te - pia preliminary impact assessment · web vieweuropean aviation safety agency preliminary...

European Aviation Safety Agency

Preliminary Impact Assessment

[Title/Action Area]Executive Summary dd/mm/yyyy

For more detailed information, please refer to the PIA user guide.

1 What is the issue/rationale?

For safety driver: What (safety) issue is being assessed in this PIA. For safety issues: refer to the safety risk portfolio.

For other drivers (efficiency/proportionality, level playing field, environment): what are the problems you want to address

This is the format for your text…

2 What do we want to achieve?


3 How do we monitor improvement?


4 What is the justification for the candidate actions?

Action 1 – [provide name]Owner [EASA Department]Issue [Add reference to the (safety) issue identified in section 1, in case there were a number]

[provide a justification within 10 lines maximum]This is the format for your text…

EXAMPLE:

PIA indicators for prioritisation on Action 1Driver PIA score Benefits

(Improvement

Level based on a scale

from 0 –low to 10 – very

high)

Costs(Implementation CostLevel based on a scale

from 0 –low to 10 – very high)

Cost-Effectiveness

Start and Implementation

time (years)1

Third countries

PriorityType

(Strategic A, Standard B,

Regular Update C)

ActionType

(Rule, SP, Res,

Focussed oversight)

Safety or Efficiency or Level playing

field

A1.3 4 3 1.3Negative (<1)Low (1+) to

Medium (1.5+)High (2+)

20183 yrs

Yes A RMT

Action 2 – [provide name]Repeat the structure from Action 1

1 Rulemaking implementation time is defined as time between ToR publication and Opinion publication. Due to the nature of rulemaking the impacts will be only applicable at a much later stage.

TE.RPRO.00091-001© European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. of

An agency of the European Union

Preliminary Impact Assessment – [Title]

…

5 Proposed ranking

Note: regular update are not mentioned in this table. They have to be mentioned later in the report.

EXAMPLE:

An indicative priority order based upon the cost effectiveness can be found below:

PIAscore2

Action Title Driver Benefit Level

Cost Effectiveness

Strategic priority3

Action type

A5 Action 5

Rotorcraft Equipment, Systems and Installations Safety Requirements

Efficiency 5 5 Yes

A2-3 Action 3 Rotorcraft Occupant Protection Safety 2 to 3 2 to 3 Yes

A2 Action 6Human Factors assessment of Helicopter Cockpits

Safety 2 2 Yes

A1.5 Action 2 Rotorcraft Hoists Safety risk Safety 3 1.5 Yes

A1.5 Action 4 Rotorcraft VHM Safety 3 1.5 Yes

B1.5 Action 1Terrain Awareness Warning System for Helicopters

Safety 1.5 to 3 0.5 to 1.5 No

B1.2 Action 7 Rotorcraft Fly by Wire requirements Efficiency 6 1.2 No

The prioritisation for other factors such as safety improvement or ease of implementation may result in a different order and will need to be considered when scheduling the rulemaking programme.

6 What are the actions discarded?[Indicate the discarded actions or if some actions have been limited to a specific type of operations and explain shortly the reason].…

7 Next steps

The indicators presented above will support the prioritisation of the RMP and EPAS 2017-2021. The information will also be shared and discussed with stakeholders in order to achieve robust assessments.

2 The PIA score is indicating if the tasks is linked to a strategic priority (A), standard priority (B) or an regular update task (C). The numerical figure is the cost-effectiveness score.3 Tasks are attribute a strategic priority if they are contributing to a strategic action area as identified in the paper “Strategic priorities for the safety programmes 2017-2021”.



