|
Cooperative Development of Operational Safety andContinuing
Airworthiness Programme
COSCAP
– South Asia
(Under ICAO Technical Co-operation Programme)
PROGRESS REVIEW
(Part – 1)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The COSCAP Member States which have a surface
area of 5.1 billion square kilometers in extent have a total population of
1.5 billion of people, representing nearly 23% of the World’s population,
with an annual growth rate of 1.6%.
The region has a GNI of USD 1 trillion with GNI
per capita of approximately USD 670. GDP of the region is USD 1 trillion and
GDP growth rate is 8.7%, as per the statistics of the World Bank.
The COSCAP-South Asia is the first ever
co-operative arrangement established between ICAO Contracting States under
the patronage of the ICAO Technical Cooperation Programme for the development
of operational safety and continuing airworthiness concerning commercial
aircraft operations in the participating countries.
It came into being in South Asia in 1997
with the Civil Aviation Administrations of Bangladesh, Bhutan, India,
Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka by signing a Project Document which
set out the objectives of the Project and its modus operandi executed by ICAO under a Trust Fund.
The first meeting of the Steering
Committee consisting of the Heads of Civil Aviation Administrations of the
Member States was held on 07th - 08th January 1997. The Project duration was initially for a
period of five years (Phase-I) and subsequently extended to cover another
period of five years (Phase-II) from 2002 -2007, together with a change in
its profile from a ‘ Project Status’ of limited scope to a ‘Regular Programme’
of lasting nature.
As the Programme is in its Phase-II and
is at the verge of entering into Phase-III, the intent of this paper is to
outline its overall performance in general in Part-I and critically examine
its achievements vis-à-vis the objectives, outputs and activities specified
in the Programme Document (Revision 2) in Part - II.
Achievements/ Performance in the year
06/07 is shown in italics - blue. |
|
1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND
1.2 FOUNDATION FOR THE COSCAP-SOUTH ASIA
In response to the growing emphasis of the world community for
the reduction of aircraft accidents and thus leading for the enhanced safety
in air transportation, ICAO Assembly, at its 31st Session held in 1995,
endorsed a Voluntary Safety Oversight Assessment Programme in furtherance of
its previous Resolutions on the subject matter, aiming at the improvement of
Safety Oversight capabilities of the Contracting States, which is a key
element for enhanced safety in aviation.
It also recommended inter
alia of having cooperative arrangements amongst States and establishment of
regional organizations for the development of safety oversight capabilities
of the Participating States by pooling of resources and expertise, where
necessary.
At the 30th Conference of the Directors General of
Civil Aviation, Asia Pacific Region, held in 1994, Malaysia, the need to
paying a greater attention for aviation safety was emphasized and the subject
matter was rhetoric at the various regional forums held subsequently. The
recognition and enthusiasm for a regional approach to find solutions to the
existing deficiencies in the system were further intensified by the Model
Project Document entitled ‘Co-operative Development of Operational Safety and
Continuing Airworthiness Project – (COSCAP)’ which ICAO developed and
presented at the 31st Conference of the Directors General of Civil
Aviation held in Fiji in 1995 recommending setting up of a regional project
to address issues relating to Personnel Licensing, Aircraft Operations and
Airworthiness which are dealt with in Annexes 1, 6 and 8 to the Chicago
Convention respectively.
The proposed Project was
meant to be financed by a Trust Fund managed by Technical Cooperation Bureau,
ICAO with contributions from Participating States and Donor Agencies who have
interests in aviation.
Consequent to decisions taken at a few interim meetings held
subsequently, Senior Officials of Civil Aviation Administrations of
Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka finally
met in Nepal on 30th September – 01st October 1996, together
with representatives from ICAO Regional Office, FAA, JAA, Airbus Industri,
UNDP, diplomats of States representing the SAARC countries domiciled in Nepal
and various airlines, to work out the intricacies required for the formal
establishment of the Project.
The meeting concluded with the general consensus being reached
for the formal establishment of the Project on a phased manner, initially for
a period of five years, with a Steering Committee comprising the Heads of
Civil Aviation Administration of the Participating States to steer the
Project as per the draft Project Document as revised with the inputs from the
participants.
The 1st meeting of the Steering Committee was held on
07th-08th January 1997 and thus the COSCAP-South Asia
came into being as the first ever co-operative arrangement to be established
in the world for enhancement of flight safety. 1.3 PHASE – I OF COSCAP- SOUTH ASIA
The Phase I of the Project was from 1998 to 2002. The Steering
Committee held eleven (11) meetings during this period and with the unstinted
support and shear dedication of the Chief Technical Advisor, laid a solid
foundation with the necessary administrative and operational framework for
the Project to establish itself receiving a wider recognition and credibility
not only from the Member States but also from the industry partners and donor
agencies. The Steering Committee Meetings were attended by Steering Committee
Members, ICAO officials, Representatives from Donor community, aircraft
operators.
The Project had delivered the expected outputs on many of the
objectives which were identified in Project Document, depending on the
priorities assigned by the Steering Committee during this period.
Providing both theoretical and practical training to national
technical staff, development of generic guidance material for regulatory
agencies and operators, providing on-site technical assistance to national
civil aviation administrations on matters that came under the purview of the
Project were the key areas of high priority during this phase.
Following the ICAO 34th Assembly Resolutions to
expand the scope of USOAP to cover matters connected with Aerodromes, Air Traffic
Services and Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigations, the Project
expanded its scope of work to include Aerodromes as well. Amongst many great
achievements of the Project, establishment of the South Asian Regional Flight
Safety Team (SARAST) is one of the most prominent and well appreciated
achievements of the Project during its 1st Phase.
At the end of Phase I of the Project, a total number of seventy
five (75) training activities covering various aspects relating to Personnel
Licensing, Aircraft Operations, Airworthiness, Aerodromes and Transport of
Dangerous goods by air had been conducted with the support of technical staff
mobilised by donor agencies.
A total of two thousand eight hundred and thirty one (2831)
personnel had attended these training activities representing 51 % (1421)
from the civil aviation administrations of the Member States and 49 % (1410)
from the supervising industry.
The Project Office was located in Katmandu in its 1st
Phase and the Steering Committee Members agreed to rotate the Chairman
amongst Member States annually in the alphabetical order of the names of
States.
The Total contribution to the Project at the end of Phase-I was
USD 3,115,948 sharing 41% and 55% amongst the Member States and Donor
agencies respectively.
1.4 PHASE – II OF COSCAP- SOUTH ASIA
1.4.1 Duration
: The Project entered into the Phase - II stage in 2003 with the approval
of Member States to extend the Project period for another period of five
years at the end of Phase-I .
1.4.2 Outlook:
However during this period, the outlook of the Project was changed to an
on-going Programme with the option of Steering Committee deciding on the
duration of the Programme.
1.4.3 Nature
of Work: The Phase - II of the Programme was basically a continuation
of the previous work stipulated in the Programme Document which was
undertaken under Phase – I, in order to consolidate what has been achieved
and address the work which could not be accomplished during Phase – I either
due to change of priorities or shortage of resources. However, based on the
decisions taken by the Steering Committee (6th meeting & 12th
meeting) subsequent to the initial launch of the Project, the Programme
Document was revised as Programme Document (Revision – 2) reflecting the
latest position.
1.4.4 New
Members: Although the Steering Committee had endorsed a proposal for
Civil Aviation Administration, Afghanistan to be enrolled to the Programme,
Afghanistan is yet to join the Programme. (matter is being pursued)
1.4.5 Institutionalization:
This matter was subjected to a greater scrutiny by the Steering Committee
throughout its second phase. In 2003, the Steering Committee decided to
institutionalize the COSCAP-SA Programme, retaining the ICAO Trust Fund
arrangements for the continuation of its management and operation of the
programme for the period 2004-2007. The Steering Committee felt the need to
strengthen the institutional framework of the Programme so that it would be
able to perform the role of a Regional Safety Oversight Organization (RSOO)
as recommended by ICAO to have three distinct elements viz. the mandate,
objective and purpose of RSOO, the execution of safety oversight functions by
the RSOO and the delegation of safety oversight functions to RSOO. The Steering Committee stressed that as
long as the Programme was supported by consensus, flexibility and informality
would remain an advantage as has been demonstrated during its Phase I &
Phase II. On the other hand, the Steering Committee noted that the
informality and lack of signed commitments of members might also render it
more difficult for donors to provide funds consistently. Accordingly, the
Steering Committee concluded that each Member State is to sign a Memorandum
of Understanding (MoU), embodying the Institutional Framework, which was
considered to be the most advantageous one for COSCAP-South Asia, in the
medium and long term. (Four States have already signed
– work in progress) In regard to the Programme Structure, the Steering Committee
agreed for the introduction of the two-tier concept of COSCAP core activities
vs. additional activities in order to allow more flexibility in service
provision and funding. This concept was subsequently included in the
Institutional Framework and Administrative Procedures document of COSCAP-SA
which has been formally adopted by the Steering Committee. It has also been
included in the MoU to be signed by the Participating States. The Steering Committee noted the role of regional safety
oversight organizations (RSOOs),which may range from: expert advisory and
consultative service, to the provision of technical assistance in safety oversight functions and to the
execution of safety oversight functions on behalf of member States.
Qualitatively, each of these three functions was quite different in
structure. The Steering Committee noted that COSCAP-SA’s mandate included the
first two elements but the third element required strengthening. The Steering
Committee noted that as part of the “unified strategy” of ICAO, the execution
of safety oversight functions by a RSOO on behalf and at the request of
several or all of its member States was likely to provide the greatest
dividend in terms of efficiency, quality and safety enhancement. Although
planned as part of COSCAP-SA, this important activity was not expressly
provided for in the Institutional Framework and has not been implemented at
the desirable scale.(work is in progress for
amendment of the MoU for its inclusion)
Having noted interests of various parties in aviation safety
issues in the region, the Steering Committee felt that the supporting role of
these parties was clearly important and valuable for COSCAP. In view of the
support and goodwill which these parties provide, their role needs to be
recognized more visibly under the COSCAP continuation scenario. Accordingly,
the Steering Committee agreed to extend a formal ‘partner’ status to
such agencies or organizations ensuring their active involvement.(Work in progress for development of strategy to award
Partner status by the Steering Committee).
