Report Of The EASA SKPI RP3 S(K)PI Working Group
Reportof theEASA SKPI RP3 S(K)PI Working Group“Indicator Proposals for RP3”1 Page
Contents1Executive summary . 42Preamble . 7342.1Legal framework . 72.2Targets and the management of safety risk with an SPI framework . 82.3RP1 and RP2 . 102.4PRB White Paper . 10The Safety Performance Indicators Framework . 113.1Introduction . 113.2EPAS, Safety Risk Management Process and Safety Risk Portfolios . 113.3The SPI Framework as overarching link between the SRM Process and RP3 . 123.4Considerations on targeting SPIs . 16Proposed S(K)PIs for RP3 . 174.1Introduction . 174.2Tier 1 indicators . 184.3Tier 2 indicators . 184.3.1Runway Incursions . 184.3.2Separation Minima Infringements . 204.3.3Over-delivery. 234.3.4ATM-specific (technical) occurrences . 254.44.4.1Effectiveness of Safety Management - ANSP. 254.4.2EoSM-NSA . 274.4.3RAT severity application. 284.55Tier 3 Indicators . 25Summary of proposed SPIs for RP3 . 28Interdependencies . 305.1Introduction . 305.2Theory behind the philosophy adopted in the approach to interdependencies . 305.3Rasmussen – Risk Management in a Dynamic Society: Model of gradients . 315.3.1Transforming Theory into Practice . 335.3.2Proposal for analysis of safety interdependencies using the Rasmussen’s model ofgradients . 345.4Q4-Balance Framework and Safety Energy. 352 Page
5.4.1Safety Energy Indicators . 375.4.2Proposed Safety Energy indicators . 385.4.3Data required for the indicator . 386Summary of proposals for RP3 . 397Acronyms . 438References . 449Appendix A – Runway Incursions . 459.1Introduction . 459.2Analysis . 459.3Proposed SPIs for monitoring RI and associated performance objectives . 469.4Further Guidance . 469.5Limitations of the Proposed Performance Indicators . 499.6Targets . 499.7References . 5010 Appendix B – Separation Minima Infringements Discussion . 5110.1Analysis . 5110.2Proposed SPIs for monitoring SMI and associated performance objectives . 5310.3Further Guidance . 5310.4Measurement of the Performance Objective . 5510.5Applicability to ANSPs, NSAs and the NM . 5510.6Summary of the Limitations of the Proposed Performance Objectives . 5510.7Conclusion . 5511 Appendix C – Evaluation summary of current SPI in RP2 . 5712 Appendix D – Analysis of Interdependencies and prioritisation of suitable interdependencymetrics . 5912.1Safety adds cost to the system to address identified threats . 5912.2Safety restricts capacity development beyond minima thresholds. . 6012.3Regulations due to overloads restricts capacity and causes delays . 6212.4Identifying Suitable Interdependency Measures . 6313 Appendix E – Membership of the EASA RP3 S(K)PI Working Group . 673 Page
1Executive summaryThis report summarises the work done by the EASA RP3 Safety (Key) Performance Indicatorsdevelopment WG, laying down a proposal for S(K)PIs to be included in the 3rd Reference Period(2020-2024) of the performance scheme for air navigation services and network functions in civilaviation.EASA launched this working group for the development of S(K)PI for RP3 in January of 2016. Thegroup formally reported to the European Commission and closely coordinated with the PerformanceReview Body (PRB) in developing the proposal. The group met seven times in the year, meeting lastlyon 13 October 2016.The proposal contains three distinct elements: The adoption of a common SPI framework between the Performance Scheme and the EASASafety Risk Management (SRM) process, which will allow for a clear link between themonitoring of safety areas in the Performance Scheme on the one hand and the EuropeanPlan for Aviation Safety (EPAS) & Air Traffic Management (ATM) Risk Portfolio on the other.This contains the proposal of including in the Performance Scheme Regulation a limited setof S(K)PIs while others are nested outside of the Performance Scheme in the EASA SRMprocess that monitors EPAS via an associated ATM Collaborative Analysis Group (CAG). It canthen be argued that the full set of SPIs will capture the effects of both sets of actions, i.e.,actions included in the EPAS and the effects of actions in other Key Performance Areas(KPA)s due to the implementation of the Performance Scheme. It is reasonable to expectthat a single and compatible framework of indicators monitors the safety performance ofthe ANS system be used, with opportunities to leverage synergies and to avoidinconsistencies and incompatibilities and to avoid duplication of effort. This approach willallow for the Safety KPA and risk management of the system to be more flexible, dynamic,applicable and up-to-date. Further indicators can also be adopted by the Scheme via thismechanism and allow the Performance Scheme to benefit from the introduction of up-todate indicators, without the need to amend the regulation. Therefore, EASA’srecommendation is to ensure that there is no duplication of activity and to allow thePerformance Scheme to inherit the work conducted in producing the EPAS and Safety RiskPortfolios. The safety analysis would be done by EASA, amalgamating both sets of indicatorsand including the analysis in each monitoring report each year. It is understood howeverthat no changes to the indicators that have been set within the Performance Scheme(Regulation) can occur during the reporting period. The proposal of a set of SPIs, after reviewing the current SPIs for RP2 and the experienceduring the first year of RP2, contains a combination of lagging indicators (outcome-based)and leading indicators (process-based) as the most appropriate approach to monitor safetyperformance. Among the lagging indicators, the areas to monitor are runway incursions(RIs), separation minima infringements (SMIs), and over deliveries as result of flowmanagement. . EASA and the group recommends that targeting lagging indicators be4 Page
