Compliance Philosophy Differences Briefing · government (ATO Just Culture and EPA “Smart Enforcement Approach”) Federal Aviation Administration . 17 . Compliance Philosophy Differences

Federal Aviation Administration

Compliance Philosophy Differences Briefing


2

How to Navigate a PDF

Navigation in Adobe Acrobat • There are several ways to navigate through a PDF briefing in Adobe

Acrobat.- First, you may use the Menu on the left-side of the screen that has every

slide bookmarked and identified by topic. Once you read a slide, you may click on the next bookmarked slide on the menu

to advance through the briefing slide deck.

You may need to click on the Bookmark tab to see this menu.

This is a sample of the menu on the left side of the screen that you will see in this briefing.


3


Navigation in Adobe Acrobat • Second, you may opt to use the navigation bar on the far right side of

the slide deck and scroll from one slide to another.

This is the navigation bar on the far right side of the slide deck. Click and hold on the slider. You can move it up or down to advance through the slides or to go back through the slides you have already viewed.


4


Navigation in Adobe Acrobat • Third, you may opt to use the up arrow keys on your keyboard to advance or

go back to a previous slide. The left arrow key will move you backwards through the slide deck and the right

arrow key will advance you forward through the slide deck.

The up arrow key will move you backwards and the down arrow key will advanceyou through the slide deck.

Important Note: The location of these keys on your keyboard will be different depending on the keyboard you are using.

Down arrow key moves you backward throuh slide deck.

Left arr ow key moves you backward through slide deck.

Up arrow key moves you backward through slide deck.

Right arrow key moves you backward through slide deck.


5


Objectives By the end of this briefing, you will be able to: • Identify the key changes to the FAA’s approach to compliance• Define AFS’s approach of using safety risk management to implement

the FAA’s Compliance Philosophy• Identify the tools AFS will use to apply safety management to its

compliance and enforcement program• Apply the knowledge and skills implemented by the new policy and

guidance as you accomplish compliance and enforcement actions

COMPLIANCE PHILOSOPHY DIFFERENCES BRIEFING


6


Overview This briefing provides: • Initial training and bridges the knowledge gap that exists among the

AFS workforce on the content in the FAA Compliance Philosophy Order, revised Order 2150.3, and related AFS policy in AFS-1 Notices 8900.COMPL and RT, as well as Order 8900.1 Volume 14

• Differences training so AFS personnel involved with compliance and enforcement will be able to apply the knowledge and skills from the new guidance and policies as they accomplish compliance actions and enforcement actions



7


Why Change? • Safety Management System (SMS) implementation is an evolutionary

approach to risk management and drives the need for an equivalent ongoing change in compliance philosophy

• As we strive for the next evolution of safety improvements we are depending on SMS and, where SMS is not mandatory, the principles of SMS

• Safety Risk Management – Applies to airmen and organizations - Individuals, although usually lacking the structured processes of safety or

quality management systems, still bear the responsibility to monitor their activities and operations to assure effective actions to control risk, including compliance



8


Why Change? • Operational risks must be managed through positive actions by airmen

and organizations (i.e., regulated entities). Where these airmen andorganizations engage constructively with us, the FAA will engage themto encourage compliance and safety

• This view of compliance stresses a problem solving approach (i.e. engagement, root cause analysis, transparency, information exchange) where the goal is enhancement of the safety performance on the part of individual and organizational certificate holders



9


Key Concepts • Policy on non-enforcement responses to deviations is now the

responsibility of FAA program offices

• Except as described in the FAA’s Compliance Philosophy or as requiredby law and specific program commitments, where older AFS policyconflicts with the new Compliance Philosophy this newer policy shall befollowed until the older policy is revised

• The use of Compliance Action should be considered the initial means ofaddressing all alleged, suspected, or identified instances ofnoncompliance with a rule or deviations from standards or proceduresuntil a determination is made that Compliance Action is not appropriate



