Assignment 1

International Aviation

7506BPS

Prof. Ian Suren

A Working Paper

On

PROPOSAL FOR THE AMENDMENT OF RELEVANT SARPS IN

ANNEXES USING UNIVERSAL SAFETY OVERSIGHT AUDIT
PROGRAM (USOAP) FINDINGS

By

The Deputy Director of Air Navigation Bureau (DD/ANB)

Submitted by:

Student Name: Bharani Prasad Balasubramanian

Student ID: S2610896 Total Word Count:
3528
International Civil Aviation Organization

WORKING PAPER

AIR NAVIGATION COMMISION

PROPOSAL FOR THE AMENDMENT OF RELEVANT SARPS IN ANNEXES USING

USOAP FINDINGS

[Presented by the Deputy Director of the Air Navigation Bureau (DD/ANB)]

SUMMARY
This working paper presents a proposal to the ICAO for the amendment of relevant
Annexes by the development of SARPS relating to safety and more in line with
mordern procedures and technological advancements, using the results established
from the USOAP findings.

1. INTRODUCTION.

1.1 This paper presents proposals explaining how the International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO) could make more use of the Technical Co-operation Bureau’s (TCB) facilities in
assisting those States that have been found to have issues in the implementation of Standard
and Recommended Practices (SARPS) relating to technological equipments or modern
procedures, as reflected from the Safety Oversight Audit results.

1.2 The TCB remains one of the main instruments of ICAO to assist states in remedying the
deficiencies identified through ICAO’s Safety Oversight Audit activities or Universal Safety
Oversight Audit Program (USOAP).

1.3 ICAO’s Technical Co-operation Program was established to provide advice and assistance to
Contracting states in the development and implementation of projects across the full spectrum
of air transport aimed at improving security, efficiency, regularity and operational safety of
national and international civil aviation with a view to achieving standardization, as specified
in ICAO’s Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPS).

1.4 Under Article 37 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago, 1944), ICAO is
mandated to adopt international standards and recommended practices (SARPs) and
procedures on matters related to civil aviation. The uniform application of these SARPs and
procedures by Contracting States in accordance with the Convention is necessary for the
safety and regularity of international air navigation

1.5 The ICAO Universal Safety Oversight Audit Program (USOAP) was established in
accordance with strategic objective A3 to ‘Conduct aviation safety oversight audit to identify
 deficiencies and encourage resolution by States’. The scope of the Programme was initially
limited to Annex 1 — Personnel Licensing, Annex 6 — Operation of Aircraft and Annex 8
— Airworthiness of Aircraft. The programme was expanded to provide cover of Annex 11
— Air Traffic Services, Annex 13 — Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation and Annex
14 — Aerodromes. Furthermore, during its 171st Session (March 2004), the Council
considered to facilitate the evolution of USOAP from an Annex-by-Annex approach to a
comprehensive systems approach, which would cover all safety-related Annexes and focus on
the overall capability of States for safety oversight.

1.6 The following paper examines the Safety Oversight Audit results conducted by ICAO on
contracting states and proposes amendments and development of SARPS in certain Annexes,
thereby bringing the Annexes more in line with modern practices and how TCB facilities be
utilized to help the smaller states become effective in implementing the SARPS.

2. OBJECTIVES, BACKGROUND AND SCOPE OF USOAP.

2.1 The objective of USOAP is to promote global aviation safety through auditing Contracting
States, on a regular basis, to determine States' capability for safety oversight by assessing the
effective implementation of the critical elements of a safety oversight system and the status of
States' implementation of safety-related ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices
(SARPs), associated procedures, guidance material and safety-related practices.

2.2 The ICAO USOAP was launched in January 1999 in response to widespread concerns
expressed during the 29th ICAO Assembly in 1992. At that Session of Assembly a concern
was raised on the apparent inability of some Contracting States to carry out their safety
oversight functions.

