A few days ago a post was made on Facebook outlining the process by which a PADI student or professional could raise a QA claim against a professional or facility. One of the comments written below was 'Snitch!' This frustrated me because my perception based on 26 years in the RAF is that if standards are not being adhered to, then something needs to be said to bring those involved back up to what is expected. The reason is that the standards are there for the safety and performance of all involved. Of course, deviations occurred while I was serving, we made mistakes and undertook at-risk behaviours - we were human after all! Most of the time they were debriefed to find out not just why they happened, but also because innovation can only exist when deviation happens and if that deviation has led to an innovation, then let's learn from it and make what we have better. Feedback worked because, fundamentally, it was normal and expected. Aircrew were used to giving and receiving...

Human error is normal. Human error is part of the way we learn. It is almost impossible to remove human error from any system. Therefore, 'Human error' should not be the conclusion of an investigation. If it is, then we are not likely to improve the situation for the future. Depending on the outcome of the error or errors, the impact can be minor or it can be fatal, the problem is we don't necessarily know the scale of the issue until after the event.

In the last blog I covered the basic concept of a Just Culture and why it is essential to have this if we are to improving safety. We need to be able to talk about the errors or violations (at risk behaviours) that occur, and the reasons why it made sense to us at the time if we are to improve performance and safety, and reduce the likelihood of the same adverse event happening again. In this blog I am going to talk about 'human error' and the differences that exist within this overly-simple classification. The next...