Value of ICAO docs

[carpediem86]

I was wondering if anyone could tell me what is the legal value of ICAO documents, such as Doc 8186 and Doc 4444. Are their provisions compulsory upon the member States or is it to the discretion of the States to decide which they will actually implement? I am mostly referring to the provisions for the TCAS-RA and ATC order conflict. Also, what is the legal value of the Eurocontrol ESARRs?

Lastly, would anyone have on an electronic form ICAO Doc. 9660? If so i would really appreciate a link,or if someone could send it to me. Thank you all so much in advance!:)

[niknak]

Generally, it is assumed that member states will adhere and adopt ICAO regulations unless they file a difference within their own procedures.
The UK CAA have a number of differences within their own procedures from ICAO and these are listed in the appropriate documents, UKAIP etc.

As for electronic copies of ICAO doc's, they cost a small fortune to buy as hard copies and I've yet to see them available on line without any siginificant charge.

[NavMonkey]

I guess the Annexes (as Annexes to an International Convention) have legal status (modified by filed differences) but I had always understood that the Docs were just good practice that can be taken and applied by the States as they see fit. I'm not sure they are binding in the same sense :confused:

niknak - you can download many of the ICAO docs courtesy of the Danish CAA here (http://dcaa.slv.dk:8000/icaodocs/).

[Spitoon]

At least some of your answer is at the beginning of the documents. Doc 4444 PANS-ATM, for example, says:
3. Status
3.1 The Procedures for Air Navigation Services (PANS) do not have the same status as the Standards and Recommended Practices. While the latter are adopted by Council in pursuance of Article 37 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation, subject to the full procedure of Article 90, the PANS are approved by the Council and recommended to Contracting States for worldwide application.

3.2 While the PANS may contain material which may eventually become Standards or Recommended Practices (SARPs) when it has reached the maturity and stability necessary for adoption as such, they may also comprise material prepared as an amplification of the basic principles in the corresponding SARPs, and designed particularly to assist the user in the application of those SARPs.

4. Implementation
The implementation of procedures is the responsibility of Contracting States; they are applied in actual operations only after, and in so far as, States have enforced them. However, with a view to facilitating their processing towards implementation by States, they have been prepared in language which will permit direct use by air traffic services personnel and others associated with the provision of air traffic services to international air navigation.

[niknak]

Nav Monkey,

useful to know, thank you.

[Ferrobus]

Hello to everybody !.


OACI - ICAO Docs, are recommendations. This recommendations should be applied later by means of local regulations, who must be adapted to this recommendations. Of course, if you want to operate an airport, provide an ATM service, or a CNS one ... even If you want to fly a plane as a pilot, you should follow this ICAO recommendations !!. This is, as far as I know, about the legal aspects of the ICAO-OACI recommendations.

ESARR regulations ( Eurocontrol Safety Regulation Requirements ) are issued by the Safety Regulatory Commission ( SRC ) of Eurocontrol. SRC made the development of harmonised regulations and requirements for the European Air traffic Management. For example, it's well known the implementation of the SES (Single European Sky ) Legislative Package, which by means of a Commission Regulation ( Eg: EC 2096 /2005) , and published in the Official Journal of the European Commission, gave this "legal value" for the use of the ESARR regulations across the ECAC states. Of course, if you want to be considered "within the SES area" this regulations must be transposed into your local regulations, and published too in the State Official Journal.

The objectives are, more or less, the same. To adopt as much as safety regulations as possible to reach a common minimum level around ECAC States... and around all the world ( Or the states who signed the International Convention of Civil Aviation ).

So, back to your post, in which of the six ESARR's are you interested ?

Regards


PS Useful link Nav. Thanks !

[Spitoon]

I think Ferro may have simplified things a little too much (and, maybe, got the emphasis the wrong way around).

Eurocontrol member states have signed up to a convention that says they will follow rules developed by the organisation. Thus Greece, being a Eurocontrol member state should implement the ESARRs - how this is done will be determined by the State in question but will almost certainly require legislation to be introduced. The SES regulations - which incorporate many of the provisions from the ESARRs - are directly applicable in all EU member states, that is to say, they exist within the legal framework of the State and will take precedence over any national legislation relating to the same issue.

The main weakness of the ESARRs was that although binding by international convention, few States took them very seriously and there were few if any penalties for not complying. The SES regulations are rather different and have a clear legal status backed by political will. As a result, few EU member states are particularly worried about the ESARRs now but are complying with the SES regulations. The outcome is much the same - because the rules are much the same - but there is a subtle difference!

To expand a little on your original question ICAO, like Eurocontrol, is based on an international convention. Again, States that sign up to the Chicago Convention agree to implement the Standards and, as far as is practicable, the Recommended Practices in their territory. The Convention makes provision for a State to file a difference if it is not practical to comply with a SARP (but, in theory, only for as long as it takes to achieve compliance). Again, like Eurocontrol rules, the State must somehow make sure that the SARPs are complied with - this usually takes the form of transposition into local legislation (although there are other ways of achieving this, in the UK for example, much of the ATM related Annexes is not transposed into legislation but rather into regulatory requirements). The status of PANS is not the same as standards and there are differing views on the topic but a reasonable line to take seems to be that they are the equivalent of Recommended Practices - as the introductory text to Doc 4444 says 'the PANS are approved by the Council and recommended to Contracting States for worldwide application'.

As to TCAS-RA and ATC order conflict (I'm not quite sure what you mean by the latter) you won't find anything that specific in either the ESARRs or SES regulations, both sets of regulations are high-level and objective based. The SES regulations make provision for the development of further Implementing Rules (although not predominately for operating procedures) so it is possible that more detailed regulations might appear in the future.

All that said, you need a crystal ball to even guess at how things will change if, or as seems more and more likely, when EASA take over responsibility for ATM. The early indications are that they want to see a different regulatory model applied with far more detailed regulations legally enforced.

[Ferrobus]

Yes, you're right, your explanation sound much more clear that mine... and besides, yes, sadly you are again completely right concerning the application and compliance with ESARR 5, even SES regulations. As far as I know, SES Package II is in a final consultation phase despite you said, the level of compliance is not the same. Maybe because all Air Navigation Services Providers had received the Certification of compliance with SES regulations issued by each National Regulator Authority, and don't want to go further. Maybe with The introduction of EASA ( Did you read about the NPA issued by EASA -Nº 2007.16- ?) this can change, but for the moment I'm not so much optimistic.

Safety is not always equal to expensive, but an excess of "business mania" in a public service like provision of Air Navigation Services ... can carry out to a lackness of Safety. Just remember Überlingen or Linate.

Look at this link : http://www.project-mosaic.eu/

[carpediem86]

I was wondering, does anyone know how many States have ratified the Rome convention on damages caused by foreign aircraft to third parties on the surface of 1952? I think it is ICAO Doc. 7364