COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on occurrence reporting in civil aviation
Date: 2012-12-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU control, air safety, civil aviation, data protection, disclosure of information, dissemination of information, information network, transport accident

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 18.12.2012  
SWD(2012) 442 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the document 

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on occurrence 
reporting in civil aviation 

{COM(2012) 776 final} 
{SWD(2012) 441 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the document 

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on occurrence 
reporting in civil aviation 

1. 

PROBLEM DEFINTION 

1.1. 

Context and identified problems 

The  current  aviation  safety  system  is  primarily  a  reactive  system  relying  on 
technological  advances,  sound  legislation  underpinned  by  effective  regulatory 
oversight, and detailed accident investigations leading to recommendations for safety 
improvements.  However,  whilst  the  ability  to  learn  lessons  from  an  accident  is 
crucial,  purely  reactive  systems  have  now  shown  their  limit  in  continuing  to  bring 
forward  improvements,  notably  in  the  context  of  an  air  traffic  growth  which  is 
expected to almost double by 2030. 

Safety systems should therefore move towards more proactive evidence based safety 
processes which focus on preventing an accident occurring by analysing all available 
safety information, including information on civil aviation occurrences.  

While  the  European  Union  (EU)  has  started  this  transition  with  the  adoption  of 
Directive  2003/42/EC1  and  its  implementing  rules2,  the  current  efforts  are 
insufficient to stop the number of accidents and fatalities increasing as a consequence 
of  the  expected  traffic  growth.  The  European  Union  and  its  Member  States  are 
currently not sufficiently able to use experience feedback for preventing accidents. 

This issue is caused by a number of shortcomings. 

Firstly  it  appears  that,  whilst  data  is  vital  to  identify  safety  hazards,  there  is  not 
sufficient  awareness  of  all  safety  occurrences.  This  situation  is  partly  due  to  the 
discrepancy  in  the  scope  of  reportable  occurrences  between  the  Member  States.  It 
also  comes  from  the  fact  that  individuals  are  afraid  to  report  (the  "Just  Culture" 
issue).  Indeed  to  reach  the  goal  of  full  reporting,  individuals  must  have  full 
confidence  in  the  system  because  they  are  asked  to  report  mistakes  they  may  have 
made  or  contributed  to.  However,  individuals  are  not  equally  protected  among  the 
Member States and they fear being prosecuted or being punished by their hierarchy. 
In  addition,  the  lack  of  obligation  to  establish  voluntary  reporting  scheme  to 

1 

2 

Directive 2003/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on occurrence reporting in civil 
aviation; OJ L 167, 4.7.2003, p. 23. 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1321/2007 laying down implementing rules for the integration into a 
central  repository  of  information  on  civil  aviation  occurrences,  OJ  L  294  of  13.11.2007,  p.  3;  and 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1330/2007 laying down implementing rules for the dissemination to 
interested parties of information on civil aviation occurrences, OJ L 295 of 14.11.2007, p. 7. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
complete the mandatory schemes and the insufficient clarity in occurrence reporting 
obligations  and  in  the  flow  of  information  are  also  contributing  to  the  insufficient 
collection of occurrences. 

Secondly, occurrence data integration is not harmonised and is unstructured causing 
a low quality of information and an incompleteness of data. This situation affects the 
consistency and the usefulness of information and limits its use for safety purposes. 
It also risks providing misleading trends which could lead to focusing efforts where 
they are not needed or worse failing to identify a safety issue. 

Thirdly the exchange of information between Member States is limited because there 
are  legal  and  organisational  obstacles  for  ensuring  adequate  access  to  information 
contained  in  the  European  Central  Repository  (ECR),  which  regroups  all  national 
data. Indeed European legislation obliges the de-identification of certain information. 
Although  the  purpose  of  such  provisions  is  to  protect  sensitive  safety  data,  its 
practical  consequence  is  that  important  safety  related  facts,  such  as  the  actual 
description of the occurrence, are not available to the authorities. This is notably due 
to Member States lack of confidence regarding the use of data. 

Finally,  there  is  no  requirement  regarding  the  use  of  occurrence  data  collected. 
Therefore  this  results  in  a  lack  of  occurrence  analysis  and  subsequently  a  lack  of 
adoption of appropriate corrective and  preventive actions in order to address safety 
deficiencies. 

The main actors affected by this initiative are all persons and organisations involved 
in  the  civil  aviation  system  or  benefiting  from  air  safety,  both  at  national  and 
European level.  

1.2. 

