Global Runway Safety Symposium ICAO’s Harmonization Initiatives Ms Nancy Graham Director / Air Navigation Bureau 25 May 2011

Promoting Standardization Runway safety has long been a focal point for ICAO. Examples of the sort of runway safety initiatives we have worked on over the last few years include: 1. ICAO Runway Incursion Toolkit (CD-Rom, 2005) 2. Manual on the Prevention of Runway Incursions (2007) 3. Various amendments to Annexes and PANS that relate directly to runway safety include recognising “Hot Spots”, the use of stop bars in all visibility conditions; enhanced taxiway centre line markings We’ve worked very closely with IATA to produce the Runway Excursion Risk Reduction Toolkit (which Guenther has already mentioned and which you have a copy of in your event bags). Now our focus is on strengthening provisions related to other runway safety issues as Runway End Safety Areas and Arresting Systems, and coming up with a global reporting format for runway surface conditions. Leaflets in the ICAO information pack in your event bag provide you with further details on our ongoing work.

Monitoring Standardization USOAP Audit Areas primary aviation legislation and civil aviation regulations civil aviation organization personnel licensing and training aircraft operations airworthiness of aircraft The USOAP audit process includes the use of 975 Protocol questions to evaluate the implementation of international requirements and recommended practices. The questions are categorized into audit areas, which are listed on the left side of this chart. On the right side, you see a graphical depiction of an audit result for a particular State, with each of the 975 protocol questions depicted as a horizontal line. Green areas indicate compliance, or implementation of the USOAP protocols, red areas are composed of lines that indicate deficiencies and white areas indicate where some of the protocol questions are not applicable to a particular State. You can see that the lines for this audit have been separated a bit so that we can examine USOAP performance according to each USOAP area. aircraft accident and incident investigation air navigation services aerodromes

Monitoring Standardization Focus on specific areas related to Runway Safety Air navigation services Aerodromes Taking this analysis a bit further, we can focus on the USOAP areas most directly related to runway safety. For example, USOAP results in the ANC and AGA areas. Of course, there are other relevant protocol questions in others areas such as aircraft operations for example. But, I’d like to talk briefly about how we have been looking at USOAP performance in a targeted manner, so as to find specific opportunities for improvement that will have a direct impact on runway safety.

Worldwide deficiencies in implementation of ICAO Standards Air navigation services Legislation and regulations for air navigation services 49% Air navigation services - General 45% Air traffic management - CAA oversight - Organization, staffing and training 72% Air traffic management - Operational - Personnel 32% Air traffic management - Operational - Implementation 22% Air traffic management - Operational - Requirements for coordination, communication and information 25% Air traffic management - Operational - Safety management 60% PANS-OPS - CAA oversight Aeronautical Charts - Operational 38% CNS- CAA oversight 35% MET oversight 48% MET - operational 30% Air traffic management CAA oversight - Organization, staffing and training: 72% Operational - Safety management: 60% Aerodromes Legislation and regulations for Aerodromes 62% Organization, staffing and training of the aerodrome regulatory authority 69% Technical and administrative guidance and equipment 72% Aerodrome certification - General 59% Aerodrome certification - Aerodrome manual 53% Aerodrome certification - Provision of aerodrome data and coordination Aerodrome certification - Aerodrome physical characteristics, facilities and equipment 55% Aerodrome certification - Aerodrome lights, markings, markers and signs 60% Aerodrome certification - Aerodrome maintenance 64% Aerodrome certification - operating procedures Safety management systems 76% Aerodrome surveillance Project title (Insert, Header & Footer) First layer This is a list of representative protocol questions that are related to runway safety in the ANS and AGA areas. The percentages listed on the right show the lack of effective implementation of USOAP protocols, so it’s a negative score in the sense that the higher the percentages, the greater the deficiencies. We have listed 24 protocol questions in total – 12 in ANS and 12 in AGA. As you can see, the Lack of effective implementation scores range from a low of 22% for air traffic management operations to a high of 76% for Aerodrome SMS. In other words, there is room for improvements that will increase harmonization through increased implementation of the international Standards and Recommended Practices. Second Layer This is a list of 5 specific protocol questions having very high lack of effective implementation scores – just to show you an example of areas in which our USOAP audit activity can help us to prioritize improvements that can reduce runway safety risks. Again, remember that the percentages indicate LACK of implementation – so, for example, the first question listed in ANS shows that globally, only 28% of the audited States have satisfied the audit requirements related to organizational, staffing and training issues related to the oversight or air traffic management services. Of particular note are the LEI scores for Safety Management – 60% in ANS and 76% in AGA. These LEI scores indicate that, while we are making progress, there is more work to be done. As a result, ICAO is working to facilitate implementation of safety management practices through a number of initiatives, including a few that will enhance our ability to share information in support of multidisciplinary runway safety teams. Organization, staffing and training of the aerodrome regulatory authority: 69% Technical and administrative guidance and equipment: 72% Safety management systems: 76%

Ensuring a Multidisciplinary Approach Facilitating Information Exchange: Code of Conduct High-level principles to ensure appropriate sharing and use of safety information Safety Information Protection Task Force Recommendations for ICAO to ensure availability of safety information, consistent with legal / judicial requirements Communication and outreach strategies being developed Deliverables expected within 18 months Technical Harmonization Study Group Development of common safety metrics and analysis methods Requirements for interoperable tools and information systems Work planned to begin early next year These are the three main areas in which we are working with the international aviation community to improve harmonization in a multidisciplinary manner: Code of Conduct – guiding principles for the sharing and use of safety information SIP TF – Ensuring that there is a balance between the need to protect valuable safety information as well as the related sources, in order to enhance safety while allowing for the proper administration of justice Technical harmonization – we need to be able to speak the same language when it comes to safety metrics and measurement. In addition, ensuring that the data management systems are interoperable – or able to speak with one another – is a key task that will facilitate the exchange of important safety information.

Harmonizing & sharing information Speaking a common language: Accident and Hazard classifications must be aligned. ADREP 34 Occurrence Categories – 10 directly related to runway safety Approximately 800 event codes Improvements being developed to enhance use as a Safety Management reporting system Improving reporting and information sharing techniques In addition to our work to ensure the future availability of valuable safety data collected through safety management processes, we need to harmonize the definition and classification of runway safety events or related hazards that will feed the proactive risk management process. We’re working hard to evolve ADREP, ICAO’s database of accidents and serious incidents reported by our Member States. ADREP has a very comprehensive taxonomy, that includes 34 occurrence categories, 10 of which are related to events likely to occur during the taxi, takeoff, approach and landing flight phases. In addition, there are approximately 800 underlying event types to provide more specific information regarding the type of occurrence. But, fully leveraging the benefits of ADREP, requires that we manage such a large list of classifications to ensure that reports are accurate and consistent. In addition, we need to consider the harmonization of ADREP with the numerous other accident, incident and hazard classification schemes in use throughout the international community. ICAO is undertaking a number of initiatives to accomplish these objectives – through identification of those ADREP categories and event codes that can be more easily mapped into other reporting programs used by regulators or industry partners. In addition, we are working to develop improved electronic reporting forms and other tools that will enhance the quality of the reports received by ICAO.

Thank you 2011 FSSCO