Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council - European Community SAFA programme [SEC(2009) 1576 final]
Date: 2009-11-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: International Civil Aviation Organisation, civil aviation, report, safety standard, transport safety

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 18.11.2009 
COM(2009)627 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY SAFA PROGRAMME 

[SEC(2009) 1576 final] 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY SAFA PROGRAMME 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

Why this report? 

Article 6 (2) of Directive 2004/36/EC provides that: 

"The  Commission  shall  publish  yearly  an  aggregated  information  report  available  to  the 
public  and  the  industry  stakeholders  containing  an  analysis  of  all  information  received  in 
accordance  with  Article  5.  That  analysis  shall  be  simple  and  easy  to  understand  and  shall 
indicate whether there exists an increased safety risk to air passengers. In the analysis, the 
source of that information shall be dis-identified." 

This is the third annual report covering the period 01 January to 31 December 2008. 

1. 

THE EC SAFA PROGRAMME  

1.1. 

Origins of the EC SAFA programme 

Initially  the  SAFA  programme  was  launched  by  the  European  Civil  Aviation  Conference 
(ECAC) in 1996. The SAFA programme was not based upon a European legal binding basis 
but upon a commitment of the Directors General of the participating ECAC Member States. 
The scope of the inspections relating to ‘foreign’ aircraft implied those aircraft which are not 
used or operated under the control of the competent authority of the state where the inspection 
takes place. 

On 30 April 2004 Directive 2004/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the 
safety  of  third-country  aircraft  using  Community  airports  (the  so-called  'SAFA  Directive') 
was  published,  creating  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. 

Following  a  decision  by  the  Directors  General  of  ECAC  member  states,  the  SAFA 
Programme  was  transferred  under  European  Community  (EC)  competence  where  as  of 
1 January 2007, responsibility for the management and further development of the EC SAFA 
programme falls upon the European Commission assisted by the European Aviation Safety 
Agency  (EASA).  EASA  is  a  European  Commission  agency  based  in  Cologne  which  is 
responsible  for  the  operational  management  of  the  EC  SAFA  programme  on  behalf  of  the 
same Commission in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) 768/2006. 

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 have been transferred from CJAA to EASA. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
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  individual  States  and  EASA.  Including  the  EU-27 
therefore, the EC-SAFA programme boasts a total of 42 participating States (see Appendix 
A). 

1.2. 

Functioning of the EC 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  licenses,  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 main features of the EC SAFA Programme 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; 

•  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  States  (although  SAFA  inspections  may  continue  to  be 
performed on aircraft from EU Member States); 

•  its inherent objective of checking for compliance with ICAO Standards which are 

commonly applicable internationally to all inspected aircraft . 

1.3. 

Integration of the EC SAFA Programme in 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 airworthiness status … etc.) owing to the limited time 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
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 EC 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;  similar  negative  trends  may  also  be 
identified concerning specific aircraft types. 

–  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 being conducted by that aircraft. 

Additionally, since the coming into force of Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005 establishing a list 
of carriers which are banned from flying into EC territory, 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  list.  Indeed,  this  has  been  the  case 
since the establishment of the first Community list in March 2006 and its subsequent regular 
updates. 

1.4. 

Development of the programme in 2008 

On  16  April  2008,  the  Commission  adopted  two  important  legislative  measures  aimed  at 
further strengthening the EC SAFA Programme: 

•  Commission  Directive  2008/49/EC  containing  the  core  elements  of  the  SAFA 
Procedures Manual and providing for harmonised rules for the conduct of SAFA 
inspections  including:  follow-up  actions,  mandatory  reporting  timeframe  (15 
working days) and the mandatory communication of the results of the inspection 
to the inspected operators through the delivery of a Proof of Inspection according 
to  a  common  format.  In  addition,  the  abovementioned  Directive  introduces  a 
common  set  of  criteria  for  the  qualification  of  SAFA  inspectors.  EASA  was 
mandated  to  support  the  participating  states  by  developing  detailed  guidance 
material in line with the core elements enshrined in the Directive. 

