# EUR-Lex - 52012DC0091 - EN

*|*

# 52012DC0091

**REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL EUROPEAN UNION SAFA PROGRAMME /* COM/2012/091 final */**

			*

			*

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

EUROPEAN UNION SAFA PROGRAMME

(Text with EEA relevance)

1.
THE EU SAFA PROGRAMME
1.1.
Aviation safety as key priority for the European
Union and for its Member States

Aviation safety constitutes a priority for
the European Union (EU) and for its Member States. In the light of this
objective, a key instrument is the EU Safety Assessment of Foreign Aircraft
(SAFA) programme. This programme requires participating States to conduct ramp
inspections on third country aircraft to verify compliance of aircraft, crew
and operations with international safety requirements. Ever since its inception
in 1996 under the auspices of the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC),
the SAFA programme has increasingly proven to be a vanguard in strengthening
both European and international aviation safety.

Within the framework of its overall
strategy to establish and maintain a high uniform level of civil aviation
safety in Europe, the Community adopted on 21 April 2004 Directive 2004/36/EC
of the European Parliament and of the Council on the safety of third-country
aircraft using Community airports[1]
(the so-called 'SAFA Directive'). This Directive introduced a legal obligation
upon EU Member States to perform ramp inspections upon third country aircraft
landing at their airports, where ‘third country aircraft’ implied an aircraft
which is not used or operated under control of a competent authority of an EU
Member State; although the Directive does in no way prohibit EU Member States
from inspecting aircraft from other EU Member States. EU Member States were
given a window of two years for implementing this Directive through the
enactment of national legislation.[2]

In addition and following a decision by the
Directors General of ECAC member states, the SAFA programme was transferred
under Community competence on 1 January 2007, when responsibility for the
management and further development of the programme fell upon the European
Commission assisted by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), in
accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) 768/2006.[3]

The continued participation of the fifteen
non-EU ECAC States, and thus the pan-European dimension of the programme, has
been assured through the signature of a Working Arrangement between each of
these individual States and EASA. Including the EU-27 therefore, the EU-SAFA
programme boasts a total of 42 participating States (see Appendix A to the
accompanying Staff Working Paper of the Commission)[4].

1.2.
Why this report?

Public confidence in the safety of air
transportation is contingent upon access to adequate information regarding the
implementation of international safety standards. In this context, Article 6
(2) of Directive 2004/36/EC requires the Commission to publish yearly an
aggregated information report available to the public and the industry
stakeholders.

This is the fifth annual report covering
the period 1 January to 31 December 2010.

1.3.
Functioning of the EU SAFA programme

In each SAFA participating State, aircraft
(third-country for EU states or foreign for non-EU ECAC states) can be subject
to a ramp inspection, chiefly concerned with the aircraft documents and
manuals, flight crew licences, the apparent condition of the aircraft and the
presence and condition of mandatory cabin safety equipment. The references for
these inspections are contained in the Standards of the International Civil
Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Annexes 1 (Personnel Licensing), 6 (Operations of
Aircraft) and 8 (Airworthiness of Aircraft).

These checks are carried out in accordance
with a procedure which is common to all participating States. Their outcome is
then the subject of reports which also follow a common format. In the case of
significant irregularities, the operator and the appropriate Aviation Authority
(State of Operator or Registry) are contacted in order to arrive at corrective
measures to be taken not only with regard to the aircraft inspected but also
with regard to other aircraft which could be concerned in the case of an
irregularity which is of a generic nature. All data from the reports as well as
supplementary information are shared and centralised in a computerised database
set up and managed by EASA.

The functioning of the EU SAFA programme
can be summarised as follows:

· its application by all 42 SAFA participating States;

· the broad dissemination of SAFA ramp inspection results through a
centralised database;

· its bottom-up approach: the Programme is built around ramp
inspections of aircraft;

· its focused attention primarily on third country aircraft flying to
the EU and SAFA participating States (although SAFA inspections may continue to
be performed on aircraft from EU Member States);

· its inherent objective of checking for compliance with safety
international rules (ICAO Standards).

1.4.
Major contribution of the EU SAFA programme to
aviation safety

Based upon the SAFA inspections, experience
shows that these give a general indication of the safety of foreign operators.
However, this indication is limited in the sense that no full picture is
obtained about the safety of any particular aircraft or operator. This is due
to the fact that certain aspects are difficult to assess during an inspection
(e.g. crew resource management, full airworthiness status, etc.) owing to the
limited time available to perform an inspection and consequently the limited
level of detail possible during such an inspection. The value of those
indicators will be further enhanced by increasing also the level of
harmonisation across the participating States in the performance of SAFA
inspections.