Subject to the foregoing paragraph, it was the position of the Steering
Committee that the existing institutional structure is adequate to serve the
objectives of the Programme and it is not considered advisable to increase
its complexity and costs, by e.g. setting it up as a formal international
organization under a formal treaty or by incorporating it under national law,
as these avenues are considered unnecessary and too costly. However, in view
of the evolving needs of the Participating States, coupled with the
requirements of donors and following the evolution of other regional aviation
safety organizations, the Steering Committee may further update and enhance
the ‘Institutional Framework’, in particular in respect of Programme
structure; funding structure; and harmonization of certain standards and
procedures.
1.4.6 Harmonization of Regulations: The
Steering Committee emphasized the need to have a harmonized set of rules and
regulations in the region with the ICAO SARPs as the base and common
platform. Although setting up of higher standards would inevitably contribute
to higher level of safety, the Steering Committee observed the predicaments
faced by the Member States in setting and achieving such standards in respect
of every field relating to civil
aviation. The Steering Committee endorsed that rules relating to Aircraft
Maintenance and Repair Organizations could be an area where States can work
together initially to achieve harmonization, as an interest already in
existence to do so. (Action is in progress to
work in liaison with BAP/EU).
1.4.7 Chief
Technical Advisor: Taking into account the budgetary constraints, the
sound administrative platform already laid by the CTA, the exposure that the
RFOI had received working with the CTA during the 1st Phase of the
Programme and regionalization of the Programme, the Steering Committee decided to carry
forward the work of the Programme during its Phase-II without employing a
fulltime internationally recruited CTA. 1.4.8 Training:
As more of the
essential training required by the national staff in the fields coming under
the purview of the Programme, have been completed during the 1st
Phase, the Steering Committee focussed greater attention to impart On-the-Job
Training to national staff and supplement the national workforce by providing
in-country Technical Assistance to States in addition to conducting refresher
training depending on the requirements of the individual States. As funding
was limited, efforts were taken to continue to obtain donor support for the
trainings that were not otherwise available within the resources in
COSCAP-SA. International experts were engaged to impart training in the
areas of Safety Management Systems, Air Traffic Services and Aerodrome
Certification. In addition, various Project Specific training
programmes/workshops/ seminars were conducted with the support of ICAO
Headquarters, Regional Office, the other two COSCAP programmes in the A/P
region, Boeing Company, ISASI, Airbus Industri and other donor agencies. A
total of 6179 civil aviation and industry personnel participated in 235
COSCAP-SA training courses and workshops, since inception. The Project
Professional Staff provided over 1110 days of in-country technical assistance
to the Member States. (Work for the preparation
of long term training plan and programme, together with formal certification
of inspectors, is in progress). 1.4.9 Website : An official
website (www.coscap-sa.org)
for the COSCAP-South Asia Programme was developed for the dissemination of
information related to the work and functions performed by the Programme.
This website has recently been updated with a new address (www.coscapsa.org)
with a view to making it one-stop centre for all the information relating to
activities performed and to be performed by the Programme.(Uploading of information is in progress) 1.4.10 E-documents:
A CD developed by COSCAP-SA containing COSCAP-SA ‘training material and
documents’ was distributed amongst all Member States.(Work is in progress to re-issue an updated version of CD ) 1.4.11 Safety Management Systems and Programmes. The Steering Committee recognized that the introduction of
cost-effective systems-based on safety management programmes had proven to be
remarkably successful in identification of and minimizing risks to, and
consequently the occurrence of, aircraft accidents and incidents. Member
States were encouraged to establish safety management systems / programmes in
their States which required active participation of both the regulator and
operators involved in flight operations, maintenance, air traffic services
and aerodromes. A series of training programmes and seminars were organized
to educate the relevant staff attached to both regulators and operators, with
the assistance of ICAO and donor agencies. The Steering Committee noted that the ICAO recommended SMS
Framework, which included safety policy and objectives; safety management;
safety assurance; and safety promotion and agreed that a ‘Phased Approach’ to
building SMS was necessary for the region. A ‘Phased Approach’, would provide
manageable steps in implementing SMS and would effectively manage the
workload associated with SMS implementation. (work
is in progress to compile a table containing the progress of implementation
of SMS in each Member State) 1.4.12 Aerodrome
Certification Requirements: Taking into account the difficulties
faced by Members States and in response to their request for practical
application of the certification process, On-the-Job training was offered to
Member States by mobilizing an international expert. The Expert visited each
State, reviewed the existing regulatory arrangements for aerodrome
certification, made recommendations to overcome deficiencies, developed
generic guidance material for aerodrome certification, provided in-country
technical assistance to national staff to certify a few of international
airports. In addition a Regional Aerodrome Certification Safety Expert (RACSE)
was recruited to the Programme for the sustenance of the regional capability
for aerodrome certification to be able to offer continued assistance to
States.(Work is in progress for development of
table containing the status in regard to certification of each International
Airport in the region) 1.4.13 Personnel
Licensing: The Steering Committee provided technical assistance to
Member States by mobilizing an Expert in the field of personnel licensing and
assistance to States has been provided in respect of updating the regulatory
framework to be in line with ICAO SARPS, develop a Licensing Procedures
Manual which sets out criteria inter alia for the recognition of military
experience for the award of civil licenses to military pilots, development of
a Question Bank for the conduct of examinations for the issue of Pilot Licenses,
physical evaluation of flying training organizations. (Preparation of the Regional Personnel Licensing
Examination Question Bank is underway) 1.4.14 Air Traffic Services: COSCAP-SA extended its cooperative mechanism
to assist States to ensure expeditious, effective and efficient
implementation of the ATM Safety Management Manual/Programme in their States
and provided technical assistance to States in ATM Safety Planning and
Management arena. The Programme hired the services of Integra Consult, to assist the States to develop a Safety
Management System which is supported by such appropriate major
characteristics in safety management as National Severity Classification,
Safety Target Levels and Safety Monitoring; Legal Framework; Structure of Reporting System, Reporting
and Safety Culture and Investigation
Procedures. The Steering Committee observed that Member States needs to focus
greater attention to appreciate the importance of reporting through training;
and site visits (by COSCAP-SA) and by developing an implementation plan for
each State. The Steering Committee observed that the long term goal should be
to establish a common reporting database for the Member States.(Work is in progress to introduce ECCAIRS reporting
system for gathering and processing of
information relating to Aircraft Accidents and Incidents) Funding and
Budget. The Programme is now funded in the main by
annual contributions of the Member States. Contributions either in cash or
kind were available to the Programme from Airbus, Boeing, EC, FAA, IFFAS,
Norway, and Transport Canada. Some contributions were at different occasions
under varying conditions. The Programme funds in the Trust Fund account on
certain occasions depleted beyond the critical levels due to non-timely
receipt of annual contributions from the States causing the Programme
Management to curtail the duration of staff contracts. This caused serious
inconvenience to the technical experts concerned and disruption to the
Programme itself. The Programme has received since establishment, a total of
USD 5,372,398 in cash as Contributions from both Member States and Donors as
against the projected budget of USD 4,936,896 for ten years. The Member
States’ contributions rose to 57 % in Phase-II as against 41% in Phase I,
showing a clear commitment for continuity. Donors contribution in Phase II
was 37% as against 55% in the Phase I. The Steering Committee acknowledges
the prolific support of the donors and solicits continued assistance either
in cash or in kind or both for the successful implementation of the Programme
and sustenance of its achievements and further progression. 1.4.16 Cooperation
from Airlines for Expert Visits: The Programme has received an
overwhelming support from airlines in the Member States for the Programme
staff and experts travel on official missions. Biman Bangladesh Airlines, GMG
Airlines, Durk Airlines, Air India Indian Airlines, Jet Airways, Nepal
Airlines, Pakistan International Airlines and SriLankan Airlines were amongst
the main airliners which have provided the COSCAP-South Asia office with
gratis travel facilities. Their level of contribution is accounted by
calculating the expert-kilometers carried and multiplying it by the revenue per
average passenger kilometer for the routes in the Asia Pacific Region. (graphical presentation of their contribution will soon
be put up on the official website) . 1.4.17 Audits
under IUSOAP: States were frequently reminded of the readiness of the
Programme Staff to assist the States in making preparations for the audits
under ICAO’s USOAP Programme, development of remedial Action Plans for
deficiencies identified during the Audit process and assistance in their
physical implementation. Also States were encouraged to take part in the ICAO
Seminars and Workshop conducted in the region regarding ICAO audit process.
