Supporting Approved Organisations

The capabilities of Approved Organisations and the professionalism of key personnel within those organisations play a significant part in sustaining flight safety.  CAA action areas will include:  

• Requirements for Key Personnel
• Safety Management Systems
• Single European Sky
• Managing Operational Demands
• Relatively Light Jet Operations
• Demonstrating Compliance with Target Levels of Safety for small ANSPs

1.   Introduction & Background

In addition to the contribution of individuals, organisations play a crucial role in the safety of aviation. Accident analysis has often shown that whilst the final action in an accident may be attributable to human error, there are contributory causes related  to  management, structure or culture of an organisation.

Organisational safety is influenced by many factors, including:

• Competence of personnel in key positions
• Clearly identified mechanisms for assuring safety
• Thorough monitoring of safety performance indicators
• Mechanisms for the feedback and review of safety performance indicators
• Safety culture: open reporting, avoiding complacency, and sustained allocation of adequate resources.

 2.   Requirements for Key Personnel

CAA recognises that competence and skill of key industry personnel play a major role in the safety of aviation and are an integral part of the regulatory framework.  To promote the importance of key industry personnel, the CAA will issue guidance for Operators on how to assess the capability of Accountable Managers and posts that are crucial to safety.   

3.   Safety Management Systems

A Safety Management System (SMS) is a systematic approach within an organisation to managing safety, including the necessary organisational structures, accountabilities, policies and procedures to establish, monitor and improve the safety of flight.  The CAA recognises SMS as an effective safety concept that provides traceable risk management.

Guidance on SMS is contained in several CAA publications including CAP 712 for Aircraft Operators, and CAP 670, CAP 726, CAP 728 and CAP 730 for Air Traffic Service Providers and aerodrome licensees.  In addition to the CAA’s routine process of updating material, formal direction from ICAO and legal imperatives underpinning the Single European Sky initiative are among new drivers to review SMS guidance material and its application.

There are core similarities in the principles of SMS across a range of organisations within the aviation industry but the detail will differ according to the particular context and industry sector.  The review and harmonisation of CAA oversight and published guidance on SMS for aircraft operations, air traffic services and airports has been identified as a priority for review.  These teams carrying out the reviews will co-ordinate their work to ensure consistency of general philosophy and application.

Therefore the CAA will review published SMS guidance and practice within specialist areas to ensure that it reflects best practice for the emerging regulatory and industry environment.

Co-ordinate the SMS philosophy from each area and consider the most appropriate strategy for communicating core policy to industry.

4.   Single European Sky

The Single European Sky (SES) is one of the most fundamental changes to the Air Traffic Management industry for many years.  In order to support the UK industry in preparation for SES, the CAA will continue to provide a broad range of information on the Single European Sky initiative, including briefing material, workshops and seminars for Service Providers to ensure that they have the appropriate information and provide answers to any questions that they may have.

5.  Managing Operational Demands

Operational aviation is complex and there are many factors that vary on a day to day basis.  It is recognised that the pilot's workload will be affected to some extent by individual changes, the number and variety of different system elements, and commercial pressures.  This means that a systematic approach must be used to managing the risk of overloading the pilot in the operational context.

Flight safety regulations are a comprehensive set of minimum standards to address each individual element of operating an aircraft.  However, they do not fully address the accumulation of multiple small or marginal issues that could never be specified in regulation but whose cumulative effect can create a demanding situation for the crew.  Examples include:

• Take-off with an engine in operative: 
• With flight crew both relatively inexperienced on type
• With flight crew  fatigued, possibly into discretionary hours
• In marginal  weather
• Implementation of a new charter route:
• That  passes through busy uncontrolled airspace 
• With noise abatement procedures that create a challenging flight path especially when coupled with a gusty cross wind 
• Where holding for extended periods or long taxiways before take-off in falling temperatures could result in icing

For the vast majority of accidents there is no single factor that is the sole 'cause' of a fatal aviation accident; more frequently, there is a multitude of small errors, poor decisions, and other cumulative factors. These cumulative factors can place an unrealistic demand upon the expected performance of the pilot. 