Preliminary Impact Assessment – [Title]

PIA Report

[Action area]

Authorisation :Name Signature Date

PIA Lead Expert

IA coordinator

Safety Analyst

Safety Promotion

Contributor 1

Contributor 2

Reviewed 1

Reviewed 2

Authorised (Optional)

Report Distribution List:1

2

3

4

5



Contributors (internal)

For internal use Name Version No DatePrepared by: PIA Lead Expert: 0.1

IA team:

Safety Promotion Team:

SM1 safety analyst:

Contributor 1:

…

Peer-reviewed by: Name

IA team:

Approved by: Section Manager/HoD

Internal coordination[Specify if this PIA needs to be discussed at ESC level]

Resource estimate (at the time of drafting; may be subject to change)In order to deliver this rulemaking task, the following resource estimate has been conducted:

Resource Requirement

PIA Lead Expert [Please specify in terms of hrs/project]

IA team [Please specify in terms of hrs/project]

Safety Promotion Team [Please specify in terms of hrs/project]

SM1 safety analyst [Please specify in terms of hrs/project]

Contributor 1 [Please specify in terms of hrs/project]

… [Please specify in terms of hrs/project]



Table of contents

1 What is the issue/rationale?......................................................................................12 What do we want to achieve?...................................................................................13 How do we monitor improvement?............................................................................14 What is the justification for the candidate actions?...................................................1

Action 1 – [provide name] Owner [EASA Department] Issue [Add reference to the (safety) issue identified in section 1, in case there were a number]...........................................1

Action 2 – [provide name] Repeat the structure from Action 1..............................................2

5 Proposed ranking......................................................................................................26 What are the actions discarded?...............................................................................27 Next steps................................................................................................................. 21 Issue analysis............................................................................................................8

1.1 General description.......................................................................................................81.1.1 What is/are the driver/s in this PIA?....................................................................81.1.2 [Safety/Environment/Efficiency/Level playing field] issue – General description 81.1.3 Who is affected?.................................................................................................81.1.4 Current actions...................................................................................................91.1.5 Safety Issue and Actions Matrix – Current situation (SIAM-C) [section only valid

for safety issue: for other drivers, this is optional for the time-being]................91.2 How important are the current issues?........................................................................111.3 Baseline scenario.........................................................................................................12

2 Objectives...............................................................................................................123 Organisation aspects...............................................................................................124 Methodology aspects..............................................................................................125 Actions assessed in the PIA.....................................................................................136 Action 1 – [Title]......................................................................................................13

6.1 What is the problem?...................................................................................................136.2 Purpose of the action: what will the action prevent/mitigate? and how ?....................14

6.2.1 What will the action prevent/mitigate?.............................................................146.2.2 What is the technical content of the action?....................................................146.2.3 What are the relevant types of support for this action?...................................146.2.4 Interfaces to be considered..............................................................................14

6.3 Impact analysis............................................................................................................146.3.1 Benefit level.....................................................................................................146.3.1 Time implementation.......................................................................................156.3.2 Implementation cost level................................................................................15

6.4 Summary of decision-criteria per type of support of the action...................................16

7 Action 2 – [Title]......................................................................................................168 Conclusions.............................................................................................................17

8.1 Safety Issue and Actions Matrix – Future situation (SIAM-F)........................................178.2 Comparison of actions.................................................................................................188.3 Selected actions..........................................................................................................18



8.4 Discarded actions........................................................................................................188.5 Overall impact of the selected actions to meet the objective [optional]......................188.6 Monitoring and ex post evaluation..............................................................................18

9 Appendices..............................................................................................................199.1 Appendix 1 – List of available documents....................................................................19



1 Issue analysis

[Check if a Pre-RIA is available for this issue. If it exists, you can copy-paste the text from the corresponding section ‘Issue analysis’ and amend it as required.]

[Explain the issue which the proposal is intended to address. Describe its nature and its extent. If the main issue is safety, refer to section ‘Safety risk assessment’.]

[What are the underlying root causes/drivers of the issue? Possible causes/drivers: safety, environmental, economic, social or regulatory harmonisation issues.]

[Are there any implementation problems identified? Is there uneven implementation across EASA Member States?]

[To ensure consistency and completeness, the questions from the baseline assessment in the Pre-RIA template can be considered.]