COSCAP-SA encouraged the Member States to share their Audit Reports in
confidence with the Regional Staff attached to the Programme. For this to
happen, each State needs to submit a written request to ICAO Headquarters
authorizing ICAO to make available the data to COSCAP-SA. Sample requests
were provided to the Members and Members were requested to consider signing
of the request and submit it to ICAO Headquarters, copied to COSCAP-SA (Action is underway for amendment of Staff contracts
with the programme for maintaining the confidentiality of classified
information) The results of the IUSOAP follow-up audit of the 162 Contracting
States show a global average of 17.46 % lack of effective implementation and
the follow-up audits results of the COSCAP-SA States stands at approximately
7.2 % lack of effective implementation. This is a marked improvement from the
initial audit results which stood at 18.47 % as against the global average of
32.6 %. Findings by Category for the COSCAP-SA States after Audit Follow up
in relation to eight critical areas are Organization (29%); Legislation
(21%); Operations (21%); Airworthiness (18%) and Licensing (11%). The COSCAP-SA has noted that Member States still need to pay a
greater attention to such important critical elements in Safety Oversight as
having Qualified Technical Personnel in their cadres, Resolution of Safety
Issues, Continued Surveillance Obligations, Approval of Maintenance and
Repair Organizations; Notification of differences; and enforcement
procedures. The States were also educated on the new arrangements under the
Comprehensive Safety Oversight Audit Programme where audit findings would be
published in terms of a MOU to be signed between the States and ICAO for the
release of them to the public. The information would be released to the
public in the ICAO Flight Safety Information Exchange (FSIX) website. A graph
depicting implementation of the critical elements would be shown as well. Member States
attention was drawn to a situation where a significant safety concern arises
when the State allows a holder of an authorization/approval to continue
exercising some privileges attached to it, when the minimum requirements
established by the State or by the provisions set forth in the ICAO Annexes
were not met. The Member States
were also informed of the necessity to nominate a National Coordinator to
coordinate matters connected with ICAO Comprehensive Safety Audit. The Steering Committee tasked the Programme Management to
review modalities including a possible draft bi-lateral Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU) to be considered for establishment between COSCAP-SA and
individual Participant States so that assistance provided by the Programme to
the States for safety oversight capabilities would be given due weightage at
the CSA audits under ICAO USOAP.(work is in
progress) 1.4.18 Regional
Expert – Home Based: In response to requests from Member States for
information on the possibilities of employing qualified inspectors outside
their established cadre, a Procedure was developed for establishment of a
Regional Expert – Home Base Roster outlining the criteria applicable for
selection of qualified personnel within the Region to be included in the
roster and the modalities to be followed in case States wish to make use of
this scheme, to fulfil their safety oversight functions. States have been
advised that a similar system can be adapted to shortlist national staff
(Nationally Recruited Professional Project Personnel (NOs), and to be
employed under COSCAP-SA, as per the established norms. (Work is in
progress to update the information previously provided by the States in
strict compliance with the procedure established) 1.4.19 South
Asia Regional Aviation Safety Team (SARAST): The Steering Committee
recognized the SARAST to be its technical arm equipped with professional and
experienced staff who are empowered to make recommendations for accident
prevention interventions to the Steering Committee and to take appropriate
actions to implement such after approval through coordinated efforts of the
regulatory authorities, the service providers, airlines and aircraft
manufacturers as applicable. The
Steering Committee has decided that all CAST / JSSI
(ESSI) recommendations are to be reviewed by SARAST and taken up for
implementation, if applicable, in a time bound manner, without the need for
reinventing the wheel, within COSCAP-SA at expense to the Programme.
Accordingly, the COSCAP-SA with the active participation of SARAST has taken
up forty six (46) Safety Enhancements (SE) developed by CAST/JSSI together
with a few regional specific SE developed by SARAST for the progressive
implementation in the region. In order to enhance the effectiveness of the SARAST,
the Steering Committee approved appointment of a SARAST Coordinator (Focal
Point) in each Member State. The Steering Committee also requested each Member
State to encourage more participation of Industry personnel at the SARAST meetings.
With the expansion of SARAST to look after the interests and concerns in Air
Traffic Management, SARAST is presently dealing with safety interventions in
respect of Flight Operations and Air Traffic Management. SARAST has hitherto
held seven (7) meetings since its creation. Based on the SE recommendations made by the SARAST, the
Programme office with the assistance of donor States where applicable, issued
a number of Safety Bulletins and Circulars for the guidance and local
adoption of the Member States. (Work is in progress for Performance based reporting on the
status of implementation of SARAST Recommendations) 1.4.20 Establishment of National Aviation Safety Team (NAST): Pursuant
to a SE recommendation made by SARAST which is aligned with the principles
advocated in the Global Aviation Road Map, the Steering Committee decided to
request each Member States to establish National Aviation Safety Team by the
end of April 2006 and to make arrangement for its continued meetings
thereafter, for the purposes of identification of deficiencies, take
appropriate corrective actions and progressive monitoring thereof for the
enhancement of aviation safety. (Plans are underway for allocation of space in COSCAP-SA
official website to display summaries of NAST meetings of Member States) 1.4.21 Coordination with Regional Projects:
COSCAP-SA was appreciative of the other modes of regional technical
assistances programmes that were available to States, especially the
assistance provided under EU-South Asia and EU-India Project, and every
effort was taken to maintain a close liaison with such Programmes to give
optimum benefits to the States by avoiding duplications and by avoiding
running regional activities concurrently. Wherever possible, COSCAP-SA
Regional Experts took part at the technical assistance programmes run by
EU-South Asia and Representatives of the EU-South Asia were invited to attend
the Steering Committee to facilitate better dialogue and cooperation. (Coordination is established with BAP/EU in regard to
development of 145 Regulations ) 1.4.22 Relocation of COSCAP-South Asia Office:
Considering the heavy burden borne by the Civil Aviation Authority of
Nepal over six years in hosting the COSCAP-SA office and in view of the need
for increased coordination between COSCAP-SA and EU South Asia Project which
was on-going, the Steering Committee decided to re-locate its Programme
Office toColombo. It helped professional development of the Regional Experts
by utilizing Advanced Courses provided by the EU onsite, which could be
re-delivered to Member States later by the Programme Staff. The Programme was
shifted to Colombo in September 2005. 1.4.23 Cost Benefit Analysis: In
order to help Member Stats ascertain the feasibility and accordingly
re-establish their position in regard to continuation of the Programme, the
COSCAP-SA presented to the Steering Committee a Cost / Benefit analysis based
on the output delivered by the Programme thus far. From the statistics of
benefit versus cost for each State, it was easily discernible that all States
have gained from the Programme though in varying degree. The average benefit
received by the States is 4.74 times the contribution. If States contributed their full share towards the Programme,
those States with a higher level of aviation activity would be required to
contribute a larger share based on the cost sharing percentage established.
However, the largest contributing State need not necessarily be the highest
beneficiary. On the contrary, smaller States with lesser aviation activity
may not have adequate infrastructure for sufficient safety oversight, as such
they presumably be in need of more
assistance from the Programme even though their share of contribution be comparatively
much less. The Steering Committee observed the cost-sharing formula has its
basic principle that the States’ costs are apportioned in accordance with the
benefits they receive. Hence, it will
be difficult to develop a formula that will be fully accurate. The
COSCAP is established in the spirit of mutual cooperation for elevating the
level of safety oversight and to provide the safest possible air
transportation system as a whole. Cost sharing arrangements should therefore
be viewed on this premise. Given the fact that international civil aviation
is thoroughly interlinked and existence in isolation is not realistic, the
larger States may therefore have to carry some of the burden of the smaller
States in order to ensure maintenance of acceptable safety standards in the
region as a whole. 1.4.24 IFFAS
Assistance: IFFAS Assistance was received by the Programme for the
employment of a short term Personnel Licensing Expert and additional IFFAS
assistance is forthcoming on the subject of Personnel Licensing and Aviation
Medicine. 1.4.25 Language Proficiency: In
line with the ICAO
requirement for operational staff to demonstrative their language proficiency
in English, States were educated on the action plan developed by the ICAO
Regional Office, Paris that is available on the internet at http://www.paris.icao.int; and the
tools are available in the form of a CD (or DVD) containing samples of
operational interviews with candidates demonstrating various accents and
various levels of proficiency, suggested ratings of the samples according to
the language proficiency rating scale, and rationales for those ratings.(Further action of the COSCAP-SA on this matter will
soon be reviewed based upon the related Assembly Resolution now available) 1.4.26 SAR Services Within Regions: the Steering Committee was appraised on recent amendments to Annex 12 — Search and Rescue and benefits of making a regional approach towards SAR
based on considerations of operational needs and capacities rather than
national borders which, from an operational and economic perspective, are
entirely arbitrary. Regionalization was the strategy by both
International Maritime Organization and ICAO in recognition of many States
with special needs, challenges and insufficiencies. A regional approach to
development will ensure greater cost effectiveness and relieve the sense of
unfulfilled obligation presently imposing on some States unable to provide a
State-wide service. The establishment of joint aeronautical and maritime RCCs (JRCCs) has been established as a Recommendation. The concept is given more emphasis in the IAMSAR Manual.
