Norway Final Report - cfapp.icao.int · Final Safety Oversight Audit Report — Norway February...

ICAO Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme

FINAL REPORT ON THE SAFETY OVERSIGHT AUDIT

OF THE CIVIL AVIATION SYSTEM

OF THE KINGDOM OF NORWAY

(2 to 11 May 2006)

International Civil Aviation Organization

Final Safety Oversight Audit Report — Norway February 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 ICAO audit team composition ............................................................................................... 1 1.3 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... 2

2. OBJECTIVES AND ACTIVITIES OF THE AUDIT MISSION ............................................ 2 3. AUDIT RESULTS ....................................................................................................................... 3

3.1 Critical element 1 — Primary aviation legislation ................................................................. 3 3.2 Critical element 2 — Specific operating regulations ............................................................. 6 3.3 Critical element 3 — State civil aviation system and safety oversight functions ................... 8 3.4 Critical element 4 — Technical personnel qualification and training .................................. 11 3.5 Critical element 5 — Technical guidance, tools and the provision of safety critical information .......................................................................................................................... 12 3.6 Critical element 6 — Licensing, certification, authorization and/or approval obligations ... 14 3.7 Critical element 7 — Surveillance obligations .................................................................... 16 3.8 Critical element 8 — Resolution of safety concerns ............................................................ 17

4. VISITS TO THE INDUSTRY/SERVICE PROVIDERS ....................................................... 18 5. AUDIT FINDINGS AND DIFFERENCES DATABASE (AFDD) ........................................ 19 6. STATE AVIATION ACTIVITY QUESTIONNAIRE (SAAQ) ............................................. 19 7. COMPLIANCE CHECKLISTS (CCs) .................................................................................... 19 8. FOLLOW-UP ACTION ............................................................................................................ 19 APPENDICES

1 — Audit findings and recommendations 1-1 Findings and recommendations related to primary aviation legislation and civil aviation

regulations 1-2 Findings and recommendations related to civil aviation organization 1-3 Findings and recommendations related to personnel licensing and training 1-4 Findings and recommendations related to aircraft operations certification and supervision 1-5 Findings and recommendations related to airworthiness of aircraft 1-6 Findings and recommendations related to aircraft accident and incident investigation 1-7 Findings and recommendations related to air navigation services 1-8 Findings and recommendations related to aerodromes

2 — Graphic representation of the lack of effective implementation of the critical elements

3 — Corrective action plan proposed by Norway

— — — — — — — —


ICAO UNIVERSAL SAFETY OVERSIGHT AUDIT PROGRAMME

Final Report on the Safety Oversight Audit of the Civil Aviation System of Norway

(2 to 11 May 2006)

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background 1.1.1 The 32nd Session of the ICAO Assembly (Assembly Resolution A32-11 refers) resolved the establishment of the ICAO Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme (USOAP), comprising regular, mandatory, systematic and harmonized safety audits of all Contracting States. The mandate for regular audits foresaw the continuation of the Programme, and the term “safety audits” suggested that all safety-related areas should be audited. The expansion of the Programme “at the appropriate time”, as recommended by the 1997 Directors General of Civil Aviation Conference on a Global Strategy for Safety Oversight, had thus been accepted as an integral part of the future of the Programme. 1.1.2 The 35th Session of the ICAO Assembly considered a proposal of the Council for the continuation and expansion of the USOAP as of 2005 and resolved that the Programme be expanded to cover all safety-related Annexes (Assembly Resolution A35-6 refers). The Assembly also requested the Secretary General to adopt a comprehensive systems approach for the conduct of safety oversight audits. 1.1.3 Assembly Resolution A35-6 further directed the Secretary General to ensure that the comprehensive systems approach maintain as core elements the safety provisions contained in Annex 1 � Personnel Licensing, Annex 6 � Operation of Aircraft, Annex 8 � Airworthiness of Aircraft, Annex 11 � Air Traffic Services, Annex 13 � Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation and Annex 14 � Aerodromes; to make all aspects of the auditing process visible to Contracting States; to make the final safety oversight audit reports available to all Contracting States; and also to provide access to all relevant information derived from the Audit Findings and Differences Database (AFDD) through the secure website of ICAO. 1.1.4 In accordance with Assembly Resolution A35-6, safety oversight audit reports have been restructured to reflect the critical elements of a safety oversight system, as presented in ICAO Doc 9734 —Safety Oversight Manual, Part A — The Establishment and Management of a State’s Safety Oversight System. ICAO Contracting States, in their effort to establish and implement an effective safety oversight system, need to consider these critical elements. 1.2 ICAO audit team composition 1.2.1 The safety oversight audit team was composed of: Mr. Nicolas Rallo, team leader, primary aviation legislation (LEG)/civil aviation organization (ORG)/aircraft accident and incident investigation (AIG); Mr. Paul Lamy, team member, personnel licensing (PEL)/aircraft operations (OPS); Mr. Waldemar Krolikowski, on-the-job training (OJT)/PEL/OPS; Mr. Virginio Bagassi, team member, airworthiness of aircraft (AIR); Mr. Marcus Costa, team member, OJT/AIG; Mr. Gunnar Emausson, team member, air navigation services (ANS); Mr. Charlie Govaarts, team member, OJT/ANS; and Mr. Klaus Albrecht, team member, aerodromes (AGA).

- 2 -


1.3 Acknowledgements 1.3.1 ICAO expresses its sincere appreciation for the assistance provided to the audit team during the preparation and conduct of the audit. The professionalism and enthusiasm of all personnel who interacted with the audit team greatly contributed to the success of the audit mission. 2. OBJECTIVES AND ACTIVITIES OF THE AUDIT MISSION 2.1 The comprehensive systems approach for the conduct of safety oversight audits consists of three phases. In the first phase, the level of implementation of Annex provisions is assessed and differences from ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) are identified for each Contracting State through a review of a duly completed State Aviation Activity Questionnaire (SAAQ) and Compliance Checklists (CCs) for all safety-related Annexes, as well as through a review of documents developed by the State to assist it in implementing SARPs and in maintaining an effective safety oversight system. In the second phase, the State being audited is visited by an ICAO audit team to validate the information provided by the State and to conduct an on-site audit of the State’s overall capability for safety oversight. The third phase of the audit process consists of the activities following the completion of the on-site audit. 2.2 The safety oversight audit of Norway was carried out from 2 to 11 May 2006 in accordance with the standard auditing procedures provided for in ICAO Doc 9735 — Safety Oversight Audit Manual and the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) agreed to on 4 April 2005 between Norwayand ICAO. The audit was carried out with the objective of fulfilling the mandate given by the Assembly which requires ICAO to conduct a safety oversight audit of all Contracting States (Assembly Resolutions A32-11 and A35-6 refer), reviewing a State’s compliance with ICAO SARPs set out in all safety related Annexes and their associated guidance material, as well as with related Procedures for Air Navigation Services (PANS). Furthermore, the objective was also to offer advice, as applicable, to Norwayin implementing these provisions. 2.3 The audit team reviewed the SAAQ and the CCs submitted by Norway prior to the on-site audit in order to have a preliminary understanding of the civil aviation system established in the State, to determine its various functions as well as to assess the status of implementation of relevant Annex provisions. Information provided and assessed prior to the conduct of the audit was validated during the on-site audit phase. In this regard, particular attention was given to the presence of an adequate organization, processes, procedures and programmes established and maintained by Norway to assist it in fulfilling its safety oversight obligations. 2.4 On 15 July 2002, the European Community adopted Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). This regulation provides for the transfer of regulatory competencies in the fields of airworthiness, continuing airworthiness and environmental certification from the Member States of the European Union (EU) to EASA. On 13 December 2005, Norway advised ICAO in writing of the transfer of such competencies to EASA. 2.5 Since the transfer of competencies to EASA reflects on the scope of the ICAO safety oversight audits under the comprehensive systems approach, ICAO, on 29 November 2005, performed an audit of EASA. The audit results will be made available following the established timelines as set forth in the Safety Oversight Audit Manual (Doc 9735). It should be noted that Norway will always maintain the responsibility for

- 3 -


all audit results that are derived from the audits carried out on EASA from time to time. As a result, the latest EASA safety oversight audit report should be reviewed together with this report. 2.6 The audit results including the findings and recommendations contained in this report reflect the capabilities and limitations of the civil aviation system of Norwayas assessed by the audit team. They are thus based on evidence gathered during interviews by the audit team with Norway’s technical experts and background information provided by such personnel, review and analysis of civil aviation legislation, specific regulations, related documentation and file records. Considering the time that was available to conduct the audit and the fact that the safety oversight audit team members could only review and analyse information and documentation made available by the State, it is possible that some safety concerns may not have been identified during the audit. The findings and recommendations related to each audit area are found in Appendix 1 to this report. The acronyms listed in the document reference box of each finding and recommendation form are defined as follows: A = Annex; AR = Assembly Resolution; CC = Chicago Convention; CE = Critical element; CIR = Circular; GM = Guidance material; PANS = Procedures for Air Navigation Services; RP = Recommended Practice; STD = Standard; SUPPS = Regional Supplementary Procedures, and TI = Technical Instruction. 3. AUDIT RESULTS 3.1 Critical element 1 � Primary aviation legislation

“The provision of a comprehensive and effective aviation law consistent with the environment and complexity of the State’s aviation activity, and compliant with the requirements contained in the Convention on International Civil Aviation.”

3.1.1 The primary national aviation legislation of Norway is the Act no. 0101 of 11 June 1993 relating to Aviation (hereafter known as the Aviation Act), which came into force on 1 April 1994 and was last amended on 10 June 2005. Part I of the act deals with civil aviation, while Part II relates essentially to military aviation. The Aviation Act is supplemented by national and supranational legislation in various areas. The supranational legislation stems from Norway’s membership in the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), an intergovernmental organization founded in 1960 and based on the EFTA Convention intended to promote free trade and strengthen economic relations. (The other EFTA Member States are Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland.) In 2004, the European Economic Area (EEA) was created, uniting three of the four EFTA States (i.e. Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway) with the 25 European Union (EU) Member States into an Internal Market governed under basic rules formed through the incorporation of European Community legislation (in particular, the regulations and directives) into the EEA Agreement. The transposition process is overseen by a committee called the EEA Joint Committee. As Norway and the two other EEA Member States which are not part of the EU have not transferred any legislative powers to the EEA Joint Committee, the transposition of European Community legislation in the Norwegian regulatory framework may, in some cases, require the approval of the Norwegian Parliament. On average, it takes between six to twelve months before European Community legislation becomes binding to Norway. At present, nearly all European Community legislation in the field of civil aviation, including the Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council, are binding on Norway. As for the Single European Sky (SES) Regulations, their transposition into the Norwegian regulatory framework is in progress.

- 4 -


3.1.2 With respect to the relationship between the national regulatory requirements and the provisions stemming from European Community legislation, Section 1-1 of the Aviation Act specifies that “With regard to aviation covered by the EEA Agreement, provisions of this Act that supplement and implement the EEA Agreement in the field of aviation take precedence over other provisions of this Act.” 3.1.3 The Aviation Act empowers the Minister of Transport and Communications to promulgate regulations related to civil aviation and to designate the civil aviation authority. It also contains requirements applicable to all aviation-related activities in Norway, including personnel licensing, the operation of aircraft, airworthiness of aircraft, aerodrome operations, air navigation services (ANS) as well as the notification and investigation of aircraft accidents and incidents. The Aviation Act contains all necessary legal tools for the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) inspectors to exercise their functions. It provides the inspectors with the right to have unrestricted and unlimited access to aircraft as well as to all aviation facilities and documents. The Aviation Act also gives inspectors the right to detain aircraft for just cause. The right of the CAA to suspend or revoke aviation documents (i.e. licences, certificates and approvals) is stated in various articles of the Aviation Act as well as in specific regulations (e.g. the Norwegian regulation transposing the JAR-OPS). In addition, Chapter XIV of the Aviation Act provides the penal provisions for infringements of regulatory requirements, while fines and penalties are defined in Norway’s Penal Code. 3.1.4 Norway ratified Article 83 bis of the Chicago Convention on 20 September 1995. However, it has not revised its primary aviation legislation, regulations and associated procedures to give full effect to this ratification. 3.1.5 Personnel licensing activities in Norway are governed by Chapter V of the Aviation Act, which requires the Ministry of Transport and Communications to develop regulations for flight crew licences. Chapter V (“Staffing”) of the Aviation Act also authorizes the CAA to suspend or withdraw a licence. 3.1.6 With respect to aircraft operations, Section 8-8 of the Aviation Act states that commercial operators must be issued an operating authorization by the Ministry and that the Ministry may also require an authorization for non-commercial aviation activities. The Ministry has delegated this authority to the CAA. Section 8-6 of the Aviation Act also provides for the withdrawal of an operating authorization “if licensing conditions, statutory provisions or regulations that apply to the licensee’s operations are substantially breached,” while Section 8-7 stipulates that international agreements shall apply when there is a conflict between the Act and such agreements. 3.1.7 In the field of airworthiness and maintenance of aircraft, the adoption on 15 July 2002 of Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council opened the way for a centralized European Community system of air safety and environment regulations and for the establishment of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which was launched in September 2003. The Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 applies to Norway, which is a Member State of EASA. (More details on EASA and its areas of competence can be found in the ICAO final safety oversight audit report of EASA.) National provisions regarding the airworthiness of aircraft are contained in Chapter IV (“Airworthiness and compliance with environmental requirements”) of the Aviation Act, covering, among others, the conditions for the issuance, renewal and validation of certificates of airworthiness, while the provisions for registration of aircrafts are contained in Chapter III (“Registration, nationality and marking”) of the Aviation Act. 3.1.8 With respect to ANS, air traffic services (ATS) are required pursuant to Chapter VII (“Airports and ground services”) of the Aviation Act, which also addresses the issuance and withdrawal of air

- 5 -


traffic controllers licences. With respect to search and rescue (SAR) operations, a royal decree dated 4 July 1980 forms the legal basis for such services, which fall under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice and Police. With regard to aeronautical information services (AIS), ATS, communications, navigation and surveillance (CNS) and meteorological services (MET), the four Single European Sky (SES) Regulations of the European Parliament and of the Council, promulgated in March 2004, are applicable to Norway, which is in the process of transposing it into its national law. These SES regulations are:

a) (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council, which laid down the framework for the creation of the Single European Sky;

b) (EC) No 550/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the provision of

air navigation services in the Single European Sky;

c) (EC) No 551/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the organization and use of the airspace in the Single European Sky, and

d) (EC) No 552/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the

interoperability of the European air traffic management network. 3.1.9 With regards to aerodromes, the Aviation Act contains comprehensive provisions for their licensing and certification. Chapter VII (“Airports and ground services”), Section 7 of the Aviation Act empowers the Ministry of Transport and Communications to promulgate civil aviation regulations related to the operation and maintenance of aerodromes and aviation facilities. It provides for a licensing process (which relates to land use planning, environment and public interests matters) and for a certification process (which addresses compliance with regulatory requirements and safety aspects). The Aviation Act delegates the responsibility to conduct safety oversight of aerodromes to the CAA and grants CAA aerodrome inspectors the right of access to aerodromes and aviation facilities. The Aviation Act also authorizes the CAA to withdraw an aerodrome certificate or to set such conditions as it deems necessary. 3.1.10 Chapter XII (“Notification, reporting and investigation of civil aviation accidents and civil aviation incidents, etc.”) of the Aviation Act contains the legal requirements relating to the notification and investigation of civil aviation accidents and incidents. Section 12-1 empowers the Ministry to designate the authority in charge of the investigation and states that “the purpose of investigation is to improve safety and prevent civil aviation accidents.” Moreover, “the investigation authority shall not take a position on culpability and liability under civil law or criminal law,” and “investigations shall be conducted independently of any other investigation or enquiry.” Sections 12-4 and 12-5 of the Aviation Act provide for the immediate notification of aircraft accidents and serious incidents. Section 12-10 provides for the protection of recordings, including cockpit voice recordings (CVR) and image recordings against disclosure. The Aviation Act (Section 12-12) introduces an obligation for the investigation authority to investigate all civil aviation accidents and serious aviation incidents, while “other civil aviation incidents shall be investigated to the extent that this can be expected to yield new knowledge which can be used to prevent civil aviation accidents.” Under Section 12-21, the Aviation Act directs the investigation authority to “prepare a report when it has investigated civil aviation accidents and serious civil aviation incidents,” and allows it to decide on the need to prepare a report on other civil aviation incidents it has investigated. The Aviation Act also provides the investigation authority with the legal tools, including the necessary authority over the wreckage and the accident site, to carry out its functions in an effective and independent manner.

- 6 -


3.2 Critical element 2 � Specific operating regulations

“The provision of adequate regulations to address, at a minimum, national requirements emanating from the primary aviation legislation and providing for standardized operational procedures, equipment and infrastructures (including safety management and training systems), in conformance with the Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) contained in the Annexes to the Convention on International Civil Aviation.

Note.— The term ‘regulations’ is used in a generic sense to include instructions, rules, edicts, directives, sets of laws, requirements, policies, orders, etc.”

