DOC

Action 12 - ESSI #206 Review data sources and data analysis

By Steve Peters,2014-05-06 10:12
14 views 0
Action 12 - ESSI #206 Review data sources and data analysis

ECAST Process Guide V2.0 Approved on 12 Apr 2007 MM, JR, PS

    ECAST Process Guide V2.0

    Action 8 - ECAST #1/07: ECAST Process Manual

B. Alcott, UK CAA, J. Beaufays and T. Blajev, EUROCONTROL, M. Masson, EASA

    (Secretary), M. Piers, NLR, T. Johansen, Boeing and IFA, P. Sørensen (Chair),

    R. van der Boom, Netherlands Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water

    management, Directorate General of Transport and Aviation. Date: 8 Mar 07

    Due by: 12 Apr 07

    Document status: Approved 12 Apr 07

Documentation

     A process chart file (PowerPoint) is attached.

     Background information is provided in the minutes of the ECAST#2-07

    Process Development meeting, IATA, Brussels, 8 Mar 07, and in the minutes

    of ECAST#2-07 plenary meeting, EASA, Cologne, 12 Apr 07.

1. Object

The ECAST process has been redesigned on 8 Mar 07 by the Process

    Development Team.

The Process Guide is the process chart plus the comments presented in this

    document.

The Process Guide provides guidelines for the application of ECAST, but is not

    prescriptive. The guidelines are purposely short and generic: those teams

    applying this process will be expected to further define each step.

    For instance, event though this Process Guide encourages a Cost Benefits

    Analysis (Cost/Benefit Analysis) be completed, it does not prescribe what

    Cost/Benefit Analysis technique(s) to use.

Note: For clarity, the ECAST Process Guide depicts steps that are sequential

    (with feedback loops). However, sequentially is indicative: some steps can be performed in parallel, as appropriate.

The ECAST process features 3 phases:

1. Identify and Select Safety Issues

2. Analyze Safety Issues

3. Develop, Implement, and Monitor Action Plans

     1 / 9

     ECAST Process Guide V2.0 Approved on 12 Apr 2007 MM, JR, PS

    2. ECAST Structure

The following overall ECAST structure is recommended:

Strategy Team (ECAST Plenary) - A JIMDAT-like (CAST Joint

    Implementation Measurement Data Analysis Team) in charge of strategy

    definition, review and decision making. This team is responsible for identifying

    measurements and methodologies to be used for monitoring the effectiveness

    of interventions, action plans. Also, the Strategy Team will provide leadership

    of the overall communication responsibilities as described below. As such,

    this team may decide a dedicated Communications team should be created.

     Analysis Team: A JSAT-like (CAST Joint Safety Analysis Team) membership

    is composed of domain specialists and safety analysts with diverse, generic

    and/or subject specific competences and experience. The analysis team will

    evaluate data to identify significant events, causal and contextual factors, and

    their safety risks.

Implementation Team: A JSIT-like (CAST Joint Safety Implementation

    Team) formulates appropriate interventions or action plans.

3. ECAST Communications and Coordination

Communication

By the Strategy Team (ECAST Plenary) or a dedicated Communication Team

Communicate in Europe and worldwide on the ESSI/ECAST safety programme

    and achievements. This could be in the form of, but not limited to:

    - ESSI/ECAST website and provide links to main air transport safety related

    websites.

    - Brochure(s) (optional).

    - Others?

Coordination with other safety initiatives worldwide

By the Strategy Team (ECAST Plenary) or any ECAST Team, depending on the

    matter

Coordinate with other safety initiatives and programmes in Europe and worldwide,

    as recommended by the ICAO Global Aviation Safety Roadmap.

    Safety initiatives and programmes may include, but not be limited to CAST,

    COSCAPs, ASET, PAAST, the EUROCONTROL European Safety Programme (ESP),

    SESAR, EC Aviation Safety including research (FP7 building on SRA 2 by ACARE)

    and CAA Safety Programmes. (See the ESSI #2-06 Action 12 document).

