1 / 32

Transition to the USOAP Continuous Monitoring Approach (CMA)

Transition to the USOAP Continuous Monitoring Approach (CMA). Transition to CMA. Background on CMA What is CMA How USOAP Evolved to CMA Benefits CMA Components How it works State Safety Risk Profile US Transition What States Can Do What States Can Do Challenges

quon-soto
Download Presentation

Transition to the USOAP Continuous Monitoring Approach (CMA)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Transition to the USOAP Continuous Monitoring Approach(CMA)

  2. Transition to CMA • Background on CMA • What is CMA • How USOAP Evolved to CMA • Benefits • CMA Components • How it works • State Safety Risk Profile • US Transition • What States Can Do • What States Can Do • Challenges • Role of Regional Offices and RSOOs

  3. What is CMA? • CMA is the next evolution of the USOAP • The objective of CMA is to promote global aviation safety through continuous monitoring of Member States’ safety oversight capabilities

  4. What is CMA? • CMA provides a mechanism for ICAO: • To collect safety information from Member States and other stakeholders on a real time basis • To analyze the information using a risk-based approach to identify and prioritize appropriate activities to be carried out by ICAO

  5. How USOAP Evolved to CMA CMA 2011+ A37-5 Evolution of CMA as top priority 2-year transition 2011-2012 Full CMA launch 2013 Mandatory Audit Programme (USOAP) A32-11 1999 – 2004 181 Audits, 162 Follow-ups Annexes 1, 6, 8 (Annex-by-Annex Approach) Comprehensive Systems Approach (CSA) 2005 – 2010 177 Audits Safety-related provisions in all Annexes Development of Continuous Monitoring Approach (CMA) beyond 2010 A36-4 37th Assembly 2010 35th Assembly 2004 36th Assembly 2007

  6. Benefits • Collective sharing of safety data • Continuous monitoring of capabilities and performance- “real time” • Proactive approach to safety- better analysis • More efficient- less labor and resource intensive

  7. CMA Audit Areas

  8. CMA Components Determination of State’s safety risk profile Collection of safety information Update of Lack of effective implementation (LEI) and status of SSCs Prioritization and conduct of USOAP CMA activities

  9. Collection of safety information How it Works Through an online framework States will provide information through: • State Aviation Activity Questionnaires (SAAQs) • Updating the Compliance Checklists and Electronic Filing of Differences (EFOD) • Updating USOAP Protocol Questions (PQs) • Updating Corrective Action Plans (CAPS)

  10. Collection of safety information How it Works External Stakeholders that have audit programs, audit activities, or generate safety data or information will provide input to ICAO • External Stakeholders include: • European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) • EUROCONTROL • International Air Transport Association (IATA) • Regional Aviation Safety Oversight Organization (RSOOs) • Formal agreements must be in place with ICAO

  11. Determination of State’s safety risk profile How it Works Collection of safey information ICAO analyzes all of the data to determine safety risk indicators and management capabilities • Safety Risk Indicators • Lack of effective implementation of standards (LEI) • Existence of Significant Safety Concerns (SSC) • Level of aviation activities for each audit area • Level of acceptability and progress of implementing CAPs • Ongoing or planned assistance projects • Progress in implementing a Safety Management System (SMS) and a State Safety Program (SSP)

  12. Prioritization and conduct of USOAP CMA activities How it Works Collection of safey information Based on a States’ safety risk profile, ICAO will prioritize and conduct CMA activities • CMA Activities include: • Comprehensive Systems Approach (CSA) audit • Customized safety audit based on specific findings • ICAO Coordinated Validation Mission (ICVM) to ensure that all data and Finding and Recommendations are addressed

  13. Update of Lack of effective implementation (LEI) and status of SSCs How it Works After ICAO conducts CMA activities they will update the LEI and status of SSCs • Information will be collected through: • Mandatory Information Requests (MIRs) • Findings and Recommendations • Significant Safety Concerns • Corrective Actions Plans

  14. Overview of State Roles in CMA • Manages the States’ continuous monitoring program • Submits and regularly updates relevant CMA reporting documentation (SAAQs, EFODs, Compliance Checklists, CMA Protocols, SSP etc.). • Implements corrective and mitigation actions in a timely manner to address safety deficiencies, and • Participates actively in the CMA process.