3.2.1 Through a royal decree, dated 10 December 1999 and entered into force on 1 January 2000, the Ministry of Transport and Communications designated the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) of Norway as the responsible authority under the Aviation Act. Section 15-4 of the Aviation Act gives competence to the Ministry of Transport and Communications “to issue regulations to implement and supplement the foregoing provisions” of the Act. However, for selected chapters of the Aviation Act, this competence was delegated by the Ministry of Transport and Communications to the CAA by the regulation no. 1273 of 10 December 1999 on the delegation of authority to the CAA and in accordance with the Public Administration Act. 3.2.2 Regulations promulgated by the Ministry of Transport and Communications and by the CAA in the field of civil aviation are known as Bestemmelser for Sivil Luftfart (“regulations for civil aviation” or BSL for short). BSL regulations are published in the State gazette and also posted on the CAA’s website (http://www.luftfartstilsynet.no/regelverk/bsl). Explanatory material associated to the BSL regulations is issued in the form of appendices to these regulations, called “yellow pages”. In addition to the regulations, aeronautical information circulars (AIC) are used in situations with immediate effect on aviation safety. 3.2.3 The CAA has established procedures related to the promulgation and amendment of regulations, including procedures related to internal and external consultations. However, regulatory requirements are still missing in some areas of civil aviation, such as in the area of AIS. As for the identification and notification to ICAO of differences existing between the Standards contained in ICAO Annexes and Norway’s regulations and practices, the CAA has established the relevant procedures. Nevertheless, these procedures still need to be expanded and adequately implemented, as existing differences have not been systematically notified to ICAO. 3.2.4 The CAA has also established regulatory provisions, policy and procedure on the granting of exemptions. Exemptions are granted either by the Chief of the department concerned or, in certain cases, by the Director General of the CAA. 3.2.5 In the area of personnel licensing and training, Norway has adopted the Joint Aviation Requirements (JARs), namely JAR-FCL 1 Amendment 3 (Aeroplane), JAR-FCL 2 Amendment 3 (Helicopter) and JAR-FCL 3 Amendment 2 (Medical) for flight crew, which have all been transposed into national regulations. They are complemented by the “BSL C series” regulations, which provide for authorizations not covered by the JAR-FCL (e.g. airplane equipped with floats or skis) and which put the previous personnel licensing system partially in place for pilots who have not converted their licences to an FCL licence. The “BSL C series” regulations also contain licensing provisions for air traffic controllers, transposing the EUROCONTROL Safety Regulatory Requirement (ESARR) 5 requirements as well as the EUROCONTROL requirements on the training of air traffic controllers. With regards to the licensing of aircraft maintenance

- 7 -


engineers (AMEs), Norway follows the EASA Implementing Rules Part 66 and Part 147, which have been transposed under the EEA Agreement. 3.2.6 With respect to aircraft operations, Norway has transposed the JARs related to operations (i.e. JAR-OPS 1 Amendment 6, JAR-OPS 3 Amendment 3 and JAR-STD) into the national regulations. These regulations are complemented by the “BSL D series” regulations, which provide requirements in areas not covered by the JAR-OPS 1 and JAR-OPS 3, such as general aviation or duty time and flight time limitations. 3.2.7 In the area of airworthiness, two sets of regulations prevail in Norway:

1) European Community regulations issued by European Commission bodies, which are supranational (in particular, the Implementing Rules composed of the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1702/2003 of 24 September 2003 and the Commission Regulation (EC) No 2042/2003 of 20 November 2003 were transposed into the Norwegian regulatory framework); and

2) national regulations, issued pursuant to the Aviation Act and which cover areas outside

EASA’s field of responsibility.

3.2.8 The “BSL B series” regulations deal with airworthiness matters. In addition, the CAA has developed a draft regulation, the BSL B 2-5, to establish the requirements for approval of modifications, approval of repairs, and type certification of aircraft that are not under the responsibility of EASA. However, the approval process of the proposed BSL B 2-5 has not yet been completed. 3.2.9 In the area of ANS, Norway has transposed a number of ICAO Annexes and PANS documents into its BSL regulations. The provision of ICAO’s Annex 3 — Meteorological Service for International Air Navigation, Annex 4 — Aeronautical Charts and Annex 15 — Aeronautical Information Services are not however incorporated into Norwegian regulations. Nevertheless, the service provider, Avinor, has established handbooks that cover most of the provisions in Annex 4 and Annex 15. A substantial number of the provisions in Annex 11 — Air Traffic Services have also been incorporated into the “BSL G series” regulations while the remainder of the Annex 11 provisions and the PANS-ATM are addressed in the Regelverk for Lufttrafikktjenesten (Instructions for Air Navigation Services or RFL for short) Part I, which is a handbook developed by the service provider Avinor. 3.2.10 The specific aerodrome operating regulations and design requirements are specified in the “BSL-series” regulations for aerodromes (on land or water) as well as for heliports. These regulations reflect ICAO Standards and Recommendations contained in Annex 14 — Aerodromes, Volume I — Aerodrome Design and Operations and Volume II — Heliports. The regulations have been amended from time to time, as necessary, and constitute the national requirements for the design and operation of aerodromes. Exemptions or exceptions are granted on the basis of risk analysis, ensuring that operational safety is not compromised. The “BSL series” regulations include general requirements for the certification of aerodromes and the implementation of Safety Management Systems (SMS). As part of the aerodrome certification process, the development of two manuals, i.e. a quality manual and a safety management manual, is required. The contents of these manuals are similar to those required by ICAO for an aerodrome manual. However, there is not a single manual, as called for by Volume 1 of Annex 14 and the associated guidance material (Doc 9774 — Manual on Certification of Aerodromes).

- 8 -


3.2.11 Concerning the notification, investigation and reporting of aircraft accidents and incidents, Chapter XII (“Notification, reporting and investigation of civil aviation accidents and incidents etc”) of the Aviation Act empowers the Ministry of Transport and Communications to issue supplementary regulations. Regulation BSL A 1-4 establishes the Accident Investigation Board Norway (AIBN) as the agency responsible for civil aircraft accident and incident investigations in Norway. Meanwhile Regulation BSL A 1-3 addresses notification and reporting of aircraft accidents and incidents. Both regulations adequately cover the needs of the AIBN to function as an independent investigation body. 3.3 Critical element 3 � State civil aviation system and safety oversight functions

“The establishment of a civil aviation authority (CAA) and/or other relevant authorities or government agencies, headed by a Chief Executive Officer, supported by the appropriate and adequate technical and non-technical staff and provided with adequate financial resources. The State authority must have stated safety regulatory functions, objectives and safety policies.

Note.— The term ‘State civil aviation system’ is used in a generic sense to include all aviation-related authorities with aviation safety oversight responsibility which may be established by the State as separate entities, such as: CAA, airport authorities, air traffic service authorities, accident investigation authority, meteorological authority, etc.”

3.3.1 The CAA is a regulatory body reporting directly to the Ministry of Transport and Communications. The overall responsibilities of the CAA, granted by the royal decree of 10 December 1999 and the regulation no. 1273 of 10 December 1999, include the development of regulations and standards for civil aviation, the issuance of aviation documents (i.e. licences, certificates and other approvals) across the whole spectrum of civil aviation activities, and the oversight of organizations involved in civil aviation. 3.3.2 As per the royal decree of 10 December 1999, the Director General of the CAA is appointed by the King of Norway upon the recommendation of the Ministry of Transport and Communications. The same royal decree authorizes the Director General of the CAA to recruit the staff of the CAA and to organize the CAA. The CAA is adequately organized and funded; its annual budget coming from the annual allocation of the Ministry of Transport and Communications. The budget allotment letter forwarded by the Ministry to the CAA also spells out the priorities of the CAA for the following year. Currently, the CAA has approximately 180 staff members, of whom 120 are located in Bodø and 60 in Oslo. 3.3.3. Aside from the CAA, other bodies involved in safety oversight tasks related to civil aviation activities in Norway are the EASA and the Scandinavian Flight Safety (STK), an organization headquartered in Sweden. STK undertakes tasks related to the oversight of the Scandinavian Airlines System (SAS) International operations (which is issued an air operator certificate [AOC] that is co-signed by the Directors General of the CAAs of Denmark, Norway and Sweden), and the oversight of the SAS Flight Academy, an approved training organization. 3.3.4 The CAA’s headquarters were transferred from Oslo to Bodø in 2005. While the majority of the staff is now located in Bodø, the CAA keeps an office in Oslo, which forms part of the headquarters. In order to maintain adequate competence in the various technical areas of responsibility, the CAA has adopted a “double manning” policy, where inspector positions are held by two persons, with one acting as senior inspector and paired up with new recruits. The CAA does not have regional offices. The latest change in the

- 9 -


organization of the CAA dates from April 2006. In the current organizational set-up, the Director General is assisted by a Quality Manager and an Information Manager, and oversees five departments, each headed by a director reporting to the Director General of the CAA. These departments are:

1) the Flight Operations Department; 2) the Airworthiness Department; 3) the Aerodromes, ANS and Security Department 4) the Legal Affairs Department; and 5) the Administrative Affairs Department.

Each department is composed of several specialized sections. In addition to the five departments, several units reporting directly to the Director General have been established, including an aviation medicine unit, an accident/incident unit (which is not responsible for investigations), a trend analysis unit and a unit responsible for SAFA (Safety Assessment of Foreign Aircraft) and SANA (Safety Assessment of National Aircraft) inspections. 3.3.5 The CAA has established a quality management system. As part of this system, manuals have been prepared for the five departments of the CAA and their respective sections. All manuals (or administrative handbooks) are available on the CAA’s Intranet. While the manuals spell out functions and tasks of the departments and sections within the CAA, they have not however all been updated to reflect the current organizational set-up of the CAA nor have they defined the functions of the units. Aside from the Intranet, the CAA has also developed a website (http://www.luftfartstilsynet.no) to provide information to the industry and the public. In addition, a comprehensive report on the CAA’s activities is issued once a year. 3.3.6 Within the CAA, activities related to personnel licensing are shared among various entities:

1) the Education Section (OU) of the Flight Operations Department has the responsibility over the technical aspect of the licensing of flight crew and approval of flight crew training organization.

2) the Airworthiness Inspection Section (TU) of the Airworthiness Department has the

responsibility over the technical aspects of the licensing of AMEs, 3) the Air Navigation Services Section (FA) in the Aerodromes, ANS and Security

Department has the responsibility over the licensing for air traffic controllers; 4) the Aviation Medicine Unit (LN) has the responsibility for the medical assessment of

flight crew and air traffic controllers. Its office is situated in the Institute of Aviation Medicine which is a military facility located at Oslo University; and

5) the Licensing Section (AS) in the Administrative Affairs Department is responsible for

the issuance of licences and for record keeping. 3.3.7 Each one of these entities is adequately staffed and organized to carry out its functions related to personnel licensing, and job descriptions have been developed for each post. All data about licence holders are stored in the CAA’s electronic database called NORCAS, where access rights are properly controlled.

- 10 -


3.3.8 Within the CAA, the Flight Operations Department is in charge of the oversight of flight operations. Different units are dealing respectively with commercial air transport aeroplanes (OF), commercial air transport helicopters (OH), and general aviation (OA). The responsibilities and duties of the Flight Operations Department have been defined, but they do not reflect the current organizational set-up, which was established in April 2006. Job descriptions are provided for all technical personnel and key management personnel. Appropriate legal authority has been delegated to operations inspectors and credentials have been issued to facilitate access to and inspection of facilities, aircraft and documentation. Excluding general aviation inspectors, the CAA has 14 flight operations inspectors (11 aeroplane inspectors, 3 helicopter inspectors and 1 inspector with dual qualifications). One of the flight inspectors has received training on the transport of dangerous goods by air (but not at the required level) and acts as dangerous good inspector. There are 39 active AOCs in Norway. 3.3.9 With respect to airworthiness, the tasks are carried out by the CAA or by EASA, depending on the area of competence. Tasks transferred to EASA include type certification and approval of design organizations. EASA’s tasks also include the approval of manufacturing and maintenance organizations outside of the European Community. Pursuant to Article 46 of Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002, EASA and Norway have signed a service contract establishing the conditions under which the CAA will assist EASA in the execution of certain tasks in the field of certification and standardization inspections. In addition, the CAA is responsible for the approval and supervision of manufacturing and maintenance organizations in Norway and for compliance with the State’s responsibilities as the State of Registry. 3.3.10 Airworthiness tasks within the CAA are the responsibility of the Airworthiness Department, which is divided into two Sections, namely:

1) The “Part 21 Section” assumes the competencies related to type certification, modification approvals, as well as design, manufacturing and production approvals that have not been transferred to EASA. This section has a staff of 6 inspectors, 1 part-time administrative officer and a Section chief.

2) The “Part 145/M and Part 147/66 Section” has a staff of 13 inspectors, 1 administrative

officer and a Section chief. However, the transfer of the CAA headquarters from Oslo to Bodø has generated difficulties in hiring and training inspectors. 3.3.11 Before the separation of the regulatory functions from the provision of ANS, there was an informal oversight by Luftfartsverket, which was the entity that had both regulatory and service provision responsibility over ANS activities, except in the field of SAR operations. Since the separation in 2000, the CAA has developed formal oversight of the service provider in the fields of Air Traffic Management (ATM) and CNS. However, in the fields of visual and instrument flight procedures development, AIS and cartographic services, the CAA has not yet established formal oversight over the service provider. Whereas the organization and funding are considered adequate, staffing in the areas of AIS and cartographic services is insufficient to establish full oversight over the service provider. While the mission of the ANS Section of the CAA is adequately defined, job descriptions in the areas of procedure development and cartographic services still have to be developed. With regard to SAR operations, formal oversight is exercised by the office of the Auditor General of Norway with respect to management activities. However, no formal oversight is conducted concerning the operational or technical aspects of SAR operations.

- 11 -


3.3.12 The Aerodromes, ANS and Security Department of the CAA is the main regulatory body responsible for aerodrome-related matters. The Aerodrome Section established within this department is adequately staffed and organized, and its mission well defined. The Aerodrome Section has seven inspectors (including the head of section), who conduct certification and surveillance of aerodromes and aviation facilities. Job descriptions are also available. 3.3.13 Established as a permanent independent agency in 1989, the AIBN forms part of the Ministry of Transport and Communications. It became an autonomous agency in 1999, headed by a Director and reporting to the same ministry. It is a multi-modal transportation agency, investigating aviation, railway and road-related accidents. Items which were reviewed by the ICAO audit team as well as the information which is contained in this report are limited to the AIBN’s aviation-related activities. The AIBN office is located in Lillestrøm, near Oslo, and has no regional offices. The AIBN is adequately staffed and organized. The aviation department within the AIBN has 7 full-time investigators and 3 part-time investigators. Job descriptions are established for the technical staff positions. The investigators come from various backgrounds, including pilots, air traffic controllers, aeronautical engineers and human factors experts. 3.4 Critical element 4 � Technical personnel qualification and training

“The establishment of minimum requirements for knowledge and experience of the technical personnel performing safety oversight functions and the provision of appropriate training to maintain and enhance their competence at the desired level. The training should include initial and recurrent (periodic) training.”

3.4.1 The CAA has developed a general training policy that states that the staff should be provided with the necessary training to adequately perform their tasks. An initial six-month basic training is provided to all newly recruited technical staff, with supplementary training determined by the contents of the specific training programmes and plans of each section of the CAA. Specialized training is the responsibility of each section chief. Training plan proposals are presented at the end of the calendar year to the Department Director, who approves them for the sections under his/her responsibility. A budget meeting is held in December with participation of Department Directors. Section chiefs have full authority to use the budget allocated to their sections. 3.4.2 In the area of personnel licensing, the CAA has established requirements on the knowledge and experience of the technical personnel. It has also established a formal training programme for its personnel which includes core training and personalized training and which has been fully implemented, thanks to sufficient financial support. The initial training programme includes a six-month indoctrination period, followed by a six-month on-the-job training period during which junior inspectors are paired with experienced inspectors to acquire the necessary hands-on experience. However, there is no formal process to evaluate the performance of the trainees. The CAA also appoints designated flight examiners from the industry. Designated flight examiners are appointed for three years following attendance of a flight examiner seminar and a successful acceptance flight test. The designation can be renewed for a similar period on the condition that there they give at least ten tests per year, attend a flight examiner seminar and pass a new acceptance flight test. The designated flight examiners are overseen jointly by the Chief Flight Examiner who is a CAA staff member and by a small group of senior flight examiners from the CAA and the industry. The senior flight examiners attend an annual standardization seminar. Meanwhile, the designation of aviation medical examiners (AMEs) follows a similar process that is overseen by the Chief of the Aviation Medicine Section. AMEs are appointed for three years after their completion of a 60-hour course on aviation medicine. Their appointments can be

- 12 -


renewed for a similar period provided that they attend a 20-hour refresher course and conduct at least ten medical assessments per year (except in remote areas). 3.4.3 All aircraft operations inspectors are qualified as flight inspectors and the CAA has established adequate requirements about their knowledge and experience. The training programme includes core training and personalized training. The initial training programme includes a six-month indoctrination period, followed by a six-month on-the-job-training period during which junior inspectors are paired with experienced inspectors to acquire the necessary practical experience. With sufficient financial support, the training programme has been fully implemented. However, while the training programme is comprehensive, there is no direct correlation between the training that an inspector has received and the duties that he/she is able to perform as an inspector. 3.4.4 Concerning airworthiness inspectors, the CAA has established minimum qualification and experience criteria and has also developed a training programme that includes initial, recurrent, and on-the-job training. Annually established training plans also cover initial, recurrent and on-the-job training. Training records are kept systematically in a database within the Personnel Section of the Administrative Affairs Department of the CAA. Competency requirements for maintenance, certification and production inspectors have been established and initial training provided by the Airworthiness Department inspectors. However, there are no provisions covering specialized training for airworthiness inspectors, such as reduced vertical separation minimum (RVSM) and Category II (CAT II)/Category III (CAT III) operations. 3.4.5 With respect to ANS, the CAA has yet to establish formal oversight mechanisms for flight procedures development. Qualifications and training requirements for AIS and cartographic services technical personnel have also not been established. In the areas of ATM and CNS, such qualifications and training requirements have been developed and implemented. The training programme contains general courses for all CAA employees as well as specialized courses tailored to the job functions of each employee. Periodic training plans are established in all areas, except for flight procedures development and cartographic services. 3.4.6 The CAA has established minimum requirements concerning the knowledge and experience of its aerodrome regulatory personnel who perform the safety oversight functions. Initial, recurrent and specialized trainings are provided on the basis of a training programme and individual training plans. In particular, training includes specialized training on the conduct of audits and inspection as well as the evaluation of risk assessments. 3.4.7 The AIBN has established minimum qualification requirements for the recruitment of its investigators. It has a team of qualified investigators with different levels of experience. The AIBN has also established a training policy and has developed training plans for its investigators on a regular basis. It has started to develop a training programme for its investigators, including basic courses as well as recurrent and specialized training. However, the training programme does not contain the details of the on-the-job training that has to be provided to the investigators. Investigators’ training records are adequately kept. 3.5 Critical element 5 � Technical guidance, tools and the provision of safety critical information

“The provision of technical guidance (including processes and procedures), tools (including facilities and equipment) and safety critical information, as applicable, to the technical personnel to enable them to perform their safety oversight functions in accordance with

- 13 -


established requirements and in a standardized manner. In addition, this includes the provision of technical guidance by the oversight authority to the aviation industry on the implementation of applicable regulations and instructions.”

