Environment John Clark & Jon Round Safety Programme Managers - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Updated Regulatory Environment

John Clark & Jon Round Safety Programme Managers

Performance Based Regulation 19 May 2015

Performance Based Regulation

As the Industry Continues to Evolve… How do we Continue to Provide Safety Assurance?

1945 2014

Marginal rate of improvement has levelled over time Significant reducing trend in incidents and events over past 50+ years driven by the expansion of prescriptive rule- based regulation

But further improvements require a new approach

Rate of Safety Incidents

The long term decline in safety incidents and events in the UK since 1945, which was driven by the expansion

• f compliance-based regulation, has levelled out.

Generating further improvements requires a Risk and Performance based approach.

Short term trend is not stable

Our current system has worked very well

These are the key drivers for our change in approach

Transforming the CAA to a performance based regulator

The operating environment The regulatory framework The need to maximise opportunities from Industry’s SMS Delivery of the better regulation agenda

The Delta in Safety Risk Assurance

• Prescriptive rules can effectively address safety risks if:

– The Regulator knows about the risk – The Regulator is convinced of the need to address the risk – The Regulator knows a solution for the risk – The Regulator has adopted a proposed solution to the risk – The Regulator has revised/updated the prescriptive rule to reflect any changes in safety risk – The Regulator has applied the rule only in a targeted manner to entities faced with such risks – The Regulator takes into account the impact which the prescriptive rule has on the entities being regulated – The Regulator understands the impact which the proposed mitigation has on the total system – Industry complies with the prescriptive rule targeted to address the risk – The Regulator enforces compliance with the prescriptive rule

The Delta in Safety Risk Assurance

• But in reality:
• Entities experience very different

levels and types of risks

• Compliance with prescriptive rules

enables many areas of key risk to be addressed, but not all areas

• There will always be a gap or delta in the actual risks encountered by an entity and

those risks which are effectively addressed by prescriptive rules.

• Something is needed to contextualise the prescriptive rules, ensuring that the

mitigation is proportionate and targeted to effectively address specific risks

PERFORMANCE BASED REGULATION

• A holistic, “entity”* based approach, in the context of unique sectors

within the total system

• Targeted, consistent, and proportionate oversight commensurate with

the actual risks

• New conversations based on risk and performance between the

regulator and stakeholders as well as amongst stakeholders

Transforming the CAA to a performance based regulator

*Entity – a single approval, or group of approvals that can be overseen better in an integrated manner

Our Vision To transform the CAA into a Performance Based Regulator, working with industry to demonstrably reduce safety risk across the total aviation system and develop the capabilities required for future regulators.

Transforming the CAA to a performance based regulator

The European Context EASA Pivot to Performance Based Regulation

The PBR Programme and associated IT deployments are designed to provide the link between industry SMS and the requirements placed on National Authorities Competent Authority

Management System (the driver)

ARA/ARO.200: The competent authority shall establish and maintain a management system, including as a minimum: (1) documented policies and procedures to ... achieve compliance with Regulation (EC) No 216/ 2008 (2) a sufficient number of personnel to perform its tasks and discharge its responsibilities. Such personnel shall be qualified to perform their allocated tasks and have the necessary knowledge, experience, initial and recurrent training to ensure continuing

• competence. A system shall be in place to plan the availability of

personnel, in order to ensure the proper completion of all tasks

Oversight Programme

ARA/ARO.GEN.305: ….must be developed taking into account the specific nature of the

• rganisation, the complexity of its activities, the results of past

certification and/or oversight activities (required by ARO.GEN and ARO.RAMP) and shall be based on the assessment of associated risks. Approved Organisation

Management System

ORx.GEN.200 (a) 3: The identification of aviation safety hazards entailed by the activities

• f the operator, their evaluation and management of associated risks,

including the actions to mitigate the risk and verify the effectiveness

Rules introduced by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) set the context for the UK’s transformation to Performance Based Regulation.