A full assessment of a particular aircraft
or operator can only be obtained through the continuous oversight by the
responsible national civil aviation authority (State of Operator or State of
Registry). In this manner, the information gained through the EU SAFA programme
is useful:

–
Primarily as a pre-emptive tool helping to
identify potential negative safety trends whereby a numerous and/or recurring
number of findings concerning a particular operator, is a very good indicator
of potential structural weaknesses both with regard to the quality control
management of that operator as well as the level of safety oversight exercised
by the responsible national civil aviation authorities of the state where that
operator is certified;.

–
More directly, SAFA inspections may contribute
in real-time to the safe operation of the particular aircraft which has just
been inspected, prompting the inspecting authorities to ensure that corrective
actions are taken immediately prior to any further operations.

Additionally, since the coming into force
of Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005[5]
establishing a list of carriers which are banned from flying into the EU, SAFA
inspections have acquired an increased importance as one of the criteria
considered by the Commission in taking its decisions on the inclusion of
carriers in the Community safety list.

1.5.
Progress of the programme during 2010

The Commission services together with EASA
are continuously monitoring the functioning of the current SAFA programme with
a view to identifying any room for further improvement particularly (i) with
regards to the way inspections are carried out, (ii) with regards to the manner
information obtained during inspections is thereafter collected and analysed
and finally (iii) with the view to involve third countries in the SAFA system and
thus facilitate the improvement of civil aviation safety throughout Europe.

In particular, a new development during
2010 was the agreement for the introduction (as of 2011) of a number of inspection
points to be reached on a voluntary basis by each SAFA state. These national
inspection points are calculated taking into account the diversity and volume
of foreign traffic. Inspections are also valued differently pursuant to the
compliance of various criteria which are directly linked to the enhancement of
safety (prioritised inspection, distance from the head office, time of the
inspection).

A number of initiatives started in 2007
also continued in 2010. These are the preparation by EASA of a database quality
review of the reports of the participating States. Conducted on a four-monthly
basis this EASA analysis attempts to identify as early as possible potentially
negative safety concerns and trends in order that they may be addressed in a
timely manner before becoming a threat to international aviation safety. During
2010, the Commission continued to use the conclusions of these reports to
prepare its decisions on the inclusion of air carriers in the European safety
list under Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005.

In addition, during the year 2010 and
pursuant to the request of the Commission, EASA continued its negotiations with
various aviation authorities of countries around the world with the view of enlarging
the participation in the EU SAFA system.

Given the collective nature of the EU SAFA
Programme, it is therefore extremely important that all SAFA inspections are
done in a standardised manner in all SAFA Participating States. In 2010 EASA
has pursued its Standardisation Programme in line with Commission Regulation
(EC) No 736/2006. In particular, 24 audits were performed in: Albania, Austria,
Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Denmark,
Estonia, Finland, fYROM, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Romania,
Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine and the United Kingdom.

Finally, as tasked under Commission
Directive 2008/49/EC[6],
EASA continued with the review of the second set of detailed Guidance Material
on Ramp Inspection Procedures which were published in 2009.

1.6.             Introduction
of a risk-based approach. Prioritisation of inspections

Commission Regulation (EC) No 351/2008[7] introduces the concept of
prioritisation of SAFA inspection from a pan-European perspective.
Participating States are required to prioritise a portion of their ramp
inspections on certain operators. The prioritisation list is compiled by the
Commission pursuant to information
transmitted by EASA following the analysis of SAFA database, or stemming from
the meetings of the Air Safety Committee or finally information received from the Member States.

In addition,
operators which are listed in Annex B of the Community list of banned air
carriers (established under Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005) as well as the other operators certified in the same state as any operator
featuring concurrently on the Community list are also subject to prioritised
inspections.

The prioritisation list is constantly
updated and the SAFA database under the responsibility of EASA allows all
Participant States to obtain a pan-European perspective on the whole
prioritisation process. The European Organisation for the Safety of Air
Navigation (EUROCONTROL) further supports this concept of prioritisation by
means of its European Air Traffic Management tool which provides participating
States with real time information on the flight planning situation of
prioritised operators.

