UK CAA International Directorate Adrain Sayce... · UK CAA International Directorate ... Topics Introduction ... essential for establishing a comprehensive aviation safety management

1

UK CAA International DirectorateSSP Implementation, A European perspective

Adrian SayceICAO Lima

8th November 2016

2

Topics

Introduction – Background

What is an SSP?

European Position

UK Position

Key Issues for Smaller States

Good Examples of SSP

3

Introduction - Background

• DGCA Conference 2006 recommendation• SSP/SMS introduced into Annexes

• Annex 1 ‐ Personnel Licensing (2010), • Annex 6 – Volume 1, Operation of Aircraft (2006), • Annex 8  ‐ Airworthiness (2010), • Annex 11 – Air Traffic Services (2006), • Annex 13 – Aircraft Accident & incident Investigation (2010) & • Annex 14 – Aerodromes (2006)

• High Level Safety Conference 2010• Annex 19 First Edition  14 Nov 2013• Initially, compliance was the date it became Applicable.

CDLTJ1

4

Introduction - SSP Compliance (Doc 10004)

CDLTJ2

5

What is an SSP?

6

What is an SSP?An integrated set of regulations and activities aimed at improving safety. (Annex 19 2nd Edition, July 2016)

7

What is an SSP?

The SSP is a cohesive framework by which a country can effectively and efficiently manage its aviation safety and security. (New Zealand 2014)

The SSP sets out the specific safety activities which we will continue to perform to meet the ICAO State responsibilities concerning the safe and efficient performance of aviation activities in Australia. (Australia 2016)

8

What is an SSP?

9

What is an SSP?• SSP is a radical change for the Regulator to move from pure Compliance

based oversight to Risk and Performance based oversight.• It is a cultural change• It challenges established organisational structures and staff competencies• It is seen by some States as something ‘on top’ of normal business

10

What is an SSP?SSP/SMS was led by one ICAO Section ‐ FS

• Focus on Safety Management   (SMM ‐ Doc 9859)• Main product was Annex 19• Safety Oversight was a small part of SSP/SMS• 4 Components & 11 SSP Elements

USOAP was led by another ICAO Section ‐ SOA• Focus on Safety Oversight  (SOM ‐ Doc 9734)• Main product was Audit Programme• Safety Oversight covered everything• 8 Critical Elements

Now Annex 19 Amendment 1 combines both• Long overdue

11

4 Components & 11 Elements of SSPComponent 1. State safety policy and objectivesElement 1.1 State safety legislative framework Element 1.2 State safety responsibilities and accountabilitiesElement 1.3 Accident and incident investigationElement 1.4 Enforcement policy 

Component 2. State safety risk management Element 2.1 Safety requirements for the service provider’s SMS Element 2.2 Agreement on the service provider’s safety performance 

Component 3. State safety assurance Element 3.1 Safety oversight Element 3.2 Safety data collection, analysis and exchangeElement 3.3 Safety‐data‐driven targeting of oversight of areas of greater concern or need 

Component 4. State safety promotion Element 4.1 Internal training, communication and dissemination of safety information Element 4.2 External training, communication and dissemination of safety information

Chapter 4, ICAO Doc 9859, Safety Management Manual 3ed. 2013

CDLTJ16

12

8 Critical Elements of a Safety Oversight System

1Legislation

2Regulations

3Organization

5TechnicalGuidance& Tools

6Licensing,

Certification,Approval

7Continuous

Surveillance 8

Resolution of SafetyConcerns

ESTABLISH

IMPLEMENT

4Technical

Staff qual+training

13

What is an SSP? – latest Annex 19 provisions

“States shall establish and maintain an SSP that is commensurate with the size and complexity of the State’s civil aviation system, but may delegate safety management‐related functions and activities to another State, Regional Safety Oversight Organization (RSOO) or Regional Accident and Incident Investigation Organization (RAIO)”.Para 3.1  ICAO Annex 19 Safety Management, 2nd Edition July 2016

Retains an Acceptable Level of Safety Performance (ALoSP).Para 3.4.2 ICAO Annex 19

