DG MOVE I NDUSTRY W ORKSHOP R EGULATION 376/2014 - 27 April 2015 - The European Commission and the...

DG MOVEDG MOVE

INDUSTRY WORKSHOP REGULATION

376/2014- 27 April 2015 -

The European Commission and the European Aviation Safety Agency

DG MOVEDG MOVE

- REGULATION (EU) 376/2014-

Brussels - 27 April 2015

DG MOVEDG MOVE Industry Workshop -27 April2015

More proactive and evidence-based European Safety Policy

Fits in the context of existing safety management processes

Background


Main objectives:• Prevent accidents through reporting, analysis

and follow-up of relevant safety information at industry, national and EU level

• Ensure continued availability of safety information (enhanced Just Culture)

• Improve information exchange within the EU

Applicable from 15 November 2015

DG MOVEDG MOVE

- 376/2014 ROADMAP-



Developed by Commission with EASA help

Aim to support MS and industry

Collaborative effort

Roadmap implementation started in Dec 2014

End in Nov 2015 with application Regulation 376/2014


List of occurrences to be reported under MOR

Guidance material

Workshops for the industry EASA organisations - 4 December 2014 in Cologne Entire industry - 27 April 2015 in Brussels

Workshops for the Member States 30 March 2015 in Brussels Autumn in Brussels


EU risk classification scheme

Technical support ECCAIRS/ADREP compatibility Taxonomy Standard reporting forms European reporting portal Technical means facilitating the implementation of

the Regulation Trainings


Development of a Policy Model for the Internal Industry Just Culture Policy 3 meetings (March/ May /June 2015)

Communication and promotion material For CAT and for GA To be develop Summer 2015

High Level Conference 1st October 2015 in Brussels Presentation of deliverables


QUESTIONS?

DG MOVEDG MOVE

- GUIDANCE MATERIAL -



Prepared by the Commission with the support of EASA

Objectivesupport common understanding and

harmonised application of 376/2014

Scopecovers entire Regulation 376/2014


Addressed to:Aviation professionals

Industry organisations

Aviation competent authorities

States


1st draft circulated - 24 March

Discussion with the MS - 30 March

Revised draft circulated - 23 April

Discussion with the industry - 27 April

Revised draft circulated for comments - End May

Finalisation and dissemination - Summer 2015

Timeline


Final structure Divided according to targeted

stakeholders’ category

Format of questions

Include provisions interpretation, key principles, examples, best practices and means of compliance


QUESTIONS?

DG MOVEDG MOVE

- INDUSTRY WORKSHOP -



Participation

DG MOVEDG MOVE

REPORTING, ANALYSIS AND FOLLOW-UP OF OCCURRENCES



- REPORTING - MAIN PRINCIPLES


Clarification of reporters under MORS with examples

Clarification of occurrences to be reported under MORS:

Reportable occurrences are those contained in the IR

Report occurrences in relevant Annex not all in IR


Clarification on reportable occurrences:

Judgment by reporter when required to assess if aircraft endangered

When doubt, should report

Possible assessment by organisations

Accountability


QUESTIONS?


MANDATORY AND VOLUNTARY REPORTING


Clarification on differences between MORS and VORS

Occurrence Person in Article 4(6)

Yes Occ. listed in the IR MORS

VORSNo

Yes

No


QUESTIONS?


REPORTING ANDINFORMATION FLOW

- TIMELINE -


Timeline

Mandatory Report

Reporting to Organization

T0

72h

Reporting follow-up to Authority

1M

Reporting final report to Authority

Authority Reporting to ECR

Authority stores the report in the National DB

1M

Authority updates report in ECR

2M

Voluntary Report

T0

Reporting to Organization

Reporting to Authority

1M

72h 2M

3M

Reporting to Authority

72h

3M

Indi

vidu

als

Indi

vidu

als

Timeline


Timeline

For Design and Production Organisations, given that:

The reportable occurrence is the unsafe condition (Part-21 definition), and

The person to report is the responsible of the identification of the unsafe condition,

The T0 starts when the unsafe condition is identified.


QUESTIONS?


