Doc 9735
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
Continuous Monitoring Manual
Fifth Edition, 2023
Approved by and published under the authority of the Secretary General
INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION
Doc 9735
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
Continuous Monitoring Manual
Fifth Edition, 2023
Approved by and published under the authority of the Secretary General
INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION
Published in separate English, Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian
and Spanish editions by the
INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION
999 Robert-Bourassa Boulevard, Montréal, Quebec, Canada H3C 5H7
For ordering information and for a complete listing of sales agents
and booksellers, please go to the ICAO website at www.icao.int
First edition, 2000
Fourth edition, 2014
Fifth edition, 2023
Doc 9735, Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
Continuous Monitoring Manual
Order Number: 9735
ISBN 978-92-9275-121-0
© ICAO 2023
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, without prior
permission in writing from the International Civil Aviation Organization.
AMENDMENTS
Amendments are announced in the supplements to the Products and
Services Catalogue; the Catalogue and its supplements are available
on the ICAO website at www.icao.int. The space below is provided to
keep a record of such amendments.
RECORD OF AMENDMENTS AND CORRIGENDA
AMENDMENTS
No.
Date
Entered by
CORRIGENDA
No.
(iii)
Date
Language
Entered
by
FOREWORD
This manual is the main reference document for the ICAO Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme (USOAP)
(hereafter also referred to as the Programme) and is prepared by the Monitoring, Analysis and Coordination (MAC)
(formerly Monitoring and Oversight (MO)), the Air Navigation Bureau (ANB), with input from the other sections of ANB and
the Regional Offices of ICAO, among others. It describes the concept, principles, policies, procedures and methodology
of USOAP, applied from its initial launch in 1999 to its current form. The manual serves not only as guidance manual for
Member States, but also as a training manual for all involved in the execution of the Programme.
All USOAP related activities are carried out by the Safety and Air Navigation Oversight Audit Section (OAS) and the
Oversight Support Unit (OSU) under the supervision of MAC/ANB.
Since publication of the first edition in 2000 under the title of Safety Oversight Audit Manual (Doc 9735), the manual has
undergone four updates in line with the evolution of USOAP. The second edition (2006) and third edition (2011) dealt with
the transition to the comprehensive system approach and the continuous monitoring approach, respectively. Notably, the
third edition was renamed Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme Continuous Monitoring Manual. The fourth edition
(2014) described the additional tools, processes and guidance implemented to provide further support to the Programme
under the continuous monitoring approach.
The fifth edition of Doc 9735 introduces and explains new features added to the Programme since 2013. They include the
addition of Annex 19 – Safety Management to USOAP coverage and introduction of State Safety Programme
Implementation Assessment (SSPIA) as a new USOAP activity; implementation of the recommendations of the Group of
Experts for a USOAP CMA Structured Review (GEUSR); implementation of certain recommendations of the Ad hoc
USOAP CMA Advisory Group (USOAP-AG); introduction of new or modified USOAP activities in response to the disruption
of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic; general programmatic improvements based on State and stakeholder
feedback, experience and lessons drawn as well as update stemming from the 41st Assembly of ICAO (27 September to
7-October-2022).
For the readers’ ease of reference, a separate chapter is devoted entirely to the SSPIA.
This edition is published under the authority of the Secretary General and supersedes all previous editions of this manual.
Comments on this manual would be appreciated from all ICAO Member States and interested parties. These comments
should be addressed to:
The Secretary General
International Civil Aviation Organization
999 Robert-Bourassa Boulevard
Montréal, Québec, Canada H3C 5H7
______________________
(v)
CONTENTS
Page
Definitions and terminology ...........................................................................................................................
ix
Acronyms and abbreviations .........................................................................................................................
xiii
Chapter 1.
Introduction ................................................................................................................................
1-1
Purpose ..........................................................................................................................................
References .....................................................................................................................................
1-1
1-1
General information ...................................................................................................................
2-1
History of the Programme...............................................................................................................
USOAP CMA Objective and Principles...........................................................................................
USOAP CMA Implementation ........................................................................................................
USOAP CMA Activities ...................................................................................................................
Elements of the USOAP CMA ........................................................................................................
USOAP CMA Outcomes.................................................................................................................
States’ Responsibilities under the USOAP CMA ............................................................................
2-1
2-4
2-7
2-7
2-8
2-11
2-14
Continuous monitoring approach ............................................................................................
3-1
Objective ........................................................................................................................................
Concept ..........................................................................................................................................
Collection of the safety data and safety information .......................................................................
Determination of State safety profile under USOAP .......................................................................
Prioritization and conduct of USOAP CMA activities ......................................................................
Outcomes of USOAP CMA activities ..............................................................................................
3-1
3-1
3-3
3-3
3-4
3-8
Audits and validations ...............................................................................................................
4-1
Audits .............................................................................................................................................
Validations ......................................................................................................................................
Scope of activity .............................................................................................................................
4-1
4-2
4-3
State Safety Programme implementation assessment ...........................................................
5-1
Objective ........................................................................................................................................
State Safety Programme protocol questions ..................................................................................
Assessment areas ..........................................................................................................................
State Safety Programme components ............................................................................................
Maturity levels ................................................................................................................................
5-1
5-1
5-2
5-2
5-2
Online framework .......................................................................................................................
6-1
Overview ........................................................................................................................................
Modules for States to submit information .......................................................................................
6-1
6-1
1.1
1.2
Chapter 2.
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
Chapter 3.
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
Chapter 4.
4.1
4.2
4.3
Chapter 5.
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
Chapter 6.
6.1
6.2
(vii)
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
Continuous Monitoring Manual
(viii)
Page
6.3
6.4
Modules for States to obtain information ........................................................................................
Administration and support modules ..............................................................................................
6-2
6-4
Programme management ..........................................................................................................
7-1
General...........................................................................................................................................
Roles and responsibilities of the ICAO Secretariat .........................................................................
Roles and responsibilities of Member States ..................................................................................
Roles and responsibilities of recognized organizations ..................................................................
Roles and responsibilities of regional safety oversight organizations .............................................
Memorandum of Understanding .....................................................................................................
Programme records ........................................................................................................................
Programme quality management ...................................................................................................
Confidentiality .................................................................................................................................
Language .......................................................................................................................................
Resolution of disputes ....................................................................................................................
7-1
7-1
7-6
7-7
7-7
7-8
7-8
7-9
7-9
7-10
7-11
USOAP CMA activity teams ......................................................................................................
8-1
Team composition ..........................................................................................................................
Training of auditors, subject matter experts and assessors............................................................
Team members ..............................................................................................................................
Team leader and focal persons ......................................................................................................
Competencies ................................................................................................................................
Personal attributes .........................................................................................................................
Conflict of interest ...........................................................................................................................
8-1
8-2
8-3
8-4
8-5
8-7
8-7
USOAP CMA activity phases and procedures .........................................................................
9-1
Phases of USOAP CMA activities ..................................................................................................
Preparation phase ..........................................................................................................................
Conduct phase ...............................................................................................................................
Report production phase ................................................................................................................
9-1
9-1
9-5
9-10
Chapter 7.
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.9
7.10
7.11
Chapter 8.
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
Chapter 9.
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
Appendix A.
USOAP CMA activity timelines ..............................................................................................
App A-1
Appendix B. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between State [long name] and the
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) regarding the universal safety oversight
audit programme continuous monitoring approach (generic version) ......................................................
App B-1
Appendix C.
Significant Safety Concern: Procedure and Process Flowchart ........................................
App C-1
Appendix D.
Guidance for States on developing corrective action plans ...............................................
App D-1
Appendix E.
Corrective action plan: assessment and monitoring workflow ..........................................
App E-1
Appendix F.
Guidelines for National Continuous Monitoring Coordinators ...........................................
App F-1
______________________
DEFINITIONS AND TERMINOLOGY
Adequate. The state of fulfilling minimal requirements; satisfactory; acceptable; sufficient.
Assessment. An appraisal of mechanisms, processes, procedures and operations based on the use of empirical evidence,
experience and professional judgment.
Assessment area. Refers to civil aviation areas covered in the assessment of the implementation of a State Safety
Programme (SSP). There are eight assessment areas in such assessments, namely, SSP general aspects (GEN);
safety data analysis (SDA); personnel licensing and training (PEL); aircraft operations (OPS); airworthiness of aircraft
(AIR); aircraft accident and incident investigation (AIG); air navigation services (ANS); and aerodromes and ground
aids (AGA). Also see definitions of State Safety Programme (SSP) and State Safety Programme Implementation
Assessment (SSPIA).
Assessor. A qualified USOAP CMA expert from ICAO, a State or a recognized organization who has successfully
completed all relevant ICAO training, final evaluation and on-the-job training (OJT) to conduct an SSPIA in the relevant
assessment area(s).
Audit. A USOAP CMA activity during which ICAO assesses the effective implementation of the eight critical elements
(CEs) of safety oversight and accident and serious incident investigation systems by conducting a systematic and
objective review of a State’s safety oversight and accident and incident investigation system. Also see definition of
critical elements (CEs).
Audit area. Refers to civil aviation areas covered in a USOAP CMA audit or validation. There are eight audit areas for
USOAP audit or validation activities, namely, primary aviation legislation and specific operating regulations (LEG),
civil aviation organization (ORG); personnel licensing and training (PEL); aircraft operations (OPS); airworthiness of
aircraft (AIR); aircraft accident and incident investigation (AIG); air navigation services (ANS); and aerodromes and
ground aids (AGA).
Auditor. A qualified USOAP CMA expert from ICAO, a State or a recognized organization who has successfully completed
all relevant ICAO training, final evaluation and OJT to conduct USOAP CMA audits or validations in the relevant audit
area(s).
Compliance Checklist (CC). Checklist used by States to provide information on compliance with the relevant Annexes
to the Convention. Also see definition of electronic filing of differences (EFOD).
Corrective action plan (CAP). A plan of action to eliminate the cause of a safety deficiency or finding.
Cost-recovery activity. A USOAP CMA activity that is paid for by the requesting State. It can include audits, validations,
SSPIAs, workshops and seminars.
Critical elements (CEs). The critical elements of a safety oversight system that encompass the whole spectrum of civil
aviation activities. They are the building blocks upon which an effective safety oversight system is based. The level
of effective implementation of the CEs is an indicator of a State’s capability for safety oversight.
(ix)
(x)
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
Continuous Monitoring Manual
Effective implementation (EI). A measure of the State’s safety oversight capability, calculated for each critical element,
each audit area or as an overall measure. The EI is expressed as a percentage. Also see definition of critical element
(CE) and audit area.
Electronic filing of differences (EFOD). A tool to assist the State in ascertaining the status of implementation of ICAO
Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) and in identifying any difference that may exist between the
national regulations and practices and the relevant provisions in the Annexes to the Convention.
Finding. Generated in a USOAP CMA activity as a result of a lack of compliance with Articles of the Convention on
International Civil Aviation (Doc 7300), ICAO Assembly Resolutions, safety-related provisions in the Annexes to the
Convention, Procedures for Air Navigation Services (PANS) or a lack of application of ICAO guidance material or
good aviation safety practices. Each finding is expressed in terms of one Protocol Question (PQ); issuance of a finding
changes the status of the related PQ to not satisfactory. Also see definition of Protocol Questions (PQs).
Focal Person. An experienced and qualified ICAO USOAP auditor or subject matter expert who is assigned to oversee
and coordinate a specific USOAP activity and/or project.
Inspection. An examination of an aviation licence, certificate, approval or authorization holder (or applicant) performed
by aviation safety inspectors to confirm compliance with requirements for the licence, certificate, approval or
authorization already issued (or being issued) by the State.
Mandatory information request (MIR). A tool used under USOAP to seek information or documentation from a State in
regard to the State’s capability to perform safety oversight of its aviation system.
Maturity level. An indication of the maturity achieved by the State in its SSP implementation and maintenance for each
SSP PQ that is generated following an SSPIA, e.g. level 0 – “not present and not planned”; level 1 – “not present but
being worked on”; level 2 – “present”; level 3 – “present and effective”, and level 4 – “present and effective for years
and in continuous improvement”.
Maturity level matrix. A matrix that is associated with the SSP PQs (forming the SSPIA assessment tool) which describes
the set of criteria for each maturity level the State is assessed against under each SSP PQ.
Mitigating measure. An immediate action taken by a State to resolve a Significant Safety Concern (SSC).
Objective evidence. Information that can be verified, supporting the existence of a documented system and indicating
that the system generates the desired results.
Oversight. The active control of the aviation industry and service providers by the competent regulatory authorities to
ensure that the State’s international obligations and national requirements are met through the establishment of a
system based on the CEs.
Priority Protocol Question (PPQ). A subset of Protocol Questions (PQ) that, if found not satisfactory, may indicate a lack
of capability by a State to identify and/or resolve operational safety and fundamental accident investigation
deficiencies effectively, and consequently, its inability to conduct safety oversight or a proper accident investigation.
Findings related to PPQs can potentially result in an elevated risk of Significant Safety Concerns. Also see definitions
of finding and Protocol Question (PQ).
Procedure. A series of steps followed in a methodical manner to complete an activity or a process, describing what should
be done, when and by whom; where and how each step should be carried out; what information, documentation and
resources should be used; and how it should all be controlled.
Definitions and Terminology
(xi)
Process. A set of interrelated or interacting activities that transforms inputs into outputs. Processes within an organization
or programme are generally planned and carried out under controlled conditions to add value.
Protocol Question (PQ). The primary tool used in USOAP to assess the level of effective implementation of a State’s
safety oversight system based on the CEs (for audits and validations) and the level of maturity of implementation and
maintenance of a State’s Safety Programme (for SSPIAs). The PQs are developed based on the Convention on
International Aviation (Doc 7300), ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs), Procedures for Air
Navigation Services (PANS) and related guidance material. Also see definitions of State Safety Programme
Implementation Assessment (SSPIA) and State Safety Programme Protocol Question (SSP PQ).
Quality management system (QMS). A collection of business processes focused on consistently meeting customer
requirements and enhancing their satisfaction. It is aligned with an organization’s purpose and strategic direction.
Recognized organizations. Entities including national, regional, supranational and international organizations,
committees or bodies with which ICAO has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the sharing of data
and/or information under USOAP CMA.
Safety. The state in which risks associated with aviation activities, related to, or in direct support of the operation of aircraft,
are reduced and controlled to an acceptable level.
Safety data. A defined set of facts or set of safety values collected from various aviation-related sources and used to
maintain or improve safety.
Safety information. Safety data processed, organized or analysed in a given context so as to make it useful for safety
management purposes.
Safety oversight. A function performed by a State to ensure that individuals and organizations performing an aviation
activity comply with safety-related national laws and regulations.
Safety risk. The predicted probability and severity of the consequences or outcomes of a hazard.
Scope. Audit/assessment areas and Protocol Questions addressed and covered in a USOAP CMA activity.
Significant Safety Concern (SSC). Occurs when the State allows the holder of an authorization or approval to exercise
the privileges attached to it, although the minimum requirements established by the State and by the Standards set
forth in the Annexes to the Convention are not met, resulting in an immediate safety risk to international civil aviation.
State Safety Programme (SSP). An integrated set of regulations and activities aimed at improving safety.
State Safety Programme Implementation Assessment (SSPIA). A USOAP CMA performance-based activity in which
ICAO assesses the level of maturity of a State Safety Programme (SSP), by conducting a systematic and objective
review of the State’s implementation and maintenance of its SSP.
State Safety Programme Protocol Question (SSP PQ). A type of PQ used to assess the level of maturity of a State’s
implementation and maintenance of its SSP, under the framework of the USOAP CMA.
Subject matter expert (SME). A person who possesses expert knowledge and understanding in a particular audit or
assessment area.
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
Continuous Monitoring Manual
(xii)
Validation. A USOAP CMA activity during which ICAO validates and confirms evidence and information provided by a
State, which demonstrate the State’s implementation of corrective actions to address previously identified findings
and/or its implementation of mitigating measures to resolve Significant Safety Concerns (SSCs). Examples of
validation activities are the ICAO Coordinated Validation Mission (ICVM), off-site validation activity and integrated
validation activity. Also see definitions of finding and Significant Safety Concern (SSC).
Virtual activity. A USOAP CMA off-site activity that is conducted remotely by interacting with States through electronic
methods, such as videoconferencing and email, to obtain or review evidence.
______________________
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AGA
AIG
AIR
ANB
ANS
C/OAS
CAA
CAP
CBT
CC
C/DEC
CE
CMA
CMC
CSA
DD/MAC
DSA
EASA
EFOD
EI
GASP
GEN
GEUSR
HLSC
HQ
IAA
IVA
ICVM
ISO
LEG
MIR
MAC
MARB
MO
MOU
NCMC
OAS
OJT
OLF
OPS
ORG
OSU
PANS
PEL
PH
PQ
Aerodromes and ground aids
Aircraft accident and incident investigation
Airworthiness of aircraft
Air Navigation Bureau
Air navigation services
Chief of Safety and Air Navigation Oversight Audit Section
Civil Aviation Authority
Corrective action plan
Computer-based training
Compliance Checklist
(ICAO) Council decision
Critical element
Continuous Monitoring Approach
Continuous Monitoring Coordinator
Comprehensive Systems Approach
Deputy Director of Monitoring, Analysis and Coordination
Daily subsistence allowance
European Union Aviation Safety Agency
Electronic filing of differences
Effective implementation
Global Aviation Safety Plan
State Safety Programme (SSP) general aspects
Group of Experts for a USOAP CMA Structured Review
High-level Safety Conference
Headquarters
Integrated audit activity
Integrated validation activity
ICAO Coordinated Validation Mission
International Organization for Standardization
Primary aviation legislation and specific operating regulations
Mandatory information request
Monitoring, Analysis and Coordination
Monitoring and Assistance Review Board
Monitoring and Oversight
Memorandum of Understanding
National Continuous Monitoring Coordinator
Safety and Air Navigation Oversight Audit Section
On-the-job training
USOAP CMA online framework
Aircraft operations
Civil aviation organization
Oversight Support Unit
Procedures for Air Navigation Services
Personnel licensing and training
Portfolio holder
Protocol Question
(xiii)
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
Continuous Monitoring Manual
(xiv)
QMS
RCMC
RO
RSOO
SAAQ
SARPs
SDA
SME
SMS
SPO
SSC
SSP
SSPIA
SSP PQ
TCB
TL
TM
TO
USOAP
USOAP-AG
Quality management system
Regional Continuous Monitoring Coordinator
Regional Office
Regional safety oversight organization
State Aviation Activity Questionnaire
Standards and Recommended Practices
State Safety Programme (SSP) safety data analysis
Subject matter expert
Safety Management System
Standards and Procedures Officer
Significant Safety Concern
State Safety Programme
State Safety Programme Implementation Assessment
State Safety Programme Protocol Question
Technical Cooperation Bureau
Team leader
Team member
Technical Officer
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
ad hoc USOAP CMA Advisory Group
______________________
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
PURPOSE
1.1.1
The primary purpose of this manual is to introduce and describe the Universal Safety Oversight Audit
Programme (USOAP) Continuous Monitoring Approach (CMA) (hereafter also referred to as the Programme), including
its history and evolution, programme concept, principles, policies, procedures and methodology. The intended readers
and users are the participants and stakeholders of USOAP, including, but not limited to, ICAO Member States (hereafter
referred to as Member States or States), recognized international and regional organizations, and members of the USOAP
team, from management to auditors, subject matter experts and assessors.
1.1.2
This manual is also an essential guide for USOAP support staff, either at ICAO Headquarters or in the
Regional Offices (RO), in the planning, preparation, conduct and reporting of USOAP CMA activities.