Efforts should now be made to initiate regional changes on the basis of sound operational, technical and economic considerations and attention of 17.3
the Steering Committee
has therefore drawn to use the COSCAP-SA as a forum for the exchange of
information and assist States in their
efforts to consolidate SAR service provision along regional lines. 1.4.27
Annual Work Plan : The Programme Management started
preparing Annual Work Plans for the ensuing calendar year indicating both the
routine in-country technical assistance to States and generic training
courses scheduled to be held in the region for the ensuing calendar year and
forwarded same to Steering Committee for approval. This strategy helps Member
States to prepare their own Annual Work Programmes for the following year
with a good understanding of the nature and scope of technical assistance capacity
available to the Member States through the Programme. This will also help Member
States convince IUSOAP Audit teams of the consistent technical support the
States receive from COSCAP-SA in Safety Oversight. 1.4.28
Technical Staff Strength: The Programme has a staff strength of four Regional Experts,
each responsible for Flight Operations, Airworthiness, Air Traffic Services
and Aerodromes, in addition to a full time Regional Programme Coordinator. 1.4.29
Tools for Monitoring the Implementation of SARPs: The Member States were educated on a computer software programme
developed by Republic of Korea (RoK) for the management and implementation of SARPs and ICAO State
Letters. USOAP Comprehensive Systems Approach involving all safety-related
Annexes placed greater demands on the Member States. In addition, ICAO circulates well over 100 State Letters on various
important technical matters and a considerable number of letters are issued
by ICAO Regional Office each year. Although ICAO
Safety Oversight Audit Programme has completed development of a web-based
system where States could use to complete and update ICAO Compliance
Checklists, it does not serve as an effective tool for the States to track and manage their
responses to SARPs and State Letters at the State level. The system developed
by RoK not only designed to identify SARPs differences and references to the
corresponding regulations but also a Management System that assigns
accountability within the CAA for each SARP and provides senior management
with a tool to monitor the implementation of ICAO SARPs. Likewise, the need
to review and take appropriate action on each State Letter could also be
tracked from ‘issue’ to ‘close’ and subsequent follow-up on them could be
done over the long term period. The Steering Committee was briefed about this
facility and encouraged to make use of the system. (Communication
is in progress with the RoK for possible support in this regard) 1.4.30 Work of Regional Experts Aerodrome Certification and Safety: As per ICAO SARP
introduced to Annex 14, airports serving international civil aviation need to
be certified by the State concerned and
the standard became effective 27 November 2003. The assistance of an
International Expert was acquired for a total of 14 months in three separate
assignments since 2002. Subsequently, a Regional Aerodrome Certification
Safety Expert (RACSE) was also inducted into the Programme on 24th
October, 2005 on full time basis. The RACSE provided assistance to States in
regard to reviewing of aerodrome certification regulations and aerodrome
certification procedures; national aerodrome standards; aerodrome manuals and
Inspector’s Handbook. Assistance was also provided in the area of aerodrome
SMS with efforts directed towards training and assisting States for the
development of State specific action plan related to aerodrome certification
and implementation of SMS and for the preparation of States for the ICAO
USOAP in the area of Aerodromes and Ground Aids. In addition, assistance was
provided to prepare State’s Action Plan on ICAO USOAP audit findings and also
implemention the action plan. Training
on ICAO Annex 14 Volume I Aerodrome Design and Operations was provided
in some States. Most of the States have introduced specific regulations for
aerodrome certification based on the model regulations provided in ICAO
Document 9774, while some States have developed and promulgated specific
National Aerodrome Standards based primarily on ICAO Annex 14 Volume I.
Majority of the States have established a separate organizational entity
within their national regulatory authority to deal effectively with all
aspects of aerodrome regulatory oversight. However in most States the
aerodrome safety oversight units had not satisfactorily maintained the
technical library with necessary national legislation, regulations, ICAO
Annexes, ICAO Documents and other reference documents. The COSCAP-SA has
observed that in most of the States the aerodrome manuals were still in draft
form and States were at different levels of compliance with their aerodrome
certification programme and implementation of SMS. Accordingly, the Steering
Committee set an action plan at the 16th Steering Committee
requesting Member States to come up with an implementation Programme with
target dates and notify the COSCAP-SA about the progress made. Air Traffic Services and Safety: The need to have a Safety Management Systems for Air Traffic
Services emanates form the Amendment 40 & 44 to ICAO Annex 11 - Air
Traffic Services. M/s Integra Consult
was engaged to provide 120 man-days of technical assistance to the States on
SMS for ATM through EC funding and having recognized a need for regional
support, Regional ATS Safety Expert was inducted in to the programme in
October 2005 for a period of 15 Months. During the period October 2005
to July 2006, M/s Integra Consult Experts conducted a series of
training programmes on Implementation of Safety Management Systems in Air
Traffic Services. Assistance programme included a minimum of two visits to
each State followed by detailed reporting. In its Final Report, M/s. Integra
Consult has recommended that development of regulatory framework and
performance of safety assessments should form the focus in the next Phase.
Since both these areas were of vital importance for the implementation of an
efficient safety management systems,
Integra Consult proposed training
workshops on development of Regulatory Framework for States spread
over a ten day programme and a Safety Assessment workshop spreads over a five
day programme. The COSCAP-SA has observed that few States had initiated work
in developing Safety Management Documentation such as Safety Regulations,
Safety Management Manual, Safety Oversight Manual, Safety Assessment
Documents etc. A few States had also finalized their Implementation Plan and
also the activities / implementation
process had started. Airworthiness: The
objective of the COSCAP-SA Programme at its inception was to establish a
regional capability for conducting Airworthiness Surveillance and
Certification in accordance with ICAO Annex 1, 6 and 8. Regional
Airworthiness Inspectors / Experts (RAwE) had been associated with COSCAP-SA
Programme since 1999. The current RAwE joined the Programme on 31st
October 2005 on a 12 month contract with interim extension in contract for
three months, followed by two more extensions of six months each.
International Airworthiness Experts had also been engaged in the past and in
2006 an Expert was engaged for four months in two short term assignments. COSCAP-SA has developed generic policy
and procedures manuals to guide the national airworthiness Inspectors on
certification and safety oversight functions. The Programme had also developed generic Airworthiness
Inspector Manual, Audit Procedure Manual, MMEL/MEL Policy and Procedures
Manual, which were easily adaptable by the States to reflect their own
requirements. COSCAP-SA has observed that although the national inspectors
had received intensive class room and on the job training from varied
sources, the implementation of laid down regulations was lacking. This lack
of implementation could be attributed to insufficient experience of the
inspectors, inadequate staffing, leaving of experienced and trained staff
from CAAs either due to superannuation or sheer disparity in the salary
structure/monetary benefits/ career opportunities between the CAAs and
Industry, and the delay in recruitment of new inspectors by CAAs to fill the
void created by the departing staff.The COSCAP-SA has also assisted member
States with safety audits of airlines and other operators at the specific
request of respective Directors General. These audits had not only helped
States with their regulatory oversight responsibilities but had also provided
with an excellent opportunity to give
on the job training to the National Inspectors. In addition to technical
assistance, States frequently sought guidance on interpretation of
regulations, standards and/or other technical matters related to
Airworthiness. Further, COSCAP-SA also assisted States with their preparation
for the ICAO USOAP Audits. Most States had, however, not initiated their self
audits based on the ICAO Audit Protocols. Though COSCAP-SA had provided a generic
Inspector Manual, most States had yet to develop or customize the manual as
per their own regulations. The engagement of International Airworthiness
Experts on short term assignment during 2006 had also helped in providing a
broader understanding and a global perspective of the Airworthiness
standards. The latest amendment to Annex 6 (Chapter 8 relates to Aeroplane
Maintenance) calls for implementation of Safety Management Systems by 1stJanuary
2009, it is therefore imperative that
States initiate work on SMS at the earliest. Personnel Licensing:
COSCAP-SA mobilized a Regional Personnel Licensing expert in October 2005 for
one year, which was subsequently extended up to May 2007. The scope of
technical assistance provided to States during the period October 2005 to May
2007 conformed to the provisions of USOAP Audit Protocol and the Compliance
Checklist. In brief, the activities included a review and subsequent
assistance in: legislation and regulations; organization, staffing and
training of personnel licensing staff;
facilities and equipment; processing of personnel licenses and
ratings; licenses and ratings issued by State; conversion and validation of
foreign licenses; procedures for medical assessment (administrative part);
written and oral examinations; practical and flight examinations; FRTO &
English language proficiency; and certification and surveillance of flying training
organizations. Technical
Assistance was provided in different modes and these included: an evaluation
phase; a training phase; an inspection / audits of training organization; and
provision of generic PEL regulations.