avoided at the organisational or State level due to possible negative effects andconsequences that such an action will have on levels of reporting. With regard to leadingindicators, only an indicator to address the effectiveness of safety management is retainingproposed for retention in the Scheme, discontinuing or moving other indicators to the EASASRM. The final proposal of S(K)PIs are summarised in the table below. It is proposed that the work be further elaborated in two work streams to addressinterdependencies between safety and other performance areas; exploration of a model toaccount for these interdependencies (i.e., Rasmussen’s n’s gradient approach to theinteraction of competing forces in and on an organisation) and the measurement of safetyenergy. Both of these streams require more work in the form of a feasibility study prior tobeing incorporated into RP3of the Performance Scheme. It is recognised that work oninterdependencies may not be sufficiently robust until RP4 but the work must becommenced now with an eye to the future. The measures derived are suggested forcollection and observation only while the calibration of a model is developed. These noveldirections need to be attempted in order to begin real work in the area and the burden ofreporting must be considered before moving forward with it. Following is a summary table of recommendations stemming from the work and discussionsof the working group that reflects majority consensus. Each indicator is provided togetherwith the suggested metric and the legal “nesting” or mechanism by which this work might beachieved. Remarks are also provided on the advisability of targeting and whether a furtherfeasibility study should be carried out.IndicatorMetricAccidents/Serious incidentsRate ofaccidents/seriousincidents with ATMcontribution at EU levelRIa: rate of RI with ATMcontribution at airportlevelRIb: rate of RI at StatelevelRunway IncursionsRIc: rate of RI at EUlevelSeparationInfringementsMinimaSMIa: rate of SMI withATM contribution atANSP levelSMIb: rate of SMI atState levelSMIc: rate of SMI at EUlevel5 PageWhere to place thePIEASA SRM processsupporting the EPASRemarksPerformance SchemeRegTargeting is not advisedPI limited to high severeincidentsTargeting is not advisedPI limited to high severeincidentsTargeting is not advisedLimited to high severeincidentsPerformance SchemeRegPerformance SchemeRegMay be placed inEASA SRMPerformance SchemeRegPerformance SchemeRegPerformance SchemeRegMay be placed inEASA SRMTargeting is not advisedTargeting is not advisedLimited to high severeincidentsTargeting is not advisedLimited to high severeincidentsTargeting is not advisedLimited to high severeincidents
Over deliveriesEffectivenessofSafetyManagement – ANSP (Maturity)EffectivenessofSafetyManagement – NSA (Maturity)Rasmussen’s Gradient modelSafety Energy6 PageOvD: % of hours withaircraft rate 110%slot rate at regulatedsectorsOption1:SoE V2.1Performance SchemeRegTargeting is not advisedPerformance SchemeRegOption 2:Cross domain toolPerformance SchemeRegOption 3:Cross domain toolOption 1:Discontinue the metricOption 2:EASA CMA (ContinuousMonitoring Approach)modelInterdependencymetricsATM/ANS CommonRequirementsNoneTargeting possibleAuthorities need to beinvolved in verificationTargeting possibleDuplication of activitiesto assess SMS.Work on furtherdeveloping the toolwould need to be done.Targeting possibleInterdependencymetricsTBDEASA SRM processsupporting the EPASFeasibility study: amendmodel and indicatordevelopmentTBDFeasibility study:operationalise andcalibrate model, monitormetricsFeasibility study:operationalise andcalibrate model, monitormetrics. It might possiblybe combined withRasmussen’s Gradientmodel
2PreambleThe report seeks to outline the agreed proposals for indicators put forward by the RP3 S(K)PIWorking Group in order to assess safety performance during Reference Period 3 of the PerformanceScheme for Air Navigation Services and Network Function. Indicators are provided to assess thesafety performance of Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSP), Competent Authorities (CA) in eachEASA Member State (EASA MS) and the Network Manager (NM) with reference to the ATMPerformance Scheme. Wherever possible, the group has taken into account the need to reduce theburden of reporting on Member States and ANSPs. It is also expected that RP3 will make use of theEuropean Central Repository (ECR), which shall be the primary data source for occurrenceinformation.RP3 is scheduled to begin on 1 January 2020 and, notwithstanding any amendments to theregulations, will run until 31st December 20241. In order to accommodate the processes ofconsulting with Stakeholders, preparing and publishing regulatory material, agreeing targets at FAB/national and service provider level, and preparation of national performance plans, the key safetyperformance indicators for RP3 were prepared through this said RP3 S(K)PI Working Group.2.1 Legal frameworkThis report takes into account, as appropriate, the existing legal framework. Reg. (EC) No. 