EN    EN EN 
EN    EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 31.3.2011 
COM(2011) 159 final 
  
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO  THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 
EUROPEAN UNION SAFA PROGRAMME 
SEC(2011) 301 final 
EN 2   EN 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 Eu ropean Union (EU) and for its Member States. 
In the light of this objective, a key instrume nt is the EU Safety Assessment of Foreign 
Aircraft (SAFA) programme. This programme re quires participating States to conduct ramp 
inspections on third country aircraft to verify compliance of aircraft, crew and operations with 
application international safety requirements. Ever since its inception under the auspices of the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC)  in association with the Joint Aviation 
Authorities (JAA) back in 1996, the SAFA pr ogramme has increasing ly proven to be a 
vanguard in enhancing European, and i ndeed international, aviation safety. 
The EU has from the outset fully endorsed a nd supported the SAFA pr ogramme, participating 
actively through membership in the SAFA Steer ing Committee and also through the provision 
of funding made available to the JAA by the European Commission. 
Within the framework of the Community's overa ll strategy to establish and maintain a high 
uniform level of civil aviation safety in Europe, on 21 April 2004 the Community adopted 
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 Dir ective'). This Directive 
introduced a legal obligation upon EU Member States to perform ramp inspections upon third 
country aircraft landing at their airports, wher e ‘third country aircraft’ implied an aircraft 
which is not used or operated unde r control of a competent author ity 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 St ates were given a wind ow of two years for 
implementing this Directive through th e 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 Europ ean Community competence where as of 
1 January 2007, responsibility for the management  and further development of the EU SAFA 
programme falls upon the European Commission assisted by the European Aviation Safety 
Agency (EASA). EASA is a European Comm ission agency based in Cologne which is 
responsible for the operational management of  the EU SAFA programme on behalf of the 
same Commission in accordance with  Commission Regulation (EC) 768/2006.3  
                                                 
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. 
EN 3   EN Until 2006 the operational elements of the SAFA programme were implemented by the 
Central Joint Aviation Authorities (CJAA) . At the end of 2006 the SAFA coordination 
activities including the centralised database ha ve been transferred from CJA A to EASA. 
The continued participation of the fifteen non- EU ECAC Member States, and thus the pan-
European dimension of the programme, has been  assured through the signature of a Working 
Arrangement between each of these individu al 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 Wo rking Paper of the Commission ). 
1.2. Why this report? 
This report constitutes a clear evidence of EU's efforts in making European skier safer. 
Transparency of safety information and sharing of the major conclusions pursuant to the SAFA inspections are fundamental tenets of  a safe air transportation system. Public 
confidence in the safety of air transportati on is also contingent upon access to adequate 
information regarding the implementation of intern ational safety standard s. In this context, 
Article 6 (2) of  Directive 2004/36/EC requires the Commission to publish yearly an 
aggregated information report available to the pu blic and the industry stakeholders containing 
an analysis of all information received. The analysis needs to be simple and easy to understand and shall indicate whethe r there exists an increased sa fety risk to air passengers. 
This is the fourth annual report covering the period 01 January to 31 December 2009. 
1.3. Functioning of the EU SAFA programme 
In each SAFA participating State, aircraft (thi rd-country for EU states or foreign for non-EU 
ECAC states) can be subject to a ramp insp ection, chiefly concerne d with the aircraft 
documents and manuals, flight crew licences, th e 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 (Opera tions 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 th e subject of reports which also follow a common 
format. In the case of significant irregulariti es, 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 th e 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 data base set up and managed by EASA.  
The main features of the EU SAFA pr ogramme can be summarised as follows: 
• its application by all SAFA participating States: in principle all 42 ECAC States 
(EU Member States and non-EU ECAC States that have signed the EASA 
Working Arrangement; 
• the broad dissemination of SAFA ramp inspection results through a centralised 
database; 
EN 4   EN • its bottom-up approach: the Programme is built around ramp inspections of 
aircraft; 
• its focused attention: primarily focusing on third country aircraft flying to the EU 
and SAFA participating St ates (although SAFA inspecti ons may continue to be 
performed on aircraft fr om EU Member States); 
• its inherent objective of checking for compliance with safety international rules 
(ICAO Standards) which are commonly applicable internationally to all inspected 
aircraft . 
1.4. Major contribution of the EU SAFA progr amme to the overall aviation safety 
chain 
Based upon the SAFA inspections performed over the last few years, 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 airworthin ess status, etc.) owing to the limited time 
available to perform an inspection and consequen tly the limited level of detail possible during 
such an inspection. The value of those indicato rs will be further enhanced by increasing also 
the level of harmonisation across the particip ating 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 respons ible national civil aviation aut hority (State of Operator or 
State of Registry). In this manner, the info rmation 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 num ber of findings concerning a particular 
operator, is a very good i ndicator of potential structur al weaknesses both with 
regard to the quality contro l management of that operator as well as the level of 
safety oversight exercised by the responsib le national ci vil aviation au thorities of 
the state where that operator is certified; similar negative trends may also be 
identified concerning specific aircraft types. 
– More directly, SAFA inspections may contri bute in real-time to the safe operation 
of the particular aircraft which has just  been inspected, prompting the inspecting 
authorities to ensure that corrective ac tions are taken immediately prior to any 
further operations being c onducted by that aircraft. 
Additionally, since the coming into fo rce of Regulation (EC) No 2111/20054 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 car riers in the Community list. Indeed, this has been the case 
since the establishment of the first Community  list in March 2006 and its  subsequent regular 
updates. 
                                                 
