Data driven

SafetyThrough extensive coordination ofthe internal and external safety datasources available to it, ICAO beginsto emphasize a more targeted,proactive and operationalapproach to global aviation’smost fundamental objective

Also in this issue: AIG Divisional Meeting • Pursuing Integrated Safety ManagementAdvances in flight safety • Looking beyond the USOAP audit cycleAdapting aviation medicine • Regional Cooperative Safety ProgrammesLevel 4 language proficiency update • FAI regulatory objectivesFAI Secretary General’s message

ICAOINTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION

Vol. 63, No 5

ContentsMessage from the Director, Technical Co-operation Bureau (TCB) . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

AVIATION’S NEW SAFETY CHALLENGE

A new approach to safetyWith ever increasing amounts of data available for analysis by its safety experts, ICAO has begun to shift its focus toward the development of internalprocesses that are more responsive to new information and therefore more adaptable to evolving top-level safety concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

USOAP evolutionICAO begins to adapt and evolve its safety monitoring activities to better target the priority areas that the USOAP comprehensive audits have helped to reveal, turning now to a new Continuous Monitoring Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

A more proactive approach: ICAO FLSA look at the important redirection of the ICAO Flight Safety Section’s priorities as it moves to place greater focus on implementation related activities. . . . . . . . . . 15

Accident Investigation and Prevention: Divisional MeetingA review of some of the key matters up for discussion in this first divisional meeting of its kind since 1999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Rethinking aviation medicineIn its continuing effort to reflect a changing industry and the constantly evolving world of medical science, ICAO is taking new strides toward modernizing existing medical guidelines for aviation authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

SAFETY AND EFFICIENCY

ICAO ‘Level 4’ English language proficiency deadlineWith 134 of 190 ICAO Member States now either compliant or with plans in place, ICAO’s Level 4 English compliance standard is already having positive effects on global aviation safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

SAFETY ADVANCES THROUGH IMPLEMENTATION

AFI Plan continuing on paceAn update on the AFI Comprehensive Implementation Programme, including its near-term programmes and objectives in the context of ICAO’s broader safety aspirations for the AFI Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Great success for COSCAPsThe origins and broad objectives of the Regional Cooperative (COSCAP) programmes in the Asia-Pacific Region and some of the successes that have been achieved thus far. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

NEWS IN BRIEF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Guest feature: Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI)The FAI’s new Commission on Airspace and Navigation Systems seeks to increase public and regulator awareness as our skies become increasingly less hospitable to recreational aircraft users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Forum: FAI viewpoint Pierre Portmann, President, Fédération Aéronautique Internationale, discusses the long history and continuing evolution of his organization . . . . . . . . . . 36

THE ICAO JOURNALVOLUME 63, NUMBER 5, 2008

EditorialICAO External Relations

and Public Information Office

Tel: +01 (514) 954-8220

Web site: www.icao.int

Anthony Philbin Communications

Editor: Anthony Philbin

Tel: +01 (514) 886-7746

E-mail: info@philbin.ca

Web site: www.philbin.ca

Production and DesignBang Marketing

Stéphanie Kennan

Tel: +01 (514) 849-2264

E-mail: info@bang-marketing.com

Web site: www.bang-marketing.com

ICAO Photographs: Gerry Ercolani

Advertising

FCM Communications Inc.

Yves Allard

Tel: +01 (450) 677-3535

Fax: +01 (450) 677-4445

E-mail: fcmcommunications@videotron.ca

SubmissionsThe Journal encourages submissions from interested

individuals, organizations and States wishing to share

updates, perspectives or analysis related to global

civil aviation. For further information on submission

deadlines and planned issue topics for future editions

of the ICAO Journal, please forward your request to

info@philbin.ca.

Subscriptions and single copiesYearly subscription (Six Issues per year) US $40.

Single copies available for US $10. For subscription

and sales information please contact the ICAO

Document Sales Unit,

Tel: +01 (514) 954-8022

E-mail: sales@icao.int

Published in Montreal, Canada. ISSN 0018 8778.

The information published in the ICAO Journal was

correct at time of printing. The opinions expressed

are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily

reflect the opinions of ICAO or its Member States.

Reproduction of articles in the ICAO Journal is

encouraged. For permission, please forward your

request to info@philbin.ca. The ICAO Journal must

be credited in any reproduction.

PRINTED BY ICAO

3

Governance,Technologyand Training:Safety’sStrengthsThe international community has taken significant steps to advance safety oversight and address systemicweaknesses through measures such as the ICAO GlobalAviation Safety Plan, the Global Aviation Safety Roadmapand the harmonized and uniform implementation of SafetyManagement Systems (SMS).

Compliance with ICAO SARPs and the implementation ofefficient safety oversight systems are vital to our modernunderstanding of aviation safety and the mutuallysupporting data now being derived from SMS, safety-auditand accident and incident investigation (AIG) activities, butthe effectiveness of these various tools and measures canstill remain insufficient if governance issues, technologicalmodernization, and high level training standards—considered to be a key element in ensuring performanceefficiency—are not meaningfully addressed.

Governance, in this case, is understood as the capacity ofa State to exercise its authority—both in the organizationaland regulatory realm and in the areas of oversight andsurveillance. This is based on the need for permanent and‘incentivised’ consolidation of the professionals comprisinga civil aviation administration team and related bodies. This capacity to exercise authority also affects governmentcredibility with respect to aircraft operators, aircraftmaintenance organizations, airport authorities, air navi -gation services providers and the industry as a whole.

When an assessment is carried out leading to the prepa -ration of a technical co-operation project, an alarmingcombination of factors repeatedly comes to light; namelythe obsolescence of a substantial amount of airport and airnavigation equipment and the inadequate organization andmanagement of personnel training and administration. This

is a virtually perfect formula—not for safety enhance -ment—but rather for reducing aggregate system efficiencyand increasing safety risk levels.

Well aware of this ‘perfect storm’ are the more than 600 aviation technical co-operation experts who work withcontracting States every year on major projects in oursector. These men and women are hard at work strength -ening local aviation authorities, rectifying deficienciesidentified by USOAP audits, assisting operators withaerodrome certification, updating and adapting aviationregulations, implementing safety management systems and modernizing airport and air navigation infrastructures.

All these experts carry out their work in accordance withState objectives concerning the development of the fullspectrum of civil aviation activities, and each and every one

DIRECTOR’S MESSAGE

ICA

O Journal –

Issue 05 –2008

4

ICA

O J

ourn

al –

Issu

e 05

–20

08

of these activities (aerodrome planningand construction; air traffic control;communications; licensing; flightoperations; airworthiness; accidentinvestigation; training center modern -ization; personnel strategy; aircraftregistries; the transport of dangerousgoods) are now guided by the new andmore comprehensive safety approachnow being implemented and pursued by ICAO. This approach, if it is to beeffective, must be championed by the uppermost State leadership andrequires full organizational complianceand commitment in order to permeatecivil aviation’s broader values and culture.

In the specific field of air navigation,numerous technical co-operationprojects fostering the progressiveimplementation of CNS/ATM systemshave thus far had a significant impacton safety. Airspace user confidence,both domestic and international, hasincreased through the gradual andeffective exercise of air traffic controlby ATS units—several of which havebeen outfitted with state-of-the-artaeronautical equipment and systems by their respective administrations.

Decades of experience have demon -strated that a technical co-operationproject provides for an aviation frame -work that revolutionizes air navigationservices management, enablingintegration of ATS data and total radarand communication coveragethroughout a respective airspace.

Bilateral technical assistance betweenICAO and contracting States is alsoenhanced by the ever-increasingimplementation of regional technical co-operation safety oversight projects(COSCAPs—see page 30 for a review of current approaches in the Asia-Pacific Region). These projects are partof a shared effort to formulate regula -tions for common use by neighbouringStates and to establish mechanismsfor regional inspection, training, andtechnology transfer. Through theirsystemic interaction, these elementswill make it possible to eventuallyconsolidate regional safety policies.

Clearly, there is an internationalconsensus that ICAO should spear -head this process via an intensiveprogram me of activities involving theentire aviation community. The

Organization’s aim is to focus safetyactions in a prioritized and harmonizedmanner and through a holistic andparticipatory approach.

Although this process is now muchmore complex and therefore moredifficult to communicate in a mannerthat truly reflects its full scope andobjectives, in the end ICAO’s messageremains a very simple one:

We save lives.

Ricardo Heighes-ThiessenDirector, ICAO Technical Cooperation Bureau

5

IntegratedSafety ManagementApplying higher priority to operationalsafety measures

For many years now, ICAO and the greater global aviationcommunity have been developing programmes and tools tofacilitate the collection of operational safety data relating to a variety of fields. Aviation safety has been one of thehighest priority areas in this regard and, as the firstcomplete cycle of the ICAO Universal Safety OperationalAudit Programme (USOAP) under a comprehensive systemsapproach draws to its conclusion in 2010, the data thathas been collected from this and other initiatives hasbecome a focal point for the consideration of ICAO’s safetyleadership as it contemplates how it will improve theOrganization’s design and development of safety-relatedprogrammes for the decades ahead.

ICAO’s Air Navigation Bureau (ANB) holds primary respon -sibility for the Organization’s fundamental safety initiativesand it is the ANB leadership that is now driving the paradigm

A NEW APPROACH TO SAFETY

With ever increasingamounts of data availablefor analysis by its safetyexperts, ICAO has begun to shift its focus toward the development of moremeasurable internalprocesses that will be

tailored based on how substantially futuredata reflects their success in dealing withstakeholder-agreed, top-level safetyconcerns. Captain Daniel Maurino spokerecently with the Journal about thisprofound change now getting underway inICAO as the Organization’s Air NavigationBureau seeks to ensure that it ‘talks thetalk’ and ‘walks the walk’ when it comesto aviation safety.

ICA

O Journal –

Issue 05 –2008

6

ICA

O J

ourn

al –

Issu

e 05

–20

08

shift in how ICAO will respond to and make use of thesignificant amount of safety data that has become increasinglyaccessible to its decision makers in recent years. As part ofthese fundamental safety initiatives, a new Section within theANB, the Integrated Safety Management Section (ISM), hasbeen recently formed to organize and effect changes relatedto safety management in the most efficient and cost-effectivemanner possible.

An Air Navigation Safety Group (ASG), composed of ICAOOfficers selected on the basis of their expertise in areas ofrelevance to the safety management objectives of ICAO,supports the new ISM Section—providing it with strategicvision and direction. The objectives of the ISM Section are todevelop, with the support of the ASG, the Internal SafetyManagement Process (ISMP) and eventually an IntegratedSafety System (ISS).

At the present time, the membership of the ASG includesVince Galotti (ICAO structure and functions), Marcus Costa(accident/incident investigation), Henry Gourdji (safetyauditing and oversight), Yuri Fattah (process control), TomMistos (data analysis), Miguel Ramos (safety management)and Dan Maurino (secretary of the ASG).

The ASG will be influential in determining how ICAO will beginto leverage the incredibly valuable safety data now at itsdisposal. Although the collection of this data in and of itselfhas been a monumental task in many respects, as will be the

development of effective programmes and partnerships toensure that new data continues to flow in a coordinatedmanner into ICAO, data alone will not solve some of theproblems affecting safety-challenged States and the broaderaviation community.

“In many ways, aviation is data rich but still informationpoor,” remarked Captain Dan Maurino, Chief of the ISMSection and formerly project manager of ICAO’s SafetyManagement Systems (SMS) programme. “ICAO and otherexternal sources collect vast amounts of data but, until now,the aviation community as a whole has not spent an equalamount of energy on the analysis of and derivation ofpractical intelligence from this data. In the past this hasgenerated situations where programmes have been launchedthat were founded as much on opinion as on the actualinformation that was available, which can have a negativeimpact on resource allocation and essentially means that oursafety dollars are not being as well spent as they might be.”

In the near term (Phase I—next 12 months), the ASG will firstbe soliciting stakeholder input with respect to possiblemethods that might be employed to integrate the safety datacurrently available from government and industry sources.The stakeholders will thus be composed of States/organi -zations with experience in safety data collection and analysis,and this integration would then enable the development byICAO of a blueprint for a set of metrics to support theeffective delivery of its safety services. These metrics would

be specific to the needs of the ICAObusiness and perfor mance frameworkand would support the next generationof safety oversight audits that areexpected to be based on the notion of‘continuous monitoring’ (editor’s note:for more on continuous monitoringplease see the “Data Determinations”article on page 9).

