ICAO State Safety programme (SSP) Implementation Course ... Management/2009/Da… · International Civil Aviation Organization ICAO State Safety programme (SSP) Implementation Course

International Civil Aviation Organization

ICAO State Safety programme (SSP) Implementation Course Exercise N°2 – Development of values of safety indicators, safety targets and action plans of a mature ALoS of an SSP


© ICAO 2009 Exercice N° 2 (Révision N° 3 – 06/05/09) Page 2 of 9

Page left blank intentionally

AFI Comprehensive Implementation Programme (ACIP)

ICAO State Safety Programme (SSP) Implementation Course Page 3 of 9

AFI COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMME (ACIP) ICAO STATE SAFETY PROGRAMME (SSP) IMPLEMENTATION

COURSE

Exercise N°2 – Development of values of safety indicators, safety targets and action plans of a mature ALoS of an SSP

Working group activities

• Participants will be divided into separate groups

• A facilitator will be appointed, who will coordinate the discussions and activities of each group

• A summary of discussions will be written on electronic forms

• A draft report, using the appropriate electronic form, will be prepared for its presentation in the plenary sessions and a member of the group (assisted by the other members) will brief on the results.

Objective of the exercise

To develop values of safety indicators, safety targets and action plans of a mature ALoS (Safety measurement/safety performance measurement), based on:

quantification of outcomes of selected high-level/high-consequence events quantification of selected high-level State functions quantification of outcomes of selected low-level/low-consequence events

Refer to Module 5 for guidance for values of safety indicators, action plans and values of safety targets

Time allocated

• Three hours

Task required

Part 1 (Complete Table 1 below) Develop a minimum of:

• two (2) values of safety indicators, • two (2) values of safety targets, and • two (2) corresponding action plans

in support of the safety performance of an SMS for each type of the following organizations: Approved training organizations that are exposed to safety risks during the provision of

their services (ATO)



Aircraft operators (OPS)

Approved maintenance organizations (AMO)

Organizations responsible for design and/or manufacture of aircraft (AIR)

Air traffic services providers(ATC)

Certified aerodromes (AGA)

Part 2 (Complete Table 2 below)

Develop as a minimum:

• Five (5) safety indicators and five (5) safety targets

• Five (5) values of safety indicators and five (5) values of safety targets

• Five (5) corresponding action plans

related to an ALoS of a mature SSP (safety measurement + safety performance measurement) based on safety data directly obtained by the State and to the SMS Safety performance of the organizations included in Table 1.

Useful tips

• Elect a facilitator

• Start with a general discussion on the objective of the task and the material available for this exercise (no more than 10 minutes)

• In order to manage adequately the allocated time, each group could eventually be divided into sub-groups to identify the values of safety indicators, targets and action plans for each service provider’s SMS activity

• Select one of the participants of the group for preparing the final report on the laptop

• Be prepared to deliver the results of the exercises (in a pen drive) to the course instructor at least five minutes before the time allocated.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _


Table 1

(Value of safety indicators, value of safety targets and corresponding action plans for various service providers)

SMS – Approved training organizations that are exposed to safety risks during the provision of their services (ATO)

# Value of safety indicators Action plans Value of safety targets Comments

1 15 failures of Synthetic Flight Trainer flight instruments per 1000 training

hours

• Review maintenance programme from 100 to 50 training hours

• Review the training of maintenance personnel

Not more 5 failures of synthetic flight trainer instruments of SFT per 1000

training hours within 2 years effective Sept 2009

2 10 students out of fifty failure to qualify for solo flights

• Review student entry qualifications

• Improve instructional techniques requirements

2 students out of fifty failure to qualify for solo flights within 3 years effective

Sept 2009

3 5 students out of one hundred who qualify for solo flights are involved in

landing incidents

• Review student entry qualifications

• Improve instructional techniques requirements

1 students out of one hundred who qualify for solo flights involved in landing

incidents within 1 year effective Sept 2009

SMS – Aircraft operators (OPS)


1 3 TCAS alert out of 150 flights • Evaluate and review the

operating procedures • Ensure maintenance of the

1 TCAS alerts out of 150 flight by June 2013



TCAS

2 10 flight crewmember out of 70 exceeding duty time limitations

• Improve planning and record keeping of duty times within

• Issue Advisory circular

No flight crewmember duty time limitations by December 2009

3

SMS – Approved maintenance organizations (AMO)


