Cooperative Development of Operational Safety andContinuing Airworthiness Programme
COSCAP – South Asia
(Under ICAO Technical Co-operation Programme)
(Part – 1)
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.
1.2 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)
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.
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.
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.
1.1.1 Appoint Government Representatives to the Steering Committee. (G)
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
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.
1.2.1 Provide accommodation to COSCAP-SA. (Host Government)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
1.3.4 Review draft manuals and provide recommendations for modifications and comments relevant to the finalization of the documents. (G)
1.3.5 Review Steering Committee comments, recommendations and modify the draft documents accordingly. (CTA/PC, AWE)
1.3.6 Re-submit the final documents for approval by the Participating States. (CTA/PC)
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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)
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
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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)
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
3.1.6 Re-submit the final documents for approval by the Participating States. (PC)
3.1.7 Publish and distribute manuals. (PC, G)
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
The individual capabilities of the airport operators and the regulatory authorities in Participating States on the subject of aerodrome certification will have been enhanced.
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)
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
Uniform ATS safety management systems will have been established which shall be acceptable to all participating States for application at regional level.
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.
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.
The capability of States in ATS safety management and oversight will have been enhanced.
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.
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.
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
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..
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.