70 likes | 232 Views
The Product-Behaviour-Process (PBP) Bow-Tie focus on Technical Integrity. Each is a test point. Research within MR-DREGR and RMIT has a current focus on Left Hand Side of Bow-Tie; Prevention. Bow-tie scoring of test points. Product. Process. Design. Maintenance. Behaviour. Behaviour.
E N D
The Product-Behaviour-Process (PBP) Bow-Tie focus on Technical Integrity Each is a test point Research within MR-DREGR and RMIT has a current focus on Left Hand Side of Bow-Tie; Prevention
Bow-tie scoring of test points Product Process Design Maintenance Behaviour Behaviour • 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 Process Product Product Process Behaviour Production
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 ADF US Navy UK MAA ADF
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 Army ADF US Navy UK MAA ADF
ADF US Army US Navy UK MAA 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