1 5 out 100 specialised measuring tooling not calibrated as required

• Improve the record keeping system

• Monitoring system (callout) of calibration

• Amend the notice on calibration

All specialised measuring tools to be calibrated as required by July 2010

2 5 weather radar re occurring defects per every 100 reported defects

• Review maintenance procedures • Provide Recurrent training of

weather radar certifying personnel

2 weather radar re occurring defects per every 100 reported defects by Dec

2010

3

SMS – Organizations responsible for design and/or manufacture of aircraft (AIR)


1

2

3



SMS – Air traffic services providers(ATC)


1 5 incidents of Use of non standard radio telephony phraseology per 500 aircraft

movements. • Recurrent training of RT

2 incidents of Use of non standard radio telephony phraseology per 500 aircraft

movements by 28 Feb 2010

2 6 reported near misses in every 10,000 flights

• Review ATC procedures • Recurrent of ATC personnel

(TRM, etc)

1 reported near misses in every 10,000 flights by March 2011

3

SMS – Certified aerodromes (AGA)


1 5 runway incursions out of 1000 aircraft movements

• Evaluate, review and implement apron safety procedures

• Ensure installation of appropriate radio equipment

1 runway incursions out of 1000 aircraft movements by Dec 2009

2 3 bird strikes out of 800 movements at Maugo Inter airport

• Develop and improve wildlife hazard management procedures • Improve environment control

procedures

1 bird strikes out of 800 movements at Maugo Inter airport by Jan 2010

3



Table 2: Establish a mature AloS (Safety measurement + safety performance measurement)

ALoS # Safety indicators # Safety targets 1 Runway incursion events 1 Reduce runway incursion

2 Level of regulatory compliance 2 Reduce level of non compliance

3 Absence of wildlife management control procedures(Operating regulations) 3 Develop and implement procedures

4 Fatal accidents/Serious incidents 4 Reduction of accidents and serious incidents

5 Quality of training(level of compliance) 5 Increase level of quality training

# Value of safety indicators # Values of safety targets 1 15 runway incursions out of 1000 aircraft movements 1 5 runway incursions out of 1000 aircraft movements by August 2010

2 18 flight crewmember out of 70 exceeding duty time limitations 2 No flight crewmember duty time limitations exceedance by Dec 2009

3 6 bird strikes out of 800 movements at Inter airports 3 1 bird strikes out of 1000 movements at Inter airports by August 2010

4 6 reported near misses in every 10,000 flights 4 1 reported near misses in every 20,000 flights by August 2010

5 10 students out of one hundred who qualify for solo flights are involved in landing incidents 5 2 students out of one hundred who qualify for solo flights are

involved in landing incidents by Sept 2011

# Action plans 1 Training, improved procedures, fencing, increase frequency of runway inspection, improved signage, 2 Audits, surveillance, increase on number inspection to twice per operator



3 Improve the operational procedures, training programmes, community sensitisation on safety, 4 Develop/revise regulations/AC, upgrade equipment, Accident prevention programme, 5 Improve on quality management systems



ICAO State Safety programme (SSP) Implementation Course Exercise N°3 – Development of a draft SSP implementation plan


© ICAO 2009 Exercise N° 3 (Revision N° 3 – 06/05/09) Page 2 of 21



ICAO State Safety Programme (SSP) Implementation Page 3 of 21

AFI COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMME (ACIP) ICAO STATE SAFETY PROGRAMME (SSP) IMPLEMENTATION

COURSE Exercise N°3 – Development of a draft SSP implementation plan

Working group activities • Participants will be divided into different groups • A facilitator will be appointed, who will coordinate the discussions and activities of each group • A summary of discussions will be written on electronic forms • A draft report, using the appropriate electronic form, will be prepared for its presentation in the

plenary sessions and a member of the group (assisted by the other members) will brief on the results.

Objective of the exercise To develop a draft SSP implementation plan for the State SSP on the basis of the SSP ICAO framework and an SSP gap analysis.

