Started a review of the proposed Annex 19 but first a quote from PAIN post #1696 , which is particularly pertinent… “The proposed ICAO Annex 19, is designed, in part, to assist less fortunate countries achieve compliance with ICAO benchmarks. The Australia - ICAO final report on Safety Oversight Audit of Australia (Feb 2008) released January 2009 provides an excellent starting point for comparison.
There is ever a widening gap between ICAO and the existing Australian version. Annex 19 is about to make that gap almost too large to span. The issues need to be addressed, urgently and properly if Australia is to retain a tenuous hold on its current classification.”
So to the review and warning this is a long post!
From Page 19 of Annex 19:
3.1.2 The acceptable level of safety performance to be achieved shall be established by the State.
Note.— An acceptable level of safety performance for the State can be demonstrated through the implementation and maintenance of the SSP as well as safety performance indicators and targets showing that safety is effectively managed, built on the foundation of implementation of existing safety-related SARPs.
This means both FF and ATSBeaker will have to define what are acceptable levels of safety for different types of aviation and how they will measure those levels, probably with leading and lagging safety indicators. That way, all parties will know what they're being judged against, and FF will be called to account if (as is the norm) they launch an original punitive frolic.
From page 26 (my bold):
3.3 The State shall ensure that inspectors are provided with guidance that addresses ethics, personal conduct and the avoidance of actual or perceived conflicts of interest in the performance of official duties.
Well, well Houston we may have a problem?? Not very accommodating for all those imbedded sociopaths like Wodger and that camp guy ‘Bull’.
Then there is page 27 which is headed ‘Resolution of safety issues’(my bold):
8.1 The State shall use a documented process to take appropriate corrective actions, up to and including enforcement measures, to resolve identified safety issues.
8.2 The State shall ensure that identified safety issues are resolved in a timely manner through a system which monitors and records progress, including actions taken by service providers in resolving such issues.
It also looks like the 'gotcha loopholes' in the EM, SM (and presumably IM) may have to be revisited and the ‘due process’ documentation required in those docs will have to be strongly adhered to or else!
Page 29 paragraphs 1.2 and 1.3 would appear to mean that FF and ATSBeaker would have to have in place accountable managers that are answerable for compliance with documented SSP procedures. Hmm…wonder how that will go down with the FF and bureau execs currently running the shop?
Next on page 30 we have ‘2.1 Hazard identification’ and ‘3.1 Safety performance monitoring and measurement’, which are less immediate issues for the State service providers. However given the recent track record of blaming and flogging pilots (e.g Dom) these parts of the SSP could potentially cause some major areas of discomfort down the track.
Quoting from page 33 (my bold):
1.3 Accident and incident investigation
The State has established an independent accident and incident investigation process, the sole objective of which is the prevention of accidents and incidents, and not the apportioning of blame or liability. Such investigations are in support of the management of safety in the State. In the operation of the SSP, the State maintains the independence of the accident and incident investigation organization from other State aviation organizations.
Well although the bureau is supposedly ‘independent’ there is one thing that this inquiry has shown and that is the reality is an entirely different matter... “ Beaker please explain!”
Heading of paragraph 1.4 is ‘Enforcement Policy’, and there is enough people on here (and elsewhere..AMROBA, DK, DJ etc) that have an opinion on how that’s working out for the ‘State’, hmm..“Third Reich comes to mind!”
Page 33 and paragraph 2.1 is headed ‘Safety requirements for the service provider’s SMS’. Which again places a requirement on FF to have in place the policies/procedures to ensure transparency in administration. To ensure ICAO compliance these policies will be periodically reviewed…not sure if the Doc’s going to like that too much!
Finally (for now at least) on page 34 we have:
3.1 Safety oversight
The State has established mechanisms to ensure effective monitoring of the eight critical elements of the safety oversight function. The State has also established mechanisms to ensure that the identification of hazards and the management of safety risks by service providers follow established regulatory controls (requirements, specific operating regulations and implementation policies).
These mechanisms include inspections, audits and surveys to ensure that regulatory safety risk controls are appropriately integrated into the service provider’s SMS, that they are being practised as designed, and that the regulatory controls have the intended effect on safety risks.
Fairly long winded I know, however it would appear that FF must have in place a robust fully accountable framework for administering the SSP.
Yeah like that’s going to happen while the present numbnuts are minding the Fort??
Much more to follow me thinks! 