1.1.3
This fifth edition of Doc 9735 introduces updates and changes to the Programme since 2013. They include
the following:
1.1.4
a)
addition of Annex 19 – Safety Management to USOAP coverage and the introduction of the State Safety
Programme Implementation Assessment (SSPIA) as a new USOAP activity;
b)
implementation of the recommendations of the Group of Experts for a USOAP CMA Structured Review
(GEUSR), which was established in 2018 pursuant to a decision of the 39th Session of the ICAO
Assembly (27 September to 6 October 2016);
c)
implementation of certain recommendations of the ad hoc USOAP CMA Advisory Group (USOAP-AG),
which was established in 2019 pursuant to a recommendation of the Thirteenth Air Navigation
Conference (AN-Conf/13) (9 to 19 October 2018) and endorsed by the ICAO Council (C-DEC 216/5) at
the fifth meeting of its 216th Session (27 February 2019);
d)
introduction of new or modified USOAP activities in response to the disruption of the coronavirus
(COVID-19) pandemic;
e)
general programmatic improvements based on State and stakeholder feedback as well as experience
and lessons learned; and
f)
update stemming from the 41st Assembly of ICAO (27 September to 7 October 2022).
For readers and users ease of reference, information about SSPIA is described in Chapter 5.
1-1
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
Continuous Monitoring Manual
1-2
1.2
REFERENCES
1.2.1
The principal reference documents of the Programme are all the safety-related Annexes to the Convention
and related guidance material, including but not limited to the following:
a)
Doc 7300 – Convention on International Civil Aviation (hereafter referred to as the Convention);
b)
Annexes 1 to 19 to the Convention (excluding Annexes 9 and 17);
c)
Doc 9734 – Safety Oversight Manual; Part A – The Establishment and Management of a State’s Safety
Oversight System; and
d)
Doc 9859 – Safety Management Manual.
1.2.2
Additional references are listed in the “USOAP CMA Protocol Questions” documents for each audit and
assessment area. These documents are found online in the “CMA Library” on the USOAP CMA online framework (OLF)
(https://www.icao.int/usoap) and available to registered users of the OLF.
Note.— The ICAO Products and Services Catalogue provides a complete list of ICAO guidance material
available to support the requirements of Annexes to the Convention.
1.2.3
The USOAP quality management system follows ISO 19011 – Guidelines for auditing management systems.
1.2.4
In support of USOAP CMA, ICAO has published and will continue to publish additional documentation
providing procedural guidance and training material, as appropriate.
______________________
Chapter 2
GENERAL INFORMATION
2.1
2.1.1
HISTORY OF THE PROGRAMME
From Inception to Comprehensive Systems Approach: 1995 to 2006
2.1.1.1
The forerunner of ICAO’s Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme (USOAP) was the voluntary ICAO
Safety Oversight Assessment Programme, which was first approved by the ICAO Council on 7 June 1995, endorsed by
the 31st Session of the ICAO Assembly (19 September to 4 October 1995), and became operational in March 1996.
2.1.1.2
During the two-year voluntary assessment of a State’s implementation of the ICAO Standards and
Recommended Practices (SARPs), the voluntary programme detected numerous deficiencies in the establishment of
effective safety oversight programmes in Member States and drew attention to the critical need for increased attention to
global aviation safety. Following discussion at the Directors General of Civil Aviation Conference on a Global Strategy for
Safety Oversight (DGCA/97), held in Montréal from 10 to 12 November 1997, the ICAO Council recommended to the 32nd
Session of the Assembly the establishment of USOAP.
Establishment of an ICAO Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme (USOAP)
2.1.1.3
In 1998, the 32nd Session of the Assembly (22 September to 2 October 1998) adopted Assembly Resolution
A32-11 – Establishment of an ICAO Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme (USOAP), which resolved that “a
universal safety oversight audit programme be established, comprising regular, mandatory, systematic and harmonized
safety audits, to be carried out by ICAO; that such universal safety oversight audit programme shall apply to all Contracting
States; and that greater transparency and increased disclosure be implemented in the release of audit results”. The
programme covered Annex 1 – Personnel Licensing, Annex 6 – Operation of Aircraft and Annex 8 – Airworthiness of
Aircraft.
2.1.1.4
The successful implementation of the USOAP mandatory audits was recognized by the 33rd Session of the
Assembly (22 September – 5 October 2001), which then adopted Assembly Resolution A33-8 to expand the programme
to Annex 11 – Air Traffic Services, Annex 14 – Aerodromes, and other safety-related areas such as Annex 13 – Aircraft
Accident and Incident Investigation.
2.1.1.5
On the recommendation of the ICAO Council, the 35th Session of the Assembly (28 September to
8 October 2004) adopted Assembly Resolution A35-6, which requested that USOAP “be further expanded to include the
safety-related provisions contained in all safety-related Annexes to the Convention on International Civil Aviation as of
2005”.
2.1.1.6
Assembly Resolution A35-6, which superseded Assembly Resolution A33-8, further requested “the
Secretary General, from 1 January 2005, to restructure the ICAO Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme to adopt a
comprehensive systems approach in conducting safety oversight audits in all Contracting States” and “to restructure the
safety oversight audit reports to reflect the critical elements of a safety oversight system, as presented in Doc 9734 –
Safety Oversight Manual, Part A – The Establishment and Management of a State’s Safety Oversight System”. Under the
CSA, all Member States would be audited at least once during a six-year period.
2-1
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
Continuous Monitoring Manual
2-2
2.1.2
Transition to Continuous Monitoring Approach: 2007 to 2013
2.1.2.1
In September 2007, the 36th Session of the Assembly (18 to 28 September 2007) adopted Assembly
Resolution A36-4, which directed the Council to examine different options for the continuation of USOAP beyond 2010,
including the feasibility of applying a new approach based on the concept of continuous monitoring. To this end, a study
group was established by the Secretariat in July 2008, which recommended that, in order to ensure efficiency, long-term
sustainability and cost-effectiveness of USOAP, a continuous monitoring approach should be adopted for the continuation
of USOAP beyond 2010.
2.1.2.2
On 19 June 2009, the ICAO Council, at its 187th Session, directed the Secretary General “to develop the
methodology and tools required to implement a CMA, including the necessary detailed guidance to States” and also to
“conduct targeted ICAO Coordinated Validation Missions (essentially follow-ups) during the transition phase”. Activities to
be carried out under USOAP CMA were to be phased in gradually, with pilot projects conducted in selected States.
(C-DEC 187/8, 22 June 2009 refers).
2.1.2.3
The High-level Safety Conference 2010 (HLSC/2010) (29 March to 1 April 2010) held in Montréal recognized
USOAP as a major achievement for aviation safety and fully supported the evolution of the programme to a continuous
monitoring approach.
2.1.2.3.1
The HLSC/2010 also agreed that States should commit to supporting USOAP CMA “by providing ICAO with
relevant safety information” and that “the Council of ICAO should monitor the progress made during the transition period
and adjust its duration, if required”. It also indicated that “ICAO should enter into new agreements and amend existing
agreements for the sharing of confidential safety information with international entities and organizations in order to reduce
the burden on States caused by repetitive audits and to decrease the systematic duplication of monitoring activities”.
2.1.2.4
The 37th Session of the Assembly (28 September to 8 October 2010) adopted Assembly Resolution A37-5,
affirming that the evolution of USOAP to a continuous monitoring approach should continue to be a top priority for ICAO
to ensure that information on the safety performance of Member States is provided to other Member States and to the
travelling public on an ongoing basis. This vital improvement of international aviation safety oversight required the
participation and support of all Member States, particularly during the transition period in which the tools and guidance
required for USOAP CMA were being developed and refined.
Significant Safety Concerns (SSCs)
2.1.2.5
The issue of Significant Safety Concerns (SSCs) was also raised at the 37th Session of the Assembly. In
line with Assembly Resolution A37-5, the ICAO Council was directed “to develop criteria for the sharing of SSCs with
interested stakeholders and to assess how the information on SSCs could be shared with the public in a form which would
allow them to make an informed decision about the safety of air transportation”. During its 197th Session in 2012, the
ICAO Council approved “that SSCs be made available on the ICAO public website commencing in January 2014” (C-DEC
197/4, 9 November 2012 refers).
2.1.2.6
The two-year transition to USOAP CMA took place from 2011 to 2012 and the Programme was fully launched
on 1 January 2013, as scheduled and approved by the Council during its 197th Session in November 2012 (C-DEC 197/4,
9 November 2012 refers). The USOAP CMA transition plan included numerous activities related to the following:
a)
communications with States and stakeholders,
b)
development and launch of the USOAP CMA online framework (OLF) and its multiple tools and modules,
c)
development of supporting documented information and guidance material,
d)
upgrading of the USOAP CMA quality management system (QMS), processes and procedures,
Chapter 2.
General Information
2-3
e)
training of auditors and experts,
f)
conduct of on-site activities in States, and
g)
development and expansion of agreements with relevant partners to foster coordination and
cooperation.
2.1.2.7
During the transition, ICAO changed its approach from generating findings and recommendations (F&Rs) to
Protocol Question (PQ) findings. ICAO also modified the formula for calculating the effective implementation (EI) in order
to make the EI percentage more accurate.
2.1.3
Continuous Monitoring Approach: 2013 to Present
2.1.3.1
The USOAP CMA online framework (https://www.icao.int/usoap) was launched on 1 January 2013, with
redesigned and integrated tools required for the conduct of USOAP activities.
2.1.3.2
The 38th Session of the Assembly (24 September to 4 October 2013) adopted Assembly Resolution A38 5,
which directed “the Council, in partnership with all aviation safety partners, to implement a comprehensive assistance
programme that will help Member States to correct deficiencies identified through USOAP-CMA, with priority given to the
resolution of SSCs”. It also urged “Member States to give the highest priority to the resolution of SSCs in order to ensure
that there are no immediate safety risks to international civil aviation and that the minimum requirements established by
the Standards set forth in the ICAO Annexes are met”. This resolution was later superseded by Assembly Resolution
A40-6 that was adopted at the 40th session of the Assembly (24 September to 4 October 2019).
2.1.4
Continuous Evolution of the Programme
2.1.4.1
An important feature of the evolution of USOAP was the addition of Annex 19 – Safety Management, which
was adopted by the Council in February 2013 and became applicable on 14 November 2013, to the Programme’s coverage.
The SARPs in Annex 19 are intended to assist States in managing aviation safety risks and support the continued evolution
of a proactive strategy to improve safety performance.
2.1.4.2
In 2015, ICAO launched the State Safety Programme Implementation Assessment (SSPIA) to include
Annex 19 in its oversight and monitoring activities. First introduced on a voluntary, cost-recovery basis on selected States,
the SSPIA addressed the safety-management related SARPs in Annex 19. The initial phase covered 2018 to 2020 and
the second phase started from 2020 onwards.
Recommendations of Group of Experts for a USOAP CMA Structured Review
2.1.4.3
To support the continuous evolution of the USOAP CMA, the 39th Session of the Assembly (27 September
to 6 October 2016) recommended that ICAO review its methodology, processes, and tools to give States an opportunity
to provide user feedback and to plan improvements to the overall programme. A Group of Experts for a USOAP CMA
Structured Review (GEUSR) was established and provided 37 recommendations, which were agreed to by the Council
(C-DEC 214-5, 19 June 2018 refers) and also by the Thirteenth Air Navigation Conference (AN-Conf/13) held from 9 to
19 October 2018 (AN-Conf/13 Resolution 6.3/1, Doc 10115 refers).
Note.— Full details of the 37 recommendations of the GEUSR are available at:
https://www.icao.int/Meetings/a40/Documents/Report on the Evolution of the USOAP-CMA.pdf.
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
Continuous Monitoring Manual
2-4
2.1.4.4
The 40th Session of the ICAO Assembly (24 September to 4 October 2019) adopted Assembly
Resolution A40-13, which directed “the Secretary General to implement organizational improvements necessary to
successfully manage the changes brought about by the long-term evolution of the programme, in line with the
recommendations of the Group of Experts for a Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme Continuing Monitoring
Approach (USOAP CMA) Structured Review (GEUSR) as agreed by the Council and of the AN-Conf/13”. In addition,
Assembly Resolution A40-13 also called for continued evolution of the USOAP CMA “into a more evidence-based, riskinformed and result-oriented programme to be applied on a universal basis in order to assess the effectiveness and
sustainability of States’ safety oversight systems, as well as the progress of States in implementing safety management
requirements, in particular State safety programmes (SSPs)”.
Recommendations of ad hoc USOAP CMA Advisory Group
2.1.4.5
Stemming from a recommendation of AN-Conf/13, the ad hoc USOAP CMA Advisory Group (USOAP-AG)
was established to further evolve the USOAP CMA beyond the GEUSR recommendations, to address duplication of effort
and find synergies to enhance the efficiency of the USOAP CMA while maintaining safeguards to guarantee the
independence, universality, standardization and global acceptance in the implementation of the Programme (Doc 10115,
Recommendation 6.3/1, refers). The USOAP-AG provided recommendations and strategic advice for the evolution of the
Programme, which were transmitted to Member States for consultation (State letter AN 19/51-21/24 refers). The Council,
at the sixth meeting of its 225th Session on 2 March 2022, agreed to revisions to the USOAP-AG recommendations that
resulted from the consultation and as amended by the Air Navigation Commission. The 42 recommendations, as agreed
by the Council, are contained in six groups (Group A through F).
Note.— Full details of the 42 recommendations of the USOAP-AG are available at
https://www.icao.int/Meetings/A41/Pages/documentation-reference-documents.aspx.
2.1.4.6
At the 41st Session of the ICAO Assembly (27 September to 7 October 2022), the Assembly endorsed the
evolution plan for the USOAP CMA, with certain amendments raised by Member States, including improvement of the
monitoring and evaluation of corrective action plans (CAPs) and ensuring response within a defined timeline, so as to
enable States to begin implementation of their CAPs.
2.2
USOAP CMA OBJECTIVE AND PRINCIPLES
2.2.1
Objective
2.2.1.1
The objective of the USOAP CMA is to promote global aviation safety through continuous monitoring and
determination of Member States’ safety oversight and safety management capabilities. This objective is achieved by
conducting audits, validations and State Safety Programme Implementation Assessments (SSPIAs).
2.2.1.2
Through audits and validations, ICAO carries out a systematic and objective review of a State’s effective
implementation of the eight critical elements of a State safety oversight system and accident/incident investigation
capabilities.
2.2.1.3
The conduct of SSPIAs enables ICAO to determine the maturity levels of the State’s State Safety Programme
(SSP) implementation and maintenance based on the results of the SSP PQs.
Chapter 2.
General Information
2-5
2.2.2
General Principles
2.2.2.1
ICAO adopts the following general principles for all USOAP CMA activities to strengthen global acceptance
of the Programme and the results of its activities.
a)
Sovereignty. Every Member State has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace of its
territory. Accordingly, ICAO fully respects a sovereign State’s responsibility and authority over its safety
oversight and safety management, including its decision-making powers with respect to implementing
corrective actions related to identified deficiencies, as well as over its continuous improvement of
implementation and maintenance of its SSP.
b)
Universality. All Member States shall be subject to continuous monitoring activities by ICAO, in
accordance with the principles, methodologies, processes and procedures established for conducting
such activities, and on the basis of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Regarding the USOAP
CMA signed by each Member State and ICAO.
c)
Transparency and disclosure. USOAP CMA activities shall be conducted under a process that is fully
transparent and open for examination by all parties concerned. There shall be full disclosure of the
finalized results of USOAP CMA activities which shall provide sufficient information for Member States
to make informed decisions regarding the safety oversight capability and the maturity levels of the
implementation and maintenance of SSPs of other Member States.
d)
Timeliness. Results of USOAP CMA activities shall be produced and posted by ICAO in a timely manner,
in accordance with a predetermined schedule for the preparation and submission of these results.
Member States shall submit updates, comments, action plans and all required documentation in
accordance with the timelines set out in Appendix A to this manual and in the MOU. Relevant information
will be published by ICAO on an ongoing basis.
e)
All-inclusiveness. The scope of USOAP CMA includes the ICAO SARPs contained in all safety-related
Annexes to the Convention, Procedures for Air Navigation Services (PANS), guidance material and
related procedures and practices.
f)
Systematic, consistent and objective. USOAP CMA shall be conducted in a systematic, consistent and
objective manner. Standardization and uniformity in the scope, depth and quality of USOAP CMA
activities shall be achieved through the use of trained and qualified auditors, subject matter experts
(SMEs) and assessors, the use of standardized PQs and the provision of relevant guidance material.
g)
Fairness. USOAP CMA activities shall be conducted in a manner such that Member States have every
opportunity to monitor, comment on, and respond to the USOAP CMA processes.
h)
Quality. The quality of USOAP CMA activities shall be ensured by assigning trained and qualified
auditors, SMEs and assessors to conduct USOAP CMA activities, as well as by implementing and
maintaining a QMS that continually monitors and evaluates feedback received from USOAP CMA
stakeholders to ensure their ongoing satisfaction.
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
Continuous Monitoring Manual
2-6
2.2.3
Auditing Principles
2.2.3.1
ICAO has adopted ISO 19011 for its USOAP CMA activities, including the principles of auditing, management
of an audit programme, conducting of management system audits, and guidance on the evaluation of competence of
individuals involved in the audit process. The auditing principles applied to all USOAP CMA activities, in accordance with
ISO 19011:2018 – Guidelines for auditing management systems, are as follows:
Note.— The terms “audit” and “auditing” used below apply to all USOAP CMA activities in general, which
includes audits, validations and SSPIAs.
a)
Integrity: the foundation of professionalism: all individual(s) engaged and involved in the Programme,
including team members (TMs), should:
1)
perform their work ethically with honesty and responsibility;
2)
only undertake activities if competent to do so;
3)
perform their work in an impartial manner (i.e. remain fair and unbiased in all their dealings); and
4)
be sensitive to any influence that may be exerted on their judgment while carrying out an activity.
b)
Fair presentation: the obligation to report truthfully and accurately. Audit findings, SSPIA maturity levels,
conclusions, activity reports and SSCs shall reflect truthfully and accurately the State’s safety activities.
Significant obstacles encountered during the activity and unresolved diverging opinions between a
USOAP CMA activity team and the visited State are reported. The communication should be truthful,
accurate, objective, timely, clear and complete.
c)
Due professional care: the application of diligence and judgment in the conduct of USOAP CMA
activities. TMs shall exercise care in relation to the importance of the tasks they perform and the
confidence placed in them by Member States and other interested parties. An important factor in carrying
out their work with due professional care is having the ability to make reasoned judgments during all
activities.
d)
Independence: the basis for the impartiality of USOAP CMA activities and the objectivity of the
conclusions. TMs shall be independent of the activity being audited and be free from bias and conflict
of interest. TMs shall maintain an objective state of mind throughout the process to ensure that findings,
SSPIA maturity levels, and conclusions are based only on the assessed evidence.
e)
Evidence-based approach: the rational method for reaching reliable and reproducible conclusions in a
systematic process. Audit evidence shall be verifiable and based on samples of the information
available. The appropriate use of sampling is closely related to the confidence that can be placed in the
audit conclusions.
f)
Confidentiality: security of information. TMs should exercise discretion in the use and protection of
information acquired in the course of their duties. Audit information should not be used inappropriately
for personal gain by the auditor or the auditee, or in a manner detrimental to the legitimate interests of
the auditee. This concept includes the proper handling of sensitive or confidential information.
g)
Risk-based approach: an audit approach that considers risks and opportunities: The risk-based
approach should substantively influence the planning, conducting and reporting of audits in order to
ensure that audits are focused on matters that are significant for the auditee, and for achieving the audit
programme’s objectives.
Chapter 2.
General Information
2-7
2.3
USOAP CMA IMPLEMENTATION
2.3.1
Within ICAO, the Monitoring, Analysis and Coordination (MAC), Air Navigation Bureau, is responsible for
overall management of USOAP.