2.3 The ICAO Assembly resolution A32-11 of 1999 directed the establishment of USOAP
comprising regular, mandatory, systematic and harmonised safety audits. It also encouraged
its application by Contracting States, together with the greater transparency and increased
accessibility of audit results.

2.4 The scope of the Programme was initially limited to Annex 1 — Personnel Licensing, Annex
6 — Operation of Aircraft and Annex 8 — Airworthiness of Aircraft. The initial mandate of
the Programme was to audit all Contracting States and report to the next regular session of the
Assembly in 2001. The initial cycle of audits and audit follow ups was completed in 2004

2.5 The audit follow-up missions conducted during this time period allowed ICAO to validate the
implementation of the corrective action plans submitted by audited States, to identify any
problems encountered by States in such implementation, and to determine the need for
external assistance in regard to specific safety issues.

2.6 The programme was expanded to provide cover of Annex 11 — Air Traffic Services, Annex
13 — Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation and Annex 14 — Aerodromes.
Furthermore, during its 171st Session (March 2004), the Council considered to facilitate the
evolution of USOAP from an Annex-by-Annex approach to a comprehensive systems
approach, which would cover all safety-related Annexes and focus on the overall capability of
States for safety oversight.

2.7 The conduct of audits under the new and comprehensive systems approach which was
launched on January 2005 consists of the following three phases:
 1. Pre-audit phase. The information provided by the State in the State Aviation Activity
Questionnaire (SAAQ) and Compliance Checklists (CCs) is reviewed by safety oversight
audit to analyze the type of organisation for safety oversight established by the State, the
implementation of Annexes provisions and the differences from SARPs identified by the
States. This allows ICAO to tailor the audit in accordance with the level and complexity
of aviation activities in the State and determine the duration of the audit and the size and
required composition of the audit team.

2. On-site phase. The State is visited by an ICAO audit team to validate the information
provided by the State and conduct an on-site audit of the State’s system and overall
capability for safety oversight. This includes an audit of the organization, processes,
procedures and programmes established and maintained by the State to help it fulfil its
safety oversight obligations.

3. Post-audit phase. Encompasses all the activities following the on-site audit, including
the preparation of the audit interim report, the development by the State of its corrective
action plan and the completion of the audit final report. In accordance with Assembly
Resolution A35-6, the audit final reports are made available to Contracting States in their
entirety through a secure website, along with information derived from the AFDD.

2.8 Beyond 2010 (Future of USOAP). The comprehensive systems approach for the
conduct of the audits, under a six-year cycle is scheduled to end in 2010. The ICAO
Assembly Resolution A36-4 established a new approach to be applied in the USOAP beyond
2010 which is based on the concept of continuous monitoring. Beyond 2010, the objective of
USOAP is to promote global aviation safety, by enhancing Contracting States’ safety
oversight capabilities, through continuous monitoring of States’ safety performances in order
to identify safety deficiencies, assess associated safety risks, implement strategies for their
mitigation and re-evaluate States’ safety oversight capabilities achieved.

3. AUDIT RESULTS.

3.1 The audit results are measured in terms of the degree of implementation
by States of the eight critical elements of a safety oversight system:

a) Primary Aviation Legislation: The establishment of Civil Aviation

Legislation that supports the Contracting State’s Civil Aviation System and
regulatory functions, in compliance with the Convention on International
Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention).

b) Specific Operating Regulations: The establishment of aeronautical

regulations (rules) addressing all aviation activities, and implementing
applicable ICAO provisions and SARPs

c) State Civil Aviation System and Safety Oversight Functions: The

establishment of Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) or Authorities with safety
regulatory functions, objectives and safety policies, provided with
sufficient financial resources and qualified staff.

d) Technical Personnel Qualification and Training: The establishment

of minimum requirements of knowledge and experience of the technical
personnel performing safety oversight functions and the provision of
appropriate training to maintain and enhance their competency at the
desired level.
 e) Technical Guidance, Tools and the Provision of Safety Critical
Information: The provision of procedures and guidelines, adequate
facilities and equipment, and safety critical information to the technical
personnel to enable them to perform their safety oversight functions; this
includes the provision of technical guidance to the aviation industry on the
implementation of regulations and instructions.

