COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Setting up an Aviation Safety Management System for Europe
Date: 2011-10-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: accident prevention, air safety, air traffic, air traffic control

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 25.10.2011 
COM(2011) 670 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

Setting up an Aviation Safety Management System for Europe 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

{SEC(2011) 1261 final} 

 
 
 
 
  
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

In  publishing  its  White  Paper  on  Transport1  the  Commission  stated  the  clear  aim  that  the 
European Union should be the safest region for aviation. In addition, the Report of the High 
Level  Group  on  Aviation  Research2  stated  a  goal  for  2050  of  reducing  the  accident  rate  of 
commercial aircraft flights to less than one per ten million flights, i.e. half the current level. 
However, whilst the aviation accident rate continues to decline the rate of decline has slowed 
markedly since 20043 and at the same time we are seeing a continued growth in the number of 
flights, which are set to almost double by 20304. As a consequence, in order to preserve the 
current  low  level  of  fatalities  resulting  from  air  accidents,  we  must  ensure  that  the  rate  of 
accidents continues to decline in order to match the continued growth in the number of flights. 

The EU is therefore faced with a significant challenge over the coming years if it is to be a 
world leader in aviation safety and save lives that would otherwise be lost. There is therefore 
a clear need for action. 

This  Communication,  therefore,  describes  how  this  challenge  can  be  met  and  sets  out  some 
specific actions. It is Europe's contribution in support of the aim, agreed at the International 
Civil  Aviation  Organisation's  (ICAO)  High  Level  Safety  Conference5  held  in  Montreal  in 
2010, of moving towards a pro-active, evidence based, management of aviation safety.  

This Communication is also accompanied by a Commission Staff Working Paper describing 
the  current  aviation  safety  framework  at  European  level.  It  was  prepared  jointly  by  the 
Commission and EASA and is called the "European Aviation Safety Programme"(EASP)6  

2. 

THE CHALLENGE. 

The  current  system  in  Europe  for  ensuring  safety  in  aviation  is  predominantly  based  upon 
reliance  on  a  set  of  rules,  overseen  by  the  European  Aviation  Safety  Agency  (EASA)  and 
National Aviation Authorities (NAA),  which have been  developed  after years of experience 
and  using  lessons  learned  following  detailed  and  independent  investigations  of  aircraft 
accidents  and  incidents.  This  reactive  system  has  been  effective  over  the  past  decades  in 
delivering not only a very good safety record for aviation in Europe but also one which has 
steadily improved over the last decades. 

However,  as  pointed  out  in  the  ICAO  Safety  Management  Manual  (SMM)7,  regulatory 
compliance as the mainstay of safety is reaching its limit as the aviation system grows ever 
more  complex  and  more  is  understood  about  the  limitations  of  human  performance  and  the 
impact of organisational processes. The SMM explains that safety is increasingly viewed as 

1 

2 
3 
4 

5 
6 
7 

COM(2011)  144  -  WHITE  PAPER  -  Roadmap  to  a  Single  European  Transport  Area  –  Towards  a 
competitive and resource efficient transport system 
ISBN 978-92-79-19724-6 - Flightpath 2050 - Europe's Vision for Aviation. 
ISBN: 978-92-9210-097-1 - EASA Annual Safety Review 
EUROCONTROL  CND/STATFOR  Doc415  of  17  December  2010  -  Long-Term  Forecast  -  Flight 
Movements 2010 - 2030  
ICAO Doc 9935, HLSC 2010 
Reference to be added once SEC doc number is allocated 
ICAO Document 9859 AN/474 Second Edition - 2009 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
the process of keeping safety risks under organisational control and, as a consequence, ICAO 
introduced  the  need  for  a  systemic  approach  to  safety  in  its  Standards  and  Recommended 
Practices, in other words the introduction of safety management systems (SMS). 

It  is  therefore  clear  that,  in  order  to  continue  to  make  progress,  the  European  Union  must 
move beyond concentrating on rulemaking, important though this activity is, and place greater 
emphasis  on  addressing  the  risks  to  aviation  safety  in  a  systematic  fashion.  We  must  move 
from  a  primarily  reactive  system  where  regulations  are  changed  as  a  result  of  experience 
towards a system which is pro-active and attempts to anticipate potential safety risks in order 
to further reduce the likelihood of an accident.  