INTERACTION WITH REGULATION (EU) NO 216/2008 AND ITS IRS


Interaction with BR216/2008

Com

mon

R

eq

uir

em

en

ts

BR216/2008* R376/2014*

* Not exhaustive list of requirements


Reporting requirements existing in other EU legislations are consistent with reporting requirements under Regulation 376/2014

Both obligations should be discharged by one reporting channel avoiding the establishment of two parallel systems

Compliance with Regulation 216/2008 and its IRs should not exempt organisations from compliance with this Regulation, and vice versa



EASA is studying a dedicated RMT to update the Implementing Rules of BR216/2008 and related AMCs and GM to properly reflect requirements defined in Regulation 376/2014 in view to:

Provide legal certainty on reporting obligations Clarify the scope of competent authority

oversight and Support the promotion of a just culture



QUESTIONS?


REPORTING TO THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY


Information flow

Initial notification*

OccurrencePerson in

Article 4(6)

Yes

No

Occ. listed in the IR

Yes

No

Report to organisation

Report to Comp. Aut.

Report to ECR

Possibility to report to

organisation

Occurrence involves

safety risk

Yes

NoNo notification

*Note: for the purpose of simplification, the scheme indicates that the reporting by individuals is made to the organisation while it is recognised by the Regulation that individuals may report directly to the competent authority.


Information flow

Analysis and follow-up notification*

Occurrence notified by the organisation to the Comp. Aut.

Organisation analyses

occurrence and adopt relevant action, if any

Yes

Organisation identifies safety risk No

Report analysis results and

action to the Comp. Aut.

No obligation to report but

Comp. Aut. may ask the

reporting

Transfer to ECR

*Note: for the purpose of simplification, the scheme only addresses the reporting through organisations while the competent authority may receive occurrences directly from individuals.


QUESTIONS?


ANALYSIS AND FOLLOW-UP


Analysis and follow-up required under 376/2014 fits into existing processes

Management systems SMS Similar safety processes require by EU law or

equivalent

Not intended to create a parallel system but ensure system exists and support it


QUESTIONS?

DG MOVEDG MOVE

REPORTING FORMAT AND RELATED REQUIREMENTS



Support for Reporting

Individual

Organisation

ECR

Competent Authority

• ECCAIRS/ADREP Compatibility• Reporting means• Minimum Data Fields• Risk Classification• Data Quality checks

• Free format (C.A. Forms)

• ECCAIRS• Minimum Data Fields• EU Risk Classification• Data Quality checks

• Organisation Manual


ADREP/ECCAIRS Compatibility

ADREP taxonomy compatibility means a reporting using a taxonomy compliant with the latest version of the ADREP taxonomy as integrated in ECCAIRS.

This could be done by using the so-called RIT, defined and maintained at EU level

ECCAIRS software compatibility means using mean of reporting which uses technical means and data formats that enables a direct upload of information in an ECCAIRS database.

Organisations are expected to agree this technical solution with their competent authority


CompatibleReporting Means

Acceptable means available to facilitate compliance: Off-line reporting form (mostly for individuals, small/med

organisations) On-line reporting form (mostly for individuals, small/med

organisations) E5X file format (mostly for large organisations) Use of the ECCAIRS system

Organisations can agree with their Competent Authority any other means that provide similar levels of completeness and quality of data, and use the ADREP taxonomy


Off-line report

On-line report

Data transfer file (E5X)

CompatibleReporting Means


What This Means

Reduced Interface Taxonomy - Subset of ADREP We encourage organisations to use the RIT in their systems Welcome feedback and support to improve taxonomy

E5X Data Transfer Format EASA working with SMS Software Companies to enable

compatibility for their user communities Support available for organisations through EASA and NAAs

European Portal - On-line and off-line reporting Standardises and simplifies reporting to competent authority Reports offered: GA Report, Flight Operations, Aerodrome, ATM,

Birdstrike, Dangerous Goods and Technical


Mandatory Data Fields

Organisations and competent authorities databases shall contain the mandatory data fields listed in Annex I

Mandatory data fields include common data fields as well as fields to be provided only when relevant in the context of the occurrence