10


Key Changes • Use the most appropriate tool to find and fix safety problems

• If a deviation does not involve intentional, reckless or criminal behaviorand the airman/organization is qualified and willing to cooperate, AFSwill resolve the issue through use of compliance tools, techniques,concepts, and programs



11


Key Changes • Compliance Action is a new term to describe the FAA’s collection of

non-enforcement methods to correct unintentional deviations ornoncompliance that arise from factors such as flawed systems andprocedures, simple mistakes, lack of understanding, or diminished skills.It involves an open and transparent safety information sharing betweenthe FAA and airmen/organizations. Its purpose is to restore complianceand to identify and correct any underlying cause(s) that led to thedeviation



12


Key Changes • AFS personnel may use Compliance Action to engage regulated persons

to adopt practices of a non-regulatory nature by makingrecommendations and suggestions to improve their operations. Theserecommendations must always be prominently identified as non-regulatory

• Legal Enforcement is an appropriate tool to address unacceptablebehavior and negative safety performance

• AFS personnel will no longer use the Enforcement Decision Process(EDP) to determine the action to take for noncompliance with regulatorystandards

• Compliance, Administrative and Legal Enforcement Action decisions arefocused on observable airman/organization behaviors



13


Key Changes • PTRS activity numbers formerly labeled as “Informal Action” will be

deactivated effective October 1

• Some PTRS activity numbers have been renamed, and some new oneshave been created, to document Compliance Actions

• Related changes to the Pilot’s Bill of Rights (PBR) notification and PTRS-SAS documentation

• Remedial Training process removed from FAA Order 2150.3

• FAA Order 8900.1 Volume 14 has been revised and restructured- Chapter 1 – Flight Standards Service (AFS) Compliance Policy- Chapter 2 – Investigation and Enforcement Related Tasks- Chapter 3 – Special Considerations



14



Background • Before certification, the FAA’s objective is to make a factual and legal

determination that a prospective certificate holder is willing and able tofulfill its duties as set forth by Title 49 U.S.C. and to comply with theminimum standards and regulations prescribed by the FAA. Certificateholders must demonstrate the ability to consistently comply with theminimum standards and regulations without constant FAA surveillance.Civil aviation safety depends on voluntary adherence to legalrequirements

• After certification the FAA continues to administer programs to promotea clear awareness and understanding of the governing statute andregulations; promoting compliance


15



Background • FAA personnel are encouraged, during their oversight activities, to

strengthen an airman/organization’s understanding and awareness of the regulation(s) and associated risks. The FAA also promotes education through public awareness programs and other aviation educational efforts

• For some time, accident rates in nearly all sectors have been relatively flat or declining only marginally. After event rates plateau, causes of future events typically take on a more random characteristic, with causes that become more unique to given operators, aircraft, events, regions, etc


16



Background • Further gains in safety will depend on identification and control of

hazards in a more nuanced fashion using strategies that help individuals and managers of organizations identify and control hazards in the context of their unique operations

• The FAA Compliance Philosophy embraces best-practices to identify and act on underlying hazards/risks to solve safety problems, as identified in Dr. Malcom Sparrow’s work, in ICAO policy evolution, SMS implementation, and our own internal approaches to safety in government (ATO Just Culture and EPA “Smart Enforcement Approach”)


17



Background • These are all appropriate responses to increasing stakeholder interest in

better safety outcomes, risk-based decision-making, and more efficient/effective use of public and private resources

• The FAA on its own can only learn (through surveillance, safety hotlines, etc.) of a small fraction of the total deviations or safety-critical events that occur daily (this concept has been substantiated by ASAP data)

• The bulk of the actionable safety information that indicates areas of risk remains known only to the front-line airmen with direct experience of day-to-day safety events


18



Background • Without their input, the related safety issues go unaddressed and

become precursors to mishaps that could otherwise have been mitigated or avoided

• These personnel are naturally reluctant to share such information out of concern for themselves and their immediate coworkers who may have some perceived or actual responsibility for the safety events


19


Compliance Philosophy Safety Reporting and Just Culture • AFS will promote and implement a just safety culture approach