4 OJ L 344, 27.12.2005, p. 15. 
EN 5   EN 1.5. Progress of the programme during 2009 
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.  
In particular, as tasked unde r Commission Directive 2008/49/EC5, EASA has issued and 
published a second set of detailed Guidance Ma terial on Ramp Inspection Procedures. The 
procedures cover all applicable areas: planni ng, preparation, and execu tion of inspections as 
well as follow-up activities. 
A number of initiatives started in 2007 have  also continued in 2009, becoming regular 
standard activities under the EU SAFA programme. Thes e are for example the database 
quality review of reports ente red by participating States in  the SAFA database and the 
database analysis. Conducted on a four-monthly ba sis this analysis attempts to identify as 
early as possible potentia lly negative safety con cerns and trends in or der that they may be 
addressed in a timely manner before indeed beco ming a threat to international aviation safety. 
The methodology for conducting this analysis was further refined and en hanced to maximise 
the use of the available SAFA data. 
In addition, during the year 2009 and pursuant to the requ est of the Commission, EASA 
engaged in negotiations with va rious aviation authorities around the world aiming at enlarging 
the participation in the EU SAFA progr amme while maintaining a high level of 
standardisation and harmonisation. 
Finally, EASA started a Standard isation programme to ensure that all SAFA inspections are 
done in a standardised manner in all SAFA participating States. A ll States are audited in order 
to verify the transposition of the applicable EU Directives as well as the adherence to the 
common procedures for the qualification of inspec tors and for the performance of inspections. 
The audits are carried out in  accordance with the same wo rking methods employed by EASA 
for standardisation visits  dealing with other aviation safety  domains, namely those contained 
in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 736/2006.6 In 2009, 5 audits were performed in: 
Luxembourg, Lithuania, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland. 
1.6 . Introduction of a risk-based approach  
Commission Regulati on (EC) No 351/20087 introduces the concept of  prioritisation of SAFA 
inspection from a pan-European perspective wh ereby participating St ates are required to 
prioritise a portion of their ramp  inspections on certain subject s (either operators or all the 
operators certified in a certain state). The prioritisation list is compiled by the European Commission and updated regularly wh enever the need arises accord ing to the set of criteria 
established under the said Regulation, namely: 
– information transmitted by EASA followi ng the analysis of SAFA database; 
– information stemming from the meetings of the Air Safety Committee; 
– information received by the Comm ission from the Member States. 
                                                
