Source: http://docplayer.net/22483739-Implementing-the-global-aviation-safety-roadmap.html
Timestamp: 2018-03-23 11:26:20
Document Index: 694036654

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 2']

Implementing the Global Aviation Safety Roadmap - PDF
Download "Implementing the Global Aviation Safety Roadmap"
1 Implementing the Global Aviation Safety Roadmap A Strategic action plan for future aviation safety developed jointly by ACI, Airbus, Boeing, CANSO, FSF, IATA and IFALPA for ICAO, States and the Industry
3 Implementing the Global Aviation Safety Roadmap Table of Contents Signature Page... ii Table of Contents... iii List of Figures... iv List of Tables... iv 1.0 Introduction A Global Strategy for Aviation Safety Addressing the Roadmap Focus Areas States Regions Industry Implementing the Roadmap -- Developing a Regional Action Plan The Next Steps for the ISSG Appendices A List of Acronyms... A-1 B Best Practice Applicability Matrix...B-1 C ICAO USOAP Audit Question Reference... C-1 D IOSA Audit Question Reference... D-1 E Use of Technology to Enhance Safety Aircraft Operations...E-1 F Use of Technology to Enhance Safety ATM/ATC...F-1 G Use of Technology to Enhance Safety Airport Operations... G-1 H ISSG Regional Definition Countries by Region... H-1 I Regional Safety Assessment Sub-Saharan Africa...I-1 Implementing the Global Aviation Safety Roadmap iii
4 List of Figures Figure 1.1 Accident Rates by Region (Source: ICAO) Figure 1.2 Jet Transport Hull Loss Accident Rate (Source: IATA) Figure 1.3 Accident Rates by Region (Source: Boeing) Figure 1.4 The Aviation Safety Roadmap Figure 3.1 A Step-wise Model to Implement the Roadmap Figure 3.2 Regional Safety Enhancement Plan Development Process List of Tables Table 1a Objective 1a Best Practices Table 1b Objective 1b Best Practices Table 1c Objective 1c/2b Best Practices Table 1d Focus Area 1 Maturity Model Table 2a Objective 2a Best Practices Table 2b Focus Area 2 Maturity Model Table 3a Objective 3a Best Practices Table 3b Objective 3b Best Practices Table 3c Objective 3c Best Practices Table 3d Objective 3d Best Practices Table 3e Focus Area 3 Maturity Model Table 4a Objective 4a Best Practices Table 4b Objective 4b Best Practices Table 4c Objective 4c Best Practices Table 4d Focus Area 4 Maturity Model Table 5a Objective 5a Best Practices Table 5b Objective 5b Best Practices Table 5c Focus Area 5 Maturity Model Table 6a Objective 6a Best Practices Table 6b Objective 6b Best Practices Table 6c Objective 6c Best Practices Table 6d Focus Area 6 Maturity Model Implementing the Global Aviation Safety Roadmap iv
5 Table 7a Objective 7a Best Practices Table 7b Objective 7b Best Practices Table 7c Objective 7e Best Practices Table 7d Focus Area 7 Maturity Model Table 8a Objective 8a Best Practices Table 8b Objective 8b Best Practices Table 8c Focus Area 8 Maturity Model Table 9a Objective 9a Best Practices Table 9b Objective 9b Best Practices Table 9c Focus Area 9 Maturity Model Table 10a Objective 10a Best Practices Table 10b Objective 10b Best Practices Table 10c Focus Area 10 Maturity Model Table 11a Objective 11a Best Practices Table 11b Objective 11b Best Practices Table 11c Objective 11c Best Practices Table 11d Focus Area 11 Maturity Model Table 12a Objective 12a Best Practices Table 12b Objective 12b Best Practices Table 12c Objective 12c Best Practices Table 12d Focus Area 12 Maturity Model Implementing the Global Aviation Safety Roadmap v
6 1. Introduction A Global Strategy for Aviation Safety In May 2005, the Air Navigation Commission of the International Civil Aviation Organization s (ICAO) held a consultation with the Industry on the improvement of aviation safety. One of the decisions of the meeting was the development of a common roadmap for aviation safety that would incorporate a process that would best prioritize initiatives and ensure that the safety initiatives throughout the world are coordinated so as to ensure consistency and reduced duplication of efforts. This led to the formation of the Industry Safety Strategy Group (ISSG). The ISSG members include: Airports Council International (ACI) Airbus Boeing the Civil Air Navigation Services Organization (CANSO) the Flight Safety Foundation the International Air Transport Association (IATA), and the International Federation of Air Line Pilots Associations (IFALPA). (Appendix A includes a complete list of acronyms used in this document.) The ISSG recognized that to achieve the desired level of leadership they needed to move beyond the traditional government/industry model and its often adversarial relationship between the Regulatory Authority and the industry it regulates, including the airlines and the manufacturers.. The ISSG worked with ICAO, the primary customer for their work, to produce the Global Aviation Safety Roadmap Part 1 - A Strategic Action Plan for Future Aviation Safety, which was handed over to ICAO in December 2005 and presented to the Directors General Civil Aviation (DGCA) Conference on a Global Strategy for Aviation Safety (DGCA/06) in March The conference welcomed the Global Aviation Safety Roadmap and recommended that: ICAO, in collaboration with all States & other stakeholders, continue development of an integrated approach to safety initiatives based on the Global Aviation Safety Roadmap - a global framework for the coordination of safety policies and initiatives. The DGCA/06 Recommendation was agreed to by ICAO Council on 15 June 2006 This document is the result of that recommendation and the continued industry-government collaboration that followed. Implementing the Global Aviation Safety Roadmap 1-1
