Reflections on the Global System Aviation Safety Audits

Share this article: FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

FAA, EASA,IATA and ICAO all surveil Global Aviation

Two assess governments and two examine airlines

Too much redundancy? Single Private Audit +

 

Global aviation safety has become a front page topic recently. Currently the and ICAO’s USOAP routinely assess the compliance of Civil Aviation Authorities (CAAs) with the ICAO standards. IATA’s IOSA and EASA’s  TCO[2] examine the compliance status of individual airlines.

Only IATA is a private organization, and audits existing/prospective airlines. ICAO is the UN’s  Member aviation organization and ascertains whether the countries, which pay their dues/determine their budgets, meets their standards.

This duplication of oversight, particularly between and among sovereigns, may be an unnecessary duplication PLUS the judgments are filled with inconsistencies:

ICAO Removes Thailand’s Red Flag Two Years After A Finding Of Deficiency ISO Certifies ICAO’s USOAP

 

FAA Has Problems Thailand’s Below Average Scores, But Not ICAO–WHAT’S UP?

 

Having Been Upgraded By The FAA, Now ICAO And EASA Will Review The DGCAI, Why?

 

IATA’s Differing From ICAO’s View On The Russian Federation’s Safety Should Merit A Private Sector Initiative By The United States Government

 

Redundant Safety Systems-YES, Duplicative Audits-NO

Avior Airlines- IATA YES; EU NO On Safety-CHANGE?

 

FAA’s IASA Audit Vietnam CAA’s Poses Some Seminal Questions

 

The IDGCA Needs To Listen Carefully To IASA Report This Time

 

CIS’ NTSB : Flight Safety “Worsening” There

 

How Many International Audits Are Enough

India’s DGCA Is Being Audited Again; Standards Matter

 

What Does EASA Audit “German CAA Is Deficient” Indicate?

Aviation Safety Rule: Those Who Judge Others Should Hold Themselves To A Higher Standard

That’s a lot of dissonance among these highly competent organizations applying the same criteria on CAAs and airlines.

Determining that an airline meets safety standards should be either

    • a surrogate test of the CAA’s ability to regulate

OR    

    • an indication that the regulated meets the standards without the CAA. Either case should satisfy the OVERSIGHT Needs of FAA, EASA, IATA and ICAO.

No?

There are questions whether an audit, which finds faults and then just leaves, is the best way to improve global safety standards. Might a more SMS-like consultation assignment, in which the outsiders remain engaged until the CAAs’ risks are reduced, have a more beneficial impact on global aviation safety.

But here is some information which commends that IATA IOSA methodology and results:

French bee passes IATA safety audit

13 October 2019

“French bee passed the IATA Operational Safety Audit (IOSA).

 

French bee is a French long-haul airline based at Paris Orly Airport. It started operating flights in 2016 as “French Blue”. In 2018 it rebranded as “French Bee”. The airline currently uses three Airbus A350-900s.

The IOSA programme is an evaluation system designed to assess the operational management and control systems of an airline. IOSA uses internationally recognised quality audit principles and is designed to conduct audits in a standardised and consistent manner. It was created in 2003 by IATA.  All IATA members are IOSA registered and must remain registered to maintain IATA membership.”

 

 

 

Qeshm Air passes IATA safety audit

 

 

 

 

 

 

Qeshm Air passed the IATA Operational Safety Audit (IOSA).

Qeshm Air is an Iranian airline. It started operating flights in 1996 and currently operates four Airbus A300B4-605Rs; three Airbus A320-200s; four Avro RJs; four Fokker 100s and four Fokker 50s.

The IOSA programme is an evaluation system designed to assess the operational management and control systems of an airline. IOSA uses internationally recognised quality audit principles and is designed to conduct audits in a standardised and consistent manner. It was created in 2003 by IATA.  All IATA members are IOSA registered and must remain registered to maintain IATA membership.


 


 


Does the current duplicative surveillance work well?

    • Does redundancy reduce risk?
    • Does subjecting a CAA to multiple reviews increase their burden unnecessarily?
  • Can a single global safety audit regime work?
  • Will the sovereign entities accept a single judgment?
    • Will their staffs have institutional objections?
  • Will an outside (i.e. not sovereign-to-sovereign) agent bring better long term reduction of risk by participating in the solution ?
  • Other suggestions???

 

[1] 14 CFR Part 129 provides for an initial review of an individual foreign air carrier. Further review is not periodic and is primarily driven by incidents, accidents or other concerning public events.

[2] EASA employs a risk-based approach for TCO assessments in that credible data sources are continuously being analysed. The lower EASA’s confidence in a foreign operator’s safety performance or the less credible data available for an operator or the State in which the operator is certified, the more comprehensive the assessment. As an example, for operators with high confidence level a simple and fast desktop review of completed questionnaires and material evidence is sufficient, whereas operators with lowered confidence levels will be invited by EASA to a technical meeting in Cologne, or EASA will request to perform a TCO audit on site.



 

Share this article: FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

Be the first to comment on "Reflections on the Global System Aviation Safety Audits"

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.