Whether you’re a pilot or passenger on a flight, the prospect of a tall mountain growing larger and larger in the windscreen is never a good one. In many cases, this is a signal that your aircraft is on a path which will likely end in: (1) a catastrophic crash into rocky terrain; and (2) your surviving passengers, if any, unmercifully forced to eat the non-surviving passengers to stay alive. Grim prospects for all.

Food safety and aviation have a lot in common. The image of the mountain in the windscreen is an image that could be overlayed upon countless companies in the food industry. When the incoming data is increasingly suggesting that there might be an emerging problem, many companies fail or outright refuse to avert course, believing that they will be able to miraculously clear the rising mountain tops.

The problem with this approach, which I addressed in my last blog, is that “wishful thinking” is never a good strategy. With that said, it also begs the multi-million-dollar question: Why do companies continue to do it? Historically, the food industry, as a whole, has continued to repeat the same historical mistakes, resulting in mostly avoidable repetitive outbreaks and large-scale recalls.

In my opinion, the underpinning reason is likely that corporate leadership, in many companies, too often believes that bad things only happen to “other” players in the industry and to “other” people. They teach themselves that, over time, by engaging in arguably risky behavior without consequence, the risky way they are operating is, in fact, “safe.” And, if crisis is avoided while engaging in risky behavior, for even just a brief period of time, those beliefs begin to become reinforced. In turn, this mentality, in many cases, can tie the hands of the food safety professional who wants nothing more than to convince the corporate leadership that a change in course (turning the aircraft steeply left or right) is essential to avert disaster.

So, can the lessons learned from airline crashes be helpful to the food industry? I believe so. As a fixed-wing pilot, I not only pay careful attention to what I am doing in advance of, and during, every flight, I also pay close attention to the accomplishments and failures of those who have come and left this earth before me. I am and will always be a dedicated student of aviation accidents, so that I can learn from, and not replicate, the past oversights and mistakes which led to disaster.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), for example, does a phenomenal job of investigating aircraft accidents, and then publishing succinct and objective reports detailing the events which converged to bring about an aviation accident or crash. In doing so, the NTSB provides the aviation industry as a whole, including individual pilots like myself, with constant, real-time data on what can go wrong, and how to best avoid repeating or avoiding past failures and misstates.

So, how could this apply to the food industry? Well, how amazing might it be, for instance, if FDA and USDA were to follow the model of NTSB, and author a one- or two-page report for every outbreak or recall that meets a pre-determined threshold? (I would invite the agencies to call me if they would like my perspective on what the thresholds should be). The report would detail the circumstances existing on the processing floor and within the company which led to the failure causing the outbreak and/or recall.

In turn, the industry as a whole, including food safety professionals, could read about and also learn from every catastrophic failure. Food safety professions would also be armed, for the first time ever, with additional tools to demonstrate to the corporate leadership that the practices being followed in their companies, if mirroring the past failures of others, are the same (and, sadly to say in many cases they are) as in the companies that couldn’t out-climb the rising mountain tops.

Think about how powerful a tool such formal agency reports would be. Maybe, for the first time ever, we could not only learn about, but also learn from, the decisions and data points which can, and invariably will, lead to failure. Let there be no mistake, NTSB and its investigative reports have averted hundreds, if not thousands, of airplane crashes (and saved thousands of lives) over the past 50 years.

So, what can we learn from airplane crashes?

Two things. First, when failures occur, a good investigation followed by findings and conclusions helps everyone. Second, if we can begin to appreciate the significance of the mountain growing larger in the windscreen, we might be better equipped to convince the corporate leadership to change course. Doing so will not only divert disaster, but it will also save us from the dire prospects for those who survive.

What can we learn from airplane crashes?

Join for free* to continue reading.