7 Introduction A Global Strategy for Aviation Safety 1.1 Objective of the Roadmap The primary objective of the Global Aviation Safety Roadmap Part 1 is to provide a common frame of reference for all stakeholders States, Regulatory Authorities, airline operators, airport operators, aircraft manufacturers, pilot associations, safety organizations, and air traffic control service providers. The Global Aviation Roadmap Part 1 defines the 12 specific focus areas and related objectives that have been accepted by industry as vital to the enhancement of safety levels within global commercial aviation. (Figure 1.4 shows the focus areas and objectives.) Part 2 of the Roadmap builds upon these objectives by defining specific best or preferred practices which will enable the industry and States to address and correct the deficiencies outlined by the focus areas. 1.2 Overview of Part 2 In March 2006, the ISSG reconvened to develop Part 2 of the Global Aviation Safety Roadmap. The ISSG had three specific objectives: Define those activities necessary for the achievement of the Objectives identified in the Part 1 Roadmap, including both maturity guidance and metrics. These would be applied at the State, Regional, or industry organizational level to evaluate progress towards the achievement of those Objectives. Define a process for the development of Regional Action Plans which would enable the evaluation of the capabilities of the region and define prioritized actions necessary to improve safety within that region. Work with the ICAO to integrate the appropriate Roadmap components with ICAO s Strategic Objective on Safety and to incorporate suitable actions into the update of the Global Aviation Safety Plan (GASP). 1.3 Organization of the Report Section 1 of this Report notes the Objective of the Roadmap and gives a short history of its development. It describes how the report is organized, and specifies its target audience. It also includes a short discussion of accident rates as a safety metric. Section 2 is devoted to detailing those activities necessary for achieving the Objectives of the Roadmap. Each Focus Area and its related Objectives are described in detail, including why it is considered critical to enhancing aviation safety, and how the Objective addresses the enhancement of safety. For each Objective, one or more Best Practices are identified. (Implementing these Best Practices would achieve the intent of the Objective.) Finally, Metrics are identified for each Best Practice so that an evaluation of progress towards achievement of the Objectives can be made. Section 3 addresses the development of a Regional Action Plan. Although the concepts identified in the Roadmap can be addressed at the individual State or Industry organization level, experience has shown that due to the complex interrelationships inherent in commercial aviation the most successful safety enhancement strategies Implementing the Global Aviation Safety Roadmap 1-2
8 Introduction A Global Strategy for Aviation Safety involve all segments of the Governments and Industry working together. As a team they are best qualified to identify potential enhancements to safety and to commit to the implementation plan necessary to achieve those enhancements. Section 3 also defines a process for gathering the data necessary to accomplish such a regional assessment. It also describes the steps necessary to perform a gap analysis to identify safety enhancement activities. It is important that knowledgeable aviation system stakeholders of a particular region are involved in performing the regional analysis. The process defined herein also discusses those attributes which should be considered as the action plan is being developed. Section 4 defines the next steps in enhancing and implementing the Global Aviation Safety Roadmap as committed to by the ISSG. Key among these next steps is ensuring a means by which the continued interaction with ICAO can be secured and making visible the commitment to work with Regional teams in an integrated fashion to develop regional action plans to implement the precepts of the Roadmap. (Regional teams include Regional Safety Teams, ICAO Cooperative Development of Operational Safety and Continuing Airworthiness Programmes [COSCAPs], etc.). 1.4 Target Audience This document was written with several audiences in mind: ICAO The ICAO is both a key customer of the Roadmap and a key partner in identifying and implementing State actions to achieve the Roadmap Objectives. As such, the need for ICAO to be closely involved in the followon development work was recognized by full ICAO participation in the ISSG development of the Part 2 Roadmap Implementation plan. Regional Safety Teams The best practices presented in Section 2 and the action plan development process outlined in Section 3 can be used by regional teams to help them develop a safety enhancement plan. States and Industry The best practices and maturity models outlined in Section 2 provide guidance to States and individual industry organizations on best practices that the ISSG recommend to be considered in evaluating their current status and identifying areas for safety enhancement. The ISSG Section 4 of this document outlines the future actions that the Industry Safety Strategy Group has committed to and therefore provides a reference document for future ISSG activity. 1.5 Safety A Performance Expectation Measuring Risk Part 1 of the Roadmap stated that Safety is a Performance Expectation. With air travel already being the safest form of transportation, the challenge to industry and regulatory agencies is to make an already safe system safer. In the context of this Roadmap, the aviation industry is expected to deliver A reduction in the global accident risk in commercial aviation. This raises the issue of the best way to measure this risk, together with any associated changes that are realized as a result of effective implementation of the Roadmap. Implementing the Global Aviation Safety Roadmap 1-3
