WHY WYVERN?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: uk
Age: 75
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHY WYVERN?
We do a fair amount for American Operators/Brokers and they invariably ask if we have been Wyvern Audited. We did have a Wyvern audit about 15 years ago and felt it was a complete waste of money as they were more interested in the paint jobs of the aircraft than the quality of the flying operation. Do not our American cousins realise that a European AOC (certainly a British one) is a quality qualification in its own right? Perhaps the American equivalent is not quite such a prized posession. Having just read the accident report of the CL-600 operated by Darby/Platinum at Teterborough I can perhaps understand the logic in Wyvern in the US. Was this operator(s) Wyvern approved?
Some people see these "safety auditing" firms as a protection racket. Pay up or get blackballed in the charter broker market. Others see them as performing a service which enhances the safety of passengers in the charter marketplace.
Since I've worked a couple of places who had the audits, I see it as a way for people who used to be in the business to make a living. Anyone who can pass an FAA base inspection can pass one of these safety audits as long as they have the money. The real issues affecting safety are not addressed by either type of inspection. One allows a company to legally operate while the other puts you on a list of "safe operators".
I won't say that NO safety benefits are realized, just that any effect is minimal at best. Approval or not, It's still up to the company whether to inspire a real company safety culture. And meeting the pilot minimums doesn't mean as much as they claim either. Like most pilots, I've flown with enough guys who had the same hour 4,000 times over (yes a slight bit of hyperbole) to know that doesn't necessarily produce a good PIC.
Bottom line thinking provides the operator with a choice between paying the money to stand the audit or miss out on the business lost by not doing so. With the addition of SMS manuals and ISBAO audits, operators probably find better return on investment with "compliance experts" than they do expert pilots.
Since I've worked a couple of places who had the audits, I see it as a way for people who used to be in the business to make a living. Anyone who can pass an FAA base inspection can pass one of these safety audits as long as they have the money. The real issues affecting safety are not addressed by either type of inspection. One allows a company to legally operate while the other puts you on a list of "safe operators".
I won't say that NO safety benefits are realized, just that any effect is minimal at best. Approval or not, It's still up to the company whether to inspire a real company safety culture. And meeting the pilot minimums doesn't mean as much as they claim either. Like most pilots, I've flown with enough guys who had the same hour 4,000 times over (yes a slight bit of hyperbole) to know that doesn't necessarily produce a good PIC.
Bottom line thinking provides the operator with a choice between paying the money to stand the audit or miss out on the business lost by not doing so. With the addition of SMS manuals and ISBAO audits, operators probably find better return on investment with "compliance experts" than they do expert pilots.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: 14 days away 14 at home
Posts: 699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We did have a Wyvern audit about 15 years ago
I think Wyvern and ArgUS are a great way to lead the blind (the customers AND brokers
) in a world where there arer still too many companies doing it on the cheap and giving our industry a bad name. There are still people selling and buying stuff that is way sub standard but meeting (EASA) regulations. I think it is great that there is a way to show you are investing in a better operation.Is it too time consuming? Yes. Could the audit be better in certain area's? Probably. But if you give the auditors feedback on the auditing process I found them pretty receptive!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: uk
Age: 75
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All commercialy run companies have budgets for training/SMS etc. How much does a Wyvern audit cost for a small/medium size AOC operator? Whatever it is, I would prefer to spend the money on something tangible rather than a piece of paper. Going back to the CL600 accident, if these operators had failed a Wyvern audit, then that would be a great advertisment for Wyvern and I might be persuaded. Could someone in the know let me know the score on this point please.
I agree with westhawk's assessment. In my opinion, the decision as to whether money spent on these kind of audits is worth it should be evaluated in the same category as an advertising budget. Is the cost of an additional phone book page, display ad in a travel magazine, or an audit, going to increase the revenue base enough to make it worthwhile?
hawker750:
Sorry I don't know whether that operator had ever sought Wyvern approval. Given the nature of the charges against the company in question and their reputation within the industry, I suspect not. But even if they had, the recent conviction and jail sentencing of a company official for fraudulently "doctoring" required paperwork leads one to suspect that any approvals gained would have been based upon fraudulent documentation anyway. In this case, Wyvern would be well within it's rights to disclaim them. And I don't think one "fails" an audit as much as they must simply correct noted deficiencies in order for approval to be granted.
The bottom line in deciding whether or not to seek outside safety audit firm approvals is primarily a routine business decision that should be based upon diligent cost/benefit analysis. How safe your operation is or isn't should be considered to be strictly dependent upon factors controlled or strongly influenced by the manner in which the organization is managed and the sort of "culture" which is promoted.
