V O L U M E 6 1 NUMBER 2 , 2006

ICAOJ O U R N A L

CREATING A GLOBAL STRATEGY FOR AVIATION SAFETY

Updating the PlanTransition to a trulyglobal ATM system

Flight Inspection PrimerVerifying satellite-basedapproach procedures

MARCH/APRIL 2006VOL. 61, NO.2

ICAO JournalThe magazine of the International Civil Aviation Organization

FEATURES

5 Global safety conference heralds new era of opennessIn renewing their commitment to a coordinated global safety effort, theworld’s civil aviation leaders have embraced a strategy that demands fulltransparency and sharing of safety information …

8 Satellite-based approaches facilitate more efficient inspection processOnce commissioned, it would appear that the safeness of an approachprocedure based on satellite navigation can be verified effectively withoutresorting to periodic flight inspection …

13 Global Plan stresses initiatives that lead to direct performanceenhancementsThe second amendment to the Global Air Navigation Plan currently underreview focuses on operational and technical improvements that will benefitaircraft operators worldwide …

14 Systematic approach to managing safety calls for conceptual shiftsA safety management system provides the potential to weave a strong safety netfrom disparate safety programmes, and offers airlines a more realistic picture ofoperational risks and an objective method for allocating constrained resources …

19 Maintenance shortcomings lead to B757’s precautionary landingOn its first flight following a major maintenance check, a Boeing 757 is forcedto land at the nearest suitable airport because of a persistent hot oil smell inthe cockpit and cabin, a problem later traced to maintenance mishaps thathighlight systemic issues …

22 Technological advances facilitate change in licensing and training standardsThe new multi-crew pilot licence represents a significant new approach to trainingpilots for a career in air transport. Ultimately, it could allow the industry to sustainrapid growth by generating an influx of more appropriately trained pilots …

UPDATE24 Comprehensive safety oversight audits now under way

• Annex amendment includes safety management provisions• Data system to promote safety through increased transparency• Change to Annex 1 includes new upper age limit for pilots• ICAO releases safety and security statistics for 2005

Cover photo by Graham French/Masterfile

THE ICAOCOUNCIL

PresidentDr. ASSAD KOTAITE

1st Vice-PresidentL. A. DUPUIS

2nd Vice-PresidentM. A. AWAN

3rd Vice-PresidentA. SUAZO MORAZÁN

SecretaryDr. TAÏEB CHÉRIFSecretary General

Argentina – D. O. Valente

Australia – S. Clegg

Austria – S. Gehrer

Brazil – P. Bittencourt de Almeida

Cameroon – T. Tekou

Canada – L. A. Dupuis

Chile – G. Miranda Aguirre

China – Y. Zhang

Colombia – J. E. Ortiz Cuenca

Egypt – N. E. Kamel

Ethiopia – M. Belayneh

Finland – L. Lövkvist

France – J.-C. Chouvet

Germany – Dr. H. Mürl

Ghana – K. Kwakwa

Honduras – A. Suazo Morazán

Hungary – Dr. A. Sipos

India – Dr. N. Zaidi

Italy – F. Cristiani

Japan – H. Kono

Lebanon – H. Chaouk

Mexico – R. Kobeh González

Mozambique – D. de Deus

Nigeria – Dr. O. B. Aliu

Pakistan – M. A. Awan

Peru – J. Muñoz-Deacon

Republic Of Korea – S. Rhee

Russian Federation – I. M. Lysenko

Saint Lucia – H. A. Wilson

Saudi Arabia – S. A. R. Hashem

Singapore – K. P. Bong

South Africa – M. D. T. Peege

Spain – L. Adrover

Tunisia – M. Chérif

United Kingdom – N. Denton

United States – D. T. Bliss

WWW.ICAO.INT

Visit ICAO’s website for past issues of the ICAO Journal, news releases and a wealth of otherinformation, including background on various key topics and meeting documentation.

DGCA Conference of 20-22 March 2006: www.icao.int/icao/en/dgcaALLPIRG Meeting of 23-24 March 2006: www.icao.int/cgi/goto_rao.pl?icao/en/ro/allpirg/allpirg5

Aviation medicine: www.icao.int/icao/en/med

Environmental protection: www.icao.int/icao/en/env

Machine readable travel documents: www.icao.int/mrtd/Home

Strategic objectives: www.icao.int/cgi/goto_m.pl?icao/en/strategic_objectives.htm

Trainair Programme: www.icao.int/anb/trainair/Home

Universal Security Audit Programme: www.icao.int/icao/en/atb/asa

ICAO JOURNAL4

Editor: Eric MacBurnie Production Clerk: Arlene BarnesEditorial Assistant: Regina Zorman Design Consultant: André Cordeau

THE OBJECTIVES of the Journal are to provide a concise account of theactivities of the International Civil Aviation Organization and to featureadditional information of interest to ICAO Contracting States and the inter-national aeronautical world. Copyright ©2006 International Civil AviationOrganization. Unsigned and Secretariat material may be reproduced in fullor in part provided that it is attributed to ICAO; for rights to reproduceother signed articles, please write to the editor.

OPINIONS EXPRESSED in signed articles or in advertisements appearing inthe ICAO Journal represent the author’s or advertiser’s opinion and do notnecessarily reflect the views of ICAO. The mention of specific companies orproducts in articles or advertisements does not imply that they are endorsedor recommended by ICAO in preference to others of a similar nature whichare not mentioned or advertised.

Published in Montreal, Canada. Second class mail registration No. 1610. ISSN1014-8876. Date of publication of Issue 2/2006: 13 April 2006. Publishedsix times annually in English, French and Spanish.

SUBSCRIPTIONS: $25 (by surface) and $35 (by air) per year. Single copiesavailable for $10. Prices in U.S. funds. For subscription and circulationinquiries, please contact ICAO Document Sales Unit. Telephone:+1 (514) 954-8022; Facsimile: +1 (514) 954-6769; E-mail: sales@icao.int.Important Note: Readers are advised that surface delivery may take aslong as six months, depending on location. Air mail is strongly recom-mended. The current issue may be viewed in PDF format without delayat ICAO’s website (http://icao.int/icao/en/jr/jr.cfm). Issues dated 2005or earlier are viewable using the downloadable DjVu reader. Plannedpublication dates for 2006 are 15 February, 13 April, 9 June, 7 August,8 September and 11 December.

ADVERTISING REPRESENTATIVE: Yves Allard, FCM Communications Inc., 835Montarville St., Longueuil, Quebec, Canada J4H 2M5.Telephone: +1 (450) 677-3535;Facsimile: +1 (450) 677-4445; e-mail: fcmcommunications@ videotron.ca.

EDITORIAL OFFICE: International Civil Aviation Organization, 999 Univer-sity St., Room 1205, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3C 5H7. Telephone:+1 (514) 954-8222; Facsimile: +1 (514) 954-6376; e-mail: emacburnie@icao.int.

GRAPHIC ART/DESIGN: Bang Marketing (www.bang-marketing.com). PRINTING:Transcontinental-O’Keefe Montreal (www.transcontinental-printing.com).

ICAO HEADQUARTERS: 999 University St., Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3C 5H7.Telephone +1 (514) 954-8219; Facsimile +1 (514) 954-6077; e-mail: icaohq@icao.int.

www.icao.int VISIT ICAO’s website for a wealth of information includingpast issues of the ICAO Journal, information on advertising in ICAO’s maga-zine, the latest news releases, a complete listing of ICAO publications andaudio visual training aids, the ICAO aviation training directory, Secretariat jobvacancies, technical cooperation project postings, and much more.

ICAO PUBLICATIONS: The Catalogue of ICAO Publications and Audio-VisualTraining Aids contains a list of all document titles as well as abstracts andindicates the availability of language versions. The catalogue is issued annu-ally in hard copy. Monthly supplements list new publications and audio-visual training aids as they become available, as well as amendments andsupplements. Most ICAO publications are issued in English, French,Russian and Spanish; Arabic and Chinese are being introduced on a gradualbasis. (The most efficient way to order an ICAO publication is online athttp://www.icao.int using VISA or Mastercard. All transactions conducted onthis server are encrypted and secure.)

ICAO ESHOP (www.icao.int/eshop): eSHOP is a commercial website offeringonline access to ICAO documentation for an annual fee. A subscription givesaccess to the full texts of international conventions and protocols, all annexesto the Convention on International Civil Aviation (the Chicago Convention),publications pertaining to air traffic management, and the annual reports ofthe ICAO Council.

DGCA DIRECTORY: ICAO has developed an electronic database of informationon national civil aviation administrations from around the world. The Directoryof National Civil Aviation Administrations (Document 7604) is continuouslyupdated, based on information received from ICAO’s 189 Contracting States.The online directory is available through ICAO’s website at an annual subscrip-tion fee of U.S. $150. For further information, please contact the DatabaseAdministrator (dgca@icao.int).

ICAO Journal

AfghanistanAlbaniaAlgeriaAndorraAngolaAntigua and BarbudaArgentinaArmeniaAustraliaAustriaAzerbaijanBahamasBahrainBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBeninBhutanBoliviaBosnia and

HerzegovinaBotswanaBrazilBrunei DarussalamBulgariaBurkina FasoBurundiCambodiaCameroonCanadaCape VerdeCentral African

RepublicChadChileChinaColombiaComorosCongoCook IslandsCosta RicaCôte d’IvoireCroatiaCubaCyprusCzech RepublicDemocratic People’s

Republic of KoreaDemocratic Republic

of the Congo

DenmarkDjiboutiDominican RepublicEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEquatorial GuineaEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFijiFinlandFranceGabonGambiaGeorgiaGermanyGhanaGreeceGrenadaGuatemalaGuineaGuinea-BissauGuyanaHaitiHondurasHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIran (Islamic

Republic of)IraqIrelandIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJordanKazakhstanKenyaKiribatiKuwaitKyrgyzstanLao People’s

Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanonLesothoLiberiaLibyan Arab

Jamahiriya

LithuaniaLuxembourgMadagascarMalawiMalaysiaMaldivesMaliMaltaMarshall IslandsMauritaniaMauritiusMexicoMicronesia

(Federated States of)MonacoMongoliaMoroccoMozambiqueMyanmarNamibiaNauruNepalNetherlandsNew ZealandNicaraguaNigerNigeriaNorwayOmanPakistanPalauPanamaPapua New GuineaParaguayPeruPhilippinesPolandPortugalQatarRepublic of KoreaRepublic of MoldovaRomaniaRussian FederationRwandaSaint Kitts and NevisSaint LuciaSaint Vincent and

the GrenadinesSamoaSan MarinoSao Tome and PrincipeSaudi Arabia

SenegalSerbia and MontenegroSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSlovakiaSloveniaSolomon IslandsSomaliaSouth AfricaSpainSri LankaSudanSurinameSwazilandSwedenSwitzerlandSyrian Arab RepublicTajikistanThailandThe former Yugoslav

Republic of Macedonia

Timor-LesteTogoTongaTrinidad and TobagoTunisiaTurkeyTurkmenistanUgandaUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUnited Republic

of TanzaniaUnited StatesUruguayUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuelaViet NamYemenZambiaZimbabwe

ICAO Headquarters

999 University StreetMontreal, QuebecCanada H3C 5H7Telephone: 514-954-8219Facsimile: 514-954-6077E-mail: icaohq@icao.intWebsite: www.icao.int

REGIONAL OFFICES

Asia and Pacific OfficeBangkok, ThailandTelephone: + 662-537-8189Facsimile: + 662-537-8199E-mail:icao_apac@bangkok.icao.int

Eastern and Southern African OfficeNairobi, KenyaTelephone: + 254-20-7622-395Facsimile: + 254-20-7623-028E-mail: icao@icao.unon.org

European and North Atlantic OfficeParis, FranceTelephone: + 33-1-46-41-85-85Facsimile: + 33-1-46-41-85-00E-mail: icaoeurnat@paris.icao.int

Middle East OfficeCairo, EgyptTelephone: + 202-267-4841Facsimile: + 202-267-4843E-mail: icaomid@cairo.icao.intWebsite: www.icao.int/mid

North American, Central Americanand Caribbean OfficeMexico City, MexicoTelephone: + 52-55-52-50-32-11Facsimile: + 52-55-52-03-27-57E-mail: icao_nacc@mexico.icao.int

South American OfficeLima, PeruTelephone: + 51-1-575-1646Facsimile: + 51-1-575-0974E-mail: mail@lima.icao.intWebsite: www.lima.icao.int

Western and Central African OfficeDakar, SenegalTelephone: + 221-839-93-93Facsimile: + 221-823-69-26E-mail: icaodkr@icao.sn

Promoting the Development of International Civil AviationThe International Civil AviationOrganization, created in 1944 to promotethe safe and orderly development of civilaviation worldwide, is a specialized agency ofthe United Nations. Headquartered in Montreal,ICAO develops international air transport standardsand regulations and serves as the medium for cooperation in all fields of civil aviation among its 189 Contracting States.

ICAO CONTRACTING STATES

IVIL aviation leaders from aroundthe world have adopted a declara-tion which ushers in a new era of

openness and transparency concerningsafety information. The landmark agree-ment binds directors general of civil avia-tion (DGCAs) of ICAO member States toseveral actions intended to reinforce thesafety framework, which has come underpublic scrutiny in recent months follow-ing a series of high-profile accidents.

The declaration was adopted at the end ofa highly focused conference, which conti-nued for just over two days at ICAO’sMontreal headquarters. The meeting result-ed in a comprehensive set of conclusionsand recommendations that give shape to anaction-oriented global strategy, with greatertransparency as its cornerstone.

“Transparency and sharing of safetyinformation are fundamental tenets of asafe air transport system,” explained ICAOCouncil President Dr. Assad Kotaite, whoserved as Chairman of the Conference, atthe conclusion of the meeting. “I believethat this initiative and others taken at theconference will foster mutual trust betweenStates, increase public confidence in airtravel, and help maintain the integrity ofthe safest and most efficient means ofmass transportation ever created.”

The crucial meeting was precipitatedby major accidents last year that servedas a clear reminder that systemic defi-ciencies need to be addressed in a globaleffort by all parties concerned. Whilesignificant progress had been made inaddressing deficiencies, certain short-comings disclosed by safety oversightaudits conducted by ICAO have yet to be

SAFETY INITIATIVES

Global safety conference heraldsnew era of openness

In renewing their commitment to a coordinated global safety effort, the world’s civil aviation leadershave embraced a strategy that demands full transparency and sharing of safety information

eliminated because of a lack of effectivecorrective action. The delegates agreedthat further improvement in safety couldbe achieved only by implementing acomprehensive and proactive approachinvolving worldwide application by Statesand operators.

Delegates were urged by the CouncilPresident to work together by forging astrategy that recognizes that a weakness inone DGCA is a weakness in all. “By beingtransparent and freely sharing informationwith each other and the public,” he empha-sized, “you recapture the ability to act asone, to reinforce one another’s actions, andto strengthen public confidence. You willbe better able to stand united against thosewho compromise aviation safety.”

The DGCAs voiced their commitment toa renewed effort to reinforce the safety net-work through four specific initiatives. First,they agreed to sharing, as soon as possible,

appropriate safety-related informationamong all aviation stakeholders includingthe public, an issue that proved sensitivebut which was successfully addressedthrough compromise. Second, they agreedto exercise safety oversight of their aircraftoperators, and to assure themselves thatforeign operators present in their territoryreceive adequate oversight from the Stateconcerned, while taking appropriate actionwhen necessary to preserve safety. Theydecided, moreover, to expeditiously imple-ment safety management systems across allsafety-related disciplines to supplement theexisting regulatory framework (a separatearticle on implementing safety manage-ment systems begins on page 14). Finally,the DGCAs made a commitment to developsustainable safety solutions, including theformation or strengthening of regional andsub-regional safety oversight organizationsand initiatives.