States have to create a State Safety Oversight (SSO) system.Appendix 1, ICAO Annex 19

14

What is an SSP? – an SSO

State Safety Oversight (SSO) System Critical Elements (CEs)  (Annex 19, 2nd Edn. Appendix 1)

CE1 ‐ Primary aviation legislationCE2 ‐ Specific operating regulationsCE3 ‐ State system and functionsCE4 ‐ Qualified technical personnelCE5 ‐ Technical guidance, tools and provision of safety‐critical 

informationCE6 ‐ Licensing, certification, authorization and approval 

obligationsCE7 ‐ Surveillance obligationsCE8 ‐ Resolution of safety issues

15

What is an SSP?

In general, there are two parts

• A DocumentSSP must document all the elements of a State’s aviation safety system as outlined in ICAO Doc 9859

• A PlanTo implement an SSP, it must be supported by an Implementation Plan – a National Aviation Safety Plan.

16

What is an SSP?

• The SSP Programme is a document that describes organisations, their objectives, roles and responsibilities and processes to manage risk. It is a passive document.

• The SSP Plan is an integral part and it explains:• The key issues to be addressed• What specific tasks are to be done, • Who is responsible• What timescale• How to measure success.

17

ICAO Global Aviation Safety Plan (GASP)

ICAO helps States by providing a Global Aviation Safety Plan.

This provides States with a Safety Roadmap.

Was originally jointly produced by ICAO and IATA

This GASP was endorsed by the 2016 Assembly.

Doc 10004

2017 – 2019 Global Aviation Safety Plan

Second Edition, 2016

18

The European Position

19

EuropeThe 28 Member States of EU

FL

IS

GEAM

AZ

EE

UA

MD

TR

CY

FR

LV

LT

BENL

DE

UKIR

RO

AL

BG

GR

CH

IT

AU HU

ESPT

DK

NO SE

PL

CZ

MT

BA

K

LU SK

SL

RSMMC

LI

28 EU31 EASA41 EUROCONTROL44 ECAC56 EUR/NAT

ME KO

RS

FY

HR

CDLTJ15

20

EASA and ICAO Regulations EASA Basic Regulation 216/2008Article 2 Objectives

1. The principal objective of this Regulation is to establish and maintain a high uniform level of civil aviation safety in Europe…and additionally…

• 2(d) to assist Member States in fulfilling their obligations under the Chicago Convention, by providing a basis for a common interpretation and uniform implementation of its provisions, and by ensuring that its provisions are duly taken into account in this Regulation and in the rules drawn up for its implementation.

21

EASA Regulations

EU Basic Regulation 216/2008 (Consolidated Version) Basic foundation for aviation safety & creation of EASA Created by EU (European Parliament and Council Directly applicable in EU Member States

Commission Regulation (EU) 965/2012 Technical and administrative procedures for Air Operations Created by European Commission Directly applicable in EU Member States Annex II, Subpart GEN, Section II, Management Systems

EASA AMC & GM to Annex II (Part-ARO) A Decision of EASA – Soft Law. AMC.ARO.GEN.200 Management Systems GM. ARO.GEN.200 Management Systems

22

EU requirements for a Competent Authority’s Management SystemManagement system to include as a minimum:

•Documented policies and procedures kept up-to-date•Sufficient trained and qualified personnel•A staff training programme•Adequate facilities and office accommodation•A compliance monitoring with a feedback system•Clear lines of responsibility•Effective communication both internally and externally•A change management system•Appropriate record keeping•A system to collect, analyse and disseminate safety information.

23

European SSP – EASP & EPAS

European Aviation Safety Programme (EASP)

• 2nd Edition Issued by European Commission

• A Communication• Dated Dec 2015

European Plan for Aviation Safety (EPAS) 2016 -2020

Issued 25 Jan 2016

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 7.12.2015 COM(2015) 599 final

 ANNEX 1

ANNEX    

The European Aviation Safety Programme Document 2nd edition

to the

REPORT TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

The European Aviation Safety Programme                   

CDLTJ3

24

European SSP – EASP

At Chapter 2 of EASP on European Safety Risk Management it states:

• ‘At this stage, the EU does not mandate the Member States to adopt, as such, a State Safety Programme. It has, however, reflected the spirit of the elevant ICAO Standards in several European Regulations, in particular in the implementing rules to Regulation No 216/2008.

