Safety Communication Difficulties and Motives in Finnish Aviation ...

Safety Assurance and Promotion: Safety Communication Difficulties

and Motives in Finnish Aviation Organisations

Donata Bedalyte

Haaga-Helia University of Applied Sciences

Bachelor’s Thesis

25 April 2022

Bachelor of Business Administration

Abstract

Author(s) Donata Bedalyte

Degree Bachelor of Business Administration

Report/thesis title Safety Promotion and Assurance: Safety Communication Difficulties and Motives in Finnish Aviation Organisations

Number of pages and appendix pages 40 + 6

Aviation safety communication via voluntary safety reporting system channels is essential to ensure aviation safety performance by identifying and mitigating safety hazards. Voluntary safety reporting goes beyond the mandatory reporting showing a strong reporter’s commitment to reporting unsafe activities, hidden risks and other safety observations endangering aviation safety. Willingness to report relates to the trust which is possible in having a healthy working environment where employees do not have obstacles and fears to share safety observations. This is significant as only identified safety threats can be controlled by taking actions to prevent safety incidents meanwhile reduce the number of safety occurrences. With this, the safety promotion with the encouragement to report should be done consistently in parallel building and maintaining a positive and resilient safety culture. The mixed methodology research approach was selected to investigate the link between voluntary safety reporting and safety culture identifying the non-reporting reasons and factors motivating to report as a way to improve safety reporting processes in Finnish aviation organisations. The thesis process started at the beginning of January and finished at the end of April 2022. This included study conduction and thesis report writing. A survey questionnaire and interviews were used to collect data to reach the study objective by answering research questions. 116 employees working in Finnish aviation organisations participated in survey research by answering a survey questionnaire. The survey questionnaire generated quantitative and qualitative data which was analysed before starting the second research phase to conduct interviews. Two interviews were performed to gather qualitative data for a more profound understanding of the thesis topic and simultaneously support survey research findings to generate the final research outcomes. The study has indicated the list of non-reporting reasons and reporting motivators (appendix 2) wherein lack of top management commitment towards safety, time pressure to fill reports and fear of reporting consequences were the main factors discouraging voluntary reporting. Having reporting forms easy to use, and knowing how reports are used to improve safety as seeing the value and thereby receiving feedback on reports were the most encouraging reporting elements. Voluntary safety reporting obstacles and motivators recognised in this study can not be generalised to all Finnish aviation organisations. Every aviation organisation would benefit from identifying reporting weaknesses and motivating factors appropriate for their company to evaluate the current status of the safety culture. This appears as a recommendation for future research in addition to making an investigation of the safety reporting effect on the number of safety occurrences based on the company’s safety data basis.

Keywords Aviation, voluntary safety reporting, safety culture, safety observations, SMS, safety pro-

motion

Table of contents

Abbreviations and definitions ............................................................................................. 1

1 Introduction: Background of the study ........................................................................... 2

1.1 The purpose statement and delimitation................................................................ 2

1.2 The problem background ...................................................................................... 3

2 Literature review ............................................................................................................ 4

2.1 The relevance of communication .......................................................................... 4

2.1.1 Safety communication ................................................................................ 4

2.2 The understanding and role of SMS ...................................................................... 5

2.2.1 Safety culture ............................................................................................. 6

2.3 Safety reporting ..................................................................................................... 7

2.3.1 Mandatory reporting system ....................................................................... 8

2.3.2 Voluntary reporting system ......................................................................... 8

2.3.3 Building reporting culture ............................................................................ 8

2.4 Summary of literature review ................................................................................. 9

3 Research methodology ............................................................................................... 10

3.1 Research design and methods ............................................................................ 10

3.2 Data collection strategy ....................................................................................... 11

4 Data analysis .............................................................................................................. 13

4.1 Quantitative data representation ......................................................................... 14

4.1.1 Voluntary safety reporting data................................................................. 15

4.1.2 Safety culture data ................................................................................... 17

4.2 Qualitative data representation ........................................................................... 18

4.2.1 Voluntary safety reporting obstacles ........................................................ 19

4.2.2 Voluntary safety reporting motivators ....................................................... 21

4.2.3 Safety culture ........................................................................................... 21

4.2.4 The effect of voluntary safety reporting on the safety occurrences ........... 22

4.3 The study limitations ........................................................................................... 23

5 Data evaluation and discussion ................................................................................... 24

5.1 Quantitative results evaluation ............................................................................ 24

5.2 Qualitative results evaluation .............................................................................. 26

5.3 Summary of findings ........................................................................................... 28

5.4 Reliability and validity .......................................................................................... 29

5.4.1 Quantitative research ............................................................................... 30

5.4.2 Qualitative research ................................................................................. 31

6 Conclusions and recommendations ............................................................................. 34

7 Reflection on writing a thesis process ......................................................................... 36

References ...................................................................................................................... 37

Appendices ...................................................................................................................... 41

Appendix 1. Literature map ......................................................................................... 41

Appendix 2. Voluntary safety reporting obstacles and motivators ................................ 42

Appendix 3. Survey questionnaire ............................................................................... 43

Appendix 4. Interview questions .................................................................................. 46

1

Abbreviations and definitions

EASA European Aviation Safety Agency

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organisation

SMM Safety Management Manual

SMS Safety Management System

Hazard

A condition where cause contributes to an aircraft incident/accident (ICAO 2018, 11)

Just Culture

Organisational climate when “non-punitive reporting” is recognised and followed; culture in

which employee is not punished for his actions and decisions, meanwhile intentional viola-

tions are tolerated (Kovacova, Licu & Balint 2019, 105).

Occurrence

A safety-related happening is a threat to aircraft, passengers or any other person if ac-

tions are not taken to correct the situation (EASA 2022).

Reporting Culture

The organisational environment in which employees are willing to report operational defi-

ciencies, errors, and observations leading to safety occurrences (Wang 2018, 106).

Safety

The state in which risks associated with aviation activities are reduced to an acceptable

level (ICAO 2018, 11).

Safety Assurance

The evaluation of risk control approaches effectiveness and continuous support in recog-

nition of new hazards ( Stolzer, Friend, Truong, Tuccio & Aguiar 2018, 56).

Safety Culture

Shared values and attitudes toward safety within an organisation assuming safety culture

is an indicator of risk-related practices (Tear, Reader, Shorrock & Kirwan 2018, 550).

Safety Management System

An organised approach to managing safety includes organisational structure, safety poli-

cies, and procedures (ICAO 2018, 12). Those elements of the systems interact and sup-

port each other to achieve an acceptable level of safety (Li & Guldenmund 2018, 95).

Safety Promotion

Activities such as training, communication, and other actions to build a positive safety cul-

ture in the company (ICAO 2016; Stolzer et al. 2018, 95).

2

1 Introduction: Background of the study

The aviation industry is strictly regulated to ensure flight safety (Remawi, Bates & Dix

2011, 625). Ensuring flight safety requires a set of approaches to manage risks and find

patterns for hazard identification to prevent safety occurrences. In the reply to the aviation

safety complexity and importance, the aviation authorities require the implementation of

SMS (ICAO 2016; EASA 2021; Remawi et al. 2011, 625). The SMS provides guidelines to

aviation organisations on how to control and maintain acceptable safety levels performing

operational activities. The system is comprised of a framework having four components as

safety documentation including objectives, risk management, safety assurance, and

safety promotion (ICAO 2018, 156; Stolzer, Halford & Goglia 2011, 180; Roelen & Klomp-

stra 2012, 2). Bearing in mind that personnel's responsibility and commitment towards avi-

ation safety play a crucial role in managing aviation safety factors, safety promotion and

assurance become equally fundamental parts of SMS like any other SMS element.

Safety promotion through communication (ICAO 2018, 156, 181; Karanikas, Roelen,

Vardy & Kaspers 2019, 4) includes activities such as safety training conduction, safety fly-

ers publishment, safety reporting and feedback on received reports, and other recom-

mended practices customised to the organisation's operations (Keselova, Blistanova, Ha-

nak & Brunova 2021, 208). This study focuses on the safety reporting activities aiming to

investigate safety language effectiveness and associated challenges, and how it affects

safety culture. Safety reporting is a way to exchange safety information allowing improve-

ments related to the management of safety risks (Jausan, Silva & Sabatini 2017, 95). The

following chapters identify the purpose of the conducted research together with the prob-

lem settings.

1.1 The purpose statement and delimitation

The objective of this study is to explore the link between safety reporting and safety cul-

ture with the understating of how it reflects on safety occurrences in Finnish aviation or-

ganisations. Identifying the relationship is important since it allows organisations to under-

stand the essence of safety promotion and assurance via safety reporting systems. With

the reflection of safety reporting to the number of safety occurrences, it is valuable to dis-

tinguish barriers and motivators for reporting safety hazards and unsafe actions. Safety

reporting eliminating non-reporting barriers is a key factor in building a safety culture

(Robertson 2016). The research findings could initiate a deeper focus on the elements

motivating employees to communicate any safety-related issues. The motivation and re-

sponsibility correlate with the employees' commitment to the company's safety values en-

suring the existence of positive safety culture (ICAO 2018, 45; Roelen & Klompstra 2012,

3

4). Safety culture's existence is the core of every aviation organisation's activity, which di-

rectly impacts safety performance as stated by ICAO (2018, 45).

Aviation organisations that have implemented SMS, such as airlines, airport operators, air

navigation service providers and/or ground handling agents, would be selected as re-

search target companies aiming to discover the company's safety assurance aspects via

safety communication. The reason for the delimitation is to collect data from companies

operating in the vicinity of the airport meanwhile ensuring the safe operation of aircraft

performing operational activities. Findings might bring a better and wider understanding of

factors influencing aviation safety management.

1.2 The problem background

Aviation hazard and risk recognition via safety reporting seek to prevent safety inci-

dents/accidents before they happen (Gao 2021, 10; ICAO 2018; Robertson 2016, 9). The

problem is that poor aviation safety reporting performance reflects on safety culture and

SMS ineffectiveness endangering flight safety (Robertson 2016; Jausan et al. 2017;

Bondaruk & Kozuba 2017, 81). Unreported safety matters cannot be investigated, and

prevention actions cannot be taken, meaning one of the safety management system ele-

ments becomes ineffective. Knowing the reasons for unreported safety issues and finding

ways how to improve safety communication by engaging commitment to the organisation's

safety goals becoming essential.