1.1 General description

1.1.1 What is/are the driver/s in this PIA?[Provide the rational to define the driver(s) for this PIA. For the main driver: complement/amend the generic text for different drivers:

-Safety: the need to maintain or reduce current safety risk level

-Environment: the need to maintain or reduce current environmental protection level risk level

-Efficiency: The need to reduce overregulation and move towards performance-based rules

-Level playing field: The need to ensure that stakeholders are treated equally]

[Current legal framework]

[Describe how the other drivers are also in the scope of this action area]


1.1.2 [Safety/Environment/Efficiency/Level playing field] issue – General description

[Describe sufficiently to understand the issues to be tacled. However if the justifications are loo long, use the related section related to each action to describe in more detailed the issues]

[For safety issues, use the safety risk portfolio to describe precisely the safety issue(s). This section should consists in a summary of the safety issue analysis which preceeds the PIA in the process]

[For other drivers provide detailed justification to explain the size of the issue]

[Check if a Pre-RIA is available for this issue. If it exists, you can copy-paste the text from the corresponding section ‘Issue analysis’ and amend it as required.]


1.1.3 Who is affected?[Check if a Pre-RIA is available for this issue. If it exists, you can copy-paste the text from the corresponding section ‘Issue analysis’ and amend it as required.]



[Which sectors, groups and stakeholders are affected by the issue? Give additional information on the cover sheet. Do the current situation and regulatory conditions raise public concern or stir controversy among the general public? Do the current situation and regulatory conditions raise stakeholders’ concern or stir controversy among stakeholders?]

[Types of aircraft, systems, constituents or equipment affected. Give additional information on the cover sheet, e.g. more detailed breakdown, number of products affected, etc.]


1.1.4 Current actions[Draft ICAO rules, ICAO State Letters, RMTs, Safety Promotion activities, actions from EASA oversight programme, ...]

[Sort the action in this order: RMT, SPT (Safety Promotion), Oversight, RS (Research), MS (Member States), specific color for ICAO rules not yet transposed in EU framework? ]

[Color code: use Blue for RMT, Yellow for SPT, Grey for MS, [?] for Oversight, [?] for RS]

[Indicate how third countries rules influence the need of acting]


Table 1 – List of current actions

Action number

Type.Code

Owner Objective – Intended impacts

(source: PROMA)

1.1.5 Safety Issue and Actions Matrix – Current situation (SIAM-C) [section only valid for safety issue: for other drivers, this is optional for the time-being]With the safety issues addressed in section Error: Reference source not found and the current actions indicated in section Error: Reference source not found, it is now possible:

to display the links between the safety issues and the current actions;

Example of table:



Safety Risk Portfolios

Domain Safety Issues Incidents (ECR data)

Serious Incidents

Total Accidents

Nb of Fatal Accidents

Nb of Hull Loss

Nb of Fatalities

Total S.I + Acc

% Total serious

incidents + accidents

RMT.0120

RMT.0573

RMT.0409

RMT.0127

RMT.0119

RMT.0608

SPT.032 SPT.034 SPT.038 SPT. HE9 EHEST Flight Instr.Manual

RES. Offshore

OFFSHORE

Diagnosis (and Tolerance) of System Failures

1 203 5 2 1 1 3 7 28% X X X

System Reliability 1 203 5 2 1 1 3 7 28% X X XOperation in Adverse Weather Conditions

73 0 2 1 0 4 2 8% X X X X X

Detection, Recognition and Recovery of Deviation from Normal Operations

8 1 1 1 0 4 2 8% X X X X X X X

Pre-Flight Preparation/ Planning and In-Flight Re-Planning

67 0 1 1 0 4 1 4% X X X X X X X

Ground/Helideck Operations

117 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% X X X X X X

Aircraft Maintenance 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% XHelicopter Landing Environment

13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% X X X X X

Control and Management of the Static Operating Environment

11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% X X X X X X

Control and Management of the Dynamic Operating Environment

11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% X X X X X X

Control of the Helicopter Flight Path and Use of AFCS Capabilities

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% X X X X X

In-Flight Fuel Management

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% X X X X X

Obstacle Clearance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% X X X X X XFlight Crew Perception and Awareness, Decision Making and Planning