3.5.1 The CAA has established procedures and technical guidance for personnel licensing and for the approval of training organizations. The procedures are contained in several manuals called “process manuals”, which are made up of checklists for the various activities undertaken by the section and complemented by the guidance provided in Section 2 of the JAR-FCL. The licensing and training records related to personnel licences and approvals of training organizations issued by the CAA are maintained in the NORCAS database. Access rights to NORCAS are properly controlled. The licensing and training records are also kept in hard copy. Flight crew licences are stored in a locked and fireproof cabinet, and maintenance personnel licences in a locked room. The staff of the Personnel Licensing Department has appropriate facilities and equipment to perform their duties effectively. 3.5.2 With respect to aircraft operations, the CAA has established a series of checklists which cover the main areas of activities, such as the certification process, the assessment of application forms, the renewal and revocation of AOCs and principal authorizations, surveillance policies and follow-up on discrepancies. These checklists are complemented by the guidance provided by Section 2 in JAR-OPS 1 and JAR-OPS 3. While this approach ensures a harmonization among the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) States, some procedures are missing, in particular, on those topics where no guidance exists in the JAR-OPS. The CAA provides prospective air operators with application forms on its website. However, no guidance or explanatory material is made available to applicants regarding the air operator certification process. The Flight Operations Department is however provided with appropriate equipment and facilities to perform its tasks. 3.5.3 The staff of the Airworthiness Department of the CAA is provided with guidance material, most of which are available on the CAA’s Intranet. Technical publications for all aeronautical products registered in Norway are maintained and available to all technical personnel at the CAA’s technical library. Although the CAA has developed procedures for the reporting of unapproved aeronautical parts, these procedures are not in total compliance with ICAO’s Airworthiness Manual (Doc 9760). With respect to certification, the Airworthiness Department has developed comprehensive procedures, contained in the Seksjonshandbok, that support the internal procedures set forth by EASA. In addition, a Part 21 Production Organization Approval (POA) Handbook, which includes technical guidance and checklists, was also developed to provide CAA inspectors with the necessary guidelines to ensure that production activities are carried out in accordance with the EASA Implementing Rules, Part 21, Sections A and B. Airworthiness inspectors are provided with appropriate facilities, equipment and means of transportation to perform their tasks. 3.5.4 The ANS Section of the CAA has developed procedures for ATM and CNS inspectors to conduct field oversight. The inspections are conducted on the basis of checklists developed by the ANS Section and which contain sufficient guidance to the inspectorate staff. The regulatory staff and inspectors are provided with appropriate facilities, equipment and means of transportation to perform their tasks. Because oversight activities have not yet been initiated in the areas of procedures development, technical guidance for AIS and cartographic services and associated tools for inspectors have not yet been developed by the CAA. However, the service provider has made available technical guidance material for its own operational staff. The supply and timely dissemination of safety-critical information is undertaken by the service provider, Avinor.

- 14 -


3.5.5 In the area of aerodromes, the CAA has issued documented processes and procedures as well as safety-critical information. These tools are provided through various means: appendices to BSL regulations (known as “yellow pages”), aeronautical information publication (AIP), aeronautical information circulars (AIC), Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs), manuals, and handbooks. The technical guidance for CAA staff is available on the Intranet. Technical guidance material on the design and operation of aerodromes is also issued to the industry and available on the CAA’s website. Aerodrome regulatory staff and inspectors are provided with appropriate facilities, equipment and means of transportation to perform their tasks. However, for the aerodrome regulatory staff and to the industry, guidance is still lacking about the process related to the amendment of the aerodrome certificate, including the development and evaluation of an aerodrome manual. 3.5.6 The AIBN provides its investigators with appropriate equipment and tools for their tasks. It has established a procedural and documentation system, named the AIBN Management System, which covers the various policies, procedures and instructions available to its personnel. Such documents include, but are not limited to, information related to the investigation process, major investigations, organization of field investigations, handling of flight recorders, hazardous materials, etc. The AIBN makes these policies and procedures available on its Intranet, which is also accessible to investigators when they are out of the office. However, some guidelines are still missing, such as guidance regarding the decision on the type of investigation to be conducted and the associated actions to be taken (i.e. deployment of a team to the site of the occurrence, conduct of interviews, use of recorders, etc.). Guidelines are also missing concerning participation in investigations conducted by other States. Overall, the guidance material developed by the AIBN is adequate, clear and appropriately controlled. 3.6 Critical element 6 � Licensing, certification, authorization and/or approval obligations

“The implementation of processes and procedures to ensure that personnel and organizations performing an aviation activity meet the established requirements before they are allowed to exercise the privileges of a licence, certificate, authorization and/or approval to conduct the relevant aviation activity.”

3.6.1 All medical assessments are issued by the Chief of the Aviation Medicine Section based on the medical examination given by the designated AMEs. For the time being, AMEs can give examination for all classes of medical assessment, but a procedure that requires AMEs who give class 1 medical examination to take an advance course in aviation medicine is being implemented. Applicants for class 1 medical examination take their initial examination at the Institute of Aviation Medicine and come back to the Institute every five years until the age of 40 and every second year thereafter. Other examinations can be given by designated AMEs. Waiver from medical requirement is given by the Chief of the Aviation Medicine Section, using the guidance provided in JAR-FCL 3 Section 2 and when required, after informal consultation with the Institute of Aviation Medicine and medical officers from other authorities. Flight examinations are given either by CAA flight examiners or by designated examiners. An annual schedule for written examinations for aircrew and maintenance engineers is published on the CAA website. Examinations for flight crews are based on the JAA Central Question Bank. For AMEs, Part 147 schools are given testing authority for practical and written examinations, but the written examinations that they develop have to be approved by the CAA. The questions prepared by the schools complement those prepared by the CAA for Part 66 examinations. Examination for flight crew and AMEs are given in a paper and pencil form several times a year at different locations in Norway. The CAA has a system where complaints are reviewed by an internal panel and, when necessary, by an external panel.

- 15 -


3.6.2 In the area of aircraft operations, certification, approval and authorization processes are implemented according to JAR-OPS 1 or JAR-OPS 3, as applicable. Checklists are used and the procedures outlined in the Management Manual – Operations are followed, while a set of procedure manuals is used for specialized processes. They include the main steps in the air operator’s certification process, examination of operations manual and the granting of special authorizations or approvals (such as low visibility operations or minimum equipment list [MEL] approval). However, in some areas, the checklists used during this authorization process are not comprehensive or detailed enough. For modifications to an AOC or major changes to an air operator organization, the coordination between the Airworthiness and Flight Operations Departments of the CAA is carried out through an administrative process organized by the Legal Affairs Department before signature by the Director General. However, for authorizations involving RVSM or MEL, which are under the responsibility of the Flight Operations Department, the coordination process between the Flight Operations Department and the Airworthiness Department is not properly documented. 3.6.3 In the area of airworthiness, the procedures for the certification of aeronautical activities are appropriately followed, and the effective implementation of all regulatory requirements is verified before approval certificates are issued and/or renewed. Records are kept, including copies of documents issued. The CAA requires that applicants for a Certificate of Airworthiness (EASA Form 25) for an aircraft being imported from an EU Member State present a Certificate of Airworthiness issued in accordance with the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1702/2003 of 24 September 2003, as well as an Airworthiness Review Certificate (ARC). Similar procedures are implemented for the issuance of airworthiness certificates to aircraft imported from non-EU States. The CAA maintains an adequate aircraft register database. Approval of approved maintenance organizations (AMOs) is addressed in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2042/2003 of 20 November 2003, Annex II, Part-145 and is implemented using procedures and checklists contained in the Airworthiness Department’s handbook. AMOs are required to provide the CAA with a maintenance organization exposition (MOE) manual specifying the scope of work and showing how the AMO intends to comply with Part-145 provisions. If the AMO’s principal place of business is in Norway, the CAA issues the certificate based on the approval of the MOE and a satisfactory inspection of the facility. For AMOs whose principal place of business is not located in an EU State, EASA is responsible for issuing the approval. The AMO certificate remains valid as long as the AMO continues to comply with Part-145. 3.6.4 With respect to type certification activities, as of May 2004, this competence has been transferred to EASA. However, some type certification activities will be performed by CAA as delegated by EASA in accordance with the contract signed by the two parties. There are three production organizations under Part 21, Subpart G, all approved by the CAA. For the certification of production organizations, the procedures contained in the CAA’s Part 21 Production Organization Approval (POA) Handbook are adequately followed. 3.6.5 With respect to ANS, the CAA has implemented the established processes and procedures, which include the issuance of licences and ratings for air traffic controllers and the approval of entities to provide ANS training. Procedures established in the field of CNS for the approval of civil aviation equipment have also been implemented. As for flight inspections, three entities, two of which are foreign, have been approved by the CAA. As part of the CAA’s oversight system, the CAA has accepted the SMS established by Avinor. The AIS-related activities of Avinor have been ISO-9001 certified. 3.6.6 All Norwegian aerodromes open for public use have been certified by the CAA. Conducted on the basis of the Aviation Act, the regulations and the technical guidance that were issued, this certification process includes an initial review of relevant documents and inspections of aerodromes and aviation facilities.

- 16 -


In conformity with the Norwegian regulations, the aerodrome certificate is, unless otherwise indicated, valid for five years and can contain operational restrictions or limitations as deemed necessary by the CAA. However, a requirement to submit an aerodrome manual for acceptance or approval is not implemented. Therefore the aerodrome manual can not be used as the elementary safety assurance document. 3.7 Critical element 7 � Surveillance obligations

“The implementation of processes, such as inspections and audits, to proactively ensure that aviation licence, certificate, authorization and/or approval holders continue to meet the established requirements and function at the level of competency and safety required by the State to undertake an aviation-related activity for which they have been licensed, certified, authorized and/or approved to perform. This includes the surveillance of designated personnel who perform safety oversight functions on behalf of the CAA.”

3.7.1 The CAA has established a system for the supervision of personnel licensing training and examination activities as well as for the surveillance of training organizations. The supervision of the training organizations and synthetic training devices is described in the Certification Manual. Flight training organizations, maintenance training organizations and training devices operators are required to maintain a quality system, to appoint a quality manager, and to designate a person who is responsible for initiating corrective action when deficiencies are identified. The CAA conducts regular inspections. Cases of non-compliance as well as the subsequent follow-up actions by the CAA are well documented. 3.7.2 The CAA has established a system for the surveillance of flight operations and aircraft operators under the responsibility of the Director of Flight Operations Department. The CAA has developed template for inspection reports but there is no associated technical instructions and procedures. For apron inspections, the CAA inspector uses the SAFA ramp inspection form for both Norwegian and foreign-registered aircraft. The CAA also develops an annual surveillance plan based on set criteria. Not all inspections results are stored in the computerized database and as a result, the exact number of flight inspections performed by the CAA could not be established by the audit team. Findings are not categorized as to their impact on safety. In the area of the transport of dangerous goods by air, no random inspections are planned and executed. 3.7.3 With respect to airworthiness, AOC holders and AMOs are periodically inspected by airworthiness inspectors in accordance to an annual surveillance plan. Random inspections are not planned but executed if necessary. For POAs, continuing surveillance is provided in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1702/2003, Subpart G and the CAA’s internal procedures. Continuing surveillance of design organization approvals (DOAs) in Norway is accomplished in accordance with EASA’s Certification Directorate Exposition, Part 3, Subpart 1 — Internal Working Procedure Design Organization Approval (DOAP), which contains detailed guidance on the provision of continuing surveillance. However, in 2005, only 70 per cent of the scheduled inspections on certified organizations were performed. Ramp inspections of aircraft are scheduled according to the SAFA and SANA Programmes. 3.7.4 With regard to ANS, the CAA currently conducts surveillance over the holders of air traffic control licences as well as ATS units operated by Avinor. Processes and procedures are adhered to for the periodic renewal of licences. The process established for regular inspections of ATS units has been implemented. For 2006, 24 inspections have been scheduled to be conducted by a multi-disciplinary team of CAA inspectors. Records on the inspections of the ATS units are maintained at the CAA Headquarters. As for the surveillance obligations of the headquarters operations of the service provider in the fields of procedures

- 17 -


design, AIS and cartographic services, these obligations have not yet been carried out. With respect to SAR operations, the office of the Auditor General of Norway conducts surveillance at the management level. However, the surveillance of the operational and technical aspects of SAR operations is not carried out. 3.7.5 The Aerodrome Section of the CAA carries out at least one planned inspection per year of all certified aerodromes. In addition to scheduled inspections, random inspections are also carried out. An inspector’s handbook (including a template for a checklist) is available to provide guidance for aerodrome inspectors and to standardize the inspection process. The checklist is tailored for each aerodrome by the inspectors based on the local requirements, conditions and operational limits, if any. However, since the requirement for an aerodrome manual is not implemented, there is no process established for reviewing the manual and for using it as a key safety assurance document to assess both initial and continuing organizational competence of aerodrome operators. 3.8 Critical element 8 � Resolution of safety concerns

“The implementation of processes and procedures to resolve identified deficiencies impacting aviation safety, which may have been residing in the aviation system and have been detected by the regulatory authority or other appropriate bodies.

Note.— This would include the ability to analyse safety deficiencies, forward recommendations, support the resolution of identified deficiencies as well as take enforcement action, when appropriate.”

3.8.1 In the area of personnel licensing, the Aviation Act provides a wide variety of legal instruments for enforcement through administrative and penal actions. Procedures have been developed to guide the Personnel Licensing Section, the Legal Affairs Department and the Administrative Affairs Department in cases when a personnel licence or an authorization has to be suspended or withdrawn. The evidence provided to the audit team showed appropriate actions taken by the CAA with respect to identified safety concerns in the area of personnel licensing. 3.8.2 In the area of aircraft operations, the Aviation Act also provides the necessary legal instruments for enforcement. Action is taken when deficiencies are identified. However, the resolution of safety concern is, to date, mostly reactive. The audit team did not see any evidence that the data collected during inspection were analysed in a systematic way in conjunction with other available safety data in order to develop a more proactive approach to safety based on risk assessment. 3.8.3 As far as airworthiness is concerned, findings identified during the inspection of an AOC, AMO, DOA, or POA are categorized as level 1 or level 2 findings. The action to be taken by the responsible inspector, depending on the severity of the findings, is clearly defined. For AOCs, AMOs, DOAs and POAs in Norway, there are no examples of enforcement action being necessary, as all findings were resolved in a timely manner. The Airworthiness Department has established a centralized database for the collection of findings identified during inspections of air operators, AMOs and POAs (NORCAS) and the effective completion of corrective actions within the time schedule is monitored. 3.8.4 With respect to ANS, and in order to address safety deficiencies and concerns, the CAA has implemented processes and procedures, including adequate follow-up on the inspections carried out. Safety data are collected, stored and analysed using the NORCAS computer application. The CAA requires the

- 18 -


service provider to take corrective actions on identified safety deficiencies within a specified time frame. In the event of doubts concerning the medical or professional competence of an air traffic controller, the CAA has the power to revoke any licence or rating. While Norway has established a mandatory occurrence reporting system in the field of ANS, this is complemented by voluntary reporting where safety information is collected within the framework of the SMS established by the service provider. For mandatory reporting of ANS-related safety occurrences, the service provider has implemented a procedure to inform both the CAA and the AIBN. With regard to the SMS implemented by the service provider, the CAA verifies its operation during the inspections performed, using checklists that address different elements of the SMS and the ANS safety procedures. 3.8.5 Regarding aerodromes, the Aviation Act provides for the enforcement of legislation and regulations. Should deficiencies be identified during an inspection, airport operators are required to take corrective action either on-site during the inspection (if such deficiencies could cause imminent safety concerns) or within the time frame specified by the CAA. In case where deficiencies are not rectified within a reasonable time, the CAA can take enforcement actions which may result in operational restrictions, financial penalties or even the suspension of the aerodrome certificate. The exchange of safety information across the aerodrome industry is facilitated by annual conferences and by publications issued through AICs or on the CAA’s website. 3.8.6 The AIBN issues safety recommendations in the course of or at the completion of its investigations, having implemented adequate procedures for issuing such recommendations in a timely manner to interested parties, including those in other States. The CAA, in turn, is in charge of monitoring the follow-up actions on safety recommendations. In this respect, the CAA has not yet established procedures related to safety recommendations from other States which are addressed to Norway, even though such matters are discussed in internal meetings. As the agency responsible for the safety data system, the CAA uses the ECCAIRS (European Co-ordination Centre for Aviation Incident Reporting Systems) software to run its database. Data analyses are carried out regularly. The CAA has been given the responsibility of forwarding preliminary reports and accident/incident data reports to ICAO and entitled States, as per Chapter 7 of ICAO’s Annex 13. However, preliminary reports have not been systematically forwarded to ICAO and entitled States in the last few years. While Norway has established a well functioning mandatory occurrence reporting system, it has not yet implemented a voluntary incident reporting system to facilitate the collection of safety information. The Aviation Act however already provides for the protection of the sources of information in the case of incident reports. 4. VISITS TO THE INDUSTRY/SERVICE PROVIDERS 4.1 Accompanied by staff members of the State’s civil aviation system, the audit teams visit aviation service providers, operations and maintenance departments of operators and maintenance organizations, aeronautical product/equipment manufacturers, aviation training institutes, etc. The objective of the visits is to validate the capability of the State to supervise the activities of these service providers, airlines and organizations. 4.2 In the case of Norway, the audit team visited the following organizations:

1) Norwegian airlines (OPS and AIR), 2) Bodø tower (ANS), 3) Bodø approach and area control centre (ANS),

- 19 -


4) Bodø meteorological office (ANS), 5) Bodø rescue and coordination centre facilities (ANS), and 6) Oslo Gardemoen airport (AGA).

