PLANE TALK CONFRONTING THE REGULATOR BY ROGER BEEBE
DIRECTORS OF MAINTENANCE AND OTHERS IN AVIATION CAN PERIODICALLY HAVE A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION WITH THEIR LOCAL REGULATORY BODY. IT HAPPENS IN EVERY COUNTRY AND UNDER THE VARIOUS POLITICAL SYSTEMS. THIS ARTICLE IS THE FIRST IN A SERIES BASED ON MY EXPERIENCES SHARED WITH MANY AVIATION MANAGERS AND STAFF. AFTER RETIRING FROM TRANSPORT CANADA, I DEVELOPED A COURSE CALLED “DEALING WITH REGULATORS” WHICH I OFFERED THROUGH MY CONSULTING BUSINESS, PLANE TALK CONSULTING. I WANTED TO SHARE SOME IDEAS AND TECHNIQUES BASED ON MY REGULATORY EXPERIENCE WITH THE AVIATION INDUSTRY SO THEY COULD BETTER UNDERSTAND AND COMMUNICATE WITH REGULATORS. SO HERE WE GO.
THE DIFFERENT ROLES Public safety regulators have a different mandate than their industry counterparts. One key mandated public role is to enforce safety regulations, policies and standards. This role began in Canada and other countries soon after World War One. Citizens and judges, under public pressure, soon started demanding governments regulate the industry. By the 1930s most countries had robust regulatory systems in place to certify aircraft, manufacturing, airports, navaids, maintenance and operations as well as to license key personnel. The one confrontation you should
try to avoid in your career is an enforcement case. Enforcement is a strict legal procedure that falls outside the scope of this article. Regulators do not enter enforcement cases lightly or without enough evidence to prove that they have a solid case. That is why they win most cases and appeals. Your best approach is to follow the regulations and your approved manuals to avoid such an issue. If you find yourself in a case, consult the real experts — professional aviation lawyers. However, unless you run a perfect organization you will end up in some disputes following safety evaluations, audits, inspections, accidents or incidents. Sometimes it’s a technical difference or a policy difference that can be dealt with by working and communicating with the regulatory body in a professional manner.
24 |
DOMmagazine.com | march 2016 THE THREE C’S: CONFRONT,
CORRECT, COMPLIMENT One of the shortcuts to management is known as the “Three C’s,” another is the four D’s (which we can talk about in another article). In the Three C’s, the first one has to learn how to confront an issue, then to correct it and after that to compliment the person or persons involved. This works in most situations but it requires skill and knowledge to do it properly. I hope to show how this method can be applied to dealing with the regulator. It can be used to deal with employees, customers and even friends, but you must be skilled and careful in how you use the process. In order to do so effectively, you need to be aware of the other person’s needs and motives. This includes your regulatory staff. Confront means to address the matter without causing any emotional stress due to personalizing the issue. Correct means to set out the means to solve the problem and get an agreement. Compliment means to go back sometime later and compliment the person’s positive behavior. Demonstrating how the changes have benefited those concerned is a strong way to show it was all about solving an issue and not simply a personality clash.
INDUSTRY AND GOVERNMENT
CULTURE DIFFERENCES The aviation industry exists to provide services at a profit. Although many aviation companies began because people loved the idea of flying, business demands to stay solvent lead to making a profit to keep doing what they loved to do. Like many other industries it becomes a way of life, a vocation and a way to earn a living and build something for their family’s future — all noble and well respected. Government, on the other hand, exists to regulate behavior and industry for the common good. We won’t argue about whether or not this always true. Individuals employed in regulatory departments are for the most part devoted aviation enthusiasts as well. Once they take a position with the regulator, they are trained to consider the general public as the prime customer and industry as the secondary one. It’s easy to understand why. If the political system and the general public loses confidence in any transport system safety, demands arise for additional regulation with which politicians must deal. This puts pressure on the regulators. Regulatory staff also have many people watching them — lawyers, transportation safety boards, media and the public, auditor generals and even foreign authorities. This explains why they work so diligently, but to industry the process
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68