Phase I is also planned to be used forthe development of, or agreement on, atool that will enable States to augmenttheir safety data collection, analysis andexchange capabilities. This tool would bereadily available and easily accessible by a large user community and would bedesigned to accommo date even thoseStates with limited experience regardingsafety data collection and analysis. An upcoming safety practitioner’sroundtable to be held at ICAO in early fall 2008 (September 16–17) will beused as a brain storming session onthese topics by the participating Statesand organizations.

8

ICA

O J

ourn

al –

Issu

e 05

–20

08

As developments progress, Phase II (24 months) of theASG’s current timetable would then see the consolidation ofthe Internal Safety Management Process (ISMP) at ICAO,while Phase III (36 months) would witness the develo ment,deployment and management of Organization-level safetyintelligence within ICAO leading to the development of the ICAOIntegrated Safety System (ISS).

“In a very basic sense ICAO is now undertaking a processsimilar to what it has been recommending States shouldpursue with respect to their own safety objectives,” Maurinocommented. “The Organization’s new pursuit of an ISMsystem reflects the understanding that internal processesneed to be more data-responsive and that to properly informour deliberations surrounding this evolution we also need toharmonize safety data collection and safety data convergenceon an industry-wide basis.”

Maurino went on to note that this process of mapping top-level safety concerns and then measuring ICAO’seffectiveness in providing programmes and standards thatdeal effectively with the issues surrounding and supportingthem is very similar to what it has been asking States to dowith respect to the development of their own State Safety

Programmes (SSP), or to what it has been asking of industrywhen helping operators to employ Safety ManagementSystems (SMS). By measuring the effectiveness of its ownprocesses and successes in this manner the ANB leadershipis showing its determination to ‘walk the walk’ as well as ‘talkthe talk’ when it comes to aviation safety.

The new structure under discussion has as its initial, short-term objective to deliver a blueprint of this internal safetymanagement process by April of next year, against whichICAO will be able to measure the success of its activities inrelationship to the list of top-level concerns based on thedata being returned. It will then make targeted determi -nations about how it will be allocating future resources basedon the information that the data will be providing.

“In a period of belt-tightening industry wide,” Maurinoconcluded, “these measures will go a long way to ensuringthat ICAO is being as responsive and as effective as possibleto the States and the industry it serves with respect toimproving safety on a continuous, dynamic basis.”

THE FUTURE ICAO ORGANIZATIONAL SAFETY STRUCTURE

The following reflects current planning based on a three-year timetable featuring the establishment of appropriate safety metrics,consultations with States on the tools that will be used to validate and share safety related data, the consolidation of the Internal SafetyManagement Process (ISMP) at ICAO, and the development, deployment and management of Organization-level safety intelligence.

Audit Results Review Board (ARRB)

D/ANB

Integrated Safety Management (ISM)

Section

ANB SafetyGroup (ASG)

ANB Section ANB Section ANB Section

9

Data determinations

For close to a decade now, the ICAO Universal SafetyOversight Audit Programme (USOAP) has been accumulatingextensive amounts of data regarding aviation operationsand infrastructure in ICAO’s Member States. With its firstround of audits under a comprehensive systems approachsoon to be completed, the Organization, as part of itsongoing evolution toward a more performance-basedapproach to all of its activities, has begun to analyze thisdata with the objective of designing new programmes thatwill help establish Key Performance Indicators (KPI) enabl -ing ICAO to measure the success of its new initiatives inthis area against its first and always most important strate -gic objective—the enhancement of global aviation safety.

This new approach to aviation safety should encourageStates to take a stronger self-monitoring role through theestablishment of their own safety programmes, overseeing

the implementation of new Annex developments andensuring their aviation sectors’ continued compliance toICAO’s Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs).

The recent analysis of audit findings enabled theidentification and quantification of safety concerns forStates at national, regional and global levels. ICAO wasthen able to evaluate respective safety impacts andconsider the various options available to improve SARPcompliance while assisting States in establishing aneffective safety oversight system. Officials are alreadyusing the data at hand as they look for ways to improve and enhance these methodologies and one of the mostpromising results of these analyses has been the newproposal that ICAO should begin to adopt a ContinuousMonitoring Approach (CMA) once the ComprehensiveSystems Approach (CSA) audit cycle is completed in 2010.

USOAP EVOLUTION

As ICAO’s Universal SafetyOversight Audit Programmedraws closer to its 2010completion deadline for allMember States, ICAOsafety officials have begunto apply the lessonsgleaned from the vast

amounts of data that have been generated,and proposals are now under discussionconcerning how the Organization will adaptand evolve its safety monitoring activitiesto better target the priority areas that the audits have helped to reveal. HenryGourdji, Chief of the Safety Oversight Audit Section, spoke with the Journalabout the alternatives on the table and the promise being demonstrated by thenew Continuous Monitoring Approach now under consideration.

ICA

O Journal –

Issue 05 –2008

10

ICA

O J

ourn

al –

Issu

e 05

–20

08

“With the data we have in hand from the comprehensive USOAP audits thathave now been concluded, we’re askingStates to develop their own action plansthat cover both immediate and longerterm safety objectives,” began HenryGourdji, Chief of the Safety OversightAudit (SOA) Section. “Using the toolsthat we now have in place and additionalmechanisms and assistance that will beput into place over time, one of theOrganization’s objectives is to assistMember States in establishing effectivesafety oversight of their industries andservice providers and also to establishand audit their own State SafetyProgrammes (SSP) while ensuring theirindustries implement Safety Manage -ment Systems (SMS)”.

A promising beginning

The original objective of the USOAP was to promote global aviation safety by conducting regular safety oversightaudits of all Member States. Theseaudits determine a State’s implemen -tation of required safety systems and itscompliance to ICAO SARPs. Launched onJanuary 1, 1999, USOAP supersededthe recommended but purely voluntarySOA programme that had been establish -ed in 1995. Since its initiation, theUSOAP has been managed and run bythe SOA Section of the ICAO Safety andSecurity Audits Branch.

Between 1999 and 2004, USOAP auditsand audit follow-ups were planned andconducted on an Annex-by-Annexapproach. Based on the informationgained from these audits, the ICAOCouncil decided in 2004 that it was timefor USOAP to evolve from this Annex-by-Annex system to a process calledComprehensive Systems Approach (CSA)auditing—an auditing methodology thatfocuses on a State’s overall safetyoversight capabilities.

The CSA covers all safety-relatedAnnexes and provides for a more com -prehensive and cost-effective approachto auditing. Audits conducted under theCSA process, started in April 2005,proved instrumental in helping ICAO gain a much clearer picture of MemberStates’ varying degrees of SARP com -pliance and safety oversight capability.

Through USOAP, ICAO officials haveidentified fundamental weaknesses inthe safety oversight systems of manyStates, including significant differencesin the safety Standards being applied ona State-by-State basis—precisely whatICAO seeks to avoid as it conti nues tomove toward global uniformity throughits leadership in all aspects of aviation safety regulation.

Audit results have revealed problems in the areas of personnel licensing,

aircraft operations and airworthiness of aircraft; however, the majority of auditfindings under the current cycle relate tonew audit areas such as aerodromes,air navigation services and aircraftaccident and incident investigation.While the existing approach has servedits purpose well up until this point, ithas also become clear that continuingalong this path could prove both lengthyand expensive.

“We now have a very mature foundationof data that has come in from all thepast and most recent audits of theMember States,” said Gourdji. “Basedon these results, we’ve been able toascertain that approximately one third ofthe ICAO Member States have greaterthan a 50 percent lack of effectiveimplementation of the eight criticalelements of a sound safety oversightsystem. That’s higher than we expectedto discover, but with this data we’re now able to prioritize much moreeffectively and really concentrate on thespecific States and specific areas ofaviation activity that need ICAO’sassistance and attention. The USOAPCSA has been very useful therefore andit will continue to be maintained forStates that require this level of exami -nation and re-exami nation, but ICAO alsohas to learn from this new data andadapt itself accordingly where required.”

The promise and potential of Continuous Monitoring

Continuous monitoring, still in theconceptual phase, is a system by which ICAO could oversee, on virtually a real-time basis, the safety oversightcapabilities of Member States whileensuring they develop, maintain andapply regulations that conform to theOrganization’s SARPs.

As stated in an August 2008 conceptpaper, the CMA is an evidence-basedapproach to safety management thatsystematically identifies deficiencies in a State’s safety oversight capabilities.It assesses safety risk factors andimplements strategies to rectify

11

ICA

O Journal –

Issue 05 –2008

and then send a specialist or a small, prioritized team toprovide specific solutions where needed.”

CMA implementation options

The proposed CMA process is based on previouslyimplemented ICAO USOAP-CSA reporting tools and software.Consequently, a limited number of additional auditing toolswould be required in order to enable the implementation ofCMA. ICAO will endeavor to enhance and introduce new web-based applications with the objective of facilitating theparticipation of Contracting States in the CMA process.

Given this, Gourdji doesn’t expect States will see a largeincrease in what they are required to do, but there will be somechanges in how the system will be run when implementing theCMA and, according to the concept paper, several steps mustbe taken in order to do that.

The first step is to collect safety data that will become theevidence necessary to determine a State’s safety oversightcapability. The data can be derived from both internal andexternal sources and can pertain to any part of the State’ssafety performance. Second, the oversight capability must beanalyzed and ascertained by looking at all the pertinent data.At this stage the State’s current safety performance indicatorsmay be compared with its own safety performance targets andthresholds as well as global and regional data.

With this data and analysis, ICAO officials can identify theState’s safety oversight capability. Also, a risk assessmentprocess scrutinizes the safety risks to identify safety defi -ciencies and determine the seriousness of any conse quencesin terms of probability of occurrence and severity. The processidentifies safety risks that would weaken the State’s overallsafety performance, either currently or in the foreseeablefuture. This analysis can be both qualitative and quantitativeand the deficiencies are prioritized depending on the level ofsafety risk that their consequences pose.

The CMA process then calls for strategies to be developed andimplemented. Beginning from the highest-priority safety risks,several options for managing the risks may be considered. As a risk management strategy, an administrative or onsite inter -vention may be recommended, planned and coordinated withthe assistance of the local ICAO regional office. Interventionsmay encompass anything from safety recommendations to fullscale audits in an effort to restore or address identifieddeficiencies within the State.

In the end, feedback is required to close the loop. Full-scale orlimited monitoring activities might be required to validate theimplementation of corrective actions and evaluate how well thenew strategy for the enhancement of the State’s safetyoversight capability is performing. Ultimately, only verified

deficiencies and mitigate those risks. Through continuousmonitoring of the State’s safety oversight capability, poorlydesigned or implemented safety controls can be identified and improved—thus enhancing a State’s safety performance.

CMA requires a harmonized and consistent approach tooverseeing the activities of all States. The initial challenge is to set up a communication infrastructure that allows ICAO HQto monitor States’ safety performance and all activities beingconducted by ICAO Regional Offices or other internationalorganizations in a coordinated and streamlined manner.

“The biggest challenge under the continuous monitoringapproach is to place the collected information at the fingertipsof the States who need it,” Gourdji said. “If we’re no longersystematically conducting our own comprehensive audits and,instead, collect only certain types of information depending onthe specific State in question, the challenge becomespresenting and updating the informa tion in a validated mannerthat is sufficient in the sense that all States will be able tomake meaningful determinations about their own programmesand oversight capabilities. To achieve this we’re going to needcentralized and web-based database tools that can beemployed to both collect and present the data in real time.”

This centralized database would be fed with continuousinformation submitted through different sources such as theState Aviation Activity Questionnaires (SAAQs), ComplianceChecklists (CCs) and audit protocols. Within the database,queries would be developed to search for established safetyperformance indicators. These indicators would prioritize thoseStates needing audits while also targeting the specific areasrequiring examination. A State’s continued updating andapplication of the SAAQs and CCs will also serve as anindicator of its degree of participation and compliance.

SAAQs, Gourdji explained, will be carefully reworded so ICAOwill know about any organizational changes, new legislation,personnel changes, and more. They will also be designed in a fashion that allows for more transparency—a vital compo nentof CMA.

