1. Global Runway Safety Symposium ICAO’s Harmonization Initiatives
John Illson
Air Navigation Bureau
25 May 2011

2. 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.

3. 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

4. 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.

5. 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%

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. Thank you
2011 FSSCO