Outside auditing is just giving someone else a look at your operation. It's not outside the realm of possibility that certain safety benefits may be realized by such an undertaking. But these sort of benefits may not be easily measurable or definitively represented in statistics. What may be somewhat more measurable is any increase in business volume which can be documented to be associated with approval. That is the primary reason why operators I've worked for have chosen to do it.
Then again, I have no idea how many "approved" trips I was dispatched as PIC of before I fully met the pilot minimums. Given my experience at the time, I suspect it was quite a few.
When the cost associated with gaining outside safety audit firm approval is weighed against the benefits you perceive will accrue by doing so, you'll have your basis for a sound decision.
Edited to add: 340 drvr said it shorter and more directly. I must have been composing while he was posting!
Best of success,
westhawk
Sorry I don't know whether that operator had ever sought Wyvern approval. Given the nature of the charges against the company in question and their reputation within the industry, I suspect not. But even if they had, the recent conviction and jail sentencing of a company official for fraudulently "doctoring" required paperwork leads one to suspect that any approvals gained would have been based upon fraudulent documentation anyway. In this case, Wyvern would be well within it's rights to disclaim them. And I don't think one "fails" an audit as much as they must simply correct noted deficiencies in order for approval to be granted.
The bottom line in deciding whether or not to seek outside safety audit firm approvals is primarily a routine business decision that should be based upon diligent cost/benefit analysis. How safe your operation is or isn't should be considered to be strictly dependent upon factors controlled or strongly influenced by the manner in which the organization is managed and the sort of "culture" which is promoted.
Outside auditing is just giving someone else a look at your operation. It's not outside the realm of possibility that certain safety benefits may be realized by such an undertaking. But these sort of benefits may not be easily measurable or definitively represented in statistics. What may be somewhat more measurable is any increase in business volume which can be documented to be associated with approval. That is the primary reason why operators I've worked for have chosen to do it.
Then again, I have no idea how many "approved" trips I was dispatched as PIC of before I fully met the pilot minimums. Given my experience at the time, I suspect it was quite a few.
When the cost associated with gaining outside safety audit firm approval is weighed against the benefits you perceive will accrue by doing so, you'll have your basis for a sound decision.
Edited to add: 340 drvr said it shorter and more directly. I must have been composing while he was posting!
Best of success,
westhawk
Last edited by westhawk; 31st Aug 2011 at 15:36. Reason: Additional comment
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: 14 days away 14 at home
Posts: 699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pretty close:
That sums it up I guess
Business Jet Crashes Expose Rule-Breaking Brokers (Correct) - Bloomberg
The accident points up the lack of transparency in the charter business, the NTSB report said. General Electric Co., which owns NBC, didn't have any of its planes available to make the trip. So the flight department, General Electric Corporate Air Transport, booked with Key Air LLC, an Oxford, Connecticut- based charter company.
Key Air itself didn't have any jets, so that firm brokered the trip to another operator, Air Castle Corp. of Millville, New Jersey. That company, in turn, leased the jet that flew Ebersol from Hop-a-Jet Inc. of Fort Lauderdale, according to the report.
GE learned after the accident that Hop-a-Jet had been suspended from recommended status earlier that year by Trenton, New Jersey-based Wyvern Consulting Ltd., one of two private firms that perform safety audits of charter companies.
The NTSB report said the suspension followed an unspecified accident at Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport, without providing details.
`So Fooled'
``If an experienced corporate travel organization like GE Corporate Air Transport can be so fooled, how easy is it for others with perhaps far less savvy and market power to hire air charter services that are less safe than they expect?'' Deborah Hersman, an NTSB member, commented in the report.
Key Air itself didn't have any jets, so that firm brokered the trip to another operator, Air Castle Corp. of Millville, New Jersey. That company, in turn, leased the jet that flew Ebersol from Hop-a-Jet Inc. of Fort Lauderdale, according to the report.
GE learned after the accident that Hop-a-Jet had been suspended from recommended status earlier that year by Trenton, New Jersey-based Wyvern Consulting Ltd., one of two private firms that perform safety audits of charter companies.
The NTSB report said the suspension followed an unspecified accident at Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport, without providing details.
`So Fooled'
``If an experienced corporate travel organization like GE Corporate Air Transport can be so fooled, how easy is it for others with perhaps far less savvy and market power to hire air charter services that are less safe than they expect?'' Deborah Hersman, an NTSB member, commented in the report.