“ICAO will provide the tools that will allow States to carry out their own internal audits by establishing their ownContinuous Monitoring Programme (CMP) and by using ourwell-established protocols,” explained Gourdji. “They will beable to compare pre-existing and evolving regulationsagainst the ICAO SARPs, audit their own SSP and, while thisis going on, feed us all their collected data so that ICAO canmonitor the internal audit results. Based on this data andother indicators, ICAO will be able to determine where wehave to focus our attention within that State. What thismeans is, rather than the current process of sending out awhole team of auditors to conduct an entire CSA audit, wewill be able instead to take the data, find the problem areas

14

ICA

O J

ourn

al –

Issu

e 05

–20

08

reductions of safety risks will beemployed to deter mine if the processhas served its purpose for meetingperformance expectations. Thesevalidations and evaluations may requireonsite activities that could be accom -plished with the active involvement ofICAO regional office resources andinputs. Depending on the outcome, new data might be required and the fullcycle reiterated in order to refine theState’s safety oversight capability.

Toward a communications-based and transparent safety culture

Civil aviation safety improvements have relied on the develop ment of atransparent culture that encourages the sharing of safety information. Whilethis sharing within the international civil aviation community was originallybased primarily on informationcontained in accident and incidentinvestigation reports, it has evolvedover time to encompass a much largerdata set that permits all civil aviationstakeholders to improve safetyoversight. In fact, according to Gourdji,at the most recent Directors General ofCivil Aviation Conference (DGCA) held atICAO HQ in March 2006, all Stateshave committed to transparency andsharing their audit results. As of July2008, all Member States that havebeen audited since 1999 have providedtheir consent for the release of relevantaudit information to the public.

“We’re not only talking about ICAOanymore when we refer to this newsystem of instant safety data accessand transparency,” Gourdji explained.“Yes, we will now expect that anypertinent information generated byactivities at one of our regional officesor through an ICAO regional cooperativeprogramme (COSCAP, see page 30for more details) initiative will becomeinstantly available to all of ICAO’sinternal safety stakeholders, but aswell we’re seeking to build upon ourexisting agreements with outsideorganizations such as IATA, EURO -CONTROL, EASA, etc., in order to fully

develop this new approach and newculture and truly take it industry wide.”

The research into moving toward theCMA approach is currently beingconducted under Assembly ResolutionA36-4 (Application of a continuousmonitoring approach for the ICAOUSOAP beyond 2010), which directedthe Council to examine the feasibility of all options—including continuousmonitoring—that could be imple men tedat the end of the current audit cycle in2010. It is understood that thisresearch will continue to be bound bythe key safety provisions and objec tivescontained in Annex 1—PersonnelLicensing, Annex 6—Operation ofAircraft, Annex 8—Airworthiness ofAircraft, Annex 11—Air Traffic Services,Annex 13—Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation, and Annex 14—Aerodromes.

Gourdji outlined how the process hasbeen unfolding and what the next stepswill be as ICAO continues its evaluationof the various options now on the table.

“The concept paper on CMA was justsent out in early August, as well as a governance document formalizing astudy group that will be chaired bymyself and select members of the ICAO Secretariat. We in turn are beingprovided with guidance and input by a special ICAO ‘Champions Group’comprised of the Chief of the Safetyand Security Audits Branch, the Directorof the Air Navigation Bureau, as well asall the Regional Directors. Finally, anadditional advisory group has beenformed from members of the AirNavigation Commission, safety expertsfrom concerned international aviationorganizations, as well as represen -tatives from the EC and variousMember States who have alreadybegun taking steps similar to thosecontained in the CMA.”

Looking to the future

During the first quarter of 2009, Gourdjiand his colleagues will present their

study group results to the Council. Theresults will describe the advantagesand disadvantages of various approa -ches to aviation safety—ranging from afull-scale follow-up approach to makingthe switch to continuous monitoring.The Council will consider all the infor -mation, which will include the costs ofeach option, and decide which routewill be best for ICAO to pursue.

Gourdji remarked that maintaining theoption and capability of sending entireteams into States to conduct full-scaleaudits will probably never be completelyruled out, if only because there remaincertain States that continue to havesignificant shortfalls in their safetyoversight capabilities. In these types ofcases, even if ICAO were to adopt theCMA, the scope and capacities of a fullaudit team would still need to becounted upon.

“The bottom line is that ICAO willcontinue to send full-scale audit teamswhen there are States that need it,”Gourdji said. “Similarly, States thatrequire a limited team will get thatlimited team, and States only in needof a fact-finding mission or perhapssimply a Regional Officer to validatecertain information will have thoseresources targeted and sent to them.”

Either way, by tailoring its safetyresponses to the particular needs ofthe State—be it through the CMA orother options now on the table—ICAOwill without a doubt be fulfilling itsglobal aviation safety leadership rolemuch more efficiently and effectively inthe near future. As the essential andinvaluable CSA audit cycle draws to anend in 2010, the Organization will bewell positioned to continue providingthe guidance and resources that Statesexpect from it.

15

A more proactive approach

ICAO’s constantly expanding and evolving reach covers everyaspect of global aviation. Now, as major projects continue tosolidify, the Organization is looking to shift its approach tofocus not just on setting global Standards but also on anincreasing number of activities geared toward implemen -tation, training and education. This change is a key elementof the new direction being pursued by ICAO’s Air NavigationBureau (ANB) and by the Flight Safety Section (FLS) that over -sees a number of important areas under the ANB umbrella.

“Developing new Standards, guidance materials ortechnical instructions just doesn’t suffice,” said MitchellFox, Chief of ICAO’s Flight Safety Section. “On certainfronts we’re not getting the rate of implementation that weshould get so the Organization as a whole is refocusing—from developing Standards to putting greater emphasis onthe actual implementation of those Standards.”

ICAO’s FLS will henceforth play a greater role to further thegoals of uniformity within the industry. By training trainers,explaining principles in detail and reducing room for variedinterpretations of Standards through effective guidancematerials and education, ICAO hopes to see an increase in global consistency over the next five to 10 years.

“It’s a tough shift but it’s a very important shift,” said Fox.“In terms of safety, this Organization is all about Standardsbut those Standards must lead to the desired level ofcompliance and uniformity.”

FLS is responsible for the development of Standards,Recommended Practices, procedures and guidance materialrelated to the operation of aircraft, certification of airlinesand airworthiness of aircraft, the licensing and training ofpersonnel and the safe transport of dangerous goods by air.

ANB/FLS

ICAO’s Flight Safety Section encompassesa wide range of crucial air industry sectorsand programmes that significantly impactupon the day-to-day safety and security ofglobal aviation activities. Section ChiefMitchell Fox and some members of histeam spoke recently with the Journal aboutthe dramatic redirection of his section’spriorities as it moves to place greaterfocus on implementation-related activities.

ICA

O Journal –

Issue 05 –2008

“This was one of those situations where we recognized it wasan area we needed to address but internal resource allocationsjust weren’t permitting it to get done,” Fox said. “Of course, a certain degree of caution must be exercised whenever theindustry is writing documentation for the regulators. To this endthere was an extensive review process at ICAO completed byworking groups within the ICAO Air Navigation Commission, by the Commission as a whole and consultation with ICAOContracting States. Overall, it was a very successful project.These partnering organizations did an exceedingly responsiblejob and they helped us finish the overhaul far faster than wecould have alone.”

These recently established provisions will help bring Statestogether and set them on a more harmonized path, helping torectify a situation that had been growing out of control asvarious States were writing increasingly divergent rules andregulations for this vibrant sector of civil aviation. This lack ofuniformity in regulations from State to State is exactly whatICAO is trying to avoid and having these new Standards in placeis another push toward more harmonized worldwide systems.

The changes to Annex 6 will continue as ICAO looks to modifyand update other important and complex components. Forinstance, fatigue management, which covers the flight and dutytime of the crew, will eventually evolve into fatigue riskmanagement as a panel of world-renowned experts researchthe issue and upgrade the current documentation. Extendeddiversion time operations, often noted as a controversial topic,will go under the microscope as well. A task force that involvesboth the regulators and the industry will look at the implicationsand risks of aircraft operations far from a suitable airport for emergency diversions.

Addressing contemporary issues

Upgrading Standards to better suit States and contemporarytimes is an issue across the board as other FLS sectors tackle

16

In addition, the Section is responsible for the ControlledFlight into Terrain Programme, ICAO aviation trainingstandards and policies, the safety aspects of air transportliberalization and aviation security issues associated withflight operations.

Within each facet of FLS, team leaders are staying on top ofnew developments in the technologies and methodologiesrelated to their areas of expertise while continuing to modify,enhance and implement practices. With the skyrocketing costof fuel now consuming most of the commercial aviationsector’s priorities and concerns, the planned transition will not be easy but eventually the changes will allow strongadvancement toward more uniformity and consistency.

Writing and rewriting: the evolution of documents

In keeping with this strategy, ICAO’s efforts to rebuild someparts of Annex 6—Operation of Aircraft, from the ground up arestarting to take hold as new provisions have gone into effect as early as July 15, 2008.

Annex 6 is one of the pillars of international civil aviation, Foxexplained, and although it has been updated on a nearly annualbasis, ICAO and industry representatives found that, in thecase of Part II, International General Aviation – Aeroplanes,updates were not reflective of modern developments affectingtoday’s general aviation aeroplane industry. Therefore, the wayin which Annex 6, Part II, addresses more sophisticatedaeroplanes, such as jets and heavy aeroplanes operated in thiscivil aviation sector, was completely overhauled. Though thesections dedicated to smaller aircraft remain relativelyuntouched, strong strides have been made toward aligningAnnex 6, Part II, with industry best current practices for themore sophisticated aeroplanes. This was partly achievedthrough valuable partnerships with the International BusinessAviation Council (IBAC) and International Council of AircraftOwner and Pilot Associations (IAOPA).

ICA

O J

ourn

al –

Issu

e 05

–20

08

Mitchell FoxChiefICAO FLS

Henry DefalqueTechnical OfficerLicensing and OperationsICAO FLS

Katherine RooneyTechnical OfficerDangerous GoodsICAO FLS

Hartley ElderTechnical OfficerAirworthinessICAO FLS

Nicole Barrette-SabourinTechnical OfficerTrainingICAO FLS

17

their own rewriting issues. For example,personnel licensing and air operatorcertification are also falling under thespotlight. Henry Defalque, FLS Licensingand Operations Technical Officer, said a new pilot licence scheme is beingimplemented globally and currentmandates demand proof that States areproperly implementing the new licencerequirements. Working under theguidelines of Part I and Part III of Annex6, air operator certification Standardsare also under review and the update willbe applicable by November of this yearwhile ICAO officers also look to amendDoc 8335—Manual of Proce dures forOperations Inspection, Certification andContinued Surveillance, in light of thesenew Standards.

“Safety is, of course, always one of ourmain concerns,” Defalque said. “We’realso trying to ensure that air operatorcertificates are more easily recognized byall States. For now, it is a major issue tofly into places like the United States,China, Europe and others. We’re trying tocreate a universal system that reducesthese trans-border certification issues.”Citing Annex 1— Personnel Licensing,

Defalque said qualification criteria forflight simulation training devices,contained in Doc 9625, are getting amajor refurbishing as well—by expandingthe current 75-page document to twovolumes of more than 700 pages. Thenew draft of Volume One, for aeroplanedevices, will be reviewed by ICAO thisyear and officially published in 2009.The second volume, slated for 2010,

will cover helicopter flight simulationtraining devices.

Airworthiness Guidance: tailoring advice to regulating authorities

In a continuation of efforts to updatedocuments, regulations and guidelines,ICAO is rewriting the AirworthinessManual in a way that is better tailored tothe processes of each State. Where themanual was once designed to adhere tothe format of the Annexes, it will now bereoriented to better reflect States’internal structure and responsibilities.

Once an aircraft leaves the assemblyline, owners must register it with theState of Registry, maintenance must beprogrammed and approved by thatState, and safety instructions must becomplied with, explained Hartley Elder,ICAO FLS Airworthiness TechnicalOfficer and its resident airworthinessspecialist. Where the manual once paidlittle heed to the pivotal role of theowner and the State of Registry andsimply went up through the Annexesnumerically, the new manual will beinterconnected in a fashion that actually

shows the regulating authorities theexact steps to take for specific aircraft.Elder described the shift as part of agrowing effort to realign the focus fromthe design and construction of aircraftto the process of ensuring the aircraftremain airworthy during their entireservice life, a process called ‘conti -nuing airworthiness.’