5. AUDIT FINDINGS AND DIFFERENCES DATABASE (AFDD) 5.1 The general objective of the AFDD is to assist States in identifying the elements that need attention in the implementation of the proposed corrective action plan. The information is also intended to assist States in establishing a priority of actions to be taken to resolve safety concerns identified by the audits. Appendix 2 to this report contains a graphic representation of the lack of effective implementation of the critical elements of the safety oversight system (ICAO Doc 9734, Part A refers) in Norway, reflecting as well the results of the latest audit carried out on EASA at the time of the audit of Norway. The graphic representation enables the audited State to prioritize the necessary corrective actions and to identify assistance requirements based on its personnel, technical and financial capabilities in consideration of its safety oversight obligations. 6. STATE AVIATION ACTIVITY QUESTIONNAIRE (SAAQ) 6.1 The SAAQ is one of the major tools required for conducting a comprehensive systems approach-based safety oversight audit. As such, all Contracting States are required to complete the SAAQ and submit it to ICAO for proper evaluation and recording. The submitted information enables ICAO to maintain an up-to-date database on the State’s activities. Norway has submitted its SAAQ to ICAO, which can be found at www.icao.int/soa. 7. COMPLIANCE CHECKLISTS (CCs) 7.1 The CCs are one of the main tools used in the conduct of safety oversight audits under the comprehensive systems approach. As such, all Contracting States are required to complete the CCs and submit them to ICAO for evaluation and recording. The submitted information enables ICAO to maintain an up-to-date database on the State’s level of compliance to the ICAO SARPs and assist in facilitating the conduct of a standardized audit of all Contracting States. As a result, States will be enabled to have a clear picture of the implementation status of the relevant SARPs. Norway has submitted its CCs to ICAO, which can be found at www.icao.int/soa. 8. FOLLOW-UP ACTION 8.1 In accordance with the MOU agreed to between Norway and ICAO, Norway submitted an action plan on 10 October 2006 and an update to the action plan on 10 November 2006. The action plan submitted was reviewed by the Safety Oversight Audit (SOA) Section and was found to fully address all the findings and recommendations contained in this report. The proposed action plan, including comments and clarifications provided by the State, is attached as Appendix 3 to this report. Comments by ICAO on each corrective action are found in Appendix 1 to this report.

— — — — — — — —

APPENDIX 1

Auditee:

Audit Period: 02/05/2006 - 11/05/2006

APPENDIX 1-1-01

LEG/01NORWAY

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO

PRIMARY AVIATION LEGISLATION AND CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS

1.025; 1.205; 3.007; 3.011; 4.005; 4.011;

DOCUMENT REFERENCE:

CC Art. 37 & 38; STD A15, 4.1.2

CE-1 CE-2 X CE-3 CE-4 CE-5 CE-6 CE-7 CE-8

FINDING:

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has established procedures for the identification and notification to ICAO of

differences existing between the Standards contained in ICAO Annexes and Norway's regulations and practices. However,

the following have been noted:

1) As far as Annexes 1 and 6 are concerned, a systematic review of the differences that exist between the Joint

Aviation Requirements (JARs) that Norway has adopted and the Standards contained in the ICAO Annexes has not

been carried out. As a result, existing differences have not been identified and notified to ICAO;

2) In the absence of national regulations transposing the provisions of ICAO’s Annex 3, Annex 4 and Annex 15, and

due to the incomplete transposition of Annex 18, not all differences related to these Annexes have been identified

and notified to ICAO; and

3) As for consultation with stakeholders outside of the CAA, and in particular, with the Accident Investigation Board

of Norway (AIBN), the related procedures established by the CAA do not contain any timeframe, and delays were

observed in the transmission of ICAO State letters by the CAA to the AIBN.

Moreover, the Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) of Norway does not contain all the existing significant

differences.

RECOMMENDATION:

Norway should establish and implement procedures to ensure the following:

1) that all differences existing between the Standards contained in ICAO’s Annexes and Norway's regulations and

practices are identified and notified to ICAO; and

2) that significant differences are published in the AIP of Norway.

CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN PROPOSED BY THE STATE:

Corrective action plan and comments submitted by the State are found at Appendix 3-1-1 of this report.

Estimated Implementation Date: 31/03/2008

COMMENTS BY ICAO:

The corrective action plan submitted by the State fully addresses this ICAO finding and recommendation.

Auditee:

Audit Period: 02/05/2006 - 11/05/2006

APPENDIX 1-1-02

LEG/02NORWAY



1.009;

DOCUMENT REFERENCE:

CC Art. 37; Doc 9734, Part A, 3.3


FINDING:

The CAA has es tabl ished procedures re la ted to the amendment of regulat ions ( inc luding in ternal and external

consultations) by taking into consideration existing ICAO provisions and amendments to ICAO Annexes. However, these

procedures do not identify the areas (such as the Aeronautical Information Services [AIS] or some elements of Annex 18)

where regulatory requirements have still to be promulgated. As a result, a regulatory framework is still missing for a

number of civil aviation-related activities.

RECOMMENDATION:

The CAA should expand its procedures related to the amendment of regulations in order to identify any need for additional

regulatory requirements, taking into consideration existing ICAO provisions and amendments to ICAO Annexes.


Corrective action plan submitted by the State is found at Appendix 3-1-2 of this report.


COMMENTS BY ICAO:

The corrective action plan submitted by the State fully addresses the ICAO finding and recommendation.

Auditee:

Audit Period: 02/05/2006 - 11/05/2006

APPENDIX 1-1-03

LEG/03NORWAY



1.107;

DOCUMENT REFERENCE:

CC Art. 16; Doc 8335, 9.6; Doc 9734, Part A, C3; Doc 9774, C2 & 3

CE-1 X CE-2 CE-3 CE-4 CE-5 CE-6 CE-7 CE-8

FINDING:

The staff members of the CAA (including all inspectors) are provided with credentials enabling them to access and inspect

aircraft as well as aviation-related facilities and documents. However, the CAA has not established means to clarify the

specific level of authority given to inspectors in their respective field of activity as well as to ensure that the authority is

delegated only to fully qualified inspectors.

RECOMMENDATION:

The CAA should establish means to clarify the specific level of authority given to inspectors in their respective field of

activity and to ensure that the authority is delegated only to fully qualified inspectors.




COMMENTS BY ICAO:


Auditee:

Audit Period: 02/05/2006 - 11/05/2006

APPENDIX 1-1-04

LEG/04NORWAY



1.151; 4.389; 4.391;

DOCUMENT REFERENCE:

CC Art. 83 bis; Doc 8335, C10; CIR 295 LE/2

CE-1 X CE-2 X CE-3 CE-4 CE-5 CE-6 X CE-7 CE-8

FINDING:

Norway ratified Article 83 bis of the Chicago Convention on 20 September 1995. However, the provisions of Article 83 bis

have not yet been transposed in an explicit and comprehensive manner into Norway's primary aviation legislation. For

example, the Aviation Act does not explicitly provide for the recognition by Norway of licences and certificates issued by

the State of the Operator when an agreement under Article 83 bis applies.

RECOMMENDATION:

Norway should amend its primary aviation legislation, regulations and procedures to give effect to the ratification of

Article 83 bis of the Chicago Convention.




COMMENTS BY ICAO:


Auditee:

Audit Period: 02/05/2006 - 11/05/2006

APPENDIX 1-1-05

LEG/05NORWAY



1.019; 2.017;

DOCUMENT REFERENCE:

Doc 9734, Part A, 3.4, Part B

CE-1 X CE-2 CE-3 X CE-4 CE-5 CE-6 CE-7 CE-8

FINDING:

The Scandinavian Airlines System (SAS) International operator is issued an air operator certificate that is co-signed by the

Directors General of the Civil Aviation Authorities (CAA) of Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Oversight tasks of this

carrier, as well as of the SAS Flight Academy, an approved training organization, are undertaken by Scandinavian Flight

Safety (STK), an organization headquartered in Sweden. However, no evidence was provided to show that there was

appropriate legal basis for such an oversight mechanism and that Norway had established a means to ensure that its

national and international obligations for safety oversight in the delegated areas were fulfilled.

RECOMMENDATION:

Norway should ensure that there is an appropriate legal basis for it to assume responsibility on the oversight of SAS

International and for the delegation of oversight tasks to STK. When and if applicable, Norway should also establish a

means to ensure that its national and international obligations for safety oversight in the delegated areas are fulfilled.




COMMENTS BY ICAO:


Auditee:

Audit Period: 02/05/2006 - 11/05/2006

APPENDIX 1-2-01

ORG/01NORWAY


CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION

2.011;

DOCUMENT REFERENCE:

Doc 9734, Part A, 3.4

CE-1 CE-2 CE-3 X CE-4 CE-5 CE-6 CE-7 CE-8

FINDING:

As part of the CAA’s quality management system, manuals (or administrative handbooks) have been prepared for the five

departments of the CAA and their respective sections. All manuals are available on the CAA’s Intranet. While the manuals

spell out the functions and tasks of the departments and sections within the CAA, they have not however all been updated

to reflect the current organizational set-up of the CAA nor have they defined the functions of the units.

RECOMMENDATION:

The CAA should ensure that up-to-date descriptions of the functions of all its entities, including units, departments and

sections, are adequately documented.




COMMENTS BY ICAO:


Auditee:

Audit Period: 02/05/2006 - 11/05/2006

APPENDIX 1-2-02

ORG/02NORWAY


CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION

2.053; 5.033;

DOCUMENT REFERENCE:

Doc 9734, Part A, 3.4; Doc 9760, Vol. I, 4.4


FINDING:

The CAA has not established a mechanism to ensure that it has and maintains sufficient human resources to meet all of its

national and international obligations related to the various areas of civil aviation safety oversight. As a result, the CAA

does not have a sufficient number of qualified personnel in the area of aeronautical charts and aeronautical information

services. In addition, the number of qualified inspectors in the area of airworthiness did not enable the CAA to fully

complete its surveillance programme in the year 2005.

RECOMMENDATION:

The CAA should establish a mechanism to ensure that it has and maintains sufficient human resources to meet all of its

national and international obligations related to the various areas of civil aviation safety oversight.




COMMENTS BY ICAO:


APPENDIX 1-3 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO

PERSONNEL LICENSING AND TRAINING

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT

BLANK

Auditee:

Audit Period: 02/05/2006 - 11/05/2006

APPENDIX 1-4-01

OPS/01NORWAY


AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS CERTIFICATION AND SUPERVISION

4.045; 4.047; 4.049; 4.075; 4.285; 4.287; 4.289; 4.305;

4.307;

DOCUMENT REFERENCE:

STD A15, 4.1, 6.1, 7.1, App. 1 & App. 4; PANS Doc 8168, OPS/611, Vol. I, Part XIII, C1 & C2, 2.1; Doc 8335, C8, 9.3.3

& 9.6.1; Doc 9734, Part A, 3.6 & 3.8

CE-1 CE-2 CE-3 CE-4 CE-5 X CE-6 X CE-7 X CE-8 X

FINDING:

The Operations Inspector’s Handbook consists of several checklists which are used in conjunction with the guidance

provided in Section 2 of the JAR-OPS. However, procedures are missing for some topics where Section 2 of the JAR-OPS

does not provide any guidance, in particular:

1) the conditions under which check airmen who deliver proficiency checks and other checks called for in JAR-OPS

1 and JAR-OPS 3 Subpart N are authorized by the CAA;

2) the oversight of tasks delegated to other authorities or to individuals by the CAA;

3) the tasks delegated to Norway by other authorities; and

4) the approval of standard operating procedures (SOP).

RECOMMENDATION:

The CAA should develop and implement procedures to be used by its operations inspectors on all topics, including those

which currently have no guidance in the JAR-OPS.




COMMENTS BY ICAO:


Auditee:

Audit Period: 02/05/2006 - 11/05/2006

APPENDIX 1-4-02

OPS/02NORWAY



4.051; 4.055; 4.057;

DOCUMENT REFERENCE:

Doc 8335, 9.7.2; Doc 9734, Part A, 3.5 & 3.5.3

CE-1 CE-2 CE-3 CE-4 X CE-5 CE-6 CE-7 CE-8

FINDING:

The CAA has developed a training programme and plans for its operations inspectors that include core training, on-the-job

(OJT) training and personalized training. The personalized training is based on a gap analysis between the actual

competence of the inspectors and the competence required by the CAA (as assessed by Section chiefs) for their positions.

This gap analysis is properly documented and is used to develop the specialized training plans. The implementation of the

training plans is the responsibility of Section chiefs. However, the following shortcomings have been identified by the

audit team:

1) there is no formal government air safety inspector training course although the core training includes some

elements of a standard instructor course;

2) there is no formal evaluation of the trainees for most of the course;

3) there is no formal confirmation at the end of the on-the-job-training period that the new inspector is ready for

inspection duties without direct supervision by a senior inspector; and

4) there is no mechanism to ensure that the inspectors have acquired the level of competence required for the tasks

assigned to them by the CAA.

RECOMMENDATION:

As part of the training programme and plans established for its operations inspectors, the CAA should ensure that:

1) there is a formal government air safety inspector training course implemented for operations inspectors;

2) there is a formal evaluation of the trainees, at least for safety-critical courses;

3) there is a formal confirmation at the end of the on-the-job-training period that the new inspector is ready for

inspection duties without direct supervision by a senior inspector; and

4) there is a mechanism to ensure that the inspectors have acquired the level of competence required for the tasks

assigned to them by the CAA.




Auditee:

Audit Period: 02/05/2006 - 11/05/2006

APPENDIX 1-4-02

OPS/02NORWAY



4.051; 4.055; 4.057;

COMMENTS BY ICAO:


Auditee:

Audit Period: 02/05/2006 - 11/05/2006

APPENDIX 1-4-03

OPS/03NORWAY



4.183; 4.185; 4.187; 4.221; 4.225; 4.231;

DOCUMENT REFERENCE:

STD A6, Part I, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 3.3, 4.2.2, C9 & App. 2, 2.4.3; RP A6, Part I, C10; Doc 9376, C4; Doc 9376, C4

CE-1 CE-2 CE-3 CE-4 CE-5 X CE-6 X CE-7 CE-8

FINDING:

A review of the various operators’ training programmes that have been accepted by the CAA showed that some of these

programmes do not contain sufficient details on the training to be provided to the flight crew, including the content of the

training and details on whether the training is to be provided by the operator or a subcontractor.

In addition, no oversight is carried out regarding the training of Flight Operations Officers employed in conjunction with

flight supervision.

RECOMMENDATION:

The CAA should systematically ensure that the training manuals prepared by the operators contain sufficient details on the

training to be provided to the flight crew. The CAA should also develop procedures for accepting the training provided by

third parties to the operator as part of its training programme.

In addition, the CAA should ensure that sufficient oversight is carried out regarding the training of Flight Operations

Officers employed in conjunction with flight supervision.




COMMENTS BY ICAO:

The corrective action plan submitted by the State partially addresses this ICAO finding and recommendation. The State has

not addressed the oversight that is carried out regarding the training of Flight Operations Officers employed in conjunction

with flight supervision.

Auditee:

Audit Period: 02/05/2006 - 11/05/2006

APPENDIX 1-4-04

OPS/04NORWAY



4.335; 4.339;

DOCUMENT REFERENCE:

STD A18, 2.7; TI Doc 9284 & Supp.

CE-1 CE-2 CE-3 X CE-4 X CE-5 CE-6 CE-7 CE-8

FINDING:

The sole inspector of the CAA responsible for the transport of dangerous goods by air has not received all the training as

required under the Norwegian regulation transposing the JAR-OPS, in particular, the training requirements related to staff

accepting dangerous goods. Other inspectors of the CAA have only received basic training related to the transport of

dangerous goods by air.

RECOMMENDATION:

The CAA should implement a training programme to ensure that its inspector responsible for the transport of dangerous

goods by air has received all the necessary training.