• The complexity of today’s aerospace system means that even inadvertent and unintentional errors (honest mistakes) can have a serious adverse impact on safety

• Deviations must be identified and resolved by airmen/organizations, collaborative/voluntary programs, or by AFS surveillance and follow-up



20


Compliance Philosophy Safety Reporting and Just Culture • There must be expectation of, and appreciation for, self-disclosure of

errors

• Key to a just safety culture is the ability to determine where the line should be drawn between blameless unsafe acts that can be effectively addressed through use of compliance tools and unacceptable behavior that requires use of enforcement action



21


Just Culture • Behavior– assess the quality of the choices made

- Not about punishing after a bad outcome, instead address the behavioral choices made regardless of the outcome

- Moving away from the Severity Bias (i.e. No harm, No foul)

• The key is to not wait for the adverse outcome to occur. It is the quality of the choices made that is important, not the severity of the outcome


Successful Outcome

Adverse Outcome

Behavioral Choice is

Made ignore


22



Review of Expectations • AFS Compliance Philosophy requires AFS personnel to engage in a

solution-oriented, outcomes-based approach to identify safety issues and correct noncompliance

• AFS personnel should use the most effective means to return an individual or entity that holds an FAA certificate, approval, authorization, or license to full compliance and to prevent recurrence

• If the deviation does not involve intentional, reckless or criminal behavior and the airman/organization is qualified and willing to cooperate, AFS should resolve the issue through use of compliance tools, techniques, concepts, and programs


23



Review of Expectations • When appropriate, personnel should engage collaboratively with airmen

and organizations to encourage development of system-level risk-mitigations on issues for which such methods may effectively assure ongoing compliance

• AFS personnel should work together with the parties involved to correctly identify and fix the root cause(s) of deviations or noncompliance

• Airmen/organizations should be given a reasonable time to implement corrections, with a clear suspense date and expectation of follow-up from AFS


24



Review of Expectations • The agreed upon corrections will be implemented and monitored to

ensure future compliance and effective risk control

• If the corrective measures are later determined to be inadequate, inspectors will continue to communicate with the airmen/organizations to adequately mitigate remaining risks


25



New 8900.1 Vol. 14 C1 S1 and S2 Purpose and Scope • Section 1: Introduces the use of AFS Compliance Action to address,

when appropriate, safety concerns and actual or apparent deviations from regulations or standards discovered during inspections or surveillance - Effective October 1, the philosophy and policy instructions in Notice

8900.COMPL and revised Volume 14, should be routinely applied to all AFS interactions with airmen and entities, and to all AFS investigatory processes, including the procedures found in Volume 7 of FAA Order 8900.1

- Except as described in the FAA’s Compliance Philosophy or as required by law and specific program commitments, where older AFS policy conflicts with the new Compliance Philosophy this newer policy shall be followed until the older policy is revised


26



New 8900.1 Vol. 14 C1 S1 and S2 Purpose and Scope • Section 2: This section provides the structure to guide AFS personnel

through AFS Compliance Policy implementation - It outlines the process to identify the root cause(s) that led to deviations from

rules, standards or procedures, resolve them, and return the individual or entity to full compliance

- The use of Compliance Action should be considered the initial means of addressing all alleged, suspected, or identified instances of noncompliance with a rule or deviations from standards or procedures until it is determined that Compliance Action is not appropriate

- Compliance Action may not be appropriate based on the specific facts of the event under review, or because of other policies or commitments that require a different agency response


27



New 8900.1 Vol. 14 C1 S1 and S2 Purpose and Scope • Definitions

- Compliance Action. An action taken by AFS personnel to correct an airman/organization deviation from standards when the deviation was not a result of intentional, reckless, or criminal behavior, or a pattern of negative behaviors or performance. Compliance Action does not relate to the approval, denial, suspension, modification, or revocation of a covered certificate

- Corrective Action. Action taken by airmen/organizations to correct a noncompliance with a rule or deviations from standards or procedures, and to mitigate hazards/risks