Jausan et al. (2017) have already identified safety reporting barriers on an organisational

and personal level, however, there is a gap in identifying motivation factors. Some aca-

demic articles suggested exploring the relationship between SMS and safety culture/atti-

tudes (Robertson 2016, 14; Remawi et al. 2011, 625, 632), to investigate a more profound

correlation between safety reporting and safety occurrences (Gao 2021, 10) thereby iden-

tifying reasons for non-reporting. Recommendations could be implemented at the national

level and fit well in doing some studies for some Finnish aviation organisations applying

delimitations and personal abilities to conduct the academic study.

4

2 Literature review

Following Cooper's (2010, as in Creswell 2014, 28) types of literature review, the study is

done by locating sources that discuss aviation/flight safety issues with the link to safety

communication and establishing connections between associated topics. The next chap-

ters of this thesis report include academic background on safety assurance and promotion

via aviation safety communication and SMS approaches closing discussion with the rele-

vance of safety reporting. This way, the literature review starts from a general topic to a

narrower one (Creswell 2014, 28-29) at the same time identifying the need for this re-

search conduction (Bailey 2011, 264). The literature map is documented in Appendix 1.

2.1 The relevance of communication

Generally speaking, communication is a way to exchange information (Atalay, Gunal &

Kusseven 2016, 78), and perceptions have a social objective to build interpersonal con-

nections performing aviation activities (Krivonos 2007, 4). Effective communication helps

to create a social and safe working environment within an organisation where employees

feel an obligation to share knowledge and observations related to safety matters. (Bonda-

ruk & Kozuba 2017, 80, 82-83.) It supports building a positive safety culture simultane-

ously reducing safety incidents (Atalay et al. 2016, 77; Jausan et al. 2017, 95). This

means communication can be defined as one of the safety culture indicators in aviation

organisations (Roelen & Klompstra 2012, 5) measuring the existence and the level of

safety culture.

Roelen & Klompstra (2012, 5) identified information as a safety culture characteristic

where communication on safety matters, safety reporting, and willingness to report unsafe

activities are recognised as safety performance indicators. This type of information and

appropriate ways to share it correlates with healthy safety culture existence (Jausan et al.

2017, 95) meaning aviation safety communication processes have to be monitored and

managed effectively. Organisations need to make sure that employees are aware of com-

munication purposes, channels, and what information is suitable for reporting systems (At-

alay et al. 2016, 79).

2.1.1 Safety communication

One of the flight safety communication goals is to promote safety and enhance safety

awareness through aviation safety training, feedback provision on safety occurrences, and

incident investigation reports, continuously empowering safety through organisational ac-

tivities (Stolzer et al. 2011, 255-259). Safety promotion and assurance are the SMS ele-

ments to ensure a safe working climate within the organisation (Roelen & Klompstra 2012,

5

2, 4-5), likewise strong safety communication through safety reporting systems is essen-

tial for the existence of effective SMS (Stolzer et al. 2018, 56). Those elements are re-

viewed in the next SMS chapter with the summary of academic perceptions on the role

and relevance of SMS.

2.2 The understanding and role of SMS

SMS can be defined as a management tool to improve flight safety by establishing safety

accountability within the organisation (Stolzer et al. 2011, 161, 164) with a clear focus on

safety as a core value shared by all employees (Wang 2018, 105-106). Robertson (2016,

9) understands SMS as a management tool to control safety hazards with the understand-

ing that any aviation activity includes safety threats. Bearing in mind that safety threats

cannot be avoided (Insua, Alfaro, Gomez, Hernandez & Bernal 2016, 74; Li & Gul-

denmund 2018, 96), there is a need to have guidelines and recommendations to mitigate

risks to an acceptable level. SMS fulfils the need and supports safe performance (Insua et

al. 2019, 243) by providing a framework for aviation organisations on SMS implementation

and continuous supervision concerning safety assurance.

Theoretically, SMS is divided into four components ( figure 1) sharing responsibilities and

tasks to ensure effective safety management where safety promotion and assurance

come along with safety communication. Safety assurance is done via safety monitoring

performance as one of the safety assurance activities where a safety reporting system is

an instrument to collect safety data. Safety education builds the importance of sharing in-

formation and responsibility for safe operations (Stolzer et al. 2011, 385-390). The suc-

cessful management of those elements has a direct connection with strong safety culture

(Robertson 2016, 10, 14).

Figure 1. The components of SMS (Stolzer et al. 2011, 180)

6

2.2.1 Safety culture

Aviation organisations expect to have a positive safety culture as one of the SMS objec-

tives (Stolzer et al. 2011, 397-398). Safety culture links to SMS (figure 2) and their interac-

tion plays an essential role in ensuring flight safety (Wang 2011, 65-66). Efficient safety

culture includes organisational and management involvement, every employee commit-

ment and empowerment by clear communication about safety expectations as implemen-

tation reporting systems for threat recognition (Stolzer et al. 2018, 56). The evaluation of

safety culture to know whether a company has positive safety culture is important be-

cause it reflects the company's practices and attitudes on safety, prediction of safety be-

haviour by notifying management about safety hazards (Tear et al. 2018, 550; Wang

2018, 111).

Figure 2. Interaction between SMS and Safety culture in an organisation (Wang 2011, 66)

Despite the necessity of every employee's commitment and engagement towards safety

(Remawi et al. 2011, 627), ensuring resilient safety culture might be challenging requiring

continuous monitoring to know the current status and areas to improve. Adjekum & Tous

(2020) advocate safety culture assessment and continuous improvement through safety

reporting and observation measures, investigating employees' safety perceptions, identify-

ing vulnerabilities in employees' behaviour, and conducting risk assessments. Safety cul-

ture is divided into sub-cultures (figure 3) which altogether is recognised through the defi-

nition of "safety culture" (Wang 2018, 106). As it is visualised in figure 2, reporting, just,

learning, and flexible sub-cultures interact with each other to create a reliable safety cul-

ture. With this, all those sub-cultures need to be monitored for the recognition of healthy

safety culture existence and good safety performance achievement. One of the sub-cul-

ture’s ineffectiveness suppressing safety levels in the company.

7

Figure 3. Sub-cultures for aviation safety culture (Wang 2018, 106)

The next chapter provides a summary of academic perceptions on safety reporting as an

instrument to evaluate safety assurance and safety culture. The following safety reporting

chapter also includes studies where the essence of a voluntary safety reporting system is

recognised and empowered to identify flight safety weaknesses for safety occurrences

prevention.

2.3 Safety reporting

Aviation is known as a strictly regulated industry to ensure a high level of flight safety

(Remawi et al. 2011). Regardless of the high level of flight safety worldwide, safety occur-

rences still happen (Insua et al. 2019). ICAO (2016, 5-1) requires establishing mandatory

and voluntary reporting systems as part of SMS for safety data collection and analysis.

Acquired safety data through safety reporting systems relates to occurrences prevention

allowing to take appropriate actions to prevent similar occurrences in the future (Jausan et

al. 2017, 95). According to Bondaruk & Kozuba (2017, 81), lack of safety information or

unreported unsafe situations leads to undesired safety occurrences. Therefore active re-

porting culture is a key factor in managing safety hazards and ensuring the function of the

SMS.

8

2.3.1 Mandatory reporting system

ICAO (2018, 5-5) describes a mandatory safety reporting system as a channel to collect

more technical information relating to occurrences that are compulsory to report. Manda-

tory reporting occurrences include, but are not limited to runway incursions, bird strikes,

aircraft structural damages, and technical deficiencies (Skybrary 23 January 2022). After

all, compulsory reporting can be perceived as an activity that can not be avoided and is

assumed as an obligation required by authorities (Under & Gerede 2021, 4) while per-

forming operational work duties. In parallel with the mandatory reporting system and fol-

lowing Clare & Kourousis (2021), voluntary safety reporting is an activity strongly linked to

each employee's commitment and attitude towards flight safety when commitment is not

perceived as an obligation and exists plainly on personal beliefs.

2.3.2 Voluntary reporting system

A voluntary reporting system should aim to collect safety data associated with the human

factor (ICAO 2018, 5-5). Active hazard identification through voluntary safety reporting

channels reflects positive safety culture and proactivity in SMS since employees decide

whether to report or leave unreported safety issues (Under & Gerede 2021, 5). Non/Re-

porting decision is based on individual perception about the relevance of safety observa-

tion, individual’s values, beliefs, and commitments towards safety together with trust, and

certainty in “just culture” existence in the company (Wang 2018; Evans et al. 2007, 675).

In comparison with mandatory safety reporting, voluntary safety reporting goes beyond

compulsory reporting showing stronger personal commitment toward flight safety (Jausan

et al. 2017, 95 ).

Academic studies (O’Leary & Chapell 1996; Wang 2018, 107; Kovacova et al. 2019) dis-

tinguish that willingness to report comes along with trust. It means employees should have

a healthy attitude towards safety which is strengthened by seeing value in safety report-

ing. The reporting value is seen when reported events are used for flight safety improve-

ments ensuring a "no blame" reporting policy with the trust that reported errors and opera-

tional experiences are used without punishment (Kovacova et al. 2019 105, 111-112). A

voluntary reporting system reflects the existence of efficient SMS with hazard identification

and incident prevention (Robertson 2016; Jausan et al. 2017; Clare & Kourousis 2021;

O’Leary & Chapell 1996).

2.3.3 Building reporting culture

Having a reporting culture where people do not have barriers to reacting and reporting un-

safe actions is a key to building and developing resilient safety culture (Wang 2019, 107;

9

Robertson 2016, 10; Jausan et al. 2017, 95). Defining safety reporting barriers and moti-

vators for reporting supports building a safety climate in aviation organisations. Trust and

motivation are the factors encouraging safe practices such as reporting about errors and

other safety observations (O’Leary & Chapell 1996). Jausan et al. (2017) indicate report-

ing challenges and their effect on safety performance based on organisational, working

environment, and individual levels. The latter research suggested investigating reporting

barriers for organisations since reporting attitudes and values belong to the organisation

and cannot be specified as the same for all aviation organisations.

2.4 Summary of literature review

Safety communication and SMS link to the importance of appropriate safety reporting

which reflects on safety culture. Previous academic studies identified the need for further

research on safety reporting processes and how it implicates the level of safety, and SMS

effectiveness in achieving positive safety culture (Robertson 2016, 14; Remawi et al.