Besides, the States’ continued to make specific requests in diverse licensing areas ranging from
review of their requirements to guidance on acceptance of military experience
or drafting regulations on a specific subject. In some cases, technical
assistance visits were arranged while in others, back office support through
exchange of electronic files was considered sufficient. COSCAP-SA
has observed that some common and significant observations, not necessarily
applicable to all States to the same degree: the concept of Licensing
Authority as provided in the Annex 1 needed to be formalized; in some States,
the Personnel Licensing structure was not harmonized and centralized; in most
States, staffing of the licensing officers/Inspectors was inadequate;
qualification criteria for staff needed to be developed; the States needed to update their
regulations; some States needed to prescribe a centralized rule-making
procedure; training and testing of flight radio telephony and testing of
English proficiency required attention in the States; requirements for
written and oral examinations were not prescribed adequately; the
qualifications for the instructors (ground/flight) and Designated Check
persons in different categories of licenses were not prescribed in some
States; the recent changes in medical provisions were not updated; Aviation
Training Organizations needed to begin work on developing the `Procedures and
Training Manual’ and implement the
`Quality Assurance System’; requirements needed to be prescribed for the
acceptance of military experience and foreign experience/licence for issuance
of licence; for leased aircraft operations, a `Transfer Agreement’ was
required to be signed; the AIPs in States did not include a brief note on the
Personnel Licensing requirements of the State; States seemed to be
apparently reluctant to file `differences’ on SARPS; and updated ICAO
reference documents were not available with the licensing officers in some
States. Based on these observations, the Steering Committee directed
COSCAP-SA to consider developing Working Documents: Developing specimen working
documents for the industry such as the
`Training and Procedures Manual’, `Quality Assurance Guidance Manual’,
`Assessment Guides for Skill Tests’, `Detailed Ground Course Syllabus’,
`Detailed Flying Course Syllabus’ etc. as appropriate; and to develop a
Question Bank from the available worldwide sources of questions in different
subjects of aeronautical knowledge. Flight
Operations: This was one of the major trust areas of the
Programme since inception and the Programme has delivered numerous assistances
to States with the support of CTA and Regional Flight Operations Inspector,
employed by the Programme. After CTA left the Programme, the Regional Flight
Operations Inspector shouldered the whole responsibility and continued to
provide technical assistance to States. These assistances included work
associated with air carrier initial certification and continued surveillance
including ramp checks, en-route checks, pilot proficiency checks, simulator
evaluations, grant of approval for various special operations such as RNAV,
RVSM, ETOPS etc., approval of training
programmers and conduct of regulatory audits. Also initial
and recurrent training covering whole ambit of flight operations has been
offered to States in addition to providing assistance to comply with the
SARAST recommendations. The lack of adequately qualified and experienced
Flight Operations Inspectors attached to Civil Aviation Administrations in
sufficient numbers in some States, were the main concern in general. This has
adversely affected such State’s ability of absorption of assistance provided to sustain their
competency to perform the safety oversight functions. 1.4.31 Phase III
– At the 16th Steering Committee, it was decided that the lifespan
of the COSCAP-SA Programme be extended by another period of five years taking
it into Phase III, covering the period 2008 – 2012. 1.5
PROGRESS – 2006 -2007 The achievement of the Programme in the year under
review (i.e. from the last Steering Committee to date ) is given under Part
II (End of Part I) |
|
(Part – II) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The objectives, outputs and activities of the Programme, is
specified in the Programme Document (Revision 2 – Phase II) and this paper
outlines achievement of the Programme to date vis-a vis each item in the
Programme Document. Programmes’ general achievements / performance since
establishment is given in Part I of this Paper II. Achievements in the year
under review (from last Steering Committee to date) is given in italics-blue. 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND 2.1 At the 2nd Steering Committee Meeting
held in Kathmandu in April 1998, the priorities for the Project for the first
year were established. The 3rd through
15th Steering Committee Meetings successively reviewed these
priorities; and amendments as required, were made in the Programme Document
which is now identified as (Programme Document – Revision 2). The assignment of
priorities was based on the following criteria: i. High
- Work to achieve the objectives will be continuous. ii. Medium - Work to achieve the objectives will be done
as time permits. iii. Low - Little or no work will be undertaken on this
activity. After review of this report, decisions may
be made by the Steering Committee whether priorities require further change. 1.2
IMMEDIATE
OBJECTIVES, OUTPUTS AND ACTIVITIES Since Phase II is, in some respects, a
continuation of Phase I, the immediate objectives, outputs and activities of
the earlier Phase I of the Programme are included herein albeit sometimes in
a modified form to reflect Phase II considerations. The implementation status and the aspects
that continue to be relevant in Phase II are shown in bold italic letters
under each item |
|
IMMEDIATE
OBJECTIVE 1 Establishment of a regional capability to conduct flight
operations and airworthiness certification and surveillance in accordance
with ICAO Annexes 6 and 8 and the guidance material contained in ICAO
Document 8335 Manual of Procedures for Operations Certification and
Inspection and ICAO Document 9760 Airworthiness Manual. Output 1.1 A Steering Committee (SC), comprised of the Chairmen/Directors
General of Civil Aviation Administrations or their designated representatives
from the participating States, the Director of the Technical Co‑operation
Bureau of ICAO or his representative, the ICAO Regional Representative or his
nominee and the Programme Coordinator (PC), will be established. Concerned
donor organizations and other interested parties, as well as International
and Regional Experts assigned to the Programme, will be invited to attend
meetings of the Steering Committee and to comment upon strategic decisions
which are taken. Activities 1.1.1 Appoint Government Representatives to the
Steering Committee. (G) Implemented 1.1.2 Liaise to finalize Programme funding
modalities in consultation with their governments and to consider candidates
for international expert positions (Steering Committee and ICAO). Implemented, but since this is an on-going activity it
remains relevant in Phase II 1.1.3 Upon the request of the Steering Committee, field
highly-qualified and experienced international experts in the fields of
Flight Operations, Airworthiness, Aerodrome Certification, ATS, Personnel
Licensing and other specialties. (ICAO). Implemented to a large extent
and is an on-going activity.
International experts are engaged on requirement basis as determined
by the Steering Committee. This
activity, therefore, remains relevant in Phase II as well. International experts provided in Phases I
and II included: a. A CTA/Flight Operations Expert, who remained with the
project for five years left in February 2003. b. An Airworthiness Expert, who remained with
the Project for a little over two years
left February 2001. c. Other international expertise has also
been provided as donor support from various organizations [ Dangerous Goods – FAA; ETOPS /MMEL, NDT,
and Simulator Evaluation – Airbus /EAFAS; Cabin
Safety, Aviation Security, Designated Check Pilot, and Aviation Enforcement –Transport Canada;
Licensing and JAR 145 – JAA /Airbus; Wild Life Hazard Management - U.S / Transport Canada; Safety Promotion,
Accident Prevention, Aircraft
Performance and Aviation Security(Flight Operations) – Boeing; Dangerous
Goods Safety Oversight –ICAO / Boeing; Cabin Safety – ISASI / Boeing]. d. A CRM and SMS Expert was engaged for six
months starting 1st October 2003. e. An Aerodrome Certification and Safety
Training Expert was engaged for three assignments: from April 2002 to October
2002 (6 months); from January 2004 to
May 2004 (4 months); and from October 2005 to March, 2006 (4 months). In the
last assignment the Expert provided SMS Expertise. f. An ATS Expert was engaged for ten weeks
from January 2004 to March 2004. g. An ATS ATM Consultant firm was engaged to
provide 120 man days of assistance between October, 2005 and July 2006. i. An International Airworthiness Expert was
engaged for two short term assignments
in 2006 for a total period of four months. Implemented / On-going 1.1.4 Meet at regular intervals, and as required, in order to make
strategic decisions regarding the direction of the Programme, monitor the
progress of programme implementation, and facilitate commonality of
regulations, certification, surveillance, and procedures between the
participant states. (Steering Committee).
The Steering Committee Meetings were initially held at six
months interval. At the 11th Meeting, the participant States
decided that, on account of resource constraints, the frequency of the Steering
Committee Meetings should be reduced to yearly meetings, with the possibility
of additional meetings, when so required, through mutual consultations. The
13th Meeting was held after an interval of almost a year. However, at the 13th Meeting, the
Steering Committee decided to have an early next meeting in order to monitor
the progress on some crucial decisions taken therein. The 14th
Meeting was held in June 2005, while the 15th Meeting was held after seven
months in February, 2006. The 16th
Meeting was held in Katmandu in November 2006 and a special meeting of the Steering
Committee was held in Lahore in February 2007. 1.1.5 Finalize the Work plan for each year of
the Programme period. (PC and Steering Committee) a.
Work plans continue to be prepared annually based on the decisions
of the Steering Committee, the States’ requirements and the availability of
funds. b.
Besides International
Expertise acquired for providing Technical Assistance, and conducting
specialist courses, the Regional Experts with the Programme have also
provided Technical Assistance to the States, including training courses on
request. c.
International Experts have
been inducted in the Programme for specialist areas like CRM / SMS /
Aerodrome /ATS. d.
Draft Work Plan (Calendar - Technical Assistance and Training
Programme) for 2008 is attached at Appendix I. e.
Details of Technical Assistance and Training provided in 2007 are
attached at Appendix II. Implemented / On-going 1.1.6 Coordination with Steering Committee members for effective
implementation of Programme activities (Steering Committee Chairman and PC). Implemented / On-going Output 1.2 A regional flight safety organization will have been
established which is capable of assisting Participating Administrations in
the full range of safety oversight certification and surveillance tasks
required of States and of assisting the participant States in developing
their individual regulatory capabilities. Status
and institutionalization of COSCAP-SA as
the regional flight safety organization was under serious consideration of
the Steering Committee. Accordingly after examining a few models very critically and
objectively, the Steering Committee at its 16th Meeting held in November 2006
Kathmandu and the Special Meeting held in Lahore in February 2007, resolved that
Participating States should enter into a Memorandum of Understanding for the
continued functioning of the Programme. MoU was accordingly drafted; States’
inputs were obtained and the MoU was appropriately revised, the final
document was circulated amongst States for signature. All States have agreed
for the placement of the signature and most of the Stats have already signed
the MoU and returned same back to the COSCAP-South Asia. A copy of the
MoU is reproduced as Attachment – III . Draft Programme Document for Phase-III was also
developed and sent for the States inputs prior to finalization. Institutional Framework and Administrative
Procedures Manual for the COSCAP-South Asia is in place and Steering
Committee may wish to consider
revising it taking into account of institutional changes taken place
consequent to adoption of a MoU and the revised Programme Document. Activities 1.2.1 Provide
accommodation to COSCAP-SA. (Host
Government) Completed 1.2.2 Procure office equipment (PC, Host
Government, ICAO) Purchase orders were made for the accrual of four laptop
computers for the use of Programme Professional Staff and a multifunctional
printer for the use of the COSCAP-SA secretarial work 1.2.3 Assign administrative and clerical staff (Host Government) Completed 1.2.4 Develop a manual for standardization of
flight safety organization’s administrative procedures (PC) a. The
Institutional Framework and Administrative Procedures Manual (IF&APM) was
approved by the Steering Committee following the deliberations on the subject
matter at 12th, 15th and 16th Steering
Committee meetings. Accordingly the Programme is now administered as per the
provisions in the IF&APM (2nd Edition) published in -2006. b. The Funding Partners (European Commission, FAA, IFFAS, Airbus
and Boeing) have also been provided with an electronic copy. 1.2.5 Recruit highly qualified personnel from within the region for
training and development as Regional Flight Safety Inspectors. (SC and ICAO). a. Between 1999 and 2004 one RFOI and two
RAIs (one to replace the other) were recruited as permitted by the funds
available. b. The two RAIs
returned to their parent organization on completion of the period of release
by the respective Government to undertake this assignment. c. The RFOI was
re-assigned to the post of RFOE/PC in December, 2002 d. Four Regional
Experts in Airworthiness, Personnel Licensing, Aerodrome and Air Traffic Services were employed in the
Programme in October 2005 on twelve
month contracts each. e. The Regional Airworthiness
Expert and Regional Aerodrome
Certification Safety Expert have been provided
with extension till March 2008 and
July 2008 respectively. f. Due to exhausting of funding from EC, services of
RATSE was terminated after 15 months
of his service. g. The Services of Regional Personnel Licensing Expert
was terminated in May 2007 due to exhausting of funds provided by IFFAS. h. A new Regional Flight
Operations Expert was recruited in February 2007 to fill the vacancy created
by the former RFOE’s departure to take up an assignment in RO, Bangkok. i. Having identified the
enormous changes taking place rapidly in the field of Air Traffic Services,
action has been taken to create Regional Air Traffic Services Expert post
under the Programme using its own fund. After following due process, Service contract for a period one year has
been issued to the prospective candidate. j. Action is being taken to update the Regional Expert
– Home Base Roster maintained by the Programme Office to indicate the
resources technical personnel available in the region, for States to hire
depending on the need, as per the procedures already developed. k. Since all the Member
States have a shortfall of qualified and experienced inspectors in the field
of flight operations, the Steering Committee may consider increasing the
number of flight operations Experts employed under the Programme so that
major portion of their certification and surveillance tasks can be entrusted
to them. Output
1.3 – (High
Priority) Uniform standards and procedures for
certification and surveillance of flight operations and continuing
airworthiness will have been established which are acceptable to all
participating States for application at a regional level. Activities 1.3.1 Obtain and review manuals, orders, instructions, and other
guidance material for flight operations and continuing airworthiness and
surveillance which are currently in use by States with highly-developed
regulatory systems and by other organizations such as aircraft
manufacturers. (PC, AWE) Implemented 1.3.2
Survey manuals,
orders, instructions, and other guidance currently in use by participant
States for certification and surveillance of flight operations and
airworthiness. (CTA/PC, AWE) Implemented 1.3.3 Based upon a review of the above documents, develop draft
procedural manuals for flight operations and airworthiness certification and
surveillance (both commercial and general aviation) to be used by COSCAP-SA
and, as required, by the individual flight safety organizations of the
participant States. (CTA/PC, AWE) Implemented 1.3.4 Review draft manuals and provide recommendations for
modifications and comments relevant to the finalization of the documents. (G) Implemented 1.3.5 Review
Steering Committee comments, recommendations and modify the draft documents
accordingly. (CTA/PC, AWE) Implemented 1.3.6 Re-submit the final documents for approval by the Participating
States. (CTA/PC)
Implemented 1.3.7 Publish and distribute manuals (PC, G) Implemented /on-going. The
manuals are being reviewed and updated in Phase II. 1.3.8 Assist, on–request, States to develop State specific Manuals
based on the generic manuals. (CTA/PC, AWE, ACSTE). The Programme
has developed the following generic manuals for the guidance of the Member
States and circulated both as printed documents and e-documents: 1. Manual of Certification, Inspection and Administration; 2. Airworthiness Inspection Manual; 3. Audit Procedures Manual and associated Audit Checklist; 4. Designated Check Pilot Manual; 5. MMEL/MEL Policy and Procedures Manual; 6. Flight Operations Inspector Manual; 7. Airworthiness Inspector Manual; 8. Enforcement Manual; 9.