9 Introduction A Global Strategy for Aviation Safety Accident rate data represents a reliable source for measuring safety performance. There are several excellent sources of accident rates which are maintained throughout the aviation industry, and should be considered a vital component to any risk measurement effort. An example of this readily available data is the ICAO s report of the Council. These reports include tracking the fatal accident rate of aircraft employed on public air transport operations in scheduled operations. ICAO measures the worldwide safety performance in terms of a range of aviation safety statistics. Figure 1.1 shows an example of this data for fatal accidents by region involving scheduled commercial air transport operations for all fixed-wing aircraft over 5700 kg. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) also publishes its annual Safety Report, which includes comprehensive accident statistics that reflect the performance of the industry as a whole over the past decade, updated by a detailed analysis of the accidents that occurred during the preceding year. Rather than measuring fatal accident rates, IATA tracks the rates of hull loss accidents of Western-built jets per million sectors for aircraft with a maximum certified take-off mass of more than 15,000 kg. For turboprop transport aircraft, IATA tracks those with a maximum take-off mass of more than 3900 kg (See Figure 1.2). By working with its industry safety stakeholders, IATA is aiming to reduce the current accident rate by an additional 25% by the end of Boeing also publishes annual hull-loss based industry-wide accident statistics that reflect differences in regional accident rates, as shown in Figure 1.3. This will prove to be valuable information, since the overarching philosophy of the Roadmap emphasizes regional differences. There is other publicly available and equally useful accident rate data and analysis that is useful in monitoring worldwide aviation safety. For example, traditionally difficultto-access data needed to measure accident rates of Eastern-built aircraft is becoming more readily available. Soon, it will be possible to present accident rates for those fleets with the accuracy and comprehension on par with the data available for Westernbuilt fleets. Other global accident data capture and analysis programs exist. Some States endeavor to measure their own safety performance in order to shape their national programs. One such example is the Safety Plan 2006/ /11 prepared by the United Kingdom (UK) Safety Regulation Group. All of these, as well as other sources, are rich in vital safety intelligence. Despite some slight variations in focus, they can be used as the basis for performance metrics and to prepare targets, not only in terms of the fatal accident or hull loss rates, but further across the safety metrics spectrum. A most effective quantitative risk management program would be one in which information sharing is the norm. Currently, as a result of a memorandum of cooperation between ICAO and IATA, data collected from IOSA and USOAP programs, along with other forms of safety intelligence, can now be shared between these international organizations as appropriate. ICAO has entered similar cooperation and sharing Implementing the Global Aviation Safety Roadmap 1-4
10 Introduction A Global Strategy for Aviation Safety agreements with the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC), the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and Eurocontrol. As mentioned in the Part 1 document, the analysis of accidents is inherently reactive. Even so, it is absolutely essential that the lessons learned from these accidents remain at the forefront of safety enhancement activities. Analysis of recent accidents in regions with poorer safety records show that nearly all were caused by previously wellunderstood factors with equally well-understood mitigating actions. A primary benefit of the Roadmap will be assisting ISSG members and other organizations that are seeking means of establishing better regional environments that will be more conducive to implementing those safety enhancements known to eliminate accidents. Currently, certain entities in industry are striving to take a more prognostic or predictive approach to risk assessment. This requires more innovative safety-related data collection and analysis approaches. An example is the formulation of safety strategies with the use of some existing programs, such as Flight Data Analysis (FDA) Flight Data Monitoring (FDM) Flight Operations Quality Assurance (FOQA) programs. Other examples include those from auditing programs such as the ICAO Universal Safety Oversight Audit Program (USOAP) and IATA s Operational Safety Audit (IOSA). Information from these and other data sources, together with the collective wisdom of the ISSG stakeholders, proved essential in the identification of the 12 focus areas of the roadmap. Likewise, it will establish the quantitative cornerstone of measures to track the continuing safety performance of the aviation system. A partner metric (along with Industry or regional safety risk improvements) measures the effective application of the various elements of the Roadmap. An essential element of each section that defines Best Practices is a corresponding metric that should prove useful in monitoring adherence to the specific improvement activities listed. Although these metrics are not directly transferable to safety risk measures discussed above, they will be essential in tracking improvements realized by the application of the Roadmap. Implementing the Global Aviation Safety Roadmap 1-5
11 Introduction A Global Strategy for Aviation Safety Figure 1.1 Accident Rates by Region (Source: ICAO) Implementing the Global Aviation Safety Roadmap 1-6
12 Introduction A Global Strategy for Aviation Safety Figure 1.2 Jet Transport Hull Loss Accident Rate (Source: IATA) Implementing the Global Aviation Safety Roadmap 1-7
13 Introduction A Global Strategy for Aviation Safety Figure 1.3 Accident Rates by Region (Source: Boeing) Figure 1.4 Global Aviation Safety Roadmap [See Next Page] Implementing the Global Aviation Safety Roadmap 1-8