NUMBER 2, 2006 5

Some 560 participants from 153 Contracting States and 26 international organizationsattended a global safety conference at ICAO’s headquarters on 20-22 March 2006.

ICAO SECRETARIAT

C

Ger

ryEr

cola

ni

At the same time, the DGCAs called onStates, ICAO, the aviation industry anddonor organizations to direct preciousresources towards the establishment ofsustainable safety oversight solutions.With respect to ICAO in particular, theUnited Nations agency was urged to deve-lop and actively support informationexchange mechanisms that allow for anunrestricted flow of safety data between allstakeholders and, in the same vein, todevelop a mechanism to make availableaircraft registration and operator informa-tion (see “Data system to promote safetythrough increased transparency,” page 25).

The DGCAs also called on ICAO to deve-lop guidelines and procedures for therecognition of certificates and licences,such as a certificate of airworthiness orpilot’s licence. Before recognizing the vali-dity of certificates and licences issued byother States, there is a need to verify thatthe conditions for such recognition havebeen met or, in other words, to confirm thatthe documents were issued under require-ments at least equal to the applicable ICAOstandards. The conference decided thatguidance will help ensure that this processof mutual recognition — a process that ismandatory under Article 33 of the ChicagoConvention — is effective and uniform.

SAFETY INITIATIVES

Maintaining public confidenceIn his opening statement to the confe-

rence, ICAO Secretary General Dr. TaïebChérif predicted that the discussions anddecisions among DGCAs representingmost of the world’s countries would lead toconcrete results in solving the safety issuesthat continue to undermine the integrity ofthe global air transport system. The meet-ing, which attracted more than 560 parti-cipants from 153 Contracting States and26 international organizations, was arguablythe most important safety conference everheld by ICAO.

Conference participants arrived inMontreal already convinced that some-thing had to be done to prevent the num-ber of fatalities and accidents from risingas air traffic continues to increase inthe years ahead. As Lawrence Cannon,Minister of Transport, Infrastructure andCommunities of Canada, summed up inhis welcome address, the historic meet-ing was “about people having confidence inflying.” Future demographics, he explained,“tell us that the current safety frameworksimply is not sustainable.”

Mr. Cannon called on ICAO to provideleadership in implementing a global strategythat effectively addresses systemic safetydeficiencies, asserting that “there is nobetter tool for international cooperationand action than ICAO.”

The meeting was organized aroundthree key themes that generated numerousworking papers from States and interna-tional organizations, as well as proposals bythe ICAO Secretariat. All of the documen-tation submitted to the meeting, as well asthe declaration, conclusions and recommen-dations, is available at the ICAO website(www.icao.int/icao/en/dgca/).

Fittingly, the meeting opened with areview of the status of aviation safety today,with particular focus on worldwide andregional trends in aviation safety, the statusof safety oversight activities, and a look atthe initiatives by States and industry toimprove safety. On this last topic, Confe-rence Secretary William Voss, the Directorof the ICAO Air Navigation Bureau, pointedout that there had been so many initiativesit was impossible to list them all, and theneed today is “to talk about better coordi-nation of all these efforts.”

But the theme that occupied most of theconference’s time was the various ways ofimproving aviation safety. Delegates dis-cussed numerous proposals concerning arange of topics, among them transparency,management of aviation safety, ICAO’srecently adopted unified strategy to resolvesafety-related deficiencies, and safety over-sight enhancement.

And in this respect, the decision torelease results of ICAO audits to the public

6 ICAO JOURNAL

The DGCA conference was opened by ICAO Council President Dr. Assad Kotaite (left), LawrenceCannon, Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities of Canada (centre), and ICAOSecretary General Dr. Taïeb Chérif. The worldwide meeting was presided over by Dr. Kotaite,who will step down as Council President at the end of July.

DISCLOSURE AUTHORIZED

By the time the conference of DGCAs concluded on 22March, 66 Contracting States had signed consentforms permitting ICAO to disclose safety information.The States that have agreed to this disclosure —many have authorized release of the full safety over-sight audit report and not simply an executive summary— are as follows: Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Benin,Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burundi,Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, China (including theSpecial Administrative Regions of Hong Kong andMacao), Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire,Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Fiji,Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Hungary,Iceland, Italy, Ireland, Lesotho, Lithuania, Luxembourg,Madagascar, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mexico,Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway,Oman, Papua New Guinea, Portugal, Republic ofMoldova, Republic of Slovenia, Romania, Saudi Arabia,Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Spain,Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania, Thailand,The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo,United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States,and Zambia.

Ger

ryEr

cola

ni

was clearly the most significant outcome.The mandatory audits, conducted underthe Universal Safety Oversight AuditProgramme (USOAP) that was mandatedby a DGCA conference in 1997, assess thelevel of implementation of ICAO standardsand recommended practices (SARPs),identify safety concerns or deficiencies,and provide recommendations for theirresolution. (For a brief update on the statusof USOAP, see “Comprehensive safetyoversight audits well under way,” page 24.)

Until now, the results of such auditshave been available only to the ContractingStates themselves, and further dissemina-tion has been left to the discretion of eachState. The decision to allow ICAO to releasesuch information came after a debate inwhich some delegates asserted that suchdata should remain restricted because ofthe potential for misuse; others argued thatfull transparency was crucial to safetyenhancement.

In a spirit of give-and-take over a diffi-cult issue, participants agreed that newaudit reports should continue to beshared among Contracting States, whileat a minimum summaries of the auditresults should be released publicly toallow travellers to make informed deci-sions when using air transportation. As afurther compromise between divergingviews, the conference recommended thatStates be allowed a maximum of twoyears to update safety information beforesuch data are released to the public. Theinformation, to be posted at ICAO’s pub-lic website, will focus on compliance levelsrelative to the critical elements of a safetyoversight system. A deadline of 23 March2008 has been announced for releasingthe latest information, after which ICAOwill identify those member States that failto authorize public disclosure.

Conscious of the public interest in theoutcome of the conference, a number ofcountries confirmed their willingness tohave the safety data released withoutdelay; indeed, by the time the meetingconcluded on 22 March, 66 ContractingStates had signed consent forms permit-ting ICAO to disclose safety information(see box, page 6).

SAFETY INITIATIVES

The summary safety reports will covereight specific areas of a safety oversightsystem, namely the status of compliancewith SARPs in terms of:• primary aviation legislation;• specific operating regulations;• State civil aviation system and safetyoversight functions;• technical personnel qualification andtraining;• technical guidance, tools and the provi-sion of safety-critical information;• licensing, certification, authorizationand approval obligations;• surveillance obligations; and • resolution of safety concerns.

Summary reports and other safety-relatedinformation will be posted at an ICAOwebsite known as theFlight Safety Informa-tion Exchange (FSIX),which was launchedduring the conference(www.icao.int/anb/fsix).The site is maintainedby a newly created unitwithin the ICAO AirNavigation Bureau thatis dedicated to mana-ging the organization’sunified safety strategy.

As summaries areposted, States will begiven the opportunityto update the infor-mation to assist thepublic in assessing theprogress that has been made since com-pletion of the last audit. The DGCAs alsocalled on ICAO to develop a strategy forcommunicating the safety informationeffectively to the public.

In looking to the future, the conferenceconcluded that economic liberalizationwas having a major impact on the aviationindustry (see “Evolving commercial andoperating environment presents safetyand security challenges,” Issue 1/2006,page 5), and agreed on the need toensure that the safety framework contin-ues to be effective in the new era of globa-lization. Among recommendations issuedunder this theme were a proposal to deve-

lop a new Chicago Convention annex onsafety oversight, safety assessment andsafety management, and a suggestion thatICAO Council should study the issue offlags of convenience, taking into accountthe experience of other international orga-nizations in dealing with the same issue.

At the conclusion of the meeting, Dr.Kotaite emphasized that implementationand enforcement of all safety-related pro-visions of the Chicago Convention, itsannexes and ICAO Assembly resolutionswere essential to ensure aviation safety.

“Together, these documents constitutethe essential regulatory framework forglobal air transport and must be fullyutilized by all stakeholders, in a coopera-tive manner, to achieve optimum safety.

Accidents most often happen when stan-dards and regulations are not applied ona consistent basis,” he stated.

The delegates were informed by theICAO Secretary General that the ICAOSafety Management Manual (Document9859) had been posted at the ICAO web-site, and printed copies of the manual hadbeen made available at a nominal cost.

Dr. Chérif also assured participants thatthe conclusions and recommendations ofthe conference would be acted on prompt-ly, following the customary review by theorganization’s governing body, the ICAOCouncil. The Secretariat, he affirmed, “will

NUMBER 2, 2006 7

continued on page 32

DELEGATES PAY TRIBUTETO COUNCIL PRESIDENT

The DGCA conference of 20-22 March 2006, together with a meet-ing of regional air navigation planners that immediately followedit (see text, page 26), were the last high-profile events to bepresided over by Dr. Assad Kotaite, who has served as President ofthe ICAO Council since 1976, and before that as ICAO SecretaryGeneral from 1970 to 1976. His impact as a civil aviation leaderwas highlighted as the two events drew to a close.

A number of participants at the DGCA conference commendedthe veteran, who will leave his post at the end of July, for his con-duct of the historic worldwide meeting. But they also praised himfor his strong leadership and remarkable contribution to civil avi-ation over a period of years that had witnessed major technolog-ical, economic and regulatory change.

continued on page 34

ITH the advent of advancednavigation technologies, theopportunity exists to employ

more efficient methods for inspectingapproach procedures. Unlike proceduresthat depend on ground-based navigationaids, approach procedures based on satel-lite signals do not appear to require perio-dic flight inspection. Before examining thebasis for this conclusion, it is informativeto review current technologies and flightinspection requirements.

Capabilities of WAASSatellite-based augmentation systems

(SBAS) are now being implemented aroundthe world in order to improve the accuracyand integrity of navigation based on theglobal navigation satellite system (GNSS).One of these is the wide area augmenta-

FLIGHT INSPECTION

Satellite-based approaches facilitatemore efficient inspection process

Once commissioned, it would appear the safeness of an approach procedure based on satellitenavigation can be verified effectively without resorting to periodic flight inspection

TODD WALTER • J. DAVID POWELL

STANFORD UNIVERSITY

(UNITED STATES)

W

tion system (WAAS), the SBAS imple-mented by the U.S. Federal AviationAdministration (FAA) in 2003. WAAS nowprovides continuous horizontal naviga-tion throughout the U.S. national airspacesystem, as well as vertical guidance tomost of the continental United States.The European geostationary navigationoverlay service (EGNOS) is a similar sys-tem that will provide coverage for Europe.Other parts of the world — Japan andIndia among them — are also developingaugmentation systems. All of these sys-tems will include instrument approachesthat utilize improved navigation accuracy.

WAAS provides for two types of approachprocedures with vertical guidance: lateraland vertical navigation (LNAV/VNAV)and lateral precision with vertical guidance(LPV). LNAV/VNAV was originally devel-oped for barometric vertical guidance, withlateral guidance provided by either a stand-alone global positioning system (GPS) ora ground-based navigation aid called dis-tance measuring equipment (DME). WAAS

improves on these by providing both LNAVand VNAV functions. An LPV approachimproves even further on this: by takingadvantage of the horizontal accuracy ofWAAS, the horizontal obstacle clearancezone is reduced to a tenth of its original area,enabling much lower decision altitudes.

LPV is capable — depending on localobstacles and runway markings — ofbringing an aircraft to within 200 feet ofthe ground. Functionally, it is very similarto a Category I (CAT I) instrument land-ing system (ILS) approach. A pilot flyingan LPV approach would do so in the samemanner as an ILS approach, using thesame displays in the cockpit for guidance.

How WAAS works. WAAS-equipped air-craft use GPS satellites to determine theposition of aircraft, but importantly, theGPS position so obtained is enhanced inseveral ways. WAAS improves positionaccuracy, for example, by sending correc-tions for the largest errors in the GPSsignals. It also provides integrity by broad-casting confidence bounds for the remain-ing errors, and improves availability byproviding additional satellites for use indetermining position.

WAAS employs a network of 25 groundreference stations throughout the UnitedStates which monitor the health of theGPS satellites. This information is thenbroadcast to aircraft through a geosta-tionary earth orbit satellite that alsosends a signal virtually identical to thatwhich the GPS satellites broadcast.Aircraft can incorporate this extra signalinto their position solution, thereby increas-ing the probability that four or more satel-lites are available as required.

Because WAAS is a nationwide networkand uses a geostationary satellite for itsdata link, it can provide service throughout

8 ICAO JOURNAL

National civil aviation authorities the world over are responsible for the safety of theirairspace systems, a role that calls for the use of specially equipped flight inspectionaircraft.

U.S. national airspace without the need forlocal infrastructure. To use WAAS at a localairport, no additional ground navigation aid(navaid) needs to be installed.

The 25 WAAS reference stations are atprecisely surveyed locations. Each hasthree dual frequency GPS receivers that canbe used to cross-check the measurements.By taking measurements from two frequen-cies, the propagation delay arising from thesignal’s passing through the ionosphere canbe separated from the other error sources.

WAAS sends corrections for the ionos-pheric delay as well as for the GPS satellites’clock and orbital errors. Each correction issent to the user at least once every five minu-tes. Because the reference stations knowtheir location to within centimetres, theycan determine what errors may be presenton the ranging signals from the satellites.These errors are separated into their indi-vidual components for efficient broadcast.Together, the corrections yield an accuracythat is a little less thanone metre horizontallyand a little over onemetre vertically, 95 per-cent of the time.

The WAASProgramme

The wide area aug-mentation system wasinitially commissionedon 10 July 2003. Theperformance is verygood, but it has somelimitations. These arebeing addressed witha series of improvements designed toestablish LPV performance over the conti-nental United States in early 2008.

Although WAAS availability has beenvery high, the geostationary satellites usedare not ideally placed over the United States,and their signal capability is limited. Conse-quently, FAA is procuring two new geosta-tionary satellites whose signals should beavailable in late 2006. These satellites willbe higher in the sky and offer continuous,overlapping coverage. Their signals, whichwill better emulate GPS signals, will be pro-vided on a second civil frequency. Another

FLIGHT INSPECTION

improvement to WAAS is the addition of13 new reference stations in Alaska, Canada,and Mexico, expanding coverage so thatLPV approach capability is available over allof the continental United States more than99 percent of the time. Finally, there will beenhancements made to the internal algo-rithms of WAAS, which will improve boththe continuity and availability of the system.

In the longer term, WAAS will likelytake advantage of improvements planned

for the GPS constel-lation. Primarily thisinvolves the use of anew civil frequency atL5. By having bothfrequencies measuredonboard the aircraft,ionospheric delays canbe directly measuredand removed. This

significantly reduces the largest errorsource currently affecting GPS and WAAS.

A dual frequency equipped aircraft willhave several advantages over one usingthe current WAAS. It will have significantlybetter performance for LPV, which will nolonger be vulnerable to outages caused byionospheric disturbances. It will also havesome immunity to radio frequency inter-ference that can block either the L1 or L5signals, and in addition will offer CAT Iservice. Thus, modernizing WAAS to matchthe improved GPS capabilities offers signi-ficant benefits to the aviation community.