ICA

O Journal –

Issue 05 –2008

The move to revise the manual wasgreatly influenced by safety oversightaudits and, as the writing processcontinues, the major findings of recentaudits will be incorporated into themanual as well (Editor’s note: for moreon the scope and content of ICAO’ssafety oversight audit programme,please refer to “Data determinations”,on page 9).

Dangerous Goods: understanding, regulating and training

Annex 18 deals with the “Safe Trans -port of Dangerous Goods by Air.” Ingeneral it sets down broad principlesbut one of the Standards requires thatdangerous goods be carried inaccordance with the Technical Instruc -tions for the Safe Transport of Dange -rous Goods by Air. States are requiredby Annex 18 to have inspection andenforcement procedures to ensure thatdangerous goods are being carried incompliance with the requirements ofthe Technical Instructions.

Dangerous goods are carried regularlyand routinely by air all over the world. Toensure they do not put an aircraft and itsoccupants at risk there are internationalStandards which each State, under theprovisions of the Chicago Convention,are required to introduce into nationallegislation. This system ensures govern -mental control over the carriage ofdangerous goods by air and gives world -wide harmoni zation of safety standards.

The newest of the Annexes, Annex 18first came into effect in the 1980s and,along with the detailed specifications ofthe Technical Instructions, has evolvedinto a document with multi-modalimplications drawing on the cooperationand input from a number of organiza -tions. As Dr. Katherine Rooney,Technical Officer, Dangerous Goodsexplained, safety has long been thedriving purpose of Annex 18 discus sionsbut, with time, security has increas inglybecome an additional and importantfocus to the work in this area. For Dr. Rooney, the improvement of the

Another area of concern is the denial of shipment of radioactive materials—even those that may have been properlypackaged and documented. ManyStates have added in extra layers ofbureaucracy that prevent the shippingof time-sensitive and lifesavingmaterials such as radiopharmaceuti -cals. Because of their very brief half-lives, this has become a major issuefor the International Atomic EnergyAgency (IAEA) as they look to easethese State-by-State regulations. With a facilitation panel in place, ICAO isworking closely with the IAEA and theWorld Health Organization (WHO) toreach this objective.

Describing it as one of her “hobbyhorses,” Rooney noted that thereabsolutely needs to be more emphasison training as well. Thus far, the ICAOsafety oversight audit process hasrevealed deficiencies in this area.

As officials look for ways to motivateStates to implement trainingprogrammes, Rooney said it is

18

ICA

O J

ourn

al –

Issu

e 05

–20

08

speed by which ICAO can address newdevelopments in this area, as well asnew approaches to training and othertools to enhance field awareness, areat the top of her priority list.

“Unlike other Annexes, Annex 18reaches well beyond the airport,”Rooney began. “Airlines are dependentnot only on their own personnel andprocesses but on those of the shipperswho package, classify and label goodsbefore they reach the airport. This hasimplications not only for operatoroversight of dangerous goods but alsofor how ICAO designs and distributesemergency addendums and otheradvisories that need to impact alldangerous goods safety stakeholdersvirtually simultaneously.”

Because of the seemingly endlesscontact list, informing all the disciplinesin all the States is a difficult task,Rooney explained. Current investi ga -tions are looking into how the Organi -zation could be better adapted to relayingthis type of information.

This situation was brought into veryclear focus recently when a gascylinder that had been offloaded andput into storage in Dubai exploded,injuring one person. The explosionwas large enough that, were it tohave happened in a cargo hold inflight, it would have been sufficient tobring the aircraft down. Because itwas a flight from the United Kingdomto Dubai, the United Kingdom CivilAviation Authority (UKCAA) launchedan investigation. Based on the interimfindings, there was a request for anemergency addendum from ICAO and,after an emergency working groupwas formed in April, ICAO Councilapproval was given in June.

“By ICAO standards this was an extre -mely fast turnaround,” Rooney said.“But it still wasn’t fast enough.”Some of the current investigationsgoing on in her area are looking intohow ICAO processes could be betterstreamlined to address just this type of emergency concern.

19

ICA

O Journal –

Issue 05 –2008

important to look beyond just the aviation component. Fromthe ground to the sky, goods, dangerous or not, pass throughmany hands and, as the airline industry saw in December, allit takes is one mistake—one improperly packaged gascylinder—to have a potentially catastrophic result.

Training and implementing: ICAO takes an applied approach

Citing the diminishing supply of skilled workers now affectingaviation across all operational areas, FLS Training OfficerNicole Barrette-Sabourin said there is a long list of peoplewho need training now and the looming question for ICAO and the industry is: how?

“From technicians and engineers to pilots and air trafficcontrollers, there is a significant need for training and ICAO is currently looking at solutions for these safety-criticalpositions. The approach will be competency-based. Ratherthan simply determining the Standards and RecommendedPractices (SARPS) and including what needs to be known inthe guidance materials, ICAO will set requirements foraviation personnel to demonstrate a firm command of theirjob skills. To do this, ICAO must identify the key competen -cies that need to be achieved for all the different positions.To set a standard for each discipline, the goal is to collect,document and maintain competency frameworks for thevarious positions. From these frameworks it is hoped thattraining programmes, based on the understanding of eachposition, will be developed and implemented.”

The idea is for service providers and airlines to be given thebuilding blocks to carry this out, but the onus will still be onthem to develop and implement these programmes andmeasure associated competencies. The States would then begiven the tools to self assess whether trained personnel aremeeting the required competency levels. Competency-basedlicensing assessment was first initiated with the multi-crewpilot licence (MPL) —an alternative method of training pilots.Contrary to the traditional pilot licensing requirements, whichare based on inventory and hours logged, the MPL trainingscheme is focused on the need to develop competencies thatwere identified by analysing the tasks performed by a crewoperating a modern multi-crew transport aeroplane in allphases of flight. In accordance with modern instructionalsystem design, these competency units were broken downinto elements that were further divided into performancecriteria or statements of observable behaviour, each corres -ponding to a training objective. From this, course developersare able to establish an effective curriculum by defining theultimate training objectives and mastery tests and thenhighlighting the training modules and devices required todevelop these skills. With the competency-based approachhaving proven successful, ICAO is looking to expand itsapplication to other areas.

“It’s a paradigm shift,” said Barrette-Sabourin. “It’s a gradualchange and it will take time to introduce because people areused to being trained and educated based on older models.”

Training methodologies will also be examined as ICAO looksfor more implementation of Standards and guidancematerials. With a wealth of information in the coffers ready to be transferred throughout multiple levels, a significantchallenge lies ahead in disseminating all that information and overseeing its use. Training the trainers, Mitchell Foxobserved, is one of the more effective means of transferringthat information.

“National regulations on what an airline pilot licence holdershould be capable of doing are very important,” Foxexplained, “but if these aren’t phrased in a measurable,competency-based fashion, examiners, State by State, will be interpreting the Standards in a multitude of ways. With190 ICAO Contracting States, the overall objective is to avoidthe potential confusion and mass misinterpretation thatgrows from individual States not being given the proper toolsto understand the regulations and guidance material.”

Global Aviation Safety Plan

Developed with the Industry Safety Strategy Group (ISSG), the ICAO Global Aviation Safety Plan (GASP) is becomingincreasingly important. The plan recognizes safety as ashared responsibility between industry and regulators andseeks to strengthen their capabilities across the board.Describing the programme’s expansion into other aspects of the industry as a necessary strategy, Fox said there will be a shift to align other work programmes with these newerglobal safety initiatives.

Though garnering the support and resources needed tostrengthen sectors of the aviation industry by implementingpotentially costly measures is not an easy process, Foxexplains, it is vital nonetheless.

“It’s a difficult discussion right now because, with the costsof fuel as high as they are, the airline industry is goingthrough a very tough time,” Fox said. “When the industry islosing money, it is sometimes hard to focus on a target fiveor 10 years down the line. Those of us who have been in thisindustry know that there are cyclic ups and downs and that toimprove safety you always have to be focused on the longterm. In my view, aviation remains a vibrant, robust industrythat has recovered many, many times from similarsituations—and it will recover again. From a safety aspect,ICAO needs to remain focused on the future.”

ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION AND PREVENTION

20

ICA

O J

ourn

al –

Issu

e 05

–20

08

“Divisional Meetings of this type are held very infrequentlyand are probably only second in importance to the ICAOAssembly itself,” begins Marcus Costa. Costa is Chief of theICAO Accident Investigation and Prevention (AIG) Section andhis excitement and enthusiasm for his Section’s field ofactivity is palpable as we begin our discussion.

“States have provided us with a tremendous amount of inputand objectives in the build up to this event and one of theclear priorities that we have determined is the need forgreater regional cooperation in investigative activities,” Costacontinued. “What we’re hearing from Members is that thesignificant budgets required to conduct full-scale investiga -tions may be prohibitive for certain States acting individually.Delegates are hoping to address this concern through thedevelopment of improved regional cooperation mechanismsbut also through the assignment of degrees of priority toaccident types—defining for instance those that would triggera full response and those that could be adequately attendedto by a limited assessment team.

“As with all of our activities, prevention of recurrencesremains the guiding priority in this case and so the catego -rization hierarchies under discussion will likely reflect thedifferences between accidents involving causes and effectsthat have been previously documented vs. those that seemmore likely to reveal new lessons for aviation safetyspecialists to respond to,” Costa remarked. Given that a full-scale investigation of a larger commercial jet accident cansometimes engender budgets upward of US$100 million,

AIG Divisional MeetingRare gathering of investigative experts spotlightsincident prioritization, Unmanned Aircraft System(UAS) concerns and reinforcing the primacy ofprevention as the sole objective of investigations

Always a tremendous catalystfor the discovery of safetyrelated information that haspaved the way to aviation’sprogress, AccidentInvestigations and some ofthe specific Annex 13provisions that trigger and

provide for them are being put under reviewthis fall as the world’s most importantAccident Investigation and Prevention eventbrings together accident and incidentinvestigators from all corners of the world.Marcus Costa, Chief of ICAO’s AccidentInvestigation and Prevention (AIG) Section,spoke to the Journal recently about some of the key matters up for discussion in this first meeting of its kind since 1999.

Following an extensive two-year consultative process todevelop and finalize the significant agenda items forming thebasis of their discussions, aviation Accident Investigation andPrevention specialists from all 190 ICAO Member States aswell as concerned international organizations have beeninvited to come to ICAO HQ in October for the first meeting of its kind in almost a decade.

High on the list of the many topics up for discussion by theassembled experts will be: how future accidents and incidentsmight be categorized and prioritized to better target the signi -ficant budgetary allocations required to conduct them; thetypes of amendments to Annex 13 that will be required toaccommodate the increasing prevalence of UAS and very light jet aircraft movements; and reinforcing the fundamentalconcept that the primary purpose of aircraft accident andincident investigations is to uncover data to assist in futureprevention of similar occurrences, rather than forming thebasis to establish responsibility and allocate blame.

21

ICA

O Journal –

Issue 05 –2008

the establishment of these cooperativeprogrammes and the need for a higherdegree of classification and prioritiza tionis very clear. The meeting will thereforeconsider how States could best allocatetheir resources in light of the existingprovision to investigate all accidents,while also considering the need toinvestigate more serious incidents.

As the world’s skies continue to see an increased preva lence of UnmannedAircraft Systems (UASs—see a relatedstory submission from the IAOPA inJournal Issue 04, 2008) and new VeryLight Jet (VLJ) aircraft, Costa notedthat another important area ofdiscussion for he and his colleagueswill be to amend the definition ofaccident so as to include UASs andassociated categories, as well asamending aircraft weight classes foroccurrence reporting under Annex 13.To date, ICAO receives data reportsonly of occurrences to aircraft of amaximum mass limit over 2,250 kg.Consideration will therefore be given bythe meeting to lower the maximummass limit or to amend the relatedprovision so that the Organiza tioncould also begin receiving accidentreports of VLJs with a maximum masslimit equal to or below 2,250 kg.

Among the many other important areasof discussion that will be exploredduring the Divisional Meeting, one ofthe more fundamental will be thereaffirmation of AIG activities in allregions of the world as safety-relatedactivities intended to assist with theprevention of future accidents, therebyhelping States avoid loss of lives andvaluable resources. In this connection,Costa emphatically noted that thebackbone of Annex 13 lies in itsparagraph 3.1 that reads: “The soleobjective of the investigation of anaccident or incident shall be theprevention of accidents and incidents.It is not the purpose of this activity toapportion blame or liability.”

