Beyond the Checklist: Why Auditor Competence and Culture are Critical in Aviation
Florin Necula, PhD
September 25, 2024
Introduction
In the complex and highly regulated world of aviation, safety and compliance are
paramount. Within the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) framework, aviation
organisations depend on Competent Authorities (CAAs) and auditors to ensure that
standards are maintained. However, despite uniform regulations, inconsistencies in the
interpretation and application of rules have been observed across different auditors,
particularly in East European countries. This raises important questions about the
competence, experience, and cultural factors that influence the effectiveness of auditors
and, ultimately, the safety and operational integrity of the aviation industry.
The Importance of Competence in Aviation Auditing
In the realm of aviation safety, competence is a foundational pillar that underpins the
efficacy of auditing processes. Auditors are tasked not only with ensuring compliance but
also with safeguarding the integrity of safety management systems. This role demands a
high degree of competence, encompassing not only technical knowledge but also a wide
range of skills such as critical thinking, communication and decision-making.
Defining Competence
Competence is broadly defined as the combination of knowledge, skills, and attitudes that
enable an individual to perform a task effectively and to a high standard. In aviation,
competence means being able to apply technical knowledge to complex operational
contexts, understanding the principles behind regulations, and using sound judgment to
assess situations (Cheetham & Chivers, 1996). This goes beyond following procedural
checklists and involves an ability to adapt to evolving safety challenges. Competence,
therefore, requires continuous learning and experience, especially in dynamic
environments like aviation, where regulations, technologies, and risks are constantly
changing.
The Importance of Competence
The competence of aviation auditors is critical because their work directly impacts safety.
According to Reason (1997), a competent auditor not only identifies non-compliance but
also assesses the underlying safety culture and operational practices within an
organization. An auditor with deep competence understands that their role is not just to
enforce regulations but to ensure those regulations contribute meaningfully to safety
outcomes. This distinction is vital because aviation safety cannot rely on rigid adherence
to rules alone. It depends on how those rules are understood, interpreted, and applied in
real-world settings.
Ineffectual auditors, on the other hand, can misinterpret regulations, apply them
inconsistently, or focus on minor procedural issues while overlooking more significant
safety risks. For instance, research shows that when auditors lack proper training or
operational experience, they tend to over-rely on strict rule enforcement, leading to a bureaucratic mindset that can stifle safety improvements (Perrow, 1984). The resulting
audits may create unnecessary administrative burdens without addressing the root causes
of potential hazards. A competent auditor will not only need proper training and knowledge
but also is of paramount importance to have practical experience to apply critical
reasonable thinking skills when dealing with situations which are not one hundred percent
covered by existing standard procedures or when regulations leave some room for
interpretation. In actual fact the latter is most of the time the case as rules and regulations
cannot cover all the conceivable situations that may arise during day-to-day operations,
especially in highly complex systems as aviation industry.
Cross-Industry Examples of Competence Related Accidents
The consequences of improper competence are not unique to aviation but have been seen
across multiple industries, where failures in competence have led to major accidents:
▪ Chernobyl Disaster (1986) – While the direct cause of this nuclear catastrophe was a
flawed reactor design, human error and a lack of operational competence were
significant contributing factors. Poorly trained personnel conducted an unsafe
experiment and were unable to respond appropriately when the system malfunctioned.
This incident underlined the critical role of competence in high-risk industries and the
need for auditors and operators to fully understand both the technical and procedural
aspects of their work (Medvedev, 1991).
▪ Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (2010) – In the oil and gas industry, the Deepwater Horizon
explosion and subsequent spill highlighted significant competence issues. A government
investigation identified that one of the root causes was the failure of personnel to
properly interpret warning signs, indicating a lack of both technical and operational
competence. Inadequate oversight and audit failures, which neglected critical safety
aspects, allowed systemic flaws to go unnoticed (National Commission on the BP
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, 2011).
▪ Columbia Space Shuttle Disaster (2003) – NASA’s Columbia disaster was partially
attributed to organisational complacency and inadequate oversight. The investigation
revealed that warnings from engineers were ignored, and the safety audit processes
were not robust enough to catch serious risks. This underscores the importance of
competence not just in technical expertise but in communication and decision-making—
skills that are essential for effective auditing (CAIB, 2003).
▪ Air France Flight 447 (2009) – This aviation tragedy was caused by pilot error (human
factors issues) in response to a technical malfunction. However, the subsequent
investigation identified failures in training and competence in handling high-altitude
stalls. This tragedy illustrates how, even in well-regulated industries like aviation, a lack
of competence in key operational areas can lead to fatal outcomes. Competent auditing
should identify such weaknesses in training and operational preparedness (BEA, 2012).
Competence as a Dynamic, Evolving Need
As these examples illustrate, competence must be continually developed. It is not static
but requires ongoing training and experience to adapt to technological advancements and
evolving regulatory requirements. This applies equally to auditors in aviation. As the
International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) emphasizes, the development of
competence frameworks, continuous professional development, and refresher training for
auditors are essential for maintaining high standards in safety oversight (ICAO, 2016).