 
5 OJ L 109, 19.4.2008, p. 17. 
6 OJ L 129, 17.5.2006, p. 10. 
7 OJ L 109, 19.4.2008, p. 7. 
EN 6   EN 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. 
EUROCONTROL further supports this concept of prioritisation by means of its European Air 
Traffic Management centrepiece  which provides participati ng States with real time 
information on the flight planning si tuation of prioritised operators. 
During 2009, out of a total 11.349 SAFA insp ections, 2.253 (19,85%) were conducted on 
subjects 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. The inclusion of repo rts in the database re mains a responsibility 
of the individual National Aviation Authorities (NAA) of the 42 SAFA participating States. 
In 2009 the SAFA participating States perfor med a record 11,349 inspections which revealed 
some 9.688 findings ( see Appendix A to the Staff Working Paper ). 
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 2009, on-
line access was also granted to aviation authoritie s of third countries wi th regards to reports 
on operators licensed in th eir respective country. 
3. AREAS
 OF INSPECTION 
According to the 'SAFA Directive', aircrafts su spected of non-compliance with international 
safety standards (based on e.g. regular analysis of the database by EASA) are to be inspected 
with priority by the Member States. Furthermor e the SAFA ramp inspections may be carried 
out using a spot-check procedure. 
There are five areas on which th e inspections can be focused: 
(1) Specific State of Operator (checking operators from a particular State). 
(2) Specific aircraft type. 
(3) Specific nature of operations (sch eduled, 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 St aff Working Paper list the states  of operator, aircraft types 
and operators insp ected during the year 2009. They highli ght the wide coverage of the EU 
SAFA programme and its non-discriminatory  application on EU and non-EU operators. 
EN 7   EN The smooth operation of the programme can also be illustrated by the table below, which 
aggregates the information in the Appendices  and provides an overv iew of activities.  
Inspections 11,349 inspections… 
Operator …on more than 1,100 different operators…  
State of Operator …from 131 states…  
Aircraft type …operating 220 different aircraft types and variants  
The table below meanwhile reflects the fact that  the vast majority of all flights within EU 
Member States are carried out by EU operators a nd that in general, SAFA  participating States 
were still using the broader criteria of the former ECAC SAFA programme. 
 Inspections on EU 
Operators  Inspections on non-EU 
Operators  
2009  5,917 5,432 
Percentage  52.1% 47.9% 
Out of 11.349 inspections, 9.462 (83,4%) were performed by EU memb er states (see 
Attachment A). 47.9% (5.432) were performed on operators licensed in third countries while 
the remainder 52.1% (5.917) were  conducted on EU operators. 
4. MAIN  RESULTS  OF THE  SAFA  INSPECTIONS 
4.1. Inspection findings in general 
During any SAFA inspection, a ch ecklist, 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") The followi ng chart provides an overview of the number 
of total findings (F) compared to the total nu mber of inspections (I) and the inspected items 
(II). However, in the majority of cases, not al l 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 relationshi p 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.  
 Period  
  01 January 2009 – 31 December 2009 
Total Inspections (I) 11,349 
Total Inspected Items (II) 408,217 
EN 8   EN Total Findings (F) 9,688 
Average no. of Inspected Items 
during an Inspection 35.99 
Findings/Inspections (F/I) 0.854 
Findings/Inspected Items (F/II) 0.0237 
 
4.2. Inspection findings and their categories 
Not only the absolute number of inspection findi ngs needs to be considered, but also their 
“severity”. To this end, thre e categories of findings have been defined. A “Category 1” 
finding is called a minor finding;  “Category 2” is a significan t finding and “Category 3” a 
major finding. The terms “minor”, “significant” a nd “major” relate to th e level of deviation 
from the ICAO Standard. The pr ime 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 recorded in the database and the results are 
presented in the table below: 
  