• Authority Requirements that take due account of the eight critical elements of a safety oversight system as defined by ICAO, thus supporting the implementation of SSPs, while also serving the standardisation objective set out in Regulation No 216/2008. They further include elements that are essential for establishing a comprehensive aviation safety management system at EU level, encompassing EU and Member State responsibilities for safety management.

25

European Aviation Safety Programme

• EASP complements Member States’ SSPs• Aligned with Annex 19• Aims to deliver highest level of safety performance, to continue to improve, whilst maintaining environmental protection• Describes European aviation safety system and interrelationship between stakeholders.

• For example, Member States issue national AOCs while EASA grants authorisations to 3rd country operators.

• Implements a Continuous Monitoring Approach (Reg 628/2013) and EASA-ICAO Working Arrangement on USOAP.

26

European Plan for Aviation Safety 2016-2020

Systemic issuesSafety managementAviation personnelAircraft tracking, rescue operation &

accident investigation

Operational issuesCAT by aeroplanesHelicopter operationsGeneral aviation safety

Emerging issuesNew products, systems, technologies

and operationsRegulatory and oversight

considerationsNew business models

27

European SSP Review 2013

• EASA conducted survey of SSP Implementation in 2013• 16 EASA Member States responded.• Typical questions were:

• Who is Accountable Executive?• Is there an SSP implementation Team?• Have you carried out an SSP Gap Analysis?• Have you developed an Implementation Plan?• Is there an SSP coordination mechanism?• Do you have an SSP document outlining framework & component?

• Other questions - legislation, policy, AIB, enforcement, etc.

28

European SSP Review 2013  

SSP Phased Approach (as proposed in ICAO SMM Edition 3)  Phase I  Phase II Phase III Phase IVSSP element 1.2 (i) a. Identify SSP Place Holder

Organisation and Accountable Executive.

b. Establish SSP Implementation Team.

c. Perform SSP Gap Analysis. d. Develop SSP Implementation

Plan e. Establish SSP coordination

mechanism. f. SSP Documentation including

the State's SSP framework, its components and elements.

SSP element 1.1 National aviation legislative framework.  

SSP element 1.2 (ii) a. A Safety management responsibilities &

accountabilities b. State Safety Policy & Objectives  

SSP element 1.3 Accident and serious incident investigation  

SSP element 1.4 (i) Establish basic enforcement (penalty) legislation.  

SSP element 3.1 (i) State safety oversight and surveillance of its service providers.  

SSP element 2.1 (i) SMS education & promotion for service providers.

SSP element 1.4 (ii) c. Provision to prevent use or

disclosure of safety data for purposes other than safety improvement.

d. Provision to protect the sources of information obtained from voluntary confidential reporting systems.

 SSP element 3.2 (i) a. Safety data collection & exchange

systems b. Establish high consequence (or

Tier 1) State safety performance indicators and target/alert levels.

SSP element 2.2 Service provider safety performance indicators.  

SSP element 3.1 (ii) Incorporation of service providers' SMS and safety performance indicators as part of routine surveillance program.  

SSP element 3.2 (ii) a. Implement voluntary/confidential safety

reporting systems. b. Establish lower consequence safety

indicators with target/alert level monitoring as appropriate.

c. Promote safety information exchange with and amongst service providers and other States.

 SSP element 3.3 Prioritize inspections and audits based on the analysis of safety risk or quality data where applicable.  

SSP element 3.1 (iii) Establish internal review mechanism covering the SSP to assure continuing effectiveness and improvement.

SSP element 4.1 Internal training, communication and dissemination of safety information. SSP element 4.2 External training, communication and dissemination of safety information.

