The Safety Illusion: How Focus on Compliance Might Mask Risks in Aircraft Maintenance

Florin Necula, PhD

January 10, 2025

INTRODUCTION

Every day, aircraft maintenance engineers around the world work tirelessly to ensure that planes are not just operational but safe for flight. However, the increasing emphasis on strict regulatory compliance can sometimes overshadow the bigger picture: true safety. When maintenance teams focus too much on following regulations to the letter, they risk missing the true purpose of their work—proactively identifying and mitigating technical risks. This article offers practical insights for engineers and organizations on how to move beyond compliance and focus on achieving real safety outcomes in day-to-day operations.

COMPLIANCE vs. SAFETY

In aviation maintenance, compliance means following rules, regulations and procedures set by authorities like the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), National Aviation Authorities and the organisation itself. These frameworks provide structure and consistency, but compliance alone does not guarantee safety. Safety is about preventing incidents, anticipating risks and making decisions that protect people and assets.

For example, an engineer might complete a mandated inspection checklist perfectly, yet fail to notice a subtle sign of damage that is not explicitly covered in the checklist. Why? Because the focus is on checking boxes, not on understanding the final purpose of the inspection—ensuring the aircraft is truly airworthy.

THE DANGERS OF OVERREGULATION AND OVERLOAD OF PROCEDURES

Losing Sight of the Purpose

When regulations multiply, the sheer volume can overwhelm maintenance engineers and organisations. Instead of asking, “How can we ensure this aircraft is airworthy?” the focus shifts to, “How can we ensure we meet all these requirements?”. This happens naturally. Engineers recognise that in the event of a bad outcome, adherence to regulations and procedures provides a layer of protection. It is the shifting of the industry focus on regulations over the last decades which inadvertently can lead to:

• Superficial Checks: Completing paperwork or tasks mechanically without truly addressing potential risks.
• Compliance Fatigue: Engineers feeling burdened by excessive rules and procedures, leading to disengagement.

For instance, if a maintenance organisation prioritises completing tasks within specific timeframes dictated by procedures, engineers might rush inspections, potentially missing critical details. Another example is a complex paperwork system which can lead to discouraging people from documenting defects. For instance, a small paint defect on an aircraft observed during a quick turnaround daily check might not be recorded in the technical records due to the cumbersome paperwork process, which could require entries in multiple places: the Technical Logbook, Acceptable Deferred Defects List, Damage Chart, Damage Report and Delay Report.

Workarounds and Shortcuts

Overregulation can also encourage shortcuts. Maintenance crews might find themselves constrained by overly prescriptive rules that don’t align with real-world situations. To “stay compliant,” they might create workarounds—solutions that technically meet regulatory requirements but fail to address underlying risks.

Take, for example, the case of maintenance logbook entries. Engineers might feel compelled to record generic remarks like “All checks completed” instead of providing detailed observations, simply to save time and meet documentation requirements. While compliant, such practices can obscure critical information for future maintenance teams.

The impact of overregulation is not unique to aviation. A study by the Mercatus Center highlighted that federal regulations across 22 U.S. industries accumulated significantly between 1977 and 2012. This buildup not only increased complexity but also diverted attention from meaningful safety and innovation efforts (Mercatus Center, 2017). Such findings underscore the importance of simplifying regulations to keep the focus on core objectives.

PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS FOR MAINTENANCE ENGINEERS AND ORGANISATIONS

Focus on the Purpose, Not Just the Process

Every regulation and procedure exists for a reason. Instead of viewing compliance as the end goal, focus on the underlying intent:

• Ask the Right Questions: During inspections, ask, “What is this task meant to achieve?” For example, when performing a corrosion check, don’t just look for signs of corrosion; consider why the aircraft might be prone to corrosion in specific areas.
• Think Beyond the Checklist: Checklists are tools, not safety guarantees. If something seems off, investigate further, even if it’s not explicitly mentioned in the checklist.