Analysis of subsidiarity 

Occurrence  reporting  is  essential  to  the  proper  functioning  of  air  transport,  in  line 
with  the  objective  of  Article  91  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European 
Union. As the subsidiarity principle applies, EU action on occurrence reporting has 
to be justified. 

Firstly,  the  objectives  of  the  proposed  action  could  not  be  achieved  sufficiently  by 
Member  States  because  there  is  a  need  to  harmonise  the  rules  applicable  to 
occurrence reporting and therefore to ensure uniform and efficient rules in Europe. In 
addition  rules  related  to  a  European  database  and  an  EU  Agency  can  only  be 
established by European legislation. 

Secondly,  the  added  value  of  EU  action  comes  from  the  safety  benefits  of 
strengthening  and  developing  proactive  measures  based  on  occurrence  analysis  at 
national and EU level. In addition, an event that appears to be an isolated occurrence 
in a Member State, when looked at across the Union as a whole, can point to a need 
for action. 

2. 

OBJECTIVES OF EU INITIATIVE 

The main objective of the initiative is to contribute to the reduction of the number of 
aircraft accidents and fatalities, through the improvement of existing systems, both at 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
national  and  European  level,  using  civil  aviation  occurrences  for  correcting  safety 
deficiencies and prevent them from reoccurring. 

The specific objectives (SO) are: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

To ensure that all occurrences which endanger or would endanger aviation safety are 
collected and are providing a complete and clear picture of safety risks in the EU and 
its Member States (SO1) 

To make sure that occurrence reports stored in the national databases and in the ECR 
are complete and contain high quality data (SO2) 

To  make  sure  that  all  safety-critical  information  stored  in  the  ECR  is  accessed 
adequately  by  competent  authorities  and  that  they  are  used  strictly  for  safety 
improvement purposes (SO3) 

To ensure that reported occurrences are effectively analysed, that safety hazards are 
identified  and  addressed  where  relevant  and  that  the  safety  effectiveness  of  the 
actions taken is monitored (SO4). 

3. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

The first option identified is the repealing of the existing EU legislation. In view of 
the  serious  risk  this  option  would  pose  to  citizens'  safety,  this  option  has  not  been 
pursued further and has been discarded. 

To solve the problem drivers a number of policy measures have been identified and 
regroups in three policy packages: 

Policy  package  1  (PP1)  aims  at  improving  the  current  system  in  establishing  the 
basic  elements  of  a  complete  occurrence  reporting  system  and  its  contribution  to 
aviation  safety  improvement  through  amendment  to  the  legislation  only  to  the 
necessary  minimum  and  adoption  of  recommendations  and  guidance  wherever 
possible. It contains the less intense policy measures identified above.  

Policy  package  2  (PP2)  consists  of  a  more  ambitious  package  of  policy  measures 
entailing a substantial revision of EU legislation on occurrence reporting. PP2 seeks 
to improve the current system by establishing the necessary legislative requirements 
for ensuring an efficient occurrence reporting system at all levels and to contribute to 
the  reduction  of  aircraft  accidents  through  the  establishment  of  processes  for  the 
analysis  of  data  collected,  the  adoption  of  appropriate  measures  and  monitoring  of 
the system efficiency in terms of safety improvements.  

Policy  package  3  (PP3)  aims  at  improving  the  current  system  by  transferring 
Member States occurrence reporting competencies to the EU level and establish, as 
in PP2, requirements for occurrence analysis together with the adoption of necessary 
safety  actions  and  improvement  monitoring.  Under  PP3,  the  responsibility  to 
establish  and  manage  occurrence  reporting  scheme(s)  would  be  transferred  to  the 
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).  

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
The  tables  below  detail  the  policy  measures  included  in  the  different  policy 
packages.

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
Issues identified in section 2.2 

Policy measures 

Detail of the policy measure 

Problem driver 1: The collection of occurrence data is not optimal (PD1) 

A: The scope of reporting, regarding the 
type of occurrences, is different between 
the Member States creating 
discrepancies in the reporting level 

B: Individuals are afraid to report (the 
"Just Culture" issue) 

C: There is no obligation to establish 
Voluntary Occurrence Reporting 
Scheme (VORS) and there is no 
clarification on what should be reported 
under VORS 

D: There are too many occurrence 
reporting lines in various EU legislations 
which create duplication and confusion 

E: The flow of information is not clear 
and there is no requirement for 
organisation to collect occurrences in the 
Directive 