SMS concepts expressly link thesuccess of any safety related inves -

tigation or process with a culture ofnon-penalization for States orindividuals involved in incidentreporting. It is understood that overallsafety concerns must trump tenden -cies toward blame and punishment inorder to foster a culture of opennessand participation—leading to moresafety data reporting and thereforemore effective safety solutions—rather than a culture of recrimination,secrecy and fear that would simplyperpetuate safety risks.

“Accident investigations are, bydefinition, reactive in nature, but thereality remains that many stakeholdersstill operate from a mindset wherebythey will only initiate the type ofcomprehensive investigation that’srequired to truly get to the root of a

safety issue once a serious event hasoccurred,” Costa said. “Annex 13,especially with the amendments beingconsidered this Fall, provides us withthe basis and the tools we require toconduct these investigations thoroughlyand fairly, but the results we achieveabsolutely must remain primarily toolsfor the processes of prevention—notevidence for those who would seek toassign blame. This cultural awarenessruns to the heart of all safety activities,whether they be reactive, proactive orpredictive in nature.”

For a more comprehensive review of thesubstance and results of the AIG 2008Divisional Meeting, please look for thistopic to be presented again in JournalIssue 01, 2009.

ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION AND PREVENTION (AIG) DIVISIONAL MEETING (2008):

SUBJECT 1: Annex 13

Subject 1.1: Chapter 1 of Annex 13

Subject 1.2: Chapter 5 of Annex 13

Investigation of accidents and serious incidentsIndependence of the investigationUse of information from flight data recorder (FDR)Participation of States in investigations

Subject 1.3: Chapter 7 of Annex 13

Subject 1.4: Format of the Final Report in Annex 13

Subject 1.5: Notification of accidents and serious incidents

Subject 1.6: Final Report

Safety recommendationsAction on safety recommendationsRelease of Final Reports

Subject 1.7: Attachment E to Annex 13

SUBJECT 2: Recent developments in investigation and prevention matters

SUBJECT 3: Cooperation among states in investigations

SUBJECT 4: Management of safety data and representation

SUBJECT 5: Conduct of the investigation

SUBJECT 6: Regional cooperation in accident and incident investigations

SUBJECT 7: Resolving deficiencies identified during ICAO audits

MAIN AGENDA ITEMS

Winds ofchange in aviation medicine

In its continuing effort toadapt to a changingindustry and the constantlyevolving world of medicalscience, Dr. Anthony Evansreports that ICAO is takingnew strides towardmodernizing the guidelinesfor aviation authorities

focusing on issues such as a pilot’s ageand annual medical exams, insulin-treateddiabetes, HIV, as well as providing newadvice on mental health issues and the use of antidepressants.

Dr. Anthony Evans is Chief of the ICAO Aviation MedicineSection (MED). The extensive spectrum of MED’s ongoingduties include monitoring developments in the field ofmedicine and aviation medicine while adjusting Annex 1provisions as necessary, reviewing and maintainingcurrent ICAO literature such as the Manual of Civil AviationMedicine, and providing guidance to licensing authoritiesin Contrac ting States on medical standards.

Subjects such as mental health and the use of anti -depressants remain controversial topics in the field ofaviation medicine. While examiners have long tested forobvious physical conditions to ensure pilots don’t fall illmid-flight, other potentially problematic circumstancesconcerning mental health and behavioural aspects relatedto health are often under-discussed and may beoverlooked. Concentrating on the detection of physical

illness in pilots is increasingly being questioned in consi -deration of the fact that sudden, unexpected incapacitationfrom physical illness has not been responsible for a fatalaviation accident involving a large airliner in more than 30 years.

“The last known fatal accident involving a large airliner thatimplicated physical incapacitation as a contributory causewas a heart attack back in 1972,” Evans began, “and yet thecurrent medical examination still focuses primarily on thephysical exam and doesn’t look at the mental health aspects in any detail. We have seen evidence, however, of profes -sional pilots abusing alcohol or drugs and have concernsabout possible suicidal tendencies involved in fatal accidents.However, we still firmly concentrate on detection of physicaldisease in the medical assessment.”

ICA

O J

ourn

al –

Issu

e 05

–20

08

AVIATION MEDICINE

22

Evans noted that a letter was sent out this past May informingMember States and selected international organizations thatthe Air Navigation Commission, at the seventh meeting of its176th Session held on November 20, 2007, had consideredproposals developed by the Secretariat, with the assistance ofthe Medical Provisions Study Group (MPSG), to amend theStandards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) in Annex 1—Personnel Licensing relating to medical provisions, and also toAnnex 6—Operation of Aircraft, Part I—International Com -mercial Air Transport—Aeroplanes relating to medical supplies.

The amendment proposals to Annex 1 introduce some newconcepts in the field of aviation medicine to better addresscurrent aeromedical risks to flight safety. It’s a letter that, Evans said, “brings a number of areas up to date while puttingforward some important new philosophical points regardingwhere we’re placing our emphasis during routine examinations.”

Age related issues: a change in pilot examination focus

One of these philosophical points concerns the ongoingdiscussions regarding age and annual medical examinations.Evans said that most professional pilots, regardless of age, are examined once a year as a routine under current provision.Presently, these examinations check for obvious physicalcomplications—such as the potential for cardio vasculardisease as discussed above. Those pilots who fly passengerflights solo, or who are between 60 and 65 (65 being themaximum age for a professional pilot), are routinely examinedtwice a year or possibly more if they have a specific medical problem.

Given the very low risk of younger pilots suffering a mid-flightheart attack, Evans said the letter suggests a more integratedapproach to medical examinations by proposing that examinerslook for the other, less-obvious triggers that adversely affectpilot performance—such as depression or alcohol abuse.

“In my view, there is a lack of credible evidence to supportphysical disease as a major problem in younger pilots, andage-related illnesses are adequately addressed in the olderpilots,” Evans said. “While no one is suggesting that we ignorethe possibility of physical incapacitation in pilots, the realchallenge at hand is how to strike the right balance betweenmental, behavioural and physical issues in the routine medical examination.”

Proposals surrounding mental health issues

Encouraged by work undertaken by the Aerospace MedicalAssociation (AsMA), an ICAO Medical Provisions Study Groupwas recently formed to review some of the current standardsand recommended practices of aviation medicine, Evansexplained. That MPSG agreed with the AsMA’s assessment thatinstances of physical disease were relatively low in pilots under 40

24

ICA

O J

ourn

al –

Issu

e 05

–20

08

and it recommended that moreemphasis be placed on mental healthaspects in such pilots.

The proposal allows the regulatingauthority to, at their discretion, omitcertain components of the physicalexamination in the under-40 pilot, whilegiving the designated examiner moretime to privately talk with the pilot. Thediscussions, with the exception ofextreme cases, would remain confi -dential. The main objective would be touncover less obvious issues whileproviding an opportunity for counselling.The idea is not to try and detectpreviously undiscovered serious illness,but to bring out aspects of the pilot’slife that would otherwise be unknown to the examiner and which, while notcreating an immediate flight safety risk,could do so in the future if not addres -sed. While advice and basic counsellingcould remain ‘off the books,’ Evansnoted, any treatment or high-risksituations would still need to bereported and dealt with more formally.By keeping most conver sations andadvice unrecorded, pilots would begiven a more comfortable environmentin which they could seek help andpotentially rectify their lifestyle beforeany problem spirals out of control.

“The controversial path that we’vetaken is to propose that the discussionthe examiner has with the pilot shouldnot be considered part of the typical,recorded, medical assessment,’ Evanssaid. “The idea here is that if the pilotdoes have some lifestyle problems,drinking too much for example, theexaminer would be able to provideprivate advice in a confidential andcomfortable setting that will hopefullyprevent a potentially serious problemlater on.”

Though examiners may be experts atfinding physical problems or at offeringadvice on healthy living, Evans saiddoctors will need some guidance whenapproaching mental health concerns.ICAO, he said, provides thoseguidelines in the form of possible

questions the examiner could ask. They are questions, he said, whichhave been proven to be useful tools indetecting and preventing problems inthe general population and it isbelieved that, when applied to pilots,they will be just as effective.

New guidelines on the use of antidepressants

Another hot topic, Evans said, is theuse of antidepressants among pilots—something that has long been deemedunacceptable. At the moment, mostregulating authorities do not allowpilots to fly when they are clinicallydepressed or using antidepressants.

Pilots who are told they cannot work ifthey are suffering from an admitteddepression, treated or not, might betempted to withhold informationconcerning their use of medication orthey might not admit to their mentalhealth issues at all. While some doseek treatment and take the necessarysteps to restore their health and flyagain, others may go untreated and flydepressed or conceal the use ofantidepressants from the regulatingauthorities in order to stay under theradar and continue to work. Data onthis topic is understandably sparse, butthere is sufficient information from pilotrepresentative organizations and postmortem toxicology of pilots involved inaccidents to engender some concern.

Currently, the general opinion amongaviation authorities is that the use ofantidepressants needs to beinvestigated and discussed, accordingto Evans, and ICAO’s stance, as notedin the letter, suggests States beallowed to permit the use of certainantidepressants among pilots—whomust be under close medical super -vision. Citing improved medicationswith less negative side effects andadvancements in the treatment ofdepression, Evans said there are atleast three drugs on the market thatare potentially permissible. Heemphasized that many drugs used

to treat depression today have far fewerpotentially dangerous side effects, suchas drowsiness.

Limiting the spread of communicable diseases

Turning to a different subject andreferring to an article in the Conventionthat requires governments to reducethe risk of spreading communicablediseases by air, Evans said that mostefforts toward preparing for a potentialpandemic had concentrated on thoseaspects relating to disease surveillanceand provision of health care. He islooking to increase efforts with respectto planning in the aviation sector.

Evans said ICAO could work effectivelywith World Health Organization (WHO)to ensure a joint approach involvingboth the aviation and public healthsectors. While public health authoritieshave tended to target a variety ofissues—from vaccinations to hospitalservices—the MED remit hastraditionally concentrated on the healthof flight crews and air traffic controllers.Given this, Evans said he is looking tofill the gaps between public healthauthorities and the aviation industrywhile designing guidelines that focus oncommunicable diseases.

With this in mind, ICAO MED is hosting a team meeting in Bangkok this comingSeptember that is going to bringtogether three United Nations agencies,Evans said, and the meeting hasgarnered a lot of interest. Working withUN agencies like the Office for theCoordination of Humanitarian Affairs(OCHA) and the WHO, the goal is to im -prove preparedness planning in aviation.

Although only a one day event, Evanshas high hopes that the level of interestand enthusiasm being shown byinternational medical leaders is a signthat the meeting will provide a strongpush toward the development of newcross-sector approaches to this seriousglobal health concern.

25

Progress continues with Level 4 implementation: 134 of 190 ICAO Member States now either compliant or with plans in placeBy Nicole Barrette-Sabourin, Technical Officer, Flight Safety Section

LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY UPDATE

As of March 5, 2008, States not yetcompliant with ICAO Level 4 Englishlanguage proficiency requirements wererequired to have published theirimplementation plans on the ICAO FlightSafety Exchange (FSIX). ICAO requires thatthese plans describe the steps beingundertaken to achieve compliance with thelanguage proficiency requirement in time forthe March 2011 deadline, and that they noteany interim measures in place to mitigaterisk, as required, for pilots, air trafficcontrollers and aeronautical station operatorsinvolved in international operations.

In March 2003, new language provisions were formallyadopted which became applicable on March 5, 2008.Related Annexes to the Chicago Convention were modifiedaccordingly, including Annex 10—Aeronautical Telecommu -nications, where the use of the English language isspecified. Annex 10 now states that “the air-ground radio -telephony communications shall be conducted in the

language normally used by the station on the ground or in the English language” and that “the English language shall be available, on request from any aircraft station, at all stations on the ground serving designated airports androutes used by international air services.”

Annex 1—Personnel Licensing, stipulates that the languageproficiency requirements apply to pilots, air traffic controllersand aeronautical station operators involved in internationaloperations. It notes that they should be able to demonstratethe ability to speak and understand the language used in radio -telephony (RT) communication to the ICAO Operational Level 4.