15 2. Addressing the Roadmap Focus Areas In Part 1 of the Roadmap development activity, the ISSG identified key Focus Areas that need to be addressed by aviation system stakeholders in order to ensure the successful implementation of the plan. The Stakeholders have been divided into three basic groups: States, Regions, and Industry, with Focus Areas developed for each. In each Focus Area, Objectives are identified which, if adequately met, will address the Focus Area concerns. This section: Outlines these Focus Areas and Objectives. Defines those Best Practices which, if implemented, would ensure that each Objective is met. Presents metrics for each Best Practice that analysts may use in order to evaluate the implementation level of the Best Practice. Offers a Maturity Model that can be used to determine the level of overall implementation of a specific Focus Area. It is important to recognize that, although specific Best Practices have been presented, there may be other practices that may be implemented that would equally well meet the intent of identified Objectives. The stakeholders evaluating a particular Focus area would be in the best position to evaluate which practices would be most appropriate to meet the Objective for a particular region. A note on Metrics: Where possible, the metrics listed provide a link to the internationally accepted audit questions contained in either the ICAO Universal Safety Oversight Program (Reference: ICAO Document 97-35, Appendix F, Modules 1, 2, 4, 7 and 8) or to the IATA Operational Safety Audit (Reference: IATA IOSA Standards Manual, 1 st Edition, 4 th Revision, Temporary Revision February 2006, Effective February 2006). In the tables that follow, a reference to the ICAO program is identified by a USOAP reference and one to the IATA program is identified by an IOSA reference. As these audit questions are subject to change from time to time, Appendixes C (USOAP) and D (IOSA) contain the wording of the questions as they stood at the time the Roadmap Part 2 document was released. For more information on the specific audit questions, refer to the references listed above. In some cases, the metrics refer to other documents. The document titles and a link to it (or to a location from which it may be obtained) are listed below: ICAO Annex 13 (Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation) FSIX -- ICAO Flight Safety Information Exchange ICAO Safety Oversight Manual (Doc 9734 Part A The Establishment and Management of a State s Safety Oversight System) ICAO Safety Oversight Audit Manual (Doc 9735, Appendix F, Modules 1, 2, 4, 7 and 8) (See Appendix C) ICAO Safety Management Manual (Doc 9859) IATA IOSA Standard Manual 1 st Edition, 4th Revision February 2006 (See Appendix D) IBAC IS-BAO International Standard for Business Aircraft Operations Implementing the Global Aviation Safety Roadmap 2-1
16 Addressing the Focus Areas 2.1. Focus Areas States Focus Area 1 Inconsistent Implementation of International Standards ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) if fully implemented and enforced will constitute adherence with an internationally accepted minimum level of safety. USOAP audits and other sources indicate that a significant number of States still have difficulties in fully implementing ICAO SARPs for international or domestic operations. All references for individual metrics in this section are to USOAP protocols unless otherwise noted Objective 1a States that have not done so commence implementation of international SARPs and industry best practice. Non-compliance considered internationally unacceptable: states use coordinated international pressure on those unwilling to comply. Gaps identified through USOAP. Regional plans established. There are two reasons which typically underlie the inconsistent implementation of SARPs. The first involves the lack of a capability to properly implement SARPs. This may well be addressed by resource allocation by the international community. The second involves the lack of will to implement SARPs. This may ultimately have to be addressed by various initiatives of the international community to ensure compliance. The discussion does not include those situations where a particular SARP is inapplicable to operations within a particular State. Table 1a Best Practices BP 1a-1 ICAO SARPs are relevant, robust, timely and up to date. a. ICAO creates and modifies SARPS by a process which involves the opportunity for States to comment on the content and utility of the proposed SARP. Additionally, processes exist to review the continuing applicability of individual SARPs and recommend modifications as a result. b. ICAO establishes, implements and maintains an electronic system for reporting differences. Metrics a. Process is documented in the ANC Procedural Guidebook A quality control system is in place. b. The electronic system for reporting of differences is publicly available Clear guidelines on its use Implementing the Global Aviation Safety Roadmap 2-2
17 Addressing the Focus Areas Table 1a Best Practices BP 1a-2 States takes all necessary action to ensure compliance with SARPs and industry best practice. a. The State enacts enabling legislation which facilitates the creation and modification of a regulatory scheme giving SARPs the force of law. b. State processes include an evaluation of their own compliance with SARPs. c. State implements USOAP recommendations. d. State secures necessary financial, human and technical resources to develop, update and implement regulations meant to enforce SARPS and to implement industry best practices. Resources are drawn as necessary from national, regional and international sources. e. ICAO assistance activities are aligned with the Global Aviation Safety Plan (GASP) and the Global Aviation Safety Roadmap. f. State publishes notice of non compliance to all affected entities and notifies ICAO in accordance with Article 38 of the Convention until such time as the SARP is complied with. BP 1a-3 States use information obtained during implementation of SARPS and operational experience to recommend improvements to ICAO Metrics are available Percentage of States using the system to notify differences. a. USOAP LEG 1.001; LEG 1.005; LEG 1.009; ORG b. USOAP OPS 4.003; 4.005; AGA c. ICAO Doc. 9735, Chapter 6 d. USOAP ORG 2.051; ORG e. Percentage of assistance activities that can be linked to best practices or focus area - Results of assistance activities are assessed against metrics and other available benchmarks f. Difference are notified to ICAO Significant differences are listed in the State s AIP USOAP LEG a. Documented evidence exists that proposals have been made to ICAO Implementing the Global Aviation Safety Roadmap 2-3