- Voluntary Compliance. Civil aviation safety depends on voluntary adherence to legal requirements. Therefore, the FAA administers programs to promote a clear awareness and understanding of the governing statute and regulations


28



New 8900.1 Vol. 14 C1 S1 and S2 Purpose and Scope • Definitions – Compliance Actions

- Education. Personnel are encouraged, during their oversight activities, to strengthen an airman/organization’s understanding of the regulation(s) and associated risks. The FAA also promotes education through public awareness programs and other aviation educational efforts

- On-the-Spot. Corrective action completed immediately when a deviation from statutory or regulatory standards is identified by the FAA and communicated to an individual or company


29




- Additional Training. Individuals remediated through their organization’s approved training program, through another required training program for their job function or work environment (such as carrier employees receiving SIDA or ramp driver training from the airport), or the FAASTeam Remedial Training process. Requires coordination with the FAASTeam and/or Principal Inspector (PI)/Certificate Holding District Office (CHDO)

- Remedial Training. A program authorized and described in Notice N8900.RT that AFS inspectors use for certificated airmen when remedial training is the appropriate action to take for a deviation from statutory or regulatory standards


30




- Counseling. Oral or written counseling of airmen, organizations, or non-certificated National Airspace System (NAS) participants, for a safety concern or a deviation from statutory or regulatory standards

- Actions for Organizations - Improvements to systems, procedures, operating practices or training programs. Requires coordination with the Principal Inspector (PI)/ Certificate Holding District Office (CHDO)


31



Remedial Training • Remedial Training as outlined in Notice N8900.RT, may not be utilized by

an airman who was using his or her certificate in air carrier operations (as defined in that notice) at the time of the apparent deviation. Those airmen should be remediated through their organization’s approved training program. (See Volume 14, Chapter 3, Section 2, for additional information)


32



CA Decision Process Background • Personnel will no longer use the Enforcement Decision Process (EDP) to

determine the action to take for noncompliance with regulatory standards - Nearly all regulations address situations with the potential for significant

damage or harm. The objective of most regulations is to reduce the likelihood of the hazard(s) resulting in injurious consequences – an accident. In this respect, the FAA defines the, “acceptable level,” of risk in terms of the specifications in the rule. If the specifications are not met, the level of risk must be assumed to be uncontrolled and, therefore, unmitigated


33



CA Decision Process Background • The primary objective of action at this point, then, is to return the risk to

the intended level of control – to regain compliance

• In determining the action taken to return risk to effective control (i.e. compliance), the prime consideration is not the degree of potential harm associated with the situation since nearly all regulations address situations, which if not effectively controlled, present the potential for significant harm. The key objectives are to understand the risk and factors underlying the breakdown of the controls, and determine the action that has the greatest potential for addressing the problem


34



CA Decision Process Background • In this respect, the willingness and ability of either individual or

organizational NAS participants to actively participate in risk control actions is a key element of compliance action strategy. Diligent actions taken by a willing, capable participant to restore compliance equates to reducing the likelihood of a future event. Conversely, where the individual or organization is unwilling or incapable of effective action, we have to assume that the likelihood of such future events remains unmitigated and stronger action on the part of FAA may be necessary


35



CA Decision Process • As you assess each event focus on attempting to determine the nature of

the problem, the conditions under which it occurred, the likelihood of arecurrence, and the most effective proposed corrective action

• After the corrective action is implemented, you should conduct a follow-up assessment to determine the effectiveness of the action

• Document the information not only to substantiate the rationale for theaction chosen but also to provide information for continued actionshould it prove to be less effective than desired


36



CA Decision Process

Document No matter if the problem is fixed or not, document actions taken in case of problems/questions are asked in

the future.

Follow up - Is the problem fixed? If the problem is not fixed, the problem must be reanalyzed and assessed to determine the next appropriate

action.

Is Compliance Action appropriate? If compliance is appropriate, apply the appropriate

action. If compliance action is not appropriate, take

necessary enforcement action.

