ECACNEWS - SAFETY Aviation's biggest achievement - Mise en
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
SUMMER 2018
ECACNEWS
European Civil Aviation Conference Magazine
#66
SAFETY
Aviation’s biggest achievement
CONTENTS
1 EDITORIAL
Furthering Safety –
The hallmark of aviation?
Salvatore Sciacchitano
2 Safety, an investment for the future
Pekka Henttu
4 The value of simulations to improve
safety
Philippe Merlo
8 Role and priorities of the ICAO
Air Navigation Commission
Claude Hurley
11 ICAO Global Aviation Safety Plan –
Current and upcoming editions
Arnaud Desjardin
13 Safety recommendations – How are
we doing?
Robert Carter
18 Implementation of the just culture
concept in safety investigations
ECACNEWS
#66 – Summer 2018
Rémi Jouty
Publication Director 23 U-Space as a prerequisite for scalable
Salvatore Sciacchitano
Editorial Committee
UAS operations
Salvatore Sciacchitano, Patricia Marcel Kaegi
Reverdy, Gabrielle Hubler
Editor 27 ECAC Spotlight:
Gabrielle Hubler ECAC Common Evaluation Process (CEP)
ghubler@ecac-ceac.org
of security equipment
Designer
Bernard Artal Graphisme
Julien Levet
Cover: © JackF - Fotolia.com
Ph: © CEAC 30 ECAC in brief
ECAC News welcomes feedback 33 EaP/CA in brief
and content ideas from interested
parties. 34 News from the JAA Training Organisation
Subscription and distribution (JAA TO)
requests should be made to
info@ecac-ceac.org
The opinions printed in ECAC
News are those of the authors
alone and do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of ECAC
or its Member States.
Printed by Imprimerie Peau.
Follow ECAC on and visit our
website www.ecac-ceac.org
Editorial
Furthering Safety –
The hallmark of aviation?
Salvatore Sciacchitano
Executive Secretary of ECAC
S afety statistics for the year 2017 show the safest
year on record in the history of air transport.
addressed with strictly national regulations and
jurisdictions. In order to advance the common
objective of improved safety resulting in fewer
Through the cooperative efforts of governments,
airlines, airports, manufacturers, and across the accidents, recommendations must be shared and
aviation supply chain, the number of accidents and international safety regulation harmonised.
fatalities reached unseen lows of 45 accidents In this regard, improving the safety of the global
worldwide that year, down from an average of 75 in air transport system is “ICAO’s guiding and most
each of the preceding five years (1). And when looking fundamental strategic objective”. In an effort to assist
at safety figure trends beyond the recent period, it is States in fulfilling this crucial responsibility, ICAO has
striking how accident numbers have drastically gone developed international standards and recommended
down whereas daily operations continue to grow year practices (SARPs) covering a wide spectrum of aviation
after year. activities with a view to achieve uniformity of safety
While we can only commend the reduction in lives regulations. In this issue, the president of the ICAO Air
lost, there is still ample room for improvement Navigation Commission (ANC) describes how ICAO’s
worldwide, and our priority should remain as acute as technical work programme is managed by the Council
ever on the promotion of safety. In this issue, the ECAC with the guidance of the ANC, one of the main
Focal Point for Safety invites us to reflect on the outcomes being proposals for new or amended SARPs.
constant challenge posed by aviation safety and its ICAO also aims to address and enhance global
requirement for continued vigilance, despite the aviation safety through coordinated activities and
excellent safety record achieved in recent years. targets as set out in its Global Aviation Safety Plan
Continuous improvement of safety records is, and (GASP). The ICAO EUR/NAT Office describes, for ECAC
must be, the imperative. News, the current and future GASP priorities, in which
That is why – and particularly in view of the emerging risks and mitigation measures are proactively
expected growth in air travel – well-timed, acurate reports identified in accordance with the ICAO global plans.
are of utmost importance to identify vulnerabilities The progress in aviation safety implies that
and gain knowledge from each accident and incident. improvements may be harder to achieve and require
Each accident must be investigated: the chair and a high level of adaptation to arising needs. This is
co-chair of the ECAC Air Accident and Incident well-illustrated in the Swiss Federal Office of Civil
Investigation Group of Experts highlight in this edition Aviation’s contribution on the development of U-Space
why learning from past accidents continues to be the in order to ensure the scalability of Unmanned Aircraft
cornerstone of that effort and how the “just culture” Systems operations that are bound to grow more and
concept contributes to furthering the finding of safety more in our skies.
investigations. Finally, leader in traffic management research
In this respect, the Safety Recommendation of EUROCONTROL gives us a look at the bigger picture
Global Concern (SRGC) database developed by ICAO with the description of its “case-based” approach
plays a key role in making safety recommendations simulation programme and how simulation can
pertaining to “systemic deficienc(ies) having a probability greatly contribute to furthering tomorrow’s safety.
of recurrence with the potential for significant Air transport has never been so safe. Recent
consequences” accessible to all aviation stakeholders excellent records demonstrate how joining forces and
and the public. devising solutions together as an aviation community
Individual States’ responsibility for safety oversight is the path to address the global challenges facing our
in civil aviation is one of the key principles of the sector. Such is the spirit of ECAC, which remains
Chicago Convention. Yet, there is a consensus in the committed to enabling the closest cooperation among
international community that the issue is a matter of its 44 Member States and with other regions of the
global concern and, as such, cannot be thoroughly world to further all major aviation fields.
(1) Source: IATA Safety Report 2017, April 2018.
ECAC NEWS # 66 1
Safety, an investment
for the future
Pekka Henttu
Director General of Civil Aviation, Finnish Transport Safety Agency (Trafi)
and ECAC Focal Point for Safety
In recent years, the international work in aviation has focused on future trends, digitalisation, and
especially the environment. However, we must remember that safety and security are still a vital
part of the future of aviation – even more than ever before. If the general public cannot trust the
services provided, it will seriously hinder the sector’s development.
F orEurope
aviation, this is a good time.
also has its share of the
successful safety work achieved.
