CASA has just published a new regulation. Collective shudders, groans and complaints go up around the aviation community. I’m immediately reminded of NPRM 1001:
Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM)
1001.1A
No pilot, or pilots, or person or persons acting on the direction or suggestion or supervision of the pilot or pilots may try, or attempt to try or make or make attempt to try to comprehend or understand any or all, in whole or in part of the herein mentioned Civil Aviation Safety Regulations, except as authorised by the Regulator or agent appointed by, or inspected by the Regulator.
1001.1B
If the pilot, or groups associated with pilots becomes aware of, or realises, or detects, or discovers or finds that he, she or they, are or have been beginning to understand the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations, they must immediately, within three (3) days notify, in writing, the Regulator.
1001.1C
Upon receipt of the above mentioned notice of impending comprehension, the Regulator will immediately rewrite the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations in such a manner as to eliminate any further comprehension hazards.
1001.1D
The Regulator may, at his or her option, require the offending pilot, or pilots, to attend remedial instruction in Civil Aviation Safety Regulations until such time that the pilot, or pilots are too confused to be capable of understanding anything.
Rightly so, people ask ‘why’, closely followed by ‘how much will this cost to implement’? And then you (attempt) to decipher the legalese of the reg, the accompanying MOS and the plain English guide. It’s all in vain; all too difficult and so you ignore it. Now you’re non-compliant and at risk of enforcement action. But….as the saying goes, it’s easier to beg forgiveness right.
What is regulation? Regulate (verb): to control or restrict, to cause to conform to a standard condition. For centuries have rebelled against anything that controls or restricts. Aviation regulation is no different.
So how did we go from this….
To this….
More importantly, does more regulation equal improved safety? After all, that’s what regulation is all about right?
Supposedly regulations are written in blood, meaning each was introduced following an accident or serious incident to prevent recurrence. That’s true….to an extent. Semantically, you cannot directly regulate safety. In fact, the administration of aviation safety is about regulating the activities of people. Because people in general unwittingly act in unsafe ways (people don’t appreciate the dangers of their actions – take speeding as an example) the job of regulations is to make sure people in aviation have the knowledge and incentive to act safely. They are a functional attempt to express functional requirements. But regulations are not holy writ.
Nor are they wholly read.
Anyone relying on regulating people through statutory Regulations will soon be disappointed.
But it’s not because we are recalcitrant. It’s true, regulations can provide the knowledge and incentive to act safely…..if written appropriately.
Apart from being notoriously difficult to read, regulations don’t describe the hazard they are intending to mitigate. This is important when coupled with cognitive dissonance (the response to being confronted with two contradictory pieces of knowledge). When experiencing cognitive dissonance people will modify perceptions, so that there is no longer a contradiction.
This is best illustrated by an example. (Cognition) I am about to install unproved parts because it is cheaper. (Dissonant Cognition) The regulations prohibit the installation of unapproved parts. (Modification of Cognition) The regulations don’t say it’s dangerous or explain what could result from this practice. The unapproved part is made by the same company in the same factory, so they are likely acceptable just not approved. I’ll install the part.
Three other factors influence regulation:
- The recreant regulator. When the regulator is alleged to have caused or contributed to an accident, protective mechanisms kick in. The regulator, rather than arguing the toss, succumbs and introduces more regulation.
- Diminishing standards. Regulators are not immune from cognitive dissonance. Unfortunately, in the absence of standards and skills within the Authority, the modification of cognition is the perception that additional regulation is required.
- Perceived hazards. It is impractical and unacceptable to use the absence of an event over time as justification for removing or introducing a regulation protecting against that event.
So why am I musing about regulations and whether they help or hinder? Recently, I’ve been seconded to assist with developing regulation (yes, I’ve gone to the dark side). I wanted to understand the ‘other side’ (the Regulator’s side) of regulating having spent the best part of three-decades on the receiving end. I’ve read, pondered, discussed, scribbled and charted and its come to this…..
Education!
- The Regulator needs educated SMEs; on the impacts of their administrative decisions to industry and on ways to better regulation.
- The regulated community needs education on why regulations exist. More importantly, they need to understand the hazards that regulations are mitigating against.