In this research paper fifteen mandatory occurrence reports are analysed. The purpose of this is to highlight the learning potential incidents such as these may possess for organisations involved in aircraft maintenance and continuing airworthiness management activities. The outputs from the mandatory occurrence reports are aligned in tabular form for ease of inclusion in human factors’ continuation training material. A new incident learning archetype is also introduced, which intends to represent how reported incidents can be managed and translated into lessons in support of preventing event recurrence. This ‘learning product’ centric model visually articulates activities such as capturing the reported information, establishing causation and the iterative nature of developing a learning product.

Purpose The ability to learn from previous events in support of preventing future similar events is a valuable attribute of aviation safety systems. A primary constituent of this mechanism is the reporting of incidents and its importance in support of developing learning material. Many regulatory requirements clearly define a structure for the use of learning material through organisational and procedural continuation training programmes. This paper aims to review aviation regulation and practice, highlighting the importance of learning as a key tenet of safety performance. Design/methodology/approach Applicable International Civil Aviation Organisation requirements and the European Union (EU) regulation in aircraft maintenance and continuing airworthiness management have been critically reviewed through content analysis. Findings This review has identified gaps in the European implementing rules that could be addressed in the future to support a more effective approach to the delivery of lessons in the aircraft maintenance and continuing airworthiness management sector. These include light-touch of learning and guidance requirements, lack of methodologies for the augmentation of safety culture assessment, absence of competence requirements for human factors trainers and lack of guidance on standardised root-cause analyses. Practical implications This paper offers aviation safety practitioners working within the European Aviation Safety Agency regulatory regime an insight into important matters affecting the ability to learn from incidents. Originality/value This paper evaluates critically and independently the regulation and practice that can affect the ability of EU regulated aircraft maintenance and continuing airworthiness management organisations to learn from incidents. The outputs from this research present a fresh and independent view of organisational practices that, if left unchecked, are capable of impeding the incident learning process.

Learning from incidents (LFI) is a useful approach when examining past events and developing measures to prevent ensuing recurrence. Although the reporting of incidents in the aircraft maintenance and continuing airworthiness domain is well appointed, it is often unclear how the maximum effect of safety data can be efficaciously applied in support of LFI in the area. From semi-structured interviews, with thirty-four participants, the gathered data were thematically analyzed with the support of NVivo software. This study establishes a relationship between an incident in its lifecycle and the learning process. The main aim of this work is to elucidate factors that enable LFI. The analysis of the data revealed, for example, the benefits of a just culture and the use of formal continuation training programs in this respect. Moreover, it identified limitations inherent in current processes such as poor event causation and poorly designed learning syllabi. Additionally, aspects such as a lack of regulatory requirements for competence in the areas of learning for managers and accountable persons currently exist. This thematic analysis could be used in support of organizations examining their own processes for learning from incidents. Additionally, it can support the development of terms of reference for a continuing airworthiness regulatory working group to examine, strengthen and better apply LFI in the aviation industry.

The purpose of this systematic review is to highlight the salient elements of learning from incidents in the aircraft maintenance and continuing airworthiness management area. This involved the review of more than 1,000 publications reflecting practice in different domains. The cache was eventually distilled to 18 publications of relevance to learning from incidents. The systematic review of the literature was not intended to be exhaustive, but it was deliberately bound by the parameters of predefined search terms. A robust analysis was performed on the 18 distilled publications with the use of the NVivo software. A critical and systematic examination of this body of literature further supported the development of the five codification themes. The analysis of the literature revealed the benefits of a just culture as an enabler of reporting and learning from incidents. Moreover, it identified limitations inherent in the current body of knowledge. The most evident being a paucity of literature relevant to the featured industry segment. Some impediments to learning from incidents are also highlighted. Central to this is the prevalence of lack of effective focus and practice on satisfactory causation of events. Currently, the efforts applied across many featured domains appear to be based upon ineffective legacy linear practices. However, emerging investigative philosophies that look beyond direct cause and effect contain opportunities for practitioners to consider causation through dawning axioms. This systematic review could be used in the European aviation regulatory activities associated with improving learning from incident in aircraft maintenance and continuing airworthiness management.

Looking back to this year's sole ADR‐related U.S. Supreme Court decision, Joseph T. McLaughlin, Kathleen M. Scanlon and James Clare, of New York, revisit Buckeye Check Cashing Inc. v. Cardegna, and explain why it reaches further in supporting an arbitrator's jurisdiction than it initially appeared