Free screening tool

Just Culture and reporting culture screening

Seventeen questions about what actually happens in an aviation organisation after something goes wrong: who reports, what protection the reporter has, who decides where the line sits, and whether anybody hears back. You get a weighted result across five sections, the specific gaps in order, and any attention flags. It takes about twelve minutes and runs entirely in your browser.

Who it is for

Safety managers, accountable managers, operators, maintenance and ground handling organisations, air navigation service providers, airports and flying clubs. It is most useful where the reporting system is quieter than the operation would suggest, or where nobody has looked at this deliberately since it was set up.

What you get

A weighted result across five sections, a ranked list of the specific gaps, and flags for patterns that deserve attention on their own. It shows where the exposure sits in the reporting loop. It does not tell you what to do about it in your organisation, which depends on your people, your history and the legal setting you work in.

What it is not

Not an assessment of any person, and not a finding about any event. Not a safety culture survey either: one respondent cannot measure a culture, and what you get back is the view of whoever answered. A real picture needs the workforce asked directly, and the reporting record examined.

Before you start

Answer for how the organisation behaves, not for what the policy says. Several questions ask what actually happened to a real person after a real report, because that is what people base their reporting decision on. If you do not know, choose Not known rather than guessing upward: not knowing is itself a finding and the tool treats it as one.

Do not enter occurrence details, names, case specifics or anything confidential. Nothing about an individual or an open case belongs in a screening tool. A weak result here is a normal and common starting point, particularly in organisations that built a reporting system to satisfy a requirement and never revisited it. It is not an accusation against anyone, and it is not evidence about anyone.

0 of 17 questions answered

Section A · 24 of 100 pointsWhether reporting actually happens

Whether reports reach the system at all, who files them and who does not, and what happens to a mistake that nobody else noticed.

Q1 · Reporting actually happens · 9 pointsOver the last twelve months, how much of what actually happened in the operation reached the reporting system?
Q2 · Effort to file a report · 8 pointsHow much effort does it take somebody on shift to file a report, and when does that effort get spent?
Q3 · Own errors and near misses · 7 pointsWhen somebody makes a mistake that no one else noticed and nothing was damaged, where does that information normally go?
Section B · 26 of 100 pointsProtection of the reporter in practice

What protection a reporter really has once the report exists: who sees the name, who handles the report, what happened to people who reported, and what leaves the organisation.

Q4 · Who sees the name · 7 pointsIn practice, who can see the reporter's name and the report text, and how do staff describe that arrangement?
Q5 · Separation from discipline · 7 pointsHow separate are the people who receive and analyse reports from the people who decide on consequences for individuals?
Q6 · What happened to reporters · 6 pointsOver the last two or three years, what has actually happened to people after they submitted a report?
Q7 · Authority and legal interface · 6 pointsWhat do staff understand about how report information reaches the authority, insurers or any legal or disciplinary process?
Section C · 22 of 100 pointsThe line, and who draws it

Where the organisation puts the line between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, who decides that in a real case, and whether staff and management describe the line the same way.

Q8 · Shared view of the line · 6 pointsIf you asked a front-line employee and a middle manager where unacceptable behaviour begins, how close would the two answers be?
Q9 · Who decides culpability · 6 pointsWhen an event raises a question about a person's conduct, who decides how it is treated, and by what method?
Q10 · Consistency across groups · 5 pointsHow consistently are similar events treated across roles, seniority, contractors, sites and shifts?
Q11 · How far investigations reach · 5 pointsWhen an event is examined, how far past the individual action does the examination actually reach?
Section D · 22 of 100 pointsFeedback, visible action and manager behaviour

What the reporter hears back, what visibly changed because someone reported, how managers behave in the days after an event, and how well people are prepared for all three.

Q12 · Feedback to the reporter · 6 pointsAfter a report is filed, what does the reporter hear back, and how long does it take?
Q13 · Visible change from reports · 6 pointsWhat can staff point to that visibly changed because somebody reported something?
Q14 · Manager behaviour after events · 5 pointsIn the first days after something goes wrong, how do the managers closest to the work actually behave?
Q15 · Preparation and competence · 5 pointsWhat preparation do staff, line managers and the people who handle reports actually have for this?
Section E · 6 of 100 pointsChange and unresolved-issue screen

These two questions are shown separately from the ranked sections, because a live dispute about how a reporter was treated cannot be offset by strong answers elsewhere.