Empower Engineers to Speak Up

A culture of safety begins with open communication. Engineers must feel comfortable reporting concerns, even if those concerns fall outside the scope of regulations. Organisations can:

• Encourage Reporting: Implement non-punitive reporting systems where engineers can flag safety issues without fear of reprisal.
• Promote Peer Discussions: Regularly hold team debriefs to discuss unusual findings or potential risks.

For example, if an engineer notices an unusual pattern of defects on multiple aircraft, they should feel empowered to bring it to the team’s attention—even if the defect does not immediately violate any regulations.

Simplify and Clarify Procedures

Complex procedures can confuse even the most experienced engineers. Organisations can:

• Review Procedures Regularly: Simplify steps where possible and remove redundant requirements.
• Use Visual Aids: Diagrams and flowcharts can make complex procedures easier to follow.

For instance, instead of providing engineers with a dense manual, a maintenance organisation could create a one-page visual guide highlighting key steps and common risks.

Leverage Technology for Proactive Safety

Modern tools can help engineers go beyond compliance:

• Predictive Analytics: Use data to identify trends and predict potential risks.
• Digital Maintenance Documentation: Utilise integrated software platforms that allow engineers to record, share and retrieve maintenance data instantly, streamlining communication and ensuring critical details are never overlooked.

REAL-LIFE EXAMPLES

Aviation

In 2008, the Colgan Air crash highlighted how compliance doesn’t always equate to safety. Despite meeting FAA requirements, gaps in pilot training and fatigue management led to a fatal accident. Maintenance organisations can learn from this by focusing on holistic safety measures rather than just ticking regulatory boxes.

Healthcare

In hospitals, compliance with documentation requirements often takes precedence over patient care. A study by Singh et al. (2014) found that doctors spent more time on paperwork than interacting with patients, increasing the risk of errors. Similarly, aviation maintenance engineers must balance documentation with hands-on inspections and risk assessments.

BUILDING A SAFETY CULTURE

Safety is not about perfection; it is about continuous improvement. Maintenance organisations can foster this mindset by:

• Prioritising Training: Regularly train engineers on technical skills, human factors, fatigue management, decision-making, hazards identification and awareness of safety risks.
• Disseminating Safety Information: Learning from experiences and sharing lessons learned.
• Celebrating Initiative: Recognise engineers who identify and mitigate risks beyond regulatory requirements.

CONCLUSION

Compliance is important, but it is not enough. Maintenance engineers and organisations must look beyond regulations to truly enhance aviation safety. By focusing on the purpose behind procedures, empowering engineers, simplifying processes and leveraging technology, the industry can create a safety culture that is proactive and resilient.

However, it is essential to address the pervasive “safety illusion” that strict compliance often creates. This illusion can lead teams to equate regulatory adherence with true safety, potentially comforting organisations into a false sense of safety. The reality is that safety stems from understanding and managing risks—not from merely ticking boxes on checklists.

When compliance becomes the primary focus, it can overshadow critical thinking and situational awareness, leading to blind spots in safety oversight. Organisations must continuously challenge this illusion by emphasising proactive risk assessment, fostering a culture of vigilance and reinforcing the understanding that safety is dynamic and multifaceted.

Ultimately, when it comes to aircraft maintenance, it is the people on the ground—the engineers who inspect, repair and maintain aircraft—who keep aviation safe. Let’s ensure they have the tools, freedom and support to do so effectively and not let the illusion of safety deter us from the pursuit of its reality.

REFERENCES

Dekker, S. (2011). Drift into Failure: From Hunting Broken Components to Understanding Complex Systems. Ashgate Publishing.

Haldane, A. G. (2012). The dog and the frisbee. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Economic Policy Symposium.

Mercatus Center. (2017). The cumulative cost of regulations. Mercatus Center Research Paper.

Reason, J. (1997). Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents. Ashgate Publishing.

Singh, H., Spitzmueller, C., Petersen, N. J., et al. (2014). Primary care practitioners’ views on test result management in EHR-enabled health systems: a national survey. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 20(4), 727-735.