18 Addressing the Focus Areas Table 1a Best Practices BP 1a-4 States apply coordinated initiatives to ensure that non compliant States do not engage in activity which could be seen as unacceptably increasing the risk of operation a. Preventing operators certificated in non conforming States from operating internationally where the risk in doing so is evident or when the non conforming State has failed to carry out recommendations or determinations of the ICAO Council under Article 54j of the Chicago Convention. b. Preventing operators certificated in conforming States from operating in non conforming States where the risk in doing so is evident or when the non conforming States has failed to carry out recommendations or determinations of the ICAO Council under Article 54j of the Chicago Convention. c. State releases USOAP audit information to the public. Metrics a. States have regulations and procedure to ensure that foreign operators complies with international Standards and receive proper oversight - USOAP LEG 1.107; LEG 1.109; LEG b. States have a process to assess the risk or require the operator to conduct such assessment Measures are taken when risk is deemed unacceptable. c. FSIX Objective 1b Perform gap assessment of those States with suitable justification for non-compliance. Establish plans to reach desired compliance, including coordinated international support where necessary to close gaps. A gap assessment measures the current level of implementation of SARPS in a State against the level required to support the type of operations conducted by or within the State. Suitable justification for non compliance indicates a situation where the political motivation for compliance exists but satisfactory implementation has not been achieved. When the assessment is complete, a detailed plan including the strategy to be employed, resources which will be required and international support which will be available must be established and Implementing the Global Aviation Safety Roadmap 2-4
19 Addressing the Focus Areas agreed to by the State. ICAO USOAP Audits are one source of gap assessment. Table 1b Best Practices BP 1b-1 Gap assessment is conducted by a competent entity. a. The competent entity has sufficient guarantees concerning performance, independence and reliability. Metrics a. ICAO Doc 9735 Para. 5.12; 5.14; Appendix E b. Timely remediation plan is developed in the context of the particular requirements of the State involved and the resources which may be available to assist in its execution. b. ICAO Doc 9735 Para. 5.14; Appendix E Objective 1c/2b ICAO USOAP, or other equivalent means of assessment, continue to review compliance with international SARPs, coordinated international support being provided where necessary. Periodic assessments of States, is essential for the on going monitoring of compliance with SARPs and industry best practice. This is best achieved by a combination of self assessment (internal audits and other quality control mechanisms) and external audits. In situations where repeated assessments reveal continuing problems, coordinated international support may be necessary to assist the State in achieving the necessary compliance. Table 1c/2b Best Practices BP 1c/2b-1 The standing management process of the Regulatory Authority ensures that self assessments are conducted whenever notified of change by ICAO and should be conducted at least annually. a. The Regulatory Authority has sufficient staff, resources and appropriate procedures to conduct an effective self assessment. b. Each self assessment makes full use of the results of other audits conducted on the industry that comes under the oversight of the Regulatory Authority. Metrics a. USOAP ORG 2.051; ORG b. USOAP OPS Implementing the Global Aviation Safety Roadmap 2-5
20 Addressing the Focus Areas Table 1c/2b Best Practices BP 1c/2b-2 External audits are conducted at least every 3 years by ICAO USOAP or another competent entity, utilizing the USOAP methodology. a. External audit programs are coordinated to avoid duplication and waste of resources. Metrics a. ICAO Doc Para. 5.2 BP 1c/2b-3 Periodic assessments are transparent to the aviation community. a. Other States utilize the results of periodic assessments for the purpose of mutual recognition. b. Results are shared. BP 1c/2b-4 Deficiencies identified during periodic assessments are addressed in a timely manner, utilizing coordinated international support where necessary. BP 1c/2b-5 Periodic assessment methodology is reviewed and amended as required to ensure continuing relevance. a. FSIX - ICAO Doc Para 6.1.1e b. Structures exist and are utilized to facilitate the sharing of the results of periodic assessments a. ICAO Doc 9735 Para a. Documented evidence that a review has been undertaken during the preceding 3 years Implementing the Global Aviation Safety Roadmap 2-6
21 Addressing the Focus Areas Focus Area Maturity Model Table 1d contains the maturity model for focus area 1. Table 1d Maturity Model for Focus Area 1 Implementation of International Standards Maturity Level Level 1 Developing Capability Low level of implementation of SARPs. State unable or unwilling to assess compliance with SARPs. Level 2 Areas Identified for Improvement State aware of level of compliance and attempting to comply, but has not completed a plan for implementation of the appropriate SARPS. There is no certainty that the State is able to provide proper oversight for the existing level of activity. Level 3 Evolving Changes in work State is aware of level of compliance and has implemented appropriate SARPs to support the existing activities. State does have limited ability to oversee significant increases in activity and improvements in technology. Level 4 Highly Evolved State is aware of level of compliance and has implemented appropriate SARPs to support the existing activities. State has a process in place and access to the necessary resources in order to continually reassess and maintain its level of compliance in light of changes to SARPS and changes in activity within its jurisdiction. Implementing the Global Aviation Safety Roadmap 2-7