Q16 · Material organisational change · 4 pointsWhat material change has recently happened, or is planned, that could affect whether people keep reporting?
Q17 · Unresolved just culture matter · 2 pointsWhat unresolved just culture matter is live in the organisation right now?

Nothing is sent when you calculate. The scoring happens in your browser.

Your result

Answer all 17 questions above, then choose Show my result.

Send this to NorthSky

If the result raises something you want a second opinion on, you can send your answers to NorthSky with a short note about your organisation.

NorthSky works on safety management, occurrence reporting, operational documentation and audit preparation for aviation organisations, and delivers Just Culture e-learning in Norwegian. A screening result is a useful starting point for that work rather than a substitute for it: it indicates which part of the reporting loop is weak, not what the right repair is at your site. That normally needs the workforce asked directly, the reporting record examined, and the arrangement read against your own legal setting.

Scoring happens in your browser and nothing is transmitted unless you choose to send it. If you do send it, your answers, the result and any flags are stored together with the contact details you give. See /tools/privacy/ for how that is handled. Do not include occurrence details, names or case specifics in the note.

NorthSky — Just Culture screening submissions

Common questions

Will this tell me whether we have a just culture?

No. It tells you which parts of your reporting loop look weak from the answers one person gave. A culture describes what a workforce experiences and expects, so establishing it requires asking the workforce, normally through a survey, interviews or facilitated discussion, and comparing what different groups say.

Why does the tool not ask whether we have a Just Culture policy?

Because a policy document is the easiest part to get right and the least predictive. Every question here is written so that it can only be answered by somebody who knows what happens after an event: whether the reporter was protected, whether anybody heard back, and whether anything changed.

Our score came out high. Does that mean we are doing something wrong?

It means several parts of the loop are not yet dependable, which is a common starting point rather than an accusation. Most organisations that have never examined this deliberately score in the middle or upper range at first, and the usual causes are missing feedback and unclear decision-making rather than bad intent.

Can we use the result in a personnel or disciplinary matter?

No, and it is designed to be useless for that. It contains no occurrence details and no information about individuals, it screens arrangements rather than people, and a screening score is not evidence about anybody's conduct. Do not enter names or case specifics for the same reason.

How does this relate to Regulation (EU) No 376/2014?

That Regulation requires organisations to adopt internal rules, after consulting staff representatives, describing how just culture principles are put into practice, and it protects reporters from prejudice except in defined cases such as wilful misconduct. The questions here are built around those themes, but the tool makes no determination about your legal position.

Who should answer it, and can several people answer separately?

Somebody who knows how reports are handled day to day, usually a safety manager or a nominated post holder. Running it separately with a front-line employee and a manager is more informative than one careful answer, because a gap between the two results is itself one of the findings worth having.

Where does the line between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour actually sit?

Public material puts honest actions commensurate with a person's experience and training on one side, and gross negligence, wilful violations and destructive acts on the other. The practical difficulty is that the line moves with site, seniority and role unless a defined method is applied, which is what several questions here look at.

Does this replace a proper safety culture assessment?

No. It is a screen that takes about twelve minutes and produces a prioritised list of questions to pursue. A proper assessment normally combines a workforce survey, interviews or focus groups, observation and a review of the reporting record, and it examines differences between groups rather than producing one number.

Scope of NorthSky’s work

This tool screens the organisation's arrangements, never a person. Do not enter occurrence details, names or case specifics, and do not use the output to assess, grade or document the behaviour of any individual. NorthSky provides operational risk decision support and advisory guidance. Outputs do not constitute regulatory certification, aerodrome licensing, compliance verification, or formal authority determinations.

How this tool scores

Each answer scores zero to three and is weighted by question and by section. Protection of the reporter carries the most weight, followed by whether reporting happens at all, because those two are where reporting stops in practice. Where the line sits and who draws it, and the feedback and manager behaviour that follow a report, carry equal weight after that. Section E is the change and unresolved-issue screen: it is shown separately, because a live dispute about how a reporter was treated should not be averaged away by good answers elsewhere.

Model version 0.9. The weighting is professional judgement drawn from public occurrence-reporting and safety-management material, and it is not yet calibrated against completed assessments, so the pattern across sections tells you more than the number does. Scoring culture also has a known side effect: it invites an organisation to chase a better score instead of understanding what its people experience. Use the result to open a conversation with staff, not to close one.

Related

All NorthSky tools · How we work · Request a discussion · Privacy notice