COMMENTS BY ICAO:


Auditee:

Audit Period: 02/05/2006 - 11/05/2006

APPENDIX 1-4-05

OPS/05NORWAY



4.453;

DOCUMENT REFERENCE:

Doc 8335, C8; Doc 9734, Part A, 3.9

CE-1 CE-2 CE-3 CE-4 CE-5 CE-6 CE-7 CE-8 X

FINDING:

The records kept by the Flight Operations Department do not contain all the information and evidence required to

substantiate action taken by the CAA during the certification and surveillance of air operators. In particular, some

documents are kept by the inspectors and not entered in the operators’ files maintained by the CAA nor in the CAA’s

electronic database called NORCAS. This is especially true in the case of route inspection reports and checklists

completed by inspectors for the approval of reduced vertical separation minimum (RVSM) or minimum equipment list

(MEL). In 2005, only four route inspection reports were entered into the NORCAS system for all Norwegian operators,

which represent only a small portion of the actual en route and apron inspections conducted by the CAA.

RECOMMENDATION:

The CAA should ensure that it keeps records of all the documents related to the certification and surveillance process of air

operators as part of its oversight responsibility. In particular, the CAA database should contain information on all

completed inspection checklists and route inspections reports.




COMMENTS BY ICAO:


Auditee:

Audit Period: 02/05/2006 - 11/05/2006

APPENDIX 1-4-06

OPS/06NORWAY



4.361; 4.443; 4.447; 4.449; 4.451;

DOCUMENT REFERENCE:

STD A18, 10.1; TI, C1 & C4; Doc 8335, C8; Doc 9734, Part A, 3.8 & 3.9

CE-1 CE-2 CE-3 CE-4 CE-5 CE-6 X CE-7 X CE-8 X

FINDING:

The CAA has developed a yearly surveillance programme based on set criteria. However, there is no formal coordination

between departments involved, and no random inspections are planned and executed in the area of transport of dangerous

goods by air.

RECOMMENDATION:

The CAA should amend its AOC holders inspection programme to include all authorized activities, and implement

associated coordination procedures. The inspection programme should be augmented by random and planned inspections

in the area of transport of dangerous goods by air.




COMMENTS BY ICAO:


Auditee:

Audit Period: 02/05/2006 - 11/05/2006

APPENDIX 1-5-01

AIR/01NORWAY


AIRWORTHINESS OF AIRCRAFT

5.047; 5.051; 5.489;

DOCUMENT REFERENCE:

Doc 9734, Part A, 3.5; Doc 9760, Vol. I, 3.3


FINDING:

The CAA has established a detailed training programme for the inspectors of the aeronautical engineering division.

However, this training programme has not been fully implemented. As for the inspectors of the airworthiness inspection

division of the CAA, the training programme details the initial, on-the-job and recurrent training and is duly implemented.

However, this programme does not make provisions for specialized training in areas such as RVSM, Category II (CAT II)

and Category III (CAT III) operations.

RECOMMENDATION:

The CAA should ensure that the training programme established for the inspectors of the aeronautical engineering division

is appropriately implemented. Furthermore, the CAA should review the t raining programme establ ished for the

airworthiness inspection division to include specialized training in areas such as RVSM, CAT II and CAT III operations

and ensure that this specialized training is adequately implemented.




COMMENTS BY ICAO:


Auditee:

Audit Period: 02/05/2006 - 11/05/2006

APPENDIX 1-5-02

AIR/02NORWAY



5.143; 5.171; 5.173;

DOCUMENT REFERENCE:

STD A6, Part I, 8.6, A8, Part II, 1.3.4, 1.4 & 1.7; Doc 9760, Vol. II, Part A, 2.5 & 2.10, Part B, C5, App. B & C

CE-1 CE-2 X CE-3 CE-4 CE-5 X CE-6 CE-7 CE-8

FINDING:

The CAA has developed a draft regulation, the BSL B 2-5, to establish the requirements for the approval of modifications,

approval of repairs, and type certification of aircraft that are not under the responsibility of the European Aviation Safety

Agency (EASA). However, the approval process of the proposed BSL B 2-5 has not yet been completed.

RECOMMENDATION:

Norway should complete the approval process of the proposed regulation BSL B 2-5 in order to have the legal basis and the

requirements for the approval of modifications, approval of repairs, and type certification of aircraft that are not under the

responsibility of EASA.




COMMENTS BY ICAO:


Auditee:

Audit Period: 02/05/2006 - 11/05/2006

APPENDIX 1-5-03

AIR/03NORWAY



5.241; 5.243; 5.245;

DOCUMENT REFERENCE:

Doc 9760, Vol. I, C5, 5.3, App. D, 2, 3 & 4, Ex. 2, 3 & 4

CE-1 CE-2 X CE-3 CE-4 CE-5 X CE-6 X CE-7 CE-8

FINDING:

The regulation, BSL B 1-4, related to the issuance of export airworthiness approvals is not in compliance with the guidance

contained in ICAO’s Airworthiness Manual (Doc 9760), Volume I - Organization and Procedures , Section 5.3. In

particular, the regulation BSL B 1-4 does not call for the classification of products nor does it contain requirements to

obtain the approval of the importing State for deviations.

RECOMMENDATION:

Norway should review the regulat ion BSL B 1-4 to ensure compliance with the guidance conta ined in ICAO’s

Airworthiness Manual (Doc 9760), Volume I - Organization and Procedures, Section 5.3.




COMMENTS BY ICAO:


Auditee:

Audit Period: 02/05/2006 - 11/05/2006

APPENDIX 1-5-04

AIR/04NORWAY



5.251;

DOCUMENT REFERENCE:

Doc 9760, Vol. II, Part B, 9.6

CE-1 CE-2 CE-3 CE-4 CE-5 X CE-6 CE-7 CE-8

FINDING:

The regulation BSL A 1-3 related to the reporting of unapproved parts is not in compliance with the guidance contained in

ICAO’s Airworthiness Manual (Doc 9760), Volume II - Design Certification and Continuing Airworthiness , Part B,

paragraph 9.6.2. In particular, there is no requirement for the reporting of the dimensions and colour of unapproved parts

that distinguish them from genuine items. In addition, the CAA does not keep a database for unapproved parts as required

by ICAO’s Airworthiness Manual (Doc 9760), Volume II - Design Certification and Continuing Airworthiness , Part B,

paragraph 9.6.5.

RECOMMENDATION:

Norway should review the regulat ion BSL A 1-3 to ensure compliance with the guidance conta ined in ICAO’s

Airworthiness Manual (Doc 9760), Volume II - Design Certification and Continuing Airworthiness , Part B, paragraph 9.6.

In addition, Norway should establish a database for unapproved parts.




COMMENTS BY ICAO:


Auditee:

Audit Period: 02/05/2006 - 11/05/2006

APPENDIX 1-5-05

AIR/05NORWAY



5.333;

DOCUMENT REFERENCE:

Doc 9760, Vol. I, 4.2 l) & 4.5 f)

CE-1 CE-2 CE-3 CE-4 CE-5 CE-6 X CE-7 CE-8

FINDING:

The CAA procedures indicate that approvals of MEL and RVSM are to be issued by the Flight Operations Department

after coordination with the Airworthiness Department . However, there is no documented evidence of the actual

participation of the Airworthiness Department in the approval process.

RECOMMENDATION:

The CAA should ensure that the procedures established for the approval of MEL and RVSM are effectively followed. In

addition, participation of the Airworthiness Department should be appropriately documented.




COMMENTS BY ICAO:


Auditee:

Audit Period: 02/05/2006 - 11/05/2006

APPENDIX 1-5-06

AIR/06NORWAY



5.001; 5.003;

DOCUMENT REFERENCE:

CC Art. 12; STD A8, Foreword, Part I, Definitions; Doc 9734, Part A, 3.2; Doc 9760, Vol. I, 2.1.3


FINDING:

The EASA Implementing Rules composed of the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1702/2003 of 24 September 2003 and

the Commission Regulation (EC) No 2042/2003 of 20 November 2003 were transposed into the Norwegian regulatory

framework. However, the certification specifications, the acceptable means of compliance, and the guidance material

associated with these Implementing Rules were not formally adopted by Norway.

RECOMMENDATION:

Norway should formally adopt the certification specifications, the acceptable means of compliance, and the guidance

material associated with the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1702/2003 of 24 September 2003 and the Commission

Regulation (EC) No 2042/2003 of 20 November 2003.




COMMENTS BY ICAO:


Auditee:

Audit Period: 02/05/2006 - 11/05/2006

APPENDIX 1-6-01

AIG/01NORWAY


AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT AND INCIDENT INVESTIGATION

6.121;

DOCUMENT REFERENCE:

Doc 9734, Part A, 3.6; Doc 9756, Part I, C2


FINDING:

The investigators of the Accident Investigation Board of Norway (AIBN) are issued credentials which do not explicitly

reflect the delegation of authority and associated powers provided by the legislation and regulations. In addition, the AIBN

has not established means to clarify the entitlements of the various types of participants in the investigations that it

undertakes.

RECOMMENDATION:

The AIBN should provide its investigators with appropriate credentials identifying the delegation of authority and powers

provided to them and making reference to the applicable legislation and regulations. The AIBN should also establish

means to clarify the entitlements of the various types of participants in the investigations that it undertakes.




COMMENTS BY ICAO:


Auditee:

Audit Period: 02/05/2006 - 11/05/2006

APPENDIX 1-6-02

AIG/02NORWAY



6.123; 6.127;

DOCUMENT REFERENCE:

Doc 9734, Part A, 3.5; Doc 9756, Part I, C2; CIR 298


FINDING:

The AIBN has established a training policy and has developed regular training plans for its investigators. The AIBN has

started to develop a training programme for its investigators. However, this programme does not yet contain the details of

the on-the-job training that has to be provided to the investigators.

RECOMMENDATION:

The AIBN should expand its training programme to include the various topics in which on-the-job training is to be

provided. The AIBN should also monitor the effective and timely implementation of its training programme and plans.




COMMENTS BY ICAO:


Auditee:

Audit Period: 02/05/2006 - 11/05/2006

APPENDIX 1-6-03

AIG/03NORWAY



6.317; 6.321;

DOCUMENT REFERENCE:

STD A13, 4.1, 4.2 & 4.4; Doc 9756, Part I, 4.3


FINDING:

The AIBN has established procedures for the notification of accidents and serious incidents, as applicable, to the States

involved (in accordance to ICAO’s Annex 13) and to ICAO. However, these procedures have not been systematically

followed, particularly with respect to the notification to ICAO.

RECOMMENDATION:

The AIBN should establish means to ensure that notifications of aircraft accidents and serious incidents occurring in

Norway are systematically and promptly notified to all States involved and, when applicable, to ICAO.




COMMENTS BY ICAO:


Auditee:

Audit Period: 02/05/2006 - 11/05/2006

APPENDIX 1-6-04

AIG/04NORWAY



6.343; 6.345;

DOCUMENT REFERENCE:

STD A13, 5.1; RP A13, 5.1.1 & Att. C; Doc 9756, Part I, 3.1


FINDING:

The AIBN has developed guidance material related to the conduct of aircraft accident and incident investigations.

However, the AIBN has not established detailed guidelines for evaluating the accident and incident notifications as well as

for deciding on the type of investigation to be conducted and the associated actions to be taken (e.g. deployment of a team

to the site of the occurrence, conduct of interviews, and use of recorders). In particular, there is no formal process or

guidelines to determine which cases of air traffic service (ATS)-related incidents (e.g. separation infringements and

runway incursions) should be investigated by the AIBN.

RECOMMENDATION:

The AIBN should develop detailed guidelines for evaluating the accident and incident notifications as well as for deciding

on the type of investigation to be conducted (e.g. deployment of a team to the site of the occurrence, conduct of interviews,

and use of recorders). In particular, the AIBN should establish and implement a formal process and guidelines to determine

which cases of ATS-related incidents (e.g. separation infringements and runway incursions) should be investigated by the

AIBN.




COMMENTS BY ICAO:


Auditee:

Audit Period: 02/05/2006 - 11/05/2006

APPENDIX 1-6-05

AIG/05NORWAY



6.391; 6.397;

DOCUMENT REFERENCE:

STD A13, 5.14, 5.15, 5.16, 5.17 & 5.27


FINDING:

The AIBN has signed an agreement with the CAA related to the appointment of Norway’s accredited representative to an

investigation conducted by another State. The AIBN has also developed some procedures related to this appointment.

However, no guidelines have been established regarding the participation of Norway’s accredited representative and

advisers in an investigation conducted by another State in order to ensure that Norway's rights and duties are adequately

fulfilled. Furthermore, the agreement between the AIBN and the CAA does not address the appointment of an expert from

Norway (according to the definition in paragraph 5.27 of ICAO’s Annex 13) in cases where Norway has suffered fatalities or

serious injuries to its citizens. No procedures or guidelines have been developed concerning the participation of Norway’s

expert in an investigation conducted by another State.

RECOMMENDATION:

The agreement between the AIBN and the CAA should be expanded to cover the appointment of an expert from Norway

(according to the definition of paragraph 5.27 of ICAO’s Annex 13) in cases where Norway has suffered fatalities or serious

injuries to its citizens. In addition, the AIBN should establish guidelines regarding the participation of Norway’s accredited

representatives, advisers and experts in investigations conducted by other States in order to ensure that Norway’s rights

and duties are adequately fulfilled.




COMMENTS BY ICAO:


Auditee:

Audit Period: 02/05/2006 - 11/05/2006

APPENDIX 1-6-06

AIG/06NORWAY



6.405;

DOCUMENT REFERENCE:

STD A13, 6.5; Doc 9756, Part IV, 1.5


FINDING:

The AIBN is required by the Norwegian regulations to complete an investigation, if possible, within 12 months of the

occurrence date, accompanied by the release of the associated final report. However, a number of investigations have

remained open for several years.

RECOMMENDATION:

The AIBN should ensure that it completes its investigations and releases the associated final reports in a timely manner.




COMMENTS BY ICAO:


Auditee:

Audit Period: 02/05/2006 - 11/05/2006

APPENDIX 1-6-07

AIG/07NORWAY



6.425;

DOCUMENT REFERENCE:

STD A13, 6.10


FINDING:

The CAA has a system to follow up on safety recommendations. However, the CAA has not established a documented

procedure to ensure that it informs a State forwarding a safety recommendation to Norway of the response to this safety

recommendation.

RECOMMENDATION:

The CAA should establish a documented procedure to ensure that it informs, in a timely manner, the States that have

forwarded safety recommendations to Norway of the action taken, action under consideration, or the reasons why no action

will be taken.




COMMENTS BY ICAO:


Auditee:

Audit Period: 02/05/2006 - 11/05/2006

APPENDIX 1-6-08

AIG/08NORWAY



6.431;

DOCUMENT REFERENCE:

STD A13, 7.1


FINDING:

The CAA has been given the responsibility of forwarding preliminary reports and accident/incident data reports to ICAO

and to States so entitled as per Chapter 7 of ICAO’s Annex 13. However, preliminary reports have not been systematically

forwarded to ICAO and to these States in the last few years.

RECOMMENDATION:

The CAA should ensure that it sends, in a timely manner, all reports mentioned in Chapter 7 of Annex 13, including

preliminary reports and accident/incident data reports, to ICAO and the States so entitled, as applicable.




COMMENTS BY ICAO:


Auditee:

Audit Period: 02/05/2006 - 11/05/2006

APPENDIX 1-6-09

AIG/09NORWAY



6.503;

DOCUMENT REFERENCE:

RP A13, 8.2; Doc 9422


FINDING:

The Aviation Act provides for the protection of the sources of information in the case of incident reports. However,

Norway has not yet implemented a voluntary incident reporting system.

RECOMMENDATION:

Norway should implement a voluntary incident reporting system.




COMMENTS BY ICAO:


Auditee:

Audit Period: 02/05/2006 - 11/05/2006

APPENDIX 1-7-01

ANS/01NORWAY


AIR NAVIGATION SERVICES

7.009;

DOCUMENT REFERENCE:

CC Art. 12; Doc 9734, Part A


FINDING:

Although Norway provides meteorological services, aeronautical maps and charts and AIS, i t has not promulgated

regulations to implement the provisions of ICAO’s Annex 3, Annex 4 and Annex 15. Concerning the provisions of Annex

11, a number of them are included in the regulations “BSL G series,” while other provisions as well as the PANS-ATM are

incorporated into the Regelverk for Lufttrafikktjenesten (Instructions for Air Navigation Services or RFL for short), Part I.

However, the RFL is not a regulation, as it is developed and maintained by the air traffic services provider and is not

issued by the CAA or the Ministry of Transport and Communications.

RECOMMENDATION:

Norway should promulgate regulations to implement Annex 3, Annex 4 and Annex 15. As for Annex 11 and the

PANS-ATM, Norway should amend the existing regulation to fully cover the related provisions.




COMMENTS BY ICAO:


Auditee:

Audit Period: 02/05/2006 - 11/05/2006

APPENDIX 1-7-02

ANS/02NORWAY



7.131;

DOCUMENT REFERENCE:

STD A11, 2.15, 2.16, 2.17, 2.19 & 2.20


FINDING:

No evidence was provided to show that policies and procedures are established and implemented for coordination between

ATS on one hand and the aircraft operators, meteorological services and aeronautical information services on the other

hand.

RECOMMENDATION:

Norway should ensure that applicable policies and procedures for coordination between ATS, on one hand, and the aircraft

operators, meteorological services and aeronautical information services, on the other hand, are appropriately documented

and implemented.