2.3.2
MAC develops the general policies for the continuous improvement and evolution of USOAP based on
recommendations approved by the ICAO Council and endorsed by the Assembly of ICAO. It is also in charge of liaison
and coordination with Member States, other ICAO Bureaus and sections, Regional Offices and pertinent international and
regional organizations for all matters concerning USOAP.
2.3.3
Under MAC are two entities in charge of the implementation of the Programme. They are:
a)
Safety and Air Navigation Oversight Audit Section (OAS), which conducts the audits, validations and
SSPIAs under the framework of the Programme. It also provides USOAP training to candidate and
qualified auditors, SMEs and assessors who are selected from among the technical officers of the
Regional Offices and other qualified candidates from Member States.
b)
Oversight Support Unit (OSU), which provides technical and administrative support from the USOAP
activity planning and preparation phase to the USOAP activity report production phase. It also manages
and continues to develop the USOAP CMA online framework (https://www.icao.int/usoap) to better
serve its users from Member States and ICAO safety partners.
Note.— More information on the roles and responsibilities of MAC, OAS and OSU are found in
Chapter 7, 7.2.1.
2.4
2.4.1
2.4.2
USOAP CMA ACTIVITIES
There are three categories of USOAP CMA activities:
a)
audits;
b)
validations; and
c)
SSPIAs.
USOAP CMA activities are conducted in the following modes:
a)
On-site activities – an audit, validation or SSPIA where the ICAO activity team reviews, assesses, and
validates submitted evidence in person;
b)
Off-site activities – an audit or validation where the ICAO activity team reviews, assesses, and validates
submitted evidence at ICAO Headquarters with minimal interaction with the States; and
c)
Virtual activities – an off-site audit or validation where the ICAO activity team reviews, assesses and
validates remotely, using videoconferencing software to conduct interviews and discussions, as well as
email or other electronic means to exchange and review evidence.
Note.— Further information about audits and validations are found in Chapter 4, while more information
about SSPIAs is found in Chapter 5.
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
Continuous Monitoring Manual
2-8
2.5
ELEMENTS OF USOAP CMA
Note.— This section deals exclusively with audits and validations conducted under the framework of the
USOAP CMA. -Chapter 5 discusses the elements of the SSPIAs.
2.5.1
Protocol Questions
2.5.1.1
For audits and validations, a set of questions known as Protocol Questions (PQs) are used as the primary
tool to assess the level of effective implementation of a State’s safety oversight system and accident/incident investigation
capabilities. They are developed based on ICAO SARPs, PANS, and relevant ICAO guidance material.
2.5.1.2
Standardized PQs are applied to all States to ensure transparency, quality, consistency, reliability and
fairness in the conduct of USOAP CMA activities. They also allow for an appropriate evaluation of the scope and complexity
of the aviation activity in each State.
2.5.1.3
The PQs are organized by audit area for audits and validations. Each PQ is associated with one of the eight
critical elements (CEs). Each PQ is also supplemented by corresponding “Guidance for Review of Evidence” and “ICAO
References”.
Note.— The full set of Protocol Questions used for USOAP activities are found online in the “CMA Library”
on the USOAP CMA online framework.
2.5.1.4
For audits and validations, a State is deemed to have fully addressed a PQ when it has implemented all the
required elements of the PQ, such as those outlined in the “Guidance for Review of Evidence” in the PQ document. This
generates a “satisfactory” status of implementation for the PQ. If the State provides insufficient or no evidence of
compliance with the elements outlined in the PQ, the PQ is assessed as “not satisfactory”.
2.5.1.5
The status of a PQ may also be assessed as “not applicable” if the PQ does not apply to the State’s civil
aviation system. A PQ that has never been assessed for a State is denoted as “undetermined”.
2.5.1.6
value.
Any change in the status of a PQ for a State leads to an update of the State’s effective implementation (EI)
2.5.1.7
The PQs are reviewed and amended periodically to reflect changes to the ICAO provisions and reference
documents, including emerging issues in civil aviation, as well as to harmonize and improve PQ references and content.
The amendment of PQs is carried out by the Standards and Procedures Officers of the Safety and Air Navigation Oversight
Audit Section (OAS), with input from other sections of the Air Navigation Bureau, Regional Offices and relevant external
stakeholders, as well as from lessons learned and experienced drawn.
2.5.1.8
For audits and validations, PQ amendments may have a positive or negative impact on the level of EI of all
States, as PQs may be added, changed, merged, separated, and/or deleted.
2.5.1.9
Some PQs have an “off-site” designation and are primarily associated with CEs 1 to 5 (known as the
“establishment PQs”). These “off-site” PQs may qualify for off-site activities, which are conducted from ICAO HQ. All PQs
may be audited or validated during on-site and virtual activities.
2.5.1.10
The USOAP PQs do not include:
a)
PQs with sole references to Annexes 9 (Facilitation), 16 (Environmental Protection), and 17 (Aviation
Security); and
Chapter 2.
General Information
b)
2-9
any PQs not related directly to safety oversight or accident/incident investigation, unless otherwise
instructed by the Council.
2.5.1.11
Following recommendations of the GEUSR, which started in 2021, two subsets of PQs were identified,
namely, Implementation PQs and Priority PQs.
a)
Implementation PQs are selected PQs across all areas which are associated with CEs 6 to 8 (also
known as implementation CEs).
b)
Priority PQs (PPQs) are selected PQs across all areas that, if found not satisfactory, may indicate a lack
of capability by a State to identify and/or resolve operational safety and fundamental accident
investigation deficiencies effectively, and consequently, its inability to conduct safety oversight or a
proper accident investigation. Such PPQ findings can potentially result in an elevated risk of SSCs.
2.5.2
2.5.2.1
Audit Areas
USOAP CMA audit and validation activities cover eight audit areas, namely:
1)
primary aviation legislation and specific operating regulations (LEG);
2)
civil aviation organization (ORG);
3)
personnel licensing and training (PEL);
4)
aircraft operations (OPS);
5)
airworthiness of aircraft (AIR);
6)
aircraft accident and incident investigation (AIG);
7)
air navigation services (ANS); and
8)
aerodromes and ground aids (AGA).
2.5.3
Critical Elements of a State Safety Oversight System
2.5.3.1
Critical elements (CEs) are the building blocks upon which an effective State safety oversight system is
based. They are an essential safety defence tool of a State’s safety oversight system required for the effective
implementation of safety-related standards, policies and associated procedures. Each Member State should address all
CEs in its effort to establish and implement an effective safety oversight system that reflects the shared responsibility of
the State and the aviation community (see Figure 2-1).
2.5.3.2
The CEs of a State safety oversight system cover the whole spectrum of civil aviation activities, including
personnel licensing, aircraft operations, airworthiness of aircraft, aircraft accident and incident investigation, air navigation
services, and aerodromes and ground aids. The level of effective implementation of the CEs is an indication of a State's
capability for safety oversight.
2.5.3.3
The CEs of a State’s safety oversight system are outlined in Annex 19 – Safety Management, Appendix 1
and elaborated in Doc 9734 – Safety Oversight Manual, Part A – The Establishment and Management of a State’s Safety
Oversight System.
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
Continuous Monitoring Manual
2-10
CE-2
Specific
operating
regulations
CE-1
Primary
aviation
legislation
ESTABLISH
CE-4
Qualified
technical
personnel
IMPLEMENT
CE-6
Licensing,
certification,
authorization
and/or approval
obligations
Figure 2-1.
CE-8
Resolution
of safety
issues
CE-3
State system
and functions
CE-5
Technical
guidance, tools
and provision
of safety-critical
information
CE-7
Surveillance
obligations
The Eight Critical Elements of a State Safety Oversight System
Chapter 2.
General Information
2-11
2.6
2.6.1
USOAP CMA OUTCOMES
Protocol Question Status and Finding
2.6.1.1
In an audit or validation of a State’s safety oversight system, USOAP auditors and SMEs review and assess
evidence to determine the status of a Protocol Question (PQ) based on one or more of the following:
2.6.1.2
a)
compliance of the State’s safety oversight system with the Convention on International Civil Aviation
(Doc 7300);
b)
implementation of ICAO SARPs, PANS and aviation safety best practices; and/or
c)
application of ICAO guidance material and relevant safety-related practices in general use in the aviation
industry to support the implementation of the ICAO SARPs and PANS.
The status of a PQ may be assessed as satisfactory, not satisfactory, or not applicable.
2.6.1.3
When the audit or validation determines that there is insufficient or no evidence of the elements described
in one of 2.6.1.1 a) to c), the status of the PQ is determined to be not satisfactory, a safety deficiency is identified, and a
finding is issued.
2.6.1.4
Evidence may be obtained during a USOAP CMA activity, or submitted by a State, an ICAO Regional Office,
a recognized organization, or other stakeholders.
2.6.1.5
Each finding is based on one PQ. Each PQ is linked to a CE; therefore, a not satisfactory PQ is also reflected
in the related CE in the activity results. Once findings are issued during a mission, they have to be validated by OAS.
2.6.1.6
A finding contains:
a)
the not-satisfactory PQ;
b)
the applicable CE; and
c)
a description of the identified deficiencies.
2.6.1.7
Issuing a finding changes the status of the associated PQ from “not applicable”, “undetermined” or
“satisfactory” to “not satisfactory” and decreases the State’s EI.
2.6.1.8
In order for ICAO to close a finding, the State must address the associated PQ by resolving all the
deficiencies detailed in the finding through submission of a corrective action plan (CAP) and associated evidence. The
CAP and evidence are reviewed and verified by OAS, through either an on-site or off-site validation activity. Only when
OAS considers the CAP and evidence to have satisfactorily addressed and resolved the finding will the finding be closed
and the PQ status changed accordingly from not satisfactory to satisfactory.
2.6.1.9
If a PQ is deemed not applicable to the situation of the State, such as a PQ related to the design and
manufacturing of aircraft for a State that does neither activity, OAS will assess the status of the PQ as not applicable until
the State’s situation changes and the PQ becomes applicable.
2.6.1.10
When a new PQ is introduced through the PQ amendment process, the new PQ will have an undetermined
status until it is assessed through a USOAP CMA audit. A State should still include information for the new PQ as part of
its PQ self-assessment on the OLF.
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
Continuous Monitoring Manual
2-12
2.6.1.11
In the case of a mandatory information request (MIR), if the State does not provide an acceptable response
to the information request issued through the USOAP CMA, a finding may be issued to the PQ or PQs associated with the
MIR.
2.6.2
Effective Implementation
2.6.2.1
Effective implementation (EI) is a measure of the State’s safety oversight capability. A higher EI indicates
that a State’s safety oversight system has a greater degree of safety oversight capabilities, and vice versa.
2.6.2.2
The overall EI is an indicator of a State’s safety oversight capabilities when measured across the full scope
of applicable PQs. It is calculated based on the following formula:
2.6.2.3
𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 (%) =
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
× 100
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
EI can be calculated for each CE, each audit area and as an overall value.
2.6.2.4
The overall EI is recalculated following each cycle of amendments of PQs, resulting in scores that are more
reflective of the States’ current safety oversight capability. The effect of the EI recalculation will vary from State to State.
2.6.2.5
Following implementation of the GEUSR recommendations, two types of specific EIs were added to the
“State Dashboard” of the OLF, which serve as indicators of the level of safety of specific aspects of a State’s safety
oversight and accident/incident investigation systems. They are the Implementation EI and the Priority PQ (PPQ) EI.
2.6.2.6
The Implementation EI represents the level of effective implementation of the PQs associated with
“implementation” CEs, that is, (CEs 6 to 8). It is calculated based on the following formula:
𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 (%) =
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
× 100
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
2.6.2.7
The PPQ EI represents the level of effective implementation of the PPQs. It is calculated based on the
following formula:
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 (%) =
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
× 100
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
2.6.2.8
A State with a low PPQ EIs should address the deficiencies and/or weaknesses in their systems on an urgent
basis since these PQs have a significant impact on operational safety and can indicate an elevated risk of significant safety
concerns (SSCs).
2.6.3
Corrective Action Plan
2.6.3.1
When ICAO issues a finding, that is when the status of a PQ changes to not satisfactory as a result of a
USOAP CMA audit or an MIR process, the State must develop an acceptable corrective action plan (CAP), in accordance
with Article 29 of the MOU Regarding the USOAP CMA signed between the State and ICAO. (See Chapter 7, 7.6 and
Appendix B, Generic Memorandum of Understanding.)
2.6.3.2
The proposed CAP, to be submitted by the State online on the OLF, must fully address the associated PQ
and all identified deficiencies to be considered acceptable. Further guidance and criteria for States on developing
acceptable CAPs are described in Appendix D, “Guidance for States on Developing Corrective Action Plan”.
Chapter 2.
General Information
2-13
2.6.3.3
OAS will conduct an initial review to assess the State’s CAPs as part of the CAP assessment process.
However, the State can start implementing the corrective actions prior to OAS acceptance. OAS regularly monitors the
State’s progress in implementing its CAPs through the OLF until each CAP is fully implemented. Further details regarding
the submission, assessment, implementation and validation of CAPs are described in Chapter 9, 9.4.17 to 9.4.25 and
Appendix E, “Corrective Action Plan: Assessment and Monitoring Workflow”.
2.6.3.4
If a State does not submit a CAP within the required timeline, OAS will coordinate with the RO and other
relevant ICAO sections, and report to DD/MAC to determine further action, as appropriate.
2.6.4
Significant Safety Concern
2.6.4.1
The issue of significant safety concern (SSC) was first brought up at the Directors General of Civil Aviation
Conference on a Global Strategy for Aviation Safety (DGCA/06), held in Montréal from 20 to 22 March 2006. DGCA/06
recommended that ICAO develop an additional mechanism to enable the rapid resolution of SSCs identified under USOAP
(DGCA/06 Recommendation 2/5 a) 2) under Topic 2.5 refers).
2.6.4.2
as follows:
In November 2006, the Council, at the 12th meeting of its 179th Session, agreed on the definition of SSC,
“A Significant Safety Concern occurs when the audited State allows the holder of an authorization or approval to exercise
the privileges attached to it, although the minimum requirements established by the State and by the Standards set forth
in the Annexes to the Chicago Convention are not met, resulting in an immediate safety risk to international civil aviation.”
(Electronic Bulletin 2010/07, 19 February 2010 refers.)
2.6.4.3
At the same meeting, the Council also approved a mechanism for dealing with SSCs identified during the
conduct of safety oversight audits. The SSC mechanism describes the USOAP CMA process used to notify a State of
identified deficiencies that may pose an immediate safety risk to international civil aviation as well as the timelines for the
State to address and resolve the SSC.
Note.— When requested by the State, ICAO Regional Offices may assist the State on how to develop and
submit immediate mitigating measures to resolve an SSC.
2.6.4.4
An SSC may be triggered in the following situations:
a)
A potential safety concern is identified in the course of an audit in a State and confirmed as an SSC by
the SSC Validation Committee.
b)
When a State does not satisfactorily address Priority PQs. If Priority PQs are assessed to be not
satisfactory, this may indicate a lack of capability by a State to identify and/or resolve operational safety
and fundamental accident investigation deficiencies effectively.
c)
When an MIR concerning evidence of a potential SSC is issued to a State and the State either does not
respond or its response is assessed to be not satisfactory by ICAO. This could escalate to an SSC and
the initiation of an SSC process.
2.6.4.5
If a State does not take appropriate mitigating measures or corrective actions to resolve a preliminary SSC
by the specified deadline, the SSC will be confirmed and made known to all Member States through the issuance of an
Electronic Bulletin and the posting of the SSC on the OLF.
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
Continuous Monitoring Manual
2-14
2.6.4.6
If the State fails to resolve the SSC within 90 days after the posting on the OLF, the existence of the
outstanding SSC will then be indicated on the ICAO public website (https://www.icao.int/safety/Pages/USOAPResults.aspx). The unresolved SSC will remain posted on the OLF and the ICAO public website until it is resolved.
2.6.4.7
Details of the SSC process are described in Appendix C, “Significant Safety Concern: Procedure and
Process Flowchart”.
2.7
STATES’ RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER USOAP CMA
As required under the MOU signed between States and ICAO, States are responsible for maintaining current and accurate
information in their PQ self-assessment, SAAQ, and CC/EFOD on the OLF as well as responding to MIRs.
2.7.1
Protocol Question Self-Assessment
2.7.1.1
States must conduct a regular self-assessment of their safety oversight, accident or incident investigation
and safety management systems through the online submission and update of the status of PQs on the OLF. As a priority,
States shall conduct a PQ self-assessment on one or all of the following:
a)
PQs that were assessed as not satisfactory in a previous USOAP CMA audit;
b)
new PQs introduced following a PQ amendment process – these PQs will have an undetermined status
until they are assessed through a USOAP CMA audit;
c)
amended PQs, if the amendment impacts the status of the PQs;
d)
in case of any changes in their aviation system, regulations and/or procedures, to assess whether these
changes impact the status of any PQs; and/or
e)
SSP PQs.
2.7.1.2
Regular self-assessments using PQs are also a tool for States to actively monitor and report the health of
their aviation system on a continuous basis. States can use PQ self-assessments to conduct scheduled internal audits
and assessments of their safety oversight system and safety management capabilities. Thus, States can actively monitor
their own systems in a regular and proactive manner to identify and resolve safety oversight deficiencies.
2.7.1.3
The PQ self-assessment is also an important tool for States to use in order to prepare for a USOAP CMA
activity. Each PQ includes information on ICAO references, which helps identify the ICAO Standard or provision related
to the PQ, and guidance for review of the PQ. The CE (of the PQs) and SSP components (of the SSP PQs) linked to each
PQ also serve as important indicators for States. For example, CEs 1 to 5 indicate that the State must establish the ICAO
provision outlined in the PQ and CEs 6 to 8 indicate that the State must implement the established provision.
2.7.2
State Aviation Activity Questionnaire
2.7.2.1
The State Aviation Activity Questionnaire (SAAQ) is designed to collect comprehensive and specific
information on each State’s aviation activities, including legislative, regulatory, organizational, operational, technical and
administrative details.
Chapter 2.
General Information
2-15
2.7.2.2
Each State shall complete and maintain up-to-date its SAAQ, at least on a yearly basis, in order to assist
ICAO in monitoring the level of aviation activity in the State related to each audit and assessment area, and in prioritizing
and planning USOAP CMA activities.
2.7.2.3
The SAAQ is revised periodically by ICAO.
2.7.3
Compliance Checklists and Electronic Filing of Differences
2.7.3.1
Article 38 of the Chicago Convention (Doc 7300) obliges States to notify ICAO of differences between
Standards and national regulations and practices and also mandates ICAO to make immediate notification of the notified
differences to all other States. States are also urged to notify differences to Recommended Practices in accordance with
Assembly Resolution A37-15, Appendix D, Associated Practice 3.
2.7.3.2
Additionally, pursuant to Article 5 of the MoU Regarding the USOAP CMA signed between States and ICAO,
States agree to complete and maintain up-to-date compliance checklists (CCs) under the framework of USOAP. Through
the CCs, States provide information on their compliance with the relevant Annexes to the Convention in the compliance
checklists/electronic filing of differences (CC/EFOD) module of the OLF.
2.7.3.3
The CC/EFOD system on the OLF provides a single and unified method for States to report compliance and
differences with Annex provisions, which also serves the purposes of Article 38 of the Chicago Convention and USOAP
((C-DEC 177/14) refers).
2.7.3.4
ICAO uses the CC information to prepare for audits and validations, as well as for the continuous monitoring
of the safety oversight and safety management capabilities of Member States. At the same time, the completion of the
CC/EFOD by Member States on the OLF gives registered users of the OLF an overview of the level of implementation of
ICAO SARPs by all States.