29

European SSP Review 2013

• Overall, good progress for 16 States, but weak in following elements

• Service Provider SPIs and target/alert levels• Incorporation of service providers’ SMS & SPIs as part of

routine surveillance program• Establish lower consequence SPIs with target/alert level

monitoring as appropriate.• Prioritize inspections and audits based on the analysis of safety

risk or quality data where applicable• External training, communication and dissemination of safety

information.

CDLTJ14

30

European SSP review 2016

• A more recent review of SSP Implementation• 15 out of 19 States have an SSP Implementation Team.• Task of Implementation Team is to:–

• Coordinate the gap analysis process; • Develop the SSP implementation plan; • Ensure adequate SSP training and technical expertise of the

team in order to establish effective implementation of the SSP elements and related processes;

• Monitor and report on the progress of SSP implementation, providing regular updates, coordinating with the SSP accountable executive and ensuring that activities within each phase are accomplished as per the defined timeline.

31

European SSP review 2016

• States were asked the following questions:-• What is the team composition? • What are the functions of the implementation team? • Do you have a planning programme for the execution of the

several tasks? If so, could you provide us the document? • What kind of management support did you provide for the

implementation team? • What were the difficulties that you have faced for the

establishment of this team?

32

European SSP review 2016 - results

• SSP initially not a problem – implementation more difficult• Often a lack of interest and commitment by management.• Need for more information and promotion of the SSP.• Job Descriptions for SSP team members required.• Work on SSP often distracted by other tasks.• Who is accountable for Safety in a State?

• Some States are Federal (e.g. Austria and Germany) and responsibility may rest with each Federal State

• The Minister for Civil Aviation may appoint a DGCA, but who is responsible for Military aviation in a State.

• In the UK, there are Crown Dependencies, Overseas Territories, Military aviation – is the Queen the accountable executive?

33

The UK Position

34

The UK SSP

• Developing the SSP over recent years has caused us to examine just who we are and what we do.

• UK is a very complex State and comprises:• UK, which is England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland• Crown Dependencies – Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey• Overseas Territories – 13 OTs

• UK tried to capture all parts in initial SSP (CAP 784)

35

UK SSP GovernanceCDLTJ13

36

UK CAA Initial Lessons Learnt

• Failure to get full engagement at high level

• Value of an SSP was not recognised

• Main focus has been on Europe

• Europe tried to develop a European SSP

• CAP 784 was based on ICAO guidance

• Approach taken was passive

• Not clear what to implement

37

The latest UK SSP

State Safety Programmefor the United KingdomProduced by the United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority in conjunctionwith the Department for Transport’s Aviation Directorate, the AirAccident Investigation Branch, the Ministry of Defence andAir SafetySupport International.

For the purposes of brevity, unless otherwise stated, any reference toState Safety Programme (SSP) will relate to the UK SSP.

For the purposes of brevity, unless otherwise stated, any reference toCivil Aviation Authority (CAA) will relate to the UK CAA.

CAP 1180

38

SSP raised issues - What is a Regulator?

Responsible for issuing certificates?

A government department?

An advisory body? Consumer rights organisation?

A service provider? What the State wants it to be?

39

What is a Regulator?

Must be Can be• Defined by National Regulation• Delegated to make regulations on behalf of the State• Able to issue certificates and licenses• Responsible for safety oversight – audits and inspections• Separate from service providers• Responsible for coordinating search and rescue

• A government department or a separate body• Autonomous or funded (by government or ticket taxes)• Source of advice to government• Consumer focussed or solely regulatory

A Regulator is what individual States want it to be –defined under their National Legislation. No two

Regulators are the same.

CDLTJ12

40

Regulatory Delegation and Devolution

• Regulators can delegate some of their responsibilities to another party – in the UK balloons are regulated by the British Balloon and Airship Club

• Regulators cannot devolve their responsibilities• Ultimately, the Regulator is always responsible for

the industry of its State• The role of the Regulator can be ever-changing• As industry grows and evolves, so too should the

Regulator

41

CAA State Safety Programme Wheel

UK Consumer Safety

Other International

CAA

42

UK Safety Governance

UK Safety Strategy Board• High-level Board• Chaired by DGCA• Members from DfT, CAA, ASSI, AAIB, MAA• Meets quarterly• Responsible for coordination of SSP• Reviews safety performance and current activity.