Recognizing that some States would not be able to meet theapplicability date, the 36th Session of the ICAO Assemblyurged Members States to accept non-compliant pilots fromother States into their airspace until March 5, 2011, provid edthat the States that issued or rendered valid the non-compliantlicenses had posted their language proficiency implementationplans on the ICAO FSIX (www.icao.int/fsix/lp.cfm).

In addition, the Assembly also urged Member States not torestrict operators conducting commercial or general aviationoperations in the respective State’s territories from entering

ICA

O Journal –

Issue 05 –2008

REGIONAL WORKSHOPS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS FOR LEVEL 4 LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY REQUIREMENTS

The ICAO Regional Workshop on thedevelopment of implementation plans forlanguage proficiency requirements–ICAOAsia Pacific Region—was held at the Asiaand Pacific Office, Bangkok, from January29 to 31, 2008. ICAO has conducted eightworkshops between December 2007 andearly March 2008, in which a total of 488 participants from 102 States took part.

Participants to the Bangkok Language Proficiency Workshop with course instructors,Paul Lamy (middle) and Fareed Shah (fifth from right). In all, 85 participants took part in the event

26

ICA

O J

ourn

al –

Issu

e 05

–20

08

the airspace of other Member Stateswhere air traffic controllers or radiostation operators had not yet met the new language proficiency requirements.This condition was also tied to theMarch 2011 deadline, with similarrequire ments that the non-compliantStates had to have posted theirlanguage proficiency implementationplans to the ICAO FSIX.

The implementation plans in questionare required to describe the steps beingundertaken to achieve compliance withthe language proficiency requirement byMarch 2011, as well as noting anyinterim measures in place to mitigaterisk, as required, for pilots, air trafficcontrollers and aeronautical stationoperators involved in internationaloperations.

To date, out of ICAO’s 190 MemberStates, 45 have indicated that they arecompliant with the new languageproficiency requirements while 89 have

filed an implementation plan in full or inpart. Clearly, much work remains to bedone in order to achieve full complianceby March 2011.

ICAO began facilitating the implemen -tation process well before the applica -bility date, including eight workshopsconducted from December 2007 untilearly March 2008, in which 488 parti -cipants from 102 States took part.

ICAO has also developed guidancematerial to support the implementationprocess, including the Manual on theImplementation of LanguageProficiency Requirements (Doc 9835)and a CD containing speech samples oflevel 3, 4 and 5 speakers, as well as adetailed rating for each. The FSIXImplemen tation of language proficiencyrequire ments page on the Organiza -tion’s website (www.icao.int/fsix/lp.cfm)provides guidelines on the developmentof implementation plans and containssample plans submitted by States. The

Frequently Asked Questions under theFlight Safety Section–Personnel Licen -sing, contains a full explanation of therequirements and related issues.

An ICAO circular on globally-harmonizedtesting criteria will be published shortly.Its objective is to provide licensingauthorities, operators and air navigationservice providers with tools to developand/or assess language testingservices. The second edition of Doc9835 is also planned to integrateupdated information.

In addition, a number of symposia,regional seminars and workshops wereheld from 2004 to 2007 to sensitizeStates and interested stakeholders tothe new requirements and to assist inthe application of the provisions. Stillmore activities are planned to help allstakeholders cooperate in meeting the2011 deadline.

THE MEXICAN EXAMPLE OF LEVEL 4 COMPLIANCE PREPAREDNESS

The Mexican experience with Level 4 compliance has been a greatsuccess thus far as the State continues on schedule with its edu -cational and testing programmes in order to meet ICAO’s extended2011 language proficiency deadline. As required, Mexico submittedits plan to ICAO before the March 2008 deadline for States whosecompliance efforts were still ongoing. It expects to fulfill 100 percentof its Level 4 proficiency requirements before the end of 2009.

To develop a valid and reliable exam to test the capacity to useEnglish in aeronautic communication, Mexican authorities haveapproved four evaluation tools—one of these ensuring thatcompetence is tested directly in situations that replicatedauthentic communication as closely as possible, rather thanindirectly through discrete exams. Furthermore, assessment byMexican examiners or observers reflects the capacity ofexaminees to use their language resources in combination—expressed in terms that correspond to ICAO’s holistic descriptorsand rating scale.

The Mexican tool produces a set of specifications to be met byflight simulation scenarios (test situations) and includes anobservation procedure that guides the examiner in verifying thecommunication produced by the examinee. In addition, theMexican solution is practical and cost-efficient, meaning exami nersare able to evaluate examinees essentially while they observe them(real-time conditions), and that English testers were also able tostart evaluating examinees after a simple introduction and a briefpractice period (minimum-training conditions).

A simulation scenario was developeded on the basis of previousresearch regarding documented accidents, for example Avianca 052,and with ICAO’s requirements in mind. The scenario was implement -ed via an adaptable script, a series of physical setting specificationsand computer displayed flight trajectories and parameters.

Twenty (volunteer) pilot/controller communications that took place in the context of that scenario were recorded. The communicationswere transcribed and each pilot’s communicative competence was determined (based on ICAO’s rating scale). In parallel, thestructure of an analytic matrix was developed that recovered impor -tant distinctions from the communicative approach to languageteaching and integrated relevant contributions from various schoolsof linguistics. The transcriptions were analysed and the matrix slotswere filled-in. The key features of aeronautical language use wereidentified and a flowchart for efficient assessment observationswas produced on the basis of the identified features.

27

Enhancing aviation safetyin AfricaAFI Plan progress continues on pace

The Comprehensive Regional Implementation Plan forAviation Safety in Africa (AFI Plan) was developed toaddress the concerns expressed by the ICAO Council on thesafety status of aircraft operations in the AFI Region. TheCouncil recognized that the problems facing the States inthe AFI Region and other States around the world aresimilar in nature. The Council was also aware, however,that the acute economic and political issues influencing the situation in the AFI Region posed a complex challengethat truly demanded a new approach. ICAO thereforedeveloped the AFI Plan to address aviation safety concernsand support African States to meet their internationalobligations for safety oversight.

The AFI Plan was presented to a high-level conference thatwas convened in Montreal on September 17, 2007. Theconference endorsed the AFI Plan, which was subsequently

AFI UPDATE

To give effect to ICAO’sComprehensive RegionalImplementation Plan forAviation Safety in Africa (AFIPlan), the AFI ComprehensiveImplementation Programme(ACIP) Steering Committeehas been coordinating

internally within the various ICAO Bureauxand Offices (including the Regional Offices)and externally with all AFI stakeholders,partner States and organizations, in order to establish three key areas of English andFrench language consultations and activitiesduring the remainder of 2008 and through2009. Haile Belai, ICAO Chief, AFIComprehensive Implementation Programme,provided the Journal with an update on thesenear-term programmes and objectives in thecontext of ICAO’s broader safety aspirationsfor the AFI Region.

ICA

O Journal –

Issue 05 –2008

28

presented to the 36th Session of the ICAO Assembly(September 18–28, 2007). The Assembly tasked both theCouncil and the Secretary General to implement the AFI Planwithin the shortest possible period. The Assembly’s AFI PlanResolution, A36-1, also emphasized a heightened leadershiprole and accountability by ICAO for the Plan’s effectiveimplementation, supported by strong programme managementand coordination activities.

Thus, under ICAO’s leadership, the AFI Plan calls for collabora -tion between regulatory agencies and industry in the imple -mentation of initiatives aimed at rectifying safety deficiencies.To this end, specific objectives have been developed requiringICAO to:

a) Increase compliance with ICAO SARPs and industry best practices.

b) Increase the number of qualified personnel at the industryand oversight levels.

c) Improve the quality of inspectors and other civil aviation staff through training.

d) Ensure impartial and unimpeachable investigation andreporting of serious accidents and incidents.

e) Enhance regional cooperation.f) Enhance capacity of regional and sub-regional safety

oversight systems.g) Improve assistance in oversight to least developed States. h) Provide expert aviation knowledge within the reach of

the targeted States via the web.

To give effect to these and other similar objectives, theSecretary General established the AFI Comprehensive Imple -mentation Programme (ACIP) and nominated the members of theACIP Steering Committee (ACIP-SC) to oversee the work of ACIP.The ACIP SC held its first meeting in February 2008 andapproved the work programme of ACIP that was endorsed by theCouncil during it’s 183rd Session. Thus, ACIP was tasked toensure proper coordination both internally within the variousICAO Bureaux and Offices (including the Regional Offices) andexternally with all stakeholders, partner States and organiza -tions. It was also responsible for coordinating and facilitatingthe performance of a comprehensive gap analysis as a first step towards implementing the objectives of the AFI Plan.

To meet its assigned tasks and effectively implement the AFIPlan, ACIP management identified three focus areas upon whichits activities and work plan have been developed. These are:

1. Enabling States to establish and maintain a sustainablesafety oversight system.

Under this focus area, ACIP cooperates and coordinates with allstakeholders in order to assist States to build the capability foran effective and sustainable safety oversight system, nationallyor at the Regional level. Taking into consideration the existing

capability of most of the African States, ACIP and stakeholdersclearly support the establishment of Regional Safety OversightOrganizations on the basis of existing platforms and coope -rative agencies. To this end, ACIP has closely cooperated withthe Industry Safety Strategy Group (ISSG) to conduct GlobalAviation Safety Roadmap seminars and workshops. The GASRworkshops lead to gap-analyses covering all players andstakeholders in the aviation system in a State, with the aim of

ICA

O J

ourn

al –

Issu

e 05

–20

08

Global Aviation Safety Roadmap (GASR) workshops conducted andplanned in cooperation with the Industry Safety Strategy Group(ISSG) and the host States:

Abuja, Nigeria (English) – April 14 to 16, 2008.

Arusha, Tanzania (English) August 12 to 14, 2008.

Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso (French) November 11 to 13, 2008.

Lusaka, Zambia (English) December 2 to 4, 2008.

Gap-analysis conducted or planned:

Banjul Accord Group (BAG) States following the Abuja GASR workshop (June 16 to July 25, 2008).

East Africa Community (ECA) and neighbouring States following theArusha GASR workshop (October/November 2008).

Economic and Monetary Union of Western African (UEMOA) followingthe Ouagadougou GASR workshop (February/March 2009).

Southern African Development Community (SADC) States, followingthe Lusaka workshop (February/March 2009).

Seminars, workshops and courses:

A one-day seminar (English) focused at high-level decision makers(civil aviation authorities and the African aviation industry (airlines,airports, air traffic management, etc.).

A three-day seminar/workshop on State Safety Programme (SSP) focused at regulators.

Safety Management System (SMS) course directed at Safety Officersfrom industry and civil aviation authorities including safety teamsfrom regional organizations.

The above three seminar/workshops and course are designed to beoffered as one package as follows:

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia (English), September 29 to October 3, 2008.

Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso (French), February 2009.

Two additional packages in English and French to be delivered in2009 (venue and period to be determined).

Additional seminars and workshops planned for 2009 in coordinationwith the Air Navigation Bureau (ANB) and the Regional Offices (venue and period to be determined later):

Licensing, Flight operations and cabin safety.

Aircraft certification and airworthiness.

Air traffic management and ground operations.

Accident prevention and investigation.

Transport of dangerous goods by air.

Aviation medicine.

The above seminar/workshops will be delivered in English and French.

A SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR AFRICA: THE ACIP WORK PLAN

29

addressing the challenges faced byStates and recommending viable andsustainable solutions.

The first GASR workshop was held inAbuja, Nigeria last March and the secondin Arusha, Tanzania, in August 2008. AFrench version of the workshop isplanned for Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso,in November 2008, and one for theSADC States is scheduled for December2008. The first series of gap-analysis ofthe seven Banjul Accord Group memberStates has been completed and theinformation gathered is now beingtabulated, with the aim of developingrecommendations leading to a sus -tainable solution to enable States toacquire the capability for safety oversightat the national or regional level.

2. Assisting States to resolve identified deficiencies in the shortest possible time.

In this focus area, ACIP is charged topromote and encourage Regionalcooperation based on existing Regionalplatforms, such as the COSCAPs(editor’s note: see COSCAPs overview on page 30), to assist States within theirrespective Regions to resolve identifieddeficiencies. This is a short-term solutionbecause the ultimate goal is to enableStates to develop and maintain aneffective safety oversight system, eithernationally or at a Regional level. ACIP isalso charged to promote and facilitatecooperation among existing Regionalaviation training centers and takeadvantage of the centers for capacitybuilding activities directed at resolvingidentified deficiencies. In this regard,ACIP and TCB, in coope ration with AFCACand ASECNA, intend to hold a Conferenceof all aviation training institutes in thecontinent with the aim of developing aprogramme to enhance standar dizationand quality control among aviationtraining centers in Africa.