• You have managed to achieve
improvement of safety. The pro-
gramme describes the procedures,
growth in air transport. It has cer- a balance between safety, econ- and the plan details the actions
tainly not happened all by itself, omy, environmental issues, relia- necessary at national level. I would
but required significant investment bility, punctuality and other like to encourage my fellow civil
from various stakeholders. It is performance factors. In real life, aviation directors to make sure that
exciting to see how the aviation those performance factors tend those central elements of safety
business is developing. The sector to contradict each other every work are not only documents
can now offer employment and day. True professionals are mas- on the office shelf, but genuine
contribute to our well-being and ters in setting priorities. descriptions of how safety work is
prosperity. • Success in safety is not something conducted in the organisation and
The past years have shown an that can be taken for granted. It what actions are taken to mitigate
excellent safety record for aviation requires constant improvement risks at national level. Oversight
both at the global level and in and ever more effective safety must focus on the implementation
Europe. Last year was the best ever work from all of us in our own and follow-up of actions needed to
for air transport safety. In my capac- positions. reduce risks.
ity as ECAC’s Focal Point for Safety, I wish to particularly underline To highlight the importance of
I wish to express my strong appre- the role of the State Safety Pro- the Safety Programme and Safety
ciation to everyone involved for the gramme and Safety Plan in the Plan, we, in Finland, have nomi-
© Yanukit - Fotolia.com
2 ECAC NEWS # 66
Safety, an investment for the future
© Soonthorn - Fotolia.com
nated a responsible person con-
centrating on our own State Safety
Programme and Safety Plan, and
especially supporting their imple-
mentation in the CAA and among
stakeholders. The post was trans-
ferred to my support staff so that
the postholder reports directly to However, I also see misinter- work is solid. All stakeholders, in-
the Director General of Civil Avia- preted or poorly determined safety cluding ECAC and EUROCONTROL,
tion. This has raised the status of performance indicators as safety are together making valuable con-
the work. With this arrangement, I threats, if they are used as a sole tributions under the lead of EASA.
think we have taken a huge step basis for decision-making. There- The world of aviation is still not
forward in our safety work during fore, the effort made to determine ready. Everyone involved has a lot
the past two years. I believe that safety performance indicators of work to do. We often highlight
our safety efforts are more ambi- together with our stakeholders is the operators’ responsibility for
tious, systematic and clearly defined vitally important, as they are one of their own operations. However, we
than before. I hope they will also the tools to monitor safety perfor- must also challenge ourselves con-
have a greater influence. mance. They help us to make good tinuously. We must make sure that
In the spirit of our times, the decisions and to form an accurate the safety work of regulatory au-
importance of knowledge for overall picture of safety, as far as thorities really adds value, and that
decision-making is emphasized. In possible. We must remember that we take responsibility for those is-
order to understand the overall there is always a residual risk as sues that belong to us, taking right
situation and to serve decision- long as there are flight operations. actions in a wise manner. We need
making in safety management, it is Let’s work together to keep that to have courage and a modern at-
essential to identify safety threats, residual risk low. titude to our work as an authority,
assess safety risks and form a risk We are now living in a time of helping the aviation sector to
picture both at the aviation stake- extensive digitalisation. The other develop safely. Let’s carry on our
holder level and at national or side of that coin are cyber threats. safety and security work ambi-
global level, tailored specifically for As we have learned from safety tiously, in a spirit of continuous
each level. The European Plan for work, exchange of information is improvement. It is essential to
Aviation Safety, which also takes one of the cornerstones for safety. maintain trust in the air transport
into account ICAO’s safety plan, The same holds true in the efforts system among the general public,
provides a firm basis for national for improving cyber safety, which whether the aircraft are manned or
aviation safety plans. It is worth are now progressing at a good unmanned.
making full use of it at State level. pace in Europe. The management Investment in safety is an in-
The effectiveness of safety plan of risks associated with cyber vestment in the future. ■
actions is monitored using prede- threats will apply the same proce-
termined safety performance indi- dures as for safety management.
cators. The basis for EASA’s cyber safety
Before his employment at Trafi, Pekka Henttu worked for Finnair for 33 years as a pilot (13 500 flight hours) and in
various management positions, such as head of regulatory issues and technical chief pilot. In addition to Commander
qualification, he also has an M.Sc.Eng degree from Helsinki University of Technology. He has a total 41 years of
experience as an aviation professional. Mr Henttu has been Director General of Civil Aviation at Trafi since 1 May 2011.
He also carries out other duties in the European aviation community, including as chairman of the EASA Management
Board, member of the ECAC Coordinating Committee (as Focal Point for Safety), and vice chairman of ICAO’s European
Regional Aviation Safety Group.
ECAC NEWS # 66 3
The value of simulations
to improve safety
Philippe Merlo
Director DECMA,
Directorate European Civil-Military Aviation
The recent years have been among the safest in the history of aviation, but this has not come about
by sheer luck. Changing complex systems in any business is risky and expensive. Knowing whether
changes will actually improve safety before they are implemented is therefore essential.
W e at EUROCONTROL, the
European Organisation for
the Safety of Air Navigation, have
Safety has many facets and even
the tiniest change can affect
safety. To convince the safety au-
the European Operational Concept
Validation Methodology, developed
by EUROCONTROL and the Euro-
always kept safety as our prime ob- thorities our solutions are safe we pean Commission, and provides
jective, at every stage of our work, need a robust and proven method solid guidelines on how to build a
from identification of the problem and strong evidence. case, demanding evidence at every
and definition of a potential solu- Fortunately we at EUROCON- step.
tion (e.g. new procedures, tools, TROL can demonstrate not only To build a case, we must first
airspace structure), through the that the changes will, or will not, understand the operational envi-
initial feasibility assessment and bring about the desired benefits, ronment, clarify the expected
advanced integration exercises, up but also to what extent they will
to initial operations. benefits for all stakeholders and
affect safety. This is what is called examine the proposed solutions.
With its Experimental Centre in validation.