2011, 632). Focusing on safety communication improvements and safety promotion for

safety culture consolidation, and evaluation of safety assurance are the elements to main-

tain an acceptable level of flight safety. Safety reporting systems with a special focus on

voluntary reporting systems play a crucial role in reducing and preventing safety occur-

rences as data gathered from reporting systems is the source of operational company’s

weaknesses (Kovacova et al. 2019, 106).

10

3 Research methodology

The research methodology chapter defines the research questions, including a brief dis-

cussion on research design and methods with research methodology justification for this

research. After deciding about the research topic with relevant literature review conduction

and defining the objective of the study, the research proceeds with formulating research

questions (Wang & Park 2016, 81).

This research attempts to answer the primary research question as follows:

- How relevant is safety assurance via a voluntary safety reporting system in an or-

ganisation?

The primary research question follows with sub-questions such as:

1. How safety reporting performance affects the number of safety occurrences?

2. What are the reasons for unreported safety-related issues?

3. How voluntary safety reporting system could be improved: factors engaging employ-

ees' motivation and commitment to reporting unsafe situations/hazards affecting flight

safety?

The research aims to investigate voluntary safety reporting rather than mandatory report-

ing since it goes beyond common/mandatory incident reporting reflecting a more profound

commitment toward aviation safety and the company's safety culture (ICAO 2018, 76-77;

Jausan et al. 2017, 95). Safety reporting performance is a benchmark and critical factor in

evaluating an organisation's safety culture (Gao 2021, 2) as has been already discussed

in the literature review chapter. By answering the research questions, the link between

safety reporting and safety culture with the impact on safety occurrences shall become

more evident. The next chapter describes the research design and methods justifying the

selection of a suitable research approach to fulfil the research objective.

3.1 Research design and methods

The research questions are answered by planning and designing the research which must

be done by choosing qualitative, quantitative, or mixed research methods to perform the

research in association with the study objective (Burkholder, Cox, Crawford & Hitchcock

2020, 9-10, 51). According to Creswell (2014), the selected research methodology pro-

vides guidelines for designing research as follows:

- The qualitative method is used when (1) needed to understand the phenomena

based on human perceptions, (2) focusing to develop a theory, and (3) research

11

data is collected in textual format identifying feelings and opinions (Burkholder et

al. 2020, 7). Narrative, phenomenological, grounded theory, ethnography, and

case study are the research designs to build qualitative study (Creswell 2014, 13-

14).

- The quantitative method is relevant to testing a theory/hypothesis or investigating

the relationship between variables by collecting data in numerical format. Either

experimental or non-experimental designs are used to conduct quantitative re-

search. (Creswell 2014, 12-13.)

- Mixed-methods represent both qualitative and quantitative research approaches

and are selected when a deeper and diverse understanding of the research back-

ground is needed rather than qualitative or quantitative data alone can provide

(Creswell 2014, 19).

A mixed methodology research approach would be suitable to conduct this research ex-

ploring the link between safety reporting and safety culture with the reflection on safety oc-

currences (the objective of this research). There are several reasons why a mixed-meth-

odology approach seems more suitable for this research:

- Firstly, a quantitative approach is appropriate to investigate the link between the

safety reporting performance and the number of safety occurrences (sub-question

1). A quantitative approach is suitable as well for testing the relationship between

safety reporting and safety culture existence (linking to the objective of this re-

search) and its effect on safety performance. This means the cause-effect correla-

tion between two variables would be established as a part of a non-experimental

comparative research design (Creswell 2014, 12; Neuman 2003, 149-151, 164).

- Secondly, a qualitative approach is needed to recognise safety reporting weak-

nesses and patterns to improve the reporting systems (sub-questions 2 and 3).

The research will try to investigate human behaviour patterns and perspectives to

understand the situation by integrating people's perceptions which are a character-

istic of phenomenology research design (Burkholder et al. 2020, 82-83, 85-86).

The selected research method provides ideas for the data collection strategies (Wang &

Park 2016, 86) which are briefly described in the further data collection strategy chapter

together with population, sample, and data analysis specifics relevant for this research

conduction.

3.2 Data collection strategy

Data collection strategies refer to the approaches to how information shall be gathered

based on the research objectives (Kananen 2011, 27). There are various data collection

instruments appropriate for answering research questions in relevance to the selected re-

search methodology: observations, interviews, and documents/material investigation are

the most common data collection instruments for the qualitative research method (Cre-

12

swell 2014, 189-190; Kananen 2011, 48). Quantitative research data collection instru-

ments are recognised by using surveys, experiments, and secondary data analysis as

data collection instruments for the research conduction (Wang & Park 2016, 93; Creswell

2014, 155-156). Bearing in mind that the mixed methodology research approach seems to

be appropriate for this research, both the qualitative and quantitative data collection meth-

ods are used to inquiry information fundamental for the research purposes.

Following Creswell's recommendations (2014,19), data collection for this research shall be

divided into two phases wherein a first phase data would be collected through a survey to

provide background for the second phase based on the initial phase findings. The second

phase would include conducting interviews as a support to the first/initial phase. It is im-

portant to mention that safety report datasets, as a secondary type of data, would be used

as well as one of the data collection strategies. The secondary data analysis strategy

seems appropriate as the research question (sub-question 1) includes variables that can

be evaluated using safety databases (Wang & Park 2016, 93). However, before deciding

on the data collection instruments, it is necessary to determine from where study answers

will be collected, meaning the research population and sample must be defined to know to

whom findings will be applied (Wang & Park 2016, 107).

Finnish aviation organisations which are required to implement SMS (ICAO 2016) are a

range from where the research sample is determined as the population for this research

(Alimbau-Comas 2021, 10). Considering that the research sample is the subrange se-

lected from the population to conduct the study (Kananen 2011, 126), airlines, airport op-

erators, air traffic navigation services and/or ground handling companies shall be chosen

for gathering data to investigate the correlation between safety assurance and safety re-

porting in the Finnish aviation organisations. The research is targeting reaching employ-

ees/specialists directly involved in safety reporting processes and can be defined as an

inclusion criterion for this study.

13

4 Data analysis

The data analysis and data evaluation chapters include data analysis and evaluation spe-

cifics following quantitative and qualitative research methods with the selected data collec-

tion instruments. Creswell (2014, 162-163) recommends processing quantitative data by

dividing the analysis into steps as it gives more clarity for the reader and consistency for

data analysis. With this, the survey data analysis steps would include (1) presenting infor-

mation in tables with the specifics associated with numbers characterising survey partici-

pants’ opinions, (2) discussion on response biases (the impact of nonresponses on the

survey results), (3) description of data analysis about variables in the research, (4) the

statistical procedure identification if it is relevant for the study thereby including the reliabil-

ity aspects, (5) assessment of findings directing them to answer the research questions

and (6) the presentation of results by making conclusions for the research question. Col-

lected, cleaned, described, and visualised data aim to answer the research question

(Burkholder et al. 2020, 77-78).

Considering that qualitative research design deals with textual data, academic research

literature (Burkholder et al. 2020; Creswell 2014; Wang & Park 2016) suggests coding

technics analyse data to identify similarities along with the data, and dividing findings into

themes or categories. This approach seems appropriate for this research defining the rea-

sons for unreported safety matters (sub-question 2) as recognising the motivators for vol-

untary safety reporting (sub-question 3). Assuming, that survey research and interview

participants have different perceptions on the subject, their answers and comments most

likely would reflect perceptions differently. The data coding process includes analysis of

comments on open-ended questions, interview transcripts, and making the list of topics

and ideas after reading transcriptions (Creswell 2014, 198) in a way participants' opinions

could be categorised formulating conclusions under the answers to research questions

and solutions for the research problem.

Further sub-chapters include the data collection process specifics together with used

quantitative and qualitative data collection instruments for this study. Data analysis refers

to finding the meanings of collected data wherein:

- Quantitative data is analysed and evaluated firstly by presenting all findings in a

visual format (table, charts), then making an evaluation of data (chapter 5) by iden-

tifying differences, similarities, fundamentals and relationships between the re-

search results (Kananen 2011).

- The interviewee statement is evaluated by asking more questions to understand

the whole context (Wang & Park 2016, 212), recognising the patterns across the

data, and assessing the repetition of findings (Burkholder et al.2020,109).

14

4.1 Quantitative data representation

Linking to the research objective and research questions in order to test the relationship

between safety reporting and safety culture existence and its effect on safety perfor-

mance, quantitative data were collected via an electronic questionnaire using the Webro-

pol tool (Drake & Salmi 2018). The survey research method allowed to reach a large

group of respondents to gather perceptions of voluntary safety reporting and safety culture

topics. The questionnaire was distributed directly approaching people working in Finnish

aviation organisations who are involved in aviation safety reporting. Besides using the

study’s author’s professional networks, some of the survey respondents had shared the

questionnaire in aviation professional groups and their communication channels. The sur-

vey research was conducted between the seventh and 16 of February distributing survey

questions in a way to get an answer to the research problem (Drake & Salmi 2018) and

research questions. The survey was open for ten days and closed after reaching satura-

tion meaning that no new information was forthcoming (Merriam & Tisdell 2015, 199).

The survey questions (appendix 3) were designed to be able to acquire data necessary to

reply research objective and to answer the primary research question and sub-questions.

The questionnaire consisted of 15 questions which were divided into three parts: back-

ground questions, safety reporting and safety culture questions. Following Neuman (2003,

282), this approach enabled building a survey with opening, middle and ending questions

thereby having questions on the same topic in one part. Every part had an introductory

statement to let respondents know about the topic of further questions. The majority of

questions were planned as closed-ended questions which are common in collecting quan-

titative data (Martin 2006,1). Yet some of the questions included open-ended responses to

avoid the research author’s suggestions (Greener 2011, 41-42) and collected answers

were analysed as qualitative data.

It was collected 116 responses from the electronic survey questionnaire. The occupation

of respondents who were involved in the research survey was distributed into the follow-

ing: Pilots (80,2%), Cabin crew (12,9%), Aircraft technicians (1,7%), Ground handling

agents (1,7%) and other (3,5%) specified as Air Traffic Controller, Airworthiness Engineer

and Chief Instructor/Cabin Crew Member. Quantitative research data is not analysed how

different groups answered questions as it is not relevant for this study and an occupation

question was included to confirm participants’ involvement in safety reporting meanwhile

confirming the research inclusion criteria. The rest of the quantitative data is represented

in further subchapters following the topics presented in the questionnaire.