43

UK CAA Regulatory Safety Management System

44

CAA – Intelligence, Strategy and Policy (ISP) Safety Intelligence has 16 staff members

45

Typical Safety Risk Panel Topics

Airworthiness and GA• Insufficient suitably qualified and experienced personnel resulting in the lowering of maintenance standards, or incomplete/incorrect maintenance actions, leading to release of an unairworthy aircraft.• Departure of an Airbus single aisle and similar configuration aircraft (e.g. B737) with an unlatched engine cowl door detaching leading to loss of control and/or fire (unsafe aircraft environment).lease of an unairworthy aircraft.• Operation of potentially unairworthy aircraft after long terms of inactivity, resulting in potential in-flight technical malfunction of aircraft critical systems and partial or total loss of aircraft control.Airspace• Unauthorised access to controlled airspace/breach of airspace restrictions i.e. Airspace Infringements leading to unsafe proximity with other traffic and as a result increased risk of MAC.• Small UAS operating in close proximity to aircraft leading to either abrupt avoidance manoeuvre or collision.Flight Operations• Attempted take-off using speeds and/or flap/thrust settings which are incorrect for the runway length/condition, stemming from performance calculation errors on EFBs, resulting in a runway excursion and multiple fatalities.

CDLTJ11

46

UK SSP Implementation Working Group

UK SSP Action Plan   (Simplified)

Based on ICAO Gap Analysis PQs

Maintained by  SSP Implementation Working Group.

WG meets once per month and team drawn from existing areas.

Number Question Component Response (currently 2009 ICAO response or 

2014 EASA response )

Evidence type/Location (e.g. name 

of doc, dept responsible )

Owner (responsible for ensuring work is completed to required quality, time 

and/or cost )

Start date  End Date Comments

1.1‐01 Has State promulgated a national safety legislative framework and specific regulations that define the management of safety in the State?

Yes ‐ Civil Aviation Act, Basic Regulation and ANO as described in CAP1180 (chapter 2)

Civil  Aviation Act 2012 document ‐ http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/19/contents/enacted

CAP 1180 document ‐ http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%201180%20State%20Safety%20Plan%2012814.pdf

xxxxx

Civil  Aviation Act 2012 document ‐ http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/19/contents/enacted

ANO 2015 document (This  contains  the Air Navigation Order 2009 as amended and Regulations made under the order)  ‐ https://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=226

xxxxx

1.2‐01 Has State identified a SSP placeholder organisation and an Accountable Executive for the implementation and coordination of the SSP

Yes‐The UK CAA is considered the ‘place holder’, The Director General is the Accountable Executive for the SSP but practical application is delegated to the UK CAA. 

The CAP 1180 document identifies the DfT and CAA as the SSP placeholder organisations for the SSP Programme. In addition, the Foreword by Patricia Hayes (Director General Civil Aviation ‐ DfT) and the Introduction section by Andrew Haines (Chief Executive ‐ CAA) in the CAP 1180 document confirms their position as Accoutnable Executives for the implementation and coordination of the SSP.

xxxxxx

1.2‐02 Has the State established an SSP implementation team

Yes SSP Programme Manager sits within the UK CAA who is responsible for overseeing the SSP. A State Safety Board provides governance and is chaired by the Director General.

xxxxxxxx

ICAO SSP Action PlanDocument Control: version2Last updated: 20.07.15

State Safety Policies & Objectives

Yes – All regulations are reviewed and updated as appropriate. Civil Aviation Act last updated 2012, ANO reviewed and updated 2015

1.1‐02 Are the legislative framework and specific regulations periodically reviewed to ensure that they remain relevant to the State?