Stop the deviation

Investigate, analyze, and assess the problem


37



CA Decision Process Stop the deviation • When you become aware of a possible deviation take timely steps to

notify the airman or responsible person who can take the appropriateaction to prevent it from continuing

• If the event involves an organization, notify the appropriate oversightoffice, which may take over and continue the process

• Keep Front Line Managers informed of your activities


38



CA Decision Process Investigate, analyze, and assess the problem • Determine why the event happened and identify the underlying root

cause(s)

• Effective compliance will only be assured if the cause(s) of the event areclearly established, understood, corrected and the airman/organizationacknowledges the actions and the causal factors leading to the deviation- Gather facts- Ask questions- *Analyze the event

* Through/using the appropriate resources. For example: Generally for large regulated entitieswe may identify a hazard and then verify the entity does the appropriate analysis to determine risk and associated mitigation strategies


39



CA Decision Process Is Compliance Action appropriate? • It is important to determine eligibility for Compliance Action as early as

possible. The determination must be based reasonably on observable behaviors and the facts and circumstances of each case - Does the airman/organization consistently perform in a positive manner toward

regulatory requirements? - Does the airman/organization understand or recognize its role in the deviation? - Does the airman/organization cooperate with FAA personnel to achieve compliance? - Does the airman/organization take the necessary actions to come into and maintain

compliance? - Are there repeated failures to take corrective actions or repeated deviations? - Is the airman/organization noncompliant in more than one area? Does it involve

multiple personnel?


40



CA Decision Process Is Compliance Action appropriate? • Most situations fall into a range where AFS personnel will have

discretion to handle the matter with Compliance Actions. However, thereare instances when enforcement action is appropriate- If you determine that the noncompliance was intentional, reckless, or criminal,

then legal enforcement action is required (refer to Order 2150.3 for definitions and actions)

- If you determine that an apparent noncompliance was neither intentional nor reckless, yet there are repeated failures to adopt methods to remediate deviations or instances of repeated deviations, then enforcement action may be required

- Matters that involve competence of certificate holders will be addressed with appropriate remedial measures, which may include retraining or re-examination. However, under certain circumstances, enforcement/certificate action may be required


41



CA Decision Process Is Compliance Action appropriate? • Take Compliance Action if:

- Enforcement action is not required - A Compliance Action would be the most appropriate tool to fix the safety issue

• Take enforcement action if: - Enforcement action is required - The enforcement action would be the most appropriate tool to fix the safety issue

• In either case, use the appropriate guidance: - For Compliance Actions, N 8900.COMPL and (after 1 Oct) Order 8900.1, Vol 14 - If RT is involved, N 8900.RT and (when revised) Order 8900.1, Vol 15 - For enforcement actions, the above AFS policies, then Order 2150.3

• Plan to follow up to determine if the problem is fixed


42



CA Decision Process Is the problem fixed? • If yes; close the Compliance Action PTRS with documentation

• If no; is further Compliance Action appropriate and warranted? - If yes; document within PTRS the additional FAA Compliance Actions and

regulated entity corrective actions necessary to ensure the effectiveness of root cause fixes. Continue follow-up

- If no; initiate Enforcement Action in accordance with Volume 14, Chapter 2 and Order 2150.3


43



Importance of Compliance Action Reporting • The higher the level of reporting, the more complete the map of risk

factors and risk behaviors available for analysis. The more we can learn about precursor risk factors, the greater the opportunity to drive down accident probabilities even further. A single event may seem minor, but multiple events may indicate increased risk. If individual events are not recorded, a larger problem may not be identified - All Compliance Actions (by all AFS personnel involved with compliance and

enforcement, including those primarily using ATOS/SAS) shall be documented with a PTRS record using the activity numbers on the following slides, and as outlined in Notices N 8900.COMPL and RT, Order 8900.1 Volumes 14 and 15 (when revised/effective) and in accordance with the PTRS Procedures Manual


44



Recording Compliance Actions • Operations 1000-series, Maintenance 3000-series, and Avionics 5000-

series INVESTG/COMPLIANCE ACTION Activity Numbers: - *749 ADDITIONAL TRAINING [Formerly “REMEDIAL” Training]