Aerodrome Certification Procedures Manual; 10. Aerodrome Manual; 11. Aerodrome Model Air Law, Regulations and Standards; 12. CRM Instructor Training Manual (for Pilots and
Company Personnel). 13. Generic Personnel Licensing Regulations; 14. Personnel Licensing Procedures Manual; Based on these generic manuals,
States, as required, have developed a State specific manual, some with the
assistance of COSCAP-SA Officials. These manuals are being
reviewed, updated and amended in Phase II to keep pace with changing
requirements and new developments. Output 1.4 (High Priority) Regional Flight Safety Experts (RFSEs)
will have been trained and qualified on the full range of flight operations
and continuing airworthiness certification and surveillance tasks (initial
and recurrent) on an on-going basis. With the joining of Regional
Flight Safety Experts in numbers to take up activities planned under the
Programme, it is felt very timely and necessary to let them go through a
formal course of training and qualification programme so that they would be
fully informed of the degree of the
standards to which their work and functions should be performed so that
Programme would not lose grip of its main objectives. Activities 1.4.1 Design, amend as necessary and implement a comprehensive
training and qualification programme for experts to qualify them in the full
range of aviation safety job functions. (PC, AWE) Development
of a formal training and qualification Programme has commenced, 1.4.2 Develop
and maintain training and qualification records for each RFSE. (PC,
AWE) Work is
in progress 1.4.3 Conduct job function training workshops for RFSEs. (CTA/PC, AWE) Work is in progress 1.4.4 Provide on-the-job training to inspectors during actual
certification and surveillance activities. (CTA/PC, AWE). Work is in progress 1.4.5 Participation of national inspectors and airline personnel in
Activities 1.4.1, 1.4.3 and 1.4.4. (CTA/PC, AWE). As of 01 October 2007, a
total of 6179 participants attended 235
courses / workshops conducted by /under COSCAP-SA. Of the total, 2846 (52%)
participants represented the industry. Details of training provided are
attached at Appendix II. As the requirements to achieve this Output are
fairly detailed and due to the fact that this Output (for Regional Experts is
similar to that of Immediate Objective 2, Output 2.3 (National Inspectors),
training is discussed under a separate Training Update. Output 1.5 (Medium Priority) On-demand certification and routine
surveillance of airworthiness and flight operations will be conducted on
behalf of the Participating States. This output, which was given
Medium Priority by the Steering Committee, has been produced to a large
extent but remains a continuing requirement in Phase II. Additionally,
requirements of individual States vary, resulting in some States with a
larger need for assistance than others. The evolving / emerging needs of
the participating States would necessitate a continuous review of the
priority accorded to Output 1.5 The
amplified Institutional Framework
proposed at the 15th Meeting, which allowed for more
flexibility in the use of the COSCAP-SA Programme was accepted by the
Steering Committee. The Institution of Home Based Experts needs to be strengthened and States should
feel encouraged to tap / utilize the regional resources to meet its on-going
safety oversight obligations. Action has been taken to update the Home Based Experts Roster
maintained by COSCAP-SA with the assistances/ inputs of the respective Member
States. Activities 1.5.1 Develop an annual surveillance programme in consonance with
the surveillance activities of the individual states and based upon the
activities contained in ICAO Documents 8335 and 9760. (PC, AWE, SC) In progress 1.5.2 Assist States in accomplishing annual surveillance
programme. (PC, AWE and RFSEs)
States have been requested to
inform the COSCAP-SA about their requirements so that Expert assignments can
be considered accordingly 1.5.3 Develop specific administrative procedures for providing
on-demand certification tasks to the participant States and incorporate them
in the organization's administration manual.
(PC) Implemented through the Institutional Framework and
Administrative Procedures Manual (2nd – Edition August 2006 ). . 1.5.4 Perform
certification activities as required in accordance with the policies
established in 1.5.3 (PC, AWE, RFSEs) Steering Committee Priority Medium Recognizing that assisting States with some
certification activity also provides on-the job training (OJT) to National
Inspectors, certification activity to support the training objective has been
completed. A total of 1229 expert-days of On Job Training and Technical
Assistance has been provided to States until 01stOctober, 2007
(Appendix IV) since the commencement of the programme. The
assistance includes the areas of Flight Operations, Airworthiness, Aerodrome,
Personnel Licensing, ATS, CRM and SMS. As more of the formal training
programmes are completed, additional time is allocated to this objective. Output 1.6 (High Priority)
A South Asia Regional Aviation Safety Team
(SARAST) will have been formed to identify regional safety concerns. Solutions will have been identified and
rated, and recommendations provided to States on a safety improvement
strategy. The South Asia Regional Aviation
Safety Team (SARAST) has been established. SARAST’s role will continue in
Phase III and beyond. Seven SARAST meetings have been held till date. Activities 1.6.1 Draft Terms of Reference and modalities for a South Asia
Regional Aviation Safety Team (SARAST) for approval by the Steering
Committee. (PC, Steering Committee) Completed 1.6.2 Meet on as required basis to review safety issues in the region
and identify solutions for review by the Steering Committee.(PC and Working
Group Members) a. At its 9th
Meeting, the Steering Committee approved the Terms of Reference for the South
Asia Regional Aviation Safety Team (SARAST) and assigned this activity a High
Priority. b. The
1st Meeting of the SARAST was held on 26-27 June 2002 and the
recommendations from the Meeting were presented at the 10th SC
Meeting. The recommendations were duly approved by the Steering Committee for
implementation. c. The
2nd SARAST meeting was held on 4-6 June 2003. The progress on the
implementation of the SARAST recommendations was reviewed at the 12th
SC Meeting. d. The
3rd SARAST and Combined RAST meetings were held from 19 – 21 April
2004. The SARAST Recommendations and Conclusions were reviewed and approved
by the 13th SC Meeting. e. The
4th SARAST and Combined RAST meetings were held from 12 – 14
January 2005. The SARAST Recommendations and Conclusions were reviewed at the
14th SC Meeting. f. The
5th SARAST Meeting was held on 6 -7 September 2005. The SARAST
Recommendations were reviewed at the 15th SC Meeting. g. The
6th SARAST Meeting was held on 18 – 19 May 2006. The SARAST
Recommendations from the 6th Meeting were reviewed at the 16th
Steering Committee Meeting. h. The 7th SARAST and Combined RAST meeting was
held on 10 – 12 January, 2007. In order to ensure effective and consistent
implementation of the Safety Enhancements recommended by the SARAST in all
Member States, the COSCAP-SA has developed a tracking system which is
explained under a separate Discussion Paper. The tracking system describes
the actions taken by COSCAP-SA under four categories ( viz. A- guidance
material issued, B- Training provided, C-State’s and Operator’s compliance
verified and D-other means of assistance) and actions taken by States under
four categories (1-legislations / regulations updated, 2- directions issued
to the industry, 3 – Operator compliance established at the certification and
during surveillance and 4 – other means of compliance). This tracking system
will be displayed in the COSCAP-SA official website under the SARAST heading Output 1.7 COSCAP-SA Institutionalized as a Regional Safety Organization At the 9th Meeting the Steering Committee
indicated a strong support for the Institutionalization of the COSCAP-SA
Programme. However, concerns were expressed by the Meeting that the
activities as drafted in Output 1.7 of the Programme Document, could result
in establishment of an organization that may be less effective, less client
focused and less responsive to the needs of the States. At the 10th Steering Committee Meeting, the Steering
Committee directed the CTA to develop a Draft Institutional / Governing
Framework. The Framework to include Evolution of COSCAP, Mission Statement
/Objectives, Organization and Sustainability. The Framework was to also
reflect the Collective Vision and Commitment of the Member Administration and
Partners to continuously enhance safety and efficiency of air transport
operations through the COSCAP-SA Programme on a sustained basis. The
Framework to ensure that COSCAP-SA remains as an organization that is
effective, flexible, client focused and responsive to the needs of States. Based on the guidance
provided by the Steering Committee, the Draft Institutional / Governing
Framework was developed and included in the DRAFT Manual of Institutional
Framework and Administrative Procedures (IF&AP) and presented at the 12th
SC Meeting. The SC noted the Draft Manual and directed that it be circulated
to member States for comments. The Draft Manual of
IF&AP was further revised / formatted by ICAO TCB to reflect an
appropriate manual structure. The finalized Draft Manual was forwarded to
States on 1st November 2004 for additional comments if any. The IF&AP Manual was finalized and forwarded by the
Chairman to all participant States on 15 May 2005. Formal approval of the IF&AP Manual was sought at the
14th SC Meeting and provided. However, at the 15th Meeting an amplified
Institutional Framework was proposed to meet the evolving needs of the
participating States. The same was accepted by the Steering Committee and a
revised IF&APM (August 2006 Edition) was subsequently issued in October,
2006. Activities 1.7.1 Prepare a
draft Institutional/Governing Framework for COSCAP-SA as a regional safety
organization including objectives, organization and sustainability. The Framework is to reflect the collective
vision and commitment of the Member Administrations and Partners to support
the Programme and continuously enhance safety and efficiency of air transport
operations through COSCAP-SA on a sustainable basis. The Framework will also ensure that
COSCAP-SA as the regional safety organization remains effective, flexible,
client focused and responsive to the needs of the States (PC). MoU was drafted and circulated amongst Member States
for comments. On receipt of States’ input, the MoU was suitably revised and
the final document was circulated amongst Member States for attestation.
Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Pakistan have signed the MoU and forwarded same
back to the COSCAP-South Asia, office. India, Nepal and Sri Lanka have
informed that they are in agreement with the MoU and the signed copies would
be forwarded through the normal channels 1.7.2 A Working Group established by the Steering Committee from
representatives of COSCAP-SA States, with the PC as its Secretary, reviews
and finalizes the draft Institutional Framework for COSCAP-SA (Steering
Committee and Working Group). Work was accomplished with the direct intervention
of Steering Committee Members who met twice in the period under review and
agreed upon the document through e-mails
and hence setting up of a Working Group was not necessitated. 1.7.3 The Steering Committee considers the draft Institutional
Framework submitted by the Working Group and recommends, as appropriate, its
approval by Member States/Administrations (Working Group and Steering
Committee). Special meeting of the Directors General of Civil
Aviation held in Lahore in February 2006 was given the draft MoU for review
and the subsequent amendments were made through correspondence through e-mails
and consensus were also reached through e-mails. 1.7.4 Member
States/Administrations approve as they deem appropriate the Framework for
Institutionalization of COSCAP-SA as a regional safety organization. As explained above, task completed. Steering Committee may however
consider the recommendation made by Dr. Ludwig Weber during his
presentation at the 16th SCM to empower the COSCAP-SA to perform
some or all of the Safety Oversight functions of the Member States as may be
delegated to it in writing, so that COSCAP-SA will soon achieve the RSOO
status, as advocated by ICAO and other regional groups who have interests in
aviation safety. Note: This Output and its activities are a modified version of
Output 1.7 of the original Programme RAS/97/902. It reflects the Steering
Committee’s views on the Institutionalization of COSCAP-SA and its directives
to the PC on preparation of the required Framework. (Action also reported under 1.2.4)
IMMEDIATE OBJECTIVE 2 (Low Priority)
To assist the Participating States in developing their aviation
regulations and standards and to improve their independent oversight
capabilities and their ability to fully participate in the regional
cooperative organization. Output 2.1 The basic laws and operating regulations for the national
control of flight operations and continuing airworthiness within each State
will have been reviewed and recommendations made for the drafting of new
legislation and regulations, or the modification of existing instruments, to
ensure compliance with relevant ICAO Annexes and manuals and to promote the
harmonization of regulations within the region. RPC wishes to recommend to the
Steering Committee to consider revising the phrases in the Programme Document
which refer only to Flight Operations and Continuing Airworthiness to
accommodate such other tasks as Personnel Licensing, Air Traffic Services,
Aircraft Accident Investigations and Aerodromes etc as the Project is now
tasked and equipped to provide assistance to Member States in such matters as
well. It is also observed that some
of the Member States seek assistance from the COSCAP-SA for development of
rules for harmonization with such commonly established regulatory systems as
EASA, FAR, New Zealand Standards etc, at the programme implementation level. The Majority of States are
working with agencies external to the COSCAP-SA for some interventions
relating to harmonization of rules. This leads to confusion, lack of
directions and also duplications. In this context, Steering
Committee is strongly recommended to revisit this Programme Objective and set
priority and adjust outputs and activities expected out of this item. Activities 2.1.1 Survey the basic air laws and operating regulations relating to
flight operations and continuing airworthiness in participating States to
learn where deficiencies exist in participating States and to estimate to
what extent harmonization in the region may be achieved. (PC, FORE, RFSI) Partially Implemented 2.1.2 Prepare, in coordination with the ad-hoc Regulatory Working
Group, formed for this purpose by the Steering Committee, detailed
recommendations to the Steering Committee on the safety regulations that need
to be adopted by the Participating States to ensure full compliance with
International Standards and Recommended Practices and to achieve maximum
harmonization possible between their regulations. The similar activity in the
original Programme document was not implemented in Phase I due to the higher
priority assigned to other Programme activities. This will need to be implemented in Phase
II. Harmonization was achieved in the
area of aerodromes for the air laws, regulations, standards, guidance
materials and generic aerodrome manuals. 2.1.3 Following the review and acceptance of the above
recommendations by the Steering Committee, States would be invited to adopt
and promulgate these safety regulations to achieve the desired harmonization
of their regulations. It is recommended that
COSCAP-SA should be tasked to develop Model Regulations, requirements or
standards for the implementation of any new SARPs that may be introduced by
ICAO with the active participation of Member States who may nominate
technical personnel to serve in working groups consisting of industry
personnel as well, as such matters may be less controversial and a good point
to start. Output 2.2 The systems employed by the participating States for the
qualification, testing, and licensing of airmen, flight operations officers,
cabin attendants, maintenance personnel, and designated airworthiness
inspectors will have been evaluated, and recommendations provided for improvement
and harmonization. Activities
2.2.1 Survey the licensing practices of the participating States (PLE
assisted by RFSI) 2.2.2 Provide recommendations to participating
States for improving their licensing practices and for harmonizing their
requirements and procedures with other Participating States. 2.2.3 Develop and present to the Steering Committee for approval the
Licensing Standards and Procedures for use by Member States (PLE). In light of the USOAP findings
related to licensing matters, this Output and its activities were assigned a
Medium Priority. However, a Personnel Licensing Expert was not recruited in
the initial stages of the Programme due to limited funding / resources. During missions to States COSCAP-SA Officials
none the less provided assistance on critical licensing issues. This
assistance will continue in Phase II and in greater detail with the induction
of a Regional Personnel Licensing Expert into the Programme. The 13th
Meeting of the Steering Committee re-considered the priority on the
engagement of a Personnel Licensing Expert and opted for engagement of a
Regional PEL Expert. IFFAS grant had been secured and it was agreed that the
funds would be utilized for a Regional PEL Expert. The Regional PEL Expert
joined the Programme in October 2005 for a period of Eighteen months and left
in April 2007. Regional
PEL Expert at the 16th Meeting, appraised the SCM of the
activities in the area of personnel licensing during his tenure. Personnel
Licensing area remains to be further consolidated with continued technical
assistance to the States to remedy the weakness highlighted by the RPEL expert, as it is one
of the important streams thorough which the most critical element in flight
safety (human ware) is introduced to the aviation system. Further PEL and
Aviation Medicine related activities will be carried out using the additional
IFFAS funds recently made available. Output 2.3 The individual capabilities of the
Participating States to perform flight operations and airworthiness
certification and surveillance functions will have been enhanced. This Output was produced to a
large extent and on going. Activities
2.3.1 Conduct
seminars on flight operations certification and surveillance and continuing
airworthiness certification and surveillance in each of the participating
countries. (PC, AWE, RFSE)
Implemented /on-going 2.3.2 Provide on-the-job training to national inspectors of the
Participating States, during working missions to the States for the purpose
of providing on-demand certification services and carrying out the annual
surveillance programme. (PC, AWE, RFSI) Implemented /on-going 2.3.3 As a quality control measure and tool for improvement, perform
regular assessments of individual States’ certification activities. Provide recommendations for improvements to
States as necessary. (PC, AWE, RFSI) The
Steering Committee had assigned Low Priority to 2.3.3 and High Priority to
2.3.1 and 2.3.2 Implemented but this task has been performed mainly
by ICAO USOAP Audits. Outside the scope of this Programme, ICAO has conducted
audits on all States in South Asia in 1999 /2000 under the USOAP Programme.
