Yesterday’s corporate manslaughter appeal decision involving Air France Flight AF447 raises questions far beyond aviation.
Increasingly, investigations into deaths, serious violence and operational failures are focusing not only on individuals…
…but on the organisations behind them.
This article explores the growing shift towards organisational accountability, foreseeable risk and decision-making under pressure across aviation, prisons, policing and frontline services.
Those of you who, like me, remember the classic 1987 film Planes, Trains and Automobiles will probably remember a movie about chaos and other unexpected problems.
In other words, a storyline built around pressure, frustration and human behaviour.
As I introduce points that will have been raised and discussed towards yesterday’s appeal decision regarding the Air France Flight AF447 disaster, leaders, managers, policy writers and organisational decision-makers need to note:
Of what?
When tragedy happens, investigators are no longer only looking at the person closest to the incident.
They are increasingly looking at the organisation behind them.
That is not just relevant to aviation.
It is increasingly relevant across:
- Policing
- Prisons
- Healthcare
- Education
- Transport
- Security
- Housing
- Social Care
One of the clearest reminders of this came much closer to home in the UK through the tragic death of prison custody officer Lorraine Barwell.
Lorraine Barwell was killed whilst escorting a prisoner.
Like many serious incidents involving violence, the event unfolded rapidly and dynamically under pressure.
But what followed afterwards was equally important.
Questions were not only asked about the offender.
Investigators and organisations also examined:
- Operational procedures
- Staffing levels
- Escort arrangements
- Risk management
- Communication
- Training
- Whether the realities of violence had truly been understood and prepared for.
That distinction matters.
Again why?
Because increasingly, serious incident investigations are shifting away from simply asking:
“Who made the mistake?”
And moving towards:
“What did the organisation know?”
“What risks were foreseeable?”
“Were staff properly prepared for the operational reality?”
“Did policy match what actually happens under pressure?”
Those same themes sat at the centre of one of the world’s most significant aviation rulings.
Yesterday, a French appeals court found Airbus and Air France guilty of corporate manslaughter following the 2009 crash of Air France Flight 447, which killed all the people on board the flight.
The ruling overturned earlier acquittals and focused heavily on organisational knowledge, foreseeable risk and systemic failures.
The court heard evidence that:
- Known technical concerns existed around pitot tube failures,
- Risks had been underestimated,
- Pilot training in this area was insufficient
The focus was not solely on the individuals operating under pressure in the cockpit.
The focus widened towards:
- Leadership
- Systems
- Training
- Communication
- Competence
- Organisational preparedness
This should resonate with every organisation responsible for managing foreseeable violence, aggression, conflict or crisis.
Because whether the environment is:
- An aircraft
- Prison escort
- A mental health unit
- A classroom
- Housing visit
- Frontline public services
The questions after a serious incident are increasingly becoming the same.
Not:
“Was there a policy?”
But:
“Was the policy operationally realistic?”
“Did those staff have the competence, confidence and decision-making ability to apply it under pressure?”
“Did the organisation genuinely prepare people for foreseeable human behaviour?”
This is where many organisations still confuse compliance with competence:
- Policies alone do not manage violence.
- Policies alone do not improve judgement.
- Policies alone do not prepare people for fear, adrenaline, fatigue or rapidly evolving behaviour.
People perform to the level of their training.
Therefore, training that is purely theoretical, overly restrictive or disconnected from operational reality can itself become part of the risk.
The growing direction of travel from regulators, investigators, coroners and the courts is becoming increasingly clear:
- Foreseeable risk matters
- Preparation matters
- Decision-making matters
- Organisational accountability matters
No matter how much technology improves efficiency, systems, communication and operational capability, people remain our greatest asset.
Aircraft may become more advanced.
Custody systems may become more sophisticated.
Policies may become longer.
Technology may become faster.
But ultimately, when situations deteriorate under pressure, it is still people who must:
- Assess risk
- Communicate
- Make decisions
- Manage fear
- Exercise judgement
- Respond lawfully, ethically and proportionately in real time.
This is why the investment in people, realistic training and organisational culture remains one of the most important safety measures any organisation can make.
When serious incidents occur, investigations increasingly look beyond what happened…
And are now moving towards investigating whether people were genuinely prepared beforehand.
My title for this blog post:
In addition to staff safety, these issues apply across all transport services!
Do you believe organisations are doing enough to prepare staff for operational reality under pressure?
Or are too many systems and processes still built around compliance rather than competence?
Learn More
If your organisation would like to learn more or better understand:
- Organisational accountability
- Foreseeable risk
- Violence reduction
- Lone and remote working
- Conflict management
- Defensible training
- Decision-making under pressure
Contact us at: https://nfps.info/contact-nfps/