The CAA, with limited resources, needs to be able to direct these resources as effectively as possible in the oversight of approved organisations, particularly Air Operator’s Certificate (AOC) holders.

It is possible to reduce the likelihood of cumulative factors becoming a safety issue by the effective use of effective risk management processes, in particular risk assessment.  The CAA has identified that there is sufficient variability in the application of risk management techniques to indicate that additional guidance to Operators on how to best manage risk, including a best practice example of how to conduct risk assessments, would be beneficial to the industry. However, it must be clear that the CAA is not taking responsibility from the Operator for the risk assessment they make. 

The CAA has tasked FORCE to produce a Risk Management Model to support the CAA in allocating scarce resources to the oversight of approved organisations and, in particular AOC holders. This methodology could then be further developed to assist operators in the development of their own risk assessment models. This is fully in accordance with the principles defined in the Hampton Report*. It will be considered whether new guidance on Risk Management, including Risk Assessment, is best embodied in the general SMS Guidance (CAP 712) or whether it should be presented separately.

*Reducing administrative burdens: effective inspection and enforcement - Philip Hampton, March 2005

6.   Safety of Relatively Light Jet Operations

Analysis of accidents to large aeroplanes (i.e. those over 5,700kg) reveals that the majority of fatal accidents feature aeroplanes that are at the 'small' end of this broad category, often those categorised as business jets.  When the SRG Accident Analysis Group (AAG) analysed fatal accidents world-wide in 2004, it was found that 50% involved aeroplanes below 10 tonnes and 70% were below 27 tonnes.  Data on this class of operation is limited, but as shown in the safety statistics earlier in this Plan, the last 10 years of data for UK registered aircraft in this class shows a significantly higher accident rate per million hours flown (9.0) than for other classes of aircraft (the next worst is turboprops at 1.2 per million hours flown).  Producing a complete picture of these aircraft in the UK is further complicated by the fact that many of the resident aircraft in this group are not on the UK Register.

The CAA will conduct a study of safety among the relatively light jet aircraft operations, to ascertain the safety of this class of operations in the UK and, if necessary, identify further action.

7.  Demonstrating Compliance with Target Levels of Safety for small ANSPs

A target level of safety for the air traffic system is embodied in ESARR 4.  However, methods for demonstrating compliance for individual air traffic service providers are not specified.  This is a complex issue in the UK because, unlike most European states, air traffic services are provided by multiple private companies.  It is not possible to use simple 'accident rates' because mid air collisions are extremely rare, but the UK is not free from Airprox and loss of separation events, some of which have been categorised as being at risk of collision.  The CAA has already produced a method by which large ANSPs could be assessed for compliance in meeting their 'share' of the target level of safety. 

Further research is necessary to identify a method that would be suitable for assessment of small ANSPs, because their low traffic volumes and type of operation make the methods devised for large organisations ineffective. 

The CAA will undertake new research on methods to assess small ANSPs for compliance with ESARR4 target levels of safety.  This will include the contribution of ground equipment to the safety equation.

Summary of Actions

Issue	Actions	Dates
Competence of Key Personnel	Produce guidance material for the assessment of persons nominated as accountable managers and posts that are crucial to safety.	September 06
Safety Management Systems	Update Guidance on SMS and promote effective use within Operating industry.	May 07
Single European Skies	Continue to provide a broad range of information on the Single European Sky initiative, including briefing material, workshops and seminars for Service Providers.	Ongoing
Managing Operational Demands	Produce a Risk Management Model to support the CAA in allocating scarce resources to the oversight of approved organisations and, in particular AOC holders.	January 08
Safety of 'Light' Jet Operations	Conduct a study of lighter jet operations in the UK, to ascertain whether the safety of this class of operations is in need of further attention.	July 06
ESARR 4 Compliance	Complete research into means of compliance for ANSPs to meet ESARR4.  This will include the contribution of design aspects of ground equipment.	June 07