CDLTJ4

47

Summary of UK SSP Governance

• Strategic Safety Board• Safety Leadership Groups• Safety Improvement Advisory Group• Safety Review Committee• Safety Risk Panels

• France has just two• SSP Management Board• SSP Safety Review

48

UK SSP – Overseas Territories

49

UK SSP – Overseas Territories (OTs)

• OTs supported by Air Safety Support International (ASSI)• Responsibility for safety in OTs is with the Governors• ASSI provides guidance on SSP as follows:

• Part 1 – UK SSP (as UK is signatory of Chicago Convention)

• Part 2 – SSP for OTs – background material• Part 3 – The All-OT Safety Plans (2015)

50

UK SSP – Overseas Territories (OTs)

• Part 3 - Safety Plans for• ASSI• Bermuda• Cayman Islands• Falkland Islands• Turks & Caicos

Islands

51

UK SSP – Overseas Territories (OTs)

Objectives of ASSI SSP

• Objective 1: Develop and maintain regulations, related guidance and associated training for both ASSI and service provider* staff to enable Safety Management improvement.

• Objective 2: Improve occurrence reporting

• Objective 3: Work towards a performance/ risk based approach appropriate to the nature and maturity of the aviation industry.

• Objective 4: Strengthen and develop collaborative working relationships with the aviation industry

52

Gibraltar SSPState Safety Programme describes the arrangements in Gibraltar.

Safety Plan focuses on:• Effective safety management• Effective reporting systems• Aerodrome safety and air traffic services (ATS)• Emergency preparedness

53

Key Issues for Smaller States

54

Key Issues

• Legislation Changes?• Organisational Issues

• States may already comply• Proportionate• Corporatisation and Privatisation

• Accountable Executive• Acceptable Level of Safety Performance• Safety Performance Indicators• SSP Assessment

• SM-ICG tool

55

Legislation changes?

Q - Does Primary Legislation need to be changed?• UK no change to primary or secondary legislation – already

provisions to adopt Chicago and Annexes as appropriate (Section 60, UK Civil Aviation Act 1982)

• Finland revised Finnish Aviation Act in 2014• Spain published a Law that was completed with a Royal Decree

and an agreement of the Council of Ministers• China drafted Regulation of China Civil Aviation Safety System

– to set out specific requirements.

A – It depends on current legislation, but it can help to promote the SSP by embed the concept in law.

56

Organisation change

Ref ICAO Doc 9734 Fig. 3.1

57

Organisation change

• Some States – no change required.• The U.S. currently meets the intent of the elements outlined in the ICAO SSP Framework, with a

• mature regulatory framework, • well-defined roles and responsibilities, • advanced accident and incident investigation capabilities• effective certification, surveillance and enforcement processes,• exceptional capacity for data collection and analysis, • the ability to focus on areas of greatest safety risk, and• established means to communicate with service providers,

government representatives, and other stakeholders.

Ref. FAA/NTSB AVP300-15-US State Safety Program (v1.0) - 2015

58

Organisation ChangeStates must be fully aware of the Safety Risk Management Process

CDLTJ5

59

Organisation Change

For many States, the SSP requires additional tasks• Establish Safety Policy• Safety Data collection • Safety Data Analysis• Safety Performance Monitoring• Risk Identification and Assessment• Tactical and Strategic Safety Planning & Monitoring• SSP Implementation Team• Safety Information • Safety Promotion

60

Organisation Change

61

Organisation Change

Safety & Security Policy Unit• Head of Safety & Security Policy Unit 1

• Technical Officer (Safety) 1

• Technical Officer (Security) 1

Support Section

Support Officer (Policy & Planning, HR, Finance, Training Policy) 1

Legal Officer (Legal, Regulatory & Procedural support, Enforcement) 1

62

Organisation Change

Safety & Security Oversight Section• Head, Safety & Security

• Information, Strategy, Policy & Planning, AIB, ICAO, MoD, contact . Head SSP Implementation Team.