Moreover,  with  the  increasing  sharing  of  the  regulatory  competencies  for  aviation  safety 
between  national  and  European  authorities,  it  is  no  longer  practical  or  desirable  for  the 
Member States or the Commission or EASA to be acting in isolation when seeking pro-active 
solutions to common problems. All the aviation safety 'players' in the EU must work together 
to ensure that the whole system is greater than the sum of its parts. This was highlighted by 
the Madrid Declaration8 when considering the safety aspects of the Single European Sky. The 
conclusions  stated,  inter  alia,  that  the  extension  of  EASA's  competences  for  the  safety 
certification  of  Air  Traffic  Management  (ATM)  and  airports  by  2012  and  2013  should  be 
complemented by the setting up of the appropriate governance, coordinating the activities and 
expertise of EASA and Eurocontrol. 

The Commission, together with EASA, has been considering for some time how to proceed, 
and held a safety conference in January 2011, open to all aviation stakeholders, to discuss the 
issues  surrounding  safety  management.  The  details  of  the  conference  and  summaries  of  the 
debates are available on the Europa web site.9 

This  Communication,  drawing  on  the  contributions  made  at  the  conference,  sets  out  the 
parameters  of  a  European  aviation  safety  management  system,  what  it  would  look  like  and 
discusses the obstacles to be overcome to ensure it is effective. 

3. 

A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR DELIVERING AVIATION SAFETY  

3.1.  What is a safety management system? 

Before considering what such an EU system should look like, and what problems need to be 
overcome  in  establishing  the  various  components,  it  is  necessary  to  understand  the 
fundamental processes that make up a safety management system. 

A safety management system is a pro-active system that identifies the hazards to the activity, 
assesses the risks those hazards present, and takes action to reduce those risks to an acceptable 
level.  It  then  checks  to  confirm  the  effectiveness  of  the  actions.  The  system  works 
continuously  to  ensure  any  new  hazards  or  risks  are  rapidly  identified  and  that  mitigation 
actions are suitable and where found ineffective are revised.  

8 

9 

Conclusions of the High Level Conference on the Roadmap towards implementing the Single European 
Sky 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air/events/2011_01_26_aviation_safety_conference_en.htm 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Such  a  pro-active  system  at  EU  level  should  aim  at  supporting  the  efforts  of  the  Member 
States and not replacing them. It is not about shifting the responsibility for taking action but 
about the need for increased cooperation to achieve better results. It should add value to the 
safety initiatives of the Member States by drawing together European wide information to aid 
the identification of risks to aviation safety across Europe. It should share information and act 
as a facilitator to enable concerted action to be taken. For this to happen it is clear that it will 
depend upon the assistance and contributions of the Member States and the aviation industry. 
It is by drawing together in a collaborative approach the work of safety management systems 
at  Member  State  and  industry  level  that  European  benefits  are  to  be  obtained.  The  recent 
events  surrounding  the  eruption  of  volcanoes  in  Europe  have  shown  the  value  of  acting 
together,  using  information  and  contributions  from  all  sides,  to  try  to  arrive  at  a  common 
approach to this major new safety risk. 

3.2. 

Providing Focus. 

In  order  to  address  the  challenge  of  organising  a  safety  management  system  operating  in  a 
regional  context  a  focal  point  will  be  required.  In  2004  the  EU  established  EASA  which 
houses the technical aviation safety expertise at EU level. It is logical, therefore, that EASA, 
which has the resources and facilities to ensure the system functions efficiently, should be at 
the heart of the European Aviation Safety Management System. 

However,  not  all  the  activities  and  responsibilities  associated  with  the  functioning  of  the 
system should reside entirely within EASA. A systemic approach requires all the players to 
act cooperatively, with the Commission, EASA, the Member States, Eurocontrol and industry 
stakeholders  working  in  partnership  and  providing  feedback  to  one  another.  EASA, 
nonetheless, is the only organisation at the heart of the EU that is dedicated 100% to air safety 
and can therefore bring together the various strands of work which will contribute to success.  

3.3. 

Hazard identification. 