Time allocated

• Four hours

Task required On the basis of the SSP ICAO framework (Refer to PPT presentations in Modules 4 and 8)

1. Develop an SSP gap analysis (Complete next Form 3-1) 2. Develop the guidance on the SSP implementation plan (Complete next Form 3-2) with the

following results a) at least four (4) deliverables for each SSP component b) at least four (4) milestones for each SSP component

3. Develop the Gantt chart for the SSP implementation plan (Complete next Form 3-3) in a three phased approach taking into consideration the results of the gap analysis and the SSP ICAO framework (Refer to Module 8, slides 17, 23 and 27 to obtain some examples)

Useful tips • Elect a facilitator • Start with a general discussion on the objective of the task and the material available for this

exercise (no more than 10 minutes) • In order to adequately manage the allocated time, each group could eventually be divided into

sub-groups to deal with the gap analysis and the draft SSP implementation plan • Select one of the participants of the group for preparing the final report on the laptop • Be prepared to deliver the results of the exercises (in a pen drive) to the course instructor at

least five minutes before the time allocated.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _



Form 3-1 – STATE SAFETY PROGRAMME (SSP) GAP ANALYSIS The gap analysis checklist that follows can be used as a template to conduct a gap analysis. Each question is designed for a “Yes” or “No” response. A “Yes” answer indicates that the State already has the component or element of the ICAO SSP framework in question incorporated into its safety system and that it matches or exceeds the requirement. A “No” answer indicates that a gap exists between the component/element of the ICAO SSP framework and the safety system in the State.

ICAO reference

(Doc 9859)

Aspect to be analysed or question to be answered Answer Status of implementation

Component 1 — STATE SAFETY POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES

Element 1.1 — State safety legislative framework

SMM (Doc 9859) Chapter 11

Has [State] promulgated a national safety legislative framework and specific regulations that define the management of safety in the State?

Yes No

Nil to be developed


Has [State] defined the specific activities related to the management of safety in the State in which each [State] aviation organization must participate?

Yes No

to be developed


Has [State] established requirements, responsibilities and accountabilities regarding the management of safety in [State] by its aviation organizations?

Yes No

Partial implantation, AOC, Aerodromes, ATS Have sms regulations


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

Yes No

There is a system to review regulations


Are [State] legislative framework and specific regulations periodically reviewed to ensure that they are up to date with respect to international standards?

Yes No


Has [State] established a safety policy? Yes No


Is [State] safety policy signed by the [State] SSP Accountable Executive or a high authority within [State]?

Yes No



ICAO reference

(Doc 9859)



Is [State] safety policy reviewed periodically? Yes No


Is [State] safety policy communicated with visible endorsement to all employees in all [State] aviation organizations with the intent that they are made aware of their individual safety responsibilities?

Yes No


Has [State] developed documentation that describes the SSP, including the interrelationship between its components and elements?

Yes No


Does [State] have a record system that ensures the generation and retention of all records necessary to document and support the SSP activities?

Yes No

There is a recording system to be adapted to SSP


Does the record system provide the control processes necessary to ensure appropriate identification, legibility, storage, protection, archiving, retrieval, retention time, and disposition of records?

Yes No

Element 1.2 — State safety responsibilities and accountabilities


Has [State] identified and defined the State requirements, responsibilities and accountabilities regarding the establishment and maintenance of the SSP?

Yes No


Do the requirements include directives and activities to plan, organize, develop, control and continuously improve the SSP in a manner that meets [State] safety objectives?

Yes No


Do the requirements include a clear statement about the provision of the necessary resources for the implementation and maintenance of the SSP?

Yes No



ICAO reference

(Doc 9859)



Has [State] identified and appointed an Accountable Executive as the qualified person having direct responsibility for the implementation, operation and supervision of the SSP?

Yes No


Does the [State] SSP Accountable Executive fulfil the required job functions and responsibilities?

Yes No


Does the [State] SSP Accountable Executive coordinate, as appropriate, the activities of the different State aviation organizations under the SSP?

Yes No


Does the [State] SSP Accountable Executive have control of the necessary resources required for the proper execution of the SSP?

Yes No


Does the [State] SSP Accountable Executive verify that all personnel of [State] aviation organizations understand their authorities, responsibilities and accountabilities with regard to the SSP and all safety management processes, decisions and actions?