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down theframework for the creation of the single European sky (the framework Regulation).In particular, but not limited to:(19) The performance of the air navigation services system as a whole at European levelshould be assessed on a regular basis, with due regard to the maintenance of a high level ofsafety, to check the effectiveness of the measures adopted and to propose furthermeasures. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 390/2013 laying down a performancescheme for air navigation services and network functions. Commission Implementing Decision setting the Union-wide performance targets for the airtraffic management network and alert thresholds for the second reference period 2015-19(2014/1312/EU).1Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 390/2013, Article 8: “ The first reference period for the performancescheme shall cover the calendar years 2012 to 2014 inclusive. The second reference period shall cover the calendar years2015 to 2019 inclusive. Subsequent reference periods shall be of five calendar years, unless otherwise provided throughthe amendment of this Regulation.”7 Page
The report also recognises the need to amend particular parts of 390/2013 in order to address thecoming challenges posed during the 3rd Reference Period 2020-2024 (RP3).When amending the Regulation, the Commission is asked to consider the new draft EASA BasicRegulation2 to ensure a coherent approach to the management of aviation safety.2.2 Targets and the management of safety risk with an SPI frameworkThe suggested indicators have been constructed so that any one of them may be targeted. However,targets have not been discussed nor proposed as target setting does not fall within the remit of thisgroup. It has, however, been unanimously agreed and proposed by the group, that targets, if any,should only be placed on leading indicators. The Agency is not in favour of targeting laggingindicators at organisation or State level due to possible negative effects that such an action will haveon levels of reporting (damage to reporting, safety culture, just culture running counter to theprinciples of Reg. 376/2014 and the improvement of the ECR data). This approach is largelysupported by the RP1 Ex-Post Evaluation Study where two-thirds of the respondents are said to beopposed to targeting lagging indicators.The management of safety risk to ATM operations should be done via the EASA SRM process in theform of an ATM safety risk portfolio that is used to identify safety issues and mitigating actions to beconsidered for inclusion in the EPAS. This general approach is that which EASA uses across theaviation system and it ensures a coherent and joined-up approach to aviation safety with one safetymanagement approach being applied within EASA MS.Further, this approach does not preclude the targeting of leading indicators and is compatible withimproving safety though the identification and mitigation of safety risks within the system. It isagreed that targeting leading indicators will not adversely affect the system. EASA requests theCommission and the PRB to further consider the text of Commission’s Final Proposal for a new EASABasic Regulation in amending Reg. (EU) 390/2013. In particular, consideration should be given to,inter alia, Articles 5 and 6, which deal with the European Aviation Safety Programme (EASP) and theEPAS.Article 6 is worthy of particular note as it obliges EASA to develop the EPAS supported by SRPs andtherefore this activity should not be duplicated by other means:European Plan for Aviation Safety1. The Agency shall develop, adopt, publish, and subsequently update at least on a yearly basisa European Plan for Aviation Safety. Based on the assessment of relevant safety information,the Eur
(2020-2024) of the performance scheme for air navigation services and network functions in civil aviation. EASA launched this working group for the development of S(K)PI for RP3 in January of 2016. The group formally reported to the European Commission and closely coordinated with the Performance Review Body (PRB) in developing the proposal.
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.
̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions
Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have
Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được
EASA Air Crew Operator EASA Air Operations ICAO SMS: implementation status by EASA CAMO Part M Subpart G AMO Part 145 ATCO ATC Training DOA Part 21J POA Part 21G Aerodromes EASA ADR ATM/ANS GA International Operator Competent Authorities ICAO Annex 19 “Safety Management” ICAO Doc. 9859, Ed. 3 EU an
5 SUGGESTED READINGS Smith, G.M. 1971. Cryptogamic Botny. Vol.I Algae & Fungi. Tata McGraw Hill Publishing Co., New Delhi. Sharma, O.P. 1992.