f) Licensing, Certification, Authorization and Approval Obligations:

The implementation of systems to ensure that personnel and
organizations performing an aviation activity meet the established
requirements before they exercise the privileges of a licence, certificate,
authorization and/ or approval.

g) Surveillance Obligations: The implementation of a continuous

surveillance program consisting of inspections and audits to ensure that
holders of a licence, certificate, authorization and/ or approval continue to
meet the established requirements and functions at the level of
competency and safety as required by the state.

h) Resolution of Safety Concerns: The implementation of processes

and procedures to resolve identified deficiencies impacting on aviation
safety, which may have been residing in the system and have been
detected by the aviation authority or other appropriate bodies.

Figure 1 8 Critical Elements measured through USOAP

3.2 The USOAP has helped States identifying and correcting deficiencies in the implementation
of SARPs, resulting in important gains in aviation safety and transparency has underpinned
this progress.

3.3 Findings from Safety Oversight Audit suggest that the major contracting states such as United
states, United Kingdom have higher than recommended level of SARP’s implementation and
 also the State Practices in place differ from the SARPS specified by the ICAO, whereas the
smaller states have trouble implementing the existing SARP’s due to lack of technical,
financial or human resources.

3.4 The deficiencies identified by the Safety Oversight Audit, especially those concerning the
smaller Contracting States are listed below:

• There seems to be no appropriate legislative framework in position;

• There seems to be no appropriate Safety Management Systems (SMS) adopted;

• Lack of availability of qualified and experienced technical personnel;

• Inadequate certification and licencing System in place;

• Lack of basic surveillance systems; and

• Subsequent arising of problems due to lack of commitment and co-operation from

Governments towards their Civil Aviation Authorities.

4. USE OF SAFETY OVERSIGHT AUDIT RESULTS IN THE AMENDMENT OF

SAFETY RELATED SARPS CONTAINED IN ANNEXES.

4.1 Although it is not considered wise at this point in time to amend any of the existing SARPS,
as the existing SARPS have not been implemented by majority of small Contracting States, in
an overview of increasing safety in civil aviation it is a move that has to be reviewed.

4.2 As a review of the degree of implementation of the eight critical elements, measured by the
audit clearly shows that the major Contracting States had several differences between State
practices and SARPS. In their defence, the major states pointed out that the existing standards
are not in line with ‘best practices’.

4.3 These practices which the major states adopted, which are deemed by them to be above the
specified standards set by ICAO in the Annexes can be reviewed by the organization (ICAO),
to assess if the safety implications achieved is higher than those being achieved by following
prescribed standards.

4.4 The annexes that need amendments is listed below:

• Annexe 1 – Personnel Licensing

• Annexe 6 – Operations of Aircraft

• Annexe 8 – Airworthiness of Aircraft

• Annexe 13 – Aircraft Accident/ Incident Investigations

• Annexe 14 – Aerodromes

4.5 The above Annexes have been selected for amendment due to the problems effectively faced
by contracting states especially smaller states who have limited resources, funds and
personnel. The following suggests why the annexes listed above need changes.
4.6 Annex 14 — Aerodromes, Volume I — Aerodrome Design and Operations, contains
Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) that prescribe the physical characteristics
and obstacle limitation surfaces to be provided for at aerodromes, and certain facilities and
technical services normally provided at an aerodrome. Although the Annex provides some
general requirements on aerodrome operations such as aerodrome emergency planning,
rescue and fire fighting, it is mainly used as a design document and does not sufficiently
address aerodrome operational management, which is equally important for aerodrome safety
and efficiency. There is increasingly a need to develop an ICAO document that addresses
procedures for aerodrome operational management, as many challenges that are facing
aerodromes today is of operational nature.