Yes No


Are safety responsibilities and accountabilities, at all levels, defined and documented?

Yes No

Element 1.3 — Accident and incident investigation


Has [State] established, as part of the management of safety, an independent accident and incident investigation process, the sole objective of which is the prevention of accidents and incidents, and not the apportioning of blame or liability?

Yes No


Does [State] maintain the independence of the accident and incident investigation organization from other State aviation organizations?

Yes No

To ensure independence in Funding



ICAO reference

(Doc 9859)


Element 1.4 — Enforcement policy


Has [State] promulgated an enforcement policy? Yes No


Does the enforcement policy establish the conditions and circumstances under which service providers are allowed to deal with, and resolve, events involving certain safety deviations internally, within the context of the service provider’s safety management system (SMS), and to the satisfaction of the appropriate State authority?

Yes No

To Develop


Does the enforcement policy establish the conditions and circumstances under which to deal with safety deviations through established enforcement procedures?

Yes No

Component 2 — STATE SAFETY RISK MANAGEMENT

Element 2.1 — Safety requirements for the service provider’s SMS


Has [State] established the controls which govern how service providers will identify hazards and manage safety risks?

Yes No

To develop guidance material


Do those controls include requirements, specific operating regulations and implementation policies for the service provider’s SMS?

Yes No


Are requirements, specific operating regulations and implementation policies based on identified hazards and analysis of the safety risks of the consequences of the hazards?

Yes No


Are requirements, specific operating regulations and implementation policies periodically reviewed to ensure they remain relevant and appropriate to the service providers?

Yes No



ICAO reference

(Doc 9859)



Is there a structured process within [State] to assess how the service providers will manage the safety risks associated with identified hazards, expressed in terms of probability and severity of occurrence?

Yes No


Is there a [State] policy in place that ensures effective safety reporting of safety deficiencies, hazards or occurrences?

Yes No


Does [State] policy on reporting of safety deficiencies, hazards or occurrences include the conditions under which protection from disciplinary and/or administrative action applies?

Yes No

Not effective no non punitive reporting

Element 2.2 — Agreement on the service provider’s safety performance


Has [State] individually agreed with service providers on the safety performance of their SMS?

Yes No


Is the agreed safety performance commensurate with the complexity of the individual service provider’s specific operational context?

Yes No


Does the agreed safety performance consider the individual service provider’s resources to address safety risks?

Yes No


Is the agreed safety performance expressed by multiple safety indicators and safety targets, as opposed to a single one, as well as by action plans?

Yes No


Is the agreed safety performance periodically reviewed to ensure it remains relevant and appropriate to the service provider?

Yes No



ICAO reference

(Doc 9859)


Component 3 — STATE SAFETY ASSURANCE

Element 3.1 — Safety oversight


Has [State] established mechanisms to ensure that the identification of hazards and the management of safety risks by service providers follow established regulatory controls?

Yes No


Do established mechanisms include inspections, audits and surveys to ensure that regulatory safety risk controls are appropriately integrated into the SMS of service providers?

Yes No


Do established mechanisms ensure that regulatory safety risk controls are practised as designed?

Yes No


Do established mechanisms ensure that regulatory safety risk controls have the intended effect on safety risks?

Yes No


Are regular and periodic reviews conducted regarding [State] ALoS?

Yes No


Do reviews consider changes that could affect [State] SSP and its ALoS, recommendations for improvement and sharing of best practices across the State?

Yes No


Are regular and periodic reviews conducted to assess if [State] SSP and its ALoS remain appropriate to the scope and complexity of the aviation operations in the State?

Yes No


Is there a process to evaluate the effectiveness of changes related to the SSP?

Yes No



ICAO reference

(Doc 9859)


Element 3.2 — Safety data collection, analysis and exchange


Has [State] established mechanisms to ensure the capture and storage of data on hazards and safety risks at both the individual and aggregate State level?

Yes No


Has [State] established mechanisms to develop information from the stored data and to promote the exchange of safety information with service providers and/or other States as appropriate?

Yes No


Has [State] established an acceptable level of safety (ALoS) related to its SSP?

Yes No


Does [State] ALoS related to the SSP combine elements of safety measurement and safety performance measurement?