COMMENTS BY ICAO:


Auditee:

Audit Period: 02/05/2006 - 11/05/2006

APPENDIX 1-7-03

ANS/03NORWAY



7.201; 7.203; 7.205; 7.207; 7.211; 7.213; 7.215; 7.217;

7.221; 7.229; 7.231; 7.233; 7.241; 7.243; 7.245; 7.255;

DOCUMENT REFERENCE:

STD A6, Part I, 4.4.8; A15, 3.2.4; PANS Doc 8168, OPS/611, Vol. II; Doc 9734, Part A, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9

CE-1 CE-2 X CE-3 X CE-4 X CE-5 CE-6 X CE-7 X CE-8 X

FINDING:

There is no regulatory framework covering the development of visual and instrument flight procedures. In actual practice,

procedures development is undertaken by Avinor, the service provider, which follows ICAO’s PANS-OPS provisions (but

with a number of differences as published in the AIP of Norway) within the framework of a quality management system

developed in collaboration with Det Norske Veritas (DNV). However, the CAA has no role in the quality management

system and does not conduct any oversight of the PANS-OPS service provided. This lack of oversight has consequential

effects in a number of related areas, including:

• inadequate definition of functions and responsibilities of the PANS-OPS inspectorate;

• lack of job descriptions for PANS-OPS inspectorate staff;

• failure to establish minimum qualifications and experience for PANS-OPS inspectorate staff;

• lack of a training programme detailing the initial technical training to be provided to PANS-OPS inspectorate staff;

• lack of a periodic plan for recurrent technical training;

• lack of on-the-job training (OJT) for PANS-OPS inspectorate staff prior to the assumption of duties; and

• lack of a mechanism or system with time frame for the elimination of deficiencies identified by PANS-OPS

inspectorate staff.

RECOMMENDATION:

The CAA should establish a regulatory framework in the area of visual and instrument flight procedures development

based on the ICAO PANS-OPS, and conduct effective oversight of the service provider. In particular, the following actions

should be taken:

• A design office or entity should be established to oversee the activities of the service provider in the area of

procedures development.

• Functions and responsibilities of the PANS-OPS inspectorate should be clearly defined.

• Job descriptions for PANS-OPS inspectorate staff should be developed, including minimum qualifications and

experience required.

• A training programme indicating necessary initial and recurrent periodical technical training for PANS-OPS

inspectorate staff should be developed.

• Training plans, including OJT, should be developed for newly appointed PANS-OPS inspectorate staff prior to

their assumption of duties.

• A mechanism or system with time frame for the elimination of deficiencies identified by PANS-OPS inspectorate

staff should be established.

Auditee:

Audit Period: 02/05/2006 - 11/05/2006

APPENDIX 1-7-03

ANS/03NORWAY



7.201; 7.203; 7.205; 7.207; 7.211; 7.213; 7.215; 7.217;

7.221; 7.229; 7.231; 7.233; 7.241; 7.243; 7.245; 7.255;




COMMENTS BY ICAO:


Auditee:

Audit Period: 02/05/2006 - 11/05/2006

APPENDIX 1-7-04

ANS/04NORWAY



7.265; 7.269; 7.271; 7.273; 7.275; 7.277; 7.279; 7.281;

7.283; 7.287; 7.301; 7.303; 7.305; 7.311;

DOCUMENT REFERENCE:

STD A15, 3.2.9; Doc 9734, Part A, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7 & 3.8

CE-1 CE-2 CE-3 X CE-4 X CE-5 CE-6 X CE-7 X CE-8

FINDING:

There is no regulatory framework covering AIS. The CAA conducts oversight over the local AIS provided on aerodromes.

However, the CAA does not conduct any oversight over the headquarters operations of the AIS service provider. This lack

of oversight has consequential effects in a number of related areas, including:

· There is an insufficient number of staff to carry out oversight of all aspects of the service provider’s operation.

· The functions and responsibilities of the AIS inspectorate staff are not adequately defined.

· Job descriptions have not been developed for AIS inspectorate staff.

· The minimum required qualifications and experience for AIS inspectorate staff have not been defined.

· There is a lack of a training programme indicating the initial technical training to be provided to AIS inspectorate

staff.

· There is a lack of a periodic plan for recurrent technical training.

· There is a lack of OJT for AIS inspectorate staff prior to their assumption of duties.

RECOMMENDATION:

The CAA should establish a regulatory framework in the area of AIS based on ICAO’s Annex 15, and conduct effective

oversight of the AIS service provider. In particular, the following actions should be taken:

· Oversight of the service provider’s headquarters AIS operation should be initiated.

· The functions and responsibilities of the AIS inspectorate should be clearly defined.

· An adequate number of AIS inspectorate staff should be appointed to carry out oversight functions.

· The job descriptions for AIS inspectorate staff should be developed, including the minimum qualifications and


· A training programme indicating the necessary init ial and recurrent periodical technical training for AIS


· Technical training plans, including OJT, should be developed for newly appointed AIS inspectorate staff prior to

their assumption of duties.

Auditee:

Audit Period: 02/05/2006 - 11/05/2006

APPENDIX 1-7-04

ANS/04NORWAY



7.265; 7.269; 7.271; 7.273; 7.275; 7.277; 7.279; 7.281;

7.283; 7.287; 7.301; 7.303; 7.305; 7.311;




COMMENTS BY ICAO:


Auditee:

Audit Period: 02/05/2006 - 11/05/2006

APPENDIX 1-7-05

ANS/05NORWAY



7.325; 7.327; 7.329; 7.331; 7.333; 7.335; 7.337; 7.339;

7.341; 7.343; 7.345; 7.351; 7.353; 7.355; 7.357; 7.359;

7.363;

DOCUMENT REFERENCE:

STD A4, 1.3.2, 2.17 & App. 6, Tables 1 to 5, 3.2, 6.2, 7.2, 8.2, 9.2, 10.2, 11.2, 12.2, 13.2, 14.2, 15.2, 16.2, 17.2 & 18.2;

Doc 9734, Part A, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 3.8 & 3.9

CE-1 CE-2 CE-3 X CE-4 X CE-5 X CE-6 X CE-7 X CE-8 X

FINDING:

There is no regulatory framework covering cartographic services. The CAA does not conduct any oversight over the

cartographic service provider. This lack of oversight has consequential effects in a number of related areas, including:

· There is an insufficient number of staff to carry out oversight of the service provider’s operation.

· The functions and responsibilities of the cartographic inspectorate staff are not adequately defined.

· Job descriptions have not been developed for cartographic inspectorate staff.

· Minimum required qualifications and experience for cartographic inspectorate staff have not been defined.

· There is a lack of a training programme indicating the initial technical training to be provided to cartographic

inspectorate staff.

· There is a lack of a periodic plan for recurrent technical training.

· There is a lack of OJT for cartographic inspectorate staff prior to their assumption of duties.

RECOMMENDATION:

The CAA should establish a regulatory framework in the area of cartographic services based on ICAO’s Annex 4, and

conduct effective oversight of the cartographic service provider. In particular, the following actions should be taken:

• The functions and responsibilities of the cartographic inspectorate should be clearly defined.

• An adequate number of cartographic inspectorate staff should be appointed to carry out oversight functions.

• Job descriptions for cartographic inspectorate staff should be developed, including minimum qualifications and


• A training programme indicating the necessary initial and recurrent periodical technical training for cartographic


• Technical training plans, including OJT, should be developed for newly appointed cartographic inspectorate staff

prior to their assumption of duties.




Auditee:

Audit Period: 02/05/2006 - 11/05/2006

APPENDIX 1-7-05

ANS/05NORWAY



7.325; 7.327; 7.329; 7.331; 7.333; 7.335; 7.337; 7.339;

7.341; 7.343; 7.345; 7.351; 7.353; 7.355; 7.357; 7.359;

7.363;

COMMENTS BY ICAO:


Auditee:

Audit Period: 02/05/2006 - 11/05/2006

APPENDIX 1-7-06

ANS/06NORWAY



7.469;

DOCUMENT REFERENCE:

STD A3, 4.1.3, 4.3.1, 4.3.2 & 4.4.2


FINDING:

In Norway, the meteorological (MET) offices do not issue local routine reports or local special reports. ICAO’s Annex 3,

paragraphs 4.3.1 and 4.3.2.a) require that local routine reports be issued for dissemination at the aerodrome of origin,

intended for arriving and departing aircraft, except as otherwise agreed between the meteorological authority, the

appropriate ATS authority and the operator concerned. No evidence of such an agreement was made available. In addition,

Annex 3, 4.4.2.a) also requires that local special reports be issued for dissemination at the aerodrome of origin, intended

for arriving and departing aircraft. The Annex does not provide the possibility of any exception to the Annex in this case.

RECOMMENDATION:

Norway should implement the provisions of Annex 3 paragraphs 4.3.2.a) and 4.4.2.a) in relation to local routine reports

and local special reports.




COMMENTS BY ICAO:


Auditee:

Audit Period: 02/05/2006 - 11/05/2006

APPENDIX 1-7-07

ANS/07NORWAY



7.487; 7.489; 7.491; 7.493; 7.495; 7.497; 7.499; 7.501;

7.503; 7.505; 7.507;

DOCUMENT REFERENCE:

Doc 9734, Part A, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.8 & 3.9

CE-1 CE-2 CE-3 X CE-4 X CE-5 CE-6 CE-7 X CE-8 X

FINDING:

In Norway, integrated aeronautical, maritime and overland search and rescue services are provided under the overall

responsibility of the Ministry of Justice and Police. The Office of the Auditor General of Norway (Riksrevisjonen)

oversees the Rescue Coordination Centres (RCCs) at the management level. However, no operational or technical

oversight of the RCCs is undertaken. No concern regarding the provision of search and rescue services was identified by

the audit team.

RECOMMENDATION:

Norway should conduct operational and technical oversight over the provision of aeronautical search and rescue services.




COMMENTS BY ICAO:

The corrective action plan submitted by the State partially addresses this ICAO finding and recommendation. The State

does not conduct operational and technical safety oversight over aeronautical search and rescue services.

Auditee:

Audit Period: 02/05/2006 - 11/05/2006

APPENDIX 1-8-01

AGA/01NORWAY


AERODROMES

8.111;

DOCUMENT REFERENCE:

STD A14, Vol. I, 1.4.5; Doc 9774, 3.2 & 3B.2


FINDING:

As part of an “approval process” for aerodromes (which corresponds to the aerodrome cert if ication process), the

development of two manuals, a quality manual and a safety management manual, is required. The contents of these

manuals are similar to those required by ICAO for an aerodrome manual. However, there is no manual available in

accordance to Volume 1 of Annex 14 and the associated guidance material (ICAO’s Doc 9774 - Manual on Certification of

Aerodromes).

RECOMMENDATION:

Provisions for the development and implementation of a single aerodrome manual should be included in the regulatory

framework for the certification of aerodromes. Norway should ensure that an aerodrome manual which will include all

pertinent information on the site, facilities, services, equipment, operating procedures, organization and management

(including a safety management system) of the aerodrome is submitted by the applicant for approval/acceptance before an

aerodrome certificate is granted.




COMMENTS BY ICAO:


Auditee:

Audit Period: 02/05/2006 - 11/05/2006

APPENDIX 1-8-02

AGA/02NORWAY


AERODROMES

8.303;

DOCUMENT REFERENCE:

STD A14, Vol. I, 9.2.3; RP A14, Vol. I, 9.2.4


FINDING:

The requirements for rescue and firefighting operations, including extinguishing agent specifications, quantities and

discharging rates, are detailed in the Norwegian regulations and also published in the AIP of Norway. As of 1 January

2005, the level of protection provided at an aerodrome in relation to rescue and firefighting operations should be equal to

the aerodrome category that is determined using the principles contained in Annex 14, Volume I, Chapter 9. However, this

requirement is not included in the relevant Norwegian regulation (i.e. BSL E 4-4).

RECOMMENDATION:

Norway should review its regulations to require that the level of protection provided for rescue and firefighting operations

at an aerodrome is equal to the aerodrome category that is determined using the principles contained in Annex 14, Volume

I, Chapter 9.




COMMENTS BY ICAO:


Auditee:

Audit Period: 02/05/2006 - 11/05/2006

APPENDIX 1-8-03

AGA/03NORWAY


AERODROMES

8.321;

DOCUMENT REFERENCE:

RP A14, Vol. I, 9.3.1 & 9.3.2; A13, C3; Doc 9137, Part 5; Doc 9774, App. 1, 4.14


FINDING:

Norwegian aerodromes publish their capability to remove disabled aircraft from the movement area in accordance with

Annex 15, Appendix 1. However, Norway does not require nor does it ensure that aerodromes prepare and arrange for, as

required, adequate plans for the removal of disabled aircraft.

RECOMMENDATION:

Norway should require that aerodrome operators establish and implement adequate plans for the removal of disabled

aircraft, including arrangements for the designation of coordinators based on the characteristics of the aircraft that may

normally be expected to operate on the aerodrome.




COMMENTS BY ICAO:


Auditee:

Audit Period: 02/05/2006 - 11/05/2006

APPENDIX 1-8-04

AGA/04NORWAY


AERODROMES

8.171;

DOCUMENT REFERENCE:

Doc 9774, 3.2 & 3B.9


FINDING:

A process for the certification (approval) of aerodromes is established and implemented for all aerodromes open for public

use. However, the CAA has not established documented procedures regarding the evaluation of the impact of proposed

changes to the aerodrome’s physical characteristics, facilities or equipment.

RECOMMENDATION:

The CAA should establish and implement detailed procedures for the assessment of proposed changes to the physical

characteristics or boundaries of an aerodrome, the use or operation of an aerodrome, a change in the ownership or

management or on request of the holder of an aerodrome certificate.




COMMENTS BY ICAO:


Auditee:

Audit Period: 02/05/2006 - 11/05/2006

APPENDIX 1-8-05

AGA/05NORWAY


AERODROMES

8.131; 8.135;

DOCUMENT REFERENCE:

STD A14, Vol. I, 2.1.1, 2.3 & 2.5; A15, 3.2.1; Doc 9774, 4.4.4

CE-1 CE-2 CE-3 CE-4 CE-5 X CE-6 X CE-7 CE-8

FINDING:

Norway has established an AIS provider under the umbrella of Avinor, a State-owned company. Aeronautical data related

to aerodromes are delivered directly by the aerodrome operator to the AIS provider. The CAA has not established a process

to ensure that the accuracy and integrity of aerodrome data is verified to guarantee compliance with the requirements

contained in Annex 14, Volume I, Chapter 2 and detailed in Appendix 5 of the same Annex.

RECOMMENDATION:

The CAA should establish a process to ensure that the accuracy and integrity of aerodrome data is verified to guarantee

compliance with the requirements contained in Annex 14, Volume I, Chapter 2 and detailed in Appendix 5 of the same

Annex.




COMMENTS BY ICAO:


APPENDIX 2

CRITICAL ELEMENTS OF A SAFETY OVERSIGHT SYSTEMLACK OF EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION (%)

25.37

30.43

39.9036.56

49.21

29.25

37.7640.47

10.00 9.13

23.62

38.83

13.8611.67

16.30

21.43

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Primary AviationLegislation

Specific OperatingRegulations

Civil Aviation Systemand Safety Oversight

Functions

Qualification andTraining of Technical

Staff

Procedures andTechnical Guidance

Licensing andCertificationObligations

SurveillanceObligations

Resolution of SafetyConcerns

Global: (36) Audited States: 36.11% Audit of: NORWAY 18.10%

Note.— The results of the audit of Norway also include the results of the latest audit conducted on EASA.

APPENDIX 3

APPENDIX 3-1-1

CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN PROPOSED BY NORWAY RELATED TO PRIMARY AVIATION LEGISLATION AND

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS

AUDIT FINDING LEG/01

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has established procedures for the identification and notification to ICAO of differences existing between the Standards contained in ICAO Annexes and Norway's regulations and practices. However, the following have been noted: 1) As far as Annexes 1 and 6 are concerned, a systematic review of the differences that

exist between the Joint Aviation Requirements (JARs) that Norway has adopted and the Standards contained in the ICAO Annexes has not been carried out. As a result, existing differences have not been identified and notified to ICAO;

2) In the absence of national regulations transposing the provisions of ICAO’s Annex 3,

Annex 4 and Annex 15, and due to the incomplete transposition of Annex 18, not all differences related to these Annexes have been identified and notified to ICAO; and

3) As for consultation with stakeholders outside of the CAA, and in particular, with the

Accident Investigation Board of Norway (AIBN), the related procedures established by the CAA do not contain any timeframe, and delays were observed in the transmission of ICAO State letters by the CAA to the AIBN.

Moreover, the Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) of Norway does not contain all the existing significant differences.

NORWAY’S COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS

No comment was submitted by the State.

CORRECTIVE ACTION(S) PROPOSED∗∗∗∗ ACTION OFFICE

ESTIMATED IMPLEMENTATION

DATE(S)

1): Differences to be extracted and notified as follows:

CAA (T, O og F)

Annex 1 31. December 2007 Annex 6 Part I and II 31. December 2007 Annex 6 Part III

31. March 2008

∗ Text reproduced as submitted by Norway

APPENDIX 3-1-1 (CONT)





DATE(S)

2): All differences to all annexes have been reported to ICAO through the completion of the USOAP compliance checklists.

We will hire in secretarial assistance with the aim to report the above differences to all the audited annexes on the standard templates provided, by the end of the first half of 2007

30. June 2007

Regarding Part 3, a routine is established that specifically lists the Accident Investigation Board of Norway (AIBN) as an external stakeholder to be consulted (when relevant), whenever there is a need for consultation with stakeholders outside the CAA in connection with responding to ICAO State letters. The same routine also states that ICAO State letters shall be distributed with no delay to both internal and external stakeholders. Furthermore, any differences between ICAO SARPs and Norwegian regulation shall as soon as possible, and at the latest 14 days after a difference is noted, be published in the AIP of Norway.

