Consequences
O dear… Is it him again? Why can he not understand how this system works…! Repeating errors are a problem because it is an indication that in some way learning is not taking place. If the repeating pattern centers around an individual it is really important to take a closer look.
What are you correcting:
Before jumping to conclusions, you need to check how this person was declared competent for the job. Where was he trained and was that up to date? Did he have the right tools, materials, instructions, enough time etc?
If the person is working in a situation which is beyond his competence, mistakes, slips and lapses are waiting to happen.
If slips and lapses show a consistent trend, you could indeed question competence for this type of job. If mistakes are consistent, more training / coaching is justified. At the same time, you should look at how the organization creates the situation whereby people who are not competent to the task are put at work. Here you should look at the planning proces, the instructions management gives and perhaps bigger or personal consequences that managers are trying to avoid with this situation ("He was the only person I had so I let him do the job otherwise I would have looked bad").
If it turns out that the person in question refuses to take input and integrate learning that is the key issue to be addressed. In a just culture everybody can make mistakes, but refusing to share, learn and improve are a real no-go.
How are you correcting
You should really go into these situations with the intention of discovering the pattern. If the organization stops learning things are wilfully put at risk. Find the pattern that makes this situation recur, and share the learnings without blame.
However, when it turns out the the repeating event is caused by somebody wilfully not changing his or her ways, you should consider taking this person out of harm's wasy by removing him or her out of the proces until a change has happened.
Manager should be trained on recognizing and correcting these patterns.
The controller misjudged the situation which led to a separation minimum infringement. The radar systems issued a warning to the controller to alert him of the impeding confict. The controller can then correct the situation.
The aircraft was on final approach. The left radio altimeter was defect and the crew was aware of this. They had decided that the approach would be flown on the right autopilot, probably assuming this would isolate the aircraft from the faulty left radioaltimeter. The crew did not understand that the autothrottle system is always connected to the left radio altimeter, even when the right autoflight system is selected.
The controller gave a crossing clearance to a tow truck, forgetting he had also cleared an aircraft to land. The work of an air traffic controller is very much dependent on the mental gymnastics of his or her brain. Although forgetting a clearance might seem elementary, the consequences can be devastating! This incident could have ended dramtically, were it not for the fact that the pilot of the approaching aircraft saw the tow crossing the runway and performed a missed approach, or go-around. Another safety barrier in the aviation chain worked as planned.
The captain pressed the radio switch for the ATC instead of the cabin address system. The Air Traffic Controller was hearing the captain making a fairly standard speech to the passengers. After the announcement, the controller simply said: 'you are still on my frequency, sir". The captain did not respond. Probably he was wondering what he had done, realized it, corrected his error by pressing the right switch, and made his address again - this time to the passengers!
An obstetrician in training was the highest medical doctor during a baby delivery. During the labor of the mother, this trainee monitored the CTG to assess the condition of the unborn. A CTG is notoriously difficult to interpret. She had the impression that the baby was doing okay. As it turned out, it was not and the baby died.