2.7.3.5
As amendments to Annexes to the Convention are adopted, Member States are required to review and
update their status of implementation of SARPs. The update of compliance and differences information includes providing
compliance and differences information to newly added SARPs and updating the information that was previously provided
based on the amendments to the SARPs. Member States are also required to update their compliance and differences
information, as necessary, when their national regulations have been amended.
2.7.4 Response to Mandatory Information Request
2.7.4.1
A mandatory information request (MIR) is issued by ICAO, through OAS, to a State to request information
or documentation needed for a USOAP CMA review and validation. A MIR can be issued when:
a)
a State has not submitted and/or maintained its SAAQ, CC/EFOD, CAPs and/or PQ self-assessment in
a complete and up to date manner;
b)
information in the SAAQ, CC/EFOD and/or PQ self-assessment provided by the State contradicts
information found in other documents or provided by other stakeholders;
c)
a significant change is observed in the organization responsible for a State’s aviation safety oversight;
d)
credible evidence indicates that a potential deficiency or an SSC may exist, and additional information
is required to validate this potential deficiency; it allows the State the opportunity to clarify the issue;
e)
information is needed on an aircraft accident or incident;
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
Continuous Monitoring Manual
2-16
2.7.4.2
2.7.4.3
outcomes:
f)
information is needed in addition to an ICAO RO visit; and
g)
information collected during a USOAP CMA activity is incomplete or insufficient.
An MIR could be elevated to a finding in the following cases:
a)
the State does not respond to the MIR with complete, clear and relevant information, or
b)
the State does not respond to the MIR within the specified time frame.
A State’s response to the MIR is reviewed and assessed by OAS. The review may result in the following
a)
The State’s response is found satisfactory and the MIR is closed. There is no change to the status of
the associated PQ or PQs.
b)
If the State’s response is found to be not satisfactory, one of the following may occur:
1)
the State is asked to provide more information and the MIR remains open;
2)
a finding is issued and the status of the associated PQ(s) is changed to not satisfactory. A MIR
report is issued to the State and the MIR is closed; or
3)
if the MIR concerns evidence of a potential SSC, the SSC process may be initiated.
______________________
Chapter 3
CONTINUOUS MONITORING APPROACH
3.1
OBJECTIVE
3.1.1
Pursuant to Assembly Resolution A37-5, the USOAP continuous monitoring approach (CMA) was fully
launched in January 2013 with a view to ensuring that information on safety performance was shared among Member
States and the travelling public on an ongoing basis. The Programme also aimed at being more proactive, making more
effective and efficient use of ICAO resources, and increasing the role of other ICAO Bureaus and the Regional Offices.
3.1.2
The USOAP CMA provides a mechanism for ICAO to collect and analyse safety data and safety information
from Member States and other stakeholders in order to identify and prioritize appropriate activities to be carried out by
ICAO. The Programme uses an evidence-based, risk-informed and result-oriented approach to measure and monitor the
safety oversight capabilities of States and help improve their safety performance and global aviation safety on a continuous
basis.
3.1.3
While the USOAP comprehensive systems approach featured, exclusively, audits and safety audits, the
transition to the CMA introduced new validation activities: ICAO coordinated validation mission (ICVM) and off-site
validation activities.
3.2
3.2.1
CONCEPT
The USOAP CMA concept consists of the following four major components:
a)
collection of safety data and safety information;
b)
determination of the State safety profile under USOAP;
c)
prioritization and conduct of USOAP CMA activities; and
d)
update of EI, the status of SSCs and the SSP maturity levels.
3.2.2
These four components enable ICAO to continuously monitor the safety oversight and safety management
capabilities of Member States. Figure 3-1 shows the USOAP CMA components.
3-1
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
Continuous Monitoring Manual
3-2
• States (such as
responses to PQ selfassessments, SAAQ
and MIRs)
• Internal stakeholders
• External stakeholders
•
•
•
•
•
PQ Findings
PQ status updates
CAPs
SSC
SSP maturity levels
•
Collection of
safety data
and safety
information
Update of EIs,
status of SSCs,
and SSP
maturity levels
Figure 3-1.
Determination
of State safety
profile under
USOAP
Prioritization
and conduct of
USOAP CMA
activities
USOAP CMA components
•
Analysis of safety
risk factors
Evaluation of State’s
safety management
capabilities
•
•
•
•
Audits
Validations
SSPIAs
Training
Chapter 3.
Continuous Monitoring Approach
3.3
3-3
COLLECTION OF SAFETY DATA AND SAFETY INFORMATION
3.3.1
The USOAP CMA provides a mechanism for ICAO to collect safety data and safety information from three
main sources, namely, Member States, and internal and external stakeholders, through the OLF. The ongoing collection
and analysis of safety data and safety information, in turn, allow ICAO to select and conduct the appropriate USOAP
activities for each State.
3.3.2
Member States provide the primary source of safety information by completing, submitting and regularly
updating the following:
a)
SAAQ;
b)
PQ self-assessment; and
c)
CC/EFOD.
3.3.3
ICAO, through the Safety and Air Navigation Oversight Audit Section (OAS), may also issue a mandatory
information request (MIR) to a State to request information or documentation that may be of interest to aviation safety.
3.3.4
Internal stakeholders include the entire ICAO Secretariat (HQ and ROs). External stakeholders include
national, regional, supranational and international organizations with a standing legal agreement with ICAO on monitoring
activities.
3.3.5
Based on agreements with ICAO, the internal and external stakeholders collect and provide safety data and
safety information to ICAO and/or share information that can be used to monitor States’ safety oversight and safety
management capabilities through USOAP. The sharing of safety data and safety information reduces duplication of
resources and effort by ICAO and the recognized organizations, increases the effectiveness of monitoring activities, and
reduces the burden placed on States as a result of repetitive audits, inspections and monitoring activities.
3.4
DETERMINATION OF THE STATE SAFETY PROFILE UNDER USOAP
3.4.1
The State safety profile is based on various indicators which identify or highlight specific information about
a State’s safety oversight system. It is used internally to identify and prioritize the appropriate activities for Member States.
These indicators include, but are not limited to:
a)
EI (determined through a previous USOAP CMA activity);
b)
date and scope of the last USOAP CMA activity;
c)
any postponement or cancellation by the State of a previously planned USOAP CMA activity;
d)
existence of SSC(s);
e)
a State’s progress in resolving an SSC, and/or the resolution thereof;
f)
level of (international) aviation activity and its trend (e.g. traffic);
g)
aviation accidents rate and its trend;
h)
level of progress made by a State in completing and updating PQ self-assessment on the OLF;
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
Continuous Monitoring Manual
3-4
i)
level of progress made by a State in completing and updating the State Aviation Activity Questionnaire
on the OLF;
j)
level of progress made by a State in submitting and implementing CAPs to resolve identified deficiencies
in each audit area on the OLF; and
k)
level of progress made by a State in completing and updating the CC/EFOD system on the OLF.
3.5
PRIORITIZATION AND CONDUCT OF USOAP CMA ACTIVITIES
3.5.1
Prioritization
3.5.1.1
Under the USOAP CMA, in addition to the indicators described in 3.4.1 above, ICAO uses defined
information to select and prioritize States for the conduct of a USOAP CMA activity and assigns the appropriate type and
scope of activity to each State.
3.5.1.2
The indicators and information used in the process to prioritize States for a USOAP CMA activity include,
but are not limited to the items below:
a)
major changes in legislation/regulations in a State’s civil aviation;
b)
major changes in the organizational structure of a State’s civil aviation authority;
c)
significant changes in any of the audit areas within the State’s civil aviation system;
d)
level of aviation activities in the State for each audit area, such as the number of aircraft movements
(arrivals and departures), personnel licences issued or validated, air operator certificates (AOCs) issued,
aircraft registered, and serious aviation incidents and accidents;
e)
information and recommendations from the ROs;
f)
information shared by ICAO safety partners;
g)
air navigation deficiencies;
h)
State’s progress in achieving GASP objectives on safety management;
i)
evidence of a robust and sustainable safety oversight system and an aircraft accident/incident
investigation system;
j)
evidence of an effective mandatory safety reporting system, State aircraft accident and incident
database, and safety analyses; and
k)
regional representation.
Chapter 3.
Continuous Monitoring Approach
3-5
3.5.1.3
The indicators are also monitored on an ongoing basis under USOAP CMA. In the event that there is an
indication that a State is not making progress in resolving identified findings and/or SSCs, has not updated their SAAQ or
PQ self-assessment in a timely manner, or if the collected information indicates that the safety oversight system in a State
has deteriorated, ICAO may take any of the following actions:
a)
increase the monitoring of the State by conducting a USOAP CMA activity;
b)
provide or facilitate assistance, in line with the ICAO implementation support policy; and/or
c)
reassess or monitor more closely existing technical assistance projects and provide additional
assistance, as needed.
3.5.2
Planning and Scheduling of USOAP CMA Activities
3.5.2.1
After the MAC selects and prioritizes States for USOAP CMA activities, it publishes a USOAP CMA Activity
Plan, which comprises a provisional plan in June and then an updated version in January of the following year. The
Activity Plan lists the planned and completed USOAP CMA activities and workshops, including the States that will receive
USOAP CMA activities. The Activity Plan is disseminated to all ICAO Member States through ICAO Electronic Bulletins
posted on the ICAO-NET (on the ICAO secure website) and on the OLF.
3.5.2.2
The scope of a USOAP CMA activity may be full or limited. A full-scope activity covers all the audit or
assessment areas and the associated relevant and applicable PQs, while a limited-scope activity covers a selection of
audit or assessment areas and the associated relevant and applicable PQs.
3.5.2.3
The type and scope of a scheduled USOAP CMA audit, validation or SSPIA may depend on a number of
indicators, including, but not limited to, the items found in Table 3-1.
3.5.2.4
In addition to USOAP CMA activities outlined in the USOAP Activity Plan, ICAO may consider specific
requests from States for cost-recovery activities. States requesting cost-recovery activities will be expected to provide
logistical assistance in making travel arrangements for the team and to cover all travel-related costs, local transportation
and a daily subsistence allowance (DSA).
Note.— The DSA is based on rates established by the United Nations and includes accommodation, meals
and incidental expenses.
3.5.2.5
The scope and timing of a cost-recovery activity is mutually agreed upon by ICAO (through MAC) and the
State, and will not interfere with other USOAP CMA activities. The methodology for conducting USOAP CMA activities will
be the same regardless of the defined scope.
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
Continuous Monitoring Manual
3-6
Table 3-1.
USOAP CMA Activity Planning Indicators
Planning indicators for USOAP CMA activities
Audits
Validations
SSPIAs
Level of changes within the
aviation safety oversight system of
the State
The number of not satisfactory PQs
required to be assessed on-site
Date, scope and results of a previous
SSPIA
Date, scope and results of a
previous USOAP CMA activity
Whether the State has fully
implemented CAPs associated with
those PQs
Information related to SSP and SMS
implementation as indicated in the
SAAQ
Whether the State has submitted
evidence that is complete and
relevant to the CAP implementation
Level of effective implementation of
each audit area
Date, scope and results of a previous
USOAP CMA activity
For off-site validation activities, the
number of qualifying CAPs, i.e. CAPs
addressing primarily findings
associated with CEs 1 to 5
Note 1.— Some CE 1 to 5 findings
still require an on-site activity.
Note 2.— In some cases, ICAO
may be able to consider some
findings associated with CEs 6, 7 and
8 for an off-site validation activity.
3.5.2.6
ICAO will notify selected States of the scheduled activity through an activity notification letter according to
the timelines defined in Appendix A. States are required to acknowledge receipt of the notification letter and confirm their
acceptance of the USOAP CMA activity within the timeline defined in Appendix A.
3.5.2.7
Once the planned activity has been accepted by the State, ICAO will organize a USOAP team to perform
the activity. ICAO will submit requests for the release of short-term seconded auditors, subject matter experts (SMEs) and
assessors from Member States or supporting organizations in accordance with the timeline defined in Appendix A. In order
to facilitate the scheduling of activities and avoid changes to the Activity Plan, all auditors, SMEs and assessors will be
requested to provide their non-availability dates as early as possible. Additionally, once team members (TMs) are assigned
to an activity, all efforts will be made to avoid changes to the composition of the USOAP team.
3.5.2.8
Although everything possible will be done to maintain the activity schedule, changes to activity dates may
occur for reasons beyond ICAO’s control. ICAO-related schedule changes will be communicated to the affected State as
soon as possible.
Chapter 3.
Continuous Monitoring Approach
3.5.3
3-7
Conduct of USOAP CMA Activities
3.5.3.1
All USOAP CMA activities are planned, scheduled and conducted for a Member State based on available
resources and in accordance with the policy, roles, responsibilities and documented information described throughout this
manual and in the relevant quality management system (QMS).
3.5.3.2
Further details about the phases and conduct of each type of activity are described in Chapter 9.
3.5.4
Postponement and Cancellation of USOAP CMA Activities
Note.— This section addresses the recommendations of the ad hoc USOAP CMA Advisory Group
(USOAP-AG).
3.5.4.1
Pursuant to Assembly Resolution A40-13 and the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Regarding the
USOAP CMA signed between States and ICAO, States are strongly urged to accept scheduled activities without any
changes, unless there are compelling reasons not to do so. Postponements and cancellations of USOAP CMA activities
have a direct adverse impact on the Programme, affecting resource allocation, activity planning, and team member
scheduling. Changes to the USOAP Activity Plan also affect the sustainability of the Programme in terms of human
resources because staff scheduling and on-the- job training (OJT) for candidate auditors, SMEs and assessors depend
on the planned activities and the availability of short-term secondments.
3.5.4.2
When States postpone or cancel scheduled USOAP CMA activities, this results in unaddressed oversight
priorities for the Programme that must be re-assessed within the planning cycle for the following year.
3.5.4.3
If a State needs to make any changes to the scheduled activity, the State is required to advise the MAC as
soon as possible of its inability to accept the scheduled activity within the timeline defined in Appendix A. Notification of
postponement or cancellation of a USOAP CMA activity is requested no later than 120 days before the start of the
scheduled activity. In addition, the State shall clearly indicate compelling reasons for the postponement or cancellation
request.
3.5.4.4
No change to a scheduled USOAP CMA activity will be allowed within 90 calendar days prior to the starting
date of an audit, and within 60 calendar days prior to the starting date of a validation, except for a compelling reason.
Note.— A compelling reason to postpone or cancel a USOAP CMA activity includes, but is not limited to, a
severe, unanticipated natural event for which no human is responsible (e.g. earthquake, typhoon/hurricane, and tsunami),
war (e.g. declared war, armed conflict, regardless of declaration of war, between two or more nations, or armed conflict
between military forces of any origin), or civil unrest, etc.
3.5.4.5
A notification of postponement or cancellation must be submitted to the President of the Council of ICAO for
consideration, with copies to the Deputy Director of MAC/ANB. The notification should include the following information:
a)
formal statement of request for postponement or cancellation of the USOAP CMA activity;
b)
reason(s) in support of the request;
c)
proposed time frame for rescheduling the USOAP CMA activity;
d)
name and contact information of the State’s National Continuous Monitoring Coordinator (NCMC); and
e)
contact information for use in responding to the State’s request.
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
Continuous Monitoring Manual
3-8
3.5.4.6
The MAC will review the request and make a final determination regarding the postponement or cancellation
request. Consultation with other ICAO offices, Bureaus and/or the Regional Offices can occur in support of a final
determination. The MAC will forward a confirmation letter to the State regarding its acceptance of the overall request.
3.5.4.7
Unless a scheduled activity is postponed or cancelled for a compelling reason, States will be invited to
reimburse ICAO for the expenditure of financial resources in preparation for the USOAP CMA activity. Financial resources
include all costs associated with the postponement or cancellation of the USOAP CMA activity. Cancellations and
postponements, including information related to States which reimburse ICAO’s financial expenditures resulting from their
cancellation or postponement of a USOAP CMA activity without a compelling reason, will be reported to the Council
through the Annual Report.
3.5.4.8
States that repeatedly request postponements and cancellations without compelling reasons and/or fail to
assist ICAO in rescheduling the USOAP CMA activity may be subject to an escalating process, which may include the
issuance of an MIR and a subsequent SSC, if appropriate, or the referral of the State to the Monitoring and Assistance
Review Board (MARB).
Note.— The MARB is a board comprised of senior ICAO officers that reviews ICAO monitoring and
assistance activities and States with significant safety and/or security concerns. The MARB reports to the Council on a
yearly basis.
3.5.4.9
activity.
ICAO does not issue MIRs or SSCs based solely on the postponement or cancellation of a USOAP CMA
3.5.4.10
Plan.
ICAO publishes all postponements and cancellations and the associated justifications in the USOAP Activity
3.6
OUTCOMES OF USOAP CMA ACTIVITIES
3.6.1
The conduct of USOAP CMA audits or validations enable ICAO to continuously update (i.e. increase or
decrease) the effective implementation (EI) of the safety oversight capability for each State.
3.6.2
Changes in the EI score and SSC status come from changes in the status of PQs, which, in turn, result from
one of the following:
a)
conduct of a USOAP CMA audit;
b)
conduct of a USOAP CMA validation; or
c)
ICAO HQ review and/or acceptance of safety information, with associated evidence, received from
States (e.g. through MIRs), ICAO ROs (through RO visits), and stakeholders’ audit and assessment
programmes.
3.6.3
The result of an audit reveals the current status of the civil aviation safety oversight system in the State.
During an audit, new findings may be generated, that is, changing the status of PQs from satisfactory or undetermined to
not satisfactory, and potentially identifying SSCs.
Chapter 3.
Continuous Monitoring Approach
3-9
3.6.4
A validation may change the status of not satisfactory PQs to satisfactory as a result of State’s progress in
resolving existing findings through the effective implementation of CAPs. Actions taken by a State to resolve any SSCs, if
applicable, are also reviewed during validation activities and provided to ICAO HQ to determine whether the SSCs have
been resolved and whether the status of related not satisfactory PQs can be changed to satisfactory.
3.6.5
In the validation of a State’s safety information, OAS reviews all safety information pertinent to a PQ,
including documented evidence provided by the State (e.g. regulations and procedures). If the evidence fulfils the
provisions of a PQ, OAS changes the status of the not satisfactory PQ to satisfactory, which results in an update of the EI.
In the absence of such evidence, the validation of safety information by OAS can result in a new finding or a new SSC.
______________________
Chapter 4
AUDITS AND VALIDATIONS
4.1
AUDITS
4.1.1
Audits were the first USOAP activity to be conducted with the launch of the Programme in 1999, pursuant to
Assembly Resolution A32-11. Over the years, ICAO has acquired expertise and experience to improve its safety oversight
audit methodology, processes and procedures. It has also developed different types of audits to meet the challenges
posed by the inability to travel to a Member State due to the local security situation, the travel restrictions caused by the
coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic from 2020 to 2021, and the need to continue the Programme’s evolution based on
feedback by Member States.
4.1.2
An offshoot of the recommendations of the Group of Experts for a USOAP CMA Structured Review (GEUSR)
was the introduction of two new modified forms of audits, namely: focused audits and follow-up audits in 2020.
4.1.3
Travel restrictions in 2020 to 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic meant the cancellation of all on-site
activities. Consequently, the Monitoring, Analysis and Coordination (MAC) office shifted to off-site and virtual activities,
taking advantage of communication and collaboration software to carry on with its safety oversight responsibility.
