Corrective Action Plan (CAP), rarely the path of least resistance

Author: Nik Chapman

It is a dangerous practice for an operator to accept an incorrect finding to appease an auditor or regulator.

Findings are formal documents that often “stick” to an organization and its operations personnel. Supported findings can guide operations to become aware of issues of noncompliance, but incorrect findings are not helpful and are often resurrected to support escalating enforcement actions, including unreasonable CAPs, enhanced monitoring, monetary penalties, and certificate or registration suspensions/cancellations. Also, in the case of a subsequent incident or accident, findings (related, or not) are often used to support claims made in tribunals and civil lawsuits.

Findings must be generated based on evidence collected that clearly indicates noncompliance with a specific regulation or standard, i.e., the criteria. Before an audit or inspection begins, it is a good idea to be certain of the criteria against which your operation is being assessed. It is also helpful to understand the process for disputing findings before the audit or inspection commences.

Findings that claim to be supported by extraneous criteria should not be accepted. For example, findings that relate to specific standards, which then compare Advisory Circulars or other non-criteria forming documents to suggest noncompliance, is unacceptable. Auditors need to be reminded that this is not a supportable way to raise a finding.

This is as much of a human concern as it is a technical one. It is psychologically understandable that an auditor desires to find something to report – this is the job. However, it is an auditor’s professional responsibility to only report factual observations related to criteria that is applicable. Similarly, it is natural for unchallenged incorrect findings to begin a “creep” of unsupported, distracting, and time-consuming operating practices. This “creep” often produces negative norms that auditors and operators unwittingly promulgate, like assigning minimum training times for topics when it is not required.

When confronted with a finding, follow the thread of noncompliance from the criteria through the evidence, and question any opinionated comments or non-criteria based references. Learn from findings that are clear and raise legitimate issues. Challenge spurious ones – you will be glad that you did.

Nik Chapman is the Vice President Operations of TrainingPort.net. He currently works as a regional airline pilot and is a published technical writer and editor.