We break them down into smaller
Brétigny near Paris, EUROCONTROL The cornerstone of our vali- components of change and define
has been the leader in air traffic dation method is the “case- benefit mechanisms, working out
management research, and in par- based” approach. It is based on how each change could deliver im-
ticular in the field of simulations,
for over 50 years now. The aviation
industry is continuously devising
new solutions to improve the over-
all performance of aviation. These
may come from navigation service
providers or from the European
research project, SESAR, and may,
say, reduce delays, shorten routes,
optimise algorithms or simply
bring in new technology. But what-
ever their origin or nature, for each
and every single change we must
be sure they will improve safety, or
at least not affect it.
If they are not improving safety
we must detect, stop or correct
them as early as possible.
That is no easy job.
A case with claims and evidence
4 ECAC NEWS # 66
The value of simulations to improve safety
provements. We then know what simulation exercises. These need to tremely powerful means of assess-
to demonstrate, what to measure, be prepared in minute detail in ing safety aspects as this is one of
and under what conditions. This is order to achieve the highest possi- the first times in the life cycle of a
spelled out in unequivocal claims ble degree of realism. This is a new solution that all elements are
supported by robust evidence. For prerequisite for building credible integrated: the new tools, proce-
example, the high-level claim that and valid data as evidence to test dures or technology are inserted
a particular concept will improve the claims. into a realistic operational environ-
safety and flight efficiency is bro- ment, involving real active air traffic
ken down into lower-level, testable, controllers working with realistic
claims that the concept will lead to
fewer aircraft crossing and safety
“ Assessing traffic.
alerts, a lower workload for air safety in aviation But before conducting such
real-time simulations we must
traffic controllers while indeed
reducing the flown track miles in can be very build the simulated environment.
For air navigation service providers
the airspace concerned, and not
creating new hot spots. This has to
challenging, (ANSPs), that must be as close as
possible to their own operational
be tested not only under normal but simulations environment – right down to the
conditions but also under non-
seating, the screen layout and
nominal conditions, e.g. when a lend a helping colour of the aircraft labels and
technical failure occurs or during
bad weather. hand. ” even the mouse position!
It is after this stage that we se- Once this is done, we verify the
lect the best simulation approach Most projects begin with math- simulation environment with the
in order to collect all the support- ematical simulations as these are air traffic controllers. They help us
ing evidence. This could be a math- relatively easy and inexpensive to tweak it so it feels just like home.
ematical, fast-time simulation, or run and involve fewer actors, but The simulation is run in a known
a gaming exercise and may be a they can simulate very large environment first, so as to establish
real-time simulation or a live trial. airspace over long periods, thus a baseline and to make sure the
Or even a combination of these, as generating a high repetition of simulator works correctly. This rep-
each has its strengths and limita- data. They help to quickly discard resents the baseline, a reference
tions. weak solutions, pinpoint trouble point to be able to subsequently
Once the validation scenarios areas and generate lots of useful measure the effects of the changes
and objectives have been defined, data to be fed into the next step. or new solution. It is indeed often
the actual preparation of the simu- The logical next step, in par- easier to make relative compar-
lations can start. This can be a very ticular when the focus is on isons rather than absolute mea-
lengthy task, spanning many safety assessment, is to proceed surements.
months, requiring several opera- with real-time simulations. These Then we run the new or future
tional, technical and validation are more demanding and expen- scenarios four times, as a rule, so
meetings to accurately build the sive to conduct but are an ex- that we generate enough statisti-
ECAC NEWS # 66 5
The value of simulations to improve safety
cally valid data. A typical exercise some tools were properly used or or operational experts, and most
lasts for about an hour but it can not. Recommendations can also be importantly, a neutral, impartial,
take twice as long if the airspace is expressed on how to improve the solid and credible assessment of the
large or the new concept complex. fine-tuning, configuration or im- benefits and potential drawbacks of
We collect a vast amount of plementation of a specific safety the tested solutions, accompanied
subjective and objective data. decision aid. by a series of recommendations to
Every event is recorded and mea- Once the exercises have all further improve the benefits of the
sured: the time it takes for air traffic been run – this typically takes two solutions.
controllers (ATCOs) to respond; weeks – another key phase in our At Brétigny, we have differ-
how long they talk on the radio or work begins: analysing the moun- ent types of simulator platforms
telephone; the traffic density and tains of data that the simulations and various tools for validation.
number of aircraft movements in have generated. This is a joint The major one used for air traffic
the sectors; how often and when task both for our EUROCONTROL control simulations is ESCAPE, used
exactly the ATCOs use the new human factors, validation and in three air traffic control simu-
tools, procedures or safety nets; the
operational experts, and for the lation rooms with in each one up
number of instructions and safety
experts from the research project to 40 controller positions and 16
alerts. To collect subjective data we
or ANSP who designed the new pseudo-piloting positions.
often have observers supervising
solutions. We also have other simulators
the conduct of the exercises and,
after each session, the ATCOs are Analysing the data collected to complement these air traffic con-
given a questionnaire which helps and writing up the report usually trol simulators, allowing our experts
us clarify the human factor elements, takes three months. The reports to address all the phases of flight:
e.g. situational awareness and provide a clear overview of the • For network projects we have the
stress level. We also measure their validation approach: objectives, hy- EUROCONTROL Network Manage-
workload perception every two potheses, scenarios, claims, metrics ment Validation Platform (NMVP)
minutes. Each ATCO is invited at used, profile of participating ATCOs and the ISA Software’s INNOVE.
regular intervals to rate their own
feelings about the work by choos-
ing from a series of buttons. These
data are all essential to build a co-
herent picture of the safety impact
of the new solution or concept.
A debriefing is held at the end
of each day. As everything is
recorded, we can enrich the discus-
sions with a synthesised view of
the relevant data for each exercise.
Controllers can see for themselves
how they handled the new system
or tools and comment on all events
and data. For example, controllers
can comment on the usefulness of
a new safety net, whether the
safely alerts or advisory messages
were relevant and correct; opera-
tional and human factors experts
can investigate and ask if and why
6 ECAC NEWS # 66
The value of simulations to improve safety
• For airports: the ASTRIUM airport real-time simulations could test or only very rarely, happen in real
operations centre (APOC) and the what happens and how to react, life but that can lead to disastrous
combined EUROCONTROL eDEP- not only when the overall air traffic consequences if the AI machine
based tower simulator with third- management system is down, but does not know how to react. Simu-
party 3D visualisation. also in the event of smaller-scale lations could provide such rare and
• For the cockpit: a third-party but nevertheless vicious data cor- non-nominal scenarios to test and
Airbus A320 cockpit simulator. ruption. A total failure of radar train the AI systems.
