REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL EUROPEAN UNION SAFA PROGRAMME
Date: 2012-03-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, air safety, civil aviation, international standard, roadworthiness tests, safety standard, third country

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 7.3.2012  
COM(2012) 91 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

EUROPEAN UNION SAFA PROGRAMME 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

{SWD(2012) 38 final} 

 
 
 
 
  
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

EUROPEAN UNION SAFA PROGRAMME 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

1. 

THE EU SAFA PROGRAMME  

1.1. 

Aviation  safety  as  key  priority  for  the  European  Union  and  for  its  Member 
States 

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

Within the framework of its overall strategy to establish and maintain a high uniform level of 
civil  aviation  safety  in  Europe,  the  Community  adopted  on  21  April  2004  Directive 
2004/36/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the  safety  of  third-country 
aircraft  using  Community  airports1  (the  so-called  'SAFA  Directive').  This  Directive 
introduced a legal obligation upon EU Member States to perform ramp inspections upon third 
country  aircraft  landing  at  their  airports,  where  ‘third  country  aircraft’  implied  an  aircraft 
which is not used or operated under control of a competent authority of an EU Member State; 
although  the  Directive  does  in  no  way  prohibit  EU  Member  States  from  inspecting  aircraft 
from  other  EU  Member  States.  EU  Member  States  were  given  a  window  of  two  years  for 
implementing this Directive through the enactment of national legislation.2

In  addition  and  following  a  decision  by  the  Directors  General  of  ECAC  member  states,  the 
SAFA  programme  was  transferred  under  Community  competence  on  1 January  2007,  when 
responsibility  for  the  management  and  further  development  of  the  programme  fell  upon  the 
European  Commission  assisted  by  the  European  Aviation  Safety  Agency  (EASA),  in 
accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) 768/2006.3

The continued participation of  the fifteen  non-EU ECAC States, and thus the pan-European 
dimension  of  the  programme,  has  been  assured  through  the  signature  of  a  Working 
Arrangement  between  each  of  these  individual  States  and  EASA.  Including  the  EU-27 

1 
2 

3 

OJ L 143, 30.4.2004, p. 76. 
See in particular Report from the Commission on Safety of Third-Country Aircraft using Community 
Airports dated 24.9.2008. C(2008) 5265 final. 
OJ L 134, 20.5.2006, p. 16. 

EN 

1 

   EN 

 
  
  
                                                 
therefore, the EU-SAFA programme boasts a total of 42 participating States (see Appendix A 
to the accompanying Staff Working Paper of the Commission)4. 

1.2.  Why this report? 

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

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

1.3. 

Functioning of the EU SAFA programme 

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

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

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

•  its application by all 42 SAFA participating States; 

•  the  broad  dissemination  of  SAFA  ramp  inspection  results  through  a  centralised 

database; 

•  its  bottom-up  approach:  the  Programme  is  built  around  ramp  inspections  of 

aircraft; 

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

•  its  inherent  objective  of  checking  for  compliance  with  safety  international  rules 

(ICAO Standards). 

4 

SWD(2012) 38 

EN 

2 

   EN 

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

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

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

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

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

Additionally,  since  the  coming  into  force  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  2111/20055  establishing  a 
list of carriers which are banned from flying into the EU, SAFA inspections have acquired an 
increased  importance  as  one  of  the  criteria  considered  by  the  Commission  in  taking  its 
decisions on the inclusion of carriers in the Community safety list. 

1.5. 

Progress of the programme during 2010 

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

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

5 

OJ L 344, 27.12.2005, p. 15 

EN 

3 

   EN 

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

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

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

Finally,  as  tasked  under  Commission  Directive  2008/49/EC6,  EASA  continued  with  the 
review of the second set of detailed Guidance Material on Ramp Inspection Procedures which 
were published in 2009. 

1.6. 

Introduction of a risk-based approach. Prioritisation of inspections 

Commission Regulation (EC) No 351/20087 introduces the concept of prioritisation of SAFA 
inspection  from  a  pan-European  perspective.  Participating  States  are  required  to  prioritise  a 
portion  of  their  ramp  inspections  on  certain  operators.  The  prioritisation  list  is  compiled  by 
the  Commission  pursuant  to  information  transmitted  by  EASA  following  the  analysis  of 
SAFA  database,  or  stemming  from  the  meetings  of  the  Air  Safety  Committee  or  finally 
information received from the Member States. 