The first activity of a safety management system is to identify the safety hazards to aviation. 
In  order  to  identify  safety  hazards  information  is  required.  This  information  is  a  vital 
component of any safety management system, for without sound information any attempt to 
identify  the  hazards  would  be  guess  work.  A  variety  of  information  sources  are  currently 
available,  such  as  accident  reports,  ramp  inspection  reports  from  the  Safety  of  Foreign 
Aircraft  Programme  (SAFA),  the  investigation  and  follow-up  of  incidents,  data  from 
occurrence  reports  integrated  into  the  European  Central  Repository  (ECR),  oversight  audits 
including  EASA  Standardisation  Inspections,  and  information  exchange.  No  one  source 
provides all the required information, and an EU hazard identification process must make use 
of  a  combination  of  all  sources,  both  reactive,  proactive  and  predictive,  and  by  sharing  this 
information  it  can  provide  decision  makers  with  comprehensive  air  safety  “intelligence”. 
Typical hazards  in an aviation  environment  include such things as poor weather  conditions, 
mountainous terrain surrounding an airport, or failure of an aircraft engine. 

However, whilst the EU has access to all these sources of information, it is particularly in the 
area  of  occurrence  reporting  that  a  significant  fault  line  exists.  Despite  the  adoption  of 
Directive  2003/42/EC10,  occurrence  reporting  in  the  EU  and  the  use  of  the  ECR  are  still 

10 

Directive 2003/42/EC of  the European  Parliament  and of  the  Council  of 13  June  2003 on  occurrence 
reporting in civil aviation. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
affected by a number of shortcomings which limit the usefulness of the occurrence reporting 
system  for  accident  prevention  purposes.  These  problems  are,  notably,  low  quality  of 
information,  incomplete  data,  insufficient  clarity  in  reporting  obligations  and  in  the  flow  of 
information,  and  legal  and  organisational  obstacles  to  ensuring  adequate  access  to  the  ECR 
information  to  enable  information  sharing.  In  addition  there  is  considerable  fragmentation 
within  the  current  system.  As  well  as  the  EU  repository,  Eurocontrol  has  its  own  safety 
repository and EASA is building its own internal database. It would be beneficial to combine 
this  information  on  occurrences.  Finally  there  is  the  difficulty  in  capturing  all  occurrences, 
and  this  problem  raises  the  need  for  action  in  the  area  of  the  implementation  of  a  'just 
culture'.11  Further  work  is  required  to  encourage  a  culture  of  open  reporting  within  the 
aviation  industry  and  to  support  the  development  of  an  environment  where  individuals  feel 
able to report safety significant events without the fear of reprisal. 

Action 1: 

The  Commission  will  bring  forward  proposals  in  2012  to  update  the  EU  system  on 
occurrence reporting by reviewing Directive 2003/42/EC and its Implementing Rules12.  

3.4. 

Analysis of safety data. 

Having  safety  data  is  one  thing,  but  making  sense  of  it  is  another.  Even  now,  with  the 
shortcomings  identified  above,  the  ECR  contains  over  450,000  occurrence  reports,  and  this 
figure is growing daily. The challenge is therefore to develop a process to enable meaningful 
information to be extracted from the data.  

Today we have the situation where some Member States, EASA, Eurocontrol and others do 
their own analysis. Whilst this is effective in enabling each player to address their own issues 
there is potential for a great deal of duplication of effort which, more importantly, can hide a 
significant  safety  issue.  An  event  that  appears  to  be  a  'one  off'  occurrence  in  one  Member 
State, when looked at across the Union as a whole, can point to a need for action. This has 
been  recognised  in  Commission  Regulation  (EU)  No  996/201013  which,  in  Article  19, 
requires  EASA  and  the  competent  authorities  of  the  Member  States  to  collaborate  in  the 
regular exchange and analysis of information. However, the framework and tools required to 
realise this have yet to be developed.  

In  order  to  achieve  these  aims  work  has  already  been  set  in  train  by  EASA  to  create  a 
Network of Analysts which uses expertise available within EASA, the competent authorities 
of  the  Member  States,  and  the  national  safety  investigation  authorities.  The  Network  of 
Analysts  would  be  able  to  help  with  the  identification  of  safety  issues  to  enable  the  early 
detection  of  safety  trends  and  contribute  to  the  development  of  common  analysis  tools, 
methods and techniques. The Network could, for example, be asked to examine the available 
data to see if the risks inherent in winter operations are being effectively contained or whether 
there was evidence which indicated the need for further action. 