Another planned improvement is toincorporate the European counterpart toGPS, called Galileo, as it becomes availa-ble. The additional measurements fromthe Galileo satellites will dramaticallyincrease availability and reduce continuitybreaks. The final version of WAAS, whichwill not be available before 2015, will offerfull availability of CAT I throughout the con-tinental U.S. and a very reliable LPV serviceeven in the presence of interference.

WAAS can easily be added to any air-craft. Consumer receivers have been usingWAAS for a long time, and two manufactur-ers offer certificated WAAS receivers foraviation use. Several more are expected inthe next few years. WAAS can currently beused for over 4,400 approaches.

Importance of flight inspectionNational civil aviation authorities the

world over are responsible for the safetyof their airspace systems. If an accidentwere to be caused by a faulty navigationaid or an improper landing approach pro-cedure, the government would not havedone its job adequately and could beliable for damages. To help avoid this pos-sibility, specially equipped aircraft perio-dically inspect all ground-based navaids.The accuracy of a navigational aid is eval-uated using flight inspection aircraft thathave equipment on board to determinetheir true location independently of thenavaid being evaluated. This makes it

NUMBER 2, 2006 9

Pho

tos

cou

rtes

yo

fN

avC

anad

a

Flight inspection of an ILS installation involves checking the accuracyof signals transmitted by a localizer antenna (Figure 1, above), and aglide slope antenna (Figure 2).

possible to verify that the accuracy of thenavaids is within the allowable tolerances.

In the United States, the FAA carriesout such a flight inspection upon initialcommissioning of the navaid, and perio-dically thereafter. Flight inspection is alsopart of the commissioning process of newlanding approach procedures. The purposeof this inspection is to verify that all datato be published for the approach are cor-rect, that the flight path clears obstaclesand terrain by an acceptable margin, andthat the achieved flight path is the sameas the flight path intended by the proce-dure designer.

Flight inspection of an ILS. An instru-ment landing system consists of antennaarrays that provide electronic beams forguidance of aircraft along their approachto landing. More specifically, it provides asignal that the aircraft is on the correctglide slope and is also on the extendedrunway centerline. The extended runwaycenterline information is pro-vided by a signal from a localiz-er antenna (see Figure 1) at thefar end of the runway, and thevertical information is provi-ded by a signal from the glide-slope antenna located besidethe runway about 1,000 feetfrom the landing threshold(see Figure 2).

In some cases, the ILS elec-tronics on the ground requireadjustments to provide correctsignals along the entire lengthof the approach. In the UnitedStates, flight inspection aircraftcomplete several low passesthat fly along the runway at aheight of approximately 50 feet,making sure that the camerasystem captures the runwaythresholds at both ends. Aftereach pass, the technician onboard the aircraft communi-cates with technicians on theground and informs them what,if any, adjustments need bemade to correct the glide-slopeand localizer signals within therequired tolerances. A flight

FLIGHT INSPECTION

inspection to verify the accuracy and, ifnecessary, recalibrate the ILS, is carriedout every 270 days.

Flight inspection of approach procedures.An “approach procedure” is a set ofinstructions to pilots which provides themwith all information required to descend toa runway using a particular navigation sys-tem for guidance (see Figure 3). Many run-way ends have more than one approachprocedure; for example, for a specific run-way end there might be an approach usingan ILS, another utilizing a nearby en-routenavigation aid, and yet another based onGPS. The data for each is published bynational civil aviation authorities and updat-ed as required.

Flight inspection identifies and correctsany problems arising from poor surveydata, incorrect database content, or poordesign before a facility is commissionedor an approach procedure is published.Many en-route navigation aids do not have

approach procedures associated withthem, but they will also be flight inspect-ed periodically to ensure their accuracyfor navigation.

Because all ILS installations have a pro-cedure associated with them, the flightinspection of the ILS accuracy and itsapproach procedure are typically carriedout at the same time. Currently, there is aperiodic flight inspection requirement toverify the accuracy of both en-routenavaids and instrument landing systems.There is also a requirement to flight inspectan approach procedure when it is commis-sioned, and periodically thereafter. Theperiodic requirement is to ensure the con-tinued safety of the approach, and speci-fically to ensure that clearance is main-tained from any new obstacles that may beintroduced.

Flight inspection of WAAS procedures.The wide area augmentation system isself-monitoring. WAAS monitors, cor-

rects, and bounds the errors inthe system itself, and this infor-mation is broadcast in real-timeto the aircraft via the geosta-tionary satellite signal. WAASmeets a six-second time-to-alarm requirement, meaningthat it will detect any violationof its confidence bounds andalert the pilot within six sec-onds of an error occurring. Inaddition, the FAA performs off-line monitoring of WAAS usinga network of static groundreceivers. This continuous moni-toring establishes the health ofthe overall system and ensuresthat the models used to form thereal-time error bounds remainaccurate over the life of the sys-tem. Flight inspection is notrequired for checking WAASaccuracy.

Flight inspection for proceduresafety. Prior to commissioning anew approach, it is essential toperform a flight inspection toensure database integrity andthe absence of interferencefrom nearby transmissions. The

10 ICAO JOURNAL

Figure 3. All types of approach procedures, such as the areanavigation (RNAV) GPS approach procedure illustrated here,warrant flight inspection prior to their commissioning.

inspection is also necessary to verifyobstacle clearance and establish that theprocedure is flyable.

A new WAAS approach is designed byusing the surveyed coordinates of the run-way as well as details of the local terrainand obstacles. The approach proceduredesigner uses databases to construct aWAAS LPV approach. These data containcritical elements used in the developmentof the final approach segment of thedesigned procedure, including informationused for the descent glide path and coursealignment. After this information has beencoded into binary files by the proceduredeveloper, the procedure integrity is pro-tected by applying a cyclic redundancy

FLIGHT INSPECTION

check which shows whether data weretransferred without corruption. If theresults highlight a discrepancy, the dataerrors must be resolved. This process isused throughout the entire instrumentapproach procedure development processto ensure that the data of required qualityare used to develop, flight inspect, andchart the procedure.

The approach may look very differentwhen seen from the cockpit than it did onthe approach designer’s desk. This quali-tative evaluation of the designed approachprocedure is a very important part of thesafety assessment. Flight inspection mustverify the accuracy of the runway surveypoint, as any database error could render

an approach unsafe. Figure 4 illustratesan actual case where an error in the data-base manipulations caused a substantialoffset in the designed approach from theactual runway. This situation was disco-vered by flight inspection and correctedbefore the approach procedure was com-missioned and published.

An important component of the flightinspection is the verification of theapproach data and its relationship to actualobstacles and terrain. Any significantobstacles not entered into the database orerroneously recorded must be identifiedand reassessed. It may be necessary as aresult to raise the minimum altitudesand/or change the design of the approach.

NUMBER 2, 2006 11

CAO recommends that the error inthe system used as a source of trueposition (or “truth source”) on the

flight inspection aircraft should be nomore than one-fifth of the tolerance of theparameters being measured. The flightinspection computer can use a variety ofmeasuring systems to determine its true3-D position with acceptable accuracy.One system, known as “hybrid GPS,” usesmultiple input sources and GPS. It is alsopossible to use differential GPS, whichuses a ground GPS unit. Hybrid GPS is themost frequently used truth system in theday-to-day operations of the FAA flightinspection programme. The selection ofthe truth system depends on the applica-tion, since each system provides its ownunique capabilities.

Although fairly accurate and stable, thehybrid GPS truth system by itself is notaccurate enough for inspecting precisionlanding systems without additional datainputs to provide a more precise horizon-tal and vertical position. A television posi-tioning system (TVPS) provides this addi-tional information.

When the flight inspection computeruses the hybrid GPS truth system withTVPS for precision landing systems, itcombines data inputs from a specializedinertial reference unit, a GPS receiver, a

TVPS camera and computer unit, a baro-metric altimeter, and a radio altimeter.

Position information from the onboardinertial reference unit, GPS receiver, andbarometric altimeter are all combinedto provide an aircraft position until thebeginning of a precision approach.During level flight, the flight inspectioncomputer uses the barometric altimeterinput to calibrate the inertial referenceunit’s vertical accelerometer bias. Oncethe aircraft begins to descend on the pre-cision approach, the flight inspectioncomputer extrapolates aircraft positionusing only the inertial reference unit lateralvelocities (N-S, E-W) and vertical veloci-ties with all the accelerometer biasesremoved. This process continues until

the aircraft reaches the runway end.During the approach, the TVPS camera

takes pictures when the aircraft crossesthe runway threshold and runway end.The flight inspection computer usesthese pictures to determine exactly whenthe aircraft crossed the runway thresholdand runway end, as well as the horizontaldisplacement from the runway centre-line. The radio altimeter provides the air-craft’s altitude above the runway at bothfixes. Once the flight inspection computerhas processed the fixes, it extrapolatesand recalculates the aircraft’s path to pro-vide improved position and velocity infor-mation for the entire preceding approachpath. The flight inspection system can thenaccurately determine the errors of thenavaid and the data used for precisioninstrument landings at airports.

Another independent truth system isdifferential GPS (DGPS). The DGPStruth system is much simpler than that ofthe hybrid GPS with TVPS. It providesextremely accurate 3-D aircraft positionthroughout the approach, and no runwayfixes are required. Although DGPS issufficiently accurate to update the flightinspection system, it requires a referencereceiver to be set up at a surveyed loca-tion near the inspection site, which is atime-consuming process.

DETERMINING THE AIRCRAFT’S TRUE POSITION

Flight inspection is required to verify thecorrectness of published approach data

I

Finally, flight inspection verifies that theWAAS signal is received and reliablethroughout the approach, and that thereare no sources of interference that preventreception of the GPS or WAAS signals.

The flight inspection aircraft is equippedto detect and locate interference sources.Illegal or unintentional sources of interfe-rence are eliminated, while other sourcesmay result in operational restrictions or mayeven prevent the approach from being used.

Unique aspects of SBAS. Satellite-basedaugmentation systems are unique in thatthey require no specific local infrastruc-ture at the airport. This makes it extremelysimple to plan and design new procedures.The performance of the system at the loca-tion is known beforehand, so proceduresare only designed for airports that areknown to meet the SBAS requirements.

One interesting consequence of havingno local equipment arises from the factthat airports are actually in motion. Thesurface of the Earth is composed of tec-tonic plates that move with respect to oneanother, and therefore a particular run-way’s coordinates may shift relative to theSBAS reference stations, leading to anerror in the guidance.

For the most part, the velocity vectorsin North America are small and in thesame direction. The exceptions are thewestern part of California and Hawaii,where the relative velocities can reach fivecentimetres per year. Thus, over 10 yearsthere could be a half-metre error in thesurvey point for a runway in these regions.

FLIGHT INSPECTION

While this effect of continental driftdoes not represent a hazard for an LPVapproach, at some point it will be neces-sary to update the survey points for therunway. This effect is analogous to thechange in magnetic variation over time.The magnetic north pole and the Earth’strue north pole are not at the same place.The correction to the compass measure-ment required to obtain true north is themagnetic variation. However, the mag-

netic north pole isnot in a fixed posi-tion and is inmotion relative tothe true pole. Thismeans the meas-ured compass head-ing for a particularrunway will changeover time; if themagnetic headingchanges sufficient-ly, the runway des-ignation numberand charts will haveto be updated. Simi-

larly, when the SBAS reference stationsand runway drift sufficiently far apart,the runway coordinates and waypointsfor the approach procedure need to beupdated.

Because the change is small and wellknown in advance, an update to the sta-tion coordinates would not need to beflight inspected for a continental driftupdate. The update will probably be lessthan a metre, and in a direction that iseasily predicted years in advance. Aslong as the integrity of the database canbe maintained, the new waypoint doesnot need to be verified by conducting testapproaches.

Even after an earthquake, flight inspec-tion is also probably not required. Thechanges are probably small and not easilydiscerned on approach. The runway condi-tion and local environment will be inspect-ed by ground crews. For a large change inposition, it is possible that flight inspectionwould be desirable. The exact shift of thewaypoints is not so predictable, so the needfor a flight inspection would depend on the

level of confidence in the new measure-ments. If there is a sufficient degree ofconfidence in the new waypoints, no flightinspection would be required. If the meas-urement process is not completely trust-ed, however, a new flight inspectionshould take place.

ConclusionAs with all approaches, SBAS approach

procedures must be flight inspected priorto commissioning. A flight inspection veri-fies that the published approach informa-tion is correct. In particular, waypoints,obstacle clearance, frequency spectruminterference, pilot workload and overallprocedure design need to be assessed.

Because problems arising from poorsurvey data, incorrect database content,obstacle clearance, signal interference, orpoor procedure design must be identifiedand corrected, a flight check ensures theoverall safety of the procedure.

Once a WAAS approach has been suc-cessfully commissioned, it is current FAApolicy to carry out periodic flight inspec-tions to ensure that no new obstacles orinterference sources have been intro-duced. The presence of obstacles, however,can be monitored by means other thanflight inspection. New construction canbe monitored by the airport manager’soffice, as is the current policy in theUnited Kingdom. Pilots should of coursereport problems with signal reception sothat the civil aviation administration andairport authority can investigate. Withsufficient reporting by pilots and moni-toring by the airport, it would appear thatthe periodic flight inspection of SBASapproaches might not be necessary. ■■

12 ICAO JOURNAL

Todd Walter is the leader of the WAAS researcheffort in the Aero/Astro Department at StanfordUniversity, which has been heavily involved with thecreation of WAAS from its inception. He may be con-tacted via e-mail (TWalter@stanford.edu). J. DavidPowell, a Professor (Emeritus) in the Aero/AstroDepartment at Stanford and a charter member of theInternational Committee on Airspace Standards andCalibration (ICASC), has been involved with theWAAS research effort throughout its development.He may be contacted at JDPowell@stanford.edu.

More information about flight inspection and theflight inspection community is available at the websiteof the International Committee for Airspace Standardsand Calibration (www.icasc.org).

Figure 4. An error in database manipulation can cause asubstantial offset in the designed approach from the actualrunway, as evident in this example featuring Runway 26 atMoriaty, New Mexico.

CAO has disseminated a draft of theamended Global Air Navigation Planfor CNS/ATM Systems (Document 9750)

to member States and internationalorganizations for comment by 9 June 2006.One important change reflected in therevised edition of the docu-ment — first published in1993 — is the incorporationof relevant material from animplementation “roadmap”developed by industry as afollow-up to the 11th ICAO AirNavigation Conference heldin Montreal in 2003. Createdwith the primary objective ofproviding a common frameof reference for all stakehold-ers involved in enhancingaviation safety, the roadmapwas formally presented toICAO by the International AirTransport Association (IATA)last December.

The revised Global Plandescribes a strategy aimed atachieving near- and medium-term air traffic management(ATM) benefits on the basisof available and foreseen air-craft capabilities and ATMinfrastructure. It contains gui-dance on the improvementsnecessary to support a uniform transitionto the ATM system envisioned in theoperational concept that was endorsed bythe 11th Air Navigation Conference.

There are many ways to present a tran-sition map: as it is difficult to address allaspects of ATM transition in a single docu-

CNS/ATM SYSTEMS

Global Plan stresses initiatives that lead to direct performance enhancements

The second amendment to the Global Air Navigation Plan currently under review focuseson operational and technical improvements that will benefit aircraft operators worldwide

ICAO SECRETARIATment, the revised Global Plan focuses onthe operational and technical improve-ments in air traffic management that willbring benefits to aircraft operators. Long-term initiatives that are necessary toguide the evolution to the global ATMsystem envisioned in the operationalconcept will be added to the plan as theyare developed.