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

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

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

6 
7 

OJ L 109, 19.4.2008, p. 17. 
OJ L 109, 19.4.2008, p. 7. 

EN 

4 

   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. 

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

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

3. 

AREAS OF INSPECTION 

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

There are five areas on which the inspections are focused: 

(1) 

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

(2) 

Specific aircraft type; 

(3) 

(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 to the accompanying Staff Working Paper of the Commission8 list the 
states of operator, aircraft types and operators inspected during the year 2010.  

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

8 

SWD(2012) 38 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Table 1: Operation of the SAFA programme during 2010 

Number of inspections carried out 11,703  

Aircrafts inspected 

6,200 aircraft registrations 

Operators inspected 

 more than 1,076  

State of Operator inspected 

130 states and territories 

Aircraft type inspected 

219 different aircraft types and variants 

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

Table 2: Inspections on EU and non-EU operators 

Inspections 
Operators 

on 

EU

Inspections  on  non-EU 
Operators 

2010 

Percentage 

5,990 

51.2% 

5,713 

48.8% 

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

4. 

MAIN RESULTS OF THE SAFA INSPECTIONS 

4.1. 

Inspection findings in general 

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

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
Table 3: Overview on SAFA findings and SAFA inspected items 

Period 

01 January 2010 – 31 December 2010 

Total Inspections (I) 

Total Inspected Items (II) 

Total Findings (F) 

11,703 

437,519 

11,019 

Average  no.  of  Inspected  Items 
during an Inspection 

37.39 

Findings/Inspections (F/I) 

0.942 

Findings/Inspected Items (F/II) 

0.0252 

4.2. 

Inspection findings and their categories 

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

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

Table 4: SAFA findings per category 

No. findings  
(F) 

Ratio of findings  
(Fcat./I) 

Year 

No.  inspections  
(I) 

1  

Cat. 
(minor) 

Cat. 2  
(significant) 

Cat. 3  
(major) 

total 

F cat.1 / I 

F cat.2 / I 

F cat.3 / I 

F total / I 

11,703 

3,424 

4,719 

2,876 

11,019 

0.293 

0.403 

0.246 

0.942 

2010 

31% 

42.8% 

26.1% 

100.00% 

4.3. 

Historical overview 

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

Table 5: Overview of the evolution of SAFA findings 

EN 

Year  

7 

Total  

   EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

75 

1,748 

2,767 

2,833 

2,394 

2,706 

3,234 

3,413 

4,568 

5,457 

7,458 

8,594 

10,337 

11,349 

11,703 

1,675 

31,413  88,400  95,524  80,454  82,935  93,681  100,014 148,850 181,440 260,524 300,035 

358,046  408,217 

437,519 

212 

1,951 

2,573 

2,631 

2,587 

2,851 

3,064 

3,242 

6,799 

8,492 

12,481  12,073 

11,298 

9,688 

11,019 

2.8267  1.1161  0.9299  0.9287  1.0806  1.0536  0.9474  0.9499  1.4884  1.5562  1.6704  1.405 

1.093 

0.854 

0.942 

Total 
Inspections (I) 

Total Inspected 
Items (II) 

Total Findings 
(F) 

Findings/Inspec
tions (F/I) 

Findings/Inspected 
Items (F/II) 

0.127 

0.062 

0.029 

0.028 

0.032 

0.034 

0.033 

0.032 

0.046 

0.047 

0.048 

0.040 

0.032 

0.024 

0.025 

1996-
2009 

66,933 

2,231,208

79,942 

1.194 

0.036 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
  
Table 6: Annual Number of SAFA inspections since 1996 

11703

11349

10337

8594

7458

12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

75

0

5457

4568

3413

3234

2767 2833

2706

2394

1748

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

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

2,83

3,00

2,50

2,00

1,50

1,00

0,50

0,00

1,49

1,56

1,67

1,12

1,08

1,05

0,93

0,93

0,95

0,95

1,40

1,09

0,85

0,94

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

EN 

9 

   EN 

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

4.4. 