During 2010, out of a total 11,703 SAFA
inspections, 2,215 (18.9%) were conducted on operators indicated in the
prioritisation list.

2.
THE SAFA CENTRALISED DATABASE

The SAFA centralised Database has been
managed by EASA since December 2006, when it was transferred from the Central
Joint Aviation Authorities (CJAA) in the Netherlands to EASA in Cologne,
Germany.

Data contained in the database is
considered confidential. The database can be accessed by all National Aviation
Authorities of participating States via the (secured) internet..

In 2010, a new functionality was
implemented allowing the aviation authorities of third countires to access
on-line the EASA-SAFA database, restricted to reports on operators licensed in
the respective country. At the end of 2010, 10 third-country aviation
authorities were using this functionality. In addition, read-only access is
provided to the European Commission and ICAO.

3.
AREAS OF INSPECTION

According to the 'SAFA Directive',
aircrafts suspected of non-compliance with international safety standards
(based on e.g. regular analysis of the database by EASA) have to be inspected
by the Member States. Furthermore the SAFA ramp inspections may be carried out
using a spot-check procedure. It might be decided to focus the inspection
according to certain criteria, as listed below. Such decision is based on
recommendations issued by the European Commission or national policies and priorities..

There are five areas on which the
inspections are focused:

(1)
Specific State of Operator (checking operators
from a particular State);

(2)
Specific aircraft type;

(3)
Specific nature of operations (scheduled,
non-scheduled, cargo, etc.);

(4)
Specific third country operator;

(5)
Specific aircraft identified by its individual
registration mark.

Appendices B, C and D to the accompanying
Staff Working Paper of the Commission[8]
list the states of operator, aircraft types and operators inspected during the
year 2010.

The smooth operation of the programme can
also be illustrated by Table1, which aggregates the information in the
Appendices and provides an overview of activities during 2010.

Table 1:
Operation of the SAFA programme during 2010

Number of inspections carried out || 11,703

Aircrafts inspected || 6,200 aircraft registrations

Operators inspected ||  more than 1,076

State of Operator inspected || 130 states and territories

Aircraft type inspected || 219 different aircraft types and variants

The SAFA Directive, whilst mandating the
performance of ramp inspections on third country aircraft, also recognises the right
of Member States to inspect aircraft operated by operators certified in another
Member State. In 2011, a little over half of the total number of SAFA
inspections were carried out on EU opeartors. It must be noted though that the
number of landings of EU operators (in other European states) is aproximately 4
times higher compared with the number of landings of third country operators in
European states.

Table 2: Inspections on EU and non-EU
operators

|| Inspections on EU Operators || Inspections on non-EU Operators

2010 || 5,990 || 5,713

Percentage || 51.2% || 48.8%

Out of 11,703 inspections, 9,798 (83.4%) were
performed by EU member states (see Attachment A). 48.8% (5,713) were performed
on operators licensed in third countries while the remainder 51.2% (5,990) were
conducted on EU operators. These figures highlight in particular the wide
coverage of the EU SAFA programme and its non-discriminatory application on EU
and non-EU operators.

4.
MAIN RESULTS OF THE SAFA INSPECTIONS
4.1.
Inspection findings in general

During any SAFA inspection, a checklist,
comprising a total of 54 different inspection items, is used by the SAFA
inspector to examine the compliance of the aircraft with international rules
(ICAO standards). These inspections may reveal a number of findings (usually
called "deviations from ICAO Standards"). Table 3 provides an
overview of the number of total findings (F) compared to the total number of
inspections (I) and the inspected items (II). However, in the majority of
cases, not all items are checked during an inspection because the time between
the arrival of the aircraft and its departure is not sufficient to perform a
complete inspection. Therefore, the relationship between the total number of
findings and the total number of inspected items might give a better
understanding rather than a ratio based merely on the number of inspections.

Table 3: Overview
on SAFA findings and SAFA inspected items

|| Period

|| 01 January 2010 – 31 December 2010

Total Inspections (I) || 11,703

Total Inspected Items (II) || 437,519

Total Findings (F) || 11,019

Average no. of Inspected Items during an Inspection || 37.39

Findings/Inspections (F/I) || 0.942

Findings/Inspected Items (F/II) || 0.0252

4.2.
Inspection findings and their categories

Not only the absolute number of inspection
findings needs to be considered, but also their “severity”. To this end, three
categories of findings have been defined. A “Category 1” finding is called
a minor finding; “Category 2” is a significant finding and “Category 3” a major
finding. The terms “minor”, “significant” and “major” relate to the level of
deviation from the ICAO Standard. The prime
purpose of categorising the findings is to classify the compliance with a
standard and the severity of non-compliance with this standard.