In line with this approach, the GlobalPlan will focus on a set of initiatives thatwill result in direct performance enhan-cements. States and regions will chooseinitiatives that meet performance objec-tives identified through an analyticalprocess which is specific to the particular

needs of a country, region, homogeneousATM area or major traffic flow. Planningtools will assist with this analysis.

Achieving a global ATM system. A globalATM system can be described as a sys-tem that achieves interoperability andseamlessness across all regions, for allusers during all phases of flight. It mustaccomplish this while meeting predeter-

mined levels of safety andproviding for optimum eco-nomic operations. Such asystem also has to be envi-ronmentally sustainable andmust, of course, meet nationalsecurity requirements.

The planning processdescribed in the revisededition of the Global Plan isbased on the model con-tained in the previous versionof Document 9750, whichserved as a step in the evo-lution toward a global sys-tem. The updated processsupports that evolution.Existing detailed plans arein different stages of imple-mentation, with some planshaving already identifiedperformance objectives. Therevised planning process,with various tools at hand, willfurther this work and providethe necessary guidance tocomplete the transition.

Development of work programmesmust be based on the experience and les-sons learned in the previous cycle of the

I

NUMBER 2, 2006 13

This article was prepared by the Air Traffic Manage-ment Section in the Air Navigation Bureau at ICAOheadquarters, Montreal.

continued on page 31

Among recent achievements that facilitate implementation of globalATM are improvements in aircraft navigation systems that bolsterthe efficiency and effectiveness of oceanic air traffic control.

Jim

Jorg

enso

n

INCE Canada’s announcement inJune 2005 that the country’s airlineswould be required to implement

a safety management system (SMS) andto name an accountable execu-tive ultimately responsible forsafety, the conceptual shiftsinvolved in an SMS havegained attention from airlinesaround the world. An SMS hasbeen described informally as astructure of systems to identi-fy, describe, communicate, con-trol, eliminate and track risks.Some proponents also visualizean SMS as a “roof” or “umbrel-la” overarching the many exist-ing safety programmes of a typi-cal airline.

As explained by the thenCanadian Minister of Transport,the goals for an SMS are “toincrease industry accountability, to instil aconsistent and positive safety culture and tohelp improve the performance of air opera-tors. … This approach represents a syste-matic, explicit and comprehensive process

SAFETY MANAGEMENT

Systematic approach to managing safetycalls for conceptual shifts

A safety management system provides the potential to weave a strong safety net from disparate safetyprogrammes, and offers airlines a more realistic picture of operational risks and an objective methodto allocate constrained resources while eventually enabling regulators to focus on system-level oversight

FLIGHT SAFETY FOUNDATIONfor managing risks to safety … [comple-menting] the strong oversight programmeof inspections and audits already in place.”

The SMS also has been called “the firstmajor effort to bring structure to safetyprogrammes in a standardized way” and a“course toward a degree of self-regulation.”

In a landmark amendment to the Cana-dian Aviation Regulations (CAR), an SMSwas defined as “a documented process formanaging risks that integrates operationsand technical systems with the managementof financial and human resources to ensureaviation safety or the safety of the public.”

The amendment said that an SMS forairlines in Canada includes the following:• a safety policy on which the system isbased;• a process for setting goals for theimprovement of aviation safety and formeasuring the attainment of those goals;• a process for identifying hazards toaviation safety and for evaluating andmanaging the associated risks;

• a process for ensuring that personnelare trained and competent to performtheir duties;• a process for the internal reporting andanalyzing of hazards, incidents and acci-dents and for taking corrective actions toprevent their recurrence;

• a document containing allSMS processes and a process formaking personnel aware of theirresponsibilities with respect tothem (see figure, page 16);• a process for conductingperiodic reviews or audits ofthe SMS and reviews or auditsfor cause [i.e., for a specificreason] of the SMS; and,• any additional requirementsfor the SMS that are prescribedunder these regulations.

The amendment requires thefollowing SMS components to beincorporated into the air opera-tor’s company operations manualand maintenance control manual:

• “A safety management plan thatincludes the safety policy that the account-able executive has approved and commu-nicated to all employees; the roles andresponsibilities of personnel assignedduties under the quality assurance pro-gram …; performance goals and a meansof measuring the attainment of thosegoals; a policy for the internal reporting ofa hazard, an incident or an accident,including the conditions under whichimmunity from disciplinary action will begranted; and a review of the SMS to deter-mine its effectiveness;• “Procedures for reporting a hazard, anincident or an accident to the appropriatemanager;

14 ICAO JOURNAL

S

14

FSF DIGEST

This article is an abbreviated adaptation of a reportthat originally appeared in Flight Safety Digest(November/December 2005), a publication of theFlight Safety Foundation. The article, “Unlocking thePotential of a Safety Management System,” may beviewed in its entirety at the organization’s website(www.flightsafety.org).

ICAO Journal Issue No. 6/2006, which is scheduledto appear in mid-December, will be dedicated to thesubject of safety management systems and theirimplementation.

Airlines that implement a safety management system cananticipate important benefits. Aside from fewer incidents,for example, SMS implementation can lead to improvedemployee morale.

Jim

Jorg

enso

n

• “Procedures for the collection of datarelating to hazards, incidents and accidents;• “Procedures for analyzing … duringaudit … and for taking corrective actions;• “An audit system …;• “Training requirements for the opera-tions manager, the maintenance managerand personnel assigned duties under theSMS; and, • “Procedures for making progressreports to the accountable executive atintervals determined by the accountableexecutive and other reports as needed inurgent cases.”

As explained by Transport Canada,although all airline employees make choices,an SMS generates greater awareness ofthe company-wide consequences of somechoices, including decisions that are distantin time and space from aircraft operations.

“The aim is to break down communica-tion barriers between different areas ofan organization and to establish linksbetween such areas of responsibility asmarketing, maintenance and operationsto facilitate the recognition that a decisionin any part has an impact on all otherparts and may create an unintended safe-ty hazard,” Transport Canada said.

“Currently, safety is the responsibilityof a safety officer who reports to manage-ment but who is ultimately not responsi-ble for safety performance. With the intro-duction of SMS, the focus [of TransportCanada] will be at the systems level[where] inspectors will assess the effecti-veness of an SMS within an organization.Therefore, SMS adds a layer of safety.Some air operators have already begunimplementing these systems and havehad positive results.”

Among these operators, TransportCanada cited Air Transat, an air carrierbased in Montreal, which voluntarily initi-ated an SMS in 2002 and has shown eco-nomic benefits exceeding costs. TransportCanada said that the same results areexpected for other airlines.

“SMS involves a [transfer] of some ofthe responsibility for safety issues fromthe regulator to the individual organiza-tion,” Transport Canada said in 2002. “[Inthis transfer,] the regulator oversees the

SAFETY MANAGEMENT

effectiveness of the SMS and withdrawsfrom a day-to-day involvement in the com-panies it regulates. The day-to-day issuesare discovered, analysed and correctedinternally, with minimal interventionfrom Transport Canada.”

With respect to Canadian airlines, theinitial requirements for an SMS only apply

to operators whose operating certificate wasissued under CAR Subpart 705. Airlines thatqualify for and elect to have an exemption (amethod of delaying the date for full compli-ance) may comply with the regulationsthrough a four-phase process that beginswith a gap analysis and a project plan, andcontinue to implement scheduled SMS ele-ments to the satisfaction of TransportCanada between 30 September 2005 and30 September 2008. Otherwise, the regula-tions required full compliance within 30 daysof the amendment’s publication.

An implementation procedures guide pro-vides a checklist for airlines to comparetheir existing overall management of safetyprogrammes to the required Canadian SMSelements. Moreover, the SMS assessmentguide used by Transport Canada officerscontains sample questions and SMS scoringcriteria. These and other guidance materialsare available from the Transport CanadaInternet site (www.tc.gc.ca).

Beyond Canada, some senior mana-gers and safety professionals have askedthemselves whether their own advancedsafety programmes, taken as a whole,constitute an SMS. Unless the civil avia-tion authority has required specific ele-ments of an SMS for airlines and verifiedcompliance – under pending ICAO stan-

dards – any answer could be premature.Nevertheless, comparisons with SMS-related recommendations of several coun-tries would enable an airline to take advan-tage of the consensus on best practices.

ICAO requirementIn December 2004, the ICAO Council

adopted strategic objectives for ICAO forthe 2005-10 period, including the objec-tive to “support the implementation ofSMS across all safety-related disciplinesin States.”

On 6 October 2005, the ICAO Air Navi-gation Commission approved a relatedproposal to harmonize SMS-related provi-sions in ICAO Annexes 6, 11 and 14.*

The pending standards, to becomeapplicable this November, would distin-guish between a “safety programme” tobe implemented by States and “an SMS”to be implemented by an aircraft opera-tor, airport operator, air traffic services

NUMBER 2, 2006 15

The integrated application of an SMS — embedding proactive safety processesthroughout airline management — represents the best overall method of improvingexisting countermeasures against unsafe acts or conditions.

Jim

Jorg

enso

n

tify vulnerable areas. Thesafety officer [in recentyears] … had, in effect, noauthority to make changesthat would enhance safety.The safety officer’s …effectiveness depended onthe ability to persuademanagement to act.”

ICAO has cited the follow-ing SARPs from its annexesas early precedents for anSMS for airlines:• a standard in Annex 6(Part I) requiring an acci-dent-prevention programmeand a flight safety pro-

gramme for operators;• a standard in Annex 11 requiring safetymanagement programmes in air trafficservices, including the acceptable level ofsafety and safety objectives that becameeffective on 27 November 2003; and, • a recommended practice in Annex 14for an SMS for airports and a standardrequiring an SMS for airports thatbecame effective on 24 November 2005.

An often-cited European precedent inthe evolution of SMS has been JointAviation Requirements-Operations (JAR-OPS) that require that “the operator musthave nominated an accountable manageracceptable to the [civil aviation] authoritywho has corporate authority for ensuringthat all operations and maintenance activi-ties can be financed and carried out to thestandard required by the authority.” JAR-OPS 1 also says that “an operator shallestablish an accident prevention andflight safety programme, which may beintegrated with the quality system,including programmes to achieve andmaintain risk awareness by all personsinvolved in operations.”

Role of leadership. Leadership andaccountability should be viewed as key

(ATS) provider or mainte-nance organization. Thesafety programme compris-es “an integrated set of reg-ulations and activities aimedat improving safety.” AnSMS is defined as “a sys-tematic approach to manag-ing safety, including thenecessary organizationalstructures, accountabilities,policies and procedures.”

When the changes takeeffect, civil aviation author-ities in Contracting Stateswould require aircraft ope-rators and other types ofaviation organizations to implement a State-approved SMS. The standards require thatthe SMS:• identifies actual and potential safetyhazards;• ensures that remedial action necessaryto maintain an acceptable level of safety isimplemented; and,• provides for continuous monitoringand regular assessment of the safety levelachieved.

Moreover, the standards require that“an approved SMS shall clearly definelines of safety accountability throughoutthe operator’s organization, including adirect accountability for safety on the partof senior management.”

Accompanying the ICAO standardsand recommended practices (SARPs) isthe new ICAO Safety Management Manual,already available from the ICAO website(www.icao.int). According to the manual,the integrated application of an SMS —embedding proactive safety processesthroughout airline management — repre-sents the best overall method of improv-ing existing countermeasures againstunsafe acts or conditions.

Like Transport Canada, ICAO believesthat airlines can experience benefits froman SMS comparable to those experiencedby Air Transat, which had a 72 percentdecrease in irregular operating costs(saving more than U.S. $1 million permonth, compared with the period prior toSMS implementation), while improving

employee morale, reducing incidents andincreasing overall awareness of operations.

Conceptual shiftsThe framework for implementing an

SMS involves conceptual shifts:• from prescriptive regulations to perfor-mance-based regulations;• from highly specialized and technicallytrained inspectors with significant resourcerequirements to system auditors and ana-lysts who focus on areas of greatest risk;and,• from an aviation industry that respondsto regulatory requirements to an indus-try that becomes a partner in safety withcivil aviation authorities.

Under conventional reactive strategiesfor preventing accidents, “constant catchingup is required to match human inventive-ness for new types of errors,” an ICAO offi-cial informed seminar participants inAlmaty, Kazakhstan in September 2005.“Traditionally,” he explained, “safety hasbeen about avoiding costs. Current thinkingand research show that safety, efficiencyand productivity are positively linked. …An SMS involves constant and aggressiveseeking of risk information through hazard/incident reporting systems for identifyinglatent unsafe conditions, safety surveys toelicit feedback from front-line personnel,flight data analysis for identifying opera-tional exceedances and confirming normaloperating procedures, [and] operationalinspections and operational audits to iden-

16 ICAO JOURNAL

* Annex 6 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation(also known as the Chicago Convention), contains provi-sions, including standards and recommended practices,for the operation of aircraft. Annex 11 addresses air trafficservices, and Annex 14 is concerned with aerodromes. Inall, 18 annexes to the Chicago Convention contain provi-sions for the safe, secure, orderly and efficient develop-ment of international civil aviation.

continued on page 32

(Reactive)Reports• Hazards• Incidents• Accidents• Database• Risk analyses

(Proactive)SafetyAssessment• Audits• Policy and

proceduresassessment

• Hazardidentification

Database

Initial Risk Assessment No Action

No Action

Correct

Further Investigation

Second Risk Assessment

Determine Root Cause

Monitor Corrective Action

Flow chart illustrates the safety management system process

SAFETY MANAGEMENT

InformationDissemination• Trend

analysis• Safety

bulletins• Accidents• Report

distribution

Determine and ImplementCorrective Action

Confirmation of CorrectiveAction – Quality Assurance

System Evaluation

Source: Transport Canada

Flying made safer with Thales

Wherever you find Thales’ systems andequipment, you will find our world beating expertiseacross the entire air transport chain – Thales isdelivering the most innovative, integrated globalsolutions and services to customers.

From onboard cockpit and cabin electronics,simulation and crew training, to air trafficmanagement, Thales is dedicated to creating asafer future.

Thales offers a full range of air traffic management solutions

from design and integration to installation and maintenance.

Thales is uniquely placed to assist its customers’ expansion

of their ATM infrastructure. Thales brings increased capacity

through its leading-edge technology for civil aviation and

airport authorities, worldwide.

www.thalesgroup.com

SHARING THE EXPERIENCEOF LIBERALIZATION…

ICAO Global Symposium on Air Transport Liberalization

• Analysing Emerging Trends and Issues

• Ensuring Safety in a Changing Environment

• Building the Future Through Cooperation

Featuring a programme on current issues from the perspectives of prominent

speakers and panelists from a cross-section of countries and interested parties...

An important event for aviation policy makers and regulators, air services

negotiators, industry executives involved with government policy, and other

stakeholders in international air transport.

18-19 September 2006Dubai, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES

For more information:Website: www.icao.int/dubai2006

E-mail: Dubai2006@icao.int

Telephone: +1 (514) 954-6095

HELD CONCURRENTLY WITH:

12th World

Route Development

Forum

www.routesonline.com

Hosted by

N investigation of a serious inci-dent involving a British AirwaysBoeing 757-236 shortly after depar-

ture from London Heathrow Airport on7 September 2003 cites several immediatecausal factors including flawed mainte-nance procedures, organizational cultureand ineffective quality assurance. Despitedifficulty controlling the aircraft, thepilots landed at nearby Gatwick Airportwithout injury to any of the passengers orcrew, and without damage to the aircraft.