Inspection findings on a regional basis 

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

From these tables, it is possible to note that: 

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

than average. 

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

Table 8: inspection findings on a regional basis 

No. of findings (F) 

Ratio of findings (Fcat./I) 

Region 

of 

No. 
States 
inspected 

No. 
Operat. 
inspected 

of 

Inspect. 
(I) 

Cat.  
1 
(minor) 

Cat. 
(signif.) 

2

Cat. 
(major) 

3

Total 

F 
cat.1/I 

F 
cat.2/I 

F 
cat.3/I 

F 
total/I 

EU9 

27 

521 

5990 

1296 

1984 

1193 

4473 

0.22 

0.33 

0.20 

0.75 

EUROPE 
(ECAC)10 

Russian 
Federation, 
Belarus & 
Central 
Asia11 

North 
America12 

44 

662 

7776 

1865 

2675 

1603 

6143 

0.24 

0.34 

0.21 

0.79 

6 

3 

88 

97 

1002 

610 

474 

207 

484 

188 

233 

1191 

0.47 

0.48 

0.23 

1.19 

178 

573 

0.34 

0.31 

0.29 

0.94 

9 

10 

11 

12 

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  and  Herzegovina,  Bulgaria,  Croatia, 
Cyprus,  Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Finland,  France,  Georgia,  Germany,  Greece,  Hungary,  Iceland, 
Ireland,  Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  former  Yugoslav  Republic  of  Macedonia,  Malta,  Republic  of 
Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, 
Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom. 
Russian Federation, Belarus and Central Asia - Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russian Federation, Tajikistan, 
Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan. 
North America (NA) - Bermuda, Canada, United States of America. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Latina 
america  & 
the 
C ibb
Middle  East 
and  North 
Africa14 

13

Africa15 

Asia16 

Oceania17 

21 

32 

165 

81 

94 

78 

253 

0.49 

0.57 

0.47 

1.53 

17 

19 

17 

3 

101 

39 

46 

11 

1422 

311 

377 

40 

543 

84 

165 

5 

824 

215 

231 

8 

497 

1864 

0.38 

0.58 

0.35 

1.31 

149 

448 

0.27 

0.69 

0.48 

1.44 

130 

526 

0.44 

0.61 

0.34 

1.40 

8 

21 

0.13 

0.20 

0.20 

0.53 

Average/all States 

0.29 

0.40 

0.25 

0.94 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

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. 
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 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Table 9: Evolution of inspections findings on a regional basis 

3,50

3,00

2,50

2,00

1,50

1,00

0,50

0,00

EU

Europe (ECAC)

CIS

NA

LAC

MENA

AFR

AS

OC

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

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

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

No. of findings (F) 

Ratio of findings (Fcat./I) 

Region 

EU 

Rest of EUROPE 
(non-EU  ECAC 
States) 

of 

No. 
States 
inspected 

of 

No. 
Operat. 
inspected 

Inspect. 
(I) 

Cat.  
1 
(minor) 

Cat. 
(signif.) 

2

Cat. 
(major) 

3

Total 

F 
cat.1/I 

F 
cat.2/I 

F 
cat.3/I 

F 
total/I 

27 

17 

 521 

5990 

1296 

1984 

1193 

4473 

0.22 

0.33 

0.2 

0.75 

141 

1786 

569 

691 

410 

1670 

0.32 

0.39 

0.23 

0.94 

4.5. 

Distribution by ICAO regions 

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

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
–  Operators from States belonging to the EUR18 and ESAF19 region have fewer findings per 

inspection than average. 

–  Operators from States belonging to the MID20, SAM21, WACAF22, NACC23, APAC24 have 

more findings per inspection than average. 