4.7 Findings were identified in the audits of many States are more related to aerodrome
operational management. Annex 14, Volume I includes SARPs in these areas providing
general requirements; however, there is a lack of operational procedures specified on a global
basis that would assist Sates in achieving compliance with the high-level SARP requirements.

4.8 Annexe 13 – Aircraft Accident/ Incident Investigations. Develop Annex provisions and
guidance material for voluntary incident reporting systems;

4.9 Annexe 6 – Operations of Aircraft. Develop Standards and Recommended Practices

(SARPs) in order to prevent loss of control in flight;

4.10 Annexe 8 – Airworthiness of Aircraft. Develop SARPs aimed at improving the technical
reliability of aircraft and at limiting the consequences of technical failures;

4.11 Annexe 1 – Personnel Licensing. Upgrade the provisions relating to licensing of

maintenance personnel, especially as regards training and identification of privileges;

5. TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION BUREAU’S ROLE IN ASSISTING STATES

HAVING ISSUES IN RECTIFYING OR IMPLEMENTING SARPS.

5.1 The objective of the Aviation Security Follow-up Programme of the Technical Co operation
Bureau is to provide efficient and economical assistance to Contracting States, upon request,
in rectifying deficiencies identified in the audit reports and in enhancing their aviation
security capabilities, through the mobilization of human, technical and financial resources, as
necessary. The ultimate goal is to enable States to achieve full implementation and
enforcement of their aviation security obligations under aviation security multilateral
conventions and security-related ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs), as
well as guidance provided in the ICAO Security Manual and other guidance material
developed and updated by ICAO.

5.2 Assistance in capacity building may be provided by TCB at different stages of a project cycle:
a. Development of corrective action plans, as a follow-up to the ICAO Aviation Security
Audit Programme, on request of audited States, to address each audit finding indicative of
non-conformance to an ICAO standard and to specify the appropriate remedial action.
b. Preparation of capacity building programmes/ project documents with guarantee of
relevance to ICAO SARPs and governments established priorities for capacity building.
c. Mobilization of financial resources, including assistance in the identification of suitable
donors or negotiation with financing institutions on behalf of Contracting States for adequate
loans.
d. Project implementation on a country-specific or regional basis, including:

I) Recruitment of aviation security experts;

 II) Selection, recruitment and administration of suitably qualified aviation security field
staff;

III) Award of fellowships for training of aviation security national instructors and
personnel as well as the selection of training establishments;

IV) Establishment or upgrading of aviation security training centres/programmes; and

V) Procurement, installation and commissioning of aviation security equipment,

including the development of specifications and selection of equipment
manufacturers.

5.3 Aviation security experts are recruited as short-term consultants, intermediate and long-term
advisers or instructors for the purpose of cooperating with the government in a clearly defined
task, or providing formal or on-the-job training for a comprehensive transfer of knowledge to
national counterpart personnel, so as to ensure the sustainability of project results.

5.4 Experts may be involved in a variety of assignments, inter alia:

(a) to assist in the drafting and implementation of the national aviation security programme;
(b) to assess the adequacy of the existing aviation security organization and airport facilities
and assist in their upgrading;

(c) to review national civil aviation laws, aviation security regulations and procedures to
ensure compliance with Annex 17;

(d) to establish an aviation security unit;

(e) to conduct training of national aviation security instructors and national personnel; and

(f) to assist in procurement-related activities, including development of specifications, tender

calls, evaluations, purchase and site acceptance of aviation security equipment.

5.5 In ICAO's capacity building projects, training is a fundamental and integral

requirement for the proper development of a country's aviation security capabilities and for
their adaptation to new technologies and security procedures, while ensuring full compliance
with Annex 17. Virtually all capacity building projects and major aviation security equipment
supply contracts contain a training component, be it classroom, simulation, factory, practical
or on-the-job training. Such training may be arranged in-country or abroad, through the award
of fellowships, or at the manufacturer's site through the procurement component, and may
include the training of instructors and national personnel on a national or regional basis.

6. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION.