Business Jet Crashes Expose Rule-Breaking Brokers (Correct) - Bloomberg
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: uk
Age: 75
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No RYR
As your example shows, the whole issue is a nonsense . Respectable charter companies holding respected AOC's should educate the charterers and end users accordingly. I am not a broker basher, quite the reverse, I think experienced and informed brokers can do our industry a service, but one hears time and time agan about trips being passed down the broker and middle man chain so the end user has no idea who is performing his flight. Not only that, but air charter gets a bad name as being too expensive as so many "experts" are getting a cut down the line.
As your example shows, the whole issue is a nonsense . Respectable charter companies holding respected AOC's should educate the charterers and end users accordingly. I am not a broker basher, quite the reverse, I think experienced and informed brokers can do our industry a service, but one hears time and time agan about trips being passed down the broker and middle man chain so the end user has no idea who is performing his flight. Not only that, but air charter gets a bad name as being too expensive as so many "experts" are getting a cut down the line.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: 14 days away 14 at home
Posts: 699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Respectable charter companies holding respected AOC's should educate the charterers and end users accordingly.
The reason I pasted that particular quote is that even a well educated customer (GE of all people!) has no clue!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Mostly Western hemisphere
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From my infinitesimal experience, third-party safety audits are only worth the amount of resources you're ready to invest in them. I have the impression -perhaps wrong- that the operators' budget has a comparatively bigger influence on the return on investment of their safety audit than the auditor's expertise, professionalism or secret agenda (if any).
On one hand if you're an operator that desperately needs the certificate with the shiny stamp on it but that is otherwise not as committed to safety as the manual pretends (aaah, the wonders of copy-paste), you'll probably go for the cheapest/easiest auditor you can find on the market. And here, just like in any other industry, there are idiots out there who severely undercut the market and/or who bypass the rules to keep the customer happy. In that case, auditor expertise is not a factor. He has no influence whatsoever, you just bought a certificate. Some are cheap to buy, others are expensive.
One the other hand if you're an operator that knows how difficult it can be to weed out the latent conditions and the resident pathogens in your system, but that also knows how valuable it is to have someone looking over your shoulder once in a while, you won't go for an audit that's so short that the auditor (preferably not an idiot or a rookie) has barely the time to skim the surface. "Deep plunges" are often required but they won't happen unless you have a budget for that. In that case, auditor expertise is not a determining factor. If you have the budget, the added value of the audit is real.
Of course most operators are between these two extremes but from what I see and hear first-hand, the majority of them are closer to the first case than the second. I perfectly understand them: the usual safety dilemma, the pressure from competition, the conflicting goals in an imperfect and ever-changing environment, overconfidence in the system, etc. There are lots of explanations, but not a single valid excuse remaining when the trajectory of the aircraft ends up in a smoking crater.
On one hand if you're an operator that desperately needs the certificate with the shiny stamp on it but that is otherwise not as committed to safety as the manual pretends (aaah, the wonders of copy-paste), you'll probably go for the cheapest/easiest auditor you can find on the market. And here, just like in any other industry, there are idiots out there who severely undercut the market and/or who bypass the rules to keep the customer happy. In that case, auditor expertise is not a factor. He has no influence whatsoever, you just bought a certificate. Some are cheap to buy, others are expensive.
One the other hand if you're an operator that knows how difficult it can be to weed out the latent conditions and the resident pathogens in your system, but that also knows how valuable it is to have someone looking over your shoulder once in a while, you won't go for an audit that's so short that the auditor (preferably not an idiot or a rookie) has barely the time to skim the surface. "Deep plunges" are often required but they won't happen unless you have a budget for that. In that case, auditor expertise is not a determining factor. If you have the budget, the added value of the audit is real.
Of course most operators are between these two extremes but from what I see and hear first-hand, the majority of them are closer to the first case than the second. I perfectly understand them: the usual safety dilemma, the pressure from competition, the conflicting goals in an imperfect and ever-changing environment, overconfidence in the system, etc. There are lots of explanations, but not a single valid excuse remaining when the trajectory of the aircraft ends up in a smoking crater.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: BFS
Posts: 1,177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Respectable charter companies holding respected AOC's should educate the charterers and end users accordingly
That's not to say Wyvern or IS-BAO are the way forward. I've had a little experience of them but again I'm always surprised by how easily they accept answers given by the operator. I've seen very little evidence of real 'digging' by them.
However I guess for the large US company looking to charter it's the lazy health and safety guys way of saying ' yes we vet the charter operators we use.' Now if the worse were to happen, I wonder where liability may start?