0 0 1 1 0 4 1 4% X X X X X X X X X

Use and Adequacy of Rules and Procedures

0 0 1 1 0 4 1 4% X X X X X X

CRM and Communications

45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% X X X X X

Personal Readiness 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% X X X X XKnowledge and Competency of Individuals

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% X X X X X X

Management of Personnel

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% X

Safety Leadership and Culture

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% X

SMS Implementation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% X X X XRegulation and Oversight 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% X

Survival and Egress 0 1 3 2 1 7 4 16% X X XForced Landings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% X X X X

OFFSHOCOMMERCIAL AIR TRANSPORT


15 1 14 2

2 6

15 37% X X X X X

Operation near Wires 10 1 6 2 2 6 7 17% X X X XOperation in Adverse Weather Conditions

69 1 6 1 1 4 7 17% X X X X X

Maintaining Adequate Separation Between Aircraft

293 1 3 00 0

4 10% X X X X X

Birdstrikes and Bird Control

87 0 1 0 0 0 1 2% X X

Aircraft Maintenance 66 1 0 0 0 0 1 2%

Consequences

Forced Landings 8 0 3 00 0

3 7% X X X X

Technical Handling and Operation of the Aircraft Following a Technical Failure

5 1 1 00 0

2 5% X X X X X

Human Flight Crew Perception and Awareness/ Decision Making and Planning

0 0 1 1

1 4

1 2% X X X X X X X

COMMERCIAL

Operational

Technical

Operational

Human

Organisational

Consequences

to assess the potential safety impacts of these existing actions.

Example of table:



Safety issues Serious Incidents (A)

Accidents (B)

Accidents and Serious Incidents (C)

% Total Accidents + Serious Incidents

RMT 0647 mitigation value (E)

RMT 0581 mitigation value (F)

RMT 0397 mitigation value (G)

RMT 0647 safety score D*E

RMT 0581 safety score D*F

RMT 0397 safety score D*G


22 12 34 11.45% 40% 50% 0% 4.6% 5.7% 0%

Operation in Adverse Weather Conditions

38 33 71 23.91% 0% 50% 0% 0.0% 12.0% 0%

Ground Handling Operations

7 10 17 5.72% 0% 0% 0% 0.0% 0.0% 0%Pre-Flight Preparation/ Planning and In-Flight Re-Planning

7 2 9 3.03% 0% 20% 0% 0.0% 0.6% 0%

Aircraft Maintenance 7 2 9 3.03% 0% 0% 0% 0.0% 0.0% 0%Birdstrikes and Bird Control

3 0 3 1.01% 0% 0% 0% 0.0% 0.0% 0%Calculation and Entry of Take-Off and Landing Parameters into Aircraft

3 0 3 1.01% 0% 0% 0% 0.0% 0.0% 0%

Handling and execution of Go Arounds

5 0 5 1.68% 50% 50% 0% 0.8% 0.8% 0%

Handling and Operation of the Aircraft Following a Technical Failure

14 12 26 8.75% 20% 50% 0% 1.8% 4.4% 0%

False or Disrupted ILS Signal Capture

4 0 4 1.35% 0% 40% 0% 0.0% 0.5% 0%

Suitability of Recording Devices

4 6 10 3.37% 0% 0% 0% 0.0% 0.0% 0%

Survivability and Evacuation

2 6 8 2.69% 0% 0% 0% 0.0% 0.0% 0%

Personal Readiness and Crew Impairment

40 1 41 13.80% 0% 60% 0% 0.0% 8.3% 0%

Flight Crew Perception and Awareness Decision Making and Planning

14 6 20 6.73% 50% 40% 0% 3.4% 2.7% 0%

CRM and Communication 19 6 25 8.42% 10% 50% 0% 0.8% 4.2% 0%Monitoring of Flight Parameters and Automation Modes