• For environmental studies: our tracking information may be easy EUROCONTROL, with its vast
IMPACT suite of simulators for to detect, but what if tracks are experience in air traffic manage-
emissions and noise assessment maliciously biased by a few miles ment simulations and simulators, is
studies. horizontally or a few hundred feet ready to contribute to the safety of
• And a variety of other mathemat- vertically? We must be able to spot aviation and make sure the coming
ical simulators. this, and be ready to react. decades remain amongst the safest
For future issues such as New AI systems or algorithms in history. ■
cyber security and artificial intel- require a massive amount of data Further reading on the EURO-
ligence (AI), simulations will also to be trained how to react and CONTROL Experimental Centre, its
be a very valuable tool in ensur- decide. But this data need not only research activities and simulation
ing that the right solutions are de- reflect normal operations. AI sys- infrastructure: https://eec50.euro-
signed, tested and implemented. tems must also be confronted with control.int/a & https://simulations.
In the field of cyber security, non-nominal situations that never, eurocontrol.int
Philippe Merlo has led the new Directorate European Civil-Military Aviation (DECMA) since its creation in April 2018.
DECMA, a merger of two former directorates (Directorate Air Traffic Management (ATM), which Mr Merlo had been in
charge of since joining EUROCONTROL in February 2014, and Directorate Pan-European Single Sky), represents a
significantly expanded mandate and portfolio.
DECMA brings under one roof a strong technology, State support and innovation function:
• Its State support units work to ensure the development and implementation of the Single European Sky (SES) at
the pan-European level, supporting the EU and States as needed.
• Its civil-military ATM coordination division ensures appropriate civil-military and military-military ATM coordination
via EUROCONTROL’s unique civil-military competences.
• Its R&D and SESAR Contribution Management division plays a core role in SESAR 2020, where EUROCONTROL leads
eight projects and contributes to many more with the aim of achieving the objectives of the SES and the performance
scheme, as well as ensuring full alignment of SESAR initiatives in accordance with the ATM Master Plan.
• Its ATM strategies division ensures the strategic development of ATM, with particular focus on ensuring coordination
at a global level with the key actors.
Mr Merlo has spent his entire career in ATM, beginning as a flight test engineer in 1986 in the French Directorate
General of Civil Aviation after graduating from the École Nationale de l’Aviation Civile in Toulouse. He would then steadily
rise within the organisation to occupy a number of managerial functions of increasing responsibility, including four years
as head of the En-Route ATC Centre in Bordeaux and four years as director of all technical systems and innovation. In
2010 he became deputy CEO of DSNA, the French air navigation service provider, in which capacity he was increasingly
involved in ATM at a European level, before joining EUROCONTROL four years later.
ECAC NEWS # 66 7
Role and priorities of the ICAO
Air Navigation Commission
Claude Hurley
President, ICAO Air Navigation Commission (ANC)
As we, States, industry stakeholders and ICAO look forward, together, to this autumn’s ICAO
Air Navigation Conference, I appreciate this opportunity to reflect on how ECAC States and
aviation stakeholders can best continue the strong participation they have always brought to
ICAO’s standard-making process.
expertise in the interest of the
The role of the Air Navigation Commission whole international civil aviation
within the ICAO framework community.
We are not alone, of course, in
this work, and rely on many others
T ohaps
begin this reflection, it is per-
best to start by looking
the Convention on International
Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention).
to help us achieve our objectives
on behalf of all States.
briefly at the Air Navigation Com- While I feel blessed every day
mission’s (ANC) role within the Of note is that a number of ex-
to be able to work with such distin- perts, directly representing States
ICAO framework. Our primary task, guished aviation professionals as and industry organisations, partic-
on behalf of all ICAO States, is to my colleagues in the Commission, ipate in the ANC deliberations as
consider and recommend Stan- as well as in the Secretariat, I accredited observers, and their
dards and Recommended Practices believe the key to our long-term insights are necessary to the Com-
(SARPs), as well as Procedures for success in providing technical mission gaining a broader under-
Air Navigation Services (PANS) for advice to the ICAO Council lies not standing of the possible impact of
adoption or approval by the ICAO necessarily in our expertise, but in the proposals being discussed.
Council. the fact that while each commis- As well, the many dedicated
In the ANC itself, we are 19 sioner is nominated by specific individuals who collectively make
commissioners, who are nominated ICAO Member States, they do not up the Secretariat ensure that we
by States and appointed by the represent the interest of any partic- are well supported and advised in
ICAO Council, which has judged us ular State – or even region. Instead, our discussions, and are also the
to have “suitable qualifications and as envisaged in the Chicago Con- bridge that allows all stakeholders
experience in the science and prac- vention, each commissioner acts in the process to communicate
tice of aeronautics”, as outlined in independently, leveraging their effectively.
ICAO Air Navigation Commission Session
8 ECAC NEWS # 66Role and priorities of the ICAO Air Navigation Commission
© Commissioner Mervyn Fernando
The ICAO Air Navigation Commission
The ANC’s mission ICAO’s Air Navigation Conference
and the path of “implementable” SARPs
Irisksnproactively
the big picture, we aim to
identify emerging
Tint/Meetings/anconf13),
th
he theme of ICAO’s 13 Air Nav-
and devise mitigation mea- After the conclusion of the
sures in accordance with the ICAO igation Conference (www.icao. ANC’s preliminary review process,
global plans, such as the Global to be held State letters on these proposals for
Aviation Safety Plan (GASP) and the in October this year, is From Devel- amendments to the SARPs are then
Global Air Navigation Plan (GANP). opment to Implementation, which sent out by the Secretariat to all
ties in directly with the ANC’s two ICAO States, which is the first for-
To do this, the ANC is tasked by
main focus areas for 2018: ‘imple- mal opportunity that States have to
the Council to manage ICAO’s tech-
mentation’ and ‘communications’, comment on the specific proposals
nical work programme, with one
which you will have understood, being brought forward.
