciences, a company that has a contract to re-supply the International Space Station.  The rocket rose a short distance after ignition and then exploded in a ball of orange flames  over the Atlantic Ocean.  At the time there was said to be enough supplies on the space station so that was no urgent need and operations could continue unabated.  Then on Sunday June 28, 2015 a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket also on a re-supply mission broke apart after launch from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida.  Thanks to the Russians who launched their own re-supply rocket a potential major disruption of the International Space Station was averted.  These are just other examples of people who choose occupations that require one to “work on the edge”.

The Statistics Don’t Lie

There are many less exotic occupations that also come with the knowledge that one must at times “work on the edge”.  The Bureau of Labor Statistics, BLS, publishes a report every year on job related fatalities.  This is one measure that serves as an indicator of those who have to work on the edge.  In 2013, the latest year available, BLS reported that there were 4,405 job related fatalities.  Occupations with the highest fatality rates were: 1. Logging Workers at 91.3 fatalities per 100,000 full time equivalent workers; 2. Fishing workers at a rate of 75; 3. Aircraft pilots and flight engineers at a rate of 50.6.  In fourth place are roofers at a rate of 38.7 and fifth are Refuse and Recyclable Material Collectors at a rate of 33.o.  In contrast, data from the FBI allows me to calculate an approximate fatality rate for policemen at 10.9 fatalities per 100,000 full time equivalent workers.  In like manner, data from NFPA would indicate a fatality rate of 8.7 for firefighters in 2013.  Construction workers, whose job tasks are often unique to the task they are doing at the time had a 2013 fatality rate of 17.7.

What is interesting is to see common rather benign job functions like refuse collector at three times the fatality  rate of police and four times greater than a firefighter.  Occupations like logging, commercial fishing and roofing bring a worker both literally and figuratively “to the edge”.  I would put logging and commercial fishing in a class by itself as it is so inherently dangerous and unpredictably so that one would expect the rates to be high.  On the other hand, roofing is an occupation that if done within the parameters of known safe approaches should have a much lower fatality rate.    But roofing tends to be a cottage industry type of corporate structure and it is well known that training and safety procedure are frequently not high on the agenda as resources are scarce and time and profit margins slim.  So in this instance workers are forced to be “on the edge” if they want the job.

Adapting to Reality

So what does all this mean to the “Step Away From the Edge” theory for safe and environmentally sound operations?  I propose that with slight amendment this theory can hold for the full spectrum of all work occupations.  I propose that the change required to make the theory work for all is to concede the fact that there are occupations where employees must work on the edge.  If that is so, then they must be given training and retraining and then trained again on how to keep themselves as safe as possible when the unforeseen happens.  When the job is typically not repeatable, predicable and well understood then safe operational rules cannot be written since the operational parameters are often times unique.  Therefore, training on how to react is the only way to add a degree of safety to the job.

There are examples that indicate how training for the unexpected can help. The third most fatal occupation as listed above is Aircraft Pilot and Flight Engineers.  Now it’s not the commercial airline

pilots who are experiencing this very high mortality rate.  In fact, commercial airline pilot is one of the safest jobs you can have.  Rather it is the bush pilot, the air-taxi operator and the small commercial flyers who make piloting airplanes one of the most dangerous jobs.  What is the difference between these two segments of the air transport occupation?  I believe the main difference is training.  Commercial pilots spend a lot of time in front of flight simulators where they learn how to react to the unplanned event.  They are taught through constant training and retraining how to deal with the emergency situation.  Not through a set of safe practice rules, although they abound for normal operations, but through a thorough understanding of the plane, it’s operating parameters and what personal instinctive signals they should ignore.  Bush pilots do not have the same training opportunities nor do they have the equipment and maintenance that commercial airline pilots enjoy.  But both do live on the edge, dependent on the integration of their skills and their equipment to keep them safe.  One side of the occupational spectrum does it much better than the other.

I hereby declare that my theory is adapted and adopted to read:  “Step Back From the Edge if you can and if you can’t TRAIN BABY TRAIN!!!!“