7 0 7 2.36% 20% 40% 0% 0.5% 0.9% 0%

Oversight of Organisations

0 0 0 0.00% 0% 0% 0% 0.0% 0.0% 0%

Implementation of Reporting Systems and Safety Management

2 0 2 0.67% 0% 10% 0% 0.0% 0.1% 0%

Knowledge of Aircraft Systems and Use of Associated Procedures

3 0 3 1.01% 0% 60% 0% 0.0% 0.6% 0%

Safety Index (0-100) 11.9% 40.8% 0%Safety Recommendation(s)

Y Y YActivity initiated from occurrence

N Y Y

Fatal accidents N Y Y

Contribution to safety reduction

Insert the table with links between the safety issues and the current actions


1.2 How important are the current issues?Table 2 – Current level of issues according PIA decision-making criteria

Driver Score for baseline scenario

Significance

Safety [indicate a score or “not relevant”]

Environment [indicate a score or “not relevant”]

Level playing field [indicate a score or “not relevant”]



Efficient / proportionality

[indicate a score or “not relevant”]

[The table above should be sufficient and further information shoud be added in the following sub-section. However in case you need it add here other information:]


1.3 Baseline scenario

[How will the situation develop in the future if there are no additional actions? For example, no action may be required right now because there are only few operations, but if the rules are not changed, there will be problems in the future due to an increase in operations.]


2 Objectives

[Possible source: PROMA field for objectives].


3 Organisation aspectsEXAMPLE:

In order to ensure that all Agency stakeholders were given the opportunity to contribute to this PIA for Rotorcraft, key members of the different sections and departments within the Agency that are involved with rotorcraft were brought together to establish a PIA working group under the guidance of the Agency’s Strategy & Programmes Department. A PIA focal point was also nominated within the CT directorate in the Regulation and Certification Policy Section to provide overall coordination.

4 Methodology aspectsEXAMPLE:

In order to establish a basis for the PIA Rotorcraft input all Agency rotorcraft stakeholders were requested to provide candidate safety and efficiency actions that could improve safety, address perceived shortfalls in the Agency’s regulations or certification specifications and also improve the efficiency. The candidate safety and efficiency actions were subsequently gathered and documented by the PIA rotorcraft working group. Existing actions from on-going rulemaking tasks and safety promotion activities were also documented. In order to ensure that the list of safety actions was complete the PIA rotorcraft working group also reviewed the safety recommendations for rotorcraft that had been addressed to the Agency.

A key input to the PIA Rotorcraft process was the provision of the Safety Risk Portfolio for Rotorcraft which provides a list of the main safety issues based on accident and occurrence data from the last 10-15 years and inputs from the industry in a format that can be quickly assimilated. The Safety Risk Portfolio for Rotorcraft directly links the Key Risk Areas (i.e aircraft upset, terrain/obstacle conflict) to the underlying safety issues that could cause them (i.e Flight Crew Perception and Awareness, Decision Making and Planning, Operation in Adverse Weather Conditions). This enables the reviewer to visually see the potential safety benefit and subsequent effect that could be gained by addressing a safety issue.

PIA rotorcraft working group created a matrix where it was possible to link the existing and candidate actions to the rotorcraft safety risk portfolio and in particular the safety issues. The PIA rotorcraft working group then reviewed each safety action to establish which safety issue(s) could be addressed or mitigated



in the safety risk portfolio. This enabled the PIA rotorcraft working group to establish the direct correlation between the action and the safety issues.

The next step was to determine the potential effect that the safety actions would have on the related safety issues. In order to achieve this the matrix was updated to include the number of; accidents, occurrences, serious incidents, fatalities and hull losses for each safety issue. In addition, a separate table was produced that provided a link between the safety issues in the matrix and the accidents and the accident reports. This enabled the PIA rotorcraft working group to review the safety issues that would benefit from the safety action and then also review the accident reports that are associated with the safety issues.