    Ideally, establish interfaces with EASA Standardisation and auditing programs of

    EASA, EUROCONTROL, IATA and ICAO. Although ECAST will ensure appropriate

    coordination is maintained throughout the process, there are some specific steps

    within the ECAST process that explicitly call for a level of coordination. These are

    noted in the text below.

     2 / 9

     ECAST Process Guide V2.0 Approved on 12 Apr 2007 MM, JR, PSProgramme Reviews

By the Strategy Team (ECAST Plenary)

Review the ECAST programme at mid term (2012) and at programme end (2017).

4. ECAST Process

ECAST Process Details

Phase 1 - Identify and Select Safety Issues

With the aid of historical incident data, as well as the application of

    expert knowledge, ECAST will generate a list of safety issues that pose

    risk to the European flying public and may be appropriate subjects of

    mitigating action. This list will be made available for further analysis

    that is the subject of Phase 2.

Step 1.1 Assess and Prioritise Accident Risks and Causal factors in

    Europe (Yearly Revised)

    Performed by the Analysis Team

Using available accident and incident data sources and statistical summaries as

    well as expert judgement, assess and prioritise safety risks and causal and

    circumstantial or contributory factors (for instance, flight crew performance, air-

    ground communication, weather or technical factors) in Europe and for European

    operators worldwide.

Accident risk categories should be drawn from the standard accident categories

    developed by the CAST/ICAO Common Taxonomy.

    http://www.intlaviationstandards.org/

Each year, a safety review is performed and safety priorities are re-assessed.

Step 1.2 Review Safety Programmes “Industry watch”

    Performed by the Analysis Team

Identify and review safety programmes (led by industry, regulatory authorities,

    etc.) that, in Europe and worldwide, are intended to address risks and causal

    factors that have a strong likelihood of impacting the safety of Europe’s aviation

    sector.

Step 1.3 Recommend Priority Safety Issues (Includes CBA/RIA)

    Performed by the Analysis Team

Recommend to the Strategy Team (ECAST Plenary) which safety issues have the

    highest priority to develop and implement mitigating actions.

     3 / 9

     ECAST Process Guide V2.0 Approved on 12 Apr 2007 MM, JR, PSThese recommendations should be based, at least in part on:

    1. Those safety issues deemed to have the strongest likelihood of impact, as

    determined in Step 1.2.

    2. High level CBA (Cost Benefit Analysis)/RIA (Regulatory Impact

    Assessment), essentially qualitative at this stage, is used in support to the

    recommended selection.

    3. Safety issues not fully, or sufficiently, covered in existing safety

    programmes.

These recommendations are to be made to the Strategy Team as described in

    Step 1.4.

Step 1.4 Approve Recommended Safety Issue(s)?

    Performed by the Strategy Team

Review and assess the safety issues recommended by the Analysis Team:

     If none of the recommended safety issues are approved, the process is

    reiterated at Step 1.3 or above if deemed necessary;

     For all approved safety issues, the Strategy Team will direct follow-on activity,

    as described below.

Step 1.5 Launch New Safety Action?

    Performed by the Strategy Team

For each safety issue selected as part of process Step 1.4, the Strategy Team

    must decide whether to launch a new safety activity, initiative or programme, or

    whether existing parallel initiatives/programmes will provide sufficient coverage

    in the development and implementation of mitigating actions.

    If the Strategy Team feels this level of support already exists, then this process

    proceeds to Step 1.7, directing the Analysis Team to coordinate. If the Strategy

    team determines that no such parallel initiative / programme exists, or that

    existing coverage is inadequate to provide sufficient coverage, then this process

    proceeds to Step 1.6.

Step 1.6 Communicate Selected Issue(s), Look for Partners

Performed by the Strategy or by an ECAST Communication Team

Advertise the selected issue(s); look for internal partners (within ECAST) to

    participate in the Safety Analysis Team (Phase 2) as well as for the Safety

    Implementation Team (Phase 3), and for external partners (outside ECAST),

    to participate in related safety programmes (for instance the Runway Safety

    Initiative by FSF), industry and authorities representatives, communication

    specialists, publishers, etc.