Yes No


Is [State] ALoS commensurate with the complexity of aviation activities within [State]?

Yes No


Is there a formal process within [State] to develop and maintain a set of parameters to measure the realistic implementation of the SSP?

Yes No

Element 3.3 — Safety-data-driven targeting of oversight of areas of greater concern or need


Has [State] developed procedures to prioritize inspections, audits and surveys towards those areas of greater safety concern or need?

Yes No


Is the prioritization of inspections and audits the result of the analysis of data on hazards, their consequences in operations, and the assessed safety risks?

Yes No

Component 4 — STATE SAFETY PROMOTION

Element 4.1 — Internal training, communication and dissemination of safety information


Does [State] provide internal training, awareness and two-way communication of safety-relevant information within [State] aviation organizations?

Yes No



ICAO reference

(Doc 9859)



Are there communication processes in place within [State] to ensure that information about the SSP functions and products is made available to [State] aviation organizations in a timely manner?

Yes No


Is there a process for the dissemination of safety information throughout [State] aviation organizations and a means of monitoring the effectiveness of this process?

Yes No


Are communication processes (written, meetings, electronic, etc.) commensurate with the size and scope of the [State] aviation organizations?

Yes No


Are safety information and information about the SSP functions and products maintained in a suitable medium?

Yes No

Element 4.2 — External training, communication and dissemination of safety information


Does the [State] provide external education, awareness of safety risks and two-way communication of safety-relevant information?

Yes No


Are there communication processes in place within [State] that allow the SSP to be promoted nationally and internationally?

Yes No


Is there a formal process for the external dissemination of safety information to [State] service providers and a means of monitoring the effectiveness of this process?

Yes No


Are there communication processes in place within [State] to ensure that information about the SSP functions and products is made available to [State] service providers in a timely manner?

Yes No


Are communication processes (written, meetings, electronic, etc.) commensurate with the size and scope of [State] service providers?

Yes No


Are safety information and information about the SSP functions and products established and maintained in a suitable medium?

Yes No

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _



Form 3-2 – GUIDANCE ON THE SSP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

1. State safety policy and objectives Nº Element Milestone Deliverable

1 No national safety legislative framework and specific regulations that define the management of safety in the State

Developed and enact as required by state law and promulgate national safety legislative framework and specific regulations that define the management of safety in the State by August 2010

Regulations in place and promulgated

2 No identified and appointed Accountable Executive as the qualified person having direct responsibility for the implementation, operation and supervision of the SSP

Identify and appoint an Accountable Executive by Sept.2010

Accountable Executive appointed

3 No maintenance of independence of the accident and incident investigation organization from other State aviation organizations

To ensure and maintain an independent accident and incident investigation organization from other State aviation organizations by

- Providing sufficient material, financial and human resources

- By July 2010

An independent accident and incident investigation organization in place.

4 No promulgated state enforcement policy To develop and promulgate state enforcement policy by August 2010

A state enforcement policy in place and promulgated

2. State safety risk management Nº Element Milestone Deliverable

1 The State 2 has no requirements, specific operating regulations and implementation policies based on identified hazards and analysis of the safety risks of the consequences

Make Specific operating regulations and implementation policies based on identified hazards and analysis of the safety risks of the consequences of the hazards by July 2010

Specific operating regulations and implementation policies in place



of the hazards

2 The State 2 has no policy on reporting of safety deficiencies, hazards or occurrences including the conditions under which protection from disciplinary and/or administrative action applies

Make Policy on reporting of safety deficiencies, hazards or occurrences that includes the conditions under which protection from disciplinary and/or administrative action are applicable by May 2010

Policy on reporting of safety deficiencies, hazards or occurrences in place

3 The State 2 has no individual agreement with service providers on the safety performance of their SMS

Make individual agreement with service providers on the safety performance of their SMS by September 2010

Individual agreement with service providers on the safety performance of their SMS established

4 The State 2 has no periodic review agreement on safety performance to ensure it remains relevant and appropriate to the service provider

Make periodic review agreement on safety performance to ensure it remains relevant and appropriate to the service provider by September 2012 or as when necessary

Periodically Reviewed agreements filed and disseminated

3. State safety assurance Nº Element Milestone Deliverable

1 State 2 has no established mechanisms to ensure that the identification of hazards and the management of safety risks by service providers follow established regulatory controls.

