SoMissTV
Well-known member
Jimmy-
Do you have much familiarity with civil lawsuits?
I'll give an example. Let's say that SoMissTV is a one-year veteran of a local news station. He is asked to run a sat live shot that evening at the courthouse for a bond issue election. SoMissTV finds that the only place to park the truck is 100' away from the shoot location. During the broadcast, the transmitter in the truck goes amuck, blasting the sat with a much higher wattage than is permitted, before finally blowing out completely. We now have a dead transponder on the bird and a dead TWTA. Now, the station has to eat the cost on the TWTA; that's the cost of doing business. However, there's still the matter of the transponder on a very expensive satellite....
The satellite operator files a lawsuit against the following: the truck op, the chief engineer, the general manager, the station, and the parent company of the station. The data shows that an operator in the truck could have potentially killed the TWTA moments earlier, possibly saving the transponder from permanent damage. There is now fault to be assigned. When the jury returns from deliberations, they find the following:
The operator is 10% responsible for being away from the truck in violation of FCC rules.
The general manager is 30% responsible for overseeing an operation with lax safety controls.
The station is found to be 50% responsible for creating an environment where FCC rules were violated in the name of cost savings.
The parent company picks up the remaining 10%.
The chief engineer picks up 0% because of the previously clean record of the TWTA.
Now, explain to me how safety training could have avoided this litigation and multi-million dollar award to the satellite operator?
The truth is, safety training is great, but is not a panacea. Accidents happen. Equipment breakdowns happen. Unintended results happen. This is why we are supposed to have redundant safepoints that prevent catastrophic consequences, like the additional operator in the truck who could have killed the power at the first alarm.
To say that accidents won't happen because the staff is trained is an ostrich approach to safety management. Sticking your head in the sand to hide from the potential liability doesn't eliminate the liability; it just makes you oblivious to the reality of the situation.
Do you have much familiarity with civil lawsuits?
I'll give an example. Let's say that SoMissTV is a one-year veteran of a local news station. He is asked to run a sat live shot that evening at the courthouse for a bond issue election. SoMissTV finds that the only place to park the truck is 100' away from the shoot location. During the broadcast, the transmitter in the truck goes amuck, blasting the sat with a much higher wattage than is permitted, before finally blowing out completely. We now have a dead transponder on the bird and a dead TWTA. Now, the station has to eat the cost on the TWTA; that's the cost of doing business. However, there's still the matter of the transponder on a very expensive satellite....
The satellite operator files a lawsuit against the following: the truck op, the chief engineer, the general manager, the station, and the parent company of the station. The data shows that an operator in the truck could have potentially killed the TWTA moments earlier, possibly saving the transponder from permanent damage. There is now fault to be assigned. When the jury returns from deliberations, they find the following:
The operator is 10% responsible for being away from the truck in violation of FCC rules.
The general manager is 30% responsible for overseeing an operation with lax safety controls.
The station is found to be 50% responsible for creating an environment where FCC rules were violated in the name of cost savings.
The parent company picks up the remaining 10%.
The chief engineer picks up 0% because of the previously clean record of the TWTA.
Now, explain to me how safety training could have avoided this litigation and multi-million dollar award to the satellite operator?
The truth is, safety training is great, but is not a panacea. Accidents happen. Equipment breakdowns happen. Unintended results happen. This is why we are supposed to have redundant safepoints that prevent catastrophic consequences, like the additional operator in the truck who could have killed the power at the first alarm.
To say that accidents won't happen because the staff is trained is an ostrich approach to safety management. Sticking your head in the sand to hide from the potential liability doesn't eliminate the liability; it just makes you oblivious to the reality of the situation.