The U.K. Air Accidents InvestigationBranch (AAIB) issued a number of safetyrecommendations to the airline and onerecommendation to the European AviationSafety Agency (EASA), with the intentionof preventing similar incidents in the future.

History of flightThe aircraft involved in the incident was

being operated on a scheduled passengerflight from London to Paris. After comple-tion of the external pre-flight inspection, itwas noted from the technical log that thiswas the first flight following major mainte-nance, but there were no special require-ments or any deferred defects. The auxiliary

INCIDENT REPORT

Maintenance shortcomings leadto B757’s precautionary landing

On its first flight following a major maintenance check, a Boeing 757 is forced to land at the nearestsuitable airport because of a persistent hot oil smell in the cockpit and cabin, a problem later tracedto maintenance mishaps that highlight systemic issues

AIR ACCIDENTS INVESTIGATION BRANCH

(UNITED KINGDOM)

power unit (APU) was started and the airconditioning packs selected on. All checksprogressed normally.

The right engine was started during thepushback and shortly afterwards a smellof hot oil became noticeable on the flightdeck. The commander had experiencedthis before and with all the right engineindications normal, the left engine wasstarted. The flight deck crew discussedthe hot oil smell, but they were not concer-ned about it at that point (see box, page 20).After the tug had been disconnected andthrust increased on both engines to com-mence the short taxi for Runway 27L, thehot oil smell disappeared.

Shortly after lift off the hot oil smellreturned, stronger than before. The crewhad a brief discussion about the smell andthe commander, operating as pilot not fly-ing (PNF), donned his oxygen mask. Thesmell worsened as the aircraft continuedits climb so the first officer (FO) also wenton oxygen. The pilots established commu-nication with each other and then infor-med Air Traffic Control (ATC) that theyhad fumes in the cockpit, were on oxygenand wished to return to Heathrow. ATCinstructed them to level off at FL180, andoffered the option of returning to Heath-row or diverting to London Gatwick. Thecommander called the cabin service direc-tor (CSD) on the interphone and askedhim if the smell had been detected in thepassenger cabin. The cabin crew in theforward cabin had become aware of asmell that they described as electricalburning. With this additional information,the commander elected to divert to Gatwick,the nearest suitable airfield.

The CSD was again called on the inter-phone and given a briefing for the landing

at Gatwick. The “SMOKE OR FUMESAIR CONDITIONING” emergency check-list was actioned and the cabin outflowvalve opened as the aircraft descendedbelow 10,000 feet, in order to purge thecabin and flight deck of the fumes thatwere still present.

The aircraft was radar vectoredtowards Biggin Hill to comply with thecommander’s request for a 25 nauticalmile (NM) track distance to touchdown.The commander consulted the approachplates for Gatwick and gave an abbreviat-ed briefing to the FO for an autolandusing the instrument landing system (ILS)on Runway 26L. This was in accordancewith the airline’s standard operating proce-dures (SOPs) when operating on oxygen.

The aircraft, with the right autopilotand autothrust engaged, was configuredfor landing early during the approach, withFlaps 1 and then Flaps 5 being selected onthe speed schedule. When the localizerhad been captured, the “Approach” modewas armed and the remaining two autopi-lots were engaged. As the aircraft levelledat 3,000 feet, there was no increase inthrust as expected and the FO noticed thatthe indicated airspeed was reducing.Autothrottle response appeared sluggish,so the FO advanced the thrust levers man-ually to 1.3 EPR (engine pressure ratio).The engines seemed slow to respond, butwhen the FO engaged the “Speed” modethe autothrottle applied the appropriatethrust setting. The landing gear was thenselected down, the speed reduced andFlaps 20, 25 and finally Flaps 30 loweredfor the autopilot-coupled approach.

The runway was clearly visible at 10 NMand the FO monitored the progress bothfrom the flight instruments and visually.

A

NUMBER 2, 2006 19

INCIDENT REPORT

This article is comprised of extracts from the report onthe serious incident involving a Boeing 757 on 7September 2003, during the climb after departure fromLondon Heathrow Airport and the immediate diversionto nearby Gatwick Airport. Published by the AirAccidents Investigation Branch on 15 December 2005,the report can be viewed in its entirety at the AAIBwebsite (http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/home/index.cfm).

He noticed that the aircraft was drifting tothe right of the runway centreline andthis was confirmed by a full “fly left” indica-tion on the localizer and lateral guidanceflight director bar. He informed the com-mander and stated that he would discon-nect the autopilot. As he did so he neededto apply some 40 degrees of left controlcolumn to maintain wings level.

INCIDENT REPORT

The FO applied a small amount of leftrudder, which assisted in turning the air-craft back onto the localizer. Because thecontrol inputs were symptomatic of anengine failure, the crew checked theengine indicating and crew alerting system(EICAS) display, noting that all engineparameters were normal. At this point thecommander took control of the aircraft. Hechecked that the control trim and flap posi-tions were normal and increased the land-ing reference speed from 125 knots to 145knots in order to expedite the approach.The commander continued the approachvisually, cross checking the ILS informa-tion presented on the flight director whilethe FO checked the EICAS lower display,noting that an estimated 75 percent of leftaileron was being applied. During the flare,the offset control column position wasmaintained and the aircraft touched downinitially on the left main landing gear.Autobrake level “4” and full reverse thrustwere used to stop the aircraft.

After touchdown ATC informed thecrew that there had been smoke visibleunder the wing area. The commanderthought that this was probably tire smoke,but having obtained the Rescue and Fire-

fighting Services (RFFS) frequency fromthe tower, he spoke to the RFFS officerwho had seen smoke from the area of thelanding gear. The crew shut down theright engine and started the APU beforeshutting down the left engine.

The flight deck windows were openedand the flight crew removed their oxygenmasks. The commander spoke to the CSDon the interphone and instructed him tomaintain the cabin crew at their doorsand then spoke to the passengers toexplain the situation. It was agreed withthe RFFS that the aircraft would be towedto a remote stand and the passengers dis-embarked normally.

Investigation findings1. The roll control problem on theapproach to London Gatwick was causedby the asymmetric aerodynamic effectsinduced by the absence of flap accesspanels 666AR/666BR on the right wingoutboard flap.2. Access panels 666AR/BR had notbeen replaced during recent maintenance.3. The technician who incorrectly certi-fied for fitting flap panels 666AR and666BR was appropriately trained and quali-

20 ICAO JOURNAL

HISTORY OF OIL SMELL PROBLEMS

As stated in the AAIB report’s section on aircraft infor-mation (para 1.6.14: Previous history of oil smell prob-lems), the airline has a history of problems of oil smellsin the cabin and cockpit on the Boeing 757 fleet.Previously, the problem was largely restricted to the air-line’s older Rolls-Royce RB211-524C powered 757s, butthese aircraft have since been sold and the problembegan to manifest itself on the RB211-535E4 poweredaircraft which, given the engine design differences,should be less susceptible to contamination of thecabin air supply by engine oil.

A review of the U.K. Civil Aviation AuthorityMandatory Occurrence Report database [during a pre-vious safety investigation published in January 2004]showed that the Boeing 757 experienced a high rate ofreporting of oil smell issues. As pointed out in thereport analysis (para 2.2.: Hot oil/electrical burningsmells), according to Boeing and Rolls-Royce overfillingthe engines with oil can cause hot oil smells in thecockpit and cabin, an issue that is addressed byinstructions in the Aircraft Maintenance Manual.

HE guidance and example set bysupervision can have a strong influ-ence on working culture. There was

evidence of a lack of adequate leadershipdisplayed by the licenced aircraft engineers(LAEs) involved with this incident in thatthey did not have sufficient oversight of howthe tasks were being performed, and did notensure that best practices were being used.They also displayed an over-willingness torely on assumptions, rather than verify thatwork had been performed correctly.

It is not sufficient to issue maintenancestaff with authorizations and expect thatthey will always stick to them rigidly whileignoring all external pressures and factorsapplied to them in the workplace; this isignoring the influence of human factors.

Simply relying on procedures and assum-ing that people will always adhere to themis unrealistic and can, over a period of time,result in a gradual shift in the norm awayfrom best practice as people inevitablyrespond to the most pressing environmen-tal and peer influences around them. Thisis a risk that is more apparent in a regimeof quality assurance, where more responsi-bility is placed on the individual and thereis less independent checking on the quali-ty of an individual’s work.

It was apparent that working practiceshad evolved in the hangar that were expe-dient in getting the job done, but not neces-sarily consistent with maintaining highstandards of airworthiness, and were insome cases deviating from approved com-

pany procedures. This was not a cons-cious, deliberate compromise of standards,but rather an invisible erosion of standardsbased on the more pressing need to “getthe job done” in as expedient a fashion aspossible, which is a natural trait of engi-neers. The implications on standards of air-worthiness of adopting certain proceduresand methods are not always obvious at firstsight and an awareness that standardsmight be compromised requires a certaindegree of training, experience and aware-ness of airworthiness issues in general.Without a continual focus on airworthi-ness standards, through training, effectivesupervision and adequate quality monitor-ing, it is inevitable that staff will deviatefrom best practices.

SUPERVISION AND ORGANIZATION OF HANGAR STAFF

T

fied for the level of task being performed.4. The technician responsible for certify-ing for the fitting of the flap panels hadmisinterpreted the panel diagram in the757 Aircraft Maintenance Manual and didnot recognize that the panels 666AR/BRare hidden by the flap drive fairings whenthe flaps are retracted.5. The same technician assumed incor-rectly, after inspecting the right wing on anumber of occasions and seeing no “holes”in the wing, that flap panels 666AR/BRhad already been fitted and proceeded tocertify for their fitment.6. In certifying for their fitment, the tech-nician exceeded the scope of his certifica-tion privileges … in that he was only per-mitted to certify for work that he had per-formed.7. The missing panels were not identifiedduring an inspection of the hangar racks atthe end of the maintenance activity.8. The missing panels had been placedon the same shelf as panels removed fromthe leading edge slats that were similar insize and appearance and were not requiredto be refitted to the aircraft.9. The missing flap panels, not beingclearly visible when the flaps are retracted,were not noticed prior to the aircraft re-entering service, or during the pre-flightinspection prior to the departure fromLondon Heathrow.10. A non-procedural approach was usedto refit the panels on the right wingwhereby all of the panels were installedprior to stamping the job cards.11. The remoteness of the job card racksfrom the work area encouraged a non-procedural approach to fitting the panels.12. Maintenance staff frequently did notcertify for tasks they had performed prior togoing off shift, placing the responsibility onother maintenance staff and thereby encour-aging the practice of “blind stamping.”13. Maintenance staff were often willingto certify for tasks performed by otherswithout verifying that the task had beencompleted correctly.14. The culture of “blind stamping”was reinforced by the duplication of paneljob cards.15. Some maintenance staff did not fully

INCIDENT REPORT

appreciate the role that certification playsin the chain of airworthiness control.16. No defects were found that couldexplain the oil and burning smells in thecockpit and cabin.17. Incorrect procedures were used toservice the engine oils during maintenance.18. The incorrect servicing of theengine oils possibly caused the oil smellsin the cockpit and cabin.19. The technician who performed the“Daily Check” engine oil servicing taskand the licenced aircraft engineer (LAE)who certified for the task were appropria-tely trained and qualified.20. The technician who performed theengine oil servicing task did not complywith the Aircraft Maintenance Manualinstructions.21. The “Daily Check” oil servicing taskinstructions were inappropriately engi-neered for an aircraft docked in a hangaron heavy maintenance and could not beaccomplished practically in accordancewith the maintenance manual instructions.

22. The LAE who certified for the oilservicing task did not have sufficient over-sight of the task and certified for its com-pletion based purely on assumption thatthe task had been performed correctly.23. Both the technician and the LAEinvolved in the engine oil servicing taskexceeded the scope of their authorizationby certifying for work that had not beenperformed in accordance with approvedprocedures.24. The “Daily Check” engine oil servic-ing task was not being consistently per-formed on the ramp as a result of inade-quate maintenance planning, which failedto ensure that the time limitations forengine oil servicing were complied with.25. A culture existed within parts of theairline’s maintenance organization inwhich LAEs and technicians deviatedfrom approved maintenance instructionsand company procedures, without beingaware of the airworthiness implicationsand without a perceived need to seekapproval from higher authority.26. Ineffective supervision of maintenance

NUMBER 2, 2006 21

AA

IBp

ho

to

The incident to the Boeing 757 occurred onthe first flight following a 26-day majormaintenance check. At left is pictured therighthand outboard flap showing thelocations of the missing access panels666AR/BR.

continued on page 33

Jim

Jorg

enso

n

666BR

666AR

MONG the winds of change sweep-ing the world of aviation is a newconcept that could radically trans-

form pilot training. The multi-crew pilotlicence (MPL), as it is known, provides analternative to traditional pilot trainingapproaches that date back to the 1940s. Infact, the first major review of the interna-tional training standards only took place asa result of a meeting in Madrid in October2000, when the MPL approach was firstproposed; subsequent meetings of an ICAOpanel of experts in 2002, 2003 and 2005continued to advance the concept towardtesting and fruition.

The MPL concept was adopted recentlyby ICAO as part of an amendment toAnnex 1 to the Chicago Convention (see“Changes to Annex 1 include new upper agelimit for pilots, page 25). A test evaluation ofMPL is to be conducted in 2007, followedby flight performance testing for initialMPL holders in 2008. In 2009, an ICAO“proof of concept” meeting will be conduct-ed to ascertain the programme’s viability.

Among the notable changes that MPLwould effect are:• very specific training oriented towardsline operations in modern jet transports,with emphasis on working in a multi-crewenvironment;• a requirement for competency-based train-ing and assessment of licence candidates;• greater emphasis on the use of flightsimulation training devices;• concentrated threat and error training; and• mandatory upset recovery training.

PILOT LICENSING

Technological advances facilitate changein licensing and training standards

The new multi-crew pilot licence represents a significant new approach to training pilotsfor a career in air transport. Ultimately, it could allow the industry to sustain rapid growthby generating an influx of more appropriately trained pilots.

XAVIER HERVÉ

MECHTRONIX SYSTEMS INC.(CANADA)

A

Once in place, the MPL programme willprepare a freshly trained pilot to occupythe co-pilot’s seat on a jet transport afterlogging a minimum of 240 hours of flighttime, including as many as 170 hours inappropriate flight simulators.

The initiative to create the multi-crewpilot licence is driven by several develop-ments. First, it is evident that meeting theindustry’s growing demand for pilots cannotbe sustained by traditional training methods.With air traffic predicted to double over thenext 15 years and a significant number ofpilots expected to retire, the need for alarge influx of new pilots is foreseen. Thiscalls for more effective training approachesthat can position pilots more readily in theright seat of a modern airliner.

Second, the traditional training orienta-tion, where the emphasis is on single-pilotoperations, is not compatible with strongindustry growth since safety must be main-tained or even improved while increasingoperational activity. To perform safely inthis environment, new flight crews mustreceive adequate training in multi-crewaspects, including crew resource manage-ment (CRM).

Third, the economic fallout from 9/11,increased airline competition, and risingoperating costs have pressured the indus-try to adopt new business and operationalparadigms. MPL is seen as part of the solu-tion to today’s economic challenge, in partbecause the programme can be undertakenwith newly affordable, high-quality non-legacy flight simulation technology.

Although the nature of flight operationshas changed dramatically in recent times,today’s training organizations are not fullymeeting the need for pilots with the skillset desired for a complex cockpit environ-

ment. Ultimately, MPL is about offering analternative path to the modern flight deckthat meets industry’s needs.