4.1.4
The different types of audits are as follows:
a)
Documentation-based audit (DBA). A USOAP CMA activity conducted off site during which ICAO
conducts a systematic and objective review of the establishment and/or implementation of a State safety
oversight system for a State whose security situation, as classified under the UN Security Level System,
precludes an on-site activity by ICAO and/or whose limited level of aviation activities does not warrant
an on-site activity.
b)
Focused audit. A type of USOAP audit which covers exclusively a subset of Protocol Questions (PQs),
such as Priority PQs or a specific audit area.
c)
Follow-up audit. A type of USOAP audit which covers PQs assessed previously as not satisfactory, not
applicable, and undetermined.
d)
Full-scope audit. A type of USOAP audit which covers the PQs associated with the entire scope of a
State’s safety oversight and accident/incident investigation system, as applicable.
e)
Integrated audit activity (IAA). An audit, integrated with a scheduled visit to a State by ICAO, during
which ICAO conducts a systematic and objective review of a small subset of PQs from a State that has
not had previous audit or validation activities in the past five years.
4.1.5
Audits are tailored to the complexity of the State’s civil aviation system. They may be conducted on-site,
off-site, or virtually.
4-1
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
Continuous Monitoring Manual
4-2
4.2
VALIDATIONS
4.2.1
The first USOAP validation activity was the ICAO Coordinated Validation Mission (ICVM), which was
introduced with the launch of the continuous monitoring approach in 2007. Its purpose was to validate the corrective action
plans implemented by States to address the audit findings identified in the previous comprehensive systems approach
cycle.
4.2.2
New forms of validation activities were developed and added to the repertoire of USOAP CMA activities in
order to maximize resources, make full use of partnerships with other stakeholders, and avoid duplication of activities in
States. One such new validation activity is the integrated validation activity, which is carried out in collaboration with ICAO
Regional Offices or regional organizations, such as the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).
4.2.3
The different types of validations are as follows:
a)
ICAO Coordinated Validation Mission (ICVM). A validation during which ICAO collects and assesses
evidence provided by the State demonstrating that the State has implemented corrective actions (or
mitigating measures for significant safety concerns (SSCs)) to address previously identified findings.
b)
Integrated validation activity (IVA). A validation, integrated with a scheduled visit to a State by ICAO or
its stakeholders, where ICAO samples and collects evidence provided by the State for identified PQs,
demonstrating effective implementation of corrective actions to address previously identified findings.
ICAO HQ validates the collected evidence and information provided by the on-site team member. See
also the Definitions and Terminology section of this manual for “finding” and “validation”.
c)
Off-site validation activity. A USOAP CMA activity during which ICAO assesses and validates
documented progress indicated by the State on the OLF as implementing its corrective action plan
(CAP), including the assessment of relevant evidences uploaded to the OLF, without an on-site visit to
the State.
4.2.4
Validations may be conducted on-site, off-site, or virtually. During a validation, the ICAO team of SMEs may
provide on-site guidance to the State on resolving findings and deficiencies.
Note 1.— The difference between an ICVM and a follow-up audit is as follows: with an ICVM, ICAO validates
a State’s implementation of corrective actions or mitigating measures from an audit activity to determine if the status of a
PQ associated with a finding can be changed from not satisfactory to satisfactory. A follow-up audit covers PQs previously
assessed as not satisfactory, not applicable, and undetermined. A new finding can be issued for a PQ if a new deficiency
is identified during the audit.
Note 2.— Although it is not an objective of a validation, the SMEs may identify preliminary SSCs during the
conduct of the activity.
Note 3.— If a State’s response to a mandatory information request (MIR) is not acceptable, the Safety and
Air Navigation Oversight Audit Section (OAS) generates an off-site validation activity to change the status of the associated
PQs from satisfactory to not satisfactory. In such a case, the State must submit CAPs to OAS addressing those not
satisfactory PQs, as described in Chapter 9, 9.4.17 to 9.4.25.
Chapter 4.
Audits and Validations
4-3
4.3
SCOPE OF ACTIVITY
The scope of each type of these activities is determined in the planning and scheduling processes, as described in
Chapter 3, 3.5. Further details about the phases and conduct of each type of activity are described in Chapter 9.
______________________
Chapter 5
STATE SAFETY PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION ASSESSMENT
Note.— General information on the training of assessors can be found in Chapter 8, while general information
on the preparation, conduct and report production procedures for USOAP CMA activities including SSPIA can be found in
Chapter 9.
5.1
OBJECTIVE
5.1.1
A State safety programme implementation assessment (SSPIA) was added to the repertoire of USOAP CMA
activities in 2015 following the adoption and applicability of Annex 19 in 2013.
5.1.2
The SSPIA is a performance-based activity conducted under the framework of the USOAP CMA, in which
ICAO assesses the level of maturity achieved by a State in the implementation and maintenance of its State safety
programme (SSP) using SSP protocol questions (PQs). The assessment results complement, but do not impact, the value
of the effective implementation (EI) of the eight critical elements of a State safety oversight system.
5.1.3
The scope of an SSPIA is determined in the planning and scheduling processes, as described in Chapter 3,
3.5. Further details about the phases and conduct of an SSPIA are described in Chapter 9.
5.2
STATE SAFETY PROGRAMME PROTOCOL QUESTIONS
5.2.1
For the conduct of SSPIAs, a set of SSP protocol questions (PQs) was developed by the Safety and Air
Navigation Oversight Audit Section (OAS) in 2018 based on the Annexes to the Convention, mainly Amendment 1 to
Annex 19 – Safety Management, and Doc 9859 – Safety Management Manual. This was supplemented by a set of SSP
PQ maturity level matrices that was developed in 2020.
5.2.2
Organized by assessment area and SSP component, each SSP PQ contains:
a)
references in Doc 9859;
b)
a corresponding SSP component; and
c)
“guidance for review” associated with each pertinent maturity level.
5.2.3
The SSP PQs are assessed according to a five-scale maturity level (described in 5.5) and does not generate
a finding. Therefore, the States do not have to submit CAPs to ICAO. Furthermore, the outcome of SSPIAs does not affect
the State’s effective implementation (EI) value. However, States are encouraged to carry out their SSP PQ selfassessment on the OLF and keep it up to date.
5.2.4
Both the SSP PQs and the associated maturity level matrices are available on the “CMA Library” of the
USOAP CMA online framework (https://www.icao.int/usoap).
5-1
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
Continuous Monitoring Manual
5-2
5.2.5
OAS amends and updates SSP PQs on a periodic basis to reflect the latest changes in ICAO provisions and
Annexes to the Convention, to include emerging issues in civil aviation, and to harmonize and improve PQ references and
content. SSP PQ amendments also incorporate input from the Air Navigation Bureau (ANB), Regional Offices (ROs),
USOAP activity team members and external stakeholders.
5.3
ASSESSMENT AREAS
SSPIAs cover the following eight assessment areas:
SSP general aspects (GEN);
Safety data analysis (SDA);
Personnel licensing and training (PEL) – only for aspects related to approved training organizations (ATOs);
Aircraft operations (OPS);
Airworthiness of aircraft (AIR) – only for aspects related to approved maintenance organizations (AMOs);
Aircraft accident and incident investigation (AIG);
Air navigation services (ANS) – only for aspects related to air traffic services (ATS); and
Aerodromes and ground aids (AGA).
5.4
STATE SAFETY PROGRAMME COMPONENTS
5.4.1
The SSP components are integral in the establishment of a State’s safety oversight system. Each Member
State should integrate the SSP components as part of its overall safety management principles.
5.4.2
The four SSP components are:
a)
State safety policy, objectives and resources;
b)
State safety risk management;
c)
State safety assurance; and
d)
State safety promotion.
5.4.3
Further information about the SSP components of a State’s safety management system are described in
Doc 9859 – Safety Management Manual.
5.5
MATURITY LEVELS
5.5.1
The SSPIA determines the maturity level of the assessment result for each SSP PQ, based on the
effectiveness demonstrated by the State in its SSP implementation and maintenance, providing supported evidence and
a quantitative measurement for the State’s SSP implementation.
Chapter 5.
State Safety Programme Implementation Assessment
5.5.2
The assessment of SSP PQs generates the following maturity levels:
5-3
Level 0: not present and not planned;
Level 1: not present but being worked on;
Level 2: present;
Level 3: present and effective; and
Level 4: present and effective for years and in continuous improvement.
5.5.3
To determine the maturity level of each SSP PQ result, the SSP PQ is associated with a maturity level matrix,
which describes the set of criteria items for each maturity level. A maturity level can be attained upon meeting every criteria
item under the “guidance for review” for each maturity level. The criteria of a maturity level must be met before
advancement to the next higher level of maturity level.
______________________
Chapter 6
ONLINE FRAMEWORK
6.1
OVERVIEW
6.1.1
In 2013, ICAO launched the USOAP CMA online framework (OLF) which presents a suite of web-integrated
applications and centralized database systems that enable the following:
6.1.2
a)
collection of safety-related information and documentation from, principally, the States; and
b)
continuous monitoring and reporting of safety oversight activities of States.
The OLF has three types of modules:
a)
modules for States to provide and submit information to ICAO;
b)
modules for States to access and obtain information and data from ICAO; and
c)
administration and support modules.
6.2
MODULES FOR STATES TO SUBMIT INFORMATION
6.2.1
Protocol Question Self-Assessment
This module allows States to conduct PQ self-assessments by regularly updating the status of PQs and related evidence
and documentation. Regular PQ self-assessments allow States to monitor and report the health of their aviation system
and further maturity of their safety management capabilities on a continuous basis. See Chapter 2, 2.7.1.
6.2.2
Corrective Action Plan
Through this module,
a)
States submit and upload the corrective action plans (CAPs) that they have developed to address
findings generated from USOAP activities.
b)
ICAO evaluates the CAPs to determine if they satisfactorily address and resolve the findings, and if they
do, it paves the way for the States to start implementing the CAPs.
c)
Once a State indicates that a CAP has been fully implemented and submits supporting evidence, ICAO
validates the evidence and the implementation of the CAP through this module. See Chapter 2, 2.6.3,
Chapter 9, 9.4.17 to 9.4.25 and Appendix E.
6-1
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
Continuous Monitoring Manual
6-2
6.2.3
State Aviation Activity Questionnaire
This module allows States to complete the State Aviation Activity Questionnaire (SAAQ) and to continue to update it on a
regular basis. The SAAQ is an important source of aviation information provided by the State. See Chapter 2, 2.7.2.
6.2.4
Compliance Checklist and Electronic Filing of Differences
This module is linked to the E-supplement module in 6.3.4. Through the CC/EFOD module, States provide information on
their compliance with the relevant Annexes to the Convention. Once the compliance information is completed, the
registered user clicks the “Validate” button to generate the differences information that can be obtained in the Esupplement module, electronically file differences and continue to update them. See Chapter 2, 2.7.3.
6.3
MODULES FOR STATES TO OBTAIN INFORMATION
6.3.1
State Dashboard
6.3.1.1
This module allows States to view live statistics and charts, such as their overall status, PQ status, CAP
status and EI percentages. This information assists States in monitoring their progress within the USOAP CMA.
6.3.1.2
The home page of the State dashboard shows the USOAP State profile of each State, which includes the
following information and charts:
a)
general aviation-related information regarding the State;
b)
results of USOAP CMA activities, including the scope, dates and overall EI;
c)
EI information, including overall EI measured against global and regional averages, EI by audit area
and/or CE, and specialized EIs like PPQ EI and Implementation EI;
d)
information regarding scheduled and ongoing USOAP CMA activities, such as the activity type, the
scope, the dates, and the status;
e)
postponements requested by the State;
f)
reports from previous USOAP CMA activities;
g)
SSC information, if any;
h)
MIR information, if any;
i)
RSOO membership information, if applicable;
j)
CAP submission and implementation status and progress;
k)
SAAQ information and status;
l)
PQ self-assessment information and status; and
m) information related to State’s information available in the CC/EFOD.
Chapter 6.
Online Framework
6-3
6.3.1.3
For registered users of the OLF, the State dashboard and other modules and tools enable the following:
a)
find any State’s current effective implementation (EI) scores;
b)
compare any State’s EI scores to regional and/or global averages, as well as to other State’s EI scores
by CE or audit area;
c)
explore any State’s current PQ, SAAQ and CAP status by CE or audit area;
d)
run queries on individual PQs, SAAQ entries, and CAPs; and
e)
generate tables, charts and maps using implementation scores to support presentations, documents
and reports.
Note.— The OLF State dashboard presents the first version of the USOAP State profile, which includes the
indicators generated or collected under the USOAP CMA. This profile will evolve with the addition of other indicators
collected or generated outside of the USOAP CMA, such as accidents and traffic data.
6.3.2
Significant Safety Concerns
This module shows information about unresolved and resolved SSCs and corresponding CAPs submitted by States. See
Chapter 2, 2.6.4 and Appendix C.
6.3.3
USOAP Reports
This module provides access to published final reports of USOAP activities.
6.3.4
E-supplements
Through this module, the user generates differences to the Annexes to the Convention after completing the compliance
checklist in the CC/EFOD module. Only differences filed and validated via the CC/EFOD module are displayed.
6.3.5
PQ Findings
This module allows States to search, review and comment on the finding(s) issued to a State as a result of its last USOAP
CMA activity.
6.3.6
CC/EFOD Reports
This module allows the user to export reports on all the State’s differences filed for Annexes to the Convention. The report
menu offers CC/EFOD report selection by Annex, region or State, as well as a number of exporting options, such as
printed, electronic (several file formats) or a complete/partial report (selected pages).
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
Continuous Monitoring Manual
6-4
6.4
ADMINISTRATION AND SUPPORT MODULES
6.4.1
User Management
This module allows States to manage the access rights of their users for the OLF. ICAO gives complete access to State
National Continuous Monitoring Coordinators (NCMCs) who then manage user accounts for the State, including the
addition of new user accounts and deactivation of expired user accounts.
6.4.2
CMA Library
This module contains documents, references, additional information and updates on USOAP CMA implementation,
processes and tools.
6.4.3
Tutorials and Help
This module contains user manuals and tutorial videos on the modules of the OLF.
6.4.4
Feedback
This module allows States to provide feedback to ICAO or report problems and concerns regarding the OLF.
______________________
Chapter 7
PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT
7.1
GENERAL
7.1.1
To effectively manage and ensure the success of USOAP CMA, all components of the Programme, including
roles and responsibilities of each entity, the required resources and procedures, are defined in this chapter.
7.1.2
The effective implementation of the USOAP CMA depends on the partnerships, communication and
exchange of data and information between ICAO, Member States, and international, regional and supranational
organizations, who all have a specific, defined role.
7.1.3
The quality management system (QMS) implemented within the USOAP CMA provides the mechanisms for
effectively implementing established processes and documented information, monitoring and reviewing the USOAP CMA
components, managing risks, determining the need for corrective actions, and identifying opportunities for improvement.
It also allows ICAO to collect and analyse data and information to measure the satisfaction of stakeholders with the
Programme and to take appropriate actions to improve the pertinent processes.
Note.— The roles and responsibilities outlined in this chapter pertain solely to the USOAP CMA processes
and are not intended to provide a comprehensive description of roles and responsibilities of individuals, entities and
organizations beyond the scope of this manual and the Programme.
7.2
7.2.1
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE ICAO SECRETARIAT
Roles and Responsibilities of the Monitoring, Analysis and Coordination
7.2.1.1
Within the ICAO Secretariat, the Monitoring, Analysis and Coordination (MAC), Air Navigation Bureau (ANB),
is in charge of USOAP. Other sections of ANB and the ICAO Secretariat provide support and assistance, as necessary.
The ICAO Regional Offices and their regional continuous monitoring coordinators and portfolio holders play a pivotal role
in the Programme by forming the link between MAC and the Member States to which the Regional Offices are accredited.
7.2.1.2
The MAC, headed by the Deputy Director (DD/MAC), is responsible for the overall management,
development, implementation, maintenance and quality of the USOAP CMA. To this end, it carries out the following tasks:
a)
drafts USOAP-related working papers and presents them to the governing bodies of ICAO for decision;
b)
communicates and coordinates with the ICAO Secretariat, including Regional Offices, as well as on
USOAP issues in particular, and ICAO’s overall strategy and goals in general;
c)
interacts and liaises with Member States, international and regional organizations, and other external
stakeholders on USOAP-related issues;
7-1
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
Continuous Monitoring Manual
7-2
d)
monitors unresolved significant safety concerns (SSCs) and reports to the governing bodies of ICAO
accordingly;
e)
presents annual and other reports to the governing bodies of ICAO on the implementation of USOAP
CMA, including progress made in resolving identified deficiencies and achieving goals of the
Programme;
f)
oversees quality assurance and management of the Programme; and
g)
oversees and supervises the work of both OAS and OSU in executing the Programme.
7.2.1.3
Additionally, DD/MAC chairs the SSC Validation Committee and sits in meetings of the Monitoring and
Assistance Review Board (MARB) which is chaired by the ICAO Secretary General.
7.2.1.4
Assisting DD/MAC are two entities that DD/MAC oversees and supervises for the execution of the
Programme: the Safety and Air Navigation Oversight Audit Section (OAS) for operations, and the Oversight Support Unit
(OSU) for technical and administrative support.
7.2.1.5
With its team of Standards and Procedures Officers, OAS is responsible for the monitoring, auditing and
assessment functions of the Programme. The OAS’ tasks include, but are not limited to, the following:
a)
conducts audits, validations and SSPIAs of all modes;
b)
collects safety information that are used to update a State’s USOAP profile, safety indicators, effective
implementation (EI) values, and State safety programme implementation assessment (SSPIA) maturity
levels;
c)
reviews and assesses corrective actions and mitigating measures submitted by States to address and
resolve findings and SSCs;
d)
takes the lead in the mandatory information request (MIR) process;
e)
takes the lead in the SSC process;
f)
takes the lead in the Protocol Question (PQ) revision process, including reviewing, revising and updating
the PQs, references, guidance and other information;
g)
provides training (e.g. initial, recurrent, workshop and on-the-job training) and mentoring to candidate
auditors, subject matter experts and assessors;
h)
participates in the process of selecting candidate auditors, subject matter experts and assessors by
giving interviews and training;
i)
consults regularly with counterparts in ANB, Regional Offices and Member States on USOAP issues;
j)
conducts technical and peer reviews of audit and validation results as part of the USOAP report
production process;
k)
takes part in internal quality audits of USOAP CMA and MAC operations; and
l)
assists and supports other ANB sections, when requested.
Chapter 7.
Online Framework
7-3
7.2.1.6
With its team of planning specialists, software developers, editors, translators, and administrative assistants,
OSU provides the essential technical and administrative support to the Programme. Its tasks include, but are not limited
to, the following:
a)
plans and schedules USOAP CMA activities, including identifying and prioritizing States for USOAP
CMA activities and drafting the bi-annual USOAP Activity Plan for publication and dissemination to
Member States;
b)
creates USOAP teams for USOAP CMA activities by determining team composition based on various
factors, such as area of expertise, currency requirement, languages, regional and geographical
consideration, and potential conflict of interest consideration;
c)
maintains and updates roster of candidate and qualified auditors, subject matter experts and assessors
for participation in USOAP CMA activities;
d)
manages and maintains the USOAP CMA online framework (OLF); including developing and updating
tools and applications to meet USOAP CMA objectives and internal users’ needs, and providing
technical support and assistance to all users; and
e)
provides essential administrative and logistical support, such as compilation of all documentation
required by USOAP teams during activity preparation phase, document and records management and
control, report and document production and translation, as well as preparation, dispatch and filing of
USOAP correspondence and documentation.
7.2.2
Roles and Responsibilities of Other Air Navigation Bureau Sections
Other sections within the Air Navigation Bureau (ANB) provide technical support to USOAP CMA by:
a)
providing input for the amendment of PQs;
b)
providing input for the development of guidance material related to USOAP CMA;
c)
providing consultation for the review and confirmation of findings and SSCs, when requested;
d)
identifying relevant safety risk indicators; and
e)
providing information regarding assistance projects.