of the main outcomes being
falls within the greater framework It is widely recognised that the
amendments to the Annexes to the
of ICAO’s well publicised No Coun- high response rate to State letters
Chicago Convention, or more
try Left Behind initiative. amongst ECAC States has ensured
specifically, proposals for new or
amended SARPs. While ICAO recog- Of note is that this Air Naviga- that ICAO receives not only a num-
nises, as do States, that new regu- tion Conference is the best chance ber of valuable comments on these
lations are not always either the for States to influence the direction proposals, but provides us with an
only, or necessarily the best, solu- of ICAO’s technical work, ahead of indication of which particular areas
tion to emerging risks, more often the next Assembly, so that your caused the greatest concern. We
than not amendments to the choices for priorities are fully re- can only encourage all States to
SARPs are needed to maintain and flected in how ICAO prepares itself make the investment of time and
improve aviation safety and air for the decisions to be made in the effort in this State letter consulta-
navigation efficiency, while inte- 40th Assembly, in 2019. tion process, as your feedback is
grating increased traffic into the For us in the ANC, implementa- fully considered by the Secretariat
current aviation infrastructure. tion essentially means that we and the ANC, as it very much helps
To ensure that we are making need to ensure that the SARPs we us in our final review process. Our
progress along the path, we do help develop are implementable. As aim is to recommend mature, im-
very much need States to give us we aim to get that feedback early plementable SARPs to the ICAO
their feedback, either in the form of on in the SARP development pro- Council for their adoption, and it is
comments to specific proposals for cess, we look to you, as States and best that we know ahead of time if
SARP amendments, but as well, as aviation stakeholders, to continue States have any concerns.
to whether or not we are even on to provide us with valuable advice. As a specific example, I want to
the right path. On the latter ques- As one example, the strong assure you that the ANC has noted
tion – are we choosing the right participation of experts nominated the ECAC States’ commitment to
path – your participation in the Air by ECAC States, both in the ANC’s implementing safety management
Navigation Conference will allow technical panels, as well as with systems (SMS) and State Safety
you to give direct feedback on the study groups of the ICAO Secre- Programme (SSP) – this has been
proposed priorities for ICAO’s tech- tariat, has helped bring maturity to obvious from your contributions to
nical work, and that, ahead of the the proposals brought forward to the development of Amendment
2019 ICAO Assembly. the ANC for our preliminary review. 1 provisions to Annex 19 – Safety
ECAC NEWS # 66 9Role and priorities of the ICAO Air Navigation Commission
This is one of the reasons why
the proposed revisions to the
Global Aviation Safety Plan (GASP)
encourages implementation of the
GASP goals, targets and indicators
at the regional and national levels,
in a coordinated and collaborative
fashion. The safety roadmap, pre-
Management, and in particular the can all benefit from lessons along
sented in the GASP, serves as an
strong response to the State letter the path. It is only through the
action plan to assist the entire avi-
for the proposal. If you will allow sharing of best practices, resources,
ation community in achieving the
me to be repetitive, responding to and expertise that we, globally, can
GASP goals through a structured
State letters is one of the key mech- improve safety performance.
common frame of reference for all
anisms for the ANC to receive feed- As air traffic continues to grow relevant stakeholders. We encour-
back from States and the industry, it is obvious that we need to move age all ECAC States to review the
and we want to assure you that we from purely rule- and compliance- draft GASP and Global Air Naviga-
consider all of your comments, and based methods of ensuring safety tion Plan (GANP) ahead of this
we do believe strongly that all to being predictive, using all of the autumn’s ICAO Air Navigation Con-
feedback helps to improve interna- information available to us collec- ference, and provide, as always,
tional provisions for all States. tively. Sharing information amongst your constructive feedback during
The feedback loop does con- regulators, service providers and the conference itself, or through
tinue though, as the ANC is made across borders will enable us to the submission of your own work-
aware when we later review the have a clearer picture of the poten- ing papers.
reports of ICAO’s Planning and tial risks and allow us to work Looking forward to seeing as
Implementation Regional Groups together to address them. This many of you as possible during the
(PIRGs) and Regional Aviation might require cultural changes in Air Navigation Conference, but
Safety Groups (RASGs) on either the ways we work but has the whether or not you can join us in
best practices or even implementa- potential to make significant posi- Montreal in October, please realise
tion challenges that States face. In tive changes in safety. It is through that your and your State’s contribu-
these reports, and in conversations continuous communication and tions and commitment to working
we have with the ICAO regional feedback that we will acquire together to improve what is already
offices, we note the many excellent greater situational awareness of the safest global transportation
examples from States, such as those safety in our organisation, in our system – aviation – is greatly appre-
from the European Air Navigation industry, and even perhaps, how ciated by all.
Planning Group (EANPG), which we our industry touches and is Wishing you, on behalf of the
have encouraged the Secretariat to touched by other industries, both Air Navigation Commission, happy
share with other regions so that we in our States and around the globe. landings! ■
Captain Claude Hurley, FRAeS, was nominated by Canada, and appointed by the ICAO Council to the Air Navigation
Commission (ANC) in 2014. He was elected as its president for the 2018 calendar year. Mr Hurley previously served
two years as vice-president of the ANC, and has also chaired the ANC group on implementation as well as the ANC
group on Safety Management Systems. His substantive position is as an executive with Transport Canada, where he
managed and led teams with responsibilities in aviation safety regulatory oversight. Prior to joining Transport Canada,
Mr Hurley flew for many years, first with the Canadian Armed Forces, then more recently in industry, in roles as diverse
as training pilot, type rating examiner, technical pilot, as well as supporting flight operations in management roles.
10 ECAC NEWS # 66ICAO Global Aviation Safety Plan –
Current and upcoming editions
Arnaud Desjardin
Regional Officer, Safety, ICAO EUR/NAT Office
The ICAO Global Aviation Safety Plan (GASP - ICAO Doc 10004) sets forth a strategy which sup-
ports the prioritisation and continuous improvement of aviation safety. It is a strategic document
that enables States, regions and industry to adopt a flexible, step-by-step approach for safety
planning and implementation.