All additional training processes documented by non-FAASTeam ASIs excluding Order 8900.1 Volume 15. When a Remedial Training referral is made to the FAASTeam, the referring ASI (effective October 1) documents with *749 per N 8900.COMPL and revised 8900.1 Volume 14. The administering FPM documents with *950 per N 8900.RT or later Volume 15 guidance

Order 8900.1, Volume 14, Chapter 1, Section 2 begins Remedial Training referral N8900.RT and when revised, Order 8900.1, Volume 15 covers the Remedial Training

process Order 8900.1, Volume 14, Chapter 3, Section 2 contains supplemental information

about the various types of Additional Training and references to other guidance


45



Recording Compliance Actions • Operations 1000-series, Maintenance 3000-series, and Avionics 5000-

series INVESTG/COMPLIANCE ACTION Activity Numbers: - *750 COUNSELING [Formerly “AIRMAN” Counseling]

Expanded to include non-certificated personnel - *751 ON-THE-SPOT CORRECTION - *752 OTHER [New Activity Number]

Compliance Actions that do not fit in one of the other specific categories - *753 CONVENE SAT [New Activity Number]

Used by Safety Assurance System (SAS) ASIs only when choosing to convene a System Analysis Team (SAT) in response to a safety concern or deviation

* Note: Activity numbers formerly labeled as “Informal Action” will be

discontinued when the above numbers are activated


46



Recording Compliance Actions • Compliance Actions should be recorded separately from other

actions/surveillance in PTRS/ATOS/SAS as outlined in AFS policy - In accordance with the PTRS Procedures Manual, activity codes used to

document the Compliance Action (i.e., non-enforcement action) are not a replacement for the activity code used to document the primary activity during which the deviation was found

• Compliance Actions should be triggered or linked to the parent activity (such as surveillance) that led to discovery of the apparent deviation

• Specific PTRS comments are required for non-regulatory concerns or suggestions: identify and document them separately using the appropriate primary area code, a keyword listing of “911” and an opinion code of “I”


47



Recording Compliance Actions Example • If you find a deviation during a routine facility inspection and use an on-

the-spot correction to address the deviation, then you would complete aPTRS/ATOS/SAS entry as appropriate for the facility inspection and aPTRS entry for the on-the-spot correction. PTRS records for ComplianceActions should be triggered from the appropriate PTRS/ATOS/SASrecord for the primary activity- A unique PTRS record shall be created for each airman and organization

involved. Multiple Compliance Actions for the same airman/entity (On-The-Spot Correction, Counseling, Additional Training, procedure revision, etc.) may be used when appropriate


48



Recording Compliance Actions Example - If at least one specific Compliance Action activity number is used, additional

actions that do not fit in a specific category may be documented in the PTRS comment section without using the “Other” activity number

- ATOS users must add the PTRS number of the Compliance Action in the appropriate ATOS “Inspector Action Taken” block [just as is done with EIR numbers] per ATOS policy and instructions as updated by N8900.COMPL

- SAS users must add the Compliance Action PTRS number in the AITT.

- All ATOS/SAS users will document using “CAPTRS” followed by the PTRS number (e.g., CAPTRSAL03201512345).

Note: 8900.1 Volume 10 SAS policy will be revised to align with Compliance Action policy. Volume 10 ATOS policy will not be revised and is projected to sunset in January 2016.


49



Non-regulatory Safety Issues Dr. Malcom Sparrow, of Harvard University, uses a chart to show the relationship between “things that cause harm” (Unsafe) and “things that are illegal” (Regulations). Though there is typically an intersection between the two, the overlap is not total and not zero. There are hazards that are unique to organization and airman’s specific systems and environment. We won’t usually make rules for these situations but they still must be controlled.