The inspections and the categories of
findings are are summarised in the table below:

Table 4: SAFA findings per category

|| || No. findings (F) || Ratio of findings (Fcat./I)

Year || No. inspections (I) || Cat. 1 (minor) || Cat. 2 (significant) || Cat. 3 (major) || total || F cat.1 / I || F cat.2 / I || F cat.3 / I || F total / I

2010 || 11,703 || 3,424 || 4,719 || 2,876 || 11,019 || 0.293 || 0.403 || 0.246 || 0.942

|| 31% || 42.8% || 26.1% || 100.00% || || || ||

4.3.
Historical overview

It is worth presenting a historical
overview of the evolution since 1996 of the above referred figures.

Table 5: Overview of the evolution of SAFA
findings

|| || || || || || Year || || || || || || || || || || Total 1996-2009

|| 1996 || 1997 || 1998 || 1999 || 2000 || 2001 || 2002 || 2003 || 2004 || 2005 || 2006 || 2007 || 2008 || 2009 || 2010

Total Inspections (I) || 75 || 1,748 || 2,767 || 2,833 || 2,394 || 2,706 || 3,234 || 3,413 || 4,568 || 5,457 || 7,458 || 8,594 || 10,337 || 11,349 || 11,703 || 66,933

Total Inspected Items (II) || 1,675 || 31,413 || 88,400 || 95,524 || 80,454 || 82,935 || 93,681 || 100,014 || 148,850 || 181,440 || 260,524 || 300,035 || 358,046 || 408,217 || 437,519 || 2,231,208

Total Findings (F) || 212 || 1,951 || 2,573 || 2,631 || 2,587 || 2,851 || 3,064 || 3,242 || 6,799 || 8,492 || 12,481 || 12,073 || 11,298 || 9,688 || 11,019 || 79,942

Findings/Inspections (F/I) || 2.8267 || 1.1161 || 0.9299 || 0.9287 || 1.0806 || 1.0536 || 0.9474 || 0.9499 || 1.4884 || 1.5562 || 1.6704 || 1.405 || 1.093 || 0.854 || 0.942 || 1.194

Findings/Inspected Items (F/II) || 0.127 || 0.062 || 0.029 || 0.028 || 0.032 || 0.034 || 0.033 || 0.032 || 0.046 || 0.047 || 0.048 || 0.040 || 0.032 || 0.024 || 0.025 || 0.036

Table 6: Annual Number of SAFA
inspections since 1996

Table 7: Average number of findings per
inspection (1996-2010)

As shown in Table 7 and after decreasing
for three consecutive years, the average Findings/Inspection ratio increased by
13% in 2010. This increase appears to be a direct consequence of the
legislative instruments adopted in 2008 (namely the Commission Regulation
351/2008/EC on the prioritisation of ramp inspections and Commission Directive
2008/49/EC introducing more detailed procedural elements), the publication by
EASA of a very comphrehensive Guidance Material and its application by the
particpating states as well as the launching by EASA of a SAFA Standardisation
programme. All these measures have contributed to better inspections being
carried out in the 42 SAFA Participating States.

4.4.
Inspection findings on a regional basis

Tables 8, 9 and 10 below show that although
the average number of findings (per inspection) increased in 2010, the
five-year trend is decreasing for all geographic regions.

From these tables, it is possible to note
that:

–
Operators from States in the EU, ECAC and Oceania
have fewer findings per inspection than average.

–
Although in 2009 the average for African
operators showed the greatest improvement this trend was reversed in 2010 when figures
show the greatest increase for the average ratio of African operators.