I(SARPs),
n accordance with ICAO Standards
and Recommended Practices
States must develop their
d) providing a methodology to guide
States in the identification of cur-
tion by 2022. Additionally, RASGs
should continue to advance to ma-
ture regional monitoring and safety
rent and emerging hazards, and
safety oversight capabilities and im- the management of safety risks. management programmes. The long-
plement a State Safety Programme The GASP has significantly term objective calls for States to build
(SSP). The GASP is a means for States changed since its introduction in upon safety management practices
to achieve compliance with ICAO 1997, and has evolved through con- within the SSP to develop advanced
safety-related SARPs and to go be- safety oversight systems, including
tinuous consultation and review. The
yond the minimum level of compli- predictive risk management.
2014-2016 edition was published in
ance by proactively enhancing safety The 2020-2022 edition of the
2013 and included GASP objectives
through the management of opera- GASP will maintain some key ele-
for States to achieve through the im-
tional safety risks. The GASP assists ments from its previous edition, such
plementation of an effective safety
States to identify deficiencies and pri- as goals for States to improve their ef-
oversight system, an SSP and safety
oritise actions so they can meet their fective safety oversight capabilities
capabilities necessary to support
safety responsibilities by providing and to progress in the implementa-
future aviation systems. The current
an implementation strategy pre- tion of SSPs. Main changes in the plan
edition (2017-2019) was published in
sented in the global aviation safety will include new goals and targets for
2016 and includes a global aviation
roadmap. The GASP further assists States, regions and industry as well as
safety roadmap developed to sup-
States in strengthening their capabil- tools to measure States’ safety over-
ities in the management of safety port an integrated approach to the
sight capabilities. The goals include:
through a structured process implementation of the GASP objec-
tives. The three near-term objectives, • a continuous reduction of opera-
founded on the critical elements tional safety risks;
(CEs) of a State safety oversight sys- which had to be achieved by 2017,
are: • the implementation by all States of
tem. A State’s safety responsibilities the eight critical elements of a
comprise both safety oversight and a) States lacking fundamental safety
safety oversight system;
safety management, collectively im- oversight capabilities are to
• the full implementation of effective
plemented through an SSP. achieve an Effective Implementa-
SSPs;
States, regions and industry facil- tion (EI) of at least 60% overall of
• an increased collaboration at the
itate the implementation of the GASP the eight Critical Elements (CE) of
regional level to enhance safety;
through coordinated Safety En- a State safety oversight system.
• an expanded use of industry pro-
hancement Initiatives (SEI). The GASP b) States which have an EI of 60% or grammes;
seeks to assist States, regions and greater should implement a State • an appropriate infrastructure avail-
industry in their respective safety Safety Programme (SSP), which able to support safe operations.
planning and implementation by: will facilitate addressing risks spe-
cific to their aviation systems; and Furthermore, in order to mitigate
a) establishing GASP goals, targets the risk of fatalities, States, regions
and indicators; c) all States and stakeholders are
and industry need to address the
b) providing a framework for plan- encouraged to put in place mech-
high risk categories of occurrences
ning and implementation of SEIs; anisms for the sharing of safety in- (HRCs). The selection of types of
c) presenting the global aviation formation through their Regional occurrences which are deemed
safety roadmap, which can be Aviation Safety Groups (RASGs) global HRCs (previously referred to as
used to achieve the GASP goals and other regional or sub-regional “global safety priorities” in the 2017-
and to set specific targets at both fora. 2019 edition of the GASP) is based on
national and regional levels as well The mid-term objective calls for actual fatalities from past accidents,
as for industry partners; and all States to achieve SSP implementa- high fatality risk per accident or the
ECAC NEWS # 66 11ICAO Global Aviation Safety Plan – Current and upcoming editions
number of accidents and incidents. ICAO plays a role in coordinating stakeholders. Each region and each
The following HRCs, in no particular and monitoring the implementation State should use the GASP to develop
order, have been identified for the of the GASP at the global and re- a regional aviation safety plan and
2020-2022 edition of the GASP: con- gional levels. The role of ICAO within national aviation safety plan, respec-
trolled flight into terrain (CFIT); loss the GASP includes the following: tively, which includes industry partic-
of control in-flight (LOC-I); mid-air a) promoting collaboration at the ipation. The regional or national
collision (MAC); runway excursion global level to enhance safety; aviation safety plan presents the
(RE); and runway incursion (RI). b) coordinating activities of the strategic direction for the manage-
This next edition of the GASP will RASGs to ensure their alignment ment of aviation safety at the re-
also recognise the importance of with the GASP; gional or national level, for a set time
safety risk analysis at national and re- c) ensuring close coordination period and should be developed in
gional levels. It will incorporate between the RASGs and the line with the GASP’s goals, targets
guidelines and a structure by which Planning and Implementation and HRCs. The global aviation safety
States, groups of States or entities Regional Groups (PIRGs); roadmap in the next edition of the
within a region identify hazards and GASP will be composed of two
d) encouraging the active participa-
mitigate operational safety risks pieces:
tion of States and industry in the
therein, through the assistance of Re- RASGs; a) organisational challenges – this
gional Aviation Safety Groups (RASG) part of the roadmap (referred to as
e) encouraging the active involve-
as well as regional coordination. For the ORG roadmap) will provide
ment of regional mechanisms,
the area of accreditation of the Euro- SEIs to meet GASP goals related to
such as Regional Safety Oversight
pean and North Atlantic (EUR/NAT) States’ safety oversight capabilities
Organisations (RSOO) and regional
Office of ICAO, the RASG-EUR is the and the implementation of SSPs,
Accident Investigation Organisa-
leading group for the regional imple- as well as industry’s implementa-
tions (RAIO) in RASG activities;
mentation of the GASP. It ensures tion of SMS. It contains two dis-
f ) implementing a global aviation
the effective coordination and coop- tinct components, in line with the
safety oversight system (GASOS)
eration between all stakeholders GASP goals, to address safety
with the goal to improve national
and monitors the progress in the management responsibilities: State
and regional safety oversight
implementation of the GASP. It also safety oversight (SSO) system; and
capabilities;
supports the establishment and op- SSP, including service providers’
g) encouraging States with effective SMS.
eration of performance-based safety
safety oversight systems to pro-
systems within the Region. b) operational safety risks – this part
vide assistance to other States,
Contracting States entitled to of the roadmap (referred to as the
where practicable;
participate as members in the RASG- OPS roadmap) will provide SEIs to
h) providing data and tools to meet the GASP goals related to a
EUR meetings are those whose terri- support the monitoring of GASP
tories or dependencies are located continuous reduction of opera-
implementation; tional safety risks and regional and
partially or wholly within the area
i) facilitating the sharing and ex- industry safety risk management
of accreditation of the EUR/NAT
change of safety information and activities to address the HRCs.