•  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  351/2008  implementing  a  structured,  pan-
European approach to the prioritisation of SAFA ramp inspections on potentially 
unsafe subjects, aimed at fostering a better utilisation of the available inspecting 
resources. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
As tasked under Commission Directive 2008/49/EC, EASA has developed and issued detailed 
Guidance  Material  for  the  qualification  SAFA  ramp  inspectors  setting  standards  which  are 
common across all participating States. The qualification criteria focus on eligibility, training 
(including recurrent training) and the experience of inspectors. The training of inspectors must 
follow  the  syllabi  developed  by  EASA  whilst  independent  training  providers  must  be 
qualified according to a dedicated set of common criteria. 

A  number  of  initiatives  started  in  2007  have  continued  in  2008,  becoming  regular  standard 
activities  under  the  EC  SAFA  Programme;  such  as  the  quality  review  of  reports  entered  by 
participating  States  in  the  SAFA  database  and  the  database  analysis.  Conducted  on  a  four-
monthly basis this 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  indeed 
becoming  a  threat  to  international  aviation  safety.  The  methodology  for  conducting  this 
analysis was further refined and enhanced to maximise the use of the available SAFA data. 

In October 2008 a major upgrade of the SAFA database was deployed, allowing for improved 
reporting, support for monitoring of the prioritisation process (established under Commission 
Regulation  (EC)  No  351/2008)  and  improved  workflows.  Whilst  also  implementing  the 
changes introduced by Commission Directive 2008/49/EC, namely the mandatory reporting of 
class  3  actions,  the  upgrade  introduced  a  major  new  feature  aimed  at  improving  the 
consistency of findings by using a set of pre-described findings, developed and maintained by 
EASA. 

The SAFA database was also replicated as a fully operational training environment allowing 
for hands-on training of its users. 

1.5. 

Introduction of a risk-based approach 

The  newly-enacted  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  351/2008  (which  came  into  force  in 
April 2008) introduces the concept of prioritisation of SAFA inspection from a pan-European 
perspective  whereby  participating  States  are  required  to  prioritise  a  portion  of  their  ramp 
inspections  on  certain  subjects  (either  individual  operators  or  all  the  operators  certified  in  a 
certain  state).  The  prioritisation  list  is  compiled  by  the  European  Commission  and  updated 
whenever the need arises according to the set of criteria established under the said Regulation, 
namely: 

–  information transmitted by EASA following the analysis of SAFA database; 

–  information stemming from the meetings of the Air Safety Committee; 

–  information received by the Commission 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 first prioritisation list was issued on 20 April 2008 and was subsequently reviewed twice 
during  that  same  year.  During  2008,  out  of  a  total  10,337  SAFA  inspections  1,481  were 
conducted on subjects indicated in the prioritisation list. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
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. 

Although  it  is  managed  and  maintained  by  EASA,  the  inclusion  of  reports  in  the  database 
remains  a  responsibility  of  the  individual  National  Aviation  Authorities  (NAA)  of  the  42 
SAFA participating States. 

In 2008 the SAFA Participating States performed a record 10,337 inspections which revealed 
some 11,298 findings (see Appendix A). 

Data  contained  in  the  database  is  considered  confidential  in  the  sense  that  it  is  only  shared 
with other participating States and is not available to the general public. The database can be 
accessed by all National Aviation Authorities of participating States via the (secured) internet.  

3. 

AREAS OF INSPECTION 

According  to  the  'SAFA  Directive',  aircraft  suspected  of  non-compliance  with  international 
safety standards (based on e.g. regular analysis of the database by EASA) must be inspected 
with priority by the Member States. Furthermore the SAFA ramp inspections may be carried 
out using a spot-check procedure. 

There are five areas on which the inspections can be focused: 

(1) 

Specific State of Operator (checking operators from a particular State). 