     4 / 9

     ECAST Process Guide V2.0 Approved on 12 Apr 2007 MM, JR, PS

Phase 2 - Safety Issues Analysis

With the aid of historical incident data, as well as the application of

    expert knowledge, ECAST will generate a list of safety issues that pose

    risk to the European flying public and may be appropriate for mitigating

    action. This list will be made available for further analysis that is the

    subject of phase 2.

Step 2.1 Collect data, Analyse Risks and Causal Factors

    Performed by the Analysis Team

With the aid of both quantitative data (e.g. accident and incident data statistical

    summaries, etc.) and qualitative information (e.g., literature review, expert

    judgement, surveys, questionnaires and interviews, develop a greater

    understanding of the selected issue(s).

This data / information will be analysed in depth by the Analysis Team to better

    determine the overall risks and causal/contributory factors of the safety issue.

Where appropriate, and if possible, the efficacy of ongoing or former safety

    enhancements will be assessed.

Step 2.2 Define Safety Performance Metrics

Two types of metrics are required:

     Generic Safety Metrics: For instance accident or serious incident rates and

    other high level indicators.

     Risk Specific Metrics: In addition, risk specific metrics should be defined, for

    instance “number of runway incursions” for runway safety.

Step 2.3 Define Baseline and Safety Objectives

    Performed by the Analysis Team

Using the knowledge gained through analysis (Step 2.1), define the safety

    baseline and realistic, reasonably achievable, issue-specific safety enhancement

    objectives. Objectives are expressed using the safety performance metrics

    defined in Step 2.2.

Defining realistic objective(s) includes a Cost/Benefit Analysis component.

Note: Objectives should be numerically expressed:

Allows defining the baseline and scoping the efforts;

     Progress towards the goal also is easier to visualise and to monitor;

     Risks and costs can be more easily combined;

     Serves management purposes.

     5 / 9

     ECAST Process Guide V2.0 Approved on 12 Apr 2007 MM, JR, PSStep 2.4 Recommend Safety Enhancements (Includes Cost/Benefit

    Analysis and/or Regulatory Impact Assessment)

    Performed by the Analysis Team

Assess safety enhancements in terms of costs and benefits.

Safety benefits are assessed. Optionally, other types of benefits such as

    operational improvements, ATM capacity improvement, delay reduction or

    environment protection can be integrated in the analysis.

    The Cost/Benefit Analysis methodologies defined in CAST or in the EC FP6 ASICBA Cost/Benefit Analysis project can be used, for instance. Other

    methodologies can be considered. Cost/Benefit Analysis methodology should be

    adapted to the topic and scope of analysis.

When safety benefits target regulation, Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) can

    be used instead of Cost/Benefit Analysis. Reference for RIA in Europe is EASA

    Management Board Decision MB/7/03, Sections 1 and 2.

    Safety enhancements with favourable Cost/Benefit Analysis or RIA are

    recommended to the Strategy Team.

Step 2.5 Approve Recommended Safety Enhancements

    Performed by the Strategy Team

Review and assess the Safety Enhancements recommended by the Safety

    Analysis Team.

    If none of the recommended Safety Enhancements are approved, the process is

    reiterated at Step 2.4 or above if deemed necessary.

Step 2.6 Develop New Actions Plans(s)?

    Performed by the Strategy Team

Based on a review of pre-existing Action Plans (AP), if any, a decision will be

    taken whether the development of new APs are needed or not. This decision will

    be taken considering:

    o If satisfactory ECAST APs already exist (for instance inherited from

    JSSI) and are being implemented;

    o If APs are implemented by other safety programmes, in which case

    further consideration will be given to coordination, development of

    synergies with, or participation in these existing safety

    programmes, materialised by Step 2.8.

     6 / 9

     ECAST Process Guide V2.0 Approved on 12 Apr 2007 MM, JR, PS

Phase 3 - Actions Plans Development, Implementation and Monitoring

For each safety issue selected in Phase 2, ECAST will develop, assess,

    select, implement and monitor cost-efficient Actions Plans. Using the

    safety performance metrics defined in Phase 2, ECAST will monitor action

    plans efficacy to achieve the stated safety objectives, and take corrective

    actions if necessary.