  15. CMA Stakeholders • ICAO • Technical Cooperation Bureau • Regional Offices • Secretariat Bureaus • External • International Organizations (IATA, EASA…) • Regional Aviation Safety Groups and Oversight Organizations • Information sharing is key! • U.S., ICAO, EC, IATA signed a data sharing agreement at the 37th Assembly.

  16. What States can do States obligation for CMA transition: Nominate a National Continuous Monitoring Coordinator Sign CMA MOU Update Corrective Action Plans Update State Aviation Activity Questionnaire Validate differences already sent to ICAO under the CSA 16

  17. Challenges for States The initial validation of differences sent to ICAO can be very time consuming, especially for States that have not continuously filed differences States no longer just file differences but now must submit how they comply with a standard. This may require a new business process It may take some time to become familiar with the online framework. ICAO has step by step instructions ICAO Regional Offices and Regional Safety Oversight Organizations will have a greater role in validating State submitted data. This may require new business processes but can also provide greater assistance to States. States must remain vigilant in keeping online framework current. If States fall behind it may trigger an ICAO audit. 17

  18. Roles of RSOOs in CMA RSOOs can develop collaborative networks RSOOs can play an important role assisting States RSOOs can help in establishing mandatory and voluntary incident reporting systems RSOOs can facilitate the efficient collection, storage, analysis and exchange of safety data and information. 18

  19. United States-Transition to CMA • Support for CMA • Transition • Conclusions

  20. Support for CMA • The United States recognizes that Member States’ sustained support for the transition to CMA is key to moving USOAP to a more efficient and resourceful approach. • The United States strongly supported the transition to CMA at: • CMA Work Groups and Council meetings • ICAO High Level Safety Conference • ICAO 37th Assembly

  21. Transition • Global Issues Team briefing LOB’s Feb 2012 • ICAO Tools training March 2012 • Compliance Checklist and CAPs updated by July • Ready for transition December 2012

  22. US Conclusions on CMA • The United States is supportive of CMA • Transition to CMA requires extensive updating and validating • Notification of Compliance requires additional time and procedures • The SSP is the regulatory foundation that CMA is built upon • Information sharing is key

  23. Questions?

  24. Transition Timeline for States 2013 • Update CAP • Update SAAQ • Audit protocols 2012 • Update CAP • Update SAAQ • Audit protocols 2011 • Update CAP • Update SAAQ • Sign CMA Agreement • CMA/EFOD Training

  25. Actions for Transition • Sign Memorandum of Understanding with ICAO • MOU is currently under going approval at the ICAO Council • Identify a National Continuous Monitoring Coordinator • Update and Validate • State Aviation Activity Questionnaire (SAAQ) • Differences • Corrective Action Plans

  26. Tools of CMA • State Aviation Activity Questionnaire • Electronic Filing of Differences • Corrective Action Plans • State Safety Program (SSP)

  27. Update and Validate • SAAQ • Updated on a regular basis • Differences • Differences are updated by response to State Letters with every amendment • Validating our differences in the EFOD database • Currently reviewing our compliance and differences with over 10,000 filed SARPS • Corrective Action Plans • Continuously reviewed and updated

  28. Electronic Filing of Differences • No longer just filing “differences”, now must also file compliance USOAP CMA USOAP CSA • Level of Implementation • Text of Difference • Comments • Cite regulation of compliance or difference • Level of Implementation • Text of Difference • Comments • If difference exists than cite regulation

  29. EFOD • United States is updating “compliance” • During update and validation of EFOD we found 1,000s of SARPS that need to be notified to ICAO • Assumed that with responses to State Letters and updating EFOD that ICAO had validated all differences • United States is now validating all differences filed with ICAO

  30. EFOD Reports on Difference to be Notified to ICAO

  31. Corrective Action Plans • The United States continuously updates the corrective action plans • Now found in the ICAO iSTARS • If filing a new difference, the U.S. submits information on intent to comply, status of rulemaking, and timeframe of compliance

  32. State Safety Program • United States has a mature SSP through policies, procedures and regulations • FAA Orders- 8000.370, 8000.369, VS 8000.367, 5200.11, 7110.65, 7210.3, 7010.1, 7210.6, 8020.6 • AC 120-92A, AC 150/5200-37, • Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Dockets- 2009-0671, 2010-0997 • Currently formatting to comply with the ICAO framework for an SSP

More Related