50



AFS expectations for non-regulatory safety issues documentation and risk transfer • AFS personnel may use Compliance Action to encourage regulated

persons to adopt practices by making recommendations andsuggestions to improve their operations even if the issues are non-regulatory

• Such recommendations may be made either independent of, or inconjunction with, a Compliance, Administrative, or Legal EnforcementAction taken for regulatory noncompliance that also exists

• Because these suggestions to improve operations are non-regulatory innature, they may be made notwithstanding the regulated person’scompliance with all applicable regulatory requirements


51



AFS expectations for non-regulatory safety issues documentation and risk transfer • These recommendations and suggestions must always be clearly

identified as non-regulatory in nature

• When recommendations are made in conjunction with any Compliance, Administrative, or Legal Enforcement Actions taken for regulatory noncompliance they must be set apart from both the statement of facts and circumstances constituting the statutory or regulatory noncompliance and the agreed-upon corrective action

• This clear separation/identification of non-regulatory suggestions applies to PTRS record comments with keyword 911-I as described previously, as well as to details in correspondence such as Letters of Investigation or Correction


52



AFS expectations for non-regulatory safety issues documentation and risk transfer • Once you completely understand the problem the following question

can be answered: Is there compliance?

If yes – - Document any performance concerns or potential risks in PTRS (and/or

ATOS/SAS as appropriate), within the activity that led to the discovery - Include all inspector and/or certificate holder actions to communicate or

transfer the concerns/potential risks and to correct the identified problem(s) - In PTRS records and in communications with the certificate holder, clearly

identify that FAA concerns/recommendations are to make improvements or use best practices, but they are not regulatory requirements

- Notify the PI, CHDO, and/or the Front Line Manager of any concerns or risks


53



Due Process Considerations The Scenario • This scenario is not intended to represent the workflow or process used

to address a Pilot Deviation (PD)

• Regardless of the Action taken, your primary focus in every case shouldbe to stop any noncompliance and mitigate any safety risks in the NAS.Safety mitigation steps have been left out of the following slides forclarity of the due process illustration

• Compliance Action. When you discover an apparent or actual deviationfrom standards, assure the deviation has stopped, and conclude thatCompliance Action is appropriate, successful completion of the remedy,followed by PTRS reporting of Compliance Action may be all that isnecessary to close the issue


54



Due Process Considerations The Scenario Pilot’s Bill of Rights (PBR)

• Neither Compliance Action nor Administrative Action relate to the approval, denial, suspension, modification, or revocation of a certificate. Therefore, per the PBR statute, Notice 8900.COMPL and, when published, Volume 14, Chapter 1, Section 1, no PBR notification is required. Compliance Action is a method to correct unintentional deviations or noncompliance that arise from factors such as flawed procedures, simple mistakes, lack of understanding, or diminished skills. Compliance Action is open and transparent safety information sharing between the FAA and airmen/organizations. Its only purpose is to restore compliance and to identify and correct any underlying cause(s) that led to the deviation


55



Due Process Considerations The Scenario Reconsideration After Starting Compliance Action

• If an initial attempt is made at Compliance Action, but facts and circumstances later indicate that enforcement action is required, Administrative Enforcement Action can be taken without PBR notification

Administrative Enforcement Action

• Some type of evidence must exist to prove an apparent deviation or noncompliance in order to take Administrative Action


56



Due Process Considerations The Scenario • AFS receives notification from the Air Traffic Organization (ATO) of a

suspected Pilot Deviation (PD), and ATO automatically retains some data on the event in the Knowledge Services Network (KSN) system

• The investigating inspector can print, save, and review this data and make a determination that Compliance Action is appropriate

• After 14 days, some ATO data may be purged, and no official copy of the data can be requested by AFS. (Refer to 8900.1 Volume 7 for information about accessing ATO data.)