 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 
11,349 3,880 3,816 1,992 9,688 0.342 0.336 0.176 0.854 
2009 
  40% 39.4% 20.6% 100.00%         
 
4.3. Historical overview 
         Year              
  1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total  
1996-
2009 
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 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 
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 79,942 
Findings/Inspec
tions (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 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 0.036 
EN 9   EN  
751,7482,767 2,833
2,3942,7063,2343,4134,5685,4577,4588,59410,33711,349
02,0004,0006,0008,00010,00012,000
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 
Annual No. of SAFA inspections since the beginning of the programme in 1996 . 
 
2.83
1.12
0.93 0.951.561.67
1.40
1.09
0.851.49
0.95
1.051.08
0.93
0.000.501.001.502.002.503.00
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 
Average number of findings  per inspection (1996-2009) 
EN 10   EN 4.4. 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 
EU8 27 528 5,917  1,603  1,562  845 4,010  0.271  0.264  0.143  0.678  
EUROPE 
(ECAC)9  43 677 7,570  2,202  2,173  1,064  5,439  0.291  0.287  0.141  0.718  
Russian 
Federation, 
Belarus & 
Central Asia
10 7 88 931 408 381 219 1,008  0.438  0.409  0.235  1.083  
North 
America11 3 111 633 263 159 139 561 0.415  0.251  0.220  0.886  
Latin 
America & the 
Caribbean
12 20 43 171 86 105 44 235 0.503  0.614  0.257  1.374  
Middle East 
and North Africa
13 18 94 1,284  618 650 345 1,613  0.481  0.506  0.269  1.256  
Africa14 22 40 410 140 204 98 442 0.341  0.498  0.239  1.078  
Asia15 
17 47 315 155 136 80 371 0.492  0.432  0.254  1.178  
                                                 
8 EU - Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, 
Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithua nia, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Po land, Portugal, Ro mania, Slovakia, 
Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom.  
9 Europe (ECAC) - Albania, Armenia,  Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, 
Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Est onia, Finland, France, Georgia, Ge rmany, 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.  
10 Russian Federation, Belarus a nd Central Asia - Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russi an Federation, Tajikistan, 
Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan.  
11 North America (NA) - Bermuda, Canada, United States of America.  
12 Latin America & the Caribbean (LAC) – Anguilla, Antigua  and Barbuda, Argentina, Aruba, Bahamas, Barbados, 
Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Cayman Is lands, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, 
Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Ha iti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexi co, 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, Ven ezuela (Bolivarian Republic 
of). 
13 Middle East and North Africa (MENA)- Al geria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iran(Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Israel, Jordan, 
Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahi riya, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, 
Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.  
14 Africa (AFR) - Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso , Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African 
Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Democra tic Republic of the Congo, D jibouti, Equatorial Guinea, 
Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana,  Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Leso tho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, 
Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger,  Nigeria, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, 
Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Swazila nd, Togo, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia, 
Zimbabwe.  
15 Asia (AS) - Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Chin a, Democratic People's 
Republic of Korea, Hong Kong (Special Administrative Re gion of China), India, Indone sia, Japan, Lao People's 
EN 11   EN Oceania16 4 14 35 8 8 3 19 0.229  0.229  0.086  0.543  
Average/all States 0.342 0.336 0.176 0.854 
 
  
0.000.501.001.502.002.503.003.50
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010AF R
AS
CIS
Europe (ECAC)
EU
LA C
MENA
NA
OC
 
The five years evolution shows that the aver age number of findings (per inspection) has 
decreased for all geographic regions.  
From this table, one may note that: 
– Operators from States in the EU, ECAC  and Oceania have fewer findings per 
inspection than average.  
– The ratio Findings/Inspections shows th e greatest improvement for the African 
region, although this is infl uenced by the very high num ber of inspections (163) 
on the Angolan carrier TAAG; those inspections were imposed after the partial removal of this carrier from the Community List of banned carriers.  
                                                                                                                                                        