Part 3: 1 October 2006.


APPENDIX 3-1-2




The CAA has established procedures related to the amendment of regulations (including internal and external consultations) by taking into consideration existing ICAO provisions and amendments to ICAO Annexes. However, these procedures do not identify the areas (such as the Aeronautical Information Services [AIS] or some elements of Annex 18) where regulatory requirements have still to be promulgated. As a result, a regulatory framework is still missing for a number of civil aviation-related activities.





DATE(S)

1. Identify the need to revise internal

procedures related to the amendment of regulations in order to identify the need for additional regulatory requirements, taking into considerations existing ICAO provisions and amendments to ICAO

CAA (J) Before 01.07.2007

2. Revise internal procedures according to identified need.

Before 01.12.2007


APPENDIX 3-1-3




The staff members of the CAA (including all inspectors) are provided with credentials enabling them to access and inspect aircraft as well as aviation-related facilities and documents. However, the CAA has not established means to clarify the specific level of authority given to inspectors in their respective field of activity as well as to ensure that the authority is delegated only to fully qualified inspectors.





DATE(S)

Department handbooks to be revised to define delegated authority and qualification levels.

CAA (T, O og F) 1

1. July 2007


APPENDIX 3-1-4




Norway ratified Article 83 bis of the Chicago Convention on 20 September 1995. However, the provisions of Article 83 bis have not yet been transposed in an explicit and comprehensive manner into Norway's primary aviation legislation. For example, the Aviation Act does not explicitly provide for the recognition by Norway of licences and certificates issued by the State of the Operator when an agreement under Article 83 bis applies.

NORWAY’S COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS∗∗∗∗

The CAA-N agrees in part with the finding of the ICAO audit team. We agree that the Aviation Act does not explicitly provide for the recognition by Norway of licences and certificates issued by the State of the Operator when an agreement under Article 83 bis applies. However, the Aviation Act must be read so that it implicitly provide for such recognition when Norway is party to an agreement providing for a transfer of duties and functions according to Article 83 bis. Still the CAA-N acknowledges that the Aviation Act does not provide for such recognition in cases where Norway is not party to such an agreement but has been officially informed of the transfer of authority between two other Contracting States.



DATE(S)

Look into and consider whether it is necessary to amend the Aviation Act and regulations so that the provisions in Article 83 bis are transposed in a more explicit manner.

CAA (J) Before April 2007

If necessary amend the Aviation Act and/or regulations according to the above mentioned.

Before December 2008

Revise the existing procedures concerning the transfer and acceptance of the State’s responsibility to and from other Contracting States party to Article 83 bis to ensure that comprehensive procedures and a system for formal coordination among the respective Departments responsible for the States responsibilities are properly implemented.



APPENDIX 3-1-5




The Scandinavian Airlines System (SAS) International operator is issued an air operator certificate that is co-signed by the Directors General of the Civil Aviation Authorities (CAA) of Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Oversight tasks of this carrier, as well as of the SAS Flight Academy, an approved training organization, are undertaken by Scandinavian Flight Safety (STK), an organization headquartered in Sweden. However, no evidence was provided to show that there was appropriate legal basis for such an oversight mechanism and that Norway had established a means to ensure that its national and international obligations for safety oversight in the delegated areas were fulfilled.


When SAS was founded as an airline in the form of a consortium in 1951 the three Scandinavian governments decided to coordinate rulemaking and cooperate in approval and oversight of SAS. The three DGCAs formed a body named OPS-utvalget, consisting of the three CAA Directors of the three Member States, to execute this governmental decision. Since then OPS-utvalget has met regularly to make decisions and follow up on the regulatory performance and development and the chairmanship rotates annually. OPS-utvalget established STK as a shared office in order to perform approval and oversight duties related to SAS. The head of STK reports to OPS-utvalget. STK is not an independent body with transferred authority insofar as the authority remains within the three CAAs which share the STK office. All duties of the STK office are performed according to procedures approved by the CAA-N, documented in an official manual. It is the opinion of the CAA-N that the oversight arrangement has been an efficient resource to perform assign duties. The CAA-N agrees with the finding of the ICAO audit team insofar as sufficient evidence was not provided to show that there is appropriate legal basis for the oversight mechanism whereby the oversight tasks concerning SAS are undertaken by STK. However, our opinion is that there is appropriate legal basis for this oversight mechanism, even though the evidence of this was not provided in a satisfactory manner during the ICAO audit. Reference is made to the Aviation Act section 4-2 paragraph 2 and section 4-8 paragraph 2. Furthermore we enclose OPS-utvalget’s instruction to STK. STK’s Quality Manual may be provided if necessary.







DATE(S)

Go through the existing legal basis for assigning oversight tasks to STK so as to ensure that Norway’s national and international obligations for safety oversight in the relevant areas are fulfilled.

CAA (J) Before August 2007

If an amendment of the Aviation Act and/or regulations and/or international agreements and/or formal delegation of authority turns out to be necessary, such amendments will be made.



APPENDIX 3-2-1

CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN PROPOSED BY NORWAY RELATED TO CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION

AUDIT FINDING ORG/01

As part of the CAA’s quality management system, manuals (or administrative handbooks) have been prepared for the five departments of the CAA and their respective sections. All manuals are available on the CAA’s Intranet. While the manuals spell out the functions and tasks of the departments and sections within the CAA, they have not however all been updated to reflect the current organizational set-up of the CAA nor have they defined the functions of the units.


There is a general recognition that the internal Quality Management System is in need of a major overhaul.



DATE(S)

Departments will participate actively in the development of a QMS.

CAA (T, O, F, J og A)

1. July 2007

Department handbooks and Section/Inspector handbooks will be revised and updated when the new organisation is formally decided.


APPENDIX 3-2-2

CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN PROPOSED BY NORWAY RELATED TO CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION

AUDIT FINDING ORG/02

The CAA has not established a mechanism to ensure that it has and maintains sufficient human resources to meet all of its national and international obligations related to the various areas of civil aviation safety oversight. As a result, the CAA does not have a sufficient number of qualified personnel in the area of aeronautical charts and aeronautical information services. In addition, the number of qualified inspectors in the area of airworthiness did not enable the CAA to fully complete its surveillance programme in the year 2005.





DATE(S)

Priority will be given in the 2007 budget to employ manpower and to inspect AIS/Aeronautical charts. The CAA will further harmonize the surveillance programme and the resources available in airworthiness section. The CAA-N has currently relocated and is building a new organization. Budget/annual plans/inspection programmes will be streamlined to utilize available resources. This will also include reducing manpower and ambitions in some areas, while increasing in others.

CAA (A) Within 2007

Our current system for identifying competences and gaps will be further developed to a strategic tool to facilitate: 1. Recruitment of personnel as a result of planned vacancies/turnover (e.g. retirement). 2. Define required competences and develop competences needed for new areas and areas to be prioritized in the future.

July 2007


APPENDIX 3-3

CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN PROPOSED BY NORWAY RELATED TO PERSONNEL LICENSING AND TRAINING

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT

BLANK

APPENDIX 3-4-1

CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN PROPOSED BY NORWAY RELATED TO AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS CERTIFICATION AND SUPERVISION

AUDIT FINDING OPS/01

The Operations Inspector’s Handbook consists of several checklists which are used in conjunction with the guidance provided in Section 2 of the JAR-OPS. However, procedures are missing for some topics where Section 2 of the JAR-OPS does not provide any guidance, in particular: 1) the conditions under which check airmen who deliver proficiency checks and other

checks called for in JAR-OPS 1 and JAR-OPS 3 Subpart N are authorized by the CAA;

2) the oversight of tasks delegated to other authorities or to individuals by the CAA; 3) the tasks delegated to Norway by other authorities; and 4) the approval of standard operating procedures (SOP).





DATE(S)

Operations Inspector Handbook will be revised and expanded to cover the noted items and other items as found necessary.

CAA (O) 31. December 2007


APPENDIX 3-4-2



The CAA has developed a training programme and plans for its operations inspectors that include core training, on-the-job (OJT) training and personalized training. The personalized training is based on a gap analysis between the actual competence of the inspectors and the competence required by the CAA (as assessed by Section chiefs) for their positions. This gap analysis is properly documented and is used to develop the specialized training plans. The implementation of the training plans is the responsibility of Section chiefs. However, the following shortcomings have been identified by the audit team: 1) there is no formal government air safety inspector training course although the core

training includes some elements of a standard instructor course; 2) there is no formal evaluation of the trainees for most of the course; 3) there is no formal confirmation at the end of the on-the-job-training period that the

new inspector is ready for inspection duties without direct supervision by a senior inspector; and

4) there is no mechanism to ensure that the inspectors have acquired the level of competence required for the tasks assigned to them by the CAA.





DATE(S)

1) A formal syllabus and training programmes for the air safety inspectors will be developed based on ICAO’s recommendations/document reference 9734, Part A, 3.35., 3.5. Progression tests will be done during the training periods. A final examination will check the inspectors after the training periods.

CAA (A (del 1))

31. December 2007

2) The training programme will be evaluated for safety critical courses and exams/evaluation procedures will established as required.

CAA (O (del 2,3,4 ))

31. December 2007






DATE(S)

3) Operations department Management Handbook will be revised to include an evaluation at the end of the OJT period to determine if the inspector is qualified to do inspections without assistance and to perform the tasks assigned to them.

31. December 2007

4) See item 3)


APPENDIX 3-4-3



A review of the various operators’ training programmes that have been accepted by the CAA showed that some of these programmes do not contain sufficient details on the training to be provided to the flight crew, including the content of the training and details on whether the training is to be provided by the operator or a subcontractor. In addition, no oversight is carried out regarding the training of Flight Operations Officers employed in conjunction with flight supervision.





DATE(S)

Operations Inspector Handbook will be revised and checklists improved to cover accept of operators’ training programmes.

CAA (O) 1. July 2007


APPENDIX 3-4-4



The sole inspector of the CAA responsible for the transport of dangerous goods by air has not received all the training as required under the Norwegian regulation transposing the JAR-OPS, in particular, the training requirements related to staff accepting dangerous goods. Other inspectors of the CAA have only received basic training related to the transport of dangerous goods by air.


Dangerous Goods training for Flight Operations Inspectors has already been performed in (late) 2006.



DATE(S)

There is an intention of formalising the system of specialist on different subjects. The system will give due consideration to capacity and overlap.



APPENDIX 3-4-5



The records kept by the Flight Operations Department do not contain all the information and evidence required to substantiate action taken by the CAA during the certification and surveillance of air operators. In particular, some documents are kept by the inspectors and not entered in the operators’ files maintained by the CAA nor in the CAA’s electronic database called NORCAS. This is especially true in the case of route inspection reports and checklists completed by inspectors for the approval of reduced vertical separation minimum (RVSM) or minimum equipment list (MEL). In 2005, only four route inspection reports were entered into the NORCAS system for all Norwegian operators, which represent only a small portion of the actual en route and apron inspections conducted by the CAA.





DATE(S)

Operations Inspector Handbook will be revised to expand the requirements on record keeping of surveillance activities

CAA (O) 1. July 2007


APPENDIX 3-4-6



The CAA has developed a yearly surveillance programme based on set criteria. However, there is no formal coordination between departments involved, and no random inspections are planned and executed in the area of transport of dangerous goods by air.





DATE(S)

Dangerous goods is now included in the checklists for random ramp inspections.

CAA (O)

Implemented

Sole responsibility will be transferred to the Ops. department.

1 .January 2007


APPENDIX 3-5-1

CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN PROPOSED BY NORWAY RELATED TO AIRWORTHINESS OF AIRCRAFT

AUDIT FINDING AIR/01

The CAA has established a detailed training programme for the inspectors of the aeronautical engineering division. However, this training programme has not been fully implemented. As for the inspectors of the airworthiness inspection division of the CAA, the training programme details the initial, on-the-job and recurrent training and is duly implemented. However, this programme does not make provisions for specialized training in areas such as RVSM, Category II (CAT II) and Category III (CAT III) operations.


The engineers need some more understanding of the basic technical requirements and design philosophy.



DATE(S)

The CAA-N Training Department to find suitable training courses. The training course to be implemented in the KAN system for each employee.

CAA (T) In the period 01.09.2007 to 31.12.2007.


APPENDIX 3-5-2



The CAA has developed a draft regulation, the BSL B 2-5, to establish the requirements for the approval of modifications, approval of repairs, and type certification of aircraft that are not under the responsibility of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). However, the approval process of the proposed BSL B 2-5 has not yet been completed.


Aircrafts not covered by EASA will be covered by 3 regulations as follows: BSL B 2-5, 2-6 and 3-1.



DATE(S)

All 3 regulations almost completed. To be sent on internal/external hearing.

CAA (T) To be implemented 01.01.2007


APPENDIX 3-5-3



The regulation, BSL B 1-4, related to the issuance of export airworthiness approvals is not in compliance with the guidance contained in ICAO’s Airworthiness Manual (Doc 9760), Volume I - Organization and Procedures, Section 5.3. In particular, the regulation BSL B 1-4 does not call for the classification of products nor does it contain requirements to obtain the approval of the importing State for deviations.





DATE(S)

BSL B 1-4 will be reviewed and updated to be in compliance with Doc. 9760. To be coordinated via Legal Department and Forskriftsforum.

CAA (T) 01.07.2007

∗


APPENDIX 3-5-4



The regulation BSL A 1-3 related to the reporting of unapproved parts is not in compliance with the guidance contained in ICAO’s Airworthiness Manual (Doc 9760), Volume II - Design Certification and Continuing Airworthiness, Part B, paragraph 9.6.2. In particular, there is no requirement for the reporting of the dimensions and colour of unapproved parts that distinguish them from genuine items. In addition, the CAA does not keep a database for unapproved parts as required by ICAO’s Airworthiness Manual (Doc 9760), Volume II - Design Certification and Continuing Airworthiness, Part B, paragraph 9.6.5.


The database may be established using the data system NORCAS.



DATE(S)

BSL B 1-3 will be reviewed and updated to be in compliance with Doc. 9760. To be coordinated via Legal Department and Forskriftsforum.

CAA (T) 01.07.2007

Database for unapproved parts will be established.

01.10.2007


APPENDIX 3-5-5



The CAA procedures indicate that approvals of MEL and RVSM are to be issued by the Flight Operations Department after coordination with the Airworthiness Department. However, there is no documented evidence of the actual participation of the Airworthiness Department in the approval process.





DATE(S)

The processes involving participation with other departments/sections need revisiting. This should be done during the revision of the internal QMS.


Operations Inspector Handbook will then be revised accordingly to cover appropriate checklists and associated record keeping.

The internal procedures for Ops. Dep. has to be updated to include the airworthiness section when approving RVSM and MEL


APPENDIX 3-5-6



The EASA Implementing Rules composed of the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1702/2003 of 24 September 2003 and the Commission Regulation (EC) No 2042/2003 of 20 November 2003 were transposed into the Norwegian regulatory framework. However, the certification specifications, the acceptable means of compliance, and the guidance material associated with these Implementing Rules were not formally adopted by Norway.





DATE(S)

The certification specifications, the acceptable means of compliance, and the guidance material will be communicated / published on the internet (CAA-N homepage) and further implemented in internal CAA procedures.

CAA (T) Before April 2007


APPENDIX 3-6-1

CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN PROPOSED BY NORWAY RELATED TO AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT AND INCIDENT INVESTIGATION

AUDIT FINDING AIG/01

The investigators of the Accident Investigation Board of Norway (AIBN) are issued credentials which do not explicitly reflect the delegation of authority and associated powers provided by the legislation and regulations. In addition, the AIBN has not established means to clarify the entitlements of the various types of participants in the investigations that it undertakes.


The AIBN agrees with the finding of the ICAO audit team



DATE(S)

Develop appropriate credentials identifying the delegation of authority and powers provided to the AIBN inspectors with references to applicable legislation and regulations

AIBN Before July 2007

Develop a document that identifies accredited representatives, advisers and other experts that participate in the investigations that AIBN undertakes. This document will also serve as credential to various categories of participants clarifying entitlements and obligations.



APPENDIX 3-6-2



The AIBN has established a training policy and has developed regular training plans for its investigators. The AIBN has started to develop a training programme for its investigators. However, this programme does not yet contain the details of the on-the-job training that has to be provided to the investigators.


The AIBN agrees with the finding of the ICAO audit team. As stated in the finding, AIBN has a training policy and regular training curriculum, but we do not see the need for a formalisation of the on-the-job training part of the program. This will include all the official and internal topics to be covered (laws, regulations, AIBN Management system, internal procedures and templates etc.) and a time schedule for the whole period. This will normally take place the first 6 months of employment. This document will be implemented in the regular training curriculum, and be included in the training record for each employee. The AIBN will also continue to improve the system for monitoring the implementation of the training program. Both these items will be included in our Management system.



DATE(S)

Develop a formal document outlining the various topics in which on-the-job training is to be provided. This will also include a time schedule for the on-the-job training period.


Establish a system for monitoring the effective and timely implementation of AIBN training programme and plans. The AIBN will develop a matrix listing all the various topics to be included in the on-the job training period, as well as all the items that is included in the regular training program. This will contain a “tick off” column for each inspector, in order to function as a dynamic monitoring system.



APPENDIX 3-6-3



The AIBN has established procedures for the notification of accidents and serious incidents, as applicable, to the States involved (in accordance to ICAO’s Annex 13) and to ICAO. However, these procedures have not been systematically followed, particularly with respect to the notification to ICAO.