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

EUR-European and North Atlantic ICAO Region:  

18 
Albania,  Algeria,  Andorra,  Armenia,  Austria,  Azerbaijan,  Belarus,  Belgium,  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina,  Bulgaria,  Croatia, 
Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, 
Kazakhstan,  Kyrgyzstan,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  Malta,  Monaco,  Montenegro,  Morocco,  Netherlands 
(excl. Netherlands Antilles), Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, San 
Marino,  Serbia,  Slovakia,  Slovenia,  Spain,  Sweden,  Switzerland,  Tajikistan,  The  former  Yugoslav  Republic  of 
Macedonia,  Tunisia,  Turkey,  Turkmenistan,  Ukraine,  United  Kingdom  (excl.  Cayman  Islands,  Bermuda), 
Uzbekistan. 
ESAF-Eastern and Southern African ICAO Region:  

19 
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. 
MID-Middle East ICAO Region:  

20 
Afghanistan, Bahrain, Cyprus, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Oman, Pakistan, 

WACAF-Western and Central African ICAO Region:  

Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, United Arab Emirates, Yemen. 
SAM-South American ICAO Region:  

21 
Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Panamá, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Uruguay, Venezuela. 
22 
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. 
NACC-Northern American, Central American and Caribbean ICAO Region:  

23 
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. 
APAC-Asian and Pacific ICAO Region:  

24 
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. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

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

No. of findings (F) 

Ratio of findings (Fcat./I) 

Region 

No. of 
States 
inspected 

No. of 
Operat. 
inspected 

Inspect. 
(I) 

Cat. 
1 
(minor)

Cat. 2 
(signif.) 

Cat. 3
(major) Total 

F 
cat.1/I 

F 
cat.2/I

F 
cat.3/I

F 
total/I

APAC 

ESAF 

EUR 

MID 

NACC 

SAM 

WACAF 

All States 

18 

10 

57 

17 

10 

10 

9 

51 

24 

769 

94 

109 

15 

14 

364 

154 

178 

107 

439 

0.42 

0.49 

0.29 

1.21 

219 

33 

79 

75 

187 

0.15 

0.36 

0.34 

0.85 

9218 

2568 

3491 

2018 

8077 

0.28 

0.38 

0.22 

0.88 

1103 

342 

637 

238 

70 

92 

38 

51 

567 

224 

44 

136 

354 

1263 

0.31 

0.51 

0.32 

1.15 

215 

677 

0.37 

0.35 

0.34 

1.06 

33 

74 

115 

0.54 

0.63 

0.47 

1.64 

261 

0.55 

1.48 

0.80 

2.84 

130 

1076 

11703 

3424 

4719 

2876 

11019 

0.29 

0.40 

0.25 

0.94 

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

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

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.6. 

Inspection findings related to checklist items 

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

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

4.7. 

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

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

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

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

5. 

ACTION TAKEN PURSUANT TO RAMP INSPECTIONS 

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

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

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

It is standard practice that the captain of the aircraft which has just been inspected is debriefed about 
the findings. In addition, Category 2 and Category 3 findings are communicated to the responsible 

25 
26 

SWD(2012) 38 
SWD(2012) 38 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Aviation Authority and the home base of the operator with the request to take appropriate action to 
prevent reoccurrence. 

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

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

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

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 

11,703 

11,019 

4,108 

120 

1,922 

12 

0* 

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

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

6. 

CONCLUSIONS 

During 2010 a record number of inspections has been reached and covered a higher number of 
operators and inspection items when compared to previous years. This increase appears to be 
a direct consequence of the legislative instruments adopted in 2008. Furthermore, the figures 
in  this  report  also  show  the  wide  coverage  of  the  EU  SAFA  programme  and  its  non-
discriminatory application on EU and non-EU operators. As a result of these improvements, 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
 
the  programme  has  become  a  better  tool  to  identify  potential  negative  safety  trends 
worldwide, contributing as well as in real-time to the safe operation of the inspected aircraft. 

During  2010,  efforts  were  also  undertaken  to  improve  the  functioning  of  the  EU  SAFA 
programme,  in  particular  through  the  efficiency  of  inspections  (introduction  of  a  minimun 
quota of inspections to be carried out on a voluntary basis by SAFA participating States) and 
the completion of a Standardisation programme. 
The  results  of  EASA  regular  analysis  on  the  reports  showing  serious  safety  deficiencies  or 
persitent failure by the carrier to address deficiencies identified by ramp inpections performed 
under  the  SAFA  programme  continued  to  be  used  by  the  Commission  for  the  preparation 
during  2010  of  the  Community  list  of  air  carriers  subject  to  an  operating  ban  within  the 
Community as provided for under Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005. 

EN 

17 

   EN