Office of ICAO (56 Contracting States).
best practices across regions;
Regional organisations, within the The 2020-2022 GASP edition will
area of accreditation of the EUR/NAT j) facilitating access to resources and be presented at the ICAO 13th Air
Office of ICAO, which have mechanisms technical assistance by States; and Navigation Conference (AN-Conf/13)
in place for the management of avia- k) facilitating training and workshops. at ICAO headquarters, Montreal,
tion safety, are entitled to participate The next edition of the GASP will Canada on 9 to 19 October 2018. The
as members in the RASG-EUR (1). Inter- include detailed roadmaps, which Conference will be invited to put for-
national organisations, air operators, serve as action plans to assist the ward recommendations on the 2020-
aircraft design organisations and aviation community in achieving its 2022 edition of the GASP, and the
manufacturers, air navigation service goals through a structured, common final version will be published in
providers, aerodrome operators, frame of reference for all relevant December 2019. ■
aircraft maintenance organisations,
aviation training organisations and
other aviation industry representa-
tives are invited to participate in and
contribute to the work of the RASG- (1) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) • European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) • European
EUR and its contributory bodies. Commission (EC) • EUROCONTROL • Interstate Aviation Committee (IAC)
Arnaud Desjardin has a first-level university degree in aeronautical engineering, 22 years of work experience, including
16 in a civil aviation authority of France, and 6 in the private sector in the United States, developing ATC systems for the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). He worked as a safety investigator for the French accident investigation authority
(BEA) in Paris-Le Bourget for 12 years and was the investigator-in-charge of the investigation into the Airbus A320
accident on 24 March 2015 in the French Alps, operated by Germanwings. Mr Desjardin joined the ICAO EUR/NAT
Regional Office on 1 September 2017 as a Regional Officer, Safety.
12 ECAC NEWS # 66Safety recommendations –
How are we doing?
Robert Carter
Principal Inspector, United Kingdom Air Accidents
Investigation Branch (AAIB), Chair of ECAC Air Accident
and Incident Investigation Group of Experts (ACC)
To any air safety investigator from a State accident investigation authority (AIA), such as the
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) in the United States, the Federal Bureau of Aircraft
Accident Investigation (BFU) in Germany or the Bureau d’Enquêtes et d’Analyses pour la sécurité
(BEA) in France, developing safety recommendations is an inherent part of the investigation task.
T section
o us, the ‘Recommendations’
of the final report is
That definition reads:
“Safety recommendation. A pro-
posal of an accident investigation
gation Branch reports (AAIB – or
AIB as it was then, before marine
and rail stepped in) have always
often the most significant part of
an accident or incident investiga- authority based on information carried plenty of safety recommen-
tion; it is certainly the section we derived from an investigation, made dations. A good example was a
seem to pore over for the longest with the intention of preventing prominent accident that occurred
time. That is right and as it should accidents or incidents and which in in the United Kingdom shortly after
be; in making a safety recommen- no case has the purpose of creating this author joined the AIB in 1985.
dation, we investigators are putting presumption of blame or liability for
an accident or incident. In addition
other busy people to a great deal of
to safety recommendations arising Accident at
trouble even in properly consider-
ing their response, let alone imple-
from accident or incident investiga- Manchester Airport
tion, safety recommendations may
menting the recommendation. So
result from diverse sources, including on 22 August 1985
we need to get it right. But what safety studies.”
makes a good safety recommenda-
tion? And are we doing it right?
That really does say it all, in the
usual elegant and concise ICAO IManchester
n 1985, the AIB investigated a
tragic and major accident at
Airport, where a B737-
Safety investigation is a highly language. It says that this is not
collaborative process and it is trivial, that safety recommenda- 236 caught fire during its take-off
simply the case that aviation took tions should be evidence-based run and 55 passengers died in the
an early lead, thanks largely to and taken seriously, both in their subsequent fire. It was a landmark
the ‘Founding Fathers’ of the 1944 development by a State accident investigation for the United King-
Chicago Convention. This early lead investigation authority and in their dom AIB (as it was then), looking at
was in aviation consistently gener- consideration by the recommenda- the aircraft operation, emergency
ating coherent and focused safety tion’s addressee. Most importantly, services response, propulsion sys-
recommendations, based on struc- it says that ‘blame and liability’ tem integrity, the development of
tured technical investigations and should have no part in this process. the fire, survival factors and the
evacuation of the aircraft. A land-
reports. But in recent years, other
mark investigation with a total of
transport modes (maritime, rail, History 31 safety recommendations, and in
etc.) have been catching up, and
2018 the investigation report still
even the medical world, in the
United Kingdom for instance, has
been adopting this approach. In
W ithin the ICAO structure of
Annex 13 – Standards and
Recommended Practices (which wag
reads well (1).