Too much training time today is dedicatedto logging hours in small piston-poweredaircraft, with a misplaced emphasis on solooperations. The industry might be betterserved if the would-be commercial pilot wereschooled as early as possible in settingsthat promote effective cooperation withother crew members, and exposes traineesto advanced cockpit technologies. Thisapproach focuses on the competence need-ed to work safely on the modern flight deck.

Addressing the operational and techno-logical aspects of advanced aircraft at anearly stage of training for air transportpilots is particularly valid today, given thegrowing importance of ab initio trainingschools. In many countries, such schoolshave overtaken the military as the primarysource of new airline hires. And while manyof these flight schools offer CRM coursesand line oriented flight training (LOFT) pro-grammes, such training is still not compul-sory, and is offered to a limited extent.

More effective training and licensingrequirements that incorporate more expli-cit criteria for measuring pilot competenceare therefore much in need. Indeed, theabsence of common criteria against whichto measure flight crew competency has ledto significant variations in the pilot perfor-mance standards applied by different States,and in some countries no explicit standardsof performance exist.

The MPL brings a competency-basedapproach to training. This is a key to establi-shing common standards around the world,with a more uniform training process andproper emphasis on training outcome. Alicensing standard based on competency

22 ICAO JOURNAL

clearly delineates what is demanded oftrainees in terms of performance, and bymeasuring their performance in this man-ner, provides instant feedback. Competency-based training is also less dependent onthe availability of instructors, relying moreon the use of instructional materials, andcompetency assessment is more transpar-ent for both examiners and candidates.

The oft-cited argumentsagainst MPL assert that itsimplementation is too costlyfor non-airline flight trainingorganizations and, given thespecific focus on certain air-craft types, is not very pro-ductive unless it includes ajob guarantee with an airline.Opponents also point to thelack of actual flight experi-ence as a flaw.

Focus on cost reductionThe need to reduce the

expense of running an air-line, while facing notablyhigher costs for jet fuel,insurance and aviation secu-rity, is a hard reality thattraining organizations cannotafford to ignore.

In recent years, various aircarriers have achieved costreductions by renegotiatinglabour agreements, including pensionarrangements, and by turning to outsour-cing to cover activities such as maintenance.The field of pilot training is not immune tothe trend toward greater cost efficiency.

If there has been a mixed reaction to theMPL from flight training organizations, it isprimarily because some training centresremain concerned about how MPL imple-mentation could impact their business.With the introduction of the multi-crewpilot licence, an increasing number of air-lines may choose to perform training in-house, or join with specialized aircraft typetraining facilities to create initiatives undernew business models that may include jobguarantees for graduates. Still other train-ing organizations have fully endorsed theconcept: CTC Group, of the United King-

PILOT LICENSING

dom, for example, is intending to apply forcertification of its first MPL course laterthis year.

At an ICAO conference in Europe recent-ly, a keynote speaker and training execu-tive for a major European carrier wasamong those advocating early implementa-tion of the multi-crew pilot licence. He citedimportant advantages to pragmatic training

that is oriented towards aircraft types cur-rently in the fleet. Many executives aretalking about the need for change, and forsome this includes the deployment of thelatest microprocessor-based flight simula-tor technology, which can be used to sup-port an in-house MPL programme.

Technological advancesAs noted above, the MPL calls for the

candidate to log a minimum of 240 hours,including 70 hours in aircraft. The balanceof the programme, devoted to developingthe competencies required of a first officer,utilizes various flight simulation and othertraining tools designed to promote safetyin line operations in modern jet transports.

The requirement for just 240 hours ismade possible mainly because of the leap

forward in simulator technology, whichprovides an exceptional virtual experiencethat promotes safety without the need tolog as many flight hours as in the past, butalso because of the technology employedby modern training aircraft.

While eliminating costs is a watchwordfor many in aviation, by using today’s moreefficient and less costly microprocessors in

flight simulators, a realistic MPL flightenvironment can be duplicated withoutcompromising safety. In other words, air-lines can leverage the latest simulationtechnology in their bid to lower costs whilealso improving training effectiveness.

The revolutionary change in simulationtechnology draws on the same technical-economic revolution that has led generalaviation aircraft manufacturers to providefull glass cockpits at affordable prices.Together, the simulator and general avia-tion aircraft manufacturers offer themost flexible, accessible and cost-effectivetraining solution for implementing the

NUMBER 2, 2006

Xavier Hervé is the President of Mechtronix SystemsInc., a provider of flight training devices and full flightsimulators (www.mechtronix.ca) which is headquar-tered in Montreal.

Airlines can leverage current simulation technology in their bid to lower costs while alsoimproving training effectiveness.

23

continued on page 34

ICAO UPDATE Comprehensive safety oversight audits are well under way

24 ICAO JOURNAL

By the end of 2005 ICAO had completed a number of safety

oversight audits according to the new comprehensive systems

approach that came into effect in January 2005. The first com-

prehensive audits to be conducted under the Universal Safety

Oversight Audit Programme (USOAP) involved Canada, the

Czech Republic, Egypt, Gambia, Germany, Kuwait, Malaysia,

Panama and Thailand. Eventually, all 189 Contracting States

will undergo the comprehensive audit during a six-year cycle

that ends in 2010.

The initial audits conducted under the greatly expanded

programme, which now covers the safety-related provisions

in 16 of the 18 annexes to the Chicago Convention, allowed

ICAO the opportunity to review and fine-tune the audit

process and tools. As well as the nine Contracting States

identified above, the early audits included the European

Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which carries out safety over-

sight-related activities on behalf of its member States.

One of the changes associated with the comprehensive pro-

gramme is a restructuring of the audit reports themselves, which

now reflect the critical elements of a safety oversight system as

described in Part A of the ICAO Safety Oversight Manual(Document 9734), a document that focuses on the establishment

and management of a State’s safety oversight system.

Distribution of the final reports has also been changed. A

dedicated secure website has been developed to dissemi-

nate the final safety oversight reports and related documen-

tation, including information derived from the Audit Findings

and Differences Database (AFDD). With the transition to the

Internet, the final safety audit reports are now made available

in their entirety to all Contracting States, and audit reports are

no longer routinely distributed in print form. To promote

transparency still further, summary reports and in some

cases full reports will be accessible at ICAO’s public website

(see article, pp. 5-7).

To ensure a more efficient auditing process, ICAO has

developed a questionnaire on the aviation activity in the State

to be audited, as well as compliance checklists for each

annex concerned and audit protocols for each area covered

by the audit team. By the end of 2005, 110 member States

had submitted completed questionnaires to ICAO. The form

is also available at the secure website in English, French,

Russian and Spanish.

Similarly, 90 completed compliance checklists, used by

States to ascertain their level of compliance with ICAO SARPs,

had been submitted to ICAO by year’s end. The pre-audit

questionnaire and compliance checklists better enable ICAO

to prepare for audits and to maintain a current database on

compliance with SARPs.

ICAO anticipates that the recruitment of the required staff to

implement the comprehensive systems approach should be

completed by June 2006. So far, five States have seconded

experts to USOAP on a long-term basis, but more national

experts are needed.

In preparing for the launch of safety oversight audits under

the comprehensive systems approach, ICAO conducted a

seminar and workshop at each of its seven regional offices,

with the participation of more than 400 experts representing

national administrations, international and regional organiza-

tions and the ICAO regional offices themselves. ICAO also

conducted six auditor training courses during 2005, and a

total of 153 experts have now been trained since USOAP’s

transition to the comprehensive systems approach to audits.

Recently trained experts are being provided with on-the-job

training during actual missions to States.

ICAO’s Safety Oversight Audit Section was recently re-

certified as ISO-compliant. The ISO-based quality manage-

ment system was audited in late September 2005 for a new

three-year period, with maintenance audits to be conducted

on a yearly basis. ��DISCUSSIONS IN TOKYO

While in Tokyo in mid-January 2006 to address a ministerial

conference on transport security, ICAO Council President

Dr. Assad Kotaite also had discussions with Japanese

authorities on various aviation matters. He is pictured

being greeted by Katsutoshi Kaneda, Senior Vice-Minister

for Foreign Affairs of Japan. Among topics discussed

with Japanese leaders were global aviation safety, avia-

tion security, and the ratification of certain international

air law instruments.

Development Forum plannedA forum focused on ways to maximize the economic contri-

bution of civil aviation is planned for ICAO headquarters from

24 to 26 May 2006. The forum will promote air transport as a

global economic catalyst and will address issues that impact

on safe, efficient and regular air services from a regional as

well as global perspective. The event is being organized jointly

by ICAO, the Air Transport Action Group (ATAG) and the

World Bank. ��

NUMBER 2, 2006 25

Changes to Annex 1 includenew upper age limit for pilotsAirline pilots will now be able to continue flying professionally

until the age of 65 as a result of an amendment to ICAO

Annex 1, Personnel Licensing, which was approved by ICAO

Council on 10 March 2006. The same amendment introduces

significant changes to flight crew training and licensing stan-

dards, among them the introduction of a new aeroplane pilot

licence to be known as the multi-crew pilot licence (MPL).

Once the amendment takes effect on 23 November 2006, air

transport pilots will be permitted to continue their careers past

age 60 on condition that they work in multi-crew operations.

Another proviso is that pilots over 60 years old fly only with pilots

younger than 60. In addition, all pilots over age 60 are required

to undergo a medical assessment every six months.

The increase in the upper age limit was proposed in light of the

results of a survey conducted in late 2003 that showed significant

support for such an increase, as well as positive information pro-

vided by several States where pilots currently are permitted to

work beyond their 60th birthday.

In recommending the change in the upper age limit for

pilots, the Air Navigation Commission noted that since 1978,

when the age 60 rule was introduced, the increase in longevity

and associated good health into old age in many States, the

progress of medical science, the introduction of incapacita-

tion training for multi-pilot operations, and advances in air-

craft technology have altered the flight safety risk associated

with ageing pilots. Moreover, legal challenges by individuals

alleging unfair discrimination caused several States to ques-

tion the continued validity of the existing provisions.

Among other changes introduced by the Annex 1 amend-

ment are the introduction of personnel licensing requirements

for airship and powered-lift aircraft, and the MPL qualification

cited above. The new MPL will qualify the holder to perform

co-pilot duties on aeroplanes operated with more than one

pilot (for more on MPL, see “Technological advances facilitate

change in licensing and training standards,” page 22). The new

licence complements, and does not replace, the existing ways

of qualifying as a co-pilot for multi-crew operations.

The ANC, in recommending establishment of the new

aeroplane pilot licence, indicated that safety and efficiency

gains had been identified by the ICAO Flight Crew Licensing

and Training Panel (FCLTP), which undertook a risk and safe-

ty benefit study. In addition, MPL will involve application of

specific risk control measures and a post-implementation

proof-of-concept programme.

With the changes to Annex 1, a new document, Proce-dures for Air Navigation Services – Training (PANS-TRG), has

been developed to provide general guidance to States on the

design, development and implementation of competency-

based training and assessments as well as specific guidance

for the new multi-crew pilot licence.

The Annex amendment also incorporates revisions to the

details of the existing flight crew licensing standards to ensure

their continued relevance in meeting current and anticipated

training needs while improving on safety. Another change is

better recognition of the role of flight simulation training

devices in acquiring or maintaining the competencies

required for the various levels of licences and ratings. ��

ICAO Council appointmentAmbassador Donald T. Bliss has

been appointed Representative of

the United States on the Council of

ICAO. Mr. Bliss’s tenure began on 23

February 2006.

After graduating from Harvard Law

School in 1966, Mr. Bliss joined the

U.S. federal government, serving suc-

cessively with the Department of Health,

Education and Welfare, Department of

State, and the Environmental Protection

Agency before joining the Department

of Transportation, where he held the posts of Deputy General

Counsel and Acting General Counsel during the administra-

tion of President Gerald Ford. During that period he worked on

the U.S. aircraft noise policy and the Concorde SST plans to

fly to the United States.

Since 1977, Mr. Bliss has been engaged in the practice of

transportation law in the Washington, D.C. office of O’Melveny

& Myers LLP. In that capacity he has represented airlines, air-

ports, governments, trade associations and manufacturers on

various policy, regulatory, legislative and other strategic issues

affecting aviation. He has argued cases before the federal and

state courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States

and other appellate courts, and has served as a federal court-

appointed Special Master on transportation issues.

From 1999 to 2001, Mr. Bliss served as Chairman of the

American Bar Association’s Air and Space Law Forum, after pre-

viously serving as Chairman of the Federal Bar Association’s

Transportation Law Section. He has also served as Co-Chairman

of the District of Columbia Bar Association’s Administrative Law

and Agency Practice Section, and President of the Harvard

Law School Association of D.C.

Mr. Bliss has prepared reports on issues such as cross-border

investment and substance abuse in the transportation industry,

as well as numerous articles on transportation in various journals.

He is the author of a book on airline-customer relations that

addresses security, safety and service issues. ��

D. T. Bliss(United States)

Data system to promote safetythrough increased transparencyICAO is in the midst of establishing a system that will provide

aviation authorities with direct access to pertinent aircraft regis-

tration data supplied by States. Proposed by the Air Navigation

Commission (ANC) following a recent study of Article 21 of the

Chicago Convention – the article that governs the reporting of

registrations in international civil aviation — the system would

further increase transparency in the interest of safety. (Trans-

parency and the sharing of safety information were important

issues at a global conference held at ICAO headquarters during

20-22 March; see article, page 5.)

ICAO is currently evaluating various options for such a sys-

tem, including costs and procedures, with the ICAO Council

calling for a simple system that would be easy to implement

and operate. As noted by the ANC, the web-based techno-

logy to create a system that provides access to pertinent air-

craft registration data from States is available and well proven,

and could be readily established and maintained by the

ALLPIRG convenes meetingat ICAO headquartersChairmen of the various regional planning and implementa-tion groups from around the world met at ICAO headquartersin Montreal from 23 to 24 March for the fifth meeting of theALLPIRG Group. The meeting focused on the Global AirNavigation Plan, aviation safety and security, and interregionalcoordination and harmonization.

Participants in the two-day meeting were presented withdetails of the revised Global Air Navigation Plan and discussedplanning for implementation of a global air traffic management(ATM) system (see “Global Plan stresses initiatives that leadto direct performance enhancements,” page 13). The partici-pants were presented with a business case software tooldeveloped by ICAO in order to assist States, air navigationservice providers and airspace users in the evaluation of vari-ous scenarios and in reaching consensus on CNS/ATM systemsimplementation, leading to a global ATM system. They werealso updated on CNS/ATM-related environmental benefits,and discussed the possible development of simplified toolsand guidance material for estimating the environmental bene-fits of CNS/ATM systems at the national level.

The meeting, chaired by ICAO Council President Dr. AssadKotaite, was attended by 100 participants. As well as chairmenand secretaries of ICAO’s regional planning and implementationgroups and some of their sub-groups, ALLPIRG membershipincludes international organizations, global and regional serviceproviders and other key partners involved in CNS/ATM systemsimplementation. ALLPIRG provides a close link between thevarious implementation bodies and discusses interregionalissues involving air navigation, air transport and technical coope-ration, and develops recommendations for harmonized imple-mentation of a global ATM system. ■■

CD promotes aviationlanguage proficiencyICAO has produced a training CD with rated speech samples thatcan be used to develop tests for aviation language proficiency.Under language proficiency standards, pilots and air traffic con-trollers involved in international civil aviation are required todemonstrate a sufficient level of proficiency in aviation English byMarch 2008.

