Iata Operational Audits.. Worth What??

[choxon]

It has recently been announced that PIA are about to be banned by most of Europe on Safety grounds.
And yet, they are a current IATA member with a valid IOSA registration???
One has to wonder what these IOSA audits REALLY achieve?

[Voel]

It is my understanding that airlines are banned because of that country's Civil Aviation Authority poor performance (inspection, safety oversight etc) and not of the airline's own safety record. Just check the "blacklist" of the EU. They got some reputable airlines on that, although they have an excellent safety record.

Our CAA fully supports the IOASA by IATA as it is a good safety oversight tool against which the airline could measure itself.

[Ancient Observer]

Voel,
UK CAA does not support IOASA by IATA when IATA say that it is the only safety check needed - which they have been saying.

[Akktu Stakki]

IATA is gaining from IOSA!

[choxon]

I think you will find that the UK CAA do not accept the IOSA audit as a replacement for any JAA auditing requirement as IOSA never consulted or involved them at the inception or since.

I also find it hard to believe that the EU would ban an airline if they were concerned with that airline's country of registation. I understand for example that only the new 777s (7) are allowed into Europe and that would imply that the EU are not happy with the safety of the rest of the fleet...some 36 other aircraft?

[Elohssanaig]

IOSA also means business for the IATA Safety, Operations and Infrastructure division, the IATA Marketing and Commercial Services division as well as the accredited audit organisations and the endorsed training organisations!

[Tyrekicker2]

As with any audit, the IOSA auditors have to be satisfied with what they are shown during their visits.
What happens after they leave? Are the standards maintained at same level between audits? These questions can be asked of all departments of all organisations. Ask yourself - are all your flights the same as your check rides?
Bear in mind IOSA was originally conceived to reduce the amount of safety audits carriers make on each other for commercial purposes (e.g. codeshare), saving money for the carriers. It developed from there to become a system that has been endorsed by several CAA's from the "first world" as well as the developing countries.
You can find the IOSA checklists on the IATA website www.iata.org/iosa if you want to see what a carrier has to achieve to be compliant.

[G-WHOT]

No different to paying a huge amount of money to independant consultants who write a report that may sound great but no force of law. Rember IATA are a trade organisation there to make money to support themselves and promote the commercial interests of member airlines.

One bit of good they did for safety was indroducing the Dangerous Goods Regulations many years before the ICAO equivalent.

[old,not bold]

Iata Operational Audits.. Worth What?

Described to me as "a time-wasting distraction from regulatory oversight and compliance stemming from ICAO requirements, and national laws giving those requirements legal force (via EASA in the case of EU States)."

In short, worth nothing.

Is this a harsh view?

[Voel]

Old, not bold, I think your statement is bit harsh. We know that most CAA's in developing countries do not perform as they supposed to do. This obviously has a negative effect not only on the aircraft operators of that country, but other operators operating within or overflying that specific country. IATA has introdcued various measures to overcome that problem. One is the In-Flight-Broadcasting-Procedure (IFBP) in certain regions of the world. This has improved aviation safety tremendously in the effected regions. The other measures taken by IATA is the IOSA. This will not be the last safety measure they will take to improve aviation safety. I am not an IATA member, but rest assured, I tell those safety measures work.

[old,not bold]

Voel,

Yes, I see the value of the IOSA in a state where satisfactory National Aviation Authority oversight is lacking. It is clearly a pragmatic way of improving the safety standards of airlines in that situation.

But is this a cure for the fundamental problem of NAA's who - for one reason or another - do a bad job, or is it just papering over the cracks in the system?

IATA should not seek to provide an alternative to ICAO, for the very good reason that ICAO's requirements are backed by international agreement by Member States, and therefore by law. IATA is a voluntary membership organisation primarily concerned with commercial interests, with the limitations that this imposes.

None-the-less, in the short term, I think your defence of IOSA's and other measures, as a means of achieving better safety today rather than tomorrow, is entirely convincing.

[choxon]

Sadly, I believe all is not what it seems with IOSA. When it started there were some very good and strict rules. For example: the Organistion about to do the audit must not have consulted with that airline in the previous two years. Even listed individual auditors must not have worked with the auditee in the past 2 years or have a relative in that company! But before the 2 year validity of the Registration expires the same Audit Organisation can and probably will come in again to do another audit to renew before the expiry! What if they now discover problems that were not found the first time round?

I am told that many if not all the Audit Organistaions certiified to do these audits DO earn more money for themselves by going into the airline concerned as consultants to prepare them for the IOSA audit, usually under a slightly different name. The conflict of interests is obvious! It also demanded that no Audit company could do an audit on a member of the same Group of companies. This certainly does happen and what about alliances like One World and Star etc? is this not a group?

All in all it has sadly and simply become a money earner for IATA with some good, no doubt, being done in 3rd and 4th world airlines. The major National Authorites of Europe have major reservations about its effectiveness and most do not accept it as a replacement of any responsibility placed on the AOC holder. Does anyone know what EASA feels about IOSA?

[merlinxx]

IATA is commercial, ICAO is legal which states have to apply. IATA makes money from/for members, it's not a legal entity as far as Flight Safety and compliance is concerned. Please lets make a dif between trade bodies and International UN concerns.

[choxon]

This just found in an e mail today... coming from the home of IATA??

said Transport Canada is handing off too much responsibility to
airlines to set and carry out their own safety protocols.

He was commenting on proposed amendments to the act, which he says still
don't allow for enough federal oversight on the industry.

"What concerns me ... is you're relying on the carriers themselves to
discover violations or weaknesses in their system," Moshansky said in an
interview yesterday. "It's like the fox being in charge of the hen house."