1. Clarify the scope of occurrences to be collected through guidance – PP1 

2. Harmonise the scope of reporting specifying what should be reported in an Annex – PP2 and PP3 

1. Guidance regarding interpretation and implementation of Article 8 – PP1 

2.  Clarify  and  complement  existing  rules  (define  "Just  Culture",  establish  a  national  focal  point,  no  blame  principle, 

disidentify reports) - PP2 and PP3 

1. Commission Recommendation to implement the International Aviation Civil Organisation (ICAO) Standard imposing the 

establishment of VORS; guidance on Mandatory Occurrence Reporting Scheme (MORS) / VORS – PP1 

2. Implement into EU law the ICAO Standard imposing the establishment of VORS; clarify what should be reported under 

MORS/VORS – PP2 

3. Replace national VORS by an unique European VORS; clarify what should be reported under MORS/VORS – PP3 

1. Guidance specifying all reporting lines and the requirements applicable for each reporting line; organise trainings– PP1 

2.  Simplify  and  harmonise  all  reporting  requirements;  modify  reporting  requirements  in  other  relevant  EU  legislations  – 

PP2 and PP3 

1. Commission Recommendation to implement the ICAO Standard requesting States to ensure the establishment of a Safety 

Management System (SMS) within their industry – PP1 

2.  Implement  into  EU  law  the  occurrence  reporting  related  part  of  the  ICAO  Standard  requesting  States  to  ensure  the 

establishment of an SMS within their industry – PP2 

3.  Implement  into  EU  law  the  occurrence  reporting  related  part  of  the  ICAO  Standard  requesting  States  to  ensure  the 
establishment  of  an  SMS  within  their  industry;  transfer  the  obligation  to  collect  occurrences  from  States  towards  a 
unique body which will collect directly, mainly from the industry, all occurrences coming from the MORS – PP3 

EN 

6 

EN 

 
  
Issues identified in section 2.2 

Policy measures 

Detail of the policy measure 

Problem driver 2: Data integration: The low quality of information and the incompleteness of data (PD2) 

1. Guidance regarding the filling of occurrence; training and to ensure a better harmonisation of classification within and 

among national databases – PP1 

A: Occurrences come in very different 
forms and are not encoded and classified 
into databases in a harmonised way 

2. Harmonise the reporting process and standardise the data entry process among States; develop guidance material and 

organise trainings – PP2 

B: There is often no quality checking 
process to ensure the consistence of data 

C: Not all information is sent to the ECR 
and the data collected is not always 
reflecting the actual safety performance 

D: Not all key data fields are filled into 
the ECR for many occurrences 

3. Impose the use of an unique data format for occurrence reports; replace the Member States collection of occurrences by a 

collection at EU level through a single entity – PP3 

1. Guidance about data quality; develop automatic data quality checker tools and make them available to Member States; 

organise trainings and workshops – PP1 

2. Impose both on organisations and on Member States the principle of quality checking; develop and complement the 
existing guidance material about data quality; develop automatic data quality checker tools; organise trainings and 
workshops – PP2 and PP3 

Continue to ensure the oversight of the data contained into the ECR and launch procedures where necessary; the legislation 
could enter in the scope of EASA standardisation inspections – PP1, PP2 and PP3  

1. Guidance material on what should be filled and develop a list of fields for each relevant category of occurrences – PP1 

2. Modify the legislation in order to establish the principle of mandatory fields; annex to the revised legislation the list of 

mandatory fields for each relevant category of occurrences – PP2 and PP3 

Issues identified in section 2.2 

Policy measures 

Detail of the policy measure 

Problem driver 3: The legal and organisational obstacles for ensuring adequate access to ECR information (PD3) 

EN 

7 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
A: Important occurrence information 
(narrative) is not accessible 

Ensure  broader  access  to  ECR  data  notably  in  order  to  give  define  competent  authorities  access  to  pertinent  safety 
information – PP1, PP2 and PP3 

B: Member States lack of confidence 
regarding the use of ECR data 

Limit the use of ECR data to safety enhancement purposes – PP1, PP2 and PP3 

Issues identified in section 2.2 

Policy measures 

Detail of the policy measure 

Problem driver 4: Lack of occurrence analysis at national and at European levels and of appropriate safety measures (PD4) 

1. Recommendation to implement ICAO Standard requesting States to analyse data issued from MORS and VORS and to 

determine appropriate action required – PP1 

A: No systematic analysis of occurrences 
at Member States and EU level 

2.  Implement  the  ICAO  Standard  requesting  States  to  analyse  data  issued  from  MORS  and  VORS  and  to  determine 

appropriate action required; impose this obligation on organisations, Member States and at EU level – PP2 

3.  Implement  the  ICAO  Standard  requesting  States  to  analyse  data  issued  from  MORS  and  VORS  and  to  determine 

appropriate action required; impose this obligation on organisations and at EU level –PP3 

