ARTSA Welcomes a Guest Blog by Florin Necula: Beyond the Checklist – Why Auditor Competence and Culture are Critical in Aviation

By Florin Necula, PhD, Maintenance Postholder at RAS Technic

Introduction

Aviation operates in a highly regulated environment where safety and compliance are non-negotiable. Within the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) framework, Competent Authorities (CAAs) and auditors are tasked with maintaining these standards. However, disparities in how regulations are interpreted and applied, particularly in Eastern Europe, reveal critical gaps in auditor competence and the influence of cultural factors. This blog explores the dynamics of competence and culture in aviation auditing and their profound impact on safety and operational integrity.

The Role of Competence in Aviation Auditing

Defining Competence

Competence extends beyond technical knowledge. It involves integrating knowledge, skills, and attitudes to perform tasks effectively. In aviation, this means applying technical expertise to complex operational scenarios, understanding the intent behind regulations, and exercising sound judgment in real-world settings.

Competence also demands continuous development. Regulations, technologies, and operational risks evolve rapidly, and auditors must stay ahead through ongoing learning and experience. As Cheetham and Chivers (1996) highlight, actual competence requires a combination of foundational knowledge and adaptability to changing environments.

Why Competence Matters

Aviation auditors influence safety directly. Competence enables them to identify non-compliance and assess underlying safety cultures. According to Reason (1997), a competent auditor does more than enforce regulations—they evaluate how regulations contribute to safety outcomes. Ineffectual auditors, by contrast, may misinterpret rules, apply them inconsistently, or focus on procedural minutiae while overlooking significant risks.

For instance, research shows that auditors lacking operational experience often over-rely on rigid rule enforcement, fostering a bureaucratic mindset that stifles meaningful safety improvements. Auditors need technical expertise and practical experience to navigate scenarios that fall outside the scope of standard procedures.

The Consequences of Incompetence: Lessons from Other Industries

The risks of insufficient competence are not unique to aviation. Several industries provide cautionary examples of how failures in competence can have catastrophic outcomes:
Chornobyl Disaster (1986): Operational incompetence was a major factor, as poorly trained personnel conducted unsafe experiments and failed to respond appropriately during a crisis.
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (2010): Inadequate oversight and audit failures allowed systemic flaws to go undetected, contributing to one of the largest environmental disasters in history.
Columbia Space Shuttle Disaster (2003): Organizational complacency and insufficient safety audits ignored critical risks, underlining the need for robust auditing processes.
Air France Flight 447 (2009): Pilot error during a technical malfunction revealed gaps in training and competence, emphasizing the importance of identifying operational weaknesses during audits.

Bureaucratic Systems and Their Impact on Safety

One of the most visible signs of auditor incompetence is the creation of bureaucratic systems that add complexity without enhancing safety. Perrow (1984) notes that overly rigid protocols can stifle innovation and obscure critical safety issues. In aviation, such bureaucratic approaches often manifest as “tick-box” audits prioritising compliance over meaningful safety improvements.

Auditors lacking confidence in their expertise may hide behind regulations, offering overly cautious interpretations that discourage innovation. Dekker (2017) argues that such systems reduce resilience by emphasizing compliance rather than performance-based outcomes. Flexible, competence-driven audits are essential for addressing safety issues effectively.

The Influence of Culture on Auditing Practices

Cultural differences significantly shape how auditors approach their roles. Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory (1980) highlights that:

• Eastern Europe: Higher power distance often results in strict adherence to rules, with less discretion exercised by auditors.
• Western Europe: Lower power distance fosters a culture where auditors feel empowered to use judgment and interpret regulations flexibly.

These cultural dynamics create inconsistencies in audit outcomes, even within the same regulatory framework. Historical factors, such as centralized governance in Eastern Europe, have further influenced these tendencies. As Kornai (1992) explains, the legacy of hierarchical systems shapes regulatory oversight in these regions, contrasting with the collaborative frameworks seen in Western Europe.

Addressing Auditor Competence Gaps

Continuous Professional Development

Competence is not static—it must be cultivated and updated continuously. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) emphasizes the importance of refresher training and competence frameworks to maintain high standards in safety oversight. Beyond technical knowledge, auditors must develop soft skills such as communication, cultural awareness, and decision-making.

Overcoming Bias

Auditor bias, shaped by past experiences or organizational cultures, can undermine audit effectiveness. For example, auditors with long careers in bureaucratic environments may default to rigid approaches, while those with minimal experience might lack the judgment needed for nuanced decision-making. Addressing these biases requires training that balances experience with adaptability.

A competent auditor understands that their role goes beyond identifying non-compliance. They actively support organizations in achieving and maintaining high safety standards. Bridging the gap between rigid rule-following and performance-based auditing ensures that audits add genuine value.

Conclusion

Competence and culture are pivotal in aviation auditing. Addressing inconsistencies in training and cultural approaches can transform audits from mere formalities into valuable safety and operational efficiency tools. Investing in auditor development, continuous learning, and cultural awareness fosters a more robust, resilient safety culture across the aviation industry.

References

• Dekker, S. (2017). The Field Guide to Understanding ‘Human Error’. CRC Press.
• Doganis, R. (2009). Flying Off Course: Airline Economics and Marketing. Routledge.
• EASA (European Aviation Safety Agency) (2021). Annual Safety Review 2021. EASA.
• Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Sage Publications.
• Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence. Cambridge University Press.
• Kanki, B. G., Helmreich, R. L., & Anca, J. M. (2010). Crew Resource Management. Academic Press.
• Kornai, J. (1992). The Socialist System: The Political Economy of Communism. Princeton University Press.
• Perrow, C. (1984). Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies. Princeton University Press.
• Reason, J. (1997). Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents. Ashgate Publishing.
• Stolzer, A. J., Halford, C. D., & Goglia, J. J. (2011). Safety Management Systems in Aviation. Ashgate Publishing.