Develop mechanisms to ensure that the identification of hazards and the management of safety risks by service providers follow established regulatory controls by September 2010.

Mechanisms that ensure identification of hazards and management of safety risks in place.

2 No established mechanisms to ensure the capture and storage of data on hazards and safety risks at both the individual and aggregate State level

Develop mechanisms to ensure the capture and storage of data on hazards and safety risks at both the individual and aggregate State level By June 2010

Mechanism for data capture and storage in place.

3 No established and acceptable level of safety (ALoS) related to SSP

Develop acceptable level of safety (ALoS) related to SSP by June 2011

SSP ALoS established

4 No developed procedures to prioritize Develop procedures to prioritize inspections, Prioritized inspections, audits and surveys



inspections, audits and surveys towards those areas of greater safety concern or need

audits and surveys towards those areas of greater safety concern or need By December 2012

4. State safety promotion Nº Element Milestone Deliverable

1 State does not provide internal training, awareness and two-way communication of safety-relevant information within state aviation organizations

Develop and implement internal training, awareness and two-way communication of safety-relevant information within state aviation organizations by June 2010

State aviation organization personnel trained

2 No communication processes (written, meetings, electronic, etc.) commensurate with the size and scope of the State aviation organizations

Develop communication processes (written, meetings, electronic, etc.) commensurate with the size and scope of the State aviation organizations by November 2010

Communication Process in place

3 The State does not provide external education, awareness of safety risks and two-way communication of safety-relevant information

To establish and provide external education, awareness of safety risks and two-way communication of safety-relevant information Through Advisory Circulars, Website, Seminars etc, By December 2010

Educated and informed service providers

4 No communication processes in place within the State to ensure that information about the SSP functions and products is made available to service providers in a timely manner

Efficient communication processes established by June 2010 Through electronic means and other publications

Well informed service providers

Form 3-3 – GANTT CHART FOR THE SSP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

Nº SSP component/element Date: 2009 Date: 2010 Date:2011 Date:2012




PHASE I

1 The Head of CAA Establishes an SSP Implementation Team (IT) and Team training

Start

30th Sept

x x

1st Oct

x

31st Dec

x x x x x x x x x x x Finish

31st Dec

2 The SSP IT team to Develop SSP legislation

Start

1st Nov

x x x Finish

31st Oct

3 Identify the Accountable Executive for the State SSP

1st July

4 Identify, define and document the requirements, responsibilities and accountabilities regarding the establishment and maintenance of the SSP

1st Jan

30th Jun

5 Develop, implement and communicate a State safety policy

Start

1st Nov

x x x Finish

31st Oct




6 Develop and promulgate, a national safety legislative framework and specific regulations

Start

1st Nov

x x x Finish

31st Oct

7 Establish the mechanisms to ensure an independent accident and incident investigation process (Material, Human resource and Financial)

1st July

(Fin)

x x x 1st July

(Mat

HR)

8 Schedule initial training to introduce all staff to SSP concepts

31st Oct

x x x 31st Dec

9 Develop a training programme on key components of an SSP and SMS for the staff members according to their involvement within the SSP

1st May

1st Sept

10 Develop an SMS regulatory framework and related advisory circulars

31st Oct

x x 1st July




11 Develop and promulgate an enforcement policy for service providers operating under an SMS environment

31st Oct

x x 1st July

12 Establish a timeframe to periodically review the requirements and specific operating regulations

31st Oct

x x x x 31st

Jan

13 Develop and establish the State safety library

1st Jan

x x 1st Nov

PHASE II

1 Initial selection of safety indicators

1st Jan

31st July

2 Initial selection of safety targets

1st Jan

31st July




3 Define values for safety indicators

1st Jan

31st July

4 Define values for safety targets

1st Jan

31st July

5 Define and establish the action plans to deliver the safety targets on initial ALoS

1st Aug

31st Dec

6 Develop and establish a State mandatory and confidential hazard reporting system

30th OCT

30th Jun

7 Develop and establish a State hazard database

30th Jun

x 31st Dec

8 Schedule training to staff as appropriate in hazard identification and risk management

1 Jun

30

Oct

9 Develop the mechanisms to ensure that regulatory safety risk controls are

1 Jan

30 Mar




appropriately integrated into the service providers’ SMS

10 Establish a timeframe for consultation with service providers related to the phased approach of their SMS

1Apr 30 Jun

11 Develop the mechanisms to monitor that service provider’s hazard identification and safety risk management processes follow established regulatory requirements