Table 8: inspection findings on a
regional basis

|| || || || No. of findings (F) || Ratio of findings (Fcat./I)

Region || No. of States inspected || No. of Operat. inspected || Inspect. (I) || Cat. 1 (minor) || Cat. 2 (signif.) || Cat. 3 (major) || Total || F cat.1/I || F cat.2/I || F cat.3/I || F total/I

EU[9] || 27 || 521 || 5990 || 1296 || 1984 || 1193 || 4473 || 0.22 || 0.33 || 0.20 || 0.75

EUROPE (ECAC)[10] || 44 || 662 || 7776 || 1865 || 2675 || 1603 || 6143 || 0.24 || 0.34 || 0.21 || 0.79

Russian Federation, Belarus & Central Asia[11] || 6 || 88 || 1002 || 474 || 484 || 233 || 1191 || 0.47 || 0.48 || 0.23 || 1.19

North America[12] || 3 || 97 || 610 || 207 || 188 || 178 || 573 || 0.34 || 0.31 || 0.29 || 0.94

Latina america & the Caribbean[13] || 21 || 32 || 165 || 81 || 94 || 78 || 253 || 0.49 || 0.57 || 0.47 || 1.53

Middle East and North Africa[14] || 17 || 101 || 1422 || 543 || 824 || 497 || 1864 || 0.38 || 0.58 || 0.35 || 1.31

Africa[15] || 19 || 39 || 311 || 84 || 215 || 149 || 448 || 0.27 || 0.69 || 0.48 || 1.44

Asia[16] || 17 || 46 || 377 || 165 || 231 || 130 || 526 || 0.44 || 0.61 || 0.34 || 1.40

Oceania[17] || 3 || 11 || 40 || 5 || 8 || 8 || 21 || 0.13 || 0.20 || 0.20 || 0.53

Average/all States || 0.29 || 0.40 || 0.25 || 0.94

Table 9:
Evolution of inspections findings on a regional basis

When comparing the SAFA reuslts of EU
operators with those of non-EU operators once can note that the overall average
F/I is significantly lower (by 35%). Table 10 presents more in detail these
results.

Table 10: Comparison between EU, ECAC
and the rest of the world

|| || || || No. of findings (F) || Ratio of findings (Fcat./I)

Region || No. of States inspected || No. of Operat. inspected || Inspect. (I) || Cat. 1 (minor) || Cat. 2 (signif.) || Cat. 3 (major) || Total || F cat.1/I || F cat.2/I || F cat.3/I || F total/I

EU || 27 || 521 || 5990 || 1296 || 1984 || 1193 || 4473 || 0.22 || 0.33 || 0.2 || 0.75

Rest of EUROPE (non-EU ECAC States) || 17 || 141 || 1786 || 569 || 691 || 410 || 1670 || 0.32 || 0.39 || 0.23 || 0.94

4.5.
Distribution by ICAO regions

While the tables under heading 4.4
presented the results of SAFA inspections in 2010 on the basis of commonly
understood geographical regions, this section presents the same data on 2010
inspections aggregated by regions as are defined by ICAO, where the grouping
differs from above and therefore yields different results. These differences do
not impact on the conclusions drawn in this report. From
the tables 11 and 12 it is therefore possible to note that:

–
Operators from States belonging to the EUR[18] and ESAF[19] region have fewer findings per
inspection than average.

–
Operators from States belonging to the MID[20], SAM[21], WACAF[22], NACC[23], APAC[24] have more findings per
inspection than average.

–
The ratio Findings/Inspections shows an increase
for almost all regions. The only exception is the SAM region, which however
still has a higher than average ratio. WACAF region remains, by a consistent
margin, the region with the highest average.

Table 11:
Inspection findings on a regional basis (ICAO regions)

|| || || || No. of findings (F) || Ratio of findings (Fcat./I)

Region || No. of States inspected || No. of Operat. inspected || Inspect. (I) || Cat. 1 (minor) || Cat. 2 (signif.) || Cat. 3 (major) || Total || F cat.1/I || F cat.2/I || F cat.3/I || F total/I

APAC || 18 || 51 || 364 || 154 || 178 || 107 || 439 || 0.42 || 0.49 || 0.29 || 1.21

ESAF || 10 || 24 || 219 || 33 || 79 || 75 || 187 || 0.15 || 0.36 || 0.34 || 0.85

EUR || 57 || 769 || 9218 || 2568 || 3491 || 2018 || 8077 || 0.28 || 0.38 || 0.22 || 0.88

MID || 17 || 94 || 1103 || 342 || 567 || 354 || 1263 || 0.31 || 0.51 || 0.32 || 1.15

NACC || 10 || 109 || 637 || 238 || 224 || 215 || 677 || 0.37 || 0.35 || 0.34 || 1.06

SAM || 10 || 15 || 70 || 38 || 44 || 33 || 115 || 0.54 || 0.63 || 0.47 || 1.64

WACAF || 9 || 14 || 92 || 51 || 136 || 74 || 261 || 0.55 || 1.48 || 0.80 || 2.84

All States || 130 || 1076 || 11703 || 3424 || 4719 || 2876 || 11019 || 0.29 || 0.40 || 0.25 || 0.94

