It seems to be a hard saying, but we cannot audit something where training was not provided.
Most of the organizations have rules, standards, procedures, manuals, checklists and practices.
The question is: are they to show the authority or we really use them, implementing them as safety risk controls, well beyond mere compliance with regulations?
During an audit, if someone picks up a manual or opens a .pdf file, a well trained auditor starts getting information about if the manual is implemented or not in the organization.
This is the first indication if the operational drift is under control or practices, outside from the satndard prevail over procedures.
The practical drift is not bad in itself. Organizations are ‘organic entities’ which continuously adapt to the operational context.
Even if people work with their best intentions, the problem might arise because the safety risk profile promised to the authority or established by the leadership is different. Often solutions became the worst option (i.e.: approaching below the published minima, departing with oil low level, absense of snap on tools).
The uncertainty is if ‘ad-hoc’ solutions will work in certains scenarios where the risk level is assessed acceptable but is not.
Another example could be the a deviation from MEL application or even language issues. Ofen we may hear: we had always done in that way’.
Solution: an effective competence-based training will identify the needs which might consider encompassing proposals from front-line users, at all levels.
The standard will be mainatined and validated if a thorough risk assessment is fully completed and the risk level is determined acceptable.
The last, but not least, the training room does not has to be expensive, even simple solutions could make the training environment conducive for training as the picture below. But training is an essential part of the Management System (MS) effectiveness.