11 
12 

13 

Just Culture is defined in Art 2(k) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 691/2010 of 29 July 2010. 
Commission Regulation (EU) No 1330/2007 of 24 September 2007 & Commission Regulation (EU) No 
1321/2007 of 12 November 2007. 
Regulation (EU) No 996/2010 of 20 October 2010 on the investigation and prevention of accidents and 
incidents in civil aviation and repealing Directive 94/56/EC. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Finally,  the  Commission  has  been  actively  engaged  in  seeking  opportunities  for  safety 
information exchange schemes at international level, most notably with the recent signing of a 
Memorandum  of  Understanding  on  a  Global  Safety  Information  Exchange  (GSIE)  between 
the  Commission,  ICAO,  the  FAA  and  IATA.  This  initiative  aims  at  promoting  a  more 
proactive and evidence based approach to safety management at the global level. It provides a 
framework for cooperation for the exchange of safety information and will also facilitate the 
dissemination,  through  ICAO,  of  information  about  safety  hazards  or  risks  and  safety 
enhancement solutions, identified on the basis of information exchanged under the GSIE. 

Information  shared  will  also  contribute  towards  a  “cross-check”  of  the  list  of  top  hazards 
identified in the EU with those of other regions in the world. 

Action 2: 

The  Commission  will  come  forward,  subject  to  the  results  of  the  impact  assessment 
being  conducted  as  part  of  the  review  of  legislation  on  occurrence  reporting,  with  a 
proposal to further develop safety analysis at EU level.  

3.5. 

Determining the risks. 

Whilst it is essential to identify the hazards, it is understanding the potential risk those hazards 
pose that is critical to enable decisions to be made on mitigation action, and in particular to 
prioritise action.  

This  aspect,  known  as  safety  risk  assessment,  is  carried  out  individually  by  a  number  of 
Member States when determining where they need to focus actions at Member State level. As 
an example, one Member State has identified the issue of unstabilised approaches14 as a major 
risk following their own risk assessment process, and is taking actions aimed at reducing the 
number of such events. A similar process could be conducted at EU level using analysis by 
EASA, the Member States the Network of Analysts, and from the aviation industry in order to 
determine where best to direct efforts at this or other problems.  

However, there is not yet a universally accepted risk assessment methodology in common use 
across  the  European  Union  for  all  the  aviation  domains  which  would  enable  a  standardised 
approach and better priority setting to tackle those risks that pose the greatest threat to safety. 
This shortcoming will have to be overcome. 

Finally, in order to thoroughly assess the risks and draw conclusions for the improvement of 
aviation  safety,  the  EU  will  need  to  put  the  information  about  occurrences  in  a  statistical 
context. Sound and consistent information about the level of aviation activities in EU Member 
States will be needed. This is not yet the case, especially for general aviation where currently, 
due to the lack of exposure data, it is difficult to calculate the rates even for the key categories 
of accidents. 

14 

An unstabilised approach is where, for whatever reason, the aircraft is not in the ideal position at the 
correct speed, altitude and configuration for landing. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Action 3: 

The  Commission  will  examine,  following  the  results  of  the  impact  assessment  on 
occurrence reporting, whether it is appropriate to bring forward proposals to establish a 
common risk assessment classification. (See Action 1). 

3.6. 

Taking action. 

Member States, to a varying degree, individually take action to address the safety issues they 
themselves have identified, but some of these issues are common to the EU as a whole. There 
is therefore benefit to be had from a more coordinated approach across the Union, enabling 
actions taken  by  individual  Member  States, the Commission and EASA  to  complement one 
another. The value of this coordination of effort would be to focus action on the significant 
risks at all levels of aviation activity within the EU. 

However, before they commit to taking action, it is essential that the Member States have the 
opportunity  to  formally  discuss  and  agree  on  the  significant  risks.  The  Commission  is 
currently  assisted  by  a  Committee  on  aspects  concerning  Regulation  (EC)  No  216/200815. 
This  Committee,  known  as  the  EASA  Committee,  contains  the  relevant  aviation  safety 
experts  from  the  Member  States  and  is  therefore  well  placed  to  provide  the  necessary 
expertise for decisions concerning safety risks. 

