No process for initiative

Abstract

Throughout naval aviation engineering history, processes have continually developed and improved safety, especially with rapidly evolving complex aircraft systems. With more processes to follow, technicians will become more reliant on those processes. The post Hadden-Cave era has led to increased understanding of accountability, thereby diminishing initiative or the application of engineering principles to solve real life engineering problems. High level policy and accountability rhetoric have cascaded throughout engineering management to engineering technicians, with the warning ‘do not deviate from process’ from fear air safety may be compromised. This, coupled with the perceived threat of consequence to the individual should compliance be ignored, leads to a culture of process rather than a culture of lateral thought around complex engineering issues. Consequently, naval engineers feel unable to innovate or improvise practical solutions to problems despite engineers understanding the need to maintain air safety. As a war-fighting organisation which extends to disaster relief operations or damage control at sea, the supervisor/team leader may find themselves without a process and potentially unable to respond with confidence to the situation at hand. A key attribute of a Petty Officer is initiative; as reliance on process increases and reliance on effective intelligence decreases, are the Royal Navy limiting their future leaders? Attitudes and competence take time to change and develop; there is an increasing risk that the naval engineer of the future fails to think around problems and it is imperative that we encourage and develop initiative in naval aviation engineers.