57



Due Process Considerations The Scenario • If the involved airman/organization’s performance or behavior becomes

unacceptable or the agreed-upon corrective action is not implemented, a Warning Notice may be appropriate if the saved KSN data substantiates noncompliance

• No Letter of Investigation (LOI) or PBR would be required


58



Due Process Considerations The Scenario Legal Enforcement Action • In this scenario as described above, Legal Action could not be taken for

the PD event after terminating a Compliance Action effort, because the PBR notification was not given. Additionally, if new facts indicated that Legal Action was appropriate after the ATO data was purged, the KSN data saved by the inspector may be insufficient evidence to support Legal Action

• There are certain instances in which a Compliance Action event could be elevated to a legal enforcement action. At the time it becomes apparent that the case should be elevated to legal action, the airman must be provided with written notification of the PBR


59



Due Process Considerations The Scenario Legal Enforcement Action • When a person fails to implement agreed-upon corrective actions to

bring the person into full compliance, FAA personnel shall recommend legal enforcement action for the noncompliance that gave rise to the compliance action, as well as any subsequent noncompliances that would have been addressed by the corrective action

• A failure to implement agreed-upon corrective action differs from implementing an agreed-upon corrective action that does not achieve its intended purpose. In the latter case, further corrective action may be appropriate


60



Due Process Considerations The Scenario • Our first priority is always to solve the safety problem: It is more

important to solve the majority of safety problems at the appropriate level through Compliance Action whenever possible, which supports and improves the already good safety culture in the NAS

• As a matter of policy, AFS accepts the fact that we may sometimes lose the opportunity to take Legal Action because PBR notification wasn’t given, or the opportunity to collect perishable evidence was missed


61



Due Process Considerations The Scenario Completed and terminated Compliance Actions, and Administrative Actions: • All are documented with PTRS records, which can be used to establish a

pattern of behavior in the future

Reexamination • In accordance with FAA policy on reexaminations, if at any time an

airman’s competence or qualification to hold a certificate comes into question, a PBR notification must be provided with a request for reexamination. This can be done at any stage of interaction with the airman, but must be done as soon as the inspector reasonably believes there is an issue


62



Conclusion • It is important that you understand the new FAA Compliance Philosophy

is not about being “softer.” Rather, it is about shifting the focus to whereit should be: on correcting safety issues within the NAS and preventingreoccurrence. In all cases, the goal of the FAA Compliance Philosophy isto achieve rapid compliance, to mitigate the safety risk, and to ensurepositive and permanent changes. As an FAA employee on the front line,interacting with stakeholders on a daily basis, you are critical to thesuccess of the FAA’s Compliance Philosophy

• AFS is confident that if you follow Compliance Action policy guidance,work interdependently, and use critical thinking you will correctly identifyevents, consider all the compliance tools available, and apply the remedymost appropriate to the specific facts and circumstances


63



Challenge – Improve and Innovate

“Aviation safety is a team sport, and we can’t ever take our eyes off the ball. We have to embrace and encourage a culture of continuous improvement. We have to use innovation and new technology to identify and address risks – and we have to keep making air travel safer.”

- Peggy Gilligan, FAA Associate Administrator, Aviation Safety


64



Review of Changes OLD/NEW

OLD NEW EDP CA Decision Process

Informal Action

CA – more possible actions/solutions

PTRS/ATOS/SAS

PTRS/ATOS per N8900.COMPL until sunset/SAS

PBR PBR per N8900.COMPL and updated Vol. 14

EIR Begin with Compliance Action; EIR if appropriate

Enforcement Compliance Actions (safety) first outside Enforcement

No Action CA non-regulatory (safety) documented and communicated

OLD NEWAdmin & Legal Actions

Updated criteria in 2150.3

Vol 14 Vol 14 revised; others to follow

2150.3 Order 8000.373, 8900.1 Vol. 14, then 2150.3

Reactive Proactive (info exchange predictive), Risk – hazards, Problem solver (find and fix the safety issues in NAS)

Regulatory comply

Expect use of Safety Management/System Safety concepts

Outdated training

FAA and AFS eLMS briefings updated formal training


65



Briefing Completion

Thank you for taking this briefing.

Please select the X in the top right corner to return to eLMS.

Documents

Compliance Philosophy Differences Briefing · government (ATO Just Culture and EPA “Smart Enforcement Approach”) Federal Aviation Administration . 17 . Compliance Philosophy Differences