Table 12: average number of findings by ICAO
region – evolution over last 5 years

4.6.
Inspection findings related to checklist items

Appendix F to the
accompanying Staff Working Paper of the Commission.[25] provides the results regarding
each individual inspection item (III) which has been inspected. It indicates
the number of times a particular inspection item has been checked, the number
of findings and the ratio F/III.

Most of the findings were identified with
respect to the Aicraft General Condition (C01), the Defect Notification and
Rectification (A23), Flight Crew Licences (A20) and General Condition of the
Cockpit (A01).

4.7.
The top 3 significant and major inspection
findings related to checklist items

The inspection checklist consists of four
major parts. Part A concerns items to be inspected in the flight deck of the
aircraft. Part B of the checklist concerns items to be checked in the
(passenger) cabin, and mainly consists of safety equipment. Part C relates to
the general technical condition of the aircraft which needs to be verified
during a walk around check. Part D checklist items concern the cargo
compartment of the aircraft and the cargo carried.

Any general findings not covered by Parts
A, B, C or D can be administered under Part E (general) of the checklist.

When considering the findings established
during a SAFA inspection, Category 2 (significant) and Category 3 (major)
findings require the highest attention when it comes to the need for
rectification. For each part of the checklist, the top 3 of Category 2 and 3
findings related to the number of inspections are given in the tables under Appendices D and E to the accompanying Staff
Working Paper of the Commission.[26]

5.
ACTION TAKEN PURSUANT TO RAMP INSPECTIONS

Based on the
category, number and nature of the findings, several actions may be taken by
national competent authorities.

If the findings indicate that the safety of the
aircraft and its occupants is impaired, corrective actions will be required.
Normally the aircraft captain will be asked to address the serious deficiencies
which are brought to his attention. In rare cases, where inspectors have reason
to believe that the aircraft captain does not intend to take the necessary
measures on the deficiencies reported to him, they will formally ground the
aircraft.

Another type of
action is called “corrective actions before flight authorised”. Before the
aircraft is allowed to resume its flight, corrective action is required to
rectify any deficiencies which have been identified.In other cases, the aircraft may depart under operational
restrictions. An example of such a restriction would be the case where there is
a deficiency regarding passenger seats.

It is standard practice that the captain of the aircraft which has just
been inspected is debriefed about the findings. In addition, Category 2 and
Category 3 findings are communicated to the responsible Aviation Authority and
the home base of the operator with the request to take appropriate action to
prevent reoccurrence.

In order to achieve
best the objectives of the EU SAFA programme, close cooperation with the Civil
Aviation Authorities of all those States whose operators and aircraft have been
subject of SAFA inspections is imperative. National Civil Aviation Authorities
are therefore requested to ensure proper implementation of corrective actions
in order to address the reported SAFA findings.

In some cases, when
the findings on an aircraft are considered important, individual SAFA
participating States may decide to revoke the entry permit of that aircraft.
This means that the particular aircraft is no longer allowed to land at airports
or fly in the airspace of that State. Such a ban can be lifted if the operator
of the aircraft proves that the problems have been properly corrected. Such
entry permit repercussions can therefore be, and usually are, of a temporary
character.

As regards such
bans and their subsequent lifting, those SAFA Participating States which belong
also to the EU shall be acting in accordance with the provisions laid down in
Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005 on the establishment of a Community list of air
carriers subject to an operating ban within the Community.

|| No. of Inspections || 11,703

No. of Findings || 11,019

ACTIONS TAKEN || information to the authority & the operator || 4,108

restriction on aircraft operation || 120

corrective actions before flight authorisation || 1,922

aircraft grounded || 12

immediate operating ban || 0*

*not including bans/operational restrictions
imposed by the EC pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005 EC

Pursuant to the requirement set forth by
Commission Directive (EC) 2008/49, SAFA participating states monthly send to
EASA reports on the follow-up actions taken. This information measures the
ability and willingness of operators to rectify the findings identified during
SAFA inspections.

