ICAO Requirements on Quality Management Systems ( QMS) By H. Puempel, C/AEM WDS, WMO Secretariat 16 th RA-IV Session Technical Conference on Aviation Met Issues Willemstad, Curacao, April 2013

QMS status from Questionnaire No evidence Work in progress Ready Current Status

QMS status Reports available at WMO Secretariat show that there are a few Members nearing certification audits. These include Trinidad and Tobago, Mexico, US, Canada has been certified for many years and has supported other Members US has concentrated on international responsiiblities, e.g. WAFS Need to gear up for finalizing in some countries “Serious concern for inactive countries”

After Nov 15 th, 2012 what way forward WMO has been negotiating with ICAO on how: 1.A State could demonstrate, under an ICAO USOAP audit, that they have established and implemented a properly organized QMS for MET in accordance with ICAO Annex 3, 2.2 provisions even if certification has not been completed? 2. A State can demonstrate, under an ICAO USOAP audit, that they ensure various functions and responsibilities of a “MET inspectorate” are carried out? Note, “MET inspectorate” has no definition or oversight-specific provisions in ICAO Annex 3, although “MET inspectorate” is described in the Manual of Aeronautical Meteorological Practice (ICAO Doc 8896), 9th Edition (2011), para

After Nov 15 th, 2012 what way forward Not only do we have the fact that the Annex 3, 2.2 provision concerning QMS for MET is being upgraded from a Recommended Practice to a Standard as of 15 November 2012, but we also have the fact that as part of the ICAO auditing of States, under the Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme (USOAP)/Continuous Monitoring and Oversight (CMO), a State would be expected to demonstrate that it has ensured that the entity providing meteorological service for international air navigation has established a “properly organized QMS”

After Nov 15 th, 2012 what way forward? Discussions between ICAO and WMO show that there is a high degree of consensus between the parties concerned regarding a basic/minimum set of evidence that a State should use to demonstrate that it has a properly organized QMS for MET. This becomes particularly relevant for those States that have opted to not follow the Annex 3, recommended practice of establishing a QMS in conformity with ISO quality assurance standards and certification.

After Nov 15 th, 2012 what way forward? Agreement has now been reached on the following basic/minimum set of evidence as proof: 1) Availability of Quality Policy, Quality Manual and complete set of work instructions/process descriptions at all workplaces, and familiarity of staff with these documents; 2) Documented evidence of user consultation and feedback (Publications, questionnaires, records of user meetings, actions stemming from these);

After Nov 15 th, possible 2012 scenarios 3)Evidence of corrective and preventive action processes; and 4) An internal audit plan, audit reports and documented follow-up decided by a Management Review meeting.

After Nov 15 th, possible 2012 scenarios A WMO TT-QMS performed a Risk analysis to establish the risk to the Country, Service provider and WMO if by 15 th Nov 2012 a QM approach to the delivery of aviation weather services was not adopted. For the Country; 2 severe; 5 major and 1 significant residual risks were identified For the Service provider; 7severe, 1 major and 1 high residual risks were identified and For WMO; 5 major, 1 high and 1 moderate residual risks were identified

Examples of residual risks are the following: To Member country: Air traffic declineSignificant Decline of tourism due to aboveMajor Threat to economic developmentMajor To Service provider: Endangers implementation of cost recovery severe Met Authority may de-select service provider severe

Examples of residual risks are the following: Quality of other products jeorpidised severe To WMO: Loss of credibilityMajor Loss of AMDAR data High Undermine financial basis for all programmes Major

After Nov 15 th, possible 2012 scenarios A brief description of each residual risk is as follows: Low: manage through existing processes and procedures. Moderate: identify management responsibility and monitor and review treatment action as necessary. Significant: identify management responsibility and monitor progress of risk management treatment action. Where the consequence is greater, ensure that appropriate contingency plans are in place and working, perhaps through independent review. Where the likelihood is greater ensure that day-to- day procedures and appropriate management processes are put in place, either through self-assessment or independent review. High: detailed treatment planning and action required at senior levels to determine how to reduce the risk and regular monitoring of progress by the Executive and or Director.

After Nov 15 th, possible 2012 scenarios Major: senior management oversight and monitoring of progress with risk management treatment action is required. Severe: must be managed by senior management, with detailed treatment planning, allocation of implementation responsibilities and resources and regular monitoring of progress by the Executive, and Director.

The way forward In the mean time, WMO is urging Members to continue working on their QMS implementation Members to use as check-list the agreed minimum/basic evidence as a staged approach towards QMS implementation Competency assessment of staff which is part QMS ensures you have qualified and competent staff

The way forward Members to seek advice and support (mentoring) from those with mature QMS to speed-up implementation Members inform WMO AND ICAO on status,progress, issues and timelines Implementation of QMS up to certification is resource intensive Cost recovery strongly facilitated where QMS is in place and working

Future plans ICAO with the assistance of WMO is now addressing the future system-wide information management system for aeronautical meteorology that will support the future global air traffic management environment. The latest version of the ICAO Global Air Navigation Plan (GANP) encompasses a system of sequential Aviation System Block Upgrades (ASBU) that is designed to take full advantage of emerging new technologies in all areas of aviation to cope with the expected growth of traffic and the ensuing increased traffic density.

Future plans Block Upgrades will require large efforts by met service providers in terms of: –Infrastructure investment (obs, comm,fcst) –Personnel competencies –Accurate, reliable and fit-for-purpose data –Cross-border coordination and harmonization –Portfolio of products and services, adapted to user needs

How to respond to this challenge? Example Europe: –Met service providers to form alliances to bid for development work (EUMETNET, Met Alliance) –Create harmonized services across “Functional Airspace Blocks” –Develop ConOps for regionalized 1service delivery And in the Americas? –Make best use of existing and emerging regional structures (CIMH,CMO, COCESNA, etc) –“Act as one” towards the customer –Look for efficiency gains through shared developmet, design, purchase, training

. The end