Matthew Hernandez

LVO stands for Low Visibility Operations. These are special procedures and requirements that apply when operating in low visibility conditions, typically during takeoff, landing, and taxiing in fog, heavy rain, or snow. LVOs are implemented to maintain safety when visual references are limited or unavailable. Here’s a quick breakdown of key points: Common Scenarios for LVO: CAT II or CAT III instrument landings Runway visual range (RVR) less than 400 meters Taxi operations in low visibility (e.g., RVR < 200 meters) Key Elements of LVO: 1.Enhanced lighting systems (e.g., centerline lights, touchdown zone lights) 2. ILS (Instrument Landing System) usage 3. Trained flight crews and certified aircraft 4. Airport-specific procedures approved by the regulatory authority Related Terms: LVP (Low Visibility Procedures): The procedures an airport initiates when visibility drops below a set threshold, often used interchangeably with LVO but more focused on ground operations. SMGCS (Surface Movement Guidance and Control System): A system to support aircraft and vehicle movement during low visibility.

70

Safety Engineering and Safety Management Systems (SMS) go hand in hand—SMS is most impactful when guided by the principles and rigor of safety engineering. Let’s talk about the mindset built through SMS. In many industries, safety is a cultural commitment. SMS isn’t just about policies and procedures—it’s about embedding safety into the way people think, communicate, and make decisions. When SMS is integrated early—especially in the design phase—it: ➡️ Promotes proactive safety thinking— Engineers and decision-makers consider hazards and mitigation early, not after deployment. ➡️ Strengthens safety culture— Reporting, learning, and accountability become part of everyday operations. ➡️ Drives business value— Safe systems aren’t just compliant; they’re a competitive advantage. Customers trust them. Markets reward them. SMS helps organizations move from reactive compliance to proactive prevention. It transforms safety from a feature into a shared value—reflected in every flight, every system, and every team. #SafetyEngineering  #SMS

27

4 Comments

Ohio agency Akron PD’s decision to expand its Drone as First Responder (DFR) program is a smart, community‐focused step forward for public safety in Northeast Ohio. By getting a Skydio drone overhead in under two minutes, officers gain real‐time situational awareness that helps them slow down, make better tactical decisions, and safely de‐escalate high‐risk incidents. That means more protection for the community and for the officers who serve it.[1] DFR changes the equation on response. Instead of waiting to arrive on scene “blind,” officers can watch a live feed from a remotely piloted, dock‐based drone as they respond to calls for service. Akron already flies seven drones with 20 pilots and plans to deploy at least three docks across the city this year, building on proven use cases like suspect apprehension, search and rescue, and missing children investigations. Faster, smarter responses paired with high‐quality video evidence are already helping agencies resolve cases more quickly and hold offenders accountable.[1] Credit also goes to the broader Ohio public safety community that is leading on this mission‐critical technology. Six agencies in the state now use Skydio drones, with Cincinnati PD currently operating dock‐based systems and Cleveland PD flying a growing Skydio fleet while evaluating DFR docks. These departments are pairing innovation with responsible policy: limiting flights to calls for service, addressing privacy concerns up front, and building transparency tools like public UAS dashboards so residents can see when and where drones are flying.[1] Congratulations to Akron PD, Cincinnati, Cleveland, and the many other agencies across Ohio and the U.S. who are proving that when done right, Drone as First Responder can be a force multiplier for safety, transparency, and trust in the communities they protect.[1] [1](https://lnkd.in/gYaf5k2M)

164

5 Comments

What We Don’t See Saves Lives. Most people admire the performance, design, or innovation of a system. But beneath the surface lies a critical layer that often goes unnoticed: system safety engineering. It’s the discipline that anticipates failure before it happens, designs resilience into complexity, and ensures that what could go wrong—doesn’t. The real success of safety engineering is often invisible, because when it works, nothing happens. As systems grow more interconnected and risks more nuanced, the role of safety professionals becomes even more vital. Let’s continue building systems where safety isn’t an afterthought, but a foundation. #SafetyEngineering #SafetyCulture #SafetyMatters

32

2 Comments

It's absolutely wild to me that in 2025, flight data monitoring isn't the status quo. In today's age, we should be able to determine within hours whether crew members used AFM landing procedures in these accidents, but here we all are, waiting years for an NTSB report to be released. "Many of the past HondaJet investigations have not revealed if the pilots involved in the accidents had closely followed the AFM landing procedures. Without flight data monitoring, we do not know how many pilots are accurately replicating the AFM’s landing procedure. Nor do we definitively know if pilots using the specific landing procedure are­—or are not—experiencing landing abnormalities. If the data shows that pilots adhering strictly to the recommended landing procedure are still having problems with controllability and stop ability, then the search for answers needs to look at deeper causes." https://lnkd.in/eDx5rxkP