The CD, which is 135 minutes long, contains examples ofspeech rated at ICAO language proficiency Levels 3, 4 and 5.Each sample is accompanied by a detailed rating form thatexplains the rationale for the rating. In addition, the CD containsinformation on the proficiency rating scale and on languageproficiency testing.

The CD is related to the Manual on the Implementation ofICAO Language Proficiency Requirements (Document 9835)and is of interest to civil aviation authorities, air navigationservices providers, training institutions, airlines and institu-tions where language courses are taught or where languageproficiency tests are conducted. It is available from the ICAODocument Sales Unit (sales@icao.int) at a price of U.S. $75.

For more information on aviation language proficiency, seeICAO Journal Issue 1/2004, which contains several articleson the subject. ■■

26 ICAO JOURNAL

organization. As currently envisioned, the system would likelyconsist of a website portal to the pertinent data already main-tained by member States.

In presenting the safety case in favour of establishing asingle source of registration data, the ANC pointed out theimportance of having a means for a State to ascertain theidentity of the State of aircraft registry prior to the arrival of anaircraft in its territory. “The global evolution of aviation busi-ness and operating practices has not, in some cases, beenmatched by States’ oversight capabilities, with resulting impli-cations for safety. Problems in identifying lines of responsibilitytend to arise …”, the Commission reported.

“In today’s civil aviation environment,” the report stated, “itis more and more likely that an aircraft may enter a State’sairspace without having assurances that the operator cansafely fly within its territory, as the aircraft may not be subjectto an appropriate level of oversight from the State of registryand State of the operator. As a consequence of the unavaila-bility of such information about safety oversight, the practiceof illegal registrations and illicit trade of aircraft is for the mostpart going undetected, further impacting air safety.”

From a legal perspective, the ANC study concluded thatnothing would prevent ICAO from requesting informationconcerning aircraft registration and ownership in a systematicfashion under ICAO regulations.

At present, there is no single source of information availableidentifying the State of registry of all aircraft habitually involvedin international civil aviation operations, and while there arecommercially available sources of registry data, these areincomplete, in part because there is no obligation for States tolist their aircraft with these services.

In recommending creation of the new information system, theCommission referred to a 2001 investigative report submittedto the UN Security Council by a panel of experts which foundthat illegally registered aircraft were an “endemic problem.” ■■

ICAO Council appointmentNabil Ezzat Kamel has been appointedRepresentative of Egypt on the Councilof ICAO, and commenced his tenureon 8 December 2005.

Mr. Kamel has pursued advancedstudies in aviation and military sciences,acquiring a bachelor of science degreein 1965 from the Egyptian Air Force Aca-demy, and a master’s degree from theEgyptian Air Force Staff and CommandCollege in 1986. He began his career asa fighter pilot, subsequently serving as a

flight instructor and later as commander of an air squadron. Hehas held positions of increasing responsibility with the EgyptianAir Force, where he was responsible for pilot training prior to hisappointment as Chief of Staff. Over the course of his militarycareer, he has been decorated with eighteen merits and medals.

In the civil aviation sector, Mr. Kamel was appointed in 2001to the position of Chairman of the National Civil AviationTraining Organization. Prior to his appointment as Repre-sentative of Egypt on the ICAO Council, Mr. Kamel was servingas Counsellor in Egypt’s Ministry of Civil Aviation. ■■

N. E. Kamel(Egypt)

To download a free 30-day trial version, visit the Infolution website at www.infolution.ca. To place an order or for further information, please contact Sales@icao.intReference CD-101

Minimum system requirements: Computer type: Pentium 233 Mhz, Operating system: Windows 95, Memory: 64 MB, Hard disk: 20 MBHardware: CD-ROM drive, Screen resolution: 800 x 600 dpi

Recent developments such as RNAV procedures,higher traffic volumes and environmental issuesincrease the pressure on procedure designers toachieve more accurate, balanced and faster results,while consistently maintaining high safety standards.

The new Procedures for Air Navigation Services –Aircraft Operations “PANS-OPS” Software, enablesprocedure designers to meet these growing demands.

Developed by Infolution Inc. and distributed by ICAO,the PANS-OPS Software CD ROM, which includesthe ICAO Collision Risk Model (CRM) and othervaluable features, provides procedure designers withthe power and flexibility to increase productivity whilemeeting the industry’s most stringent quality assuranceand safety requirements. It is leading-edge technologyat the service of accuracy and integrity.

This new Software offers the capability to store datafor aerodromes, runways, navigation aids and allobstacles in a single database. With a few keystrokesand mouse clicks in a user-friendly interface, thePANS-OPS Software analysis tool launches threeobstacle assessment programs dedicated to each of the ILS Obstacle Clearance Altitude/Height (OCA/H)calculating methods:

• ILS Basic Surfaces Program• Obstacle Assessment Surfaces (OAS) Program• CRM Program

Collateral benefits include:• evaluating possible locations for new runways in

a given geographical and obstacle environment foraerodrome planning purposes

• assessing whether or not an existing object shouldbe removed

• determining whether a particular new constructionwould result in operational penalties, such as anincrease in aircraft decision height

PANS-OPS Software is much more efficient than theold FORTRAN implementation of the ICAO CollisionRisk Model (CRM) for ILS. A modern user-friendlyGraphic Interface replaces the more cumbersomeDOS style input.

The new Software integrates relational database concepts, basic safety elements and several computerprograms required to develop instrument procedures.New client/server technology allows individual designersto share information contained in a single databaseholder; and the ability to save, archive and print inputand output ensures complete traceability, thus pavingthe way for the implementation of quality control.

This joint ICAO-Infolution undertaking aims to harmo-nize and standardize practices worldwide and, in sodoing, to promote greater aviation safety in a rapidlychanging traffic environment.

NUMBER 2, 2006 29

Airline passenger fatalitiesrose in 2005ICAO’s annual analysis of aviation safety and security datahas revealed that 2005 witnessed 18 fatal accidents and 713passenger fatalities in scheduled air services worldwide, andsix acts of unlawful interference causing three deaths. Thesafety statistics, based on preliminary information compiledfrom the organization’s member States, are related to commer-cial air transport aircraft of more than 2,250 kilograms(4,960 lb) take-off mass and reflect only those accidentsresulting in passenger fatalities.

ICAO’s analysis of aircraft accidents, which does not includethose caused by acts of unlawful interference, revealed anincrease in the accident rate in terms of fatalities per 100 mil-lion passenger-kilometres flown, which doubled to 0.02 from0.01 in 2004. In 2004, member States reported 203 passengerfatalities as a result of nine accidents.

Non-scheduled operations experienced 18 fatal accidents in2005, a figure unchanged from 2004. The number of passengerfatalities related to non-scheduled operations rose, however, to278 from 207 in 2004. Accident rates related to non-scheduledtransport could not be estimated because of the lack of compre-hensive traffic figures for these services.

During 2005, six acts of unlawful interference were recorded inwhich three persons were killed and 60 were injured. Among theseevents were two unlawful seizures and two attacks on facilities.

Aviation safety was the focus of a conference of directorsgeneral of civil aviation which was held at ICAO headquartersat press time (for more on the outcome of the DGCA conference,see page 5). ■■

Air transport outlookA conference at which government and business representa-tives will share views on the future of aviation is to be held atICAO headquarters in Montreal from 27 to 30 June 2006. TheGlobal Air Transport Outlook Conference, being organized byICAO in partnership with Airports Council International (ACI),is intended for representatives of airports and airlines, avia-tion consultants, organizations concerned with travel andtourism and the media. Issues to be addressed include strate-gic planning, forecasting, statistics, infrastructure and theprovision of services and facilities. ■■

ICAO Council elects its next PresidentThe ICAO Council elected RobertoKobeh González (Mexico) as its Presi-dent, with effect from 1 August 2006,during a Council meeting on 2 March2006. Mr. Kobeh González, currently theRepresentative of Mexico on the Councilof ICAO, succeeds Dr. Assad Kotaite,who has served as Council Presidentsince 1976.

The Council President is normallyelected by the members of the Council

following the organization’s triennial session of the Assembly.Although the term for which Dr. Kotaite was elected in 2004would normally continue until late 2007, he indicated at theopening of the 35th Session of the Assembly in September 2004that his 11th term in office would be of a transitional nature.

The other candidate for the post was Dr. Philippe Rochat(Switzerland), a former ICAO Secretary General (1991-97) whoserved on the Council from 1985 to 1989 as the Representativeof Switzerland.

Since his appointment to Council in 1998, Mr. KobehGonzález has served as First Vice-President of the Council,Chairman of the Finance Committee, and as a member of theAir Transport and Unlawful Interference Committees. Prior tojoining ICAO, he held a number of posts of increasing respon-sibility with his government’s Directorate General of CivilAeronautics. As Deputy Director General in the areas ofAdministration and Air Transport, he took part in negotiationson bilateral agreements with various countries. From 1978 to1997, he served as Director General of the Servicios a laNavegación en el Espacio Aéreo Mexicano (SENEAM), theagency responsible for providing navigation, air traffic control,meteorology, and aeronautical communications services.Mr. Kobeh González has also been a professor of aeronauti-cal electronics at the National Polytechnic Institute of Mexico.

Mr. Kobeh González has participated in numerousworldwide conferences and regional meetings convened byICAO.

The President of the Council, the organization’s governingbody, convenes meetings of the Council, the Air TransportCommittee and Air Navigation Commission. He also carries out,on behalf of the Council, the functions that it assigns to him. ■■

R. Kobeh González

InterContinental MontrealICAO Preferred Rate

$159.00 cdn

Earn Priority Club Points™ for every visit

Connected to the ICAO building

InterContinental Montreal360 St-Antoine West

Montreal, Quebec, CanadaH2Y 3X4

1-800-361-3600www.montreal.intercontinental.com

30 ICAO JOURNAL

Reserve the dates: September 27-29 in Montreal

The International Civil Aviation Organization

The McGill University Instituteof Air & Space Law

Announce

AIR NAVIGATION:FLYING THROUGH CONGESTED SKIESA Worldwide Symposium, Roundtable and Exhibition

On Business, Finance, Technology, Regulation and Policy GoverningAir Navigation SystemsSeptember 27-29, 2006

ICAO HeadquartersMontreal, Canada

http://www.icao.int /atb/mcgill_06

International registrynow in operationA new international registration system for transactions con-cerning aircraft and aircraft engines has begun operation. Theregistry was created by an international treaty, the Cape TownConvention and Aircraft Protocol, which came into effect on 1 March following its ratification by eight States.

The registration system is operated by Aviareto underICAO’s supervision. Aviareto is a joint venture involving SITAand the Government of Ireland, and is based in Dublin.

The registry will reduce the risks of lending for aircraftfinanciers, banks and other financing institutions involved inaircraft purchasing and leasing, thus reducing the cost of cred-it. Financing and leasing costs represent on average about 8 percent of the total operating expenses of internationalscheduled airlines. (For more information about the Cape TownTreaty and the international registry, see Issue 5/2003, page 25;and Issue 9/2001, page 55.) Information about the internation-al registry, including its regulations and procedures, is alsoavailable at the ICAO website (www.icao.int). ■■

Dr. Taïeb Chérif reappointedICAO Secretary General

The ICAO Council reappointed Dr. TaïebChérif (Algeria) as Secretary General ofICAO during its meeting of 27 February2006. Dr. Chérif’s second three-yearterm takes effect on 1 August 2006. Theother candidate for the post was WilliamVoss (United States), the Director of theICAO Air Navigation Bureau.

Dr. Chérif commenced his first termas Secretary General on 1 August 2003.In his first three years he has focused

on measures to further improve the efficiency and effectivenessof the organization. Among measures he has spearheaded arethe more widespread use of information technology for cost-effective delivery of information and documentation services;changes to the organizational structure and realignment ofhuman resources strategies; greater functional integrationbetween ICAO headquarters and its seven regional offices; andthe development of the organization’s first business plan.

Dr. Chérif was Representative of Algeria on the ICAO Councilfrom 1998 to 2003. In that capacity, he was Chairman of the AirTransport Committee and a member of the Finance Committeeof the Council as well as specialized working groups. His careerincludes various high-level positions in the civil aviation admin-istration of Algeria, and the post of Secretary of State for HigherEducation. He received a doctorate in air transport economicsfrom Cranfield Institute of Technology, in the United Kingdom,and has taught air transport economics at the Institute of

Economic Sciences in Algiers. He also acquired a diploma inaeronautical engineering from the École nationale de l’aviationcivile, in Toulouse, France.

As the chief executive officer of the organization, theSecretary General is responsible for ICAO’s day-to-day opera-tion and also serves as Secretary of the ICAO Council, thegoverning body of the international agency. The SecretaryGeneral is chosen by an election which is held every threeyears by the Council. ■■

Dr. Taïeb Chérif

NUMBER 2, 2006 31

Global Air Navigation Plancontinued from page 13

CNS/ATM implementation process. The third edition of theGlobal Plan focuses, therefore, on efforts towards maintainingconsistent global harmonization and improving implementationefficiencies by drawing on the existing capabilities of the infra-structure and successful regional implementation of CNS/ ATMsystems over the near and medium terms.

Planning tools. The new edition of the Global Plan is supportedby planning tools that take various formats; among these aresoftware applications, planning documentation, web-basedreporting forms, and project management tools. As States andregional planning and implementation groups consider possibleinitiatives, they will use common programme templates thatserve as the means for establishing performance objectives andimplementation time lines. The common templates will also beused in developing a comprehensive schedule and programmeof activities to accomplish the work associated with the initia-tives. In addition, planning tools will provide links to relevantguidance material and documents that will be of value to theplanner. This will ensure a uniform approach to the implemen-tation of all Global Plan initiatives.

Evolution of the global system. Achieving the desired globalATM system will be accomplished through an evolutionaryimplementation of many initiatives over a period of several years.The set of initiatives contained in the plan are meant to facilitateand harmonize the work already under way within various regionsin addition to generating important benefits for aircraft operators.

ICAO will continue to develop new initiatives for advancingthe Global Plan. In all cases, these must meet objectives thatare based on the ATM operational concept. Planning and imple-mentation activities begin with the application of available pro-cedures, processes and capabilities, and gradually apply theemerging elements, with ultimate migration to the envisagedATM system.

Business planning. The Global Plan initiatives were developed inunison with ICAO’s business planning process, and as such reflectthe key activities and critical tasks related to the organization’sstrategic objectives for the 2005-10 period. Linking the Global Planinitiatives to the business plan of the organization should ensurethat ICAO’s strategic objectives are adequately addressed andshould also allow for implementation of an effective performanceframework for ICAO’s work in the field of air navigation.

Measurable achievements. In recent years, important develop-ments have taken place and opportunities have emerged astechnologies mature, research and trials conclude successfully,and procedures and specifications become finalized. To citespecific examples, automatic dependent surveillance – broad-cast (ADS-B) is now being successfully implemented and iswidely available for surveillance in domestic airspace; modernaircraft are being equipped with FANS 1/A, systems that

Annex amendment includessafety management provisionsAn extensive amendment to Part I of ICAO Annex 6, Operationof Aircraft, includes new provisions concerning State regulatorysystems and the regulatory oversight of aircraft.

With the recent adoption of Amendment 30, expected tobecome applicable this November, a new Appendix 5 speci-fies the critical elements of a regulatory system needed by theState of the aircraft operator; other revisions better describethe approval and acceptances required by the State of theoperator and the State of aircraft registry for inspection, cer-tification and continued supervision of air operators.