15

4.1.1 Voluntary safety reporting data

The safety reporting topic investigation was started trying to learn about the status and rel-

evance of voluntary safety reporting in Finnish aviation organisations (primary research

question). 111 participants out of 116 confirmed that their organisation encourage report-

ing voluntary safety observation which goes beyond reporting obligatory safety matters.

Looking at the survey results (figure 4), 62% of aviation professionals always report safety

observations based on personal judgement/voluntary, and then 31% of participants admit-

ted reporting not all safety occurrences/errors. Even though not all safety errors are re-

ported, 89% of survey participants are confident that reported safety matters help to pre-

vent safety occurrences (figure 5) and 90% believe that active safety reporting can reduce

the number of safety occurrences (figure 6).

Figure 4. Voluntary safety reporting frequency

16

Figure 5. Chart of safety occurrences prevention by reporting

Figure 6. The connection between active safety reporting and safety occurrences number

The possible non-reporting causes are presented in table 1 from where it is visible that the

most common barriers to making safety reports are lack of commitment from top manage-

ment (27%), lack of time to fill in reports (26%) and fear of reporting consequences (25%).

As a matter of fact, other (25%) reasons are relevant as well due to a high amount of re-

plies being identified and thereby reviewed in the further chapters dealing with qualitative

data.

17

Table 1. Non-reporting reasons (adapted from questionnaire results)

Following the recognised obstacles of voluntary reporting and looking for the elements

motivating to report, table 2 indicates that 81% of survey participants think that having re-

porting form simple and easy to use is one of the most motivating factors to share safety

observations based on personal commitment to report. Many participants have expressed

that knowing how reports are used to improve aviation safety (73%), seeing value in re-

porting (70%) and receiving feedback on reported events are the factors playing an im-

portant role in encouraging voluntary reporting as well.

Table 2. Voluntary reporting motivators (adapted from questionnaire results)

4.1.2 Safety culture data

At the start of the investigation of the safety culture topic, 108 out of 116 survey respond-

ents agreed that safety culture is promoted in their aviation organisations and 105 partici-

pants replied that safety culture is considered effective in the company. Proceeding further

with the safety culture topic and as figure 7 shows 66% of respondents can discuss avia-

tion safety matters with top management/shift leaders. The possibility to discuss can be

considered as a substitute formal reporting procedure by filling actual report form.

18

Figure 7. Visualisation of the possibility to discuss safety matters

4.2 Qualitative data representation

Initially, qualitative data was collected from the open-ended questions of the survey ques-

tionnaire providing the possibility to comment for study participants on the research

topic/question. The open-ended questions were planned carefully with the idea to support

the second phase of the study by collecting data from interviews. Later on, after data was

collected from the survey questionnaire, two interviews were performed on week ten of

2022.

One of the interviews happened remotely via the Microsoft Team platform and another in-

terview was performed as a face-to-face interview. Interview questions (appendix 4) were

designed to engage an open discussion and description of reporting processes to learn

more about the subject within the research scope and research questions. The interview

consisted of 18 questions and participants were asked mainly the same questions, how-

ever, important to mention that questions for the second interview were slightly adjusted

after evaluating the first interview outcomes. Even though, interview questions were pre-

pared beforehand some alternations happened based on the interviewers’ answers with

the need for clarification/explanation about shared opinions. Each interview lasted an av-

erage of 30 minutes focusing on safety reporting issues to get a more profound under-

standing of reporting weaknesses and acquire perceptions on safety reporting improve-

ments (research sub-questions).

Following Creswell (2012,181-182), collected qualitative data was organised into com-

puter files naming and separating them clearly for smoother navigation to find necessary

19

information analysing and documenting data in this theses report. Besides having com-

puter files, qualitative data was processed on paper documents for making handwriting

notes, dividing textual data into themes and categories, highlighting with different colours

voluntary safety reporting barriers and motivators, going through interviews transcripts

several times to get a sense of a story and the whole picture of interviewee experiences.

After familiarisation with the data, data was interpreted in a way to make sense of it for de-

fining study findings and after all formulating conclusions which generate answers for re-

search questions being a basis for finding solutions for the research problem. The qualita-

tive data analysis process is indicated in table 3.

Table 3. Qualitative data analysis process (adapted from Clare & Kourousis 2021, 10)

Voluntary safety reporting obstacles and motivators are the two major categories of quali-

tative data that are recognised and represented in the further subchapter. Those catego-

ries are directly related to the study research questions and research problem including

safety culture topics directly linked to the objective of this study. As research methodology

literature stated (Saldana 2016, 3; Merriam & Tisdell 2015, 202-203) analysing qualitative

data across the data codes/categories in order to reply to research questions are the goal

of data analysis.

4.2.1 Voluntary safety reporting obstacles

The effectiveness of voluntary safety reporting systems plays a significant role in prevent-

ing occurrences based on identified and reported safety hazards (Jausan et. al 2017, 95).

20

Survey and interview research data have shown that not all safety hazards are reported: it

was indicated that 38% of survey participants make reports sometimes, seldom or report

only what is mandatory to report. Because not all safety errors are reported, research par-

ticipants commented on non-reporting reasons. The non-reporting reasons recognised

during this study and defined by the study author as voluntary safety reporting obstacles

are documented in figure 8.

Figure 8. Voluntary safety reporting obstacles

Figure 8 indicates reporting obstacles from the most relevant barrier meaning it was men-

tioned most often in the study to the less relevant meaning barrier was mentioned the few-

est time. Important to note that participants who identified themselves as always reporting

on safety matters commented that non-reporting reasons listed in the survey question-

naire (appendix 3: question 8) are all possible, especially if “the company safety culture is

improperly created and maintained” (Study respondent 2022). With the voluntary safety

reporting obstacles recognition, it is important to know what motivates people to report in

order to promote and encourage safety reporting activity in the company.

Most

relevant

Less

relevant

21

4.2.2 Voluntary safety reporting motivators

Safety reporting encouragement requires the identification of factors increasing employ-

ees’ motivation to report. Motivating factors recognition in this study allows answering re-

search sub-question 3 to find a solution to how the voluntary safety reporting system could

be improved. Figure 9 indicates factors influencing employees’ motivation to use a volun-

tary safety reporting system for hazard identification. Motivators were collected throughout

the whole study using a survey and interview research methods.

Figure 9. Voluntary safety reporting motivators

Furthermore research data on safety reporting weaknesses and the essence of ensuring

hazard identification with elements motivating to report, safety culture is selected as an-

other category for research data analysis.

4.2.3 Safety culture

The research participants commented on the safety culture topic mentioning the relevance

of reporting and just culture/non-punitive culture existence. The comments reflected the

theory that effective safety culture does not exist without having a working climate where

people are ready and willing to share safety matters making reports based on trust (Wang

2018, 106). Figure 10 visualises insights and experiences on the safety culture subject

and its status in the company shared by respondents. Statements in red colour are

Most

motivating

Less

motivating

22

marked as a negative effect on safety wherein statements marked in green are perceived

as positive elements building a resilient safety culture in the organisation.

Figure 10. Respondents’ perceptions of safety culture

On top of voluntary safety reporting and safety culture categories in analysing research

data, the effect of voluntary safety reporting on the safety occurrences is selected to be

reviewed as part of data analysis. The latter topic belongs to the research sub-questions

1, even though the questions have some limitations which are described in subchapter

4.3.

4.2.4 The effect of voluntary safety reporting on the safety occurrences

As quantitative data have demonstrated the belief that increased voluntary reporting can

reduce the number of safety occurrences, qualitative data further identified the relevance

of active voluntary and its effect on safety occurrences. Respondents commented that:

- Safety reporting is crucial in mitigating safety risks.

- Collecting statistics allows for recognising hidden risks.

- Reporting increase knowledge and learning about errors by reducing the risk of the

incident happening.

(Study respondents 2022.)

23

Moreover, qualitative study data showed that errors to be reported should be considered

through a personal viewpoint evaluating how relevant is to report specific observations. It

was mentioned that if reporting “core is taken wrong, problem may change place and na-

ture not reducing occurrences” (Survey respondent 2022) or “empty reports” (Interviewee

2022) are not reducing the number of safety incidents meaning reporting is increased, yet

does not have a direct effect on the number of occurrences.

4.3 The study limitations

The link between the safety reporting performance and the safety occurrences with an ef-

fect on the number of safety incidents was not investigated in-depth as it was planned in

the initial research stage (sub-question 1). This did not happen due to obstacles to ac-

cessing safety reporting data basis due to safety data protection aspects in the company.

This should not be an obstacle in the case of conducting the study for the particular organ-

isation under a separate agreement between the author of the thesis/educational institu-

tion and the commissioning company.

Another limitation of the research sub-question 1 is a time frame: it would require more

time to answer the sub-question 1 thereby reply to other research questions going beyond

the scope of a bachelor thesis (Haaga-Helia 2021, 1). However, testing the performance

of safety reporting on the number of safety occurrences would be recommended for future

research, particularly in master’s degree studies.

24

5 Data evaluation and discussion

The collected data are evaluated from the perspective of the research problem adhering

the problem to the research question to find solutions based on the research findings (Ka-

nanen 2011, 105). The current study was undertaken to investigate the link between avia-

tion safety reporting and safety culture in Finnish aviation organisations (the research ob-

jective) and to look for non-reporting reasons and possibilities to improve safety reporting.

Identifying safety reporting weaknesses and motivators to report are the key factors in

SMS assurance and incidents prevention (Baugh & Stolzer 2018, 8-9; Jausan et al. 2017,

95-96; Baron 2022).

5.1 Quantitative results evaluation

The description of the problem background of the current study included the relevance of

hazard identification via safety reporting systems as incident prevention (see chapter 1.2).

The collected quantitative data from the survey had shown that reporting supports safety

occurrences prevention and is important activity ensuring aviation safety; the majority of

survey participants believe that active reporting can reduce the number of safety inci-

dents. The survey result on the latter statements is not an unexpected result confirming

various discussions and studies in the literature associated with aviation safety (Baron

2022; Robertson 2016; Jausan et al. 2017; Clare & Kourousis 2021). The importance of

aviation hazard reporting is undoubtful, yet not all safety observations are reported: 38%

of participants admitted not always reporting unless occurrence is mandatory to report.