22 Addressing the Focus Areas Focus Area 2 Inconsistent Regulatory Oversight The entire concept of safety regulation is based upon the fact that the Regulatory Authority is in a position to objectively evaluate any given safety critical aviation activity within its jurisdiction and require that the activity adhere to standards designed to ensure a minimum acceptable level of safety. USOAP audit results indicate that all States are not fully capable of exercising their regulatory oversight responsibilities. The limitation of activity imposed by some States against the operators of other States may also be an indicator of inadequate oversight Objective 2a States ensure their Regulatory Authority is independent, competent and adequately funded. Establish an independent mechanism to monitor competency of Regulatory Authority. To allow effective oversight, the State must have a robust legal and organizational framework in place to allow the Regulatory Authority to function. This framework must include provisions that ensure the independence of the Regulatory Authority on safety issues, the provision of sufficient resources to train, deploy and retain an effective oversight staff complement and to conduct the support functions which facilitate regulatory activities. Compliance with these goals needs to be evaluated by an effective periodic assessment. Note: Focus Area 2b is discussed above in conjunction with 1c. Table 2a Best Practices BP 2a-1 State utilizes/implements the 8 critical elements of the safety oversight system. a. Primary aviation legislation b. Specific operating regulations c. CAA structure and safety oversight functions d. Technical guidance e. Qualified technical personnel f. Licensing and certification obligations g. Continued surveillance obligations h. Resolution of safety issues BP 2a-2 State provides a mechanism for sufficient funding of safety oversight activities. Metrics a. State implements in accordance with ICAO Doc 9734 Part A Chapter 3 a. USOAP ORG Implementing the Global Aviation Safety Roadmap 2-8
23 Addressing the Focus Areas Table 2a Best Practices BP 2a-3 State applies the principles of risk management to its safety related activities. a. Hazards and risks are assessed and prioritized on a regular basis. b. Risk mitigation strategies are developed and implemented. c. Results are assessed and corrective action taken as needed. BP 2a-4 The Regulatory Authority acts independently where safety issues are implicated in its actions a. The individuals responsible for such action must be given appropriate authority to exercise their responsibilities. Metrics a. ICAO Doc Para. 3.3 b. Attendance at ICAO SMS Training Course a. USOAP LEG 1.109; USOAP b. Annex 13 Attachment E; i.e. USOAP AIG b. Accountability for the exercise of regulatory authority must be in accordance with the principles of a just culture (see Objective 3a for a discussion of just culture ). BP 2a-5 Regional oversight organizations or equivalent means are in place to perform those functions which cannot be performed by the State acting on its own. a. USOAP ORG a. States may also decide to use Regional oversight organization as a matter of convenience (e.g. Agencia Centroamericana de Seguridad Aeronáutica (ACSA)). b. Outsourcing the technical and administrative tasks associated with oversight to another Regulatory Authority or a private contractor is an example of a means equivalent to a regional oversight organization. BP 2a-6 Periodic assessments are conducted. a. See BP 1c/2b-3 Implementing the Global Aviation Safety Roadmap 2-9
24 Addressing the Focus Areas Focus Area Maturity Model Table 2b contains the maturity model for focus area 2. Table 2b Maturity Model for Focus Area 2 Regulatory Oversight Maturity Level Level 1 Developing Capability Low level of implementation of SARPs and little or no attempt to correct the situation is in progress State unable or unwilling to exercise oversight. [Added significance if a large part of the aviation activity under the oversight of the State occurs in other States.] Level 2 Areas Identified for Improvement Level 3 Evolving Changes in work Level 4 Highly Evolved State aware of and attempting to correct deficiencies, but has not completed implementation of corrective action. There is no certainty that the State is able to provide proper oversight for existing level of activity. State has the capacity to exercise oversight on the type of operation for which it has responsibility. State has limited ability to continue oversight if there are: o A significant increase in the volume or scope of activities; o Improvements in technology. State aware of its level of compliance, has implemented appropriate SARPs and has access to the resources necessary to support the existing activities. State has process in place and access to the necessary resources to continually reassess and maintain its level of compliance in light of modifications to SARPs and changes in activity within its jurisdiction. Implementing the Global Aviation Safety Roadmap 2-10
25 Addressing the Focus Areas Focus Area 3 Impediments to Reporting of Errors and Incidents Error and incident reporting are essential elements of the free flow of data that is required to assess aviation system safety on a continuous basis and to correct deficiencies when warranted. The reporting typically comes from voluntary reports by aviation professionals that may be self incriminating or from recordings that are intended to be used only for safety purposes. It is essential to protect such safety information from inappropriate use in order to ensure its continued availability. The use of safety information for other than safety-related purposes can inhibit the future availability of such information, with an adverse effect on safety Objective 3a States introduce legislative changes to support the just culture, encourage open reporting systems, and protect data collected solely for the purpose of improving aviation safety. A Just Culture is defined as an atmosphere of trust in which people are encouraged and even rewarded for providing essential safety-related information, even if self-incriminating, but in which all parties clearly understand which types of behaviors are acceptable or unacceptable. In the Roadmap, the ISSG has chosen to use the term open reporting when referring to incident reporting. Such reporting is open in the sense that it encourages reporting and use beyond that which is mandated. It is also confidential in that the reporter s identity is protected. Open Reporting systems are intended to: Clearly identify and understand the hazards or risks Protect the identity of persons reporting information Table 3a Best Practices BP 3a-1 The State has a legislative framework that protects safety data. The State legislation must include provisions which protect privacy, prevent self incrimination and properly apportion criminal liability for actions. Without these basic features, full disclosure of safety related information will be extremely difficult. Metrics a. ICAO Annex 13 Attachment E b. USOAP AIG Implementing the Global Aviation Safety Roadmap 2-11