If the information is not known, it may be transmitted with the value “Unknown” or other relevant value (e.g. "Not applicable”)


Data Quality Checks

Data quality check should address: Errors in data entry Completeness of data, specially referring to mandatory

data, Proper use of the ADREP taxonomy Improve data consistency

EASA and the JRC should support by: Publishing standard quality rules Developing the necessary methods in ECCAIRS

environment to facilitate MS achieving Providing the necessary training


European Risk Classification

All organisations, Member States and EASA shall store and transmit the occurrence risk value

Only MS and EASA are required to use EU RC Scheme

Organisations can use any risk methodology The competent authority shall review, amend

and endorse RC in accordance with the EU RC Scheme



Timescales for Development – 2 Phases of Work Phase 1 – 2015: Development of structure and

concepts of the European Risk Classification Scheme

Phase 2 – 2016: Development of supporting material for implementation

Key principles established from previous work carried out in ECAST and NoA Sub Group - compatibility with ARMS/ RAT etc



Commission gave EASA responsibility for leading the activity

Commission provided detailed ToRs to EASA for the work

Group established in January and 1st meeting held on 10-11 March



Membership from cross section of industry ATM – CANSO and Eurocontrol NAAs – France, Spain and UK ARMS Developers and Research Organisations Airlines and Trade Organisations (AEA, EBAA, ERA,

IACA, IATA) Airports (ACI Europe) and Manufacturers (ASD)

First meeting reviewed existing schemes and agreed work programme


QUESTIONS?

DG MOVEDG MOVE

INFORMATION USE AND PROTECTION TO SOURCES AND OTHERS INVOLVED



JUST CULTURE IN CONTEXT OF AN ORGANISATION


Key Principle

Employees and contracted personnel who report or are mentioned in occurrence reports shall not be subject to any prejudice by their employer or by the organisation for which the services are provided on the basis of the information supplied by the reporter


Organisations are required to adopt internal rules to support the implementation of this principle

Mandatory consultation of staff representatives

Template policy and guidance will be prepared to support industry


Two exceptions to protection principle cases of wilful misconduct unacceptable behaviour i.e. where there has been a manifest, severe and serious disregard of an obvious risk and profound failure of professional responsibility to take such care as is evidently required in the circumstances, causing foreseeable damage to a person or property, or which seriously compromises the level of aviation safety


In line with Just Culture principle where individuals are protected but not absolve from their normal responsibilities

Not protect for the sake of protecting but for encouraging people to report


QUESTIONS?


JUST CULTURE IN CONTEXT OF THE STATE


MS prevented to institute proceedings on the basis of occurrences unless if national criminal law allows it

When administrative or disciplinary proceedings instituted, information cannot be used against reporter or other involved


Two exceptions to protection principle cases of wilful misconduct unacceptable behaviour i.e. where there has been a manifest, severe and serious disregard of an obvious risk and profound failure of professional responsibility to take such care as is evidently required in the circumstances, causing foreseeable damage to a person or property, or which seriously compromises the level of aviation safety


QUESTIONS?


LIMITATIONS TO INFORMATION

AVAILABILITY AND USE


Strong limitations to sharing and use of information from occurrence reports

Principle : organisations, MS and EASA shall not make available or use the information:

in order to attribute blame or liability or for any purpose other than the

maintenance or improvement of aviation safety


Principle:

Member States and EASA shall not be prevented from taking any action necessary for maintaining or improving aviation safety


Information cannot be made available or used to attribute blame or liability towards the reporter or any other person mentioned in the report

Sharing occurrences information to answer request from citizens under FOI or from judicial authorities prevented


ExceptionSituations in which an investigation under Regulation (EU) No 996/2010 has been instituted


QUESTIONS?

DG MOVEDG MOVE

CONCLUSION

The European Commission and the European Aviation Safety Agency

DG MOVE I NDUSTRY W ORKSHOP R EGULATION 376/2014 - 27 April 2015 - The European Commission and the...

Documents

Transcript of DG MOVE I NDUSTRY W ORKSHOP R EGULATION 376/2014 - 27 April 2015 - The European Commission and the...