The identification of reporting weaknesses together with non-reporting reasons enables

safety performance improvements reflecting on positive safety culture (Clare & Kourousis

2021, 2).

It can be many reasons that some safety discrepancies are left not reported. Based on the

majority of replies, the most common reason is the lack of top management commitment

toward safety. Quantitative data was followed by the study participants’ remarks that man-

agement’s commitment to safety is decreased due to economical pressure and decisions

based on financial considerations over safety “not realizing the negative effect of safety”

(Survey respondents 2022). More study participants’ comments regarding senior manage-

ment’s dedication toward safety and associated decisions are described in the Reliability

and Validity subchapter 5.4.1.

Necessary to notice that the reason mentioned in the earlier paragraph should not be

evaluated as the only one most relevant considering other reasons were chosen very ac-

25

tively and statistical variations among the listed reasons do not differ obviously to con-

clude the major reporting gaps. With that being said, all the reasons for unreported occur-

rences listed in table 1 are reasons to be evaluated for making safety improvements. Im-

portant to consider, that non-reporting statements used in the questionnaire (see appendix

3, question 8) were proposed by the study author based on suggestions provided in the

literature and should not be perceived as the only existing reasons. More examples of

safety weaknesses are recognised and discussed as qualitative data in the further chapter

of this thesis report. The same applies to the recognition of reporting motivators which

also are discussed further as important elements in building a positive safety culture (Jau-

san et al. 2017) in Finnish aviation organisations.

As aforementioned, motivating factors play an important role in improving safety perfor-

mance and their identification supports encouraging active voluntary safety reporting

(O’Leary & Chapell 1996; Jausan et. al 2017). The survey results identified the essence of

reporting as having reporting tools simple and clear to use meanwhile knowing how re-

ports are used to improve safety; seeing value in reporting and receiving feedback on re-

ported occurrences are factors encouraging reporting as well. Possible motivators state-

ments in the questionnaire were provided by the study author’s perception based on pro-

fessional knowledge and academic literature investigation on the topic. Besides providing

examples of motivating elements, survey participants commented on more motivating fac-

tors which are evaluated as qualitative data in further chapters. Motivating people to be

committed to safety is an integral activity in building a resilient safety culture (Amalia

2019, 260).

According to Tear et al. (2018, 550), a healthy working environment where people can

speak up, openly communicate about safety concerns without a fair of consequences and

admit errors are the basics of building an effective safety culture. With this, the possibility

to approach leaders/top management for safety concerns discussions become fundamen-

tal since having a constructive discussion can be considered as a replacement for a filled

safety report. Referring to the survey results, 34% of respondents experience barriers ap-

proaching employees who are positioned in higher roles in organisational hierarchies.

Corresponding to academic studies (Tear et al. 2018; Noort, Reader & Gillespie 2021),

the recent result can be an indicator of organisational improvements as a signal that dis-

tance between frontline employees, directly involved in aviation safety assurance, and top

management negatively affects safety culture by discouraging safety communication. Un-

derstanding the actual reasons people refrain from sharing safety concerns meanwhile re-

ducing the distance between the different roles of employees build an effective safety cul-

ture (Under & Gerede 2021, 3-4,11; Bondaruk & Kozuba 2017, 85-87).

26

The following chapter evaluates qualitative data on safety reporting and safety culture top-

ics collected from interviews and survey questionnaires. Even though the main target of

the survey questionnaire was to collect quantitative data, a lot of qualitative data was pro-

duced from the survey. Surprisingly, survey participants actively commented on the ques-

tions by providing argumentation of their perceptions rather than just simply replying to the

questionnaire. This displays that the study subject is meaningful for aviation professionals

involved in safety assurance via safety reporting systems.

5.2 Qualitative results evaluation

Qualitative data is evaluated and discussed across earlier identified themes by replying to

the research primary question and the sub-questions to define research findings to reach

this study objective. This way data is analysed as a text through participants’ “voices”

(Drake & Salmi 2018) trying to understand the current status of safety communication in

Finnish aviation organisations. Referring to Merriam and Tisdell’s (2015, 196-198) recom-

mendations qualitative data were analysed simultaneously with the data collection pro-

cess to collect as much as possible on the research theme. This implies that before pro-

ceeding with interviews conduction, qualitative data from the survey was initially analysed

and categorised in order to support survey research findings and gain more insights gen-

erating solutions for the research problem and answering primary and sub-questions of

this research. The same technique was applied to interviews: second interview questions

were slightly adjusted based on the first interview’s initial evaluation.

Adhering to the primary research question about safety assurance relevance via voluntary

safety reporting, the qualitative research data has shown that voluntary safety reporting is

significant in identifying safety risks, especially revealing hidden risks. Respondents

pointed out that “collecting statistics can pinpoint hidden risks”, and “reporting increases

overall knowledge about occurrences” in line that other employees’ reports allow them to

learn about unusual safety threats (Survey respondent 2022). Unsafe events and distinct

safety risks can become visible only if people are willing to report them whereas willing-

ness to report is influenced by the company’s working atmosphere. This assumes commu-

nication has to be open without a fear to speak up and it can be possible only in compa-

nies having a positive and promoted safety culture (Tear et al. 2018, 550).

Nevertheless, this study data demonstrated effective safety culture existence, many re-

spondents commented that lack of trust and connection with top management reduces

willingness to report and share safety observations. As an example seeing that reports are

not taken into consideration or lead to improvements negatively affects decisions associ-

ated with reporting activities: “if hundreds of pilots say there is a problem and they think

27

there is no problem (….) this does not have a good impact on safety if people stop report-

ing” (Interviewee 2022). Deficiency to report some valuable safety data cannot be ac-

quired resulting in safety performance reduction in the organisations (Under & Gerede

2021,129; Benefield & Grote 2012, 1; Noort et al. 2021, 8). Reasonably, knowing why em-

ployees are choosing not to speak up about some safety cases enables companies to

make changes and improve safety performance.

Responding to the thesis research sub-question 2 concerning non-reporting reason detec-

tion, several reasons/obstacles to reporting (appendix 2) were recognised; those can be

evaluated and taken into consideration in measuring the safety level in the company. (1)

Lack of commitment for management towards safety, (2) time pressure filling report and

(3) fear of reporting consequences are the three most common reasons identified in the

study. Additionally, the management’s commitment to safety (discussed in the above

chapter 5.2 as quantitative result evaluation) and its effect on organisational safety perfor-

mance, time pressure to fill reports is another barrier to proceeding with voluntary safety

reporting.

Safety reporting is one of the duties among other operational activities that employees

need to perform. Hence possessing “time pressure and undoable schedule” (Survey re-

spondent 2022) unquestionably might result in non-reporting things that are not manda-

tory to report according to the company’s procedures. It also affects non-reporting deci-

sions if safety discrepancy is not so obvious or might be considered irrelevant/minor. In

the long-term, this might negatively impact safety level, particularly if it becomes a norm

lack of willingness to report not so apparent/invisible safety errors due to a lack of duty

time for voluntary safety reporting.

Fear of reporting consequences appears as a safety reporting barrier which is applicable

considering it was discussed by people participating in this thesis research. Employees

need to feel comfortable reporting safety hazards in order to have effective reporting cul-

ture accompanied by healthy safety culture (Britton 2018). To ensure a safe reporting en-

vironment “Just culture” must be implemented as a part of safety culture (see figure 3)

which implies that organisational culture has to be built on trust assuring that reporting

consequences are non-punitive (Kovacova et al. 2019; Skybrary s.a). It is regulated by

aviation requirements as well to have a safety culture in the company as part of SMS

based on trust and employees’ protection against unfair reporting consequences (ICAO

2018, 46). Yet as this study revealed still employees thinking about voluntary reporting

consequences and this should not happen without having positive safety culture. This

might be an indicator looking at the solutions to improve safety reporting processes such

as measuring, building and maintaining a positive safety culture.

28

With the respect to the research sub-question 3 about factors engaging employees’ moti-

vation and commitment to reporting unsafe situations along with ways to improve report-

ing processes, the study has displayed various reporting solutions. Solutions and percep-

tions of reporting motivating factors are discussed as voluntary safety reporting motivators

and documented in Appendix 2. The recent appendix includes the list of reporting motiva-

tors recognised through the study wherein the most commonly mentioned and can be

evaluated as the most relevant three factors are (1) having reporting tools/forms simple

and easy to use,(2) knowing how submitted reports are used to improve safety and (3)

seeing value in reporting along with receiving feedback on made reports.

All the reporting motivators are significant in assuring and improving aviation safety and

should be considered with attention as it allows safety performance management and im-

provements (Vatankhah 2021, 6). However, having reporting tools simple and easy to use

was identified as the most motivating factor when deciding to report voluntary safety ob-

servations. It can be assumed that having simple and clear reporting forms and proce-

dures is something that reflects on positive and active reporting culture, meanwhile, it

could be a solution to reducing time pressure filling reports which is a reporting barrier.

Additionally, having several ways to access reporting tools and making the reporting pro-

cess convenient to reach via mobile device, offline, via the company website, etc. sup-

ports building an easy approachable hazard reporting system (Britton 2018).

Monitoring and knowing how reported observations help to improve safety is another re-

porting motivator that is relevant in encouraging people to report. Employees need confir-

mation that their opinions matter and safety concerns are taken into consideration; im-

portant to know that reporting is appreciated by seeing improvements and corrections

based on employees’ observations. Important to note that feedback on reports shared

with all employees serves as a reminder about safety procedures covered during safety

training. Those might be forgotten and then pointed out in cases somebody makes a re-

port on the occurred safety matter. (Interviewee respondent 2022.) Generally speaking,

feedback is a fundament and necessary activity enabling organisations to learn, correct

and improve processes moreover important to keep up employees’ motivation ensuring

future reporting of safety concerns (Perezgonzalez, McDonald & Smith 2005, 567).

5.3 Summary of findings

Qualitative and quantitative data displayed similar concerns regarding voluntary safety re-

porting and safety culture topics. Safety culture is built on trust wherein lack of trust nega-

tively affects safety performance by reducing employees’ commitment to report. Manage-

ment creates trust, and their decisions are based on financial considerations, negatively

29

affecting establishing and ensuring constant, reliable safety communication. Lack of trust

reduces willingness to act beyond what is expected by the company’s procedures and as-

sociated regulations weakening the safety culture in the company (Wiegmann & Thaden

2007; Interview respondent 2022). Time pressure influenced by other operational duties

negatively affects the willingness to report, so having reporting tools simple and easily ap-

proachable to use is a significant motivator identified in this study.