26 Addressing the Focus Areas Table 3a Best Practices BP 3a-2 The State implements mandatory reporting of accidents and incidents. Metrics a. ICAO Annex 13 chapter 8 BP 3a-3 The State encourages voluntary reporting. a. Regulatory framework exists. b. Just culture exists. c. Data from reports are used in a timely and efficient manner to improve safety. BP 3a-4 Each aviation professional who has an impact on safety has a clear understanding of what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable behavior. b. USOAP AIG a. USOAP AIG 6.503; AIG b. USOAP AIG 6.507; AIG 511 a. The State regulatory system provides clear guidance on the subject b. The operator /ANSP has clear explicit policy on the subject Objective 3b ICAO implements review of States activities to identify gaps in their legislative action to encourage open reporting systems. Develop a plan to address gaps. The existence of the proper legal framework is a prerequisite to any open reporting system and an open reporting system is a prerequisite to the efficient and effective implementation of a Safety Management System (SMS). Table 3b Best Practices BP 3b-1 ICAO assesses the level of implementation of open reporting. a. USOAP Audit. b. Assessment during visit to State by ICAO Officials. c. Regular questionnaires sent by ICAO. d. Other sources of information (IATA, IFALPA, FSF, CANSO, ACI). Metrics a. USOAP AIG b. ICAO has reliable data on the level of implementation of open reporting Implementing the Global Aviation Safety Roadmap 2-12
27 Addressing the Focus Areas Table 3b Best Practices BP 3b-2 The State understands the need for open reporting systems and takes appropriate measures to implement them. Metrics a. USOAP AIG 6.505; AIG a. ICAO and industry actively promotes open reporting systems. b. Regulatory Authority and industry understanding. c, Public awareness/education Objective 3c Collate regional safety data. In many States, the level of activity is too low to permit reliable safety analysis. In addition, it is more difficult to establish an open reporting system in smaller States where the aviation community is made up of a small group of individuals who know each other personally. The collation of data at the regional level overcomes this problem. Moreover, many of the safety problems are regional in nature and are best addressed at the regional level. Table 3c Best Practices BP 3c-1 An entity is designated in each region as the focal point for collating safety data. a. Use existing safety groups to collect, integrate and analyze safety data on a regional basis. b. Use of regional groups, such as the Planning and Implementation Regional Groups (PIRGs), to identify safety issues. c. Common methodologies for collection of safety data are utilized. BP 3c-2 States and the industry stakeholders in the region contribute safety data. Metrics a. The designated entity is identified in each region a. Percentage of States in the region that contributes safety data b. Percentage of Operators/Service providers that contributes safety data Implementing the Global Aviation Safety Roadmap 2-13
28 Addressing the Focus Areas Table 3c Best Practices BP 3c-3 Safety data is analyzed and action is taken at the regional and State level to correct deficiencies. BP 3c-4 Safety data are categorized on the ICAO based common taxonomy. Metrics a. Analysis of data, together with information on corrective actions and their results, is available a. CAST/ICAO Common Taxonomy is used Objective 3d Implement international sharing of data/global data reporting system. Many international data reporting systems available, including ADREP, Accident Investigation Reports, STEADES, Notification of Differences, USOAP, IOSA, PIRG identified deficiencies, and the LOSA Archive. However, it is difficult to harness the full potential of the data they contain due to access limitation, lack of common taxonomy and other impediments. A first step in this direction has been taken by ICAO and IATA through a Memorandum of Co-operation which shares USOAP and IOSA data. Table 3d Best Practices BP 3d-1 The principle of just culture underpins the international sharing of data/global data reporting system Metrics a. ICAO Annex 13 Attachment E. b. USOAP AIG BP 3d-2 A common taxonomy is in place. a. USOAP AIG BP 3d-3 Each Data collection system is designed in such way that sharing of de-identified data is easy. Note: De-identified data is data that has had differentiating parameters such as names removed. BP 3d-4 Safety data are analyzed in an objective and scientifically sound manner, independent of any non-safety considerations, and the result is shared with all stakeholders. a. Sharing of deidentified data is taking place a. Peer review b. Sharing system is in place and working Implementing the Global Aviation Safety Roadmap 2-14