(2) 

Specific aircraft type. 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

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

Specific third country operator. 

Specific aircraft identified by its individual registration mark. 

Appendices  B,  C  and  D  list  the  states  of  operator,  aircraft  types  and  operators  inspected 
during the year 2008. They highlight the wide coverage of the EC SAFA Programme and its 
non-discriminatory application. 

The  smooth  operation  of  the  Programme  can  also  be  illustrated  by  the  table  below,  which 
aggregates the information in the Appendices and provides an overview of activities.  

Although  under  the  'SAFA  Directive'  the  main  obligation  on  EU  Member  States  is  the 
inspection of third-country aircraft visiting EU airports, aircraft from EU Operators continue 
to be subject of inspections as well. The following table shows the results: 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
Inspections 

10,337 inspections….. 

Operator 

…..on 1,067 different operators….. 

State of Operator  …..from 131 states….. 

Aircraft type 

…..operating 220 different (sub)types of aircraft 

The  table  below  meanwhile  reflects  the  fact  that  the  vast  majority  of  all  flights  within  EU 
Member States are carried out by EU operators and 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 

2008 

5,879 

Percentage 

56.87% 

4,458 

43.13% 

Out of the 10,337 inspections conducted during 2008, 9,040 were performed by EU Member 
States: 42.7% (3,857) were performed on operators certified in third (non-EU) countries while 
the  remaining  57.3%  (5,183)  were  conducted  on  EU  operators.  In  2008,  third  country 
operators  performed  some  700,000  landings  in  the  Community  airports  implying  an 
inspection rate (No. of inspections/No. of landings) of approximately 0.5% (i.e. 5 inspections 
for every 1,000 landings). Landings of EU operators in another EU state (other than the one 
responsible  for  their  safety  oversight)  amounted  to  more  than  2,900,000;  implying  an 
inspection rate of 0.17% for EU operators. 

4. 

MAIN RESULTS OF THE SAFA INSPECTIONS 

4.1. 

Inspection findings in general 

A first starting point regarding the findings, which are deviations from ICAO Standards, is the 
quantitative approach. This compares the total number of findings (F) to the total number of 
inspections (I) and the inspected items (II). 

During the inspection, a checklist is used which comprises a total of 54 different inspection 
items.  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. The results are presented in the table below: 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
Period 

01 January 2008 – 31 December 2008 

Total Inspections (I) 

Total Inspected Items (II) 

Total Findings (F) 

10,337 

358,046 

11,298 

Average  no.  of  Inspected  Items 
during an Inspection 

34.64 

Findings/Inspections (F/I) 

1.093 

Findings/Inspected Items (F/II) 

0.0315 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
  
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 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 

10337 

4661 

4551 

2086 

11298 

0,451 

0,440 

0,202 

1.093 

2008 

41,26% 

40,28% 

18,46% 

100.00% 

4.3. 

Historical overview 

Year  

1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

Total  
1996-
2008 

Total Inspections (I) 

75 

1748  2767  2833  2394  2706  3234  3413 

4568 

5457 

7458 

8594 

10337 

55584 

Total Inspected Items (II) 

1675  31413  88400  95524  80454  82935  93681  100014 148850 181440  260524  300035  358046  1822991

Total Findings (F) 

212 

1951  2573  2631  2587  2851  3064  3242 

6799 

8492 

12481  12073  11298 

70254 

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 

1.264 

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 

0.039 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

75

0

10337

8594

7458

5457

4568

3413

3234

2767

2833

2706

2394

1748

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

No. of SAFA inspections since the beginning of the Programme in 1996 

2,83

3,00

2,50

2,00

1,50

1,00

0,50

0,00

1,67

1,49

1,12

1,08

1,05

0,93

0,93

0,95

0,95

1,56

1,40

1,09

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Average no. of findings per inspection (1996-2008) 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
 
4.4. 

