Abstract
Purpose. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety proposal process at the National Transportation Safety Board. Specifically, the objectives of the study focused on the decision-making process, decision-making criteria, improvements, training, time factors and feedback, accountability, priorities, and knowledge associated with this process. Research methodology. Data was collected from the five member Safety Board and from the Safety Proposal Review Board (SPRB) by the semi-structured personal interview technique. Additional data was collected by a mailed questionnaire sent to 40 Air Safety Investigators across the nation. The data was correlated and analyzed through the application of frequencies and range expressed in percentages. Findings. The SPRB, absent a group leader, utilized a subjective group consensus decision-making process with no application of standard criteria in evaluating a safety proposal. The data confirmed problems in training, priorities, feedback, timeliness, knowledge and accountability despite limited improvements made by the SPRB. Conclusions. Based on the findings of the research, it was concluded that: (1) The SPRB and Board Members recognized some salient problems in the process. (2) The field investigators are frequently discouraged by the overall process due to a lack of time, feedback and availability of research material. (3) The findings and conclusions verified previous internal studies. Recommendations. Based on the findings and conclusions of the research performed for this study, it was recommended that actions be taken to: (1) Elevate safety proposals to a higher priority by placing the Recommendation Division under the Managing Director's office. (2) Appoint a group leader for the SPRB who reports the monthly status of proposals to the Managing Director's office. (3) Establish, publish and distribute a standard criteria for all those involved in the process. (4) Establish and adhere to a timetable for processing proposals. (5) Increase the training from one to two hours with emphasis on the criteria, time limitations, and reasons for rejections. (6) Enforce a more reliable system of accountability to monitor and track feedback and timeliness in processing a proposal. (7) Hire a research librarian knowledgeable in computer information systems to make previous proposals, recommendations and research material more accessible to the investigator for support justification.