 
Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Maldiv es, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakist an, Philippines, Republic of Korea, 
Singapore, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Th ailand, Timor-Leste, Vietnam.  
16 Oceania (OC) - Australia, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, New Zealand, 
Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solo mon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.  
EN 12   EN 4.5. Distribution by 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 
APAC17 19 58 311 148 125 78 351 0.476  0.402  0.251  1.129  
ESAF18 10 19 312 75 82 36 193 0.240  0.263  0.115  0.619  
EUR19 56 784 8,957  2,931  2,833  1,428  7,192  0.327  0.316  0.159  0.803  
MID20 18 85 953 334 418 221 973 0.350  0.439  0.232  1.021  
NACC21 10 127 652 288 178 144 610 0.442  0.273  0.221  0.936  
SAM22 9 20 66 39 58 23 120 0.591  0.879  0.348  1.818  
WACAF23 12 21 98 65 122 62 249 0.663  1.245  0.633  2.541  
All States 134 1,114  11,349  3,880  3,816  1,992  9,688  0.342  0.336  0.176  0.854  
From this table, one may note that: 
– Operators from States belonging to the EU R have fewer findings per inspection 
than average. 
– Operators from States belonging to the MID, SAM, WACAF, NACC, APAC and 
ESAF have more findings per inspection than average. 
                                                 
17 APAC-Asian and Pacific ICAO Region:  Australia, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Br unei Darussalam, Cambodia, China 
(incl. Hong Kong and Macao), Cook Islands, Democratic Peopl e’s Republic of Korea, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Japan, 
Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia , Maldives, Marshal Isla nds, 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.  
18 ESAF-Eastern and Southern African  ICAO Region: Angola, Botswana, Bu rundi, Comoros, Djibouti, Eritrea, 
Ethiopia, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritiu s, Mozambique, Namibia, Rwanda, Seychelles, Somalia, 
South Africa, Swaziland, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe.  
19 EUR-European and North Atlantic ICAO Region: Albania,  Algeria, Andorra, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, 
Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croa tia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, 
Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz stan, Latvia, Lithuania, 
Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, Netherlands (excl. Netherlands Antilles), Norway, Poland, 
Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romani a, Russian Federation, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, 
Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, 
Ukraine, United Kingdom (excl. Caym an Islands, Bermuda), Uzbekistan.  
20 MID-Middle East ICAO Region: Afghanistan, Bahrain, Cyprus , Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, 
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Oman, Paki stan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, United Arab 
Emirates, Yemen.  
21 NACC-Northern American, Central Am erican 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 Ne vis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, 
Trinidad and Tobago, United States of America.  
22 SAM-South American ICAO Region: Arge ntina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Panamá, 
Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Uruguay, Venezuela.  
23 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.  
EN 13   EN   
Average Number of Findings by ICAO Region - Evolution over the last 5 years
0, 000, 501, 001, 502, 002, 503, 003, 504, 00
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009APAC
ESAF
EUR/NAT
MI D
NA CC
SAM
WACAF
 