6.1 The Following recommendations are proposed:

• To properly implement ICAO SARPs, small contracting states require a a sound

legislative base, adequate and sufficient funds are essential prerequisites. The ICAO’s
Technical Co-operation Bureau (TCB); the Implementation Support and Development
Branch; the International Financial Facility for Aviation Safety (IFFAS); and a partnership
system is available to contracting states to analyse causes and to develop and implement
solutions.
• The proposal for changes in Annexes 1 – Personnel Licensing, Annexe 6 – Operations of
Aircraft, Annexe 8 – Airworthiness of Aircraft, Annexe 13 – Aircraft Accident/ Incident
 Investigation and Annexe 14 - Aerodromes will ensure the realized objective of
harmonization among contracting states thereby enhancing safety.
• Although the implementation scenario won’t change much for major states who already have
state practices which are higher than the standards, the review on safety level achieved and
thereby in the subsequent adoption of practices relating to modern procedures and equipment
will help ICAO in remodelling future standards more compliant with technological
advancements.

7. CONCLUSION.

5.5 To conclude this working paper i would like to summarize that this amendment proposal of
safety related annexes [by using the results obtained from the Universal Safety Oversight
Audit Program (USOAP)], is in the utmost interest of improving the safety of international
and national civil aviation, but will certainly have an adverse impact on the smaller states
who have already having considerable differences and issues concerning the implementation
of SARPS.

5.6 To answer whether this process would contribute towards meeting the 3 objectives of the
Global Aviation Safety Plan (GASP)? The answer is yes it would certainly contribute towards
GASP. The main objectives of GASP are identified as

a) reduce the number of accidents and fatalities worldwide irrespective of the volumes of air
traffic; and

b) achieve a significant decrease in accident rates, particularly in regions where these remain
high.

By reviewing the Annexes pertaining to Annexe 6, 8 and 13 and to an extent 14, and
implementation of these annexes and ICAO’s in particular TCB’s role in helping small states
where the accident rates are high due to lack of financial, technical and human resources
implement projects which consequently helps these states to adhere to SARPS will help
contribute towards meeting of the objectives set out in GASP.

5.7 The most feasible solution that ICAO can adopt to minimize the impact of adopting such a
process is that ICAO can ensure the joint co-operation between major states in helping small
states to implement standards by enriching human resources, finance projects which they
seem to lack.

6. REFERENCES:

6.1 http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/international/universal.aspx

6.2 http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/safety/report/index.aspx

6.3 http://www.iilj.org/GAL/documents/V5.Blumenkron.pdf

6.4 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air/events/doc/eu_africa/session_3_european_commission.pdf

6.5 http://www.au.af.mil/awc/africom/documents/asw200611.pdf

6.6 http://www2.icao.int/en/ssa/soa/usoap/Documents/USOAP%20Overview%20-%20public.pdf
6.7 http://www.aci.aero/aci/aci/file/Free%20docs/dgca_06_wp_32_en_ACI.pdf

6.8 http://www2.icao.int/en/ssa/soa/usoap/Pages/default.aspx

6.9 http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Universal_Safety_Oversight_Audit_Programme#ICAO_
Universal_Safety_Oversight_Audit_Programme_.28USOAP.29

6.10 http://www.dobrica.savic.ca/pubs/Fundamentals_of_law_ICAO.pdf

6.11 http://www.airports.org/aci/aci/file/Technical_Safety/Franssen_Informal_briefing_to_ANC.p
df

6.12 http://www.ceimexcan.org/congreso2008/presentaciones/ceimexcan2008_dia3_04_jimena_bl
umenkron.pdf

6.13 http://www.aviassist.nl/ivw/aviassist/Images/Final%20report%20students%20Smorenberg
%20&%20Nyiligira_tcm94-99238.pdf

6.14 http://www.policylaundering.org/archives/ICAO/working_paper_36_35th_Session.pdf

6.15 http://www.icao.int/icao/en/anb/gasp/gasp.html