Inspection findings on a regional basis 

No. of findings (F) 

Ratio of findings (Fcat./I) 

of 

No. 
States 
inspected 

of 

No. 
Operat. 
inspected 

Inspect. 
(I) 

Cat.  
1 
(minor)

Cat. 
(signif.) 

2

Cat.  3
(major)

Total 

F 
cat.1/I 

F 
cat.2/I

F 
cat.3/I

F 
total/I

27 

532 

5,879 

2,293 

2,103 

849 

5,245  0.390 

0.358 

0.144 

0.892 

Region 

EU (27)1 

Europe (ECAC)2 

43 

665 

7,330 

2,973 

2,764 

1,140 

6,877  0.406 

0.377 

0.155 

0.938 

Russian 
Federation, 
Belarus & 
Central Asia3 

7 

92 

905 

410 

489 

244 

1,143  0.453 

0.540 

0.270 

1.263 

North America4 

3 

Latin America & 
the Caribbean5 

21 

Middle  East  and 
North Africa6 

Africa7 

Asia8 

17 

20 

16 

88 

46 

78 

41 

41 

456 

259 

203 

132 

594 

0.568 

0.445 

0.289 

1.303 

163 

112 

153 

74 

339 

0.687 

0.939 

0.454 

2.080 

998 

577 

586 

300 

1,463  0.578 

0.587 

0.301 

1.466 

192 

260 

169 

190 

112 

471 

0.880 

0.990 

0.583 

2.453 

158 

151 

77 

386 

0.608 

0.581 

0.296 

1.485 

1 

2 

3 

4 
5 

6 

7 

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. 
Europe  (ECAC)  -  Albania,  Armenia,  Austria,  Azerbaijan,  Belgium,  Bosnia-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, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, 
Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom. 
Russian Federation, Belarus and Central Asia - Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russian Federation, Tajikistan, 
Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan. 
North America (NA) - Bermuda, Canada, United States of America. 
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). 
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. 
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. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Oceania9 

4 

16 

32 

3 

15 

7 

25 

0.094 

0.469 

0.219 

0.781 

Average/all States 

0.451 

0.440 

0.202 

1.093 

From this table, one may note that: 

–  Operators  from  States  in  the  EU,  ECAC  and  Oceania  have  fewer  findings  per 

inspection than average. 

–  Operators from Africa, the Russian Federation/Belarus/Central Asia group, Asia, 
the  Middle  East,  North  America  and  North  Africa  have  more  findings  per 
inspection than average. 

Average Number of Findings by Region - Evolution over the last 5 years

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

0,500

0,000

AFR
AS
CIS
Europe (ECAC)
EU
LAC
MENA
NA
OC

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

– 

The  five  years  evolution  shows  that  the  average  number  of  findings  (per  inspection)  has 
decreased  for  almost  all  geographic  regions,  most  notably  for  operators  licensed  in  the 
Russian  Federation,  Belarus  and  Central  Asian  states  (CIS).  The  only  exception  is  Latin 
America and Caribbean (LAC). 

8 

9 

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

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
Distribution by ICAO regions 

No. of findings (F) 

Ratio of findings (Fcat./I) 

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

18 

9 

56 

17 

10 

10 

11 

55 

25 

773 

71 

107 

20 

16 

271 

131 

153 

159 

95 

126 

79 

75 

391 

0,565 

0,587 

0,292 

1,443 

296 

0,725 

0,962 

0,573 

2,260 

8580 

3607 

3477 

1483 

8567 

0,420 

0,405 

0,173 

0,998 

726 

489 

79 

61 

374 

387 

284 

253 

74 

74 

85 

64 

217 

165 

30 

37 

978 

0,515 

0,533 

0,299 

1,347 

702 

0,581 

0,517 

0,337 

1,436 

189 

0,937 

1,076 

0,380 

2,392 

175 

1,213 

1,049 

0,607 

2,869 

131 

1067 

10337 

4661 

4551 

2086 

11298 

0,451 

0,440 

0,202 

1,093 

Region 

APAC10 

ESAF11 

EUR/NAT12 

MID13 

NACC14 

SAM15 

WACAF16 

All States 

From this table, one may note that: 