75

53 Comments

I’m proud to share that Waymo is the first AV company to complete independent, third-party audits of both our safety case and remote assistance programs. For months, TÜV SÜD, a global leader in safety testing and certification, thoroughly evaluated each program against industry best practices and standards. This level of independent scrutiny is essential for earning public trust and ensuring accountability across the industry. https://lnkd.in/dQdRf9v4 

659

18 Comments

Let’s discuss the right-of-way change proposal in Part 108… The FAA’s bedrock safety process, called SMS, is spelled out in 8040.4. This process requires what is called a Safety Risk Managment Panel (SRMP) any time there is a change to the National Airspace System (NAS). The panel is made up of experts in various offices whos responsibility is to highlight risks and attempt to create risk mitigation strategies to lower identified safety risks and likelihood; minimal to catastrophic // frequent to extremely improbable. Such a change to the right-of-way provision would have absolutely triggered an SRMP. I have seen quite a bit of concern from the aviation community, including myself, on the real-world implications such a change in right-of-way would have on low-level flight operations; specifically those conducted by law enforcement and military (my domain). I am asking, as I am also recommending everyone else do the same, for the Federal Aviation Administration to release the panel’s meeting minutes, notes, findings, and who ultimately signed off on the panel as the responsible leadership (someone signs off on all SRMPs as the leader / SES to be held accountable for the SRMP). Transparency in the process of how the FAA ultimately came to this conclusion that such a change could be done safely is incredibly important given the magnitude of what is being proposed. I also believe the notice and comment period deadline should be suspended until these finding are released and digested by the aviation community / those who put their lives in the hands of the regulator and the aircraft they are physically sitting in. Only through this information and accompanied data can thoughtful and meaningful comments be made.

16

9 Comments

Perhaps Boeing and the airline industry should focus on fixing the defects on MAX airplanes that are currently in service. Isn’t that much more important than the number of new airplanes delivered? https://lnkd.in/g4Ket3Uk

33

6 Comments

One of the best definitions of safety culture is postulated by Doug Wiegmann (2002), who defines safety culture as, “The enduring value and priority placed on safety by everyone in every group at every level of an organization...”

33

4 Comments

Why architecture choices made early define certification outcomes later... One of the most persistent misconceptions in aircraft development is that certification risk can be managed late in the program. In practice, certification outcomes are largely determined much earlier by architecture choices made at the concept and preliminary design stages. Those early decisions quietly lock in: - System redundancy philosophies - Failure containment strategies - Maintenance and inspection assumptions - Operational envelopes - Certification basis complexity Once those paths are chosen, certification doesn’t so much evaluate the aircraft as it reveals the consequences of those choices. This is why programs that appear similar on paper can experience very different certification journeys. The difference is rarely effort or intent; it’s whether the underlying architecture was aligned from the start with: - the intended operating model - the regulatory framework - realistic production and support assumptions Successful programs tend to treat certification not as a downstream hurdle, but as an integral design input; one that shapes architecture alongside performance, cost, and market fit. That discipline isn’t glamorous, but it’s decisive. In January, I’ll explore how these early architectural decisions ripple outward, shaping not just certification, but who can build aircraft, which markets get served, and how regional networks evolve. #AircraftDesign #Certification #Aviation #SystemsEngineering

60

8 Comments

When data misleads, safety decisions follow. One of the biggest lessons I’ve learned working with SDCPS (State Data Collection and Processing System) is that data is only as good as what we feed into it. We can build the most advanced dashboards, apply predictive analytics, and visualize safety trends beautifully, but if the data at the source is incomplete, inconsistent, or misunderstood, the entire system becomes an echo chamber of false confidence. That’s the classic GIGO principle - Garbage In, Garbage Out. If hazard reports are vague, if occurrence categories are misclassified, or if an agreed-upon taxonomy isn’t being used, then the insights we extract will never reflect the true safety picture. That’s not just an inconvenience, that’s dangerous. Decisions made on flawed data directly affect where we focus resources, which risks we prioritize, and ultimately, how safe the system really is. So before investing in sophisticated IT systems to collect, process, and analyze your data, invest in better inputs - clarity, consistency, and accuracy. Even if you’re just using a simple Excel spreadsheet. In safety management, data quality is not an administrative issue, it’s the difference between mitigating the right risk or the wrong one. #SSP #SMS #SDCPS #DATA #SAFETY 

22

2 Comments