*3.6. General Discussion*

The next sections provide a general discussion and reflection of findings based on the research questions, followed by a discussion of the strengths and limitations of the study, its implication, and potential future research directions.

### 3.6.1. Changes and Impacts in Regulation and to the Regulator Role to the GA sector

The results draw attention to an interconnectedness between the various components of the GA system, and illustrate how easily system behaviour can change overtime based on various feedforward and feedbacks loops associated with the regulatory/policy layers. Many of the findings reflect perceptions and statements on ways of working that carry safety implications, but are also a reflection of behaviours in an ostensibly complex and highly dynamic system. Proportional regulatory requirements, compliance, and safety oversight were among the main issues raised by participants (i.e., maintenance engineers/technicians). This set of issues are vital for operation of the GA industry, primarily due to the sustainment challenges brought by ageing fleets.

The results echo the industry's wish to balance safety and cost in a way that will allow the GA to remain profitable. Similar e fforts have taken place in Europe and the US, thus, this finding indicates the international connectedness of the Australian GA industry, as well as the high degree of awareness of Australian maintenance professionals around these matters. On the other hand, it also helps us understand the driving forces behind the recent adoption of the US (FAA) regulatory model for GA. The choice of the FAA regulatory model o ffers greater autonomy to the Australian GA sector, but only at the cost of creating disconnection with the EASA-based CASA regulatory framework.

The existence of perceived power distance issues between "regulated entities" (i.e., maintenance technicians) and the regulator is insightful. Power distance has been well-researched in many di fferent contexts [33–35], and in this study, responses sugges<sup>t</sup> that GA technicians do not necessarily see themselves as the regulator's "long arm" in the e ffort to safeguard airworthiness. This was reflected both directly and indirectly (i.e., reference to the educational role of the regulator) through a wide range of narratives. This is an important research finding, since power distance can have an impact on the level of regulatory compliance and the e ffectiveness of reforms and changes attempted by the regulator. Interestingly, the results sugges<sup>t</sup> that authority gradients—which relate to perceived power hierarchies in decision-making within teams or groups—also exist in the ranks of maintenance technicians, between those working on the "floor" and those in maintenance managemen<sup>t</sup> and administration posts. As a natural extension of power distance, authority gradients between specific teams have also been explored at length in di fferent safety-critical contexts [22,36]. In the aircraft maintenance context, it is a common expectation that the more experienced maintenance technicians have more opportunities (and do) take up o ffice-based roles, especially in larger organizations. However, authority gradients also draw attention to cultural impacts in dynamic teams that can also impact and create fissures in safety culture.

### 3.6.2. Practical and Operational Challenges in the GA Industry

The availability of funds for maintenance has always been a strident issue for the GA sector, and this was confirmed in findings. Interestingly, participants expressed numerous concerns in relation to the role of owners in sustaining the airworthiness condition of their aircraft, broadening the systems perspective. The relationship of technicians and aircraft owners was highlighted over several narratives, offering indications of safety discrepancies. This relationship, in turn, has a negative e ffect on the job satisfaction of technicians since they may perform their work (i.e., maintenance tasks) within a stressful environment. This view was supported in a previous related research [12,13].

Another key finding was related to the attractiveness of the GA sector as a career pathway for aircraft technicians. This was recognized by participants as a challenge, given the high demand for more technicians (as the ageing GA aircraft required more maintenance) and the ageing workforce at large. Moreover, there was a perception that this demand cannot be met by the current supply of newly qualified technicians, as they generally lack the necessary training, skills, and motivation. These highly critical views expressed by participants may reflect a generation gap mindset, but also draw attention to perceived issues and hindrances with recruitment and retention of the workforce.

### 3.6.3. Strengths and Limitations of the Study

A key strength of this study was the use of the methodology that underpinned the data collection. Integration and application of the SITT elicited rich and concrete examples of system-level behaviours from the technician and engineer (i.e., end-user) perspective associated with the regulator and regulation and other challenges facing everyday operations. This enabled participants to harness and articulate the technical complexity of their work succinctly, but also allowed them to share their first-hand views in a more vicarious manner.

While relatively modest, the sample size did not serve as a limitation of the methodology as data saturation within data was reached, however, the small sample does limit the ability to make broad generalizations across the GA sector. Although the perceptions received were common across many participants, they are nevertheless subjective and nuanced and require care with interpretation.

### 3.6.4. Implications and Future Research Directions

In 2019, CASA decided to rearrange the GA aircraft maintenance regulatory framework in Australia. Changes within aviation can happen relatively quickly, but building a long and lasting positive culture is a slow process. For this reason, the impact of any change (either positive or negative) will be witnessed in the years to come. This analysis of data collected during late 2016—prior to the extensive industry consultation process which CASA employed for this purpose—offers important empirical insights which may be of value during transition, and also in years to come for benchmarking the sector's cultural maturity. It is likely that the regulatory changes happening in the GA sector will not be as fruitful as expected if the issues identified in this study are not tackled, and if the understanding between the regulator and those who are regulated is not improved. Issues in the key *human* factors cannot be addressed through new regulation, or through forced compliance. This paper reports some of these issues and it is believed that further independent research and publications (from external researchers, not associated with the regulator or the regulated bodies), can assist in the overall effort. Given the larger systems-oriented processes uncovered in the findings, further research could seek to unpack these dynamics relationships, for example through application of specific systems mapping processes that identify and attribute the feedback and feedforward loops for different elements [37–39].

Lastly, while this paper has focused on the Australian GA sector, comparison of the GA safety performance at an international level may be helpful in garnering further insights of the underlying regulation, practice, and safety culture issues [40]. A comparative analysis of these safety statistical data and practice could provide an indication of the effectiveness of the policies now being pursued by the Australian regulator. Therefore, a follow up research and study in this space is likely to constitute a valuable retrospective evaluation of the issues identified and discussed in the present paper.