For all regions the ratio Findings/Inspecti ons shows an improvement. Although the ESAF 
region appears to have the larges t improvement this is caused by the fact that more than half 
of the inspections on operators from this region were carried on the Angolan carrier TAAG 
(163 inspections). TAAG was included in 2007 in  the Community list of  banned carriers. In 
2009 TAAG was allowed to partially restart th e operations into the European Union (with 
specific aircraft and only to Lisbon, Portugal) u nder the condition that every flight should be 
inspected by the Portuguese authorities.  
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 27 528 5,917  1,603  1,562  845 4,010  0.271  0.264  0.143  0.678  
Rest of 
EUROPE 
(non-EU 
ECAC States) 16 149 1,653  599 611 219 1,429  0.362  0.370  0.132  0.864  
EUROPE 
(ECAC) 43 677 7,570  2,202  2,173  1,064  5,439  0.291  0.287  0.141  0.718  
Non-EU 
States 107 586 5,432  2,277  2,254  1,147  5,678  0.419  0.415  0.211  1.045  
All 
States 134 1,114  11,349  3,880  3,816  1,992  9,688  0.342  0.336  0.176  0.854  
4.6. Inspection findings related  to checklist items 
Appendix F to the Staff Working Paper prov ides the results regarding each individual 
inspection item (III) which has been inspecte d. It indicates the number of times that a 
particular inspection item has been checked, th e number of findings and the ratio F/III.  
EN 14   EN 4.7. The top 3 significant and major inspectio n findings related to checklist items 
The inspection checklist consists of four major pa rts. 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 compartmen t 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 durin g a SAFA inspection, Ca tegory 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 of the Staff 
Working Paper. 
5. ACTION  TAKEN  PURSUANT  TO RAMP  INSPECTIONS 
Based on the category, number and nature of the findings, several act ions may be taken. 
If the findings indicate that the safety of the aircraft and its occupant s is impaired, corrective 
actions will be required. Norma lly the aircraft captain will be  asked to address the serious 
deficiencies which are brought to his attention. In ra re cases, where inspec tors 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. The formal act of grounding by the State of Inspection means that the aircraft is prohibited from resuming its 
flights until appropriate corre ctive measures are taken. 
Another type of action is called “corrective ac tions before flight au thorised”. Before the 
aircraft is allowed to resume its flight, correc tive action is required to rectify any deficiencies 
which have been identified. 
In other cases, the aircraft may depart under op erational restrictions. An example of such a 
restriction would be the case wher e there is a deficiency regard ing passenger seats. Operation 
of the aircraft is possible unde r the condition that the deficien t seats are not occupied by any 
passengers. 
It is standard practice that the cap tain of the aircraft which has just  been inspected is debriefed about 
the findings. In addition, Category 2 and Category 3 findings are co mmunicated to the responsible 
Aviation Authority and the home base of the operato r 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 Stat es whose operators and aircraft have been 
subject of SAFA inspections is imperative. As pa rt of their responsibilit y regarding the safety 
oversight of their national operators according to  the relevant international safety standards, 
these Civil Aviation Authorities are requested to  ensure proper implementation of corrective 
actions in order to address the reported SAFA findings.
 
EN 15   EN 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 pe rmit repercussions can therefor e be, and usually are, of a 
temporary character. 
As regards such bans and their subsequent li fting, those SAFA Participating States which 
belong also to the European Un ion shall be acting in accordance with the provisions laid 
down in Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005 on the es tablishment of a Co mmunity list of air 
carriers subject to an operati ng ban within the Community.  
No. of Inspections 11,349  
No. of Findings 9,688 
information to the authority 
& the operator 3,328 
restriction on aircraft 
operation 95 
corrective actions before flight 
authorisation 1,358 
aircraft grounded 10 ACTIONS 
TAKEN 
immediate operating ban 1* 
*not including bans/operational restrictions imposed by the EC pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005 EC 
Pursuant to the requirement set fort h 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 2009 a record number of inspections has been reached and covered a higher number of 
operators when compared to previous years. As a result , the programme has become a better 
to tool to identify potential negative safety trends  worldwide, contributing as well as in real-
time to the safe operation of the inspected aircraft. During 2009, efforts were also undertaken to  improve the functioning of the EU SAFA 
programme, in particular through the issuing of  Guidance Material, the carrying out of quality 
review analysis of SAFA reports or the initi ation of the Standardis ation programme, which in 
fine aim at ensuring that all SAFA inspections  are done in a standardised manner in all 
countries.