7.2.3
Roles and Responsibilities of ICAO Regional Offices
7.2.3.1
ICAO Regional Offices (ROs) are MAC’s key partners in the USOAP continuous monitoring process, as the
ROs support and ensure effective implementation of the USOAP CMA in their respective regions. The primary functions
of the ROs under USOAP CMA are to facilitate effective communication between MAC and States, as well as assist and
guide States in preparing for USOAP CMA activities and in developing mitigating or corrective actions addressing
significant safety concerns (SSCs) and USOAP findings, when so requested.
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
Continuous Monitoring Manual
7-4
7.2.3.2
The key responsibilities of ICAO ROs include, but are not limited to, the following:
With respect to MAC:
a)
provide the MAC with relevant safety information as part of continuous monitoring of State safety
oversight capability, including feedback from States on USOAP matters;
b)
facilitate the exchange of information between the MAC and States, including the delivery of ICVM
notification and confirmation letters and ICVM draft and final reports to States;
c)
provide input to the MAC in the selection, prioritization, planning and scheduling of USOAP CMA
activities;
d)
conduct or support USOAP CMA activities by providing RO technical officers as auditors, subject matter
experts or assessors in such activities;
e)
coordinate the regional implementation of the USOAP CMA with the MAC;
f)
monitor the level of EI of States and the region;
g)
monitor the SSP maturity levels of States and the region; and
h)
monitor States’ submission and implementation of corrective action plans (CAPs).
With respect to States to which RO is accredited:
i)
provide guidance to States in implementing the USOAP CMA procedures, such as PQ self-assessment
and the State Aviation Activity Questionnaire;
j)
provide assistance and guidance to States in preparing for USOAP CMA activities;
k)
provide assistance and guidance to States in developing mitigating or corrective actions addressing
SSCs and USOAP findings, when so requested; and
k)
provide USOAP-related training to States through workshops and regional meetings for State NCMCs.
7.2.3.3
Qualified technical staff and SMEs from the ROs also conduct and participate in USOAP CMA audit and
validation activities and SSPIAs as part of their regular regional activities.
7.2.4
Roles and Responsibilities of ICAO Regional Continuous Monitoring Coordinators
7.2.4.1
In order to support the regional coordination and implementation of the USOAP CMA, each RO is responsible
for identifying one or more regional continuous monitoring coordinators (RCMCs) to act as primary points of contact for all
USOAP technical and operational matters at the regional level.
7.2.4.2
The key responsibilities of the RCMCs with respect to the regional implementation of the USOAP CMA
include, but are not limited to, the following:
a)
providing support and information to States in the region by communicating with the NCMCs on USOAP
CMA issues, including the development of acceptable CAPs, conduct of PQ self-assessment, follow-up
on SSCs and response to MIRs;
Chapter 7.
Online Framework
7-5
b)
proposing the appropriate type and timing of USOAP CMA activities to the MAC;
c)
monitoring the progress of States in submitting and updating required information, including SAAQs,
CC/EFOD and PQ self-assessment;
d)
following up with States so that they submit and update their CAPs in a timely manner;
e)
monitoring the progress of States in implementing their CAPs;
f)
assessing the acceptability of CAPs implemented by States;
g)
assisting the MAC with coordinating and conducting USOAP CMA activities within the region;
h)
providing pertinent and available information to USOAP team leaders during the activity preparation
phase;
i)
ensuring that States scheduled for a USOAP CMA activity fully implement their CAPs and submit
required information, documentation and evidence, in preparation for the upcoming activity;
j)
ensuring that regional officers are informed about USOAP CMA processes and activities;
k)
facilitating USOAP CMA training courses, seminars and workshops; and
l)
supporting the implementation of the USOAP CMA quality management system at the regional level.
7.2.4.3
In the event that an RCMC needs assistance in performing any of the duties outlined above, portfolio holders
(PHs) provide the required support.
7.2.5
Portfolio Holders
7.2.5.1
Member States participating in the USOAP CMA are divided into portfolios by ICAO Region. Each portfolio
is managed by a portfolio holder (PH), with one main PH for each region (ideally from the applicable RO).
7.2.5.2
PHs are responsible for communicating USOAP matters with the States’ NCMCs (i.e. MOU, SAAQ,
CC/EFOD, CAPs, MIRs, and SSCs).
7.2.5.3
They liaise with the continuous monitoring coordinator (CMC) of OAS on USOAP matters, as appropriate, to
provide input for the selection and prioritization of USOAP CMA activities, including assisting with the determination of
activity scopes.
7.2.5.4
PHs provide information to team leaders (TLs) or a focal person for the preparation of on-site activities, to
perform or delegate CAP assessments, and to coordinate with the CMC on the readiness of CAPs for validation.
7.2.5.5
They may be assigned to assist RCMCs in all matters relating to the States in their portfolio. Key
responsibilities of PHs include all those outlined for RCMCs in 7.2.4.2.
Note.— The PH is primarily an ICAO RO role. However, when required, the MAC will assist and support
ICAO ROs in performing PH tasks and duties through its pool of long-term seconded technical officers (TOs) and SMEs.
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
Continuous Monitoring Manual
7-6
7.3
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF MEMBER STATES
7.3.1
The success of the USOAP CMA depends on the cooperation of States and their participation in the
Programme. Member States sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with ICAO to confirm their full support of the
USOAP CMA process and to commit to actively participating in all USOAP CMA activities, including the timely provision
of information through the OLF.
7.3.2
According to the MOU, States shall:
a)
continuously update PQ compliance and maturity level status through the PQ self-assessment;
b)
update and implement CAPs addressing not satisfactory PQs;
c)
provide evidence related to PQ compliance and CAP implementation;
d)
take appropriate and timely action to resolve SSCs;
e)
promptly reply to MIRs issued by ICAO;
f)
complete and continuously update SAAQ and the CC/EFOD; and
g)
provide other relevant safety information, as requested by ICAO.
7.3.3
Each Member State shall facilitate USOAP CMA activities by accepting the dates and scope of USOAP CMA
activities and by making appropriate staff from its civil aviation authority (CAA), or other relevant entities, available for
interview by the USOAP CMA activity team, as required. Each State shall also facilitate the work of the USOAP CMA
activity team by providing all necessary resources, documents, information, administrative and support functions.
7.3.4
Member States should secure adequate resources to fulfil all the provisions of the MOU.
7.3.5
Member States are encouraged to second technical experts to ICAO on a short-term basis as auditors, SMEs
and assessors to conduct USOAP CMA activities and on a long-term basis (for a minimum of three years) to support the
USOAP CMA.
Roles and responsibilities of National Continuous Monitoring Coordinators
7.3.6
In order to support the USOAP CMA and facilitate related activities, each State is responsible for designating
one or more qualified national continuous monitoring coordinators (NCMCs) to act as primary points of contact for all
USOAP CMA processes and activities.
7.3.7
The NCMC is responsible for submitting, maintaining and/or updating the information to be provided by the
State to the USOAP CMA on an ongoing basis, including but not limited to:
a)
PQ compliance status through PQ self-assessment;
b)
SSP PQ maturity level through PQ self-assessment;
c)
CAPs;
d)
mitigating measures taken by the State in response to SSCs;
Chapter 7.
Online Framework
e)
SAAQ;
f)
CC/EFOD;
g)
responses to MIRs; and
h)
other relevant safety information, as requested by ICAO.
7-7
Note.— Additional information regarding NCMCs can be found in Appendix F, “Guidelines for National
Continuous Monitoring Coordinators”.
7.4
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF RECOGNIZED ORGANIZATIONS
7.4.1
For the USOAP CMA to achieve its maximum effectiveness, it is important to share safety information
between ICAO and other entities involved in auditing international aviation activities. These entities include national,
regional, supranational, international and civil aviation organizations.
7.4.2
Through agreements with ICAO and in support of the USOAP CMA, organizations may agree to the following:
a)
cooperating with ICAO to review and develop auditing tools, including software applications and auditing
questionnaires and methodologies to facilitate the sharing of information;
b)
identifying and maintaining an up-to-date cross-reference between auditing and monitoring tools used
by these organizations and by ICAO;
c)
providing information regarding PQ status obtained through the organization’s inspection and/or auditing
activities of specific States for validation by ICAO; and
d)
providing a periodic schedule of activities in order to eliminate the duplication of monitoring activities
and facilitate the effective establishment of a more cost-effective global network for monitoring safety.
7.4.3
ICAO may also enter into agreements with regional, supranational and international organizations for longor short-term secondment of auditors, SMEs and assessors for USOAP CMA activities.
7.5
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF REGIONAL SAFETY OVERSIGHT ORGANIZATIONS
7.5.1
ICAO supports the establishment of regional safety oversight organizations (RSOOs) performing safety
oversight-related activities on behalf of a group of Member States. Activities performed by such organizations may include:
a)
harmonization of legislation and regulations;
b)
development of comprehensive and detailed procedures;
c)
selection and training of a regional core of qualified and experienced inspectors to perform a full range
of safety oversight activities on behalf of participating States; and
d)
assistance in the preparation of the State for an upcoming USOAP CMA activity.
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
Continuous Monitoring Manual
7-8
7.5.2
If an RSOO or any other entity performs safety-related activities on behalf of one or more States, ICAO, with
the consent of these States, may elect to enter into a working arrangement with this RSOO or entity, as appropriate, to
facilitate monitoring of these States. This may include the contribution of RSOOs to USOAP CMA activities.
Note.— Details on the establishment of regional safety oversight systems can be found in the Doc 9734 –
Safety Oversight Manual, Part B – The Establishment and Management of a Regional Safety Oversight Organization.
7.6
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
7.6.1
A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed between each Member State and ICAO establishes the
official agreement outlining the terms and responsibilities of the Member State and ICAO in the effective implementation
and maintenance of the USOAP CMA and conduct of USOAP CMA activities. A sample of the most recent MOU signed
between a Member State and ICAO on the USOAP CMA is found in Appendix B.
7.6.2
In order for ICAO to conduct a USOAP CMA activity in a State, the State has to return a signed copy of the
MOU to ICAO. Member States that do not sign and submit a copy of the MOU shall be reported to the ICAO Council. All
other Member States shall also be informed of the State’s refusal to sign the MOU and participate in the USOAP CMA.
7.6.3
The MOU may be subject to amendments, if required.
7.7
PROGRAMME RECORDS
7.7.1
All supporting documentation, correspondence, notes, records and other information relating to USOAP
CMA activities are obtained, managed and filed through an established and controlled system.
7.7.2
During a USOAP CMA on-site activity, team members (TMs) should adhere to the confidentiality obligations
as stated in Chapter 7, 7.9.
7.7.3
At the end of each activity, all TMs, including short-term seconded auditors, SMEs and assessors not based
at ICAO HQ shall submit all supporting documentation and notes from the activity to the team leader (TL). Short-term
seconded auditors, SMEs and assessors shall also ensure that at the end of the activity and before their departure, all
information in electronic format is deleted from their computers.
7.7.4
TMs are responsible for their own material until it is handed over to the TL. TLs are responsible for their own
notes and materials from the USOAP CMA activity, and for those handed over by TMs, as the case may be, until they are
submitted to OAS.
7.7.5
At the end of a USOAP CMA activity, the TL shall submit the following documents and records to OAS
(preferably in electronic format) for processing and filing according to established procedures:
a)
draft PQ findings duly completed by the TL and TMs;
b)
on-site activity draft report (relevant portions completed);
c)
draft preliminary SSCs, if applicable;
d)
supporting evidence and documentation submitted by the State, including primary aviation legislation
and regulations;
Chapter 7.
Online Framework
7-9
e)
working documents and forms; and
f)
any other relevant documented information used in the preparation and conduct of the activity, as
required by the USOAP quality management system (QMS).
7.7.6
The MAC maintains supporting documentation, notes and records pertaining to USOAP CMA activities for a
minimum of five years. USOAP CMA activity reports are retained electronically for an indefinite period.
7.8
PROGRAMME QUALITY MANAGEMENT
7.8.1
The 33rd Session of the Assembly (Resolution A33-8, superseded by Assembly Resolution A35-6)
requested the Secretary General to undertake a study on the establishment of an independent quality assurance
mechanism to monitor and assess the quality of USOAP. Accordingly, an internal quality management system (QMS) was
incorporated into the structure of USOAP in compliance with the ISO 9001 standard for QMS, thus strengthening the
confidence of all Member States in the management of the USOAP.
7.8.2
The MAC, through its predecessor Monitoring and Oversight (MO), has been registered to the ISO 9001
standard since 2002 by an accredited third-party registrar, indicating that it meets all the requirements of the ISO 9001
standard. The QMS is subject to annual audits by the registrar to ensure its ongoing and effective implementation,
maintenance and improvement.
7.8.3
The QMS consists of controlled and documented information and various mechanisms for monitoring and
improving USOAP CMA processes, ensuring that USOAP CMA activities are carried out according to defined provisions
and that the requirements of all stakeholders are met. The QMS has the full support and commitment of ICAO management.
7.8.4
As part of the requirements of the QMS, the MAC monitors the level of satisfaction of Member States that
receive USOAP CMA activities through a State feedback form that allows States to provide comments, complaints and
suggestions for improvement regarding the planning, coordination and conduct of the USOAP CMA activity they have
received. The State will receive a request for completing the confidential State feedback form following the USOAP CMA
activity.
7.8.5
The MAC also obtains feedback on USOAP CMA activities from TLs and TMs, who provide comments and
information on the conduct of USOAP CMA activities, from planning to completion, and assist the in improving USOAP
CMA processes.
7.8.6
The MAC maintains a record of all State, TL and TM feedback, related recommendations and actions taken
by the MAC to address issues and concerns.
7.9
CONFIDENTIALITY
7.9.1
All material used during USOAP CMA activities shall remain confidential, including personal notes and draft
reports prepared by the team. TMs shall not leave printed or handwritten notes behind when performing on-site activities,
and shall dispose of them appropriately.
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
Continuous Monitoring Manual
7-10
7.9.2
During USOAP CMA activities, TMs shall not make copies of any documents provided to them by the State,
nor share any information contained therein with any person other than the concerned parties. In this respect, as with
other issues relating to confidentiality of USOAP CMA activities, TMs should adhere to the requirements of The ICAO
Service Code (Doc 7350/9), Article I, paragraph 1.8, which states that:
“Staff members shall exercise the utmost discretion in regard to all matters of official business. They shall not communicate
to any person any information known to them by reason of their official position which has not been made public, except
in the course of their duties or by authorization of the Secretary General. They shall not at any time use such information
to private advantage. These obligations do not cease upon separation from service.”
7.9.3
With respect to all their USOAP CMA assignments, including all information received in any form as a result
of their association with the USOAP CMA, all TMs, including short-term seconded auditors, SMEs and assessors are
subject to paragraph 1.4 of The ICAO Service Code (Doc 7350/9), which states that:
“Staff members shall conduct themselves at all times in a manner befitting their status as international civil servants. They
shall not engage in any activity that is incompatible with the proper discharge of their duties with the Organization. They
shall avoid any action and in particular any kind of public pronouncement which may adversely reflect on their status.
While they are not expected to give up their national sentiments or their political and religious convictions, they shall at all
times bear in mind the reserve and tact incumbent upon them by reason of their international status.”
7.9.4
The results of any USOAP CMA activity will be maintained confidential between the State, the MAC and the
accredited RO for the State until the report production process, described in Chapter 9, 9.4, is completed. Following the
publication of the final report, the Programme makes all safety oversight-related information generated available to all
Member States through the OLF (Assembly Resolution A40-13, clause 8 refers).
7.10
LANGUAGE
7.10.1
USOAP CMA activities will be conducted in English, French or Spanish. Member States shall indicate which
of these languages they wish to be used for the conduct of the scheduled activities and for communicating with the MAC.
7.10.2
For States using one of the other three ICAO working languages (Arabic, Chinese or Russian) as their
working language, ICAO shall endeavour to ensure that at least one of the TMs has command of that language. In such
cases, the results and reports of the USOAP CMA activity will be translated and made available to the State in the ICAO
language of their choice, in accordance with the timeline defined in Appendix A.
7.10.3
USOAP CMA activities in Member States whose language is not one of the ICAO working languages may
be conducted with the assistance of an interpreter, with the activity results reported in English.
Note.— Use of interpreters in the USOAP CMA with the purpose of facilitating communications between the
State and the USOAP CMA activity team is at the discretion of the State.
7.10.4
Interpretation and translation support during the conduct of USOAP CMA activities shall be provided by the
Member States.
7.10.5
To facilitate its timely and effective review, any documentation submitted by a State to the MAC including
aviation legislation and regulations, should be in one of the ICAO working languages, but preferably in English.
Chapter 7.
Online Framework
7-11
7.10.6
The final report of a USOAP CMA activity will be published in the ICAO working language selected by the
State. If translation of the final report into an ICAO working language other than the language of the activity is required,
additional time will be allocated, according to the timeline defined in Appendix A. If the final report is published in a
language other than English, an English translation of the findings will be made available.
7.11
RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES
7.11.1
In performing duties related to the USOAP CMA, all assigned personnel shall aim to prevent disputes by
working closely with their State counterparts as fairly and transparently as possible. If disputes arise, every effort should
be made to resolve the dispute at the lowest level possible.
7.11.2
Any difference or dispute encountered throughout the USOAP CMA process that cannot be resolved by the
assigned personnel shall be resolved by negotiation using the following process:
a)
When assigned personnel and/or their State counterparts are unable to resolve a dispute, the issue
shall be raised to the Chief of Safety and Air Navigation Oversight Audit Section (C/OAS) for resolution.
b)
If C/OAS is unable resolve the dispute, the issue shall be raised to DD/MAC for resolution in coordination
with the Director of the Air Navigation Bureau and the relevant ICAO Regional Director.
c)
If DD/MAC is unable to resolve the dispute in accordance with b) above, the issue shall be referred to
the ICAO Secretary General for resolution. Issues elevated to this level will be reviewed and a final
determination will be made on how to resolve the conflict. The Secretary General may choose to address
the dispute directly or task the issue to an appropriate ICAO office for resolution.
7.11.3
All assigned personnel and/or the State should provide feedback to the MAC regarding the dispute to assist
in preventing the issue from arising in future USOAP CMA activities.
______________________
Chapter 8
USOAP CMA ACTIVITY TEAMS
8.1
TEAM COMPOSITION
8.1.1
USOAP CMA activity teams consist of a team leader (TL) or focal person and a number of team members
(TMs), as required, covering the scope of the pertinent USOAP CMA activity. TMs can be auditors, subject matter experts
(SMEs) and assessors who are selected to conduct audits, validations and State safety programme implementation
assessments (SSPIAs), respectively. Audit teams are comprised of auditors. Validation teams are comprised of auditors
and/or SMEs. SSPIA teams are comprised of assessors.
8.1.2
The Monitoring, Analysis and Coordination (MAC), through the Oversight Support Unit (OSU):
a)
maintains a USOAP roster of current auditors, SMEs and assessors from ICAO, States or recognized
organizations;
b)
selects the members of each USOAP CMA activity team from this roster, based on their audit area of
competence, language skills, location and availability; and
c)
assigns auditors, SMEs and assessors to a USOAP CMA activity team in coordination with their
respective organizations and authorities, and in accordance with applicable cooperation agreements.
8.1.3
The USOAP roster provides information on the eligibility of each auditor, SME and assessor pertaining to
the type of activity they may participate in (e.g. audit, validation or SSPIA), their role within the activity team (e.g. TL, TM,
and on-the-job training (OJT)), audit or assessment areas, and languages. It also tracks the records of their initial OJT,
recurrent and specialized training and the USOAP CMA activities carried out by each person. Any additional training
requirements will be noted and recorded in the roster as well. The roster also records the geographical location of each
person to facilitate planning and scheduling and to minimize travel costs for on-site USOAP CMA activities.