The PIA rotorcraft working group reviewed each of the accident reports that were associated with the safety issues to determine what safety benefit could be gained by each safety action. Due to constraints on time and resources for this activity it was decided that this review should be limited to the accidents that occurred during offshore and commercial air transport operations. During this review an estimation of the reduced probability of occurrence due to the safety action was made and was based on expert judgement and peer review with the working group.

The outcome of the review of safety actions and safety issues was used as the basis for taking forward the safety actions that could improve safety and mitigate the safety issues in the rotorcraft Safety Risk Portfolio.

5 Actions assessed in the PIA

[Use the list of the current actions in the section above and add new potential actions. Make a list of final actions by grouping some of them if this facilitates their assessment. Indicate if there are some actions which can be discarded at this stage with justifications].

Example of table with the PIA “erroneous take-off parameters”

List of actions presented to ESC Meeting 2015#06

Relevant for PIA? PIA action number Driver

WG-88 to prepare the Minimum Operational Performance Specifications (MOPS) for the On Board Weight and Balance System (OBWBS). The MOPS will probably be delayed beyond Q4/2015.

Yes Action 2 Safety

Reactivation of the WG-94 or a new activity may be launched to re-evaluate the feasibility of developing standards for a Take-off Performance Monitoring System.

No, see section Error: Referencesource not found

No action

Results from NLR on ‘Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) - Aircraft performance calculations and mass & balance, - Best practices for evaluation and use of EFB’, by the end of Summer 2015.

Yes, however no assessment in this PIA (study outcome not yet analysed)

Action 1The actions 3 and 4 are grouped in the PIA analysis for consistency reasons

Safety

Commission Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 to be amended due to transposition of provisions on Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) from ICAO Annex 6 (ref.: RMT.0601 and RMT.0602).

Yes, however no assessment in this PIA due to start of the RMT in January 2016




6 Action 1 – [Title]

6.1 What is the problem?

[When the section 1 is not enough detailed to understand the issues addressed by this action, develop in that case proper justification to explain the problem]


6.2 Purpose of the action: what will the action prevent/mitigate? and how ?

6.2.1 What will the action prevent/mitigate? [e.g. the pilot errors when performing the task xxx can be prevented]


6.2.2 What is the technical content of the action?[e.g. to prevent the pilot error, the action intends to reinforce training skills/add a new equipment/…]


6.2.3 What are the relevant types of support for this action?[Indicate which supports for this action are relevant]

Industry standardThis is the format for your text…

Safety PromotionThis is the format for your text…

OversightThis is the format for your text…

RulemakingThis is the format for your text…

ResearchThis is the format for your text…

6.2.4 Interfaces to be consideredThis is the format for your text…

6.3 Impact analysis

6.3.1 Benefit level[Describe the estimated level of benefit that this action may achieve. i.e. by how much the action will improve the baseline. E.g. assess the decrease in safety risks and what are the most efficient



supports for an action (safety promotion, rulemaking, …). Quantifiy this safety benefit in terms of risk reduction]


Conclusion for benefit level

Safety risks are estimated to be reduced by a maximum of XX %, equivalent to an improvement level of YY with a scale from 0 to 10.

Table 3 – Benefit per type of support of the action

Type of support Benefit level (SIL)Action 1 - Title YYY

6.3.1 Time implementation

[Estimate the number of years to develop the action and the number of years to get the achievement of the benefits]


Table 4 - Time implementation per type of support of the action

Type of support Total Time implementation (years)

Action development (years)

Action implementation to achieve benefits

(years)Action 1 - Title …

6.3.2 Implementation cost level

[Describe and estimate as far as possible the type of cost occurring for each support of an action:

General cost categories:

number of assets/staff impacted

one-off costs

o equipment cost

o installation/integration costs

o number of hours for initial training

o set up new procedures quantified in terms of man-hours

o …

operational costs

o fuel, refresh training, … taking into account the life cycle of the actions, e.g. the lifetime of an equipment

o maintenance costs



o Decommissioning

o …

These costs need to be put in relation with the revenues/budget of the relevant stakeholders.