Context EASA Pivot to Performance Based Regulation

Recognising that Risk and Performance Based Regulation is central to the EASA system, the UK is moving from:

• Solely relying upon prescriptive rules to identify the safety risks and prescribed

mitigation towards:

• Exploiting our many sources of safety risks drawn from individual entities,

sectors and the total aviation system

• Targeting those areas in the total aviation system that represent actual and

emerging major safety risks to UK passengers and the public

• Using prescriptive rules within the context of addressing the actual risks
• EASA Performance Based Environment (1 Aug 2014)

We will be focussed on Total Aviation System Risk in three Dimensions: The ‘Total Risk Picture’ covers both the complete aviation system in terms of the breadth of the aviation system (service providers, regulators, accident investigators), the depth of the system from the individual pilot/ engineer/ controller up to the system level, and the interfaces between sectors

Total System EASA System UK system Sector Entity

Individual

UK Citizen CAA Oversight

Breadth Depth

Primary components of Performance Based Regulation

PBR ENGAGEMENT

Transforming the CAA to a performance based regulator

• ICAO
• European Commision
• EASA
• Neighbouring NAAs
• PBRIG
• Opportunities within industry

Transforming the CAA to a performance based regulator

Feedback (Sharing knowledge and lessons learnt – Internally & Externally) INTELLIGENCE RISK OUTCOME ACTION CHECK FEEDBACK

CAA view Our Actions Entity Actions Entity view Risk List (current & future) Agreed Desired Outcomes Identify Options for Action

(cost/benefit)

Compliance and Performance Proactive Leading Indicators Assessment Actions Delivered & Measured Total System Actions Data Intelligence Rules Risks/Issues:

• What CAA knows
• What others know

Planned changes Incidents & Accidents

Performance Based Oversight – Core Regulatory Decision Making

CAA Risk List Performance Comparison CAA Governance of Safety International influence Unregulated Sectors

Linear Model

OVERSIGHT

(Visits, Desk etc)

Performance Based Oversight Phases

Milestone 2 Prep phase Milestone 3 CAA Internal review meeting Milestone 5 Check & Feedback Milestone 4 Accountable Manager meeting Milestone 1 Entity set-up OVERSIGHT (visits, desktop, phone etc)

Transforming the CAA to a performance based regulator

From Internal Review Meeting to Accountable Manager Meeting

Collaborative Internal Review Meeting Prepares the Oversight Manager Effective Accountable Manager Meeting

Transforming the CAA to a performance based regulator

Q-Pulse

• Standard audit and event planning tool
• Standard findings and observations tracking

tool

• Powerful Management information
• Implemented across all major capabilities

Output - The Triangle

Red Amber Approval status Green

29 23 17 13 8 37 Complexity Matrix Rating

Annual audit 4 days (FOI, IO, GS & CS) Check R x 2 (FOI +CSI) Check T 1 per fleet (FOI) Check F 1 per fleet (FOI) Check M 2 days (FOI/IO) Check C x 2 (CSI) SAG >4 (FOI/IO) Cabin safety SAG x2 Annual audit 4 days (FOI, IO, GS & CS) Check T 1 per fleet (FOI) Check F, min 2 (FOI) Check M 1 day (FOI/IO) Check C x 2 (CSI) SAG x 2 (FOI/IO) Cabin safety SAG x2 Annual audit 3 days (FOI & IO) Check T & F, 1 day each (FOI) Check M 1 day (FOI/IO) SAG x 1 (FOI/IO) Annual audit 2 days (FOI & IO) Check T & F, 1 day each (FOI) Check M 1 day (FOI/IO) SAG x 1 (FOI/IO) Annual audit 2 days (FOI & IO) Check T & F, 1 day each (FOI) Check M ½ day (FOI/IO) SAG x 1 (FOI/IO) 1 day audit per 24 months. (IO) 1 flight check per 24 months (FOI) ½ day desktop (IO) “Continual oversight” Monthly meetings FOI’s x 3 AA = desktop

Safety Risks

Multiple Privileges can be itemised

2

Contains Safety Actions on same form

1

Risk Assessment Guide

Flexing Oversight parameters

• Vary oversight period (allowable by EASA in some areas)
• Vary days per entity to achieve oversight (already

achieved with complexity principles)

• Target specific risks with specific checks (Timing,

already done today , what will be different will be a better record of the decision making)

Q

pulse

EPT in

CRM

= PBO

The PBO equation

(Baseline oversight + Risk) (The ability to vary oversight according to performance)

Transforming the CAA to a performance based regulator

Human Factors

• Initial change resistance in CAA, specifically looking
• utside technical specialist area
• Risk is not a precise or binary thing. We now require a

more sophisticated use of judgement

• Natural resistance to see risks in own area unless
• bserved by others:
• Thus the need for an independent facilitator in risk

conversation

• The desire for a precise rating of the risk as opposed

to doing something practical about it

Transforming the CAA to a performance based regulator

Questions?