The Product-Behaviour-Process (PBP) Bow-Tie focus on Technical Integrity Research within MR-DREGR and RMIT has a current focus on Left Hand Side of Bow-Tie; Prevention Eachis a test point
Design Maintenance Product Behaviour Process Behaviour Process Bow-tie scoring of test points This circular histogram is a visualisation of the ADF PBP bow- tie grouped to show the technical item lifecycle activities; Design, Production and Maintenance It is a scoring of the Technical Airworthiness Framework, each of the test points are radially represented A score of 0-5 is given based on the level of independence of the person or organisation making the attestation (DGTA-ADF is a 4) The measure of independence is important to assuring that management pressures do not compromise airworthiness requirements and assessments Production
US Army US Navy UK MAA This comparison highlights PBP- Blue is product integrity, red is behavioural integrity and yellow is process integrity. The US Army places a greater focus on product integrity than on process and behavioural integrity (more dark blue) The US Army regulator makes regular attestations (regular appearance of dark blue) The US Navy also have a strong product integrity focus The US Navy regulator makes few behavioural attestations (only two dark blue) The UK regulator relies on the management organisations for most attestations (for Defence organisations, Contractors have more MAA interaction) The ADF regulator mainly sets the standard (TP#.1) and attests to meeting the standard (TP#.5)leaving the rest to the regulated entities. This pattern is replicated in parts of the MAA histogram ADF
US Army US Navy UK MAA This comparison highlights DPM - Clockwise, segment 1 is Design, 2 is Production and 3 is Maintenance. The ADF regulator has a more holistic focus on Design The ADF does not elevate many Production attestations The US Navy production oversight only marginally differs in scoring from the ADF The US Navy regulator makes few behavioural attestations (some regulator process attestations) The UK regulator relies on the management organisations for most attestations (for Defence organisations, Contractors have more regulator interaction) The regulator does not interact with Defence maintenance (comes under a CAMO, contractors need Part 145 approvals) ADF
US ArmyUS Navy This visualisation: Enables Fast and accurate comparison of different Military Airworthiness Authorities (MAAs) Provides an overarching framework-based approach for mutual recognition and increased interoperability between Defence Forces Identifies deficiencies / strengths of current regulatory frameworks Establishes approach for harmonisation with Military and Civilian Airworthiness Frameworks Any questions please speak to the Mutual Recognition team in DREGR; Mr Stew Nicol and FLTLT Leon Purton This visualisation: Enables Fast and accurate comparison of different Military Airworthiness Authorities (MAAs) Provides an overarching framework-based approach for mutual recognition and increased interoperability between Defence Forces Identifies deficiencies / strengths of current regulatory frameworks Establishes approach for harmonisation with Military and Civilian Airworthiness Frameworks Any questions please speak to the Mutual Recognition team in DREGR; Mr Stew Nicol and FLTLT Leon Purton UK MAA