Action 4: 

The Commission will use the EASA Committee as the principal forum for enabling full 
discussions with Member States on actions to be taken. 

3.7. 

The European Aviation Safety Plan. 

Given  the  technical  nature  of  the  issues,  it  should  be  for  EASA  to  set  down  its  view  to  the 
Commission  on  the  best  course  of  action  to  mitigate  the  risks,  on  the  timescales  for  such 
actions,  and  finally  on  the  measurement  of  success.  This  view,  drawing  on  inputs  from  all 
stakeholders, including the aviation industry, should be set out as a plan of action, , known as 
the European Aviation Safety Plan16. 

This Safety Plan should should provide a detailed description of specific safety issues, clarity 
on  the  actions  to  be  taken  to  mitigate  the  associated  risks,  and  clear  deliverables  for  such 
actions, all presented in a style which is understandable to European citizens.  

EASA has already published an initial version of such a plan which was based upon Member 
States' plans and priorities and was published in early 2011. It contained a variety of actions, 
one example being the need to address the issue of runway excursions, an issue also identified 
by the ICAO High Level Safety Conference in 2010.  

Having published a Safety Plan it is necessary to keep EU citizens appraised of the progress 
being made in addressing the specific safety issues. To this end the Safety Plan will need to be 

15 

16 

Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 on 
common  rules  in  the field of  civil  aviation and establishing  a  European Aviation  Safety  Agency,  and 
repealing Council Directive 91/670/EEC, Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 and Directive 2004/36/EC 
http://easa.europa.eu/sms/ 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
regularly  updated,  not  only  to  include  the  actions  taken  to  date  but  also  to  take  the 
opportunity, if required, to include any new risks identified and to amend any actions that are 
found not to be effective. 

Action 5: 

EASA  will  publish  annual  updates  to  the  European  Aviation  Safety  Plan  detailing 
progress made in addressing identified safety risks at EU level. 

3.8.  Measuring achievements. 

It will be important for all stakeholders to know if the activities undertaken to improve safety 
are  having  an  effect.  To  this  end  safety  performance  indicators  (SPI)  are  a  valuable  tool.  A 
simple and generally accepted example of such an indicator is the measurement of safety used 
in EASA's annual safety review of 2010 when comparing the relative performance of world 
regions. EASA uses the indicator of annual rate of fatal accidents per 10 million flights. Using 
such  an  indicator  permits  comparisons  with  past  performance  to  enable  a  confirmation  of 
progress,  and  also  enables  a  comparison  to  be  made  with  other  regions.  The  EU  made  a 
significant  contribution  to  the  subject  at  the  last  ICAO  General  Assembly  in  which  the 
European view on SPIs was presented, however it has yet to decide on the specific indicators 
and further work needs to be done in order to agree on a set acceptable to all stakeholders.  

Action 6: 

The Commission, in cooperation with EASA, will continue work on the development of 
SPIs,  and  will  consult  stakeholders  before  making  proposals  on  a  common  set  of 
indicators covering all the aviation domains. 

3.9  Working with our neighbours. 

Issues  arising  from  aviation  safety  are  not  confined  to  the  EU  but  are  shared  by  our 
neighbours. The EU has in place many arrangements to facilitate cooperation between the EU 
and  its  neighbours  on  aviation  matters.  Such  arrangements  include  the  European  Common 
Aviation  Area  with  a  number  of  Balkan  states17  and  the  Euro-Mediterranean  Common 
Aviation  Area18,  as  well  as  assistance  programmes  and  enhanced  cooperation  in  the 
framework of the Safety Assessment of Foreign Aircraft (SAFA). As an example, the SAFA 
programme involves 15 States outside of the EU and is an excellent illustration of where the 
EU and its neighbours co-operate in providing and sharing safety information, to the benefit 
of all. 

The  work  and  outputs  of  the  EU  safety  management  system  should,  similarly,  be  shared  in 
order  to  gain  from  the  experience  of  our  neighbours  and  to  contribute  to  their  efforts  in 
improving aviation safety, and thus contribute to our mutual aims of a high level of safety. 