6.
CONCLUSIONS

During 2010 a record number of inspections
has been reached and covered a higher number of operators and inspection items
when compared to previous years. This increase appears
to be a direct consequence of the legislative instruments adopted in 2008.
Furthermore, the figures in this report also show the wide
coverage of the EU SAFA programme and its non-discriminatory application on EU
and non-EU operators. As a result of these improvements,
the programme has become a better tool to identify potential negative safety
trends worldwide, contributing as well as in real-time to the safe operation of
the inspected aircraft.

During
2010, efforts were also undertaken to improve the functioning of the EU SAFA
programme, in particular through the efficiency of inspections (introduction of
a minimun quota of inspections to be carried out on a voluntary basis by SAFA
participating States) and the completion of a Standardisation programme.

The
results of EASA regular analysis on the reports showing serious safety
deficiencies or persitent failure by the carrier to address deficiencies
identified by ramp inpections performed under the SAFA programme continued to
be used by the Commission for the preparation during 2010 of the Community list
of air carriers subject to an operating ban within the Community as provided
for under Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005.

[1]               OJ L 143, 30.4.2004, p. 76.

[2]               See in particular Report from the Commission on
Safety of Third-Country Aircraft using Community Airports dated 24.9.2008. C(2008)
5265 final.

[3]               OJ L 134, 20.5.2006, p. 16.

[4]               SWD(2012) 38

[5]               OJ L 344, 27.12.2005, p. 15

[6]               OJ L 109, 19.4.2008, p. 17.

[7]               OJ L 109, 19.4.2008, p. 7.

[8]               SWD(2012) 38

[9]               EU -
Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland,
France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia,
Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom.

[10]             Europe
(ECAC) - Albania, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France,
Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Malta, Republic of Moldova,
Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino,
Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United
Kingdom.

[11]             Russian
Federation, Belarus and Central Asia - Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russian
Federation, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan.

[12]             North
America (NA) - Bermuda, Canada, United States of America.

[13]             Latin
America & the Caribbean (LAC) – Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina,
Aruba, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Cayman Islands, Chile,
Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador,
Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Netherlands
Antilles, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Puerto Rico, Saint Kitts and
Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad and
Tobago, Turks and Caicos Islands, Uruguay, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of).

[14]             Middle
East and North Africa (MENA)- Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iran(Islamic Republic
of), Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Morocco,
Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, United Arab
Emirates, Yemen.

[15]             Africa
(AFR) - Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde,
Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Democratic
Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon,
Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar,
Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria,
Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia,
South Africa, Swaziland, Togo, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia,
Zimbabwe.

[16]             Asia
(AS) - Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China,
Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Hong Kong (Special Administrative Region
of China), India, Indonesia, Japan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Malaysia,
Maldives, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Republic of Korea,
Singapore, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Vietnam.

[17]             Oceania
(OC) - Australia, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated
States of), Nauru, New Zealand, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon
Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

[18]             EUR-European
and North Atlantic ICAO Region:

Albania,
Algeria, Andorra, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland,
France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco,
Netherlands (excl. Netherlands Antilles), Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of
Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia,
Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, The former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Kingdom (excl. Cayman
Islands, Bermuda), Uzbekistan.

[19]             ESAF-Eastern
and Southern African ICAO Region:

Angola,
Botswana, Burundi, Comoros, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar,
Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Rwanda, Seychelles, Somalia, South
Africa, Swaziland, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

[20]             MID-Middle
East ICAO Region:

Afghanistan,
Bahrain, Cyprus, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syrian Arab
Republic, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

[21]             SAM-South
American ICAO Region:

Argentina,
Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Panamá, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname,
Uruguay, Venezuela.

[22]             WACAF-Western
and Central African ICAO Region:

Benin,
Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Cote
d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia,
Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Sao
Tome and Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Togo.

[23]             NACC-Northern
American, Central American and Caribbean ICAO Region:

Antigua and
Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican
Republic, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico,
Nicaragua, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the
Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, United States of America.

[24]             APAC-Asian
and Pacific ICAO Region:

Australia,
Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China (incl. Hong Kong and
Macao), Cook Islands, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Fiji, India,
Indonesia, Japan, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia,
Maldives, Marshal Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nauru, Nepal, New
Zealand, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Samoa,
Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Tonga, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.

[25]             SWD(2012) 38

[26]             SWD(2012) 38