1.  Recommendation  to  implement  the  ICAO  Recommendation  requesting  to  implement  appropriate  corrective  and 

preventive actions identified from occurrence analysis and to monitor their effectiveness – PP1 

B: No policy framework to achieve 
safety improvements based on 
occurrence analysis 

2. Implement the ICAO Standard requesting to take appropriate corrective and preventive actions identified from 

occurrence analysis at organisation, Member States and at EU level and to monitor the effectiveness of these actions at 
Member States and EU level – PP2 

C: No tool to prioritise occurrence 
analysis 

3. Implement the ICAO Standard requesting to take appropriate corrective and preventive actions identified from 

occurrence analysis at national and at EU level and monitor the effectiveness of these actions at EU level – PP3 

1. Develop at EU level a common EU risk classification scheme in order to classify occurrences in an harmonised way; 
make this tool available; recommendation to Member States to classify their occurrences according to this tool – PP1 

2. Obligation for Member States or EU entity to classify occurrences according to a common EU risk classification tool; 

develop this tool at EU level and make it available to Member States and industry – PP2 and PP3 

EN 

8 

EN 

 
  
 
4. 

ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS 

The policy packages impacts are summarised in the table below: 

Policy Package 1 

Policy Package 2 

Policy Package 3 

Safety impact 

LOW POSITIVE 

HIGH POSITIVE 

LOW POSITIVE 

Economic impacts 

Impact on the 
industry 

Impact on 
Member States 

Impact on internal 
market and 
competitiveness 

Administrative 
burdens /year 

ZERO 

MEDIUM POSITIVE 

LOW NEGATIVE 

ZERO 

LOW NEGATIVE 

HIGH POSITIVE 

LOW POSITIVE 

HIGH POSITIVE 

LOW POSITIVE 

ZERO 

LOW NEGATIVE - 
€831,133 

MEDIUM NEGATIVE - 
€2.235  MILLION 

Impact on EU 
budget / year 

CLOSE TO ZERO - 
€165,000 

LOW NEGATIVE - 
€530,000 

HIGH NEGATIVE - 
€12.1 MILLION 

Social impacts 

Standards and 
rights related to 
job quality 

LOW POSITIVE 

MEDIUM POSITIVE 

HIGH POSITIVE 

  Employment 

NEUTRAL 

LOW POSITIVE 

LOW POSITIVE 

  Personal data 

ZERO 

MEDIUM POSITIVE 

MEDIUM POSITIVE 

Public health and 
safety 

Environmental 
impacts 

Impacts on 
fundamental rights 

Impacts on 
simplification of 
exiting legislation 

Impacts on third 
countries 

LOW POSITIVE 

HIGH POSITIVE 

LOW POSITIVE 

CLOSE TO ZERO 

CLOSE TO ZERO 

CLOSE TO ZERO 

LOW POSITIVE 

HIGH POSITIVE 

LOW POSITIVE  

ZERO 

HIGH POSITIVE 

HIGH POSITIVE 

LOW POSITIVE 

HIGH POSITIVE 

LOW POSITIVE 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5. 

COMPARISON OF OPTIONS 

The policy packages are assessed against the criteria of effectiveness, efficiency and 
coherence. 

From an effectiveness point of view, PP2 offers the highest potential achievement of 
all  specific  objectives,  while  PP3  offers  a  good  effectiveness  in  general.  PP1 
achieves only SO3 in full. 

PP1  contains  measures  requiring  very  low  implementation  or  administrative  costs 
and  contribute  to  achieve  the  SO  but  in  a  limited  way  which  does  not  make  this 
policy the most efficient in achieving the objectives. 

In terms of efficiency, PP3 is the mostly costly and less efficient than PP2. PP1 is the 
cheapest but the less efficient. 

In terms of coherence, all policy packages are more or less equivalent and present a 
limited  trade-off  between  the  different  types  of  impacts,  but  PP2  presents  the  most 
limited trade-off.  

In view of the above the recommended package is PP2 as the benefits obtained are 
far greater than the costs. It is expected to contribute to the improvement of aviation 
safety through a better collection of occurrences, an improved quality of data, a more 
appropriate access to information and the introduction of requirements regarding the 
use of occurrences for contributing to a reduction of aircraft accidents. 

6. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

The  Commission  would  evaluate  the  implementation  of  the  Regulation  three  years 
after  its  adoption  by  the  legislator  and  would  continuously  monitor  a  set  of  core 
transport  indicators  that  are  already  available.  These  indicators  will  be  used  to 
measure to what extent the adopted policy option achieves the specific objectives. 

EN 

10 

   EN