–  Operators  from  States  belonging  to  the  EUR/NAT  have  fewer  findings  per 

inspection than average. 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

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. 
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. 
EUR/NAT-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  (incl.  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 (incl. Cayman Islands, Bermuda), Uzbekistan. 
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. 
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. 
SAM-South  American  ICAO  Region:  Argentina,  Bolivia,  Brazil,  Chile,  Colombia,  Ecuador,  Guyana,  Panamá, 
Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Uruguay, Venezuela. 
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 

 
 
                                                 
–  Operators from States belonging to the MID, SAM, WACAF, NACC, APAC and 

ESAF have more findings per inspection than average. 

Average Number of Findings by ICAO Region - Evolution over the last 5 years

4,00

3,50

3,00

2,50

2,00

1,50

1,00

0,50

0,00

APAC
ESAF
EUR/NAT
MID
NACC
SAM
WACAF

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

– 

This  graph  shows  that  for  the  NACC,  APAC  region  the  average  number  of  findings  (total 
number  of  findings/total  number  of  inspections)  maintained  at  a  fairly  constant  level.  The 
EUR/NAT, MID, WACAF regions figures improved, whilst the ESAF, SAM regions shows 
an increase of the average reversing the improving trends of last year. 

Comparison between the EU, ECAC and the rest of the world 

No. of findings (F) 

Ratio of findings (Fcat./I) 

Region 

of 

No. 
States 
inspected 

of 

No. 
Operat. 
inspected 

Inspect. 
(I) 

Cat.  
1 
(minor) 

Cat. 
(signif.) 

2

Cat.  3
(major)

Total 

F 
cat.1/I 

F 
cat.2/I

F 
cat.3/I 

F 
total/I

EU 

27 

532 

5879 

2293 

2103 

849 

5245 

0,390 

0,358 

0,144 

0,892 

Rest  of  EUROPE 
(non-EU 
ECAC 
States) 

EUROPE (ECAC) 

Non-EU States 

All States 

16 

43 

104 

131 

133 

1452 

680 

661 

291 

1632 

0,468 

0,455 

0,200 

1,124 

665 

7330 

2973 

2764 

1140 

6877 

0,406 

0,377 

0,155 

0,938 

535 

4458 

2368 

2448 

1237 

6053 

0,531 

0,549 

0,277 

1,358 

1067 

10337 

4661 

4551 

2086 

11298 

0,451 

0,440 

0,202 

1,093 

4.5. 

Inspection findings related to checklist items 

Appendix  F  provides  the  results  regarding  each  individual  inspection  item  (III)  which  has 
been inspected. It indicates the number of times that a particular inspection item was checked, 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
 
 
the  number  of  findings  and  the  ratio  F/III.  Appendix  G  provides  the  detailed  breakdown  of 
findings for the year 2008 by categories. 

4.6. 

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 below Appendices D and E. 

5. 

ACTION TAKEN AFTER RAMP INSPECTIONS 

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

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.  The  formal  act  of 
grounding by  the State of  Inspection means that the  aircraft is prohibited  from resuming its 
flights until appropriate corrective measures are taken. 

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. Operation 
of the aircraft is possible under the condition that the deficient seats are not occupied by any 
passengers. 

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 EC 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. As part of their responsibility 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  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 European Community 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. 

ACTIONS 

TAKEN 

No. of Inspections 

No. of Findings 

information to the authority 
& the operator 

restriction on aircraft 
operation 

corrective actions before flight 
authorisation 

aircraft grounded 

immediate operating ban 

10,337 

11,298 

3,566 

109 

1,407 

14 

10* 

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

EN 

16 

   EN