COG Performance Task Force Workshop EASA Standardisation Inspections Verification of Safety KPIs Milen Dentchev ATMANS Standardisation Manager Rome 2122 September 2011 2 EASA Standardisation Legal Basis ID: 768898
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "COG Performance Task Force" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
COG Performance Task ForceWorkshop EASA Standardisation InspectionsVerification of Safety KPIsMilen Dentchev, ATM/ANS Standardisation Manager Rome 21-22 September 2011
2 EASA Standardisation – Legal Basis Where Member States act as Competent Authority the EASA Basic Regulation establishes a mechanism to monitor the correct implementation of applicable regulations. EASA Basic Regulation (EC) No. 216/2008: - Art. 24 (Monitoring the application of rules) - Art. 54 (Inspections of Member States) Working methods regulated by Commission Regulation (EC) No 736/2006
3 3 Head of Standardisation T. Mickler Air Operations G. Rebender Accreditation J. Müller Flight Crew Licensing G. De Crescenzo Airworthiness M. Kieft Deputy HoD M. Kompare Secretariat Organisational Structure Development C. Trevisan IAW CAW ANS M. Dentchev LIS FSTD MED ATM CNS AIS MET LIS CF NCF ACC OCC
Standardisation Department (S.1) TasksStandardisation (“EASA Countries”)Standardisation (“ECAA” and “ WA ” Countries) International Standardisation (“Third Countries”) Accreditation (NAAs working for EASA)
FL IS GE AM AZ EE UA MD TR CY FR LV LT BE NL DE UK IR B Y RO AL BG GR CH IT AU HU ES PT DK NO SE PL CZ MT BA MA DZ TN SY IQ IR KZ RU LU SK SL RSM MC RU LI The playing field: 27 EU 3 EEA 1 CH 7 ECAA 8 ECAC ME KO RS FY HR Geographical Scope
EASA Inspection process 6 Preliminary meeting 10 weeks min Preparatory phase Opening session Closure Phase Follow-up phase Final Report 16 weeks max On Site As necessary Closure Action Plan Finding Classification Committee Wrap-up meeting Reporting phase 12 weeks max Closing session As necessary Preliminary Report Visiting phase Notice of inspection Visit programme Supplementary Report
Standardisation Strategy Standardisation Strategy Successful standardisation cannot depend only on regulatory compliance verification Performance verification is part of regulatory verification EASA’s strategy is based on three pillars: Regulatory Compliance verification Pro-active measures Regulatoryfeedback
NSA Standardisation ForumsNAA Partnership meetingsNSA Standardisation Coordination meetings ANS National Coordination meetings Post ATM/ANS Standardisation visit meetings Internal EASA FCC meetings SES NCP
9 Increase added valueMoU between EU and ICAO Addressing aviation safety, aviation security, air traffic management and environmental protection New Working arrangements Transparency through mutual exchange of safety information and access to databases Reduce burden of multiple audits/inspections on Member States
10 Second extension of EASARegulation (EC) No 1108/2009 amending EASA Basic RegulationEASA mandated to conduct ATM/ANS standardisation inspections Regulation 736/2006 will be amended accordingly Transition from EUROCONTROL ESIMS audits to EASA Standardisation inspections
11 Scope of ANS according to ICAO Annex 2 - Rules of the Air Annex 3 - Meteorology Annex 4 - Charting Annex 5 - Units of measurements Annex 10 - Aeronautical telecommunications Annex 11 - Air Traffic Services Annex 12 - Search and RescueAnnex 13 - Accident & Incident Investigation Annex 15 - Aeronautical Information ServicesAnnex 16 – Environmental protection PANEP meeting 17-18 May 2011
12 Scope of EASA ANS standardisation inspections Annex 1 - Personnel Licensing (ATCO + ATSEP) Annex 2 - Rules of the Air Annex 3 - Meteorology Annex 4 - Charting Annex 5 - Units of measurements Annex 10 - Aeronautical telecommunications Annex 11 - Air Traffic Services Annex 12 - Search and Rescue Annex 13 - Accident & Incident Investigation (SOR)Annex 15 - Aeronautical Information Services Annex 16 – Environmental protection PANEP meeting 17-18 May 2011
EASA’s ATM/ANS standardisation section: Checklists and pre-visit questionnaires in preparationStandardisation inspection annual programme readyNSAs invited to confirm or nominate National CoordinatorNSAs have been invited to identify and nominate qualified inspectors to participate in EASA standardisation inspections1st training course for NAA inspectors in Jul, 2nd in Sep, next in Jan 2012 (40 people trained) 6 EASA Team Leaders Q1 of 2012, 9 Team Leaders Q2 2012 1 st inspection in Feb 2012 (1 TL + 4 TMs) Transition from ESIMS to EASA inspections
14 Amendment of WA At the request of the European Commission, EASA has approached all WA countries (including all non EASA – EUROCONTROL countries) with a proposal to extend existing WAs to ATM/ANS. All ECAA States responded positively Non-ECAA States: Positive answers from Ukraine, Armenia, Georgia, Moldova, Monaco & San Marino No answer from Azerbaijan yet Turkey – no decision yet 14
15 15 Verification of safety performance KPIs
ADDITIONAL FACTORS 08.2011 16 Confidence Level: the concept Time Elapsed NAA CORE INDICATORS = Confidence Level Follow-up Indicators Authority Indicators Safety occ Indicators Activity Indicators General Indicators
The model evaluates firstly two «core indicators»: 08.2011 17 Core indicators: the NAA and its follow-up Authority Complexity (structure, ROs, ...) Funding / Salaries Staffing Stability Maturity Staff qualification and training Internal guidanceExternal guidance Oversight methodologyManagement of findings Enforcement capabilitiesReaction to AIBs' rec’sICAO USOAP/CMA results Follow-up Reactivity Index Supplementary Reports Repetitive key findings This is, to a large extent, the current scope of our standardisation activities
The model then takes into account the following indicators: 08.201118 Additional indicators Aircraft registered Organisations approved Personnel licences issued Traffic indicators Domain-specific indicators Accidents SAFA Country ratio Operators in "high SAFA“ listImmediate Safety Hazards Domain-specific indicators Activity Safety NAA Independence Safety culture Reporting cultureJust cultureCorruption indexFinancial indicatorsMajor gov’t changes General
Finally, the model considers the influence of time elapsed since the last inspection, as the reliability of the information on the NAA’s capability and performance taken at that stage will inevitably decrease with time: 08.2011 19 The influence of time Time elapsed Time elapsed Confidence level Threshold Inspection due! = Decrease with time
08.2011 20 Vulnerability Index Confidence levels (CLs) are determined for each domain : The lowest CL would highlight the «most vulnerable» area A Vulnerability Index may therefore be defined as follows:VI =100 – min (CLs) Note: work in progress!