From 2001 to 2004, ICAO conducted Follow-up audits. COSCAP-SA staff provided
significant assistance to States in preparation for these audits and with the
development and implementation of Corrective Action Plans. Such assistance will continue in Phase II. Under
the Comprehensive Systems Approach, USOAP Audits have been conducted on two
Member States in October, 2006 i.e. India and Bhutan. COSCAP-SA
will continue to provide assistance to States on USOAP matters on request. Activities 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 are related also to
Immediate Objective 1, Output 1.4 and are discussed under Training update. IMMEDIATE
OBJECTIVE 3
To
assist the Participating States in meeting their obligations in anticipation
of the Systems Approach for the USOAP Programme, especially in the areas of
certifying airports and ATS Safety Management. Output 3.1
Uniform
aerodrome certification regulations and procedures will have been established
which are acceptable to all Participating States for application at a
regional level. Output partly produced in Phase I,
completed in Phase II. An International Aerodrome Certification and Safety
Management Expert (ACSME) was inducted in the Programme on 31 October 2005
for a period of 4 months. The ACSME and the Regional Aerodrome Certification
and Safety Expert (RACSE) visited Member States to provide technical assistance
/ training and guidance on aerodrome regulations and certification of
airports. A separate
DP and a presentation was provided by the Regional Aerodrome Certification
and Safety Expert at the 16th Meeting to include an appraisal of
the activities in the area of aerodrome during the past year. With EC Funding an ATM SMS Consultant firm was
engaged from October 2005 to provide assistance to States in the
implementation of ATM Safety Management Systems. The Consultant firm provided
120 man-days of assistance and completed its assignment in July 2006. A separate
DP and a presentation was provided by the Regional Air Traffic Services
Safety Expert at the 16th Meeting to include an appraisal of the
activities in the area of ATM SMS during the past year. Activities 3.1.1 Obtain and review the ICAO Manual on Certification of
Aerodromes which draws upon the regulations and procedures of several States
with highly developed regulatory systems and also as required, orders,
instructions, and other guidance material for aerodrome certification
regulatory system, certification regulations, certification procedures,
regulatory authority and safety inspections which are currently in use in
such States. (PC, RFOI) Completed 3.1.2 Based upon a review of the above documents and generally
following the guidance material given in the above ICAO Manual, develop a
draft Airport Certification Manual for COSCAP-SA Participating States
containing chapters on Aerodrome Certification Regulatory System, the
proposed common Aerodrome Certification Regulations to be promulgated by the
States under the relevant provision in their respective basic aviation law,
Aerodrome Certification Procedures and the proposed Regulatory Authority in
each State and submit the draft Generic Aerodrome Manual and Aerodrome
Certification Manual to the Participating States. (RFOI/ PC, ACSTE) Implemented Model Air Law Regulations concerning aerodromes and
Standards Manual were forwarded to States in May 2001 and a revision
distributed in May 2002 to address Amendment 4 of Annex 14. The Manual was
further reviewed in 2006 by the ACSME to incorporate the latest amendments to
the ICAO SARPs (Annex 14). 3.1.3 Conduct
in-country workshops for the regulatory and airport authorities on the
subject of aerodrome certification regulations and procedures and safety
management system. (ACSTE, Airport Safety Management Expert, Regional
Airport Certification/Safety Expert) Partially implemented /on going – Training Courses
have been conducted in all seven States during the period May to July
2002. Not all courses included a
module in Safety Management Systems due to the focus on aerodrome
certification by November 2003. The
ACSME was re-engaged for four month starting 31st October 2005.
Airport Safety Management Training was provided by the ACSME . During
September 2006 ICAO conducted generic ‘Train the Trainer’ courses on
Implementation of SMS. The ACSME was
asked to take the course on behalf of all COSCAPs (SA, NA and SEA). 3.1.4 Review the draft
Airport Certification Manual developed for the region under Activity 3.1.2
and provide recommendations for modifications and comments relevant to the
finalization of the documents at the in-country seminars referred to in
Activity 3.1.3. (ACSTE) Implemented
- In Phase I COSCAP-SA had prepared a
Generic Sample Aerodrome Manual and Manual of Aerodrome Certification
Procedures to assist States. ACSTE/RFOI/PC had reviewed Aerodrome Manuals and
Manual of Aerodrome Certification Procedures of States, where such documents
had been drafted. Between
October 2005 and October 2007 the
ACSME and the RACSE visited States to
provide technical assistance. The Aerodrome Manuals and the Manual of
Aerodrome Certification Procedures, developed by States were also reviewed. This
is an on-going activity and the RACSE continues to provide assistance in this
area. 3.1.5 Review Steering Committee comments and
recommendations and modify the draft manual accordingly. (RFOI/PC, ACSTE) Implemented 3.1.6 Re-submit
the final documents for approval by the Participating States. (PC) Implemented 3.1.7 Publish
and distribute manuals. (PC, G)
Implemented 3.1.8 Assist, on–request, States to develop State specific Manuals
based on the generic manuals.
(Regional Aerodrome Certification Safety Expert) Being implemented as required in Phase II by the
RACSE On-going activity. Output 3.2 The individual capabilities of the airport
operators and the regulatory authorities in Participating States on the
subject of aerodrome certification will have been enhanced. Activities 3.2.1 At the conclusion of the aerodrome
seminars in each State, discuss with the operator of the airport (Airport
Authority/ owner or the senior management of the Government owned airport)
proposed steps to be taken including certification, the details to be included
in each specific Aerodrome Manual to be prepared by ACSTE as an attachment to
the certificate application. (ACSTE, CTA, RFOI/PC, DGCA Regulatory Officials,
ASME, RACSE) Implemented to some extent in Phase I - During Missions to
States ACSTE/RFOI met with DGCA officials and airport operators to
review/discuss the details of Aerodrome Manuals that had been produced. This
continued to be an on-going activity in Phase II and was undertaken by the
International Aerodrome Certification and Safety Management Expert and the
Regional Aerodrome Certification Safety Expert. 3.2.2 Collection of the data/information
required to be included in the Aerodrome Manual for the airport for which
certification application is to be filed. (Airport Operator) Implemented In
Phase I the ACSTE /RFOI provided technical assistance to aerodrome operators
regarding sourcing and providing aerodrome data/information. 3.2.3 On-site
review of the airport specific data/information collected by the airport
operator under Activity 3.2.2 and the provision of on-the-job advice to the
operator in the finalization of the Aerodrome Manual to accompany the
certification application. (ACSTE, DGCA Regulatory Officials) Partially
implemented in Phase I. This activity is continuing in Phase II by the RACSE
initially under the guidance of an International ACSME. 3.2.4 Assist
the DGCA regulatory officials in the field verification of the contents of
the Aerodrome Manual and aerodrome safety inspections. (ACSTE, RFOI/PC). This activity is being
implemented in Phase II by the RACSE initially under the guidance of an
International ACSME. 3.2.5 Advise
the DGCA regulatory officials on aeronautical study, if any required. ( RACSE) This activity is being
implemented in Phase II, as required, by the RACSE. 3.2.6 Advise DGCA regulatory official(s) on the issuance or
otherwise, or, as warranted by the circumstances of a conditional aerodrome
certificate. (RACSE) This activity is being
implemented in Phase II by the RACSE. Steering
Committee Priority High Funding was provided by the EU
to engage the services of an Aerodrome Certification and Safety Training
Expert (ACSTE) for a period of 6 months (5 April to 5 October 2002). The
Steering Committee agreed to the re-engagement of an ACSTE for an additional period
of 4 months starting end of January 2004 to provide further Technical
Assistance and on-the-job training. The Aerodrome Certification and Safety
Management Expert was re-engaged for a further period of four months starting
31st October, 2005 Output 3.3 Uniform ATS safety management systems will have been
established which shall be acceptable
to all participating States for application at regional level. Activities 3.3.1 Based
on a review of ICAO guidelines and Manual on Safety Management for ATS, as
well as of other relevant documents, draft a generic manual on ATS Safety
Management Planning, assessment and certification, containing model
regulations and guidance on the organization of an ATS Oversight System.
(ATSSME) An ATM SMS Consultant firm provided basic and introductory
training on ATM SMS. Further training
will need to be provided to States on ATM SMS Regulatory Development and
Safety Assessments. M/s. Integra
Consult (ATM SMS Consultant firm) has proposed a Workshop on Development of
Regulatory Framework for States spread over a ten day programme. In addition
the Consultants have also proposed a Safety Assessment workshop. The proposals was discussed by the Regional
ATS Safety Expert (RATSSE) during the 16th Steering Committee
Meeting. On-going 3.3.2 Conduct in-country workshops on ATS safety management for civil
aviation authorities, ATS service providers and users of airspace. (ATSSME, a
Regional ATS Certification/Safety Expert) Implemented partially in Phase
I, and was continued in Phase II by the ATM SMS Consultant firm. The activity
will be continued by the RATSSE who has also attended the SMS Implementation
Training Workshop recently conducted by ICAO. On-going Output 3.4 The capability of States in ATS safety
management and oversight will have been enhanced. Activities 3.4.1 Provide assistance to States in preparation for the ICAO ATS
safety oversight audits. (ATSSME, Regional ATS Certification/Safety Expert) Being implemented in Phase II by
the RATSSE. On-going 3.4.2 Provide assistance to States, whenever
this is possible, in the preparation and implementation of corrective Action
Plans in the field of ATS. (ATSSME, Regional ATS Certification/Safety Expert) RATSSE will assist
States with the preparation and implementation of the Corrective Action Plan
as required. On-going 3.4.3 Propose, in light of visits to air traffic
service units, steps for the improvement and upgrading of ATS personnel,
procedures and facilities and for more effective safety oversight of ATS.
(ATSSME, Regional ATS Safety Expert) ATM SMS is in the incipient
stage of development in all States. The Regional Expert will continue to
provide technical assistance and guidance to States during missions On-going 3.4.4 Provide on-the-job training to ATS management personnel.
(ATSSME, Regional ATS Certification/Safety Expert) Being implemented in Phase II by
the RATSSE.. On-going ADDITIONAL
ACTIVITIES Provide the necessary assistance to the
Participating States to enable them to meet their obligations in regard to
other safety critical areas subject to the expansion of the USOAP programme
under the Systems Approach. |