Effective safety communication via voluntary safety reporting system channels is possible

only by having a healthy safety climate without barriers to speaking up. The fear of report-

ing consequences is an obstacle to reporting safety concerns, so assurance of non-puni-

tive consequences is a significant motivator. Besides, focusing on reducing the fair of

blaming for reported safety errors is something that supports improving voluntary safety

reporting consequently maintaining the positive safety culture which existence was

acknowledged by study participants. In addition, positive safety and reporting culture is

built on responding to employees’ concerns allowing personnel to know that safety report-

ing activities are appreciated and used for safety improvements.

The quality of the research data analysis and evaluation is rationalised through reliability

and validity approaches in the further subchapters. Reliability and validity are justified by

adhering to research methodology literature and discussed separately for quantitative and

qualitative research designs with relevance to this thesis study’s conduction.

5.4 Reliability and validity

Neuman (2003, 178-179) describes reliability and validity as the fundamental issues in

conducting research and being the main goal of having research measures be reliable

and valid. Generally speaking, the study’s reliability and validity reflect the truthfulness

and quality of the study outcome/findings (Merriam & Tisdell 2015, 238; Heale & Twycross

2015, 66; Neuman 2003, 178-179) where:

- Reliability is evaluated through consistency expecting that the same issues would

repeat under the same or similar circumstances.

- Validity is evaluated through the reality concept expecting that concepts/pro-

cesses/ideas described by the researcher reflect the real situation; that researcher

analysed and evaluated things from his/hers view shows as it is in reality.

According to research methodology literature (Neuman 2003; Merriam & Tisdell 2015;

Creswell 2012), there are some specifics in qualitative and quantitative research design

measuring the study’s reliability and validity factors. Some specifics are referred to as fol-

lows:

30

- Reliability in quantitative research is analysed by evaluating data reliability across

time, groups of people or different indicators used to measure the same thing.

- By contrast, in qualitative studies reliability is ensured via consistency using differ-

ent data collection instruments such as interviews, observation, document studies,

etc. Consistency over time is also important, however more challenging to achieve

in qualitative studies. ( Merriam & Tisdell 2015, 252-253; Neuman 2003, 184.)

- Qualitative research refers to authenticity rather than validity: it is more important

to reflect trustworthiness and fairness about things from the study’s participants’

perceptions and experiences (Creswell 2012, 250). Correspondence with real situ-

ations is not so relevant (Neuman 2003, 185).

- When in quantitative research design is important validity and the true measure of

the real situation (Neuman 2003, 182-183; Heale & Twycross 2015, 66).

5.4.1 Quantitative research

Analysing quantitative research findings’ reliability across a group of people, it is important

to state that 80% of survey participants were pilots. The study author cannot evaluate how

different study results would have appeared collecting more answers from any other sub-

group of occupation. With that being said, the reliability of the quantitative results of this

study cannot be evaluated thoroughly as there is no ground to justify and/or argue the as-

sumption that having a more diverse range of people by their occupation would show dif-

ferent study results. As mentioned earlier in this report, the participant’s occupation recog-

nition is not so applicable for this study: a question about job role was included to confirm

the participant’s involvement in aviation safety reporting activities.

By evaluating quantitative findings’ reliability across time as is advised by Neuman (2003),

there could be an assumption of having different results if the research would have been

conducted before the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) times. The aviation industry was

heavily affected by COVID-19 resulting in worldwide travel restrictions (Abu-Rayash &

Dincer 2020, 1,9) which had a negative impact on the financial situation of aviation organi-

sations (Dube, Nhamo & Chikodzi 2021, 1-2, 8, 11). The assumption of having possibly

different research results is made based on participants’ comments regarding changes in

the company influenced by cost savings with an effect on aviation safety. Some of the

study participants’ comments are quoted and referred to below:

- “The COVID-19 crisis might have safety-related consequences. Will airlines keep

safety as number one or will economical reasons be more important?”

- “I have a feeling that our company nowadays is more eager to save money than

keep up safety!”

- “After this COVID crisis, there is been done a lot of changes in our proce-

dures…this does not have a good impact on safety if people stop reporting”; “We

have to be efficient and find cost savings. This of course balance between money,

safety and employee satisfaction and it is not easy”.

31

- “The company management’s commitment to safety culture has been decreasing

over the last couple of years. They have been making decisions not realising the

negative effect on safety”.

- “There are generally too many economical pressures connected to this topic and

persons who are keen to bring everything into the light by reporting them, will be

frozen out in the course of time, if the actions start to cost too much for the com-

pany”

- “When the things reach the point that the organisation starts to talk about

money/costs, the good principles take a walk in the most cases and organisation

starts to cut corners in order to save money”.

(Study participants 2022.)

Nevertheless, it can be assumed that findings remain reliable enough as aviation safety

weakness identification proves the relevance of the topic, especially during the recovery of

the aviation industry from COVID-19. Quantitative results showed the effectiveness of

safety culture and the relevance of voluntary safety reporting even without the examples

showing what is behind the numbers.

For the validity of quantitative data evaluation, essential to emphasize that the survey

questionnaire was distributed to specific aviation professional groups targeting to reach

employees participating in safety reporting activities. Bearing in mind, that groups are not

easily accessible to people outside the aviation industry, the risk to collect superficial an-

swers (Drake & Salmi 2018) is considered rather low and if happened so it should not

have had a major impact on the final research results. It can also be justified by referring

to respondents’ comments which of course is qualitative data, however, shows that study

participants have professional knowledge, understanding of the topic, content and the

goal of survey conduction. It is also relevant to note that survey research comments

proved the understanding of the terminology/definitions used in the questionnaire meaning

that questions were understood in the same way (Järventaus 2022, 8-9). The above-men-

tioned points add quality to the study which is the goal of any research performance

(Heale & Twycross 2015, 66) justifying the validity of the research findings.

5.4.2 Qualitative research

Reliability in the qualitative part of this study is not so simple to evaluate as research as-

sumptions in qualitative research are made based on study participants’ perceptions, ex-

periences, and behaviour and those are never consistent ( Merriam & Tisdell 2015, 250).

Even though people’s behaviour is never static and depends on various factors, con-

sistency can be measured and evaluated by comparing data collected using different data

collection instruments (Neuman 2003, 184). In this study qualitative data was collected

through a survey questionnaire and interviews. Survey and interviews findings confirmed

32

the importance of voluntary safety reporting with the link to safety culture effectiveness –

those were identified as the core of aviation activity. Based on the findings, it can be as-

sumed that the qualitative data of this study is reliable enough as it generated the same

result under different conditions/data collection instruments. This means data is consistent

which is the main element of qualitative research findings reliability (Neuman 2003, 184).

Following Creswell’s (2012, 253) description of reliability in qualitative research, interviews

were recorded and transcribed afterwards for data analysis to enhance the study’s reliabil-

ity. Interview transcriptions helped to deal with qualitative data dividing it into catego-

ries/themes adding reliability to the study as well. The same applied to data collected from

the survey questionnaire.

Bearing in mind that validity in qualitative study refers to authenticity in trying to explain

and provide a true situation to the reader, usually there is left some room for interpretation

dealing with qualitative data. Interpretation is influenced by the interaction between study

participants and the researcher/study owner who collects, records and in the end trans-

lates data for readers by providing findings in the study report. The study author tried to

ensure research authenticity after all interpretations of reality came from participants of

the study reflecting truthfulness through perceptions and experiences provided during in-

terviews and comments on survey questions. (Merriam & Tisdell 2015, 242-243.) The hu-

man point of view is comparative to having a different understanding of things and can be

challenging to accept as complete correspondence with reality (Greener 2011, 106-107),

yet there is still some strategies to evaluate the validity of the qualitative study.

The validity of this study can be discussed based on Creswell’s (2012, 259-260) recom-

mendations to review gathered data by accessing and reflecting on (1) the study author’s

influence on the participants’ comments evaluating the probability that influence has

changed the experience of the study participants; (2) the accuracy of data transcriptions to

transmit interview participants perceptions; (3) more alternatives making conclusions on

research findings; (4) the study author’s ability to transmit the fundamentals of participants

experiences; (5) the study author’s ability to reflect the findings throughout the study.

Referring to the validity assessment criteria mentioned in the above paragraph, findings

based on the qualitative data could be considered valid and appropriate in the following

way:

- Interviews participants’ perceptions hardly were influenced by the interviewer as

both interviews had the same questions and additional questions were asked only

to clarify participants’ thoughts or to get a deeper understanding of the subject.

The study author’s influence is not significant in analysing data collected from the

33

survey questionnaire as all comments were recorded as it is in the questionnaire

without making any adjustment.

- The interview transcripts were evaluated accurately as both interviews were rec-

orded and only after the interviews were transcribed by documenting exact inter-

views words.

- Validating the reflection on the evaluation of conclusions, more diverse finding

statements are possible considering the meaning of research data was interpreted

and limited by one person’s ability to deal with and understand research data. It

also depends on the study author’s level of knowledge and experience of aviation

safety as the subject of the current thesis research. Despite that, necessary to

note that the study author discussed the research topic with aviation professionals

trying to understand the real and current safety reporting systems processes.

34

6 Conclusions and recommendations

The thesis research intended to explore the link between safety reporting and safety cul-

ture with the understanding of how it reflects on safety occurrences by identifying volun-

tary safety reporting weaknesses and factors motivating to report as a way to improve avi-

ation assurance in the Finnish aviation organisations. Ensuring aviation safety is a never-

ending process that is managed and built continuously from scratch - “aviation safety is

done every day again and again” (Interviewee 2022) - doing tasks day after day. Safety

culture and voluntary safety reporting strongly correlate together - there is no reliable

safety culture without dedication to making voluntary observations on aviation safety con-

cerns. One of the organisation’s safety culture indicators is to go beyond what is expected

with a focus on safety expecting that all employees will act in a way it is might not be in-

cluded in regulations, yet essential to ensure safety (Wiegmann & Thaden 2007, 116) by

preventing safety incidents.

