Air Travel — Results vs Process


If you're a results thinker, you should feel reassured that 2007 had zero U.S. air travel fatalities for the first time in a long time, the continuation of an apparent downward trend.

2007 a safe year for U.S. airlines

If you're a process thinker, you're probably scared to death of a disaster that seems bound to happen. Near misses have tripled, news reports highlight how air traffic controllers are fatigued and overworked (not a good condition for safety).

Another Near Collision Rattles Newark Liberty

Thankfully this most recent near miss prompted an “emergency meeting” with the FAA. I hope that leads to real root cause problem solving and prevention instead of blaming individuals. In this case, a controller is being blamed for giving the wrong tower frequency to a flight. How did that happen? Why could that have occurred? Can that be error proofed and prevented in ways other than saying “be careful?”

Fix the process folks, or the results won't continue.

Good results aren't always the indicator of a good process. You can have a bad process and get lucky for a while.

The right process brings the right results. That's true in business, in Lean, and in aviation.

This hits close to home since I flew into Newark on Wednesday. Not one of the near miss flights, but still… a bit scary.

What do you think? Please scroll down (or click) to post a comment. Or please share the post with your thoughts on LinkedIn – and follow me or connect with me there.

Did you like this post? Make sure you don't miss a post or podcast — Subscribe to get notified about posts via email daily or weekly.

Check out my latest book, The Mistakes That Make Us: Cultivating a Culture of Learning and Innovation:

Get New Posts Sent To You

Select list(s):
Previous articleYes, Standardized Work Saves Lives
Next articleSix Sigma In the Newsroom
Mark Graban
Mark Graban is an internationally-recognized consultant, author, and professional speaker, and podcaster with experience in healthcare, manufacturing, and startups. Mark's new book is The Mistakes That Make Us: Cultivating a Culture of Learning and Innovation. He is also the author of Measures of Success: React Less, Lead Better, Improve More, the Shingo Award-winning books Lean Hospitals and Healthcare Kaizen, and the anthology Practicing Lean. Mark is also a Senior Advisor to the technology company KaiNexus.


  1. The article wasn’t very enlightening. Normally, when the Tracon hands off a flight to the tower, the pilot/copilot calls the tower and says something like “Newark, this is Air Carrier 3333 inbound.” If the frequency had been incorrectly set as Teterboro, the normal response would have been something like “This is Teterboro, Newark is xxx.xx”

    I’ll see if I can find something more substantive on this incident.

  2. Can’t find much. The comment here
    about landing procedures at Newark makes me wonder if maybe there’s a procedure there wherein the flight crew waits for a call from the tower, rather than initiating the call.

    There *is* some error proofing even if communication with one of the planes is totally lost, due to wrong frequency or other reasons:

    1)Planes will still be on radar, and the tower controller can direct the other plane away from the conflict.

    2)Airliners and large cargo planes are equipped with TCAS, an autonomous system which displays nearby traffic and recommends evasion procedures

    3)Finally, there is visual detection of the traffic.

    It will be interesting to find out more about what really happened here.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.