The AIBN agrees with the finding of the ICAO audit team. The Notification procedure (P-0127) in the AIBN Management System is in accordance with ICAO Annex 13. AIBN will establish the following means to ensure that notifications are systematically and promptly sent to all States involved and, when applicable, to ICAO.



DATE(S)

AIBN will add two columns: “Notification of States” and “Notification of ICAO” in the Excel workbook (log) that is being used as a checklist for IIC`s and for the documenting progress in all investigations.

AIBN Before January 2007

Compliance with international notification obligations will be actively monitored in the AIBN monthly progress meetings.

AIBN Before February 2007


APPENDIX 3-6-4



The AIBN has developed guidance material related to the conduct of aircraft accident and incident investigations. However, the AIBN has not established detailed guidelines for evaluating the accident and incident notifications as well as for deciding on the type of investigation to be conducted and the associated actions to be taken (e.g. deployment of a team to the site of the occurrence, conduct of interviews, and use of recorders). In particular, there is no formal process or guidelines to determine which cases of air traffic service (ATS)-related incidents (e.g. separation infringements and runway incursions) should be investigated by the AIBN.


The AIBN agrees with the finding of the ICAO audit team, but we would like to express the following comments: Among others the AIBN has specific guidelines for when to deploy a team to a site of occurrence (fatalities, serious injuries, media interest etc.) but they will be more specifically described in our Management system. For less serious accidents/occurrences, there will always be an evaluation between the inspector on duty and Head of section in order to make these decisions. There is a big span of ATS-related incidents, and the AIBN does not want to be bound by specific instruction for which occurrences to conduct an investigation or not. An incident that by the first impression seems less serious may later prove to be an incident with a high potential for safety recommendations and vice versa. The AIBN will continue to consider each occurrence individually. When in doubt, the most experienced inspectors are involved in the discussion. The new regulation concerning notification and reporting of accidents and incidents (proposed for implementation next year) will have a list of occurrences, especially ATS-occurrences, which will also be of importance when it comes to make these decisions. The AIBN will, however, develop a checklist to make it easier to evaluate accident and incident notifications. This work will also include actions to improve our internal guidelines concerning what type of investigations to be conducted. It is important though to express, that the checklist and guidelines will be advisory only. The AIBN finds it difficult to establish a formal process and guideline to determine which cases of ATS related incidents to be investigated. We will continue to consider each notification individually and will use common sense in order to make the right decisions.






DATE(S)

Develop an advisory checklist for evaluating accidents and incident notifications.


Develop advisory guidelines for deciding on type of investigation to be conducted. This will also include advisory guidelines for ATS related occurrences.



APPENDIX 3-6-5



The AIBN has signed an agreement with the CAA related to the appointment of Norway’s accredited representative to an investigation conducted by another State. The AIBN has also developed some procedures related to this appointment. However, no guidelines have been established regarding the participation of Norway’s accredited representative and advisers in an investigation conducted by another State in order to ensure that Norway's rights and duties are adequately fulfilled. Furthermore, the agreement between the AIBN and the CAA does not address the appointment of an expert from Norway (according to the definition in paragraph 5.27 of ICAO’s Annex 13) in cases where Norway has suffered fatalities or serious injuries to its citizens. No procedures or guidelines have been developed concerning the participation of Norway’s expert in an investigation conducted by another State.


The AIBN agrees with the finding of the ICAO audit team



DATE(S)

Expand the agreement between the CAA and AIBN to cover also expert participation abroad in cases where Norway has suffered fatalities or serious injuries to its citizens.

CAA/AIBN Before May 2007

Establish guidelines in the AIBN Management System for AIBN personnel that act as accredited representatives, advisers and experts in investigations conducted by other states.



APPENDIX 3-6-6



The AIBN is required by the Norwegian regulations to complete an investigation, if possible, within 12 months of the occurrence date, accompanied by the release of the associated final report. However, a number of investigations have remained open for several years.


The AIBN agrees with the finding of the ICAO audit team. However, AIBN would like to make the following comments: During the last years, AIBN has moved to new locations, expanded to multi mode investigation board and developed a new Management System. These extraordinary activities have generated an increased workload for the Aviation section, resulting in a number of investigations exceeding the 12 months completion time. Traditionally, AIBN has investigated incidents not classified as serious. This is in accordance with the Norwegian Aviation Act. In order to complete investigations in a timely manner, it has been decided that only accidents and serious incidents will be investigated until the workload has been reduced sufficiently. In addition, extra personnel have been hired for a limited time period in order to finalize old ongoing investigations. This item will also be on the agenda in the upcoming Nordic AIG meeting in October, as AIBN would like to discuss with the other Nordic countries how they cope with this problem. They (Denmark and Sweden) seem to have a lower number of ongoing investigations than the AIBN.



DATE(S)

Hire extra personnel for a limited time period in order to finalize old ongoing investigations.

AIBN Already implemented. 2 extra inspectors

engaged

Until further, AIBN will only investigate accidents and serious incidents.

AIBN Already implemented.

AIBN will evaluate the effectiveness of these actions in July 2007 in order to determine whether further action will be required.



APPENDIX 3-6-7



The CAA has a system to follow up on safety recommendations. However, the CAA has not established a documented procedure to ensure that it informs a State forwarding a safety recommendation to Norway of the response to this safety recommendation.





DATE(S)

The CAA will change the job description for the coordinator, and the mandate of the accident/incidents meeting to include safety recommendations from other countries. Follow up of these recommendations will be done in the same way as the national, and the ministry of Transport will be kept updated on the status. In addition the procedure will be changed so as the authority in the country that has given a recommendation get a feedback of action taken.

CAA (UH) November 2006


APPENDIX 3-6-8



The CAA has been given the responsibility of forwarding preliminary reports and accident/incident data reports to ICAO and to States so entitled as per Chapter 7 of ICAO’s Annex 13. However, preliminary reports have not been systematically forwarded to ICAO and to these States in the last few years.


Forwarding reports will be made integral part of the process of entering reports into the ECCAIRS database in order to ensure consecutive and timely reporting to ICAO



DATE(S)

Formalizing the current procedure for entering reports into the ECCAIRS database, and expand this procedure to include e-mailing preliminary reports and data reports to ICAO as a mandatory step for completion of each report entry.

CAA (ANALYSE)

Before January 2007


APPENDIX 3-6-9



The Aviation Act provides for the protection of the sources of information in the case of incident reports. However, Norway has not yet implemented a voluntary incident reporting system.





DATE(S)

Voluntary incident reporting is Recommended Practise in Annex 13. The CAA feel that the European directive for occurrence reporting in civil aviation 2003/42/EC, cover the intentions. Norway is currently developing a new system for occurrence reporting according to the directive 2003/42/EC. The system establishes means of occurrence reporting directly to the authority. The person reporting will be protected by regulations in the Norwegian Aviation Act ensuring anonymity (disidentification), confidentiality and a non-punitive system.

CAA (UH) July 2007

This occurrence reporting system will be in operations from July 2007, and the regulations to cover it from the same time.


APPENDIX 3-7-1

CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN PROPOSED BY NORWAY RELATED TO AIR NAVIGATION SERVICES

AUDIT FINDING ANS/01

Although Norway provides meteorological services, aeronautical maps and charts and AIS, it has not promulgated regulations to implement the provisions of ICAO’s Annex 3, Annex 4 and Annex 15. Concerning the provisions of Annex 11, a number of them are included in the regulations “BSL G series,” while other provisions as well as the PANS-ATM are incorporated into the Regelverk for Lufttrafikktjenesten (Instructions for Air Navigation Services or RFL for short), Part I. However, the RFL is not a regulation, as it is developed and maintained by the air traffic services provider and is not issued by the CAA or the Ministry of Transport and Communications.





DATE(S)

1. Establish regulation on the provision of

meteorological services in accordance with ICAO’s Annex 3.

CAA (F)

Sep 2007

2. Establish regulation on the provision of Aeronautical Information Service in accordance with EC SES Regulation 550/2004 and ICAO Annex 15

Jul 2007

3. stablish regulation on the production and promulgation of aeronautical charts in accordance with ICAO Annex 4.

Jan 2008

4. Establish regulation on the provision of ATS in accordance with ICAO PANS-ATM Doc 4444. and ICAO Annex 11. Transpose the RFL II “Regelverk for lufttrafikktjenesten” to national regulation.

Jul 2007


APPENDIX 3-7-2



No evidence was provided to show that policies and procedures are established and implemented for coordination between ATS on one hand and the aircraft operators, meteorological services and aeronautical information services on the other hand.





DATE(S)

In cooperation with the national service provider, identify any lack of procedures and policies in accordance with ICAO Annex 11 on the coordination between ATS, on one hand, and aircraft operators, meteorological services and aeronautical information services on the other hand. (Reference Annex 11 2.15, 2.16, 2.17, 2.19 and 2.20)

CAA (F) Mar 2007


APPENDIX 3-7-3



There is no regulatory framework covering the development of visual and instrument flight procedures. In actual practice, procedures development is undertaken by Avinor, the service provider, which follows ICAO’s PANS-OPS provisions (but with a number of differences as published in the AIP of Norway) within the framework of a quality management system developed in collaboration with Det Norske Veritas (DNV). However, the CAA has no role in the quality management system and does not conduct any oversight of the PANS-OPS service provided. This lack of oversight has consequential effects in a number of related areas, including:

• inadequate definition of functions and responsibilities of the PANS-OPS inspectorate; • lack of job descriptions for PANS-OPS inspectorate staff; • failure to establish minimum qualifications and experience for PANS-OPS

inspectorate staff; • lack of a training programme detailing the initial technical training to be provided to

PANS-OPS inspectorate staff; • lack of a periodic plan for recurrent technical training; • lack of on-the-job training (OJT) for PANS-OPS inspectorate staff prior to the

assumption of duties; and • lack of a mechanism or system with time frame for the elimination of deficiencies

identified by PANS-OPS inspectorate staff.


One inspector currently participating in a 6 weeks training course in CAA Singapore



DATE(S)

Establish regulation on the production of PANS- OPS procedures in accordance with ICAO PANS-OPS and Doc 8168 Vol II “Construction of Visual and Instrument Flight Procedures” and PANS ATM Doc 4444 related to safety review of ATS route structure.

CAA (F) Jan 2008






DATE(S)

Establish a regulatory framework with job-descriptions, training and procedures for regulatory oversight of the production of PANS-OPS procedures and recruit specialists as required.


APPENDIX 3-7-4



There is no regulatory framework covering AIS. The CAA conducts oversight over the local AIS provided on aerodromes. However, the CAA does not conduct any oversight over the headquarters operations of the AIS service provider. This lack of oversight has consequential effects in a number of related areas, including:

• There is an insufficient number of staff to carry out oversight of all aspects of the

service provider’s operation. • The functions and responsibilities of the AIS inspectorate staff are not adequately

defined. • Job descriptions have not been developed for AIS inspectorate staff. • The minimum required qualifications and experience for AIS inspectorate staff have

not been defined. • There is a lack of a training programme indicating the initial technical training to be

provided to AIS inspectorate staff. • There is a lack of a periodic plan for recurrent technical training. • There is a lack of OJT for AIS inspectorate staff prior to their assumption of duties.





DATE(S)

Establish a regulatory framework with job-descriptions, training and procedures for regulatory oversight covering AIS and based on new regulations ref. ANS/01.

CAA (F) Jan 2008


APPENDIX 3-7-5



There is no regulatory framework covering cartographic services. The CAA does not conduct any oversight over the cartographic service provider. This lack of oversight has consequential effects in a number of related areas, including:

• There is an insufficient number of staff to carry out oversight of the service

provider’s operation. • The functions and responsibilities of the cartographic inspectorate staff are not

adequately defined. • Job descriptions have not been developed for cartographic inspectorate staff. • Minimum required qualifications and experience for cartographic inspectorate staff

have not been defined. • There is a lack of a training programme indicating the initial technical training to be

provided to cartographic inspectorate staff. • There is a lack of a periodic plan for recurrent technical training. • There is a lack of OJT for cartographic inspectorate staff prior to their assumption of

duties.





DATE(S)

Establish a regulatory framework with job-descriptions, training and procedures for regulatory oversight covering cartographic services in accordance with new regulations ref. ANS/01.

CAA (F) Jan 2008


APPENDIX 3-7-6



In Norway, the meteorological (MET) offices do not issue local routine reports or local special reports. ICAO’s Annex 3, paragraphs 4.3.1 and 4.3.2.a) require that local routine reports be issued for dissemination at the aerodrome of origin, intended for arriving and departing aircraft, except as otherwise agreed between the meteorological authority, the appropriate ATS authority and the operator concerned. No evidence of such an agreement was made available. In addition, Annex 3, 4.4.2.a) also requires that local special reports be issued for dissemination at the aerodrome of origin, intended for arriving and departing aircraft. The Annex does not provide the possibility of any exception to the Annex in this case.





DATE(S)

Establish a regulatory framework with procedures for regulatory oversight covering meteorological services in accordance with new regulations ref. ANS/01.

CAA (F) Sep 2007


APPENDIX 3-7-7



In Norway, integrated aeronautical, maritime and overland search and rescue services are provided under the overall responsibility of the Ministry of Justice and Police. The Office of the Auditor General of Norway (Riksrevisjonen) oversees the Rescue Coordination Centres (RCCs) at the management level. However, no operational or technical oversight of the RCCs is undertaken. No concern regarding the provision of search and rescue services was identified by the audit team.





DATE(S)

The search and rescue service is governed by the Ministry of Justice and Police. The 10 Sea King helicopters are owned by the Ministry, but operated and maintained by the military. The helicopters are based at military or joint military/civil airports. The 2 RCCs coordinate the aeronautical, overland and marine rescue services in north and south Norway respectively.

CAA (D/KS)

The CAA has already and will further discuss this finding with the Ministry of Transport and Communications, as the question is not only about manpower/resources and a new area for inspection, but also a political question.

To be specific the CAA will suggest that the CAA will start to inspect/audit in accordance with annex 12 after they have been given the authority to do so. An answer to whether this will be delegated to the CAA, can be expected within 2007.

31. December 2007

Regulations and procedures to start oversight of the RCCs will then be developed

31. December 2008


APPENDIX 3-8-1

CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN PROPOSED BY NORWAY RELATED TO AERODROMES

AUDIT FINDING AGA/01

As part of an “approval process” for aerodromes (which corresponds to the aerodrome certification process), the development of two manuals, a quality manual and a safety management manual, is required. The contents of these manuals are similar to those required by ICAO for an aerodrome manual. However, there is no manual available in accordance to Volume 1 of Annex 14 and the associated guidance material (ICAO’s Doc 9774 - Manual on Certification of Aerodromes).





DATE(S)

Norway intends to require an Aerodrome Manual according to Doc. 9774 as part of the next update of the relevant Norwegian regulation BSL E 4-1.

CAA (F) 1. January 2008


APPENDIX 3-8-2



The requirements for rescue and firefighting operations, including extinguishing agent specifications, quantities and discharging rates, are detailed in the Norwegian regulations and also published in the AIP of Norway. As of 1 January 2005, the level of protection provided at an aerodrome in relation to rescue and firefighting operations should be equal to the aerodrome category that is determined using the principles contained in Annex 14, Volume I, Chapter 9. However, this requirement is not included in the relevant Norwegian regulation (i.e. BSL E 4-4).





DATE(S)

The updated Norwegian regulation BSL E 4-4 was issued 1. July 2006, and the level of RFF protection equal to the aerodrome category shall be fully effective 1. January 2008.

CAA (F) Jan 2008


APPENDIX 3-8-3



Norwegian aerodromes publish their capability to remove disabled aircraft from the movement area in accordance with Annex 15, Appendix 1. However, Norway does not require nor does it ensure that aerodromes prepare and arrange for, as required, adequate plans for the removal of disabled aircraft.





DATE(S)

Norway intends to require that aerodrome operators establish and implement plans for removal of disabled aircraft as part of the next update of the relevant Norwegian regulation BSL E 4-1.

CAA (F) 1. January 2007


APPENDIX 3-8-4



A process for the certification (approval) of aerodromes is established and implemented for all aerodromes open for public use. However, the CAA has not established documented procedures regarding the evaluation of the impact of proposed changes to the aerodrome’s physical characteristics, facilities or equipment.





DATE(S)

CAA-Norway will establish and implement a procedure on how to handle proposed changes to an aerodrome’s certification requirement within 1. December 2006. The certification requirements include design, operations, ownership etc.

CAA (F) Dec 2006


APPENDIX 3-8-5



Norway has established an AIS provider under the umbrella of Avinor, a State-owned company. Aeronautical data related to aerodromes are delivered directly by the aerodrome operator to the AIS provider. The CAA has not established a process to ensure that the accuracy and integrity of aerodrome data is verified to guarantee compliance with the requirements contained in Annex 14, Volume I, Chapter 2 and detailed in Appendix 5 of the same Annex.





DATE(S)

An updated Norwegian regulation BSL E 3-2 was effective 1. September 2006, and requirements for accuracy and integrity of aerodrome data according to Annex 14, Vol. 1, chapter 2 are included in chapter 17.

CAA (F) September 2006

Our aim is that the process to verify that aerodrome data meet the requirements will be effective June 2007

1. July 2007

— END —


Norway Final Report - cfapp.icao.int · Final Safety Oversight Audit Report — Norway February...

Documents

Transcript of Norway Final Report - cfapp.icao.int · Final Safety Oversight Audit Report — Norway February...