Incident prevention is a cornerstone and achievement goal for every employee in the avia-

tion industry (O’Leary & Chapell 1996). Safety culture exists in the aviation organisations

linking to safety reporting culture presence as an origin for hazard identification to prevent

safety occurrences. Hazard identification is done by employees directly involved in activi-

ties associated with aviation safety assurance. Employees have to be willing to share

safety observations wherein willingness is based on a healthy safety environment exist-

ence which is built on the trust between employees and the company. Lack of senior man-

agement commitment to safety is a reporting obstacle that results in trust reduction be-

tween employees and employers meaning safety hazard identification is weakened. More-

over, rational decisions based on financial considerations which go over safety have a

negative effect on maintaining trust. This decreases employees’ motivation to report

safety concerns thinking that reports will not change the situation or lead to safety im-

provements.

As this thesis study revealed, identification of safety threats via voluntary safety reporting

channels is influenced by time pressure increased by performing other duty activities.

Fear of reporting consequences such as blaming and punishment for admitting errors is

another factor influencing the decision not to report. Those reasons harm safety culture

reducing employees’ dedication to reporting safety observations especially associated

with hidden/not so obvious safety risks. All identified reporting barriers (see appendix 2)

are subject to evaluation and consideration by every aviation organisation. After all, moti-

vating people to report by having simple reporting tools, responding to reported safety

concerns, providing feedback with information on how reports are used for safety improve-

35

ments, and assuring a “Just culture” existence by constantly promoting safety are the fun-

damentals of encouraging people to report. This way employees feel appreciated and val-

uable actors in organisational activities allowing to ensure a high level of aviation safety

which in addition reflects on the company’s reputation.

Besides, the study has shown a strong belief that active voluntary reporting reduces the

number of safety occurrences. However, actual observation including safety reporting ba-

sis analysis with contemplation on the actual number of safety incidents was not executed

conducting this research. Accordingly, conclusions about how safety reporting perfor-

mance affects the number of safety occurrences cannot be undertaken with the justifica-

tion described in the Study limitation subchapter 4.3.

Furthermore, the study data were collected from the survey questionnaire and interview

conduction by asking study participants who are working in Finnish aviation organisations.

Essential to note that study findings cannot be generalised to all existing Finnish aviation

organisations. Taking this into account for future research it would be advantageous to

conduct a similar study for the specific company to evaluate the status of safety culture

and voluntary safety reporting identifying voluntary reporting obstacles and motives. This

could have been done under an agreement between the organisation and student where

the organisation would act as a commissioning party for the research enabling access to

the organisation’s safety reporting and safety occurrences data.

36

7 Reflection on writing a thesis process

This part of the thesis report includes the evaluation of the thesis process with a focus on

students’ learnings (Drake & Salmi 2018) and reflection on future professional develop-

ment. First of all, my learnings included the knowledge of research methodology with the

ability to choose the most suitable research approach allowing me to reply research objec-

tive and provide solutions for the research problem. By choosing quantitative and qualita-

tive research approaches my knowledge of research conduction increased as I have

touched on two approaches simultaneously. The thesis writing process progressed my

learnings in academic writing, searching and identifying reliable sources, critical thinking

which still needs to be improved, and project planning. I assume those learnings are ben-

eficial for my future academic and professional development in thinking about master’s

degree studies. As for future considerations, I should choose a major carefully which

would benefit my further development and future career by combining and advancing cur-

rent knowledge to learn and practise new things.

Finally, without preservation and time management, a thesis research process would not

be possible or at least prolonged by conducting a study and writing a thesis report. Con-

stant writing, reading of associated material, and implementing teacher’s feedback al-

lowed proceeding and finishing the thesis process smoothly without massive challenges.

The biggest challenge was to analyse qualitative data to define research findings consid-

ering every single study respondent’s comment felt important. Unexpectedly, research

participants were active by commenting and sharing their experiences and opinions on the

topic, and by sharing true examples from everyday working activities. Because of this, I

felt a huge responsibility to analyse the gathered information thoroughly to transmit it into

the report: trying to provide the whole and authentic picture of voluntary reporting pro-

cesses and the safety culture’s existence. Anyhow I still needed to filter information to pre-

sent it as the most relevant reflecting the real situation. In addition, I have had an honest

appreciation of active participation hoping that people would be willing to participate in fu-

ture studies.

37

References

Abu-Rayash. A. and Dincer. I. 2020. Analysis of mobility trends during COVID-19 corona-virus pandemic: Exploring the impacts on global travel in selected cities. Energy Research and Social Science, 68 (2020) 101693. Accessed: 3 April 2022. Adjekum, D.K. and Tous M. F. 2020. Assessing the relationship between organizational management factors and resilient safety culture in a collegiate aviation program with Safety Management Systems (SMS). Safety Science, 131, pp. 104909. Accessed: 5 Sep-tember 2021. Alimbau-Comas, M. 2021. Data analysis methods. Session 5. Haaga-Helia University of Applied Sciences. Moodle. Accessed: 27 September 2021. Amalia, D. 2019. Promoting just culture for enhancing safety culture in aerodrome airside operation. International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research, Volume 8, Issue 10. Accessed: 7 April 2022. Atalay D., Gunal Z. and Kusseven D. 2016. A Proposal for the Development of Communi-cation Skills in Aviation Training. Yildiz Journal of Educational Research, 1 (1), pp. 77-99. Accessed: 3 September 2021.

Bailey, S. 2011. Academic writing: a handbook for international students. 3rd edition. Ab-ingdon: Routledge.

Baron. R. 2022. A Just culture. Newsletter. LinkedIn. URL: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/just-culture-robert-bob-baron-ph-d/?trk=eml-email_se-ries_follow_newsletter_01-hero-1-title_link&midToken=AQFo88dgD6Nf_g&fromE-mail=fromEmail&ut=01NwOvxo_ffGc1 Accessed: 29 March 2022.

Baugh, B.S. and Stolzer. A.J. 2018. Language-Related Communications Challenges in General Aviation Operations and Pilot Training. International Journal of Aviation, Aero-nautics, and Aerospace, Volume 5, Issue 4. Accessed: 28 March 2022.

Benefield, N. and Grote, G. 2012. A silence that may kill: when aircrew members don’t speak up and why. Aviation Psychology and Applied Human Factors, 2(1), 1-10. Ac-cessed: 13 April 2022.

Bondaruk, A. and Kozuba, J. 2017. Selected aspects of aviation communication. Scientific research and education in the air force, 19 (1), pp. 79-88. Accessed: 3 September 2021.

Britton, T. 2018. How to change toxic safety cultures in aviation SMS? Blog. SMS Pro Avi-ation Safety Software Blog 4 Airlines & Airports. URL: https://aviationsafetyblog.asms-pro.com/blog/how-to-change-toxic-safety-cultures-in-aviation-sms?99. Accessed: 19 April 2022.

Burkholder, G.J., Cox, K.A., Crawford, L.M. and Hitchcock, J.H. 2020. Research design and methods: An applied guide for the scholar-practitioner. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.

Creswell, J.W. 2014. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods ap-proaches. 4th edition. Los Angeles: Sage.

Creswell, J.W. 2012. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five ap-proaches. 3rd edition. Los Angeles: Sage.

38

Drake, M. & Salmi, M. 2018. Thesis and Methods. Virtual learning material. Haaga-Helia Moodle. Accessed: 23 March 2022.

Dube. K., Nhamo. G. and Chikodzi. D. 2021. COVID-19 pandemic and prospects for re-covery of the global aviation industry. Journal of Air transport Management, 92 (2021) 102022. Accessed: 3 April 2022.

EASA.2022. Aviation safety reporting for organisations. Website. URL: https://www.easa.europa.eu/domains/safety-management/aviation-safety-reporting. Ac-cessed: 7 April 2022.

EASA. 2021. Easy Access Rules for Air Operations and for Continuing Airworthiness. Mena Report. ISSN 2219-0112.

Evans, B., Glendon, A. and Creed, P. 2007. Development and initial validation of an avia-tion safety climate scale. Journal of Safety Research, Volume 38, pp. 675-682. Accessed: 24 January 2022.

Gao, Y. 2021. The dynamics between voluntary safety reporting and commercial aviation accidents. Safety Science, 141, pp. 105351. Accessed: 19 September 2021.

Greener, I. 2011. Designing social research: a guide for the bewildered. Sage Publica-tions. Accessed: 2 March.

Haaga-Helia University of Applied Sciences. 2021. Writing a Thesis at Haaga-Helia. Haaga-Helia webpage. Accessed: 24 March 2022.

Heale, R. and Twycross, A. 2015. Validity and reliability in quantitative studies. Evid Based Nurs, Volume 18, Number 3. Accessed: 7 April 2022.

ICAO. 2018. Doc 9859. Safety Management Manual (SMM). 4th edition. Accessed: 19 January 2022.

ICAO. 2016. Annex 19 - Safety Management. 2nd edition. Accessed: 16 January 2022.

Jausan, M., Silva, J. and Sabatini, R. 2017. A holistic approach to evaluating the effective-ness of safety barriers on the performance of safety reporting systems in aviation organi-sations. Journal of air transport management, 63, pp. 95-107. Accessed: 20 September 2021.

Järventaus, K. 2022. Methods, interview, benchmarking, document analysis. Slides. 8.2.2022. Haaga-Helia Moodle. Accessed: 7 April 2022.

Kananen, J. 2011. Rafting through the thesis process: step by step guide to the thesis re-search. Publications of Jyvaskyla University of Applied Sciences.

Karanikas, N., Roelen, A., Vardy, A. and Kaspers, S. 2019. Institutionalisation, capability and effectiveness of aviation safety management systems. MATEC Web of Conferences, 273, pp. 2005. Accessed: 12 September 2021.

Keselova, M., Blistanova, M., Hanak, P. and Brunova, L. 2021. Safety Management Sys-tem in aviation: Comparative analysis of safety management system approaches in V4 countries. Management systems in production engineering, 29 (3), pp. 208-214. Ac-cessed: 13 September 2021.

39

Kovacova, M., Licu. A. and Balint. J. 2019. Just Culture – Eleven steps implementation methodology for organisations in civil aviation – “JC 11”. Transportation Research Proce-dia, 42, pp. 104-112. Accessed: 23 January 2022.

Krivonos, P. 2007. Communication in aviation safety: lessons learned and lessons re-quired. Accessed: 25 January 2022.