17 

18 

Croatia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Serbia, 
Montenegro. 
The Euromed Aviation Project involves the following States: Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordon, Lebanon, 
Morocco, The Palestine Authority, Syria, Tunisia. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Action 7: 

The  Commission,  in  cooperation  with  EASA,  will  continue  to  share  the  work  of  the 
safety  management  system  and  encourage  mutual  cooperation  with  our  neighbours  on 
the identification of safety issues. 

4. 

THE EUROPEAN AVIATION SAFETY PROGRAMME (EASP) 

Standards contained in the various annexes of the Chicago Convention19 require Contracting 
States to implement a State Safety Programme (SSP). A SSP is a system for the management 
of  safety  by  the  State,  and  is  normally  described  in  a  single  document  which  sets  down  a 
State's  policy  and  objectives,  risk  management,  safety  assurance  and  safety  promotion 
activities. 

However,  Member  States  now  rely,  to  a  significant  extent,  on  the  activities  already  being 
carried out at European level. Therefore, in discharging their obligations to ICAO, as well as 
describing  their  purely  national  activities,  Member  States  also  need  to  describe  the  areas  of 
responsibility  that  now  rest  with  the  EU  and  the  activities  undertaken  at  EU  level  which 
support the Member States. Whilst all 27 Member States and 4 EEA/EFTA States could do 
this  separately,  it  is  not  an  efficient  or  transparent  means  of  addressing  this  requirement. 
Production  of  an  EU  equivalent  of  an  SSP,  i.e.  a  European  Aviation  Safety  Programme 
(EASP),  is  a  more  efficient  means  of  discharging  this  obligation  and  would  support  the 
Member States in developing their own SSPs. 

Furthermore,  by  setting  down  how  aviation  safety  is  managed  at  EU  level  it  helps  bring 
clarity on where the various responsibilities for safety lie within the EU and makes clear how 
the  EU  as  a  whole  can  achieve  and  then  maintain  a  satisfactory  safety  performance.  It  also 
provides transparency to all stakeholders with an interest in safety. The EU is leading the way 
in organising aviation safety on a regional basis, and the production of a document describing 
how a regional body manages aviation safety will be a first of its kind.  

Work  on  an  EASP  has  been  going  on  within  the  EU  for  some  time  and  it  is  now  ready  for 
publication.  The  Commission  is  therefore  taking  the  opportunity  of  this  Communication  to 
simultaneously  publish  the  document  as  a  Commission  Staff  Working  Paper.  The  paper 
describes  the  current  aviation  safety  framework  at  EU  level,  including  how  specific  safety 
issues  are  identified  and  addressed,  as  described  in  the  European  Aviation  Safety  Plan  (see 
paragraph 3.7). It complies with the format set down in ICAO's safety management manual in 
order to provide an approach consistent with international guidelines and to compliment the 
Member States SSPs. The Commission will update the document when required to reflect any 
changes to the European aviation safety system..  

Action 8: 

The Commission will, with the assistance of the Member States and EASA, update the 
European Aviation Safety Programme as changes in the management of aviation safety 
within the EU occur. 

19 

Signed in Chicago on 7th December 1944 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
5. 

THE FUTURE 

5.1. 

Setting Performance Targets. 

An important element in addressing safety risks and in achieving continuous improvement in 
safety performance is the setting of safety performance targets. These targets are the concrete 
objectives in achieving a level of safety. An example of such a target could be to reduce the 
number of runway excursions in the EU by 50% over the next five years. Such targets need to 
be realistic and achievable. 

Commission  Regulation  No  691/201020  laid  down  a  performance  scheme  for  air  navigation 
services  and  network  functions.  The  performance  scheme  aims,  inter  alia,  at  providing 
indicators and binding targets in key performance areas to enable safety levels to be achieved 
and  maintained.  Whilst  the  first  steps  have  therefore  been  taken  in  setting  up  a  safety 
performance  scheme  it  is  currently  restricted  to  European  Air  Traffic  Management  (ATM) 
and does not include other domains within the aviation safety arena. It will not be an easy task 
to  decide  on  safety  performance  schemes  for  these  other  disciplines  (e.g.  flight  operations, 
airworthiness  etc.),  such  work  will  be  complex  and  demand  an  innovative  approach.  It  will 
therefore need to be subject to the full consultative process before any proposals are brought 
forward,  nonetheless  it  is  an  area  that  will  need  to  be  considered  in  the  future  in  order  to 
support the aim of continuous improvement.  

