Procedures and Checklists Don’t Save Lives—People Do

Why Aviation Safety Almost Equals Competence and Discipline

Florin Necula, PhD
April 24th, 2025

Abstract

This paper explores the critical roles of competence and discipline in aviation safety. Drawing from regulatory definitions, cognitive neuroscience and organizational psychology, it argues that while systems and procedures are essential, they cannot replace the consistent application of human skill and behavioral integrity. The equation “Safety ≈ Competence + Discipline” is examined and justified through scientific literature and practical implications are discussed for aviation professionals across all roles.

1. Introduction

Aviation safety is widely regarded as one of the most systematically managed domains in modern industry. However, despite technological advancement and rigorous procedures, incidents and near-misses continue to occur. This suggests that human behaviour remains a decisive factor in operational outcomes.

The phrase “Safety ≈ Competence + Discipline” reflects this reality. It posits that safe outcomes require both:

• The capability to act correctly (competence), and
• The integrity to act consistently (discipline).

This paper investigates this relationship in detail, using scientific, psychological and practical lenses.

2. The Role of Competence in Aviation Safety

In aviation, competence refers to the demonstrated ability to perform tasks to a required standard under real-world conditions.

According to ICAO (2018):

“Competence is the combination of skills, knowledge, and attitudes required to perform a task to a defined standard under operational conditions.”

This includes technical proficiency, situational awareness, error recognition and stress-responsive decision-making.

From a neuroscientific perspective, competence engages the prefrontal cortex, the region of the brain responsible for:

• Working memory
• Complex decision-making
• Predictive error monitoring

However, the prefrontal cortex is highly susceptible to fatigue, distraction and stress, reducing judgment accuracy under high operational loads (Arnsten, 2009).

Implications:

• Recurrent and scenario-based training reinforces neural pathways for accurate performance.
• Real-time debriefing and feedback loops improve metacognitive awareness—a person’s ability to monitor their own thinking (Flavell, 1979).

3. Discipline and Behavioural Consistency

Discipline in aviation is the consistent application of procedures, standards and safety behaviours, regardless of supervision or perceived urgency.

As Reason (1997) writes:

“Discipline is the consistent adherence to procedures, rules, and standards – regardless of external supervision or immediate consequences.”

Unlike competence, which is a capability, discipline is a behavioural habit. It depends on self-regulation – our ability to override convenience and act according to standards.

Psychologically, discipline involves:

• The anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) – monitoring conflicts and errors
• The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) – regulating actions and suppressing impulses

However, under conditions like fatigue, decision fatigue or extended duty time, these functions degrade, making procedural lapses more likely (Baumeister & Vohs, 2004; Muraven & Baumeister, 2000).

Implications:

• Procedural discipline must be habitual and supported by culture.
• Organizations must monitor fatigue, workload and environmental pressures that erode discipline.

4. Why Safety “Almost” Equals Competence and Discipline

The approximation “≈” is intentional. While competence and discipline are the two most visible contributors to safe aviation operations, they are not the only ones.

Other critical influences include:

• Organisational culture
• Crew dynamics and communication
• Availability of resources and time
• Fatigue management systems
• Psychological safety and just culture

Even a highly skilled and disciplined individual may underperform in a toxic or high-pressure environment. Therefore, safety is not a deterministic result, but a probabilistic outcome shaped by context.

5. Implications for Aviation Practice

To reinforce the competence-discipline relationship across all operational domains, several actions are recommended:

For Organisations:

• Implement competence-based training beyond technical tasks (e.g. CRM, decision-making).
• Design systems that preserve cognitive bandwidth (e.g. rostering, workload balancing).
• Foster peer feedback and just culture to sustain disciplined behaviours.

For Individuals:

• Practice mental simulation and scenario planning.
• Make instructions/ guidelines/ checklist adherence non-negotiable – even for routine tasks.
• Ask “what if?” questions and reflect after every duty cycle.
• Prioritise rest—fatigue impairs both competence and discipline.

6. Conclusion

Aviation safety is not merely the absence of error. It is the presence of prepared, capable and accountable professionals.

• Competence ensures the ability to act.
• Discipline ensures consistency of action.

Together, they form the backbone of safe operations. Yet even these qualities need organisational support to thrive. Recognising that “Safety ≈ Competence + Discipline” helps refocus safety thinking not only on systems and processes—but on the people who must execute them, every time.

References

Arnsten, A. F. T. (2009). Stress signalling pathways that impair prefrontal cortex structure and function. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(6), 410–422.

Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2004). Handbook of Self-Regulation: Research, Theory, and Applications. Guilford Press.

ICAO. (2018). Human Factors Training Manual (Doc 9683, 3rd ed.). International Civil Aviation Organization.

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

Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources. Psychological Bulletin, 126(2), 247–259.

Driskell, J. E., Salas, E., & Johnston, J. (2006). Cognitive training strategies for enhancing performance. Human Factors, 48(2), 327–343.

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.