I’ve thought a lot about what makes the ‘personality’ of the general aviation industry.  Clearly, it is comprised of a number of technically based sectors. Examples include the maintenance, the helicopter, the flying school, the aerial agriculture, the corporate jet, and the sport and recreational sectors.  Additionally, there are regionally based idiosyncrasies; I always remember one of my CASA Managers based in Perth who told me that they do things differently in the west!

In my career as an aviation safety regulator, I saw countless instances of non-compliance with the regulatory requirements; as a consultant, I’ve assisted businesses who needed help to improve safety and compliance. 

I’ve recently come to the conclusion that another significant and hitherto undiscovered general aviation sub-culture exists which potentially is a safety risk.  This culture consists of people who have been in the industry over 30 years, are generally well regarded by their peers, have done reasonably well and are over 55 years of age.  Some have had a chequered compliance history, but generally kept out of trouble.  I call this sub-culture 'the old school'.

This group of people were born and nurtured in an era when the regulator was less of a policeman and more of a free, knowledgeable and readily available consultant.  When one wanted to know ‘what to do’ they called the local inspector and asked.  In many cases, the inspectors assisted way too much in the development of acceptable documentation, with training and checking, providing business advice and interpreting the legislation.

When the regulatory focus shifted in the mid-1990s, regulators focused more on core business. Whilst in my experience no reasonable enquiry was ignored, there was a gradual and almost unperceivable shift towards aviation businesses becoming more responsible and self sufficient, as they should be. 

However, while the regulatory focus has shifted some industry participants have not changed.  A small number still do not fully understand the relevant regulatory requirements and need to be propped up to remain compliant.  In time they have become insidiously aware that things have changed and in the absence of a regulatory on-tap mentor, when confronted with a situation which requires knowledge of the legislation, they invent their own ‘rules’.   These people believe that they don’t need a consultant!  The decisions they make are generally commercially pragmatic and often not overtly unsafe, but may be inconsistent with the regulatory requirements.  Some of these decisions, however are potentially and covertly unsafe.  

The members of this culture are generally not intrinsically bad people, but fully believe that they have enough experience to stay safe and look at things through their 'pragmatic glasses'.  Generally things motor along, but when a serious incident or accident occurs, it 'hits the fan'.   While I fully support the current regulatory approach (indeed, I was a part of the change process), I think that improved industry profiling should occur to better understand and address this and other cultures in the general aviation industry.