Step 3.1 Develop Action Plans

Performed by the Implementation Team

Safety enhancement recommendations approved because of favourable

    Cost/Benefit Analysis or RIA lead to developing action plan(s).

This activity will include the designation of parties/stakeholders responsible for

    implementation, definition of tasks and deliverables, time scales and task

    dependencies.

More specific Cost/Benefit Analysis or RIA is performed at action plan level.

Step 3.2 Recommend Action Plans (Includes Cost/Benefit Analysis

    and/or Regulatory Impact Assessment)

    Performed by the Analysis Team

Recommend to the Strategy Team Actions Plans (AP) with favourable

    Cost/Benefit Analysis or RIA.

Step 3.3 Approve Action Plan(s)?

    Performed by the Strategy Team

Review and assess the AP(s) recommended by the Implementation Team:

     If none of the recommended AP is approved, the process is reiterated at Step

    3.1 or above if deemed necessary;

     Else, for each AP approved, proceed to Step 3.4.

Step 3.4 Implement Action Plans

Performed by the Implementation Team

Engage the responsible parties/stakeholders in the actual implementation of the

    approved Action Plans.

     7 / 9

     ECAST Process Guide V2.0 Approved on 12 Apr 2007 MM, JR, PSStep 3.5 Monitor Action Plans Implementation

    Performed by the Implementation Team

     Examples are provided for instance by CAST, A monitoring process has to be defined. 1COSCAP, and EUROCONTROL ECIP. The monitoring process is adapted to the AP characteristics and to the

    organisation(s) in charge: EASA, national CAA, operators, manufacturers,

    EUROCONTROL, ANSP, etc.

Notes:

     Those who monitor might differ from those who implement.

     Not all actions are one-shot: some are continuous or should be repeated,

    periodically.

Step 3.6 Assessment of Action Plans implementation OK?

    Performed by the Strategy Team

Review and assess AP implementation:

     If AP implementation doesn’t proceed as planned, implementation issues are

    reviewed and corrective measures are taken; the process is reiterated at Step

    3.4 or at Step 3.1.

Step 3.7 Monitor Action Plan Efficacy

    Performed by the Implementation Team

Using the safety performance metrics defined in Step 2.2., monitor action plans

    efficacy to achieve the stated safety objectives.

Step 3.7 is particularly important because actual safety enhancements eventually

    justify investments; that’s the selling point of ECAST, with a strong link to Communication.

Note:

     Actual safety performance (risk reduction, stagnation or increase) partially

    depends on safety actions and other factors, intentional or fortuitous, external

    to ECAST. Thus, there is no perfect relation between the action plan efficacy

    and achievement of the stated safety objectives. (The same applies to all

    safety initiatives).

     1 The ECIP mechanism allows harmonised pan-European implementation of safety plans

    agreed by the EUROCONTROL Member States. High level actions (called ECIP objectives),

    implementation dates and scope (e.g. regional, Pan-European, harmonisation) are

    approved by the EUROCONTROL Provisional Council and included in the ECIP Document.

    Depending on scope, Member States establish the respective implementation action

    plans in their National CIP Documents. This is done on annual basis. The CIP documents

    also identify the actor (e.g. CAA, ANSP, airport authority) responsible for implementing

    each action. Implementation progress review is also performed on annual basis.

    EUROCONTROL is supporting Member States in the planning and review of activities

    through dedicated Contact Persons. More information on:

    http://www.eurocontrol.int/safety-nets/public/subsite_homepage/homepage.html

     8 / 9

     ECAST Process Guide V2.0 Approved on 12 Apr 2007 MM, JR, PSStep 3.8 Safety Objectives achieved?

    Performed by the Strategy Team

Review and assess safety objective(s) achievement:

If objectives are not achieved, or objective achievement does not progress as

    expected, corrective measures are taken and the process is reiterated at any

    of the above steps, as deemed necessary.

    Programme performance and lessons learned are used to adjust metrics,

    objectives, programmes and action plans;

Else, the programme is completed for the selected safety issue.

    Programme performance is reviewed for further improvements.

    (See also page 3: Programme Review).

     9 / 9

Report this document

For any questions or suggestions please email
cust-service@docsford.com