the future – the “roadmap”
Post on 24-Feb-2016
42 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
The Future – the “Roadmap”
SIMPLIFICATION
The Road Map
2
TSI inPlace
Hi Speed
Conv Loc & pass
Off TENS
TSI Conformity
New Vehicles
Networks
Open points UpdatesInteroperability
Mutual recognition
Bi & MultilatXA agrtsThe list of Parameters
The Reference Document
Mutual RegnOf Veh Types
1996 2001 2004 2010 2014 ~2040 ~2080
Recheck Only against rulesRelating to compatibilitywith the Networks
Existing Vehicles
Inf Register / Net Statement
Simplification – One Process
3
25 x National Homologation Processes+25 x Different Interpretations of the Directive
DV 29 Process
RequirementsLaw by ParliamentNational RegulationsFormal Agreements between MSMOUsRequirements Issued by Ministries“Guidelines” issued by MinistriesRequirements Issued by NSAs“Guidelines” issued by NSAsRequirements issued by IMs“Access Conditions” Issued by IMsJudgement of Independent Safety AssessorsJudgements of NSA InspectorsJudgement of RU or IMProject risk assessment
TSINational Rules
Simplification -“Cleaning Up” the rules
N° 4
TSI
Checks• NoBo• Designated body• National Safety Authority• Independent Safety Assessor• “Competent person” specified by
NSA
• NoBo• Designated Body• CSM Assessor
NoBo
Authorisation• NSA• IM
NSAs NSA -1!
Foreseen by the directive
Short term
Longterm
Now
= All requirements(inc interface to the network)
One entitymay fill allRoles
Deadline – 12 months from publishing the Ref Doc Decision
5
Rule setter (Ministry on NSA advice)
3rd partyChecking Body (NoBo or DeBo)
AuthorisingAuthority (NSA)
Transparency
Simplification - Transparency
Judgement of “wise”
expert in NSA/IM
• Requirements• Checking method
• Authorisation
From expert Judgement(single point of decision)
(Safety Case)(“approved” by ISA
based on “judgement”)
3rd party verification of conformityto transparent, repeatable rules
Simplification – Prevention of “Surprise” new rules
• Creation of New Rules• TSI Loc & Pass in place – no need for new national rules – scope
extension is on the way• Draft national rules must be notified and scrutinised under
Directive 98/34 – up to 12month “standstill”• Dealing with findings of accidents- “Emergency Rules”
• Safety Directive is clear – Immediate risk must be controlled by the SMS of the RU – i.e. company procedures
• Errors and omissions in TSIS dealt with by reporting to RISC + Agency Technical Opinion (one new rule for all)
• Rules must be permanent (not different for each project)
• Result - No more “surprise” new rules
• Rules notified and collated against the list of parameters
• One Point of Entry for rules Database
6
Simplification - Equivalence
• 25 Fire Extinguishers in the cab => 1
• Geographical Interest Groups reviewing equivalence for All MS
(except Poland, UK, Baltic states)
• For Off -TENs MSs may decide to accept TSIs as equivalent to national rules
• A logical simplification• Extra column in Ref Doc to be added
7
Simplification – Visibility of National Rules
• One point of data entry and extraction • The Agency Website (incl access to NOTIFIT)
• Rules catalogued according to the list of parameters
• Rules cross referenced with TSIs
• Clarity of what must be notified to be contained in Application guide to NOTIFIT/Ref Doc Database
8
Simplification – Type Authorisation
Vehicle authorised in MS A = Type Approved in MS A
Vehicle authorised in MS B(check of B and C rules relating only to compatibility
with the Network)
= Type authorised in MS B9
Simplification
• Separation of authorisation from use + type• Only one authorisation per MS per design
• Authorisation for a network according to national rules for compatibility/integration with network.
• Route non-conformities dealt with by Network Statement /RINF + SMS
10
Anything Missing?
Anything Missing (1)?
• Next Step – check for missing regulatory simplifications• Practical definition of Type• Common understanding of “major” /
“significant” /”substantial”• How to deal with “platforms”
• Anything else?
12
Anything missing (2)?
• Technical compatibility/Safe Integration veh-network• Consistency (one set?) of parameters need to
used in TSI, Ref Doc, Infrastructure Register (+ERATV,+Inf TSI)
• Review of risks covered by national rules, compare with risks covered by TSI
• Anything else?
13
Anything Missing (3)
• Nature of Infrastructure• IMs must be maintaining infrastructure to some limits
otherwise vehicles could not be authorised, compatibility with vehicles could not be maintained and the IMs would loose their safety authorisations!
• Conclusion – Infrastructure knowledge exists but is “hidden”• Agree with EIM – rapid introduction of RINF for compatibility
parameters is necessary
14
Next Steps
• Publish this “road map”• Opinion Formers (“Big Bosses”) need to know
what is already in the pipeline• Which of today’s problems are solved by implementation of
the directives• What is left as open points
• Dissemination of the framework
15
Finally – A Plea for “Big Bosses” and Associations
• The tools to implement change exist – use them• Stop writing letters of general complaint• Start submitting specific complaints to the
Commission where MSs break the law (i.e. do not comply with the directives / DV29)
• Why ask for more regulation when existing regulation is not complied with?
16
Anything Else?
Comments and Questions
17
top related