3. Assist aviation service providers inAfrica to enhance the development of a safety culture among their employeesand in conducting their business.

This is an area where ICAO is closely work-ing with the aviation industry to enhancethe overall safety of aircraft operations.

To this end, ACIP is currently developingguidance material for States to assistthem in the creation and maintenance ofa State Safety Programme (SSP) that willalso include a requirement for theindustry to develop Safety ManagementSystems (SMS). A SSP seminar/work -shop and SMS training course will beconducted in both English and Frenchduring the third and fourth quarters of2008 respectively. Accordingly, the firstsession, to be delivered in English, isscheduled to be held in Addis Ababa,Ethiopia, from September 23 to October 3,2008. The whole Session contains threeseparate, although related activities and includes:

A one-day seminar focused at high-level decision makers from civilaviation authorities and the Africanaviation industry (airlines, airports, airtraffic manage ment, etc.) will be heldon Tuesday, September 23, 2008. The seminar will focus on high-levelmanagement duties and responsi -bilities relating to safety managementsystems and emphasize safety as abusiness activity effectively supportingthe bottom line of the indus try and itsability to compete globally.

A three-day seminar/workshop onState Safety Programmes focused atregulators will be conducted fromWednesday September 24 to FridaySeptember 26, 2008. To myknowledge, this will be the first timethat such a seminar/workshop will be

delivered by ICAO. This is expected toenable States to regulate, certify andmonitor the establishment andimplementation of Safety ManagementSystems by the aviation industry.

The standard ICAO Safety Manage -ment Systems course will be providedto safety officers from industry andcivil aviation authorities includingsafety teams from Regional organiza -tions over a period of five days, fromSeptember 29 to October 3, 2008.The successful completion of the SMStraining course should enable theAfrican aviation industry to establishand maintain effective SafetyManagement Systems throughout its operations.

A similar programme in French is alsoscheduled for February 2009 inOuagadougou. In addition, ACIP plans toconduct eight seminars and workshopsin both French and English in 2009, inorder to address a variety of subjectssuch as aircraft operations, airworthinessof aircraft, air traffic safety, aerodromeand ground operations safety andaccident investigation and prevention.

In summary, the effective implemen -tation of ACIP is expected to bear fruit in a reasonably short period. However,for the programme to deliver, it isabsolutely essential that all stakeholdersand specifically the African Statescommit to the effective implementationof the AFI Plan and coordinate andcooperate with ACIP.

ICA

O Journal –

Issue 05 –2008

REGIONAL COOPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION

30

ICA

O J

ourn

al –

Issu

e 05

–20

08

Safety through cooperationAsian COSCAPs provide significant benefits to Regional safety programmes and oversight

ICAO has worked with Member States and other Regional stakeholders in recent years to establish Regional Cooperative(COSCAP) programmes to assistparticipating States in strengthening theirsafety oversight systems. Wolfgang Sander-Fischer, ICAO TCB Chief, Asia/PacificProgramme, discusses the origins and broadobjectives of the COSCAPs in his Region andsome of the successes that have beenachieved thus far.

As the outputs from the ICAO Universal Safety OversightAudit Programme (USOAP) have demonstrated, many Statesfind it difficult to meet their safety oversight obligationsadequately. A solution to this problem, which is provingsuccessful in Asia and in other regions of the world, is theestablishment of Regional Cooperative (COSCAP)Programmes to assist participating States in strengtheningtheir safety oversight systems.

The origin for this innovative programme to improve aviationsafety in the Asia/Pacific Regions can be traced to 1994,when a conference of the Region’s Directors General of CivilAviation (DGCAs) highlighted the need for greater attention tosafety. This was soon followed up by a Regional seminar onaviation safety that recognized the need to pursue Regionalcooperative arrangements. ICAO consequently developed amodel programme entitled the Cooperative Development ofOperational Safety and Continuing Airworthiness Programme,or COSCAP.

The draft programme, presented to DGCAs of the Asia/PacificRegions in August 1995, proposed cooperative agreementsbetween defined groups of countries. With the aim ofenhancing the safety and efficiency of air transport operationsby establishing regional safety oversight services, theprogramme received the overwhelming support of the States.

To date, three COSCAP programmes have been established inthe Region. The first, in South Asia, commenced operation inFebruary 1998. This was followed by South East Asia in July2001, while the third programme—for North Asia—

commenced operation in January 2003. ICAO has alsoestablished COSCAP programmes in other Regions.

Programme features

COSCAP programmes, established through agreementbetween Member States (with execution by ICAO through aTrust Fund), provide a dedicated forum for promotingcontinuing dialogue, coordination and cooperation in mattersrelated to flight safety among the more developed, and lessdeveloped participating civil aviation administra tions. Thiscreates an environment for harmonization and advancement in safety oversight policies, laws, regula tions and procedures.

COSCAPs also provide an efficient and cost-effective meansfor training large numbers of safety oversight personnel andenable Member States to be effective in promoting accidentprevention through the establishment of Regional AviationSafety Teams (RAST) and by building mutual understandingand cooperation in the sharing of scarce resources.

COSCAPs are implemented by ICAO through its TechnicalCooperation Programme, under the direction of the respectiveSteering Committees. These Committees are comprised of theDGCAs/Heads of the civil aviation administrations of theMember States, representatives of the ICAO TechnicalCooperation Bureau, the ICAO Regional Director, and theProgramme’s Chief Technical Adviser or ProgrammeCoordinator. Representatives of the donor community andother organiza tions participating in the Programme alsoattend Steering Committee Meetings. The COSCAPs arefunded mainly by the Member States themselves, withadditional contributions from external donors.

While the COSCAP programmes contain common objectivesand work elements, the priorities assigned to these elementswill vary depending on the priorities of the CAAs ofparticipating Member States and the number of years that theprogramme has been in existence. Generally, early on in theprogramme, the focus is more on providing training topersonnel in both the regulatory bodies and industry of theMember States, including the development of guidancematerials. This role shifts gradually toward certification andinspection (surveillance) activities, including on the jobtraining, as the programme matures.

31

ICA

O Journal –

Issue 05 –2008

have been directed by their respectiveSteering Committees and are activelyintegrating the GASP safety initiativesinto their work programmes.

COSCAP benefits

The COSCAPs established to date inAsia have proven to be an efficient andcost-effective means of providingexpert support, which is very importantin consideration of the scarcity andconsequential high cost of mobilizinginternational expertise, especially forsome States that do not require theexperts on a full-time basis. COSCAPexperts who have been serving in theRegion are very familiar with theRegional issues and therefore canrespond quickly to urgent requests in amore consistent and effective manner.This has helped in the Regionalharmonization of rules and procedures.The availability of this expertise wasclearly appreciated when MemberStates were preparing for USOAP auditsand later addressing the audit findings.In turn, ICAO’s USOAP has recognizedthe effectiveness of the COSCAPProgrammes in Asia in the reduction ofdeficiencies identified through theUSOAP process.

The benefit of providing considerabletraining on specialized subjects atrelatively low cost to such a largenumber of participants has been asignificant achievement of COSCAP,which again contributed to harmoniza -tion of safety oversight in the Region.

The international donor community, withan interest in promoting flight safetyglobally, has demonstrated strongsupport for the COSCAPs, both in cashand in kind, as the donors recognize themerit, viability, efficiency, cost effective -ness and practicality of the programmes.

COSCAP future

As per Assembly Resolution A36-2,ICAO is assisting the COSCAP pro -grammes in becoming self-sufficientinstitutions that can offer their MemberStates a larger range of safety over -sight assistance where this is required.To this end, multi-lateral Memoranda ofUnderstanding are being institutedamong the Member States andInstitutional Frameworks adopted withthe aim of permitting COSCAPs tobecome regional safety oversightorganizations wherever this may be sodesired by their Member States.

A major COSCAP programme objectiveis for the harmonization of rules,regulations and procedures for safetyoversight, supported primarily throughthe development of guidance materialfor inspectors. Some harmonizedregulatory material has also beendeveloped for adoption by the partici -pating States, with little or no change.

Regionally recruited inspectors in thedisciplines of flight operations,airworthiness, air traffic management,personnel licensing and aerodromesserve in COSCAP-SA. Nationalinspectors have also been trained bythe internationally recruited programmeexperts across the entire range ofsafety oversight duties. On request,COSCAPs assist States in preparing forand/or addressing specific findings ofICAO Universal Safety Oversight AuditProgramme (USOAP) reports.

The COSCAPs have establishedRegional Aviation Safety Teams torecommend accident preventioninterventions to the Steering Commit -tees. Recommendations approved bythe Steering Committees areimplemented through the coordinatedefforts of the regulatory authorities incooperation with the donor community,including service providers, airlines and aircraft manufacturers.

With additional COSCAP programmesbeing established, and the expansionand institutionalization of existingCOSCAPs, the coordination of outputsfrom the various programmes is veryimportant, as scare resources do notpermit for the duplication of efforts.The three Asian ProgrammeCoordinators are in regular contactand they collaborate with ICAO’sRegional Office and Headquarters toensure that activities are pre-coordinated and conducted simulta -neously for all three Asian COSCAPswhenever possible and practicable.

In 2007, ICAO extensively modified theGlobal Aviation Safety Programme(GASP) and all three Asian COSCAPs

NEWS IN BRIEF

32

The Panel examined the Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) contained in Annex 17—Security and decided to establish itsWorking Group on Amendment 12 to Annex 17 in order to develop recommendations for amendment to the Annex. To ensure that thesecurity measures contained in Annex 17 are commensurate with the level of threat, the Panel recommended that its Working Group onNew and Emerging Threats be revitalized and conduct a thorough analysis of potential civil aviation targeting means and methods. ThePanel reviewed progress made in the implementation of the Universal Security Audit Programme (USAP) and concluded that this programmehas led to increased awareness and commitment on the part of Contracting States to continue improving their level of compliance withAnnex 17 and is making a significant contribution to the enhancement of global aviation security.

The Panel also approved new guidance material on liquids, aerosols and gels (LAGs), designed to assist Member States in theirharmonized implementation of the guidelines recommended by the Council and concluded that volumetric controls on LAGs and proceduralinitiatives of Security Tamper Evident Bags (STEBs) should not be considered a permanent solution to the challenge of allowing LAGs inaircraft cabins. States were encouraged to support work in the development and evaluation, at an early date, to deploy screening techno -logies that are capable of the swift and accurate screening of LAGs in a manner that can be integrated into current security processes.

IAC dignitary at ICAO for high-level discussions

Dr. Tatiana Anodina, Chairperson of the Interstate AviationCommittee (IAC), visited ICAO HQ on June 19, 2008 to holddiscussions with ICAO Secretary General Dr. Taïeb Chérif, CouncilPresident Roberto Kobeh González, as well as Nancy Graham,Director of the ICAO Air Navigation Bureau.

Anodina stressed the IAC’s support for ICAO’s approach to thedevelopment of Regional and sub-Regional cooperation for addressingcommon issues. She also expressed IAC appreciation regarding the ICAO/IAC project in the field of flight safety being implementedwith the participation of the FAA, Boeing and Airbus, noting that 2,500 specialists in the field of flight safety have been trained thusfar under this highly successful programme.

ICAO leaders expressed their appreciation for the IAC’s initiative toconduct a World Conference of Regional organizations in 2009 toexchange experience and practical suggestions regarding therealization of ICAO strategic flight safety programmes at the Regionallevel. The Organization commended the IAC’s 17 years of successfulcompliance with ICAO SARPS, as well as the extensive Regionaldialogue and cooperation reflected in the over 40 internationalagreements it has entered into during that time.

Aviation Security Panel 19th meeting

The 19th meeting of the Aviation Security (AVSEC) Panel was held in Montreal from May 26 to 30, 2008, and was attended by 62 members/advisors and 43 observers nominated by 37 MemberStates and eight international organizations. Twenty additional observers were also in attendance.

