The ICAO Universal Safety

Oversight Audit Programme

Thormodur Thormodsson

Continuous Monitoring

Coordinator

How did it all start?

ICAO’s 29th Assembly (1992)

increased concern raised over the level of

safety world-wide:

• Lack of adequate civil aviation

establishments in several contracting

States thus, insufficient safety oversight

action by States

2

Safety Oversight - a definition

• Safety oversight is a function by which States

ensure the effective implementation of the safety-

related Standards and Recommended Practices

(SARPs), and associated procedures and practices

contained in the Annexes to the Convention on

International Civil Aviation

3

Safety Oversight Assessment Programme

• Approved by the ICAO Council in 1995

• Launched in 1996

• Assessment of States implementation of

ICAO SARPS

• Voluntary programme

4

• Fully confidential

– Report only provided to the assessed State

• 88 States assessed during 2 year period

• Identified numerous deficiencies in States safety oversight

• Subsequently, ICAO/States recognized the critical need to focus attention to global aviation safety and monitoring State oversight

5

DGCA Conference 1997

• Main topic - ICAO to increase attention on

global aviation safety

• 1996

– bad year in aviation

– Increase number of fatal accidents. High

number of fatalities. High-profile accidents

(TWA 800, ValuJet and Birgenair)

6

ICAO Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme

• Established by the 32nd session of the Assembly in 1998

• Based on the recommendations from the DGCA/97

• Objective

– monitoring safety oversight obligations of all contracting States

7

• Mandatory programme

• All cost from ICAO budget

• Covered all ICAO safety related Annexes (Annex 1 (PEL), 6 (OPS) and 8 (AIR))

• Following successful implementation of USOAP, the 33rd session of the Assembly expanded the programme to include Annex 11 (ANS), 13 (AIG) and 14 (AGA)

8

Evolution of USOAP

9

Mandatory Audit

Programme (USOAP)

A32-11

1999 – 2004

181 Audits, 162 Follow-ups

Annexes 1, 6, 8 (Annex-by-

Annex Approach)

Comprehensive Systems

Approach (CSA)

2005 – 2010

177 Audits Safety-related provisions in all Annexes

Development of Continuous

Monitoring Approach

(CMA)

beyond 2010

A36-4

35th Assembly

2004

36th Assembly

2007

Essential components of the programme

1. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

– Between ICAO and Contracting State

– Gives ICAO mandate to monitor

– Provides immunity to on-site team members

– Obligation of State to participate in USOAP

10

2. ISO Certification

– Who audits the auditors? Question by the Council

– ICAO was directed to have an external body provide quality assurance to the USOAP

• USOAP was ISO certified in 2002

• One of the first UN agency to do so

– providing guidance to other UN agencies who are looking into ISO certification

11

3. Transparency

– The only effective enforcement means for

ICAO

– States make every effort to improve since

they don’t want poor results made available to

the public

– Very effective

12

Evolution of Transparency 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013+

PUBLIC

STATES

1997: Voluntary Assessment Programme, Fully Confidential (Annexes 1-6-8)

1999: USOAP Audit Summary Reports to all States (Annexes 1-6-8)

2005: USOAP CSA Audit results full transparency to all States

2006: SSC introduced, fast track notification to all States (restricted web site)

2001: Generic, non-State specific LEI results globally and by region

2005: Public access to LEI, Critical Element results by State. All States provided consent

2006: Mechanism to make full USOAP results available to the public with State consent. 1st cycle audits 45% of States

SSCs published on the CMA on line framework Proposed layout of the SSCs for the public to receive State feed back

2014 Unresolved SSCs to be made available to the public in the format and conditions approved by Council

ICAO has identified a significant safety concern with respect to the ability of [State] to properly oversee the [insert airlines (air operators); airports; aircraft; or air navigation services, as applicable] under its jurisdiction. This does not necessarily indicate a particular safety deficiency in the [insert airlines (air operators); airports; aircraft; or air navigation services, as applicable] but, rather, indicates that the State is not providing sufficient safety oversight to ensure the effective implementation of applicable ICAO Standards. Full technical details of the ICAO findings have been made available to [State] to guide rectification, as well as to all ICAO Member States to facilitate any actions that they may consider necessary to ensure safety. [State] has undertaken to regularly report progress on this matter to ICAO.

As of January 2013, safety oversight information is available

on the ICAO public website.

URL: http://www.icao.int/safety/Pages/USOAP-Results.aspx

Objective of the Programme

14

The objective of USOAP under the CMA is:

• to promote global aviation safety through continuous monitoring of the Member States’ safety oversight capabilities.

The USOAP CMA provides a mechanism for ICAO:

• to collect safety information from Member States and other stakeholders, and

• to analyze this information using a risk-based approach to identify and prioritize appropriate activities to be carried out by ICAO.

• CSA audits

• Safety audits

• ICAO Coordinated Validation Missions

• Off-site validation activities

• Mandatory Information Requests (MIRs)

• Protocol findings

• Significant Safety Concerns (SSCs)

• Corrective Action Plans (CAPs)

• Analysis of safety risk factors

• Evaluation of State’s safety management capabilities

• States

• Internal stakeholders

• External stakeholders Collection of

safety information

Determination

of State safety

risk profile

Update of LEI and status of SSCs

Prioritization and conduct of USOAP CMA activities

USOAP CMA components

USOAP and Public Health • SAAQ questions related to PH

– Has the State identified a clear contact point at national aviation level, with identified individual(s), for policy formulation, operational organization of preparedness and coordination of a national plan in order to respond to a communicable disease or other health event with the potential to pose a serious public health risk?

– CC Art 14; Annex 9 - 8.12 & 8.16; A37-13

– 8.12 Contracting States shall comply with the pertinent provisions of the International Health Regulations (2005) of the World Health Organization

16

29 April 2015 17

PQ No. Type of PQ Amendment PQ Subject PQ Question Global

Average EI %

OPS 4.460 New Public health emergency

procedures

Does the aircraft operations organization ensure that the air operator has established a procedure for the crew to evaluate a traveler with a suspected communicable disease, based on the presence of a fever and certain other

signs or symptoms?

TBD (too soon)

OPS 4.462 New Public health emergency

procedures

Does the aircraft operations organization ensure that the air operator has established procedures for the pilot-in-command to report promptly to air traffic control (ATC) a suspected communicable disease, with transmission

of the following information:

TBD (too soon)

ANS 7.151

Revised Expanded to include

public health emergencies

Air traffic management — Operational —

Emergency events and contingency planning

Does the State ensure that procedures have been established and implemented to provide service to aircraft in the event of emergency?

81

ANS 7.153

Revised Expanded to include

public health emergencies

Air traffic management — Operational —

Emergency events and contingency planning

Does the State ensure that contingency plans have been developed and implemented in the event of disruption or potential disruption of air traffic

service (ATS) or related supporting services? 48

AGA 8.081

Existing Aerodrome certification

— General

Has the State promulgated regulations detailing the requirements for the certification of aerodromes, and including the criteria to determine if an

aerodrome should be certified? 52

AGA 8.291

Revised Expanded to include

public health emergencies

Aerodrome emergency planning

Does the State ensure that aerodrome operators develop emergency plans, including appropriate cooperation and coordination with other entities

involved in the provision of emergency services and the development of the plans?

64

PQs related to PH

Conclusion

• The USOAP has been a big success

• Always fully supported by ICAO Assembly

and the Council

• USOAP data is systematically used for

– prioritization of work programme items

– focus assistance to States on areas of real

need (ICAO, States, ROs, Int. Orgs.)

18

Thank you