Action 9: 

The  Commission  will  consult  stakeholders  and  conduct  an  impact  assessment  before 
bringing forward proposals for performance schemes for other aviation safety domains. 

5.2. 

A risk based approach to standardisation. 

The introduction of safety management principles into the EU aviation system will change the 
way  we  approach  aviation  safety,  and  will  lead  to  a  significant  improvement  in  the  way  in 
which safety risks are controlled. However, the use of such principles should not be confined 
to  the  development  of  the  Safety  Plan  alone  but  should  encompass  the  whole  system.  The 
work by EASA in conducting standardisation inspections, required under Regulation (EC) No 
216/2008  to  monitor  the  application  of  that  Regulation,  should  evolve  beyond  compliance 
monitoring  towards  an  approach  that  is  driven  more  by  safety  risks  identified  by  the  safety 
management system. This risk based approach would add benefit by focusing on those issues 
where mitigation action would have a clear benefit to safety.  

5.3. 

An approach based on safety performance. 

In  addition,  whilst  the  current  safety  rulemaking  effort  is  concentrating  on  transposing,  and 
where necessary updating, existing requirements into EU Regulations the future development 
of rules should focus on performance aimed at achieving desired results and outcomes based 
upon  agreed  safety  performance.  This  approach,  known  as  performance  based  regulation, 

20 

Commission Regulation (EU) No 691/2010 of 29 July 2010 laying down a performance scheme for air 
navigation services and network functions and amending Regulation (EC) No 2096/2005 laying down 
common requirements for the provision of air navigation services 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
would  build  on  the  use  of  safety  management  systems,  and  their  development  and 
introduction into EU aviation safety regulations should be a longer term goal.  

5.4. 

Placing the system on a formal basis. 

Finally,  the  system  described  in  this  Communication  is  based  to  a  large  degree  on 
arrangements  without  the  underpinning  of  regulation.  It  may  be  necessary,  once  further 
experience  is  gained  and  the  effectiveness,  or  otherwise,  of  this  approach  becomes  clear,  to 
consider  whether  it  is  necessary  to  put  the  EU  Aviation  Safety  Management  System  on  a 
formal basis in order to ensure its continuing success. The Commission will therefore monitor 
the progress made as the system develops and consider if specific regulatory action should be 
proposed to ensure the effectiveness of the system into the future. 

Action 10: 

The  Commission  will  consider,  once  further  experience  is  gained  and  the  potential 
impacts  have  been  assessed,  if  regulatory  proposals  to  formalise  the  EU  Safety 
Management System should be brought forward.  

6. 

CONCLUSION 

The EU faces major challenges in the coming years in terms of aviation safety. To prevent the 
continued growth in aviation resulting in an increase in fatalities from aviation accidents, and 
to  ensure  it  becomes  the  leading  world  region  in  terms  of  aviation  safety,  a  paradigm  shift 
needs to occur in its approach to safety. Whilst the current system for ensuring safety has been 
highly successful in the past it appears to be reaching the limit of its effectiveness in driving 
down the accident rate. The Commission believes that we must, therefore, move from reaction 
to prevention by adopting a pro-active approach to aviation safety, one that places emphasis 
on  the  systematic  targeting  of  actions  to  address  significant  risks  based  upon  the  results  of 
careful analysis of information gathered from across the Union. 

This  sharing  of  effort  and  concentration  on  identified  issues  will  lead  to  action  being  taken 
across  the  Union  in  a  coordinated  fashion,  thus  leading  to  a  'joined-up'  approach  to  safety 
management. Such an approach will lead to legislation and guidance material being focussed 
on  the  issues  that  can  make  a  difference,  on  oversight  targeted  on  areas  of  greatest  safety 
significance, and on research and recommendations being directed accurately at the high risk 
areas.  It  will  also  ensure  the  best  use  of  limited  resources  by  focusing  them  on  those  areas 
where greatest safety benefits can be achieved. 

By improving the quality of safety information, by sharing the information and the results of 
analysis,  by  reaching  agreement  on  those  risks  where  coordinated  action  will  bring  the 
greatest  benefits,  and  by  taking  the  agreed  actions,  the  Commission  believe  the  EU  can 
become the leading aviation safety region in the world to the benefit of all EU citizens.  

EN 

11 

   EN