ICA

O J

ourn

al –

Issu

e 05

–20

08

José Luis Vilardo entered the Military School of Aviation in1971, graduating as second lieutenant in 1974. He completedall the training courses corresponding to the various militaryranks, and currently holds the rank of brigadier general. As amilitary pilot, he carried out the duties of training pilots for thevarious aircrafts on which he had been a crewmember,specializing in strike aircraft.

Licensed as a staff officer, Vilardo has also taught at severaleducational institutions. For four years he was head of theNational Committee on Aviation Policy, a multi-ministerialorganization whose main function is to advise the Executive onUruguayan civil aviation policy. During the same period, he alsoheaded the organization which regulates airport and airportconcession management, a subsidiary body of the Executive.

As Director of the National Directorate of Civil Aviation andAeronautical Infrastructure, he was head of the UruguayanDelegation at the 35th and 36th ICAO General Assemblies. At the 36th Assembly his government named him PermanentRepresentative of Uruguay on the Council of ICAO until the nextAssembly, which is to take place in 2010.

In the capacity of aeronautical authority and ICAO Representativeof his country, Brig. Gen. Vilardo has participated in numerousevents and has been on several committees of the LatinAmerican Civil Aviation Commission (LACAC).

Recent appointmentto the ICAO Council

Name: José Luis Vilardo Country: Uruguay

Dr. Tatiana Anodina (right), Chairperson of the Interstate AviationCommittee (IAC), with ICAO Secretary General Dr. Taïeb Chérif (left), and Council President Roberto Kobeh González (center).

33

Ensuring room in theskies forsports andrecreationalaviation

In 1961, ICAO presented its prestigious Edward WarnerAward to the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale(FAI). The citation on the Diploma records FAI’s“contribution to the development of air navigation andthe dismantling of barriers to international air travel… By stimulating the competitive spirit and promotingaeronautical knowledge, (FAI) has developed publicinterest in aviation.”

In the century or more since the FAI’s foundation, the worldhas changed enormously. The FAI has evolved with it, butstill remains true to its original purposes of regulating airsports, promoting their progress, monitoring exceptionalaviation performances the world over and making sportaviation activities easily accessible and interesting for thegeneral public.

Rising fuel costs and a number of other factors arecontributing today to an increased climate of indifferenceand occasionally even hostility toward the world of aviation.Surely this is now a time if ever there was one for allaviators to pull together In the face of common challenges.Yet over time commercial air transport interests have begunto drift further away from their roots in sporting aviation,and those who fly for pleasure and sport are now generallyviewed as annoying interlopers in domains (airspace andairports) reserved for commercial air transport activities.

One by-product of this state of events is that regulatorsoften tend to reflect commercial air transport interests ratherthan those of the most numerous airspace users. Intoday’s skies the majority of aircraft movements world widecontinues to be those of sporting and recreational vehicles,and in one continent (Europe) and one air sport alone

GUEST FEATURE

The Fédération Aéronautique Internationale’snew Commission on Airspace andNavigation Systems seeks to increasepublic and regulator awareness as recentdevelopments have begun to make theskies less and less hospitable torecreational aircraft users—a sector whichstill produces more aircraft movementsannually than any in global aviation.

ICA

O Journal –

Issue 05 –2008

recreation (especially in the case of paramotors, hang gliders, paragli -ders, small gliders etc). Inappro -priate imposition of additionalexpensive requirements has theunintended effect of encouragingpeople to fly less, because theirbudgets are limited (thus reducingflying currency and increasing theflight safety risk), or even to drop out of aviation altogether.

The principle of “the beneficiarypays” is fine if the “beneficiary” reallybenefits. But if the service chargedfor is one that a pilot has not askedfor and does not need, it is tanta -mount to a compulsory purchase ofunwanted goods. What is appro priatefor commercial traffic is not neces -sarily right for private airspace users.

Sporting and recreational aircraftgenerally have good to excellentcockpit visibility and low closingspeeds. They do not necessarily fly at set altitudes, and pilots are trained to look out continually.

The main collision avoidance tech -nique in VFR sporting and recreationalaviation is “see and avoid.” Noelectronic device should detract frompilot look out, nor any attempt bemade to substitute for it. Visual FlightRules have worked remarkably wellfor over 50 years.

34

ICA

O J

ourn

al –

Issu

e 05

–20

08

(gliding), some 22,000 aircraft fly inaggregate over 500,000 km on a goodsummer’s day.

The FAI currently has members in ahundred countries with well over 2million individual affiliates. Only a smallminority of these have any ambition tofly in core areas, but the constantextension of controlled airspace in non-core areas and the imposition of new,increasingly restrictive regulatorymeasures are making the pursuit offlying for pleasure more and moreexpensive and difficult.

In many countries, the FAI is nowwitnessing declines in air sportparticipation, while those who stay thecourse are becoming increasinglyfrustrated. Commercial aviationbenefits from technological advances insporting aviation (good examples arethe use of composite materials forair frame construction and the adoptionof winglets to minimize induced drag—first pioneered extensively by gliderdesigners), and sporting aviation hasalways been and will remain a sourceof recruitment for well-motivated andcommitted professional aviators. Butthere is unfortunately little evidence ofthe compliment being returned.

From the FAI’s standpoint we’redefinitely at a crossroads in terms of the need for all branches of aviation toonce again work together. The FAI fully

recognizes the need for carefulmanagement of the ever-increasingdemands on airspace, and also that itmust do a more effective job of com -municating the interests of privateairspace users to address current biasestoward commercial aviation interests.

To address this concern the FAI hasrecently established a new body, theCommission on Airspace andNavigation Systems (CANS). The role ofthis body is to collect and disseminateknowledge and information on airspaceregulations and policy, and on AirNavigation Systems, insofar as theymay affect the types of aviation inwhich FAI is involved. The next meetingof the Commission will take place nearFrankfurt Airport in early October andwide publicity will be given to itsdeliberations.

So how would an airspace managementsystem look that gave appropriatefreedom of movement to sporting andrecreational pilots? There are severalgeneral principles and facts that regu -lators could bear in mind in this respect:

Expensive electronic devices areoften unsuitable for light aircraftusing uncontrolled airspace underVisual Flight Rules (VFR) (especiallythose without engines). The cost ofsophisticated navigational equipmentcan even sometimes exceed thevalue of an aircraft used for sport and

35

ICA

O Journal –

Issue 05 –2008

The incidence of collisions in uncontrolled airspace is verylow and concentrated in the terminal areas of airfields.Analysis in Australia, for instance, shows that there hasnever been a legitimate en route accident in Class G airspaceinvolving aircraft that did not choose to fly close to each other.

Unlicensed airfields can and do operate safely at very hightraffic levels. On a single day at the annual EAA AirVentureConvention, several thousand aircraft fly in and out ofOshkosh, Wisconsin, using one-way communication andvisual identification only.

Independent, segmented cost-benefit analysis is vital andshould take into account hidden costs as well as those thatare obvious and visible. Class G—no services—should bethe default airspace classification and any additionalrequirements must be justified on a risk management andcost benefit basis. Segmentation of the cost benefitanalysis for each project/charging scheme is required toevaluate the effects, and the consequences of fees oneach segment of the user community.

So that is the ideal situation. But we are realists in FAI andrecognize that we are unlikely to be left entirely free to play inour “aerial sand pit.” Some form of electronic surveillance ofmost airspace users seems likely to be imposed in themedium term. And here the regulators have a solemn duty tomake the right choices.

Mode S transponders seem unlikely to be generally suitablefor all kinds of sporting and recreational aircraft, primarilybecause TCAS also needs to be installed to obtain anti-collision information. But high costs, greater power consump -tion and weight considerations make this impracticable formost of the FAI’s airspace users.

ADS-B is widely viewed as the system of the future forworldwide air traffic management and aircraft to aircraft anti-

collision protection. It certainly has advantages, and one isthe facility to use GNSS data to feed cockpit moving mapdisplays, which can help reduce inadvertent airspaceinfringements. Here again, however, such applications areonly possible with some categories of sporting andrecreational aircraft. And as we have seen, constantconsultation of in-cockpit displays may actually inadvertentlyresult in a decrease in overall flight safety.

The message to regulators therefore is to consider and involveall airspace user organizations in the drafting of any new pro po -sals for airspace management. Going through the motions ofconsultations after proposals have been drafted is not enough.

One of the main objectives of ICAO is to “promote generallythe development of all aspects of international civilaeronautics.” This is a worthy aim and one that the FAIcertainly shares. We hope that all delegates to ICAO willremember that the sky is definitely big enough for us all.There is no need whatsoever for the different branches ofaviation to be at loggerheads. Sporting and recreationalaviation depends for its survival on assured access to anadequate volume of unregulated or, at least, lightly regulatedairspace. FAI members are happy to share the sky withairliners, but we see no justification whatsoever for beingpushed out of the skies by larger aircraft. The entire aviationcommunity needs to be united to maintain public support forour increasingly embattled sector.

Fédération Aéronautique InternationaleAvenue Mon-Repos 24CH-1005 LAUSANNESwitzerland

FAI – The World Air Sports FederationTel: +41 21 345 1070 – Fax: +41 21 345 1077Email: sec@fai.org – Web site : http://www.fai.org

High Flyers

FORUM

36

The Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI) is the officialinternational body responsible for ratifying world records andestablishing rules for international competitions in all airsports. Founded in 1905 by visionaries from eight nations(Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, UnitedKingdom, USA), the FAI has charted the progress of sportingaviation worldwide for over 100 years. This period has seenastonishing technological progress, but the character of themen and women who fly has not changed much—they are stilldetermined, idealistic individualists, driven by a sharedpassion, and who put the earth into perspective by viewing itfrom above.

The first FAI President was a Prince—Roland Bonaparte. Theindustrial revolution had produced distinct social classes andgreat disparities of income. The common man had limitedtime and money, so most sports were the preserve of theprivileged classes. This link with the upper levels of society,including royalty, was a major factor in creating the high socialstanding that some aero-clubs retain even to this day.

In the early 1920s, however, business interests entered theaviation arena. Investors started air transport and aircraftmanufacturing ventures. Regulation and control becamegovernment responsibilities. Eventually, in 1944, ICAO wasfounded to provide an international governmental regulatoryframework for aviation. These developments changed the roleof the national aero-clubs and of the FAI. The non-commercialcomponent of aviation retained its prestige, but aviation washenceforth divided between the air transport industry andprivate sport flying.

Looking back during the FAI’s centenary in 2005, we notedthat more than half the history of aeronautics predated ourorganization’s foundation. Technological development hadalways been of key importance. After the Montgolfier brothers’first aerial exploits in 1783, others quickly found thathydrogen provided better, longer lasting lift than hot air,provided the fabric could be made gas-tight. Within a year, all ballooning was with gas. The ballooning era was still at itsheight in 1905 when the international Olympic Committeeencouraged the creation of a supranational institution toregulate and promote international aeronautical sportingactivity. Prominent personalities gathered in Paris for theinaugural meeting of what became the FAI.

Technological developments continued apace and new sportssoon came along. An FAI gliding committee was formed in1927. Soon afterwards, in 1935, aeromodelling wasrecognized. Then, in 1937, rules for helicopter records wereintroduced. But most ordinary people were denied widespreadaccess to aeronautical sports until the middle of the 20th

century, when aviation sports first became widely popularized,particularly in the USA and in France, where the governmentpromoted these activities.

Parachuting joined the FAI family in 1949, hot air ballooningfollowed in 1963, and aerobatics received separaterecognition in 1965, followed by hang gliding (1974), micro -light flying (1982), paragliding (1985), and most recentlyparamotoring (1995). Virtually all the growth that has takenplace in air sports in the past 50 years is attributable tothese new disciplines. The air sport scene completely lost itselitist aura. The enthusiasts for “new” air sports did notalways emerge from the traditional aviation environment—they were more often “direct entries” into aerial activity, mostof them having had no previous aviation background. Today,each air sport operates in its own specialized arena. Theiroperating environments vary widely, creating correspondinglydifferent cultures.

Reconciling these cultural peculiarities with the need for strictdiscipline in an ever more restrictive regulatory environment isone of the main challenges facing the FAI. Another is thetheme of our main article in this Journal: how in future to usemodern technology intelligently to permit access to airspacefor all those who continue to dream of flying.

By Pierre Portmann, President, Fédération Aéronautique Internationale

ICA

O J

ourn

al –

Issu

e 05

–20

08