Table 5 – Implementation Cost level

Type of support Implementation cost level (ICL)Action 1 - Title …

6.4 Summary of decision-criteria per type of support of the actionTable 6 – Summary of decision-criteria

Action Type of support

Benefit Level (BL) Implementation cost level (ICL)

Cost-Effectiveness= BL / ICL

Time implementation (years)

Action 1 Industry standardsSafety PromotionRMT……


7 Action 2 – [Title]



8 Conclusions

8.1 Safety Issue and Actions Matrix – Future situation (SIAM-F)EXAMPLE:



Safety score for new actions

Safety Risk Portfolios

Domain Safety Issues Incidents (ECR data)

Serious Incidents

Total Accidents

Nb of Fatal Accidents

Nb of Hull Loss

Nb of Fatalities

Total S.I + Acc

% Total serious

incidents + accidents

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

OFFSHORE

Diagnosis (and Tolerance) of System Failures

1 203 5 2 1 1 3 7 28% 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

System Reliability 1 203 5 2 1 1 3 7 28% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0

Operation in Adverse Weather Conditions

73 0 2 1 0 4 2 8% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


8 1 1 1 0 4 2 8% 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0

Pre-Flight Preparation/ Planning and In-Flight Re-Planning

67 0 1 1 0 4 1 4% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Ground/Helideck Operations

117 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Aircraft Maintenance 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Helicopter Landing Environment

13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Control and Management of the Static Operating Environment

11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Control and Management of the Dynamic Operating Environment

11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Control of the Helicopter Flight Path and Use of AFCS Capabilities

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

In-Flight Fuel Management

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Obstacle Clearance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Flight Crew Perception and Awareness, Decision Making and Planning

0 0 1 1 0 4 1 4% 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0

Use and Adequacy of Rules and Procedures

0 0 1 1 0 4 1 4% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

CRM and Communications

45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Personal Readiness 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Knowledge and Competency of Individuals

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Management of Personnel

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Safety Leadership and Culture

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SMS Implementation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Regulation and Oversight 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Survival and Egress 0 1 3 2 1 7 4 16% 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Forced Landings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0OFFSHO 3.0 0.0 2.0 7.0 4.2 6.0 0.0COMMERCIAL AIR TRANSPORT


15 1 14 2

2 6

15 37% 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Operation near Wires 10 1 6 2 2 6 7 17% 8.5 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Operation in Adverse Weather Conditions

69 1 6 1 1 4 7 17% 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Maintaining Adequate Separation Between Aircraft

293 1 3 00 0

4 10% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Birdstrikes and Bird Control

87 0 1 0 0 0 1 2% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Aircraft Maintenance 66 1 0 0 0 0 1 2% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Consequences

Forced Landings 8 0 3 00 0

3 7% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Technical Handling and Operation of the Aircraft Following a Technical Failure

5 1 1 00 0

2 5% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Human Flight Crew Perception and Awareness/ Decision Making and Planning

0 0 1 1

1 4

1 2% 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

COMMERCIAL

22.6 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Operational

Technical

Operational

Human

Organisational

Consequences

8.2 Comparison of actions



Table 7 - Time implementation per type of support of the action

Action number

PIA score Benefit level

Implementation cost level

Cost-Effectiveness

Time implementation (years)

Priority type

Action type

8.3 Selected actions …

8.4 Discarded actions …

8.5 Overall impact of the selected actions to meet the objective [optional]

Table 8 - Overall impact of the actions to meet the objective

Before actions After actions Overall level of improvementSafetyEnvironmentLevel playing fieldEfficiency / proportionality

8.6 Monitoring and ex post evaluation…



9 Appendices

9.1 Appendix 1 – List of available documentsTable 9 – List of available documents

Document

Title

1 RMT.xxx - NPA xxx 2 …3 RMT.0x - Pre-RIA “xxx”4 …5 SPTxxx – leaflet xxx6 Safety issue analysis report “xxx”



te - pia preliminary impact assessment · web vieweuropean aviation safety agency preliminary...

Documents