Breaking the Loop: Eliminating Repetitive Findings in Aviation Compliance

The repetitive findings can be an important cue about a systematic problem at your organization and show how effective your compliance system is.

Compliance failures reflected through recurrent audit findings undermine safety culture, drain organizational resources, and increase regulatory risk. Aviation operators and maintenance organisations often see the same non-conformances reappear across successive internal and external audits because corrective actions focus on symptoms rather than systemic causes. International frameworks — including ICAO Annex 19 on Safety Management, EASA regulations and FAA guidance — require not only corrective action plans, but demonstrable evidence of their effectiveness. This article explains how to break the cycle of repetitive findings through rigorous root-cause analysis, verifiable corrective actions and continuous assurance embedded within safety and compliance systems. Practical steps and examples are provided to help compliance teams and accountable managers translate regulatory requirements into measurable results.

Root-Cause Identification: Look Beyond the Symptom

Repetitive findings may result from different root causes. So, no matter it repeats or not, root-cause analysis (RCA) should be performed each time.

Audit reports commonly list the immediate deficiency (a missed inspection, incomplete record or incorrect procedure) but do not always answer why it occurred. Effective closure begins with systematic root-cause analysis (RCA). Use structured techniques such as 5 Whys, Ishikawa (fishbone) diagrams and fault-tree analysis to expose latent organisational contributors: deficient procedures, unclear responsibilities, inadequate training, poor human factors design, or data gaps. Correlate audit findings with operational data sources — maintenance logs, occurrence reports, flight-data monitoring, and safety reports — to validate hypotheses. Where multiple events share a common precursor, treat them as a single systemic issue rather than separate incidents. Document RCA outputs and assumptions clearly, because regulators expect to see traceability from finding to root cause to corrective action.

Design corrective actions that are specific, measurable and durable

Once the root causes are established, design corrective and preventive actions (CAPAs) that change the system, not just behaviour. Effective CAPAs have these attributes: they are specific about what will change, assign accountable owners, include resource commitments and define verifiable indicators of success. Translate high-level solutions into concrete process changes , update the maintenance control manual, mandate a procedural step with a required signature, automate cueing via the maintenance tracking system, or redesign forms to reduce transcription errors.

Regulators expect organisations to verify effectiveness. Establish evidence requirements up front: what records, KPI shifts, or observational data will demonstrate closure. Integrate the CAPA into the SMS and Quality Management System so changes are tracked through management review. Where training is part of the solution, couple it with competency assessments and monitored line performance to ensure learning transferred to practice. For digital or procedural controls, schedule independent verification activities that confirm the change is implemented and sustained. If you use software to manage CAPAs, include links to the supporting evidence and relevant revisions; use a clear audit trail so assessors can follow the remediation lifecycle.

Verification is multi-layered. Use a combination of monitoring activities to give confidence that a corrective action has eliminated the root cause:

• Targeted surveillance or re-audit of affected processes.
• Data trend analysis of relevant safety performance indicators.
• Direct observation or line checks to confirm behavioural changes.
• Independent review by a cross-functional team or external auditor.

Embed a timeframe for reassessment and guard against premature closure — a single successful check should not be the only evidence. Regulators such as EASA and the FAA increasingly expect documented, sustained performance improvements rather than one-off fixes. Where applicable, update the Safety Risk Register and operational controls to reflect new mitigations and ensure hazard ownership is clear.

Leadership and governance complete the loop. Accountable managers must treat repetitive findings as business risks that require investment and visible oversight. Senior management reviews should highlight recurring themes, evaluate the effectiveness of CAPA portfolios and ensure alignment with regulatory obligations and organisational priorities. Use regular SMS assurance cycles and internal audit results to prioritise high-risk repeat findings for immediate action and resource allocation.

Finally, consider cultural and human factors interventions where technical fixes fail to stick. Encouraging reporting, simplifying procedures, reducing unnecessary workarounds and aligning incentives with compliance can convert temporary compliance into lasting practice. Where technology is deployed (human–machine interfaces, checklists, alerts), evaluate usability and the propensity for workarounds before wide rollout.

Breaking the loop of repetitive findings is a discipline: rigorous RCA, targeted systemic fixes, robust verification and visible governance. When organisations align these elements with the expectations of ICAO, EASA and FAA frameworks, they reduce regulatory risk and improve operational safety in measurable ways.

In conclusion: Ensure corrective actions address systemic root causes and are supported by clear evidence of effectiveness. Integrate CAPAs into SMS assurance cycles and assign accountable owners with resources to implement durable change. Monitor outcomes over time and maintain visible senior management oversight to prevent recurrence.

Do you know SAFEJETS MS has AI supported root-cause analysis (RCA) tool?