8.1.4
All current auditors, SMEs and assessors, including OJT candidates, are required to complete the United
Nations (UN) online security awareness training in order to be eligible to undertake a mission on behalf of ICAO. This
course is released by the United Nations Department of Safety and Security (UNDSS) and is mandatory for all UN
personnel.
Note 1.— All TMs on a USOAP CMA activity team, including auditors, SMEs and assessors from ICAO,
recognized organizations and those seconded by States, are subject to The ICAO Service Code (Doc 7350/9) and
represent only ICAO throughout the entire activity. All non-ICAO TMs are entitled to privileges and immunities granted to
ICAO staff on mission.
Note 2.— On occasion, the State may wish to include observers or advisors in the USOAP CMA on-site
activity. Such individuals can observe the activity, but they do not participate as TMs. If ICAO wishes to include an observer,
the State hosting the activity is notified beforehand to seek its approval of the participation of observers. Such observers
do not participate in the activity in an official capacity as TMs and shall only observe the interaction of other TMs with State
counterparts. Non-ICAO observers are not privy to the State’s confidential information and are not entitled to any privileges
and immunities granted to staff representing ICAO while on mission.
8-1
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
Continuous Monitoring Manual
8-2
8.2
TRAINING OF AUDITORS, SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS AND ASSESSORS
8.2.1
States and recognized organizations are invited to nominate qualified and experienced experts for
secondment to ICAO on a long- or short-term basis to support USOAP CMA activities as auditors, SMEs or assessors for
one (or more) of the USOAP audit or assessment areas. In addition, ICAO HQ and ROs are encouraged to identify
technical officers (TOs) for training to serve as TLs or TMs in future USOAP CMA activities.
8.2.2
The State nomination process starts with the submission of a candidate’s application, curriculum vitae,
questionnaire and State nomination letter through ICAO’s Global Aviation Training (GAT) system for review by the Safety
and Air Navigation Oversight Audit Section (OAS). Eligible candidates who meet the criteria are then registered to the
Computer-based Training (CBT) course for prospective USOAP CMA auditors, SMEs and assessors. USOAP CMA
training policies define and establish the criteria for the required qualifications of auditors, SMEs or assessors, based on
a combination of their education, work experience, technical background and training.
8.2.3
The MAC selects candidates from the pool of nominated experts based on their qualifications, experience
and Programme needs. The selected candidates are provided with appropriate training, and those who successfully
complete their training, including OJT, are qualified as USOAP CMA auditors, SMEs or assessors.
8.2.4
ICAO provides the following training curricula for all prospective auditors, SMEs and assessors:
Training curricula
Prospective auditors and SMEs
Prospective assessors
Course 1
USOAP CMA CBT course
USOAP SSP assessor course
Course 2
USOAP auditor preparation course
USOAP assessor preparation course
Assessment
On-the-job training (OJT) assessment
8.2.5
To become qualified USOAP CMA auditors or SMEs and perform audits and validations, candidates must
successfully complete the USOAP CMA CBT course. Comprised of two phases and four parts, this USOAP CMA CBT
course provides trainees with comprehensive knowledge of USOAP CMA requirements for audits and validations,
methodologies and tools.
USOAP CMA CBT course required for qualification as auditors and SMEs
Part 1 ― Auditing basics modules
Phase 1
Part 2 ― USOAP CMA audit
Part 3 ― ICVM modules
Phase 2
Part 4 ― Audit area modules (i.e. LEG, ORG, PEL, OPS, AIR, AIG, ANS and AGA)
Chapter 8.
USOAP CMA activity teams
8-3
8.2.6
After successful completion of the USOAP CMA CBT course, the candidate shall undergo a technical
interview with Standards and Procedures Officers (SPOs) of OAS to verify audit area expertise, interpersonal skills, and
language proficiency, as appropriate. Following a successful interview, the candidate is placed on a waiting list for OJT
assessment. Once scheduled for an OJT mission, candidates are strongly recommended to attend the USOAP auditor
preparation course or the USOAP assessor preparation course. This course provides candidates with the competencies
required to perform a USOAP CMA activity with minimal supervision or coaching in preparation for the OJT.
Note.— Both the USOAP CBT and the auditor preparation course are available for a cost to States and other
organizations that wish to have their staff trained on USOAP CMA methodology, activities, and practices. Only candidates
who are qualifying to become USOAP CMA auditors, SMEs or assessors need to go through a technical interview and the
USOAP auditor preparation course or the USOAP assessor preparation course.
8.2.7
Upon successful completion of the USOAP auditor preparation course or the USOAP assessor preparation
course, the OJT provider evaluates the trainee’s competency and ability to conduct assigned tasks and reports the OJT
results to OAS with a recommendation as part of the USOAP CMA expert qualification process. The OJT provider may
recommend additional training to the candidate or to undergo an additional OJT before completing the qualification process.
Candidates successfully completing their OJT will be qualified as USOAP CMA auditors, SMEs or assessors, as applicable.
8.2.8
OAS approves trainees who have received and completed all familiarization and training and adds them to
the roster of approved TMs. The training and OJT records are considered in future decisions about the assignment of TMs
to USOAP CMA activities.
8.2.9
The USOAP CMA training procedures establish the mechanisms for maintaining and improving the
competencies and personal attributes of USOAP CMA TMs. The MAC requires auditors, SMEs and assessors to maintain
and/or improve their qualifications and performance through periodic training or retraining, such as new or updated CBT,
refresher training on USOAP processes and methodology, and various workshops and seminars. Approved auditors,
SMEs and assessors shall comply with these requirements in order to remain current and approved.
8.2.10
ICAO shall also contribute to the ongoing maintenance and improvement of the competencies of USOAP
CMA auditors, SMEs and assessors by regularly assigning them to conduct USOAP CMA activities.
Note.— The process for training and qualifying TLs for USOAP CMA activities is as described in this section.
However, candidates for TL training are already qualified auditors or SMEs and they do not need to go through the
technical interview mentioned in 8.2.6. TL OJT is provided by an experienced USOAP CMA TL on the preparation, conduct,
validation and reporting of the USOAP CMA activity. See 8.5.
8.3
8.3.1
TEAM MEMBERS
Responsibilities of team members (TMs) for USOAP CMA activities include:
a)
for audits: determine the status of PQs and draft findings in their audit area;
b)
for validations: evaluate and document the State’s progress in the implementation of CAPs to address
findings and SSCs;
c)
for SSPIAs: determine the maturity level of SSP PQs in their assessment area and draft the rationale
thereof;
d)
collect, assess and submit evidence;
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
Continuous Monitoring Manual
8-4
e)
document activity results and complete relevant checklists and forms;
f)
provide input to the activity draft report;
g)
conduct quality checks on TMs’ input to the PQs and the evidence collected by the team;
h)
coordinate with and assist other TMs;
i)
cooperate with and assist the TL at all times during the preparation, conduct and completion of the
USOAP CMA activity;
j)
participate in and contribute to all briefings and meetings, including daily presentation of work progress
made in respective area(s);
k)
debrief and communicate USOAP CMA processes and requirements to State counterparts;
l)
submit all evidence, contributions, notes, information, documents and forms by deadlines specified by
the TL at the conclusion of the activity, in accordance with the requirements of the QMS of the MAC;
m) respond to the queries of OAS during the report production process; and
n)
provide OJT to TMs in training, as required.
8.3.2
Although the TL is responsible overall for ensuring that tasks are completed at the appropriate time during
the activity, all TMs must be vigilant and support the TL and other TMs in achieving the activity’s goals and objectives.
Additional information and details on tasks and duties of TMs is provided in Chapter 9.
8.4
TEAM LEADER AND FOCAL PERSON
8.4.1
Experienced USOAP auditors, SMEs and assessors from ICAO HQ and ROs with proven leadership abilities
and strong communication and interpersonal skills are selected by the MAC to be trained as TLs for USOAP CMA activities.
Note.— TLs for audits and SSPIAs are staff from OAS. TLs for validations are from ICAO staff, i.e. OAS and
ICAO ROs. A focal person is staff from OAS, other ICAO HQ offices and ICAO ROs.
8.4.2
The TL or focal person is responsible for the overall conduct of the activity and coordinates all tasks and
technical matters related to the activity, in accordance with guidance and instructions provided by the MAC and those
outlined in this manual.
8.4.3
Responsibilities of a USOAP CMA TL also include, but are not limited to, the following:
a)
prepare for the activity and coordinate related details with OAS, OSU and NCMCs;
b)
prepare the State-specific activity plan;
c)
communicate with the State regarding technical, administrative and logistical issues;
d)
liaise with ROs or regional civil aviation organizations during the preparation phase, if required;
e)
communicate with and inform assigned TMs regarding the preparation phase and other pertinent
information;
Chapter 8.
USOAP CMA activity teams
8-5
f)
conduct a preparatory briefing for TMs prior to the opening meeting/briefing with the State civil aviation
authorities;
g)
conduct opening and closing meetings/briefings with the State civil aviation authorities;
h)
manage the team’s workload and progress to accomplish the activity;
i)
provide leadership, guidance and support to TMs at all times during the on-site activity;
j)
coordinate and communicate with State representatives through daily debriefings during the conduct of
the activity;
k)
collect and consolidate TMs’ input for preparation of activity results and the draft activity report;
l)
ensure the quality of TMs’ inputs and collected evidence;
m) ensure the accuracy and quality of the contents of the draft report;
n)
collect all evidence, contributions, notes, information, documents and forms from TMs and submit them
to OAS;
o)
complete relevant checklists and forms and submit them to OAS;
p)
ensure compliance with established timelines and the requirements of the QMS of the MAC;
q)
provide OJT to TLs and TMs in training; and
r)
provide OAS with additional information and clarification during the validation and report production
phase, as required.
8.4.4
Generally, the TL is assigned to cover the LEG and ORG areas (during audits or validations) or the GEN
area (during SSPIAs), as well as one (or more) of the audit and/or assessment areas (based on their expertise), within the
scope of the USOAP CMA activity, except in cases where the size and complexity of the State require a large activity team
and a dedicated TL. Additional information and details on tasks and duties of TLs is provided in Chapter 9.
8.5
COMPETENCIES
8.5.1
TLs and TMs shall possess competencies required for conducting USOAP CMA activities, performing related
tasks and applying USOAP CMA tools and procedures. Required competencies shall include:
a)
applying auditing principles and techniques;
b)
performing TL and TM responsibilities and functions; and
c)
using the USOAP CMA online framework (OLF).
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
Continuous Monitoring Manual
8-6
8.5.2
TLs and TMs are expected to have:
a)
8.5.3
recent work experience with an organization as an inspector, auditor, assessor, safety data analyst or
aircraft accident investigator in any one of the following audit and/or assessment areas covered in the
USOAP CMA:
1)
PEL;
2)
OPS, certification and surveillance;
3)
AIR;
4)
AIG;
5)
ANS, including air traffic management, meteorology, aeronautical information systems, search and
rescue, communications, navigation and surveillance;
6)
AGA, aerodrome certification, operation, and surveillance;
7)
GEN; and
8)
SDA;
b)
aviation industry experience, such as with an air operator, aviation training organization, approved
design or production organization, approved maintenance organization, air traffic service provider,
aerodrome operator or similar organizations;
c)
working knowledge of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Doc 7300), its Annexes and related
guidance material;
d)
working knowledge and experience related to civil aviation legislation and regulations, and familiarity
with internationally recognized regulatory systems;
e)
working knowledge of States’ safety oversight systems and responsibilities of national, regional and
supranational safety oversight organizations;
f)
command of written and spoken English;
g)
the ability to write clearly and concisely; and
h)
the ability to use office automation equipment and contemporary computer software.
It is desirable for TLs and TMs to have the following:
a)
knowledge of ICAO organization, functions and activities;
b)
command of another USOAP CMA language (French or Spanish), written and spoken; and
c)
knowledge of one of the other ICAO working languages of ICAO (Arabic, Chinese or Russian).
Chapter 8.
USOAP CMA activity teams
8-7
8.6
PERSONAL ATTRIBUTES
8.6.1
To ensure that general and auditing principles established for USOAP CMA, as defined in Chapter 2, 2.2.2
and 2.2.3, are fully respected and practiced by TLs and TMs, ICAO shall recruit personnel who are:
a)
enthusiastic, constructive, objective, inquisitive and analytical;
b)
ethical, fair, truthful, sincere, honest and discreet;
c)
patient and good listeners who can communicate at all levels without arguing;
d)
open-minded and willing to consider alternative ideas or points of view;
e)
of strong but diplomatic personality, tactful with people, able to make unpopular decisions and yet
maintain respect based on sound judgments;
f)
observant, perceptive and aware of surroundings, activities and situations;
g)
versatile, flexible and able to readily adjust to different situations;
h)
unbiased and not easily influenced, and respected by all;
i)
tenacious, persistent and focused on achieving objectives;
j)
decisive and able to reach timely conclusions based on logical reasoning and analysis;
k)
self-reliant and independent, while interacting and working effectively with others;
l)
able to maintain harmonious working relationships in a multicultural environment and have an
appreciation of, and sensitivity to, cultural differences; and
m) pleasant, friendly and able to quickly establish a good rapport with colleagues and State representatives.
8.7
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
8.7.1
Individual objectivity. Auditors, SMEs and assessors must have an impartial, unbiased attitude and avoid
any conflict of interest. Conflict of interest is a situation in which an auditor or assessor, who is in a position of trust, has a
competing professional or personal interest. Such competing interests can make it difficult to fulfil their duties impartially.
A conflict of interest exists even if no unethical or improper act results. A conflict of interest can create an appearance of
impropriety that can undermine confidence in the auditor/assessor, the USOAP activity, and the profession. A conflict of
interest could impair people’s abilities to perform their duties and responsibilities objectively.
8.7.2
Impairment to independence or objectivity. If independence or objectivity is impaired in fact or appearance,
the details of the impairment must be disclosed to appropriate parties. The nature of the disclosure will depend upon the
impairment. Impairment to organizational independence and individual objectivity may include, but is not limited to,
personal conflict of interest, scope limitations, restrictions on access to records, personnel, and properties, and resource
limitations, such as funding. The determination of appropriate parties to which the details of an impairment to
independence or objectivity must be disclosed is dependent upon the expectations of the audit, as well as the nature of
the impairment.
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
Continuous Monitoring Manual
8-8
8.7.3
When selecting candidates for TLs and TMs of USOAP activities, OSU, in coordination with OAS, will
consider the following factors:
8.7.4
a)
State assigned for USOAP activities;
b)
candidate’s State of origin;
c)
candidate’s affiliation with the RO to which the State is accredited; and
d)
candidate’s past interactions with the State, including, but not limited to, RO assignments, participation
in Technical Cooperation Bureau (TCB) projects, participation in technical assistance projects by the
candidate’s State of origin, and others.
Upon assignment of an USOAP CMA activity, it is essential that:
a)
auditors, SMEs and assessors refrain from assessing specific operations for which they were previously
responsible. Objectivity is presumed to be impaired if an auditor provides assurance services for an
activity for which the auditor had responsibility within the previous year;
b)
auditors, SMEs and assessors refrain from assessing any operations where they had previously
performed consulting services, such as technical assistance, where the nature of the consulting impairs
objectivity, and provided individual objectivity is managed for specific scope assignments;
c)
all individuals on the team attest to ICAO not having, within the last three years, any assignments, project
participation or provided technical assistance to the State related to the activity;
d)
a TL should not be selected from the RO of the State for which an activity is to be planned; and
e)
a TM who is not an ICAO employee discloses any potential conflict of interest to ICAO prior to the
beginning of the activity.
8.7.5
If auditors, SMEs and assessors have potential impairments to independence or objectivity relating to an
assigned USOAP activity that might constitute a conflict of interest in the terms of this chapter, disclosure must be made
to ICAO.
8.7.6
ICAO will make the determination regarding the use of an auditor or assessor on a case-by-case basis
following the disclosure of a potential or existing conflict of interest.
______________________
Chapter 9
USOAP CMA ACTIVITY PHASES AND PROCEDURES
9.1
PHASES OF USOAP CMA ACTIVITIES
USOAP CMA activities, i.e. audit, validation and SSPIA, are divided into the following three phases:
a)
preparation phase;
b)
conduct phase; and
c)
report production phase.
9.2
9.2.1
9.2.2
PREPARATION PHASE
During this phase, ICAO prepares for the USOAP CMA activity by:
a)
confirming the scope and duration of the activity;
b)
confirming the assignments of the TL or focal person and all TMs;
c)
requesting the release of all TMs, including short-term seconded auditors, SMEs and assessors who
are not ICAO staff members;
d)
reviewing information and documents submitted by the State, including but not limited to, CAPs and
associated evidence, the SAAQ, the CC/EFOD system, PQ self-assessment results (using the online
PQs) and information regarding the SSP, where applicable;
e)
preparing the State-specific activity plan and coordinating it with TMs, the State and the accredited RO,
as required;
f)
making travel arrangements, if applicable;
g)
managing various administrative issues; and
h)
conducting a team briefing.
The State shall prepare for the USOAP CMA activity by:
a)
conducting PQ self-assessment;
b)
ensuring that the SAAQ and CC/EFOD are updated and complete;
9-1
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
Continuous Monitoring Manual
9-2
c)
ensuring that CAPs related to not satisfactory PQs within the scope of the activity are fully implemented
and updated on the OLF (for validations);
d)
preparing, updating and organizing evidence and documentation to be submitted to the activity team,
including legislation, operating regulations, manuals and/or procedures, records, etc.;
e)
communicating with the TL or focal person in a timely manner and providing the TL or focal person with
all required information and documentation; and
f)
supporting the TL or focal person with travel, transportation and administrative issues, as required and
applicable.
Confirmation of scope and activity team
9.2.3
The TL or focal person confirms the scope and number of days scheduled for the USOAP CMA activity as
determined in the planning and scheduling processes, described in Chapter 3, 3.5, to ensure that the assigned team will
be able to accomplish the activity’s goals. If required, the TL or focal person may request the MAC to adjust the duration
of the activity or assign additional TMs.
9.2.4
States shall be advised of the USOAP CMA activity team’s composition before the start of the planned activity
according to the timeline defined in Appendix A (except in the case of a cost-recovery activity, where this timeline is
adjusted on a case-by-case basis). Specifically, the State shall be informed of the TL’s and TMs’ names and assigned
audit and/or assessment areas.
9.2.5
The TL or focal person also follows up on the release of auditors, SMEs and assessors from their
organizations of employment.
Document review
9.2.6
The TL or focal person, with support from OAS technical staff, shall conduct a review of the documentation
and information related to the planned USOAP CMA activity as provided by the State and/or recognized organizations.
The documents and information to be reviewed may include:
a)
a completed and updated SAAQ;
b)
updated CAPs containing information on the resolution of existing findings or SSCs;
c)
PQ self-assessment completed by the State;
d)
CCs completed by the State on the CC/EFOD module;
e)
the latest information regarding the SSP, if applicable;
f)
results of previous USOAP activities; and
g)
other relevant documents, including information obtained from the ROs, Technical Cooperation Bureau
(TCB) and recognized organizations.
Chapter 9.
USOAP CMA activity phases and procedures
9-3
9.2.7
If necessary, the TL or focal person may request the State to provide other relevant or necessary
documentation in preparation for the USOAP CMA activity. The TL or focal person shall communicate and coordinate any
such requests with the NCMC for additional documents or information related to the scope of the activity, which may
include relevant State legislation, operating regulations, manuals and/or procedures.
9.2.8
Before the start of the USOAP CMA activity, each portfolio holder (PH), with support from the Standards and
Procedures Officers (SPOs) of OAS, shall review the content and completeness of the documentation provided by the
State before the handover to the assigned TL or focal person. After the PH completes the handover to the TL or focal
person, it becomes the TL or focal person’s responsibility to review any additional updates provided by the State. The role
of the PH is defined in Chapter 7, 7.2.5.
