EASA Development in the Future

Trevor Woods

EASA

Approvals and Standardisation Director

Questions!

• The future of standardization according to his experience and the perspective of EASA observations during the past 11 years?

• How shall the challenge of the culture difference between EU countries be considered? As an advantage or as a drawback?

• Functioning of the common level playing field within EU, now that the EASA regulations are being introduced? Is there anything that the industry, NAA and EASA can do to level this common level playing field even more?

• How will the new risk based approach for assessing authorities affect the standardization in Sweden and other countries in the EU?

• How the EASA is planning to re-organize by merging some previously autonomous process: certification, standardization and rulemaking? What will be the benefits/danger of such re-organization?

• How will EASA manage those Alt MoCs that do not get a positive evaluation from EASA? How shall we act to prevent ending up in such a situation?

•2

• EASA Standardisation started on 1.8.2006, iaw Reg. 736/2006

• Initially only Initial (IAW) and Continuing (CAW) Airworthiness

Evolution of Standardisation

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Airworthiness

class (D)

class (C)

245301 296

365

675

833

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Number of findings raised per year

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

POAST

MAST

•3

Transition to EU Regulations

•4

EASA Ctee Vote

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

TRANSITION PERIOD

ADR

TRANSITION PERIOD ATOs ACW TRANSITION PERIOD CA’s

OPS TRANSITION PERIOD

SERA TRANSITION PERIOD

ATM Common req’s

Oversight of ANSP

ATCO Licensing

LIC / ATOs

MED

FSTD

Extension to New Remits

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

AIR OPS FCL MED FSTD ATM SAFA

Non compliance findings

class C class D

Distribution of non-compliances is not uniform

Most Safety concerns are in the area of oversight (CE-6 and 7)

CE-1 2%

CE-2 4%

CE-3 8%

CE-4 5%

CE-5 6%

CE-6 34%

CE-7 35%

CE-8 5%

Class D findings per ICAO CE

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

2011 2012 2013

Contribution of each domain to non-compliances

SAFA

ATM

FSTD

MED

FCL

OPS

AIR

ATM effect is noticeable 847 838

802

•5

•ANALYSE AND PRIORITISE

•ACT AS APPROPRIATE

•FOLLOW-UP

•COLLECT INFORMATION

•Web-based •interface

•(Multi)annual •Programme

•The Model

Comprehensive Inspection

Focused Inspection

Ad Hoc Inspection

Off-site Finding

Continuous Monitoring

Status

New Risk Based Approach for Assessing Authorities [628/2013]

•6

New Standardisation Regulation Implemented January 2014

•New Standardisation Regulation is Risk Based [628/2013 ]

Standardisation was: Standardisation aims for:

Hard time based Risk based

Rigid Cooperative

Resource intensive Resource attentive

Planned inspections for 2014

ATM/ANS 19-23 May Comprehensive

FCL 8-12 Sep Comprehensive

MED 8-12 Sep Comprehensive

•2014 Plan for Sweden

•7

Model overview

Time

Elapsed

Output Levels

Determine

frequency and

scope of

inspections

Follow-up

Indicators

Authority

Indicators

Safety

Indicators

Activity

Indicators

1 100

0

Other

EASA

Authority

Data input Rating calculation Overlay indicators Output validation

2 3

A B C D

General

Indicators

SIS

8

•ARO/ARA GEN 305

•NAA oversight programme to account for:

•specific nature of the organisation

•complexity of its activities,

•results of oversight activities

•based on the assessment of associated risks

•Many discussions on Performance/ Risk Based Regulation

• But we need to agree guidance soon

•We will focus on this in discussion with NAAs.

Risk Based Oversight

•9

ARO.GEN.120 Means of compliance

(a) The Agency shall develop Acceptable Means of Compliance.

(b) Alternative means of compliance may be used

When the AMC are complied with, the related requirements of the Implementing Rules are met.

Defined by an organisation or by the competent authority

The competent authority shall evaluate the AltMOC and notify the Agency if the AltMOC is in accordance with the IR.

Management of Alternative Means of Compliance

•10

Agency involvement in Alt MOC

• Rulemaking – Assessment of the AltMOCs in a ‘standing’ rulemaking task

• Simplified RMT (notification treated as a rulemaking proposal for AMC)

– Publication of a list of notified AltMOCs

• Date of notification

• Member State / Competent Authority

• Related provision(s) and regulation(s)

http://www.easa.europa.eu/rulemaking/Information-on-Alternative-Means-of-Compliance-notified-to-the-Agency.php

• Standardisation – Demonstrated compliance with the rules

• Input for continuous monitoring of Member States

• Inclusion in the scope of inspections

•11

Alt MOC not Compliant?

•AltMoC not fully compliant, the Agency:

•Identifies the non-compliance(s) with the requirements and informs the CA (Competent Authority)

•Recommends the CA review the AltMoC in order to address the issues

•If the CA does not take appropriate action, the Agency:

•Considers the issue in the context of its Standardisation activities

•Might raise an off-site finding (new provision of Regulation (EU) No 628/2013)

•12

Evolution of Safety

Ref - ICAO Doc 9859 Safety Management Manual (v3)

•13

Safety Culture

• 2.1.2 …..acceptability of safety performance is often influenced by …

culture

• 2.6.1 ….. cultural components ……can negatively influence effective hazard reporting, collaborative root-cause analysis and acceptable risk mitigation. …

• 2.6.9 …safe operations …where all staff feel responsible for safety….

• 2.6.13 …safety management programme… consider the differences in the national cultures of their personnel.

• 2.6.14 Reporting culture ……. is greatly influenced by ….. cultures…

• Etc, etc….

Ref - ICAO Doc 9859 Safety Management Manual (v3)

•14

Regulatory provisions for Culture?

•15

•Training and qualification criteria

•Art. 11

•Reg 628/2013

• Qualification criteria:

• knowledge of regulations

• experience in auditing

• technical competence

• practical experience

• Additional for Team Leaders:

- Team management skills and

- Communication skills in an

- international environment and

- sensitive situations

Might Culture result in Different Behaviour?

• Enforcement

• Taking Responsibility for Safety

• Compliance

• Feedback on Rules

• Perception of Risk

• Safety Reporting

• Regulatory Surveillance

• Rulemaking, teams, consultation

• Safety Promotion

• Sharing Best Practice

• Collaboration

•16

Levelling the playing field more?

•Standardisation Process

•Target our Resources

•NAA Inspector involvement in EASA Teams

•Training of Inspectors

•Harmonise Inspector Competencies

•Future “Training Accreditation/ Virtual Academy”

•Feedback

•Standardisation Meetings

•From RAG/ TAG and SSCC

•EASA Workshops for New Regulations, Industry and NAAs

•AltMoC

•From Standardisation to Rulemaking (Organisation)

•17

• Phase 1 – Development: January – March;

• Management Board Consultation: beginning of April;

• Phase 2 – Implementation: April – August;

• New Organisation in place: 1 September.

•Reorganisation of the Agency - Planning

•18

Reorganisation of the Agency - Proposed Structure

•Organisation setup based on the following principles:

• Robust Product Safety function (integration of Certification and Rules);

• Strong Safety Oversight function (integration of Rulemaking and Standardisation);

• Data driven Safety Strategy function;

• Customer oriented administrative function;

• New Structure:

• Executive Directorate

• Certification Directorate

• Flight Standards Directorate

• Strategy and Safety Intelligence Directorate

• Resources and Support Directorate

•19

Thank you!

http://intranet/your-intranet-page