1 Jul

31st Aug

12 Develop mechanisms to exchange safety information with service providers and/or other States as appropriate

1 Jul

31st Aug

13 Develop and establish the means of communication to support SMS implementation among service providers, including small operators

1 Jul

30th Sept




14 Establish and communicate initial ALoS

30th Oct

15

PHASE III

1 Develop and implement a procedure for the agreement on safety performance of individual service providers’ SMS

1st Jul

x x

2 Establish means to develop safety data collection capabilities on both high and low consequence outcomes

1st Aug

x

3 Establish means to collect information on hazards at an aggregate State level as well as at individual service provider level

31st Dec

to Dec 2013




4 Implement mechanisms to exchange safety information with service providers and/or other States as appropriate

March

2014

5 First round of agreements upon safety performance indicators and targets for various service providers’ SMS

1st July

x

6 Establish procedures to prioritize inspections, audits and surveys, based on analysis of hazards and safety risks

From

1st July

2014

7 Establish and communicate mature ALoS

1st July

x

CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY OF STATE 2

STATE 2 SAFETY PROGRAM

1. Statutory basis

This State 2 Safety Program has been prepared in accordance with the legal requirement for

achieving an acceptable level of Safety in Civil Aviation stated in Part VI of the Civil

Aviation Regulations, 2009

2. Scope

The scope of this State 2 Safety program (SSP 2) shall include whole;

i) Approved training organizations that are exposed to safety risks

ii) Aircraft operators

iii) Approved Maintenance organization

iv) Organizations responsible for design and/or Manufacture of aircraft

v) ATC

vi) Certified Aerodromes

vii) Catering services and other Regulated services

3. Applicability

This State 2 Safety program (SSP 2) shall apply to all Civil Aviation service providers and Regulated Agents to in the Republic of State 2;

4. References

The reference of this promulgation are Annex 1 Personnel Licensing, Annex 8 Airworthiness, 14 (Aerodromes), Annex SIX-Operations of aircraft, annex 11 Air traffic services, 13 aircraft incident/accident Investigation,

5. Definitions

6. Safety Management System (SMS)

7. State Safety Program (SSP)

8. Service Provider

9. Hazards

10. Accidents

11. Risk

12. Risk Assesment

13. Risk Analysis

14. Annexes

15. ICAO

16. ATOs

17. Approved Maintenance Organization (AMO)

18. AOC

19. ATS

20. General

The Service providers and other aviation Regulated agents shall establish, maintain and

adhere to SMS promulgated from State 2 safety Programme that is appropriate to the size,

nature and complexity of the operations.

21. Regulatory content

The Authority shall ensure all service providers and Aviation Regulated agents established SMS , in order to achieve an acceptable level of safety (ALoS) in civil aviation acceptable to the Authority.

A service provider shall be required to implement a safety management system (SMS) acceptable

to the State that, as a minimum:

a) identifies safety hazards;

b) ensures the implementation of remedial action necessary to maintain agreed safety

performance

c) provides for continuous monitoring and regular assessment of the safety performance;

and

d) aims at a continuous improvement of the overall performance of the safety

management system

21.1. State safety policy and objectives

General requirements

State shall establish:

provisions for the protection of safety data, collection and processing systems (SDCPS)

the commitment to an effective interaction with service providers in the resolution of safety concerns

the commitment to communicate, with visible endorsement, the State safety policy to all staff

an enforcement policy that reflects service providers’

operations in an SMS environment

Organizational structure, accountabilities and responsibilities

21.2. State safety risk management

21.3. State safety assurance

21.4. State safety promotion.

Documents

ICAO State Safety programme (SSP) Implementation Course ... Management/2009/Da… · International Civil Aviation Organization ICAO State Safety programme (SSP) Implementation Course