29 Addressing the Focus Areas Focus Area Maturity Model Table 3e contains the maturity model for focus area 3. Table 3e Maturity Model for Focus Area 3 Reporting of Errors and Incidents Maturity Level Level 1 Developing Capability The information from safety data collecting and processing system is not protected. No voluntary reporting system is in place. Inappropriate * use or no use is made of the report. *as defined in ICAO Annex 13, Attachment E, paragraph 1.5.c Level 2 Areas Identified for Improvement Level 3 Evolving Changes in work The information from safety data collecting and processing system is not protected but use of safety data is appropriate in most cases. No voluntary reports are submitted. Safety data are not always analyzed. Action is not taken in a systematic way to correct identified deficiencies. The principles of a just culture are widely accepted, but not fully implemented at the national and/or corporate level. The information from safety data collecting and processing system is protected. Mandatory reporting is efficient but voluntary reporting is limited to specific group of professionals. Safety data are analyzed, but action is not always taken. Level 4 Highly Evolved A just culture is implemented at the national and corporate level. The information from safety data collecting and processing system is properly protected. Safety data are actively collected at all levels of the industry. The safety data are used to the fullest extent to feed safety management systems, and for other safety purposes. Implementing the Global Aviation Safety Roadmap 2-15
30 Addressing the Focus Areas Focus Area 4 Ineffective Incident and Accident Investigation An accident or incident provides the opportunity for an in depth examination of both the causal factors leading up to the particular event and the broader questions concerning the underlying safety of an entire operation. When the investigation is done in a timely, thorough and independent way and the results and conclusions published in interim and final reports, the entire aviation community benefits from the lessons to be learned Objective 4a States that have not done so, implement ICAO Annex 13 principles and the introduction of, or access to, an adequately funded, professionally trained, independent and impartial investigative body. Action taken on safety recommendations. Independence, technical competence and sufficient resources to fully investigate events are necessary prerequisites to any successful investigation. Annex 13 principles apply to all aircraft investigations and, if followed, will generally result in an appropriate investigation. Table 4a Best Practices BP 4a-1 State Accident Investigators are independent. a. The State s safety accident investigators are organizationally independent from its Transportation authorities (from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)) and any other potential party to the investigation. b. Investigations are conducted functionally independent from political or other interference or pressure. Metrics a. USOAP AIG b. ICAO Annex 13 Paragraph 3.1; USOAP AIG Implementing the Global Aviation Safety Roadmap 2-16
31 Addressing the Focus Areas Table 4a Best Practices BP 4a-2 State issues safety recommendations. a. Following an investigation, States issue adequate safety recommendations and have established procedures to follow-up on the implementation of such recommendations. b. The recipients of safety recommendations have established a procedure to address the recommendations. c. The recipient of a safety recommendation informs the proposing State of the corrective action taken or under consideration or the reasons why no action is taken. d. Safety recommendations and action taken thereon are publicly available. BP 4a-3 States have access to trained accident investigators. a. States have access to a set of trained accident investigators, either internal investigators or from a regional or international/global source. b. As applicable, procedures have been established for delegation of accident investigations to other States or regional bodies. Metrics a. ICAO Annex 13, paragraph 6.8, and 6.9 USOAP AIG and b. USOAP AIG c. ICAO Annex 13 paragraph 6.10 d. Information is available on public Website a. ICAO Doc 9756 Part I b. USOAP AIG 6.033; AIG ; AIG BP 4a-4 States have implemented clear guidance on what to investigate. a. States have implemented clear guidance defining what to investigate and who it is to be notified both internal to the State and internationally. b. The State investigates all accidents and serious incidents that occur in its territory and over the high seas as the State of Registry. a. ICAO Annex 13, Paragraphs 4.1, 4.8, 5.1 and 5.3 b. Doc 9756, Part I. c. USOAP AIG 6.009, AIG 6.319, AIG Implementing the Global Aviation Safety Roadmap 2-17
32 Addressing the Focus Areas Table 4a Best Practices BP 4a-5 State has a defined process for allowing involved Parties to participate in an accident investigation. Metrics a. ICAO Annex 13, Paragraphs 5.18, 5.19, 5.20, 5.23 and b. USOAP AIG 6.033; AIG 6.109; AIG 6.365; AIG BP 4a-6 State has defined a rigorous and complete process for conducting an accident/incident investigation. BP 4a-7 State conducts its investigations and provides required reports in a timely manner. a. Interim recommendations are provided whenever appropriate. BP 4a-8 State has enacted appropriate legislation for the investigation of accidents and incidents. a. ICAO Doc 9756, Part I. b. USOAP AIG 6.301; AIG a. ICAO Annex 13, Paragraphs 6.5, 6.6 and 6.8. b. ICAO Doc 9756, Part IV. c. USOAP AIG and a. ICAO Annex 13, Paragraphs 5.1 and b. ICAO Doc 9756, Part I. BP 4a-9 States provide funding for accident and incident investigations. c. USOAP AIG a. ICAO Doc 9756, Part I. b. USOAP AIG 6.105; AIG Implementing the Global Aviation Safety Roadmap 2-18
33 Addressing the Focus Areas Objective 4b Institute legal framework for protection of safety data, with purpose of accident prevention, not assignment of blame. The principle of a just culture is inherent in the overall concept of safety best practices. At the most basic, it means that full cooperation is essential to a complete investigation. This cooperation will not be available if the sources of important data are not protected. Table 4b Best Practices BP 4b-1 States accident investigations are conducted for safety and not to appropriate blame. BP 4b-2 States protect safety data used during the accident investigation. BP 4b-3 States have defined an interface between normal operations reporting and accident/ incident reporting & investigation. Metrics a. ICAO Annex 13, Paragraphs 3.1 and b. ICAO Doc 9756, Part I c. USOAP AIG a. ICAO Annex 13, Paragraphs 5.12, and Attachment E b. USOAP AIG 6.029; AIG a. USOAP AIG 6.507; AIG 509 Implementing the Global Aviation Safety Roadmap 2-19