• Technical Officer• Security Oversight, NCASP QA, Risk Management and System

Performance

• Technical Officer• Security Oversight, NCMC, ICAO State Letters, Risk Management and

System Performance

• Support Officer• Safety/Security Data Reporting Systems and Management, Safety/Security

Promotion

63

Organisation Change - Issues

Getting management ‘buy-in’ is a common problem•Emphasise risk-based approach

•Adoption of worldwide best-practice•More effective targeting of resources

Getting sufficient resources is a common problem•Consider ‘young graduates’

Staff must have basic Safety Risk Management Training

64

Safety Plan

Systemic issuesSafety managementAviation personnelAircraft tracking, rescue operation & accident investigation

Operational issuesCAT by aeroplanes – ‘Significant Seven’Helicopter operationsGeneral aviation safety

Emerging issuesNew products, systems, technologies and operationsRegulatory and oversight considerationsNew business models

65

Safety Plan – Significant Seven

1 Loss of control in flight2 Design and maintenance improvements3 Mid-air collisions4 Runway safety5 Ground safety6 Controlled flight into terrain7 Fire, smoke and fumes

CDLTJ7

66

State Safety Performance

The State’s safety performance is defined as:• The status of States’ implementation of safety-relevant ICAO

SARPs, associated procedures, guidance material and safety-related practices; (SAAQ, CCs, CMA Protocols)

• The State’s level of implementation of the critical elements of a safety oversight system

• The level of maturity of the State’s Safety Programme

• The rate of aircraft accidents and serious incidents

• Prioritising states by risk indicator ratings, from the information provided through State Questionnaires

CDLTJ6

67

Acceptable Level of Safety Performance

UK ALoSP has three safety performance indicators and targets;

• Fatal Accident Rate (5 year rolling average is in the best 5% of States)

• SPIs track the frequency of operational events regarded as potential precursors to fatal accidents and indicate continuous improvement in reducing these risks, and

• ICAO Compliance of at least 90% Effective Implementation with sound and considered rationale where differences have been filed.

CDLTJ8

68

Level of Effective Implementation (EI)

• The UK level of EI was 93.6% at the time of the USOAP Audit in 2009.• Many changes have been made to PQs since then, many resulting from the implementation of Annex 19• The implementation of the new/amended PQs has resulted in changes to the States’ level of EI due to the deletion of some PQs, adding of new PQs and merging of existing PQs with others. • It can be difficult for States to use the level of EI as an SPI.

CDLTJ9

69

SM-ICG SSP Assessment Tool

• Safety Management International Coordination Group

70

Summary

• Common problem of lack of management ‘buy-in’ and lack of resources.

• Ideally, an SSP should be embedded into an organisation such that it is simply ‘business as usual’.

• Staff safety risk management training is essential.

71

Good Examples of SSP

72

European SSP - Ireland

• Excellent example of a proportionate SSP.• Supported by an SSP Implementation Plan• Describes the interface between Member State and EU

CDLTJ10

73

New Zealand SSP

A well written, comprehensive and concise document.18 pages

74

New Zealand SSP – Figure 1

Outcom

es Outputs

Inputs and activities 

Figure 1 

New Zealand’s Acceptable Level of Safety Performance  

‐ Low and reducing numbers and costs of air accidents. ‐ No security  incidents  that compromise  safety. 

1. State Safety Policy and Objectives  

1.1  State safety legislative  framework 

1.2  State safety responsibilities  and accountabilities 

1.3  Accident and incident  investigation 

1.4  Regulatory policy 

2. State Safety Risk Management 

3. State Safety Assurance  4. State Safety Promotion 

2.1    Safety  requirements for  the  service  provider’s SMS 

3.1  Safety oversight   3.2  Safety data collection, analysis and exchange 

 4.1  Internal training, communication  and dissemination  of safety information 

2.2  Agreement on the service provider’s  safety performance 

 3.3  Safety data‐driven targeting of oversight areas of greater concern or need 

4.2 External  training, communication  and dissemination  of safety information 

75

Fiji SSP

Document covers:• Primary Legislation calls for SSP• Gap Analysis• Implementation Plan• Accountable Executive• Safety Policy• Organisational Structure• Legislative Hierarchy• Document Structure• Safety Performance Targets

(TBD)

76

Questions?