Li, Y. and Guldenmund, F.W. 2018. Safety Management Systems: A broad overview of the literature. Safety Science, 103, pp. 94-123. Accessed: 15 January 2022.

Martin, E. 2006. Survey questionnaire construction. U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed: 6 April 2022.

Merriam, S.B. and Tisdell, E.J. 2015. Qualitative research: a guide to design and imple-mentation. 4th edition. Jossey-Bass. Accessed: 31 March 2022.

Neuman, L., W. 2003. Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches. 5th edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon cop. Accessed: 30 January 2022.

Noort, M.C., Reader, T.W. and Gillespie. A. 2021. Safety voice and safety listening during aviation accidents: cockpit voice recordings reveal that speaking-up to power is not enough. Safety Science, Vol.139, p.105260. Accessed: 13 April 2022.

Perezgonzalez, J.D., McDonald, N. and Smith, E. 2005. A review of occurrence reporting system proposed by EASA Part-145. Safety Science, Volume 43, Issue 8, pp. 559-570. Accessed: 20 April 2022.

O’Leary, M. J. and Chapell. S. L. 1996. Confidential incident reporting systems create vital awareness of safety problems. ICAO Journal. Accessed: 22 January 2022.

Insua, R.D., Alfaro. C., Gomez. J., Hernandez-Coronado. P. and Bernal. F. 2018. A framework for risk management decisions in aviation safety at state level. Reliability Engi-neering and System Safety, 179, pp. 74-82. Accessed: 18 January 2022.

Insua, R.D., Alfaro. C., Gomez. J., Hernandez-Coronado. P. and Bernal. F. 2019. Fore-casting and assessing consequences of aviation safety occurrences. Safety Science, 111, pp. 243-252. Accessed: 18 January 2022.

Remawi, H., Bates, P. and Dix, I. 2011. The relationship between the implementation of a Safety Management System and the attitudes of employees towards unsafe acts in avia-tion. Safety Science, 49 (5), pp. 625-632. Accessed: 8 September 2021.

Robertson, M.F. 2016. Safety professionals’ perception of the relationship between safety management systems and safety culture. Journal of Aviation Technology and Engineer-ing, 6 (1), pp. 9. Accessed: 12 September 2021.

Roelen, A.L.C. and Klompstra, M.B. 2012. The challenges in defining aviation safety per-formance indicators. National Aerospace Laboratory, NLR. Preprint for PSAM 11 & ESREL 2012, 25 - 29 June 2012, Helsinki, Finland. URL: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/view-doc/download?doi=10.1.1.729.1404&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Accessed: 13 September 2021.

Saldana. J. 2016. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. 3rd edition. Sage. Ac-cessed: 4 April 2022.

Skybrary. 23 January 2022. Reportable Incidents. Electronic repository. URL: https://sky-brary.aero/articles/reportable-incidents. Accessed: 23 January 2022.

40

Skybrary s.a. Just culture. URL: https://skybrary.aero/articles/just-culture. Accessed: 19 April 2022.

Stolzer, A.J., Halford, C. and Goglia, J.J. 2011. Implementing Safety Management Sys-tems in aviation. In Dekker, S., Dismukes, K.R. and Maurino, D.E. Ashgate Studies in Hu-man Factors for Flight Operations. Farnham: CRC Press LLC.

Stolzer, A.J., Friend, M.A., Truong, D., Tuccio, W.A. and Aguiar, M. 2018. Measuring and evaluating safety management system effectiveness using Data Envelopment Analysis. Safety Science, 104, pp. 55-69. Accessed: 16 January 2022.

Tear, M.J., Reader. T.W., Shorrock. S. and Kirwan. B. 2018. Safety culture and power: In-teractions between perceptions of safety culture, organisational hierarchy, and national culture. Safety Science, 121, pp. 550-561. Accessed: 17 January 2022.

Under, I. and Gerede, E. 2021. Silence in aviation: Development and Validation of a tool to measure reasons for aircraft maintenance staff not reporting. Organizacija, Volume 54. Accessed: 24 January 2022.

Under, I. and Gerede, E. 2021. Silence in the tower: analysing the reasons of air traffic controllers avoiding voluntary reporting. Vilnius Gedimino Technical University, Aviation, Volume 25, Issue 3. Accessed: 12 April 2022.

Vatankhah, S. 2021. Does safety motivation mediate the effect of psychological contract of safety on flight attendants’ safety performance outcomes: A social exchange perspec-tive. Journal of Air Transport Management, Volume 90 (2021) 101954. Accessed: 19 April 2022.

Wang, K.H. 2011. Safety Culture and Safety Management Systems - enhancing the heart-ware of managing aviation safety. Journal of Aviation Management, pp. 59-70. Accessed: 27 January 2022.

Wang, H.L. 2018. Perception of safety culture: Surveying the aviation divisions of Ministry of National Defence, Taiwan, Republic of China. Safety Science, 108, pp. 104-112. Ac-cessed: 17 January 2022.

Wang, T.G. and Park, K. 2016. Student research and report writing: From topic selection to the complete paper. Malden, MA: Willey.

Wiegmann, D.A. and Thaden, T.L. 2007. A review of safety culture theory and its potential application to traffic safety. Foundation for Traffic Safety. Accessed: 20 April.

41

Appendices

Appendix 1. Literature map

Safety assurance and promotion

Communication

Relevance

Atalay, Gunal & Kusseven, 2016;

Bondaruk & Kozuba, 2017

Safety Culture

Jausan, Silva & Sabatini, 2017;

Roelen & Klompstra, 2012

SMS

Background and Safety Promotion

Stolzer, Halford & Goglia, 2011;

Robertson 2016

Safety Culture

Adjekum & Tous, 2020

Wang 2018

Wang 2011

Safety Reporting

Reporting Culture

Robertson, 2016;

Jausan, Silva & Sabatini, 2017

Barriers

Jausan, Silva & Sabatini, 2017

42

Appendix 2. Voluntary safety reporting obstacles and motivators

43

Appendix 3. Survey questionnaire

Safety reporting and safety culture survey

My name is Donata Bedalyte and I am a Bachelor of Business Administration student at

Haaga-Helia University of Applied Sciences, Finland. I am conducting a study about avi-

ation safety assurance and promotion processes in Finnish aviation organisations. This

questionnaire is part of my thesis research, and I would be grateful if you could partici-

pate in the survey. It will take up to 10 minutes to complete the questionnaire.

Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. Your opinion about aviation safety

assurance is important, yet if you feel uncomfortable answering any questions, you can

withdraw from the survey at any point.

Your survey responses will be strictly confidential and collected data will be used only for

research purposes. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me:

[email protected]

Appreciate your time and support!

Background questions

I would like to start with questions regarding your occupation.

1. Are you employed by a Finnish aviation organisation?

o Yes

o No. If you selected this option, I want to thank you for your time. You do not

need to continue answering questions as this survey is focusing on Finnish

aviation organisations

2. Do your work activities affect aviation safety? This means that you

need to ensure aviation safety while performing your work duties.

o Yes

o No

3. What is your occupation?

o Pilot

o Cabin Crew

o Ground Handling Agent

o Aircraft Mechanic/Technician

o Gate Agent

o Other, please specify_________

44

Safety reporting

Now I would like to ask you questions about aviation safety reporting.

4. Does your company encourage voluntary safety reporting?

o Yes

o No

o I do not know

5. How often do you report aviation safety observations voluntarily?

o Always (whenever I observe occurrences affecting aviation safety)

o Sometimes (not all safety observations/errors I report)

o Seldom (mainly I report what it is a must to report by company`s procedures)

o I report only what is mandatory

6. Do you believe that your reported safety observations/errors help to

prevent safety occurrences/incidents?

o Yes

o No

o Not sure_______

7. Have you ever received feedback about reported safety

observations?

o Yes

o No

o I do not remember

8. What could be possible reasons for non-reporting?

o Lack of trust

o Lack of commitment towards safety from management

o Fear of reporting consequences/Fear of blaming and punitive consequence

o Lack of knowledge of what has to be reported

o Lack of competence in how to report

o I do not believe in doing good by reporting voluntary

o I do not believe that reporting is confidential

o Inefficient reporting procedures

o I do not have time to fill all kinds of reports

o Other________

9. What would motivate reporting all potential safety problems?

o Seeing value in reporting

o Knowing how reports are used to improve aviation safety

o Receiving feedback on reported occurrences affecting aviation safety

o If reporting form is simple and clear to use

o Something else________

10. Do you believe that increased voluntary safety reporting could

reduce the number of safety occurrences/incidents?

o Yes__________

o No_________

o I cannot say________

45

Safety culture

Now I would like to ask you a few questions about the safety culture

11. Does your company promote a safety culture?

o Yes

o No

o Not sure_______

12. Do you consider effective safety culture in your company?

o Yes

o No

o I do not know_______

13. Are you able to discuss aviation safety issues with the top

management /supervisor/shift leader?

o Yes

o No

o Not always _______

14. Does company training include safety reporting and safety culture

topics?

o Yes

o No

15. Please comment if you have anything else to add regarding safety reporting and

safety culture topics.

46

Appendix 4. Interview questions

Interview 1. 9.3.2022.

Interview 2. 12.3.2022.

1. Could you confirm that you are employed by the Finnish aviation organisation?

2. Does your work activities affect aviation safety: do you need to ensure aviation

safety?

3. Could you briefly describe safety reporting procedures in your company: what are

the procedures and what do you need to report?

4. Is it so that some things need to be reported mandatory and some things can be

reported voluntary?

5. How do you know what has to be reported?

6. Does your company encourage voluntary safety reporting?

7. What do you think is why the company encourage reporting?

8. Is it clear to you what is expected from you when the company promotes voluntary

safety reporting?

9. Could you tell me how often you report safety observations that are not a must re-

port?

10. What could be possible non-reporting reasons?

11. Do you believe that your reported safety observations help to prevent safety inci-

dents?

12. Do you receive feedback about reported safety observations?

13. What do you think could be factors increasing motivation to report?

14. Do you believe that voluntary safety reporting could reduce the number of safety

occurrences?

15. How safety reporting system could be improved?

16. Does company safety training include a safety reporting topic?

17. Are you able to discuss aviation safety issues with top management?

18. What is the most important thing in ensuring aviation safety while performing oper-

ational activities?