Another change to the annex relates to the carriage of docu-ments on board aircraft, and requires that an aircraft engagedin international operations carry a certified true copy of the airoperator certificate (AOC) and related authorizations, condi-tions and limitations, accompanied by an English translationwhere the AOC is issued in a language other than English. Thenew requirement will enable authorities to determine, duringinspections such as ramp checks, which State has responsibil-ity for regulatory oversight of the aircraft’s operations, and toalso ascertain the precise nature and extent of any conditionsattached to the AOC. English translations for the aircraft’scertificate of airworthiness, the certificate of registry, pilots’licences, and documents attesting to noise certification arealready required.

The amendment harmonizes the safety management require-ments contained in different ICAO annexes. In Annex 6, Part I,it introduces new definitions and provisions related to safetymanagement, as well as notes on new guidance material onsafety management. Similar amendments have been adoptedfor ICAO Annex 11, which concerns air traffic services, andAnnex 14, which contains provisions for aerodromes. With thechanges in each of the annexes, the amendment harmonizesthe approach to safety management for air traffic managementproviders, aircraft operators, maintenance organizations andaerodrome operators.

Another revision to Annex 6, Part I concerns the carriage ofpressure altitude data sources, and serves to enhance theaccuracy and effectiveness of the airborne collision avoidancesystem (ACAS) and ground surveillance with secondary surveil-lance radar (SSR) Mode S by requiring that aircraft be equip-ped with altitude encoders with higher resolution.

Among other revisions to the annex, adopted by the ICAOCouncil in March 2006, are:• a requirement that pilots be made aware that criteria usedfor obstacle clearance information can differ from State toState and may also differ from the criteria recommended inICAO Procedures for Air Navigation Services – Operations(PANS-OPS);• a new definition for flight operations officers and dispatchers,and standards and recommended practices that clarify theresponsibility of such officers or dispatchers for the safe dis-patch and operation of a flight;• updated references to material containing legal guidance forthe protection of information obtained from safety data col-lection and processing systems; and• updated provisions related to flight crew licensing and train-ing requirements.

With respect to licensing and training, the amendmentenables the evaluation of competency to be conducted bymeans other than examination. It also introduces threatand error management as a flight crew training require-ment, and requires a biannual pilot proficiency check to beconducted on each type of aircraft that a pilot is qualifiedto operate. ■■

32 ICAO JOURNAL

Safety conferencecontinued from page 7

implement each and every [recommendation] in a timely, col-laborative and cost-effective manner.” He stressed that ICAOwas becoming more focused on obtaining results from itsefforts, having recently implemented a business plan (see“New ICAO business plan is part of a broad strategy initiative,”Issue 6/2005, page 5).

“At all levels, we are introducing new working methods that leadto increased efficiency and effectiveness, while making prudent useof limited resources. … And a built-in review process will ensure thatour activities are realigned periodically, so as to better support youin your efforts to further the safety of air transport operations in yourrespective countries and regions,” he informed the DGCAs. ■■

about safety;• conduct proactive injury/accident reduction activities, inclu-ding effective audits and re-evaluations;• investigate and prepare timely reports for all types of safety-related events; and• continuously develop best practices through safety training.

While DuPont has one of the world’s lowest industry injuryrates, most injuries and accidents that have occurred in thecompany have been caused by unsafe actions and behaviours,including management behaviours, pointed out Mr. McCabe.For example, a line manager may give a directive that places anemployee at greater risk.

“From our history of business competition in very haz-ardous industries, we have learned to employ our robustoperating discipline — comparable to crew resource man-agement in an aircraft — proactively recognizing interde-pendence and mutual accountability to keep each other safe.Our company safety culture, like our business culture, com-prises the same elements of strong leadership, the rightstructure and action focused clearly on core values and criti-cal operating tasks. When all members of the work force fol-low such leadership and truly feel this accountability fromtop to bottom, they integrate their efforts to achieve the safe-ty goals.”

Other corporate aircraft operators have become familiar withSMS concepts through common audit procedures. For example,the basis for audits under the International Standard forBusiness Aircraft Operations (IS-BAO) is a company’s SMS,according to the International Business Aviation Council (IBAC).The IS-BAO, introduced in 2002 as a voluntary code of bestpractices with accredited auditors (including FSF auditors),requires that corporate flight departments implement an SMSto effectively manage risks.

Summary. The new SARPs for ICAO Annex 6 are expectedto influence how civil aviation authorities practice safety-riskmanagement and how the implementation of an SMS by theaccountable executive of an airline builds unprecedentedsynergy from current and future safety efforts. Meanwhile,the rapidly expanding literature of civil aviation authoritiesand safety specialists in several countries provides a clearerpicture of the future for airlines that have an SMS — andexamples of SMS implementation that airline senior man-agers can compare with their oversight of company widerisk-management activities. ■■

Safety management systemscontinued from page 16

factors in implementing an SMS, especially in developing theairline safety culture, according to one corporate aviation director.A strong safety operating discipline — led from the top, withclear line-management accountability — provides the foundation,explained William McCabe, the director of DuPont Aviationand a member of the FSF Board of Governors.

The safety leadership must be visible to the employee, headded. “In DuPont Aviation, for example, we have clearaccountability standards regarding personal safety leadershipthat all management layers of the DuPont Co. have to meet.There is no hiding.”

Typical safety leadership demands that the responsible indi-vidual:• conduct planning, integration of activities and challenginggoal-setting that support corporate safety policies and principles;• establish clear standards and high expectations of safe beha-viour, including line-manager accountability;• provide safety professionals to help line managers;• demonstrate effective oversight of employees’ working condi-tions and safety behaviours, including correction of unsafebehaviours;• engage employees in developing best practices for risk mana-gement;• foster robust employee-manager communication and motivation

improve the efficiency and effectiveness of oceanic air trafficcontrol; and the concept of required navigation performance(RNP) has evolved. Moreover, ICAO will soon publish new per-formance-based navigation guidance material and amendedstandards which were established through consensus and arebased on current aircraft capabilities.

The revised edition of the Global Plan will facilitate planningand implementation of these developments through new andinnovative methods. A set of Global Plan initiatives will ensurethat the available near- and medium-term opportunities arefully exploited, while planning tools will provide guidance onpreparatory activities and serve as the basis for establishingperformance objectives and implementation time lines.

The Global Plan is being gradually transformed into the base-line for measurable achievements and implementation of a trulyglobal ATM system. It serves as the benchmark for the conti-nuing evolution to a performance-based approach to planningand implementing the world’s air navigation infrastructure. ■■

Sri LankaAircraft on civil register 28

Active pilot licences 332

Commercial air transport operators 6

Approved maintenance organizations 4

Aviation training establishments 4

Aircraft manufacturing organizations 0

Aircraft type certificates issued 0

International airports 3

(dat

a fr

om D

ecem

ber 2

004)

AV

IA

TI

ON

PR

OF

IL

E

NUMBER 2, 2006 33

dence over other company investigations, with the result thattwo independent, uncoordinated investigations were carried out.35. The management of quality standards had been heavilydevolved to the various sections of the airline, with a limiteddegree of central control.

Causal factors. The following causal factors were identified:1. The tasks of refitting the panels to the right wing and cor-rectly certifying for the work carried out were not performed tothe required airworthiness standard.2. Ineffective supervision of maintenance staff had allowedworking practices to develop that had compromised the levelof airworthiness control and had become accepted as the“norm.”3. There was a culture, both on the ramp and in the mainte-nance hanger, which was not effective in ensuring that mainte-nance staff operated within the scope of their company authori-zation and in accordance with approved instructions.4. The maintenance planning and task instructions relating tooil servicing on the Boeing 757 fleet were inappropriate and didnot ensure compliance with the approved instructions.5. The airline’s Quality Assurance Programme was not effectivein highlighting unsatisfactory maintenance practices.

Safety recommendations. The AAIB issued eight safetyrecommendations as a result of the investigation. Seven of therecommendations were addressed to British Airways, and wereconcerned primarily with maintenance practices and qualitymanagement. Another recommendation, directed to EASA,concerned maintenance requirements. ■■

Incident reportcontinued from page 21

staff had allowed working practices to develop that had compro-mised airworthiness control.27. The Quality Assurance Programme was not wholly effectivein highlighting unsatisfactory practices on the shop floor.28. The established number of quality engineers and thebroad scope of their responsibilities limited the amount of timethey were able to spend in the maintenance environment.29. There was no consistent policy in the maintenance organi-zation’s approach to human factors issues and its conduct ofmaintenance error investigations (MEI).30. Maintenance staff did not believe that the MEI processwas objective and saw it as being a means only to effect discipli-nary action.31. The maintenance organization took corrective action fol-lowing the incident; however, this information was not enteredin the airline’s safety database, known as “eBASIS,” to enablethe safety management loop to be closed.32. The maintenance organization had not responded in atimely manner to safety recommendations issued by the safetyservices department’s “BASI 4” investigation into this incident.33. The safety services department’s method for tracking safe-ty recommendations to ensure the implementation of timelyand appropriate safety actions lacked robustness.34. The airline’s “BASI 4” procedure lacked clarity in definingthat the safety services department’s investigation took prece-

Install ADB’s innovative LED taxiway inset lights

once and they last for about two decades

without changing the light source.This makes

them the most economical investment to

increase airside capacity. Low maintenance

and energy costs result in additional saving

during their life cycle. And ADB’s LED lights are

unique: they can be integrated in any existing

series circuit for CAT I, II & III taxiway application.

Further info on www.adb-air.com

By the time he has to relamp this light,his younger son will already be graduated from college.

ADBAirside technology –visibly more than just lighting

www.adb-air.com

A Siemens Company

Pu

bli

cis

E10

00

1-T

95

-Z1

0-V

1-7

60

0

34 ICAO JOURNAL

Pilot trainingcontinued from page 23

MPL concept — a solution that was simply not available untilrecently.

Clearly, if the MPL candidate is to be granted an aircraft typerating after accumulating only 70 hours of actual flight time,affordable training tools must be available at levels not providedbefore now. MPL sets a new baseline in the definition of thesetools, the flight simulation training device (Levels I to IV).

The Level II simulation training device is commonly used tomeet training requirements. The greatest attempt at innova-tion, however, may lie in the Level III device, often referred toas the “missing link” in the training chain because thesedevices have not yet been produced and certificated in appre-ciable quantities.

The definition of the Level III device describes a system thatcould be termed a generic turbojet trainer. In the notes relatedto the definition, ICAO also indicates that a Level III trainingdevice can constitute a full flight simulator (FFS Level B).

COPA Airlines of Panama is one of the first operators to uti-lize Level III technology at its own training facility, where it hasinstalled a generic Boeing 737 FFS to conduct 80 percent of ini-tial and 100 percent of recurrent training. With this new classof simulator built on the foundation of microprocessor technol-ogy costing half that of comparable traditional simulators,COPA no longer has to rely on more expensive training hubslocated abroad.

Tributescontinued from page 7

The name Assad Kotaite, declared the Ethiopian Delegation,“will continue to shine and serve as a beacon in the years tocome.” The Council President’s contribution to the safe andorderly development of international civil aviation will have itsappropriate place in aviation history, the spokesman predicted.

Canada announced that it was launching the Assad KotaiteFellowship for the development of post graduate studies ininternational civil aviation law and management. The fellowshipwill honour Dr. Kotaite’s 53 years of commitment to internation-al civil aviation, air law and aviation management.

In his closing remarks, Dr. Kotaite urged the delegates towork actively to improve civil aviation from the moment theyreturn home. Civil aviation is a complex domain that transportsbillions of passengers per year, he said, and aviation administra-tions have a duty to protect them by implementing the provi-sions of the Chicago Convention, and not bending to any kind ofweakness or political pressure.

In reflecting on the achievements of the conference and on pastaccomplishments, the Council President reminded delegates inemotion-filled words that his achievements in life had been col-lective achievements. “I have always counted on your coopera-tion,” he told the full Assembly Hall. “I cannot find words toexpress to you how much I am in debt to your cooperation, toyour trust, to your friendship and to your assistance.” ��

By utilizing its own simulator, COPA achieves a total costsavings of U.S. $4 million per year. In addition, the technologywill support an MPL training programme, if desired. Theequipment also provides the small airline with new revenuepotential by allowing it to market simulator time to other oper-ators in the region.

Summary. Traditional training, with extensive time dedi-cated to ageing technology, is no longer meeting the fluidneeds of airlines that value a skill set which is more appropri-ate for today’s technologically sophisticated airliners. The pathto the flight deck’s right seat is unnecessarily long when usingoutdated technology and methodology, and the traditionalapproach simply cannot adequately meet the demand for newpilots required for the industry’s anticipated growth in theyears ahead.

Many airlines seek to recruit pilots who have been trainedspecifically to fly the aircraft in their fleet, and who have beenschooled in the skills needed to work in a dynamic andtechnologically advanced multi-crew environment. While theremay be resistance from some quarters to the changes repre-sented by MPL concept, forward thinking training organiza-tions understand the need to adapt to licensing and trainingstandards that have been made possible by improvements intechnology.

With the emergence of the multi-crew pilot licence, flighttraining technology will have to demonstrate its effective-ness in imparting trainees with the skills needed for con-ducting safe operations in a sophisticated jet airliner.Clearly, it is the new generation of flight training technolo-gy that will make MPL both practical and affordable on anindustry-wide scale. ��

IN THESPOTLIGHT ...

DRAFT CONVENTIONThe third meeting of the Special Group on the Modernization ofthe Rome Convention of 1952 was held at ICAO headquarters from13 to 17 February 2006 under the chairmanship of Henrik Kjellin(Sweden), and was attended by 38 delegates from 19 ContractingStates as well as a number of observers from States and internationalorganizations. The group of legal experts was established in May2004 to further develop and refine the text of a draft conventionthat will address third-party damage caused by foreign aircraft. A new convention is considered necessary to reflect recent trendsand developments in international liability law.

MTSAT MODEL SATELLITEDuring a brief ceremony on 20 March 2006, Japan presented ICAO with a miniature model of its Multifunctional Transport Satellite (MTSAT), akey element in support of the CNS/ATM systems. MTSAT-1R and MTSAT-2were launched in February 2005 and February 2006 respectively for the purpose of providing aeronautical satellite communications, global positioning system (GPS) augmentation services and meteorological services to the civil aviation community in the Asia/Pacific regions.Shown at the presentation of the model on the occasion of the DGCAConference of 20-22 March are (l-r): Haruhiko Kono, Representative ofJapan on the Council of ICAO; ICAO Council President Dr. Assad Kotaite;Shinsuke Endo, Director General of the Engineering Dept. of the Civil Aviation Bureau of Japan; and ICAO Secretary General Dr. Taïeb Chérif.

REGIONAL WORKSHOPA regional workshop on aerodrome operational planning was heldin Mauritius in early December. The event, which was hosted bythe Department of Civil Aviation in collaboration with Airports ofMauritius Ltd., was attended by 42 participants from 15 States inthe Eastern and Southern African regions.

DEPOSIT BY THAILANDThailand deposited its instrument of accession to the Convention on theMarking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection during a briefceremony at ICAO headquarters on 25 January 2006. Shown on the occasion are (l-r): Chatchai Viriyavejakul, First Secretary; and AmbassadorSnanchart Devahastin, Embassy of Thailand in Ottawa; ICAO SecretaryGeneral Dr. Taïeb Chérif; and Silvério Espínola, Principal Legal Officer inthe ICAO Legal Bureau.