Ironically, though, what do not
read so well to our 2018 eyes are
aviation, many have worked to decided on the ‘13’ numbering? – it some of the safety recommenda-
refine and develop our founding surely cannot have been coinci- tions. The accident had been
document, the ‘Standards and dence…), passages of text on safety initiated by the rupture of the com-
Recommended Practices’ of ICAO’s recommendations have been there
Annex 13 (Aircraft Accident and from the earliest editions. It is
Incident Investigation). So the always interesting to look back at
(1) Report available on the gov.uk website:
Annex 13 definition is a good place where we have come from, and https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/8-1988-boe-
to start. certainly the Air Accidents Investi- ing-737-236-g-bgjl-22-august-1985
ECAC NEWS # 66 13Safety recommendations – How are we doing?
bustion chamber casing in one of
the engines, so the subject of jet
The Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA), European
engine maintenance was treated Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and ENCASIA
seriously and in depth in the inves-
tigation and its report. But to our
2018 eyes, this example of the
safety recommendations does not
T recommendations
he process of managing safety
in those years
dations, with its loose partner
structure and its lack of real regula-
really do justice to that work: was not helped by the United King- tory authority. In the early days
“4.7 If manufacturers are to continue dom AAIB, as other AIA organisa- after its forming in 2002, EASA,
to supply maintenance guidelines tions at that time, not keeping a finding its feet and establishing its
which require the operator and his formal tracking of the progress of role, struggled with safety recom-
(sic) regulatory authority to deter- recommendations. Within Europe, mendations, just as the JAA had
mine maintenance intervals, partic- the gradual move towards a more before. The lines of responsibility
ularly for critical components, a formalised and consistent approach were not yet clear, much of the
re-evaluation should be undertaken seems to have developed with the EASA work was still being done by
of the methods employed to judge new century. EASA was formed in the national aviation authorities
residual components, particularly 2002 and replaced the JAA as the and it was often unclear just where
following repair.” place where AIAs would address regulatory responsibility lay.
safety recommendations, particu- Since 2002, the situation has
It is useful in analysing recom-
larly on design and certification certainly improved, with the inves-
mendations to ask “Who is being
issues on large aircraft. The devel- tigation community and the regu-
asked to do what in this recom-
opment of the JAA, starting in the lator working to enable safety
mendation? What does success
1980s and running up to the cre- recommendations to be considered
look like?”. It is difficult to say from
ation of EASA, had done a great deal and processed in a timely, clear and
the wording of this example
to bring about the consolidation consistent manner. In 2006, the
whether this is being addressed to
a regulator (to the Civil Aviation and harmonisation of certification ECAC expert group on aircraft acci-
Authority, to the Federal Aviation requirements between the JAA part- dent and incident investigation
Administration. Or both? Or even ners. As well as developing modern (ACC), under the leadership of Paul-
to the manufacturer?). And just certification codes, the JAA part- Louis Arslanian, then director of the
what is being recommended and is ners worked hard to define the sim- BEA and chair of the ACC, initiated
it just for jet engine maintenance ilarities, and the differences, between and conducted a workshop on the
or for the airframe and other sys- the JAA’s Joint Aviation Require- safety recommendation process.
tems too? Is the language suitable? ments (JARs) and other codes, such This highlighted the areas of best
A native English speaker can untan- as the Federal Aviation Regulations practice and prepared the active
gle the complex sentence but it (FARs) in the United States. ACC members for the ICAO Acci-
would certainly be challenging for But the JAA was never a good dent Investigation Panel (AIG) divi-
many non-native English speakers. destination for safety recommen- sional meeting in Montreal in 2008.
© Monet - Fotolia.com
14 ECAC NEWS # 66Safety recommendations – How are we doing?
© Wavebreak Media - Fotolia.com
The ACC under Paul-Louis Arsla- the action are specific, without
nian also brought a shared approach
How do we try defining exactly how the good
amongst its members, which in- to do it now? people at Scruggs Aerospace are
formed the extensive 2008-2009 to do it. Incidentally, the advice
discussions in the European Com- from Cranfield and the AAIB is that
mission’s development of the Reg-
ulation (EU) No 996/2010 with the
C oming back to those early
questions (“What makes a good there should always be a dedicated
recommendations review meeting
safety recommendation? And what
EU States. Those discussions, often does it look like?”) there are many before any recommendation is
robust, enabled the regulation, answers out there and reams of propagated, even as a draft recom-
when it emerged as Regulation papers on the topic. This author has mendation in a draft report.
(EU) No 996/2010 to become a reg- had the privilege of leading ses- One thing that will certainly
ulatory document that has been ef- sions on safety recommendations have been discussed at this dedi-
fective and surprisingly robust. at Cranfield University’s safety cated recommendation review
The language of EU996 is, help- investigation courses. On these meeting will be the addressee;
fully, very close to that of Annex 13 courses, almost a full day is now should it be Scruggs Aerospace? Or
and Article 17 (Safety Recommen- dedicated to the topic, where stu- should it be, say, the regulator?
dations) and causes no problems dent groups develop their own draft AAIB practice is to take our clue
to any State investigator familiar safety recommendations from a from our discussions before that
with ICAO Annex 13 practice. But full-on field simulation exercise. meeting with the likely recipient –
EU996 then goes further, in two Distilled, the answers often use if Scruggs Aerospace seems recep-
important ways. One is that a Net- the SMART model used for many tive, then that is probably the most
work was defined (Article 7 – Euro- objective-setting processes. SMART direct and effective route, not
pean Network of Civil Safety is ‘Specific, Measurable, Achievable, requiring action by the regulator.
Investigation Authorities) in order Realistic and Timely’ and is at least If, on the other hand, this has hap-
that there should not be a need for a consistent way to approach the pened before, or Scruggs is not
a single EU safety investigation AIA. topic. receptive, the recommendation
This grouping is now known more • Specific – this is the important easily becomes “It is recommended
simply (thank goodness!) to all as one. A good safety recommenda- that the European Aviation Safety
‘ENCASIA’ (European Network of tion needs to be made specifically Agency (EASA) require that Scruggs
Civil Aviation Safety Investigation to a single named body and state Aerospace redesign the engine sup-
Authorities). The other is about the specific recommended action. port system in the Scruggs Aerostar
follow-up (Article 18 – Follow-up For example, “It is recommended SA21 to ensure that it meets the
to safety recommendations and that Scruggs Aerospace redesign the strength requirements of EASA Certi-
safety recommendations database) engine support system in the Scruggs fication Specification (CS) 23.” What
– and this goes quite a bit further Aerostar SA21 to ensure that it fully should be clear in the recommen-
than Annex 13, with its need for meets the strength requirements dation wording is who is responsi-
global acceptance, is able to. of EASA Certification Specification ble for carrying out the actions to
(CS) 23.” Note that the target and address the identified safety issue.
ECAC NEWS # 66 15You can also read