Incompetence, whether in aviation or other industries, has repeatedly shown itself to be
a precursor to disasters. Aviation auditors, who are responsible for evaluating safety
systems, need a high level of competence to ensure that their assessments are not only
technically accurate but also practically relevant. In a complex, high-risk environment like
aviation, the cost of failing to ensure competence can be measured in lives lost and trust
eroded.
Bureaucratic Systems and Their Impact on Aviation
One of the most common manifestations of auditor incompetence or lack of ownership is
the creation of bureaucratic systems that fail to contribute positively to aviation safety.
According to Perrow (1984), bureaucratic organizations tend to rely on rigid protocols and
procedures that can sometimes lead to inefficiency, overregulation, and a disconnect from
the realities of day-to-day operations. In aviation, where safety is paramount, bureaucratic
approaches may obscure critical issues that could be addressed through more flexible,
competence-driven audits.
An auditor who lacks confidence in their own knowledge or understanding of aviation
operations might hide behind regulations, offering a narrow and overly cautious
interpretation that stifles innovation and efficiency. This “tick-box” mentality can be
counterproductive, creating layers of administrative burden that detract from an
organisation’s ability to focus on genuine safety improvements. Research from Dekker
(2017) suggests that overly bureaucratic systems in aviation can reduce resilience by
focusing on compliance rather than performance-based safety outcomes.
The Role of Culture in Aviation Auditing
Cultural differences between Western and Eastern Europe have a significant influence on
the way auditors approach their roles. Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory (1980) offers
insights into how different cultural values affect professional behaviours. For example,
Eastern European countries tend to have higher scores in power distance, meaning that
authority is more centralized, and individuals are less likely to question decisions made by
those in power. This cultural backdrop can explain why some auditors in Eastern Europe
may be more inclined to stick rigidly to the rules without exercising discretion or judgment.
In contrast, Western European countries typically score lower in power distance, fostering
a culture where individuals in authority, including auditors, may feel more empowered to
use their judgment in interpreting regulations. This difference can lead to inconsistencies
in how audits are conducted, even when auditors are working under the same regulatory
framework.
Historical factors have significantly influenced the cultural dynamics observed in different
regions of Europe. In Eastern Europe, a legacy of centralized governance, shaped in part
by past political systems, has contributed to a more structured and hierarchical approach
to regulatory oversight (Kornai, 1992). This contrasts with the more decentralized and
collaborative frameworks that have developed in Western Europe, where governance tends
to emphasize shared responsibility and greater autonomy in decision-making (Inglehart &
Welzel, 2005). These differing historical contexts may help to explain the varying levels of
flexibility, interpretation, and engagement demonstrated by auditors in these regions when
enforcing regulations (Hofstede, 1980).
Training and Continuous Development: The Way Forward
To address the discrepancies in auditor competence and the resulting inconsistencies in
audit outcomes, it is essential to focus on improving the training and development of auditors within the competent authorities. Competence should not only be evaluated at
the time of certification but also be a focus of continuous professional development. As
cited in Reason (1997), a safety culture in aviation is a dynamic, evolving entity, and it is
essential that all stakeholders, including auditors, are kept up-to-date with the latest
industry developments and best practices.
Auditor bias also plays an important role. For example, and auditor who has been working
in the industry, let’s say for 20 years within the same organization, one might be tempted
to say that it is the normal way forward to have experienced professionals joining
regulatory authorities rather than having young professionals who just graduated with no
practical experience at all. Nevertheless, the cumulated experience of the former might
have a deficient impact on competence if the entire working experience was shaped by a
bureaucratic and ineffective working organization/environment. In such situations the
auditor bias may manifest during audits conducted by such individuals through approaches
like “this is how I used to do it in my experience, therefore this is the correct way to do it
according to the regulation”. We can conclude that neither represent competence as it was
defined. Therefore, not only length of the auditor’s professional experience is important,
but the quality of that experience is equally crucial.
In addition to technical knowledge, auditors must be trained in soft skills such as
communication, cultural awareness, and decision-making. A truly competent auditor
should understand that their role goes beyond merely identifying non-compliance but to
support organizations in achieving and maintaining high safety standards. The ownership
of this responsibility can bridge the gap between rigid rule-following and a more engaged,
performance-based audit approach that adds genuine value.
Conclusion
Competence in aviation auditing is not just about knowing the regulations—it’s about
understanding how they apply in real-world scenarios and ensuring that even though
safety remains the ultimate goal, the aviation organizations are established not to produce
safety but to deliver their products and/ or services and remain profitable. Cross-industry
examples of accidents demonstrate how failures in competence can lead to catastrophic
consequences. By emphasizing competence as a dynamic and critical component of
aviation auditing, the industry can better safeguard against systemic failures and promote
a culture of continuous improvement and resilience.
Auditor competence and culture are critical factors in maintaining safety and efficiency in
the aviation industry. The inconsistencies observed in audits across different regions,
particularly in Eastern Europe, highlight the need for a more unified approach to auditor
training and development. Addressing the issues of cultural differences, bureaucratic
tendencies, and lack of experience or ownership will ensure that audits are not merely a
formality but a valuable tool for improving safety and operational effectiveness.
Investing in the competence and cultural awareness of auditors will not only enhance the
quality of audits but will also contribute to a stronger, more resilient safety culture across
the entire 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.