9.2.9
The TL or focal person shall forward all available and relevant material and documents to the TMs prior to
the USOAP CMA activity in order to provide them with sufficient time for review and preparation.
Preparation of State-specific activity plan
9.2.10
The TL or Focal Person, with support from the PH, SPOs and TMs, develops a State-specific activity plan
that, together with other relevant information, is forwarded to the NCMC for coordination with State authorities, in
accordance with the timeline defined in Appendix A. The TL or Focal Person also forwards the State-specific activity plan
to all assigned TMs.
Note.— State-specific activity plans for audits and SSPIAs are forwarded to the NCMC by the MAC Statespecific activity plans for validations are forwarded by the relevant ICAO RO.
9.2.11
The State-specific activity plan includes a daily work schedule, information about the conduct of the USOAP
CMA activity and visits to facilities and entities other than the civil aviation authority (CAA) in case of on-site activities. The
TL or Focal Person shall coordinate changes with the NCMC should any modifications to the State-specific activity plan
be necessary.
9.2.12
Other information in the State-specific activity plan includes:
a)
scheduled dates for opening and closing meetings or briefings;
b)
the language for the activity and reports;
c)
scope of tasks to be conducted;
d)
the number of not satisfactory PQs to be covered (for validations);
e)
TMs’ names and assigned audit and/or assessment areas;
f)
names, positions and contact information of the NCMC and State civil aviation system counterparts;
g)
information on industry and/or service provider visits, as applicable;
h)
daily and local transportation arrangements for on-site activities; and
i)
travel itinerary for TL and TMs for on-site activities.
Note.— In accordance with ICAO Staff Rules, the members of the ICAO activity team are not allowed to
accept a State’s offer to pay for the cost of accommodations.
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
Continuous Monitoring Manual
9-4
9.2.13
For on-site and virtual activities, the TL coordinates with the NCMC any visits (in-person or remote) by the
activity team to industry or service providers. The State is responsible for arranging and coordinating domestic travel and
for covering related transportation costs.
9.2.14
The TL or Focal Person, in coordination with the NCMC, shall determine the requirements for language
interpretation services, if required, which is to be provided by the State.
Activity team briefing
9.2.15
The TL or Focal Person conducts a briefing before the start of the USOAP CMA activity with all TMs virtually
or at a convenient location on-site. The objective of the briefing is to build team synergy, provide further familiarization to
TMs on the processes and tools of the activity and ensure that all TMs are aware of pertinent information. The TL or Focal
Person reviews the following with the team:
a)
objectives and methodology of the activity;
b)
audit or assessment areas assigned to each TM;
c)
tasks, responsibilities and deliverables of TL or Focal Person and TMs;
d)
guidelines for TMs’ conduct;
e)
mission package contents as provided by OAS;
f)
the SSC process;
g)
the State-specific activity plan and scheduled tasks;
h)
deadlines for submitting draft checklists, evidence submitted by the State and draft reports to the TL or
Focal Person;
i)
coordination required for the production of the draft report and for reporting the draft results of the activity
to the State;
j)
guidelines on dealing with State counterparts and external entities (e.g. media, reporters and labour
unions);
k)
confidentiality of information;
l)
ensuring that all TMs are able to open and work with the checklists;
m) the need and requirement for TM to review their activity packages and be prepared for each day; and
n)
consultation and coordination with the TL or Focal Person on any challenges during the activity.
Chapter 9.
USOAP CMA activity phases and procedures
9.3
9.3.1
and:
9.3.2
9-5
CONDUCT PHASE
During this phase, an activity team conducts the selected USOAP CMA activity within the determined scope
a)
in audits: conducts a systematic and objective assessment of the State’s safety oversight system using
PQs and recommends the issuance of any new findings and/or SSCs to address identified deficiencies
in the State’s safety oversight system;
b)
in validations: collects and documents evidence submitted by the State that support the implementation
of CAPs and recommends to ICAO HQ the closure of any pre-existing findings and/or SSCs that have
been resolved based on provided evidence;
c)
in SSPIAs: conducts a systematic and objective assessment of the levels of maturity of the State’s SSP
using the SSP PQs and recommends the determination of a maturity level for each PQ finding; and
d)
informs the State of the outcome of the activity during a closing meeting or briefing between the ICAO
team and State authorities, if applicable.
In this phase, the State:
a)
ensures that State representatives, counterparts and staff members involved in the conduct of the
activity are available for interviews and discussions with the activity team;
b)
makes the evidence, information and documentation requested by the activity team readily available
and submits them to the team in a timely manner;
c)
facilitates and arranges visits to industry and/or service providers, if applicable;
d)
provides a suitable working environment for the activity team; and
e)
arranges daily transportation and administrative issues, as required and applicable.
Opening meeting/briefing
9.3.3
The TL or Focal Person convenes an opening meeting (for audits and SSPIAs) or opening briefing (for
validations) with the State representatives and TMs on the first day of the USOAP CMA activity to review and explain the
process and scope of the activity and to confirm the work schedule outlined in the activity plan. The date and time of the
opening meeting or opening briefing is scheduled in advance and included in the activity plan.
9.3.4
The opening meeting or opening briefing may be jointly chaired by the TL or Focal Person and the State
senior executive, who may also wish to brief the USOAP CMA activity team.
9.3.5
The opening meeting or opening briefing covers the following, at a minimum:
a)
introduction of TMs, State officials and CAA representatives;
b)
a summary of the scope and objectives of the USOAP CMA activity;
c)
a summary of the tools used and procedures followed for the conduct of the activity;
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
Continuous Monitoring Manual
9-6
d)
official communication procedures between the activity team and State officials; and
e)
the activity plan, including the schedule for the closing meeting or the closing briefing.
Conduct of the USOAP CMA activity – General
9.3.6
Any changes to the USOAP activity plan or confirmed tasks must be coordinated between the TL or Focal
Person and the NCMC.
9.3.7
During the conduct of a USOAP CMA activity and depending on its scope, the activity team reviews the
State's legislative and regulatory provisions, the implementation of ICAO SARPs and PANS, the application of guidance
material and relevant safety-related practices in use in the aviation industry.
9.3.8
During the conduct of the USOAP CMA activity, the State shall provide the appropriate evidence in order to
fulfil the requirements of the USOAP CMA activity being conducted. The activity team, under the leadership of the TL or
Focal Person, collects objective evidence and information by examining records, reviewing documentation and relevant
material, visiting facilities, examining equipment and tools, and conducting interviews. The gathering of evidence is
systematic and objective based on the PQs. The TL or Focal Person provides the State with a deadline for providing
evidence to be considered during the activity.
9.3.9
The activity team makes clear and concise reference to objective evidence and supporting actions taken by
the State to address identified findings or SSCs.
9.3.10
During the conduct of a USOAP CMA activity, the team may undertake on-site or virtual visits to selected
industry and/or service providers. Industry visits shall be conducted in the company of the CAA representatives (if on-site)
and on the basis of the State-specific activity plan. These visits are used to determine the State’s safety oversight capability
or its implementation of CAPs or mitigating measures. Safety concerns that may be identified during these visits can only
be identified as a finding or SSC on the State civil aviation system and not on the industry or service providers.
9.3.11
To assist the State in seeking solutions to identified deficiencies, the TL or Focal Person convenes daily
briefings with TMs, the NCMC and State counterparts to provide information, assess the progress of USOAP CMA activity
tasks (for validations) and discuss draft findings (for audits). For SSPIAs, the TL may discuss the determination of the
maturity levels.
9.3.12
All TMs are required to attend daily TM briefings scheduled and conducted by the TL or Focal Person, with
the objective of:
a)
reviewing the team’s progress;
b)
addressing and resolving potential issues and delays encountered;
c)
identifying areas of concern, including preliminary SSCs;
d)
determining required changes in the work schedule (if any);
e)
coordinating common areas, e.g. LEG and ORG PQs in audits and validations, GEN and SDA in
SSPIAs; and
f)
enhancing team coordination and support.
Chapter 9.
USOAP CMA activity phases and procedures
9-7
9.3.13
Any meeting between the activity team and the media during a USOAP CMA activity will only be held in the
presence of the State authorities, where only information limited to the objectives and general activities of USOAP CMA
shall be discussed. TMs shall not provide the media with information related to the results of a specific activity of the State
or other States, but shall refer the matter to State authorities or the TL or Focal Person who is authorized to respond.
9.3.14
Activity teams may encounter situations during USOAP CMA activities that reveal an SSC, resulting in an
immediate safety risk to international civil aviation. The mechanism established to address such SSCs as a priority is
described in Chapter 2, 2.6.4.
9.3.15
As soon as a preliminary SSC is identified, the TL or Focal Person, after coordination with C/OAS, informs
the State to allow the State to initiate corrective actions or mitigating measures immediately. The TL or Focal Person
provides all relevant information on the preliminary SSC to C/OAS. At this point, the identification of an SSC is considered
preliminary until it is validated and confirmed by the SSC Validation Committee. See Chapter 2, 2.6.4.
Conduct of the USOAP CMA activity – Audits
9.3.16
During the conduct of audits, TMs take comprehensive notes and assess the applicable PQs, which will be
used in developing the draft report, including the findings.
9.3.17
Each finding is related to one relevant PQ. The activity team records the finding, marks the status of the
associated PQ as not satisfactory and clearly indicates how and why it was made. Absence of evidence will normally be
reflected as a finding. The State is required to propose a CAP to address each finding.
9.3.18
TMs shall submit their draft findings to the TL supported by objective evidence and relevant documentation.
The activity team shall review all initiated findings to ensure that they are objective, clear, concise and associated with the
relevant PQ.
Conduct of the USOAP CMA activity – Validations
9.3.19
During a validation, the activity team collects evidence related to the State’s progress in implementing its
corrective actions to address identified findings and mitigating measures to address SSCs, as applicable.
9.3.20
Using the evidence collected, the activity team documents and evaluates the level of progress made by the
State in implementing its CAPs. If the State shows evidence of full and effective CAP implementation addressing a not
satisfactory PQ, the team makes a recommendation to OAS to change the status from not satisfactory to satisfactory and
to close the associated finding and/or SSC.
9.3.21
If the State has not fully implemented a CAP addressing a not satisfactory PQ, the status of that PQ remains
not satisfactory until a future USOAP CMA activity, as applicable. The team documents the progress achieved by the
State, as well as the remaining areas and issues where the State still needs to fully and effectively implement its corrective
actions. The future USOAP CMA activity for the State will focus on these remaining areas.
Conduct of the USOAP CMA activity – SSPIAs
9.3.22
During the conduct of SSPIAs, TMs take comprehensive notes and assess the applicable PQs, which will
be used in developing the draft report, including the maturity levels.
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
Continuous Monitoring Manual
9-8
9.3.23
Each maturity level is related to one relevant PQ. The activity team records the effectiveness of SSP
implementation and maintenance as observed, determines the maturity level of the associated PQ, and indicates clearly
how and why it was made.
9.3.24
TMs shall submit their draft maturity levels to the TL supported by objective evidence and relevant
documentation. The team shall review all maturity levels to ensure that they are objective, clear, concise and associated
with the relevant PQ.
Closing meeting/briefing
9.3.25
At the end of the conduct phase of a USOAP CMA activity, the TL or Focal Person convenes a closing
meeting (for audits and SSPIAs) or briefing (for validations) with the State representatives and all TMs to provide them
with information relating to the preliminary results of the activity.
9.3.26
The closing meeting or closing briefing covers the following, at a minimum:
a)
a brief overview of the objective and scope of the completed USOAP CMA activity;
b)
for audits: presentation of preliminary audit results and draft findings;
c)
for validations: presentation of preliminary evaluation of the progress made by the State in implementing
its corrective actions or mitigating measures;
d)
presentation of preliminary SSCs, if applicable (audits and validations);
e)
for SSPIAs: presentation of the preliminary assessment results and draft maturity levels; and
f)
information on post-activity actions to be performed by ICAO and the State.
9.3.27
At the closing meeting for an audit, the TL or Focal Person provides a draft copy of any identified findings to
the State authorities. The closing meeting identifies the most significant safety deficiencies and includes an overview of
the effectiveness of the State’s safety oversight system and capabilities. The TL or Focal Person clearly reminds State
authorities that the preliminary audit results are being provided only to allow the State to start working on the corrective
actions. Draft findings will undergo a technical and editorial review by OAS before being forwarded to the State as the
draft audit report for their comments according to the timelines defined in Appendix A. See Chapter 9, 9.3 to 9.4.
9.3.28
At the closing briefing for a validation, the TL or Focal Person presents the preliminary results of the validation
to the State authorities. The preliminary validation results include the team’s evaluation of the progress made by the State
in implementing its corrective actions or mitigating measures. This information will be validated and will undergo a technical
review by OAS before being forwarded to the State as the draft validation report for their comments according to the
timelines defined in Appendix A. See Chapter 9, 9.3 to 9.4.
9.3.29
At the closing meeting for a SSPIA, the TL provides a draft copy of the draft maturity levels to the State
authorities. The closing meeting identifies key State achievements, opportunities for enhancement, and an overview of
the effectiveness of the State’s SSP. Draft SSPIA maturity levels will undergo a technical and editorial review by OAS
before being forwarded to the State as the draft SSPIA report for their comments according to the timelines defined in
Appendix A. See Chapter 9, 9.3 to 9.4.
Chapter 9.
USOAP CMA activity phases and procedures
9-9
Significant Safety Concern
9.3.30
If applicable, the TL or Focal Person provides a draft copy of the preliminary SSCs to the State authorities
at the closing meeting or the closing briefing and explains that the SSC Validation Committee at ICAO HQ will review and
confirm the validity of any preliminary SSCs. The TL or Focal Person clearly reminds State authorities that the draft copy
of the preliminary SSC is being provided only to allow the State to start working on mitigating measures. ICAO will conduct
a technical review on the preliminary SSCs before finalizing and communicating them to the State. The SSC process is
defined in Chapter 2 and Appendix C.
9.3.31
The closing meeting or closing briefing should be a review of the issues already covered in the daily briefings
with State counterparts. All identified deficiencies and findings (in audits) or the general level of progress made by the
State (in validations) or maturity levels (in SSPIAs) should have already been discussed in the daily briefings and well
understood by everyone attending the closing meeting or the closing briefing. Any preliminary SSCs should have also
been discussed and well understood by everyone before the closing meeting or the closing briefing.
9.3.32
The TL or Focal Person provides an overview of the report production process and related timelines at the
end of the closing meeting or closing briefing, which includes reminding the State authorities of the actions required by the
State under the terms of the MoU. The timelines defined in Appendix A relating to the preparation and submission of the
State’s CAPs and providing comments on the draft activity report are reviewed.
9.3.33
While the State may choose to further discuss identified deficiencies, findings or preliminary SSCs during
the closing meeting and the closing briefing, the State should have presented all available evidence to the activity team
by the deadline indicated in the activity plan. The TL or Focal Person should inform the State that the activity team has
already considered all evidence provided by the State during the conduct of the activity.
9.3.34
The TL or Focal Person reminds the State that the audit or validation or SSPIA is a snapshot of the State’s
safety oversight system and/or the effectiveness of its SSP implementation at the time of the activity. Once the activity has
been concluded, the State may not submit supplementary or additional evidence, unless requested by the TL or Focal
Person.
9.4
9.4.1
THE REPORT PRODUCTION PHASE
This phase begins once the closing meeting or briefing has been concluded. During this phase:
a)
the TL or Focal Person submits the draft report of the USOAP CMA activity, which is compiled from
contributions and notes from each TM;
b)
for audits, OAS performs a quality and technical review of the results, including any findings, and the
input of each TM to the draft report;
c)
for validations, OAS validates the results (i.e. the recommendations of each TM on changing the status
of PQs) and evidence collected by the team, and performs a quality and technical review of the input of
each TM to the draft report;
d)
for SSPIAs, OAS performs a quality and technical review of the results (i.e. the maturity levels
determined by each TM) and the input of each TM to the draft report;
e)
OAS produces the draft report and sends it to the State for comments;
f)
OAS, upon receiving a State’s comments, reviews them for incorporation in the final report;
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
Continuous Monitoring Manual
9-10
9.4.2
g)
OAS sends the final report to the State at the end of this phase;
h)
OAS publishes the final report on the OLF; and
i)
for audits, OAS assesses CAPs submitted by the State to ensure that they are acceptable and that they
address associated findings.
In this phase, the State shall:
a)
develop an acceptable CAP in response to findings (for audits);
b)
submit the CAPs to ICAO through the OLF within 45 calendar days from the date ICAO sends out the
final report (for audits);
c)
update its existing CAPs to address remaining not satisfactory PQs using the OLF (for validations);
d)
develop mitigating measures to address SSCs, if applicable; and
e)
provide comments to the draft report.
Preparation of activity reports – General
9.4.3
Draft and final reports will be generated for audits, ICVMs and SSPIAs.
9.4.4
Audit and validation reports include one or all of the following elements:
a)
an overview of the activity scope, team composition and visits to industry and/or service providers, if
applicable;
b)
an executive summary including short-, medium- and long-term priorities identified by OAS to assist the
State in prioritizing its corrective actions; and
c)
detailed analysis of audit or validation results by sub-areas, by CEs 1 to 4 and by the technical audit
areas within the scope of the audit or validation (PEL, OPS, AIR, AIG, ANS and AGA), including
comparison of the EI before and after the activity.
Note.— Off-site validation activity reports do not include the information outlined in 9.4.4 b) and 9.4.4 c).
9.4.5
SSPIA reports include:
a)
an overview of the activity scope, team composition and visits to industry and/or service providers, if
applicable;
b)
an executive summary including State’s key achievements and opportunities for enhancements as
identified by OAS to assist the State in the continuous improvement of their SSP; and
c)
charts depicting SSPIA results in terms of maturity level by the eight SSPIA areas (GEN, SDA, PEL,
OPS, AIR, AIG, ANS and AGA) and by the four SSP components.
Chapter 9.
USOAP CMA activity phases and procedures
9-11
9.4.6
The TL or Focal Person, in coordination with OAS, is responsible for verifying and ensuring the technical
content and the overall accuracy of the report. OAS shall consult with the TL or Focal Person during the report production
process for questions or clarifications related to the report content.
Preparation of the draft activity report
9.4.7
The draft report is compiled by the TL or focal person based on submissions provided by the TMs. TMs are
expected to prepare their notes daily for the report. Prior to the end of a USOAP CMA activity, the TL or Focal Person
reviews and coordinates the TMs’ individual submissions and discusses these with the TMs concerned to ensure the
overall quality and consistency of the report.
9.4.8
After this review and coordination, the TL or Focal Person submits the draft report to OAS for further technical
and editorial review.
9.4.9
As part of the production of the audit draft report, OAS performs a technical review of the audit results and
the information contained in the audit draft report, including the:
a)
evidence collected by the audit team; and
b)
findings issued by the audit team.
9.4.10
As part of the production of the ICVM draft report, OAS performs a validation of the validation results and
the information contained in the ICVM draft report, including the:
a)
evidence collected by the validation team; and
b)
recommendations of the TMs on changing the status of not satisfactory PQs to satisfactory, based on
the State’s progress in implementing its corrective actions and/or mitigating measures.
9.4.11
As part of the production of the SSPIA draft report, OAS performs a technical review of the assessment
results and the information contained in the SSPIA draft report, including the:
a)
evidence collected by the SSPIA team; and
b)
PQ maturity levels determined by the SSPIA team.
9.4.12
The draft report is forwarded to the State to provide its comments according to the timelines defined in
Appendix A. The draft report is an official activity report and is made available only to the State visited. The State may
share the draft report with others at its discretion.
Note.— The relevant ICAO RO sends out ICVM draft reports, while the MAC sends out audit and SSPIA
draft reports.
9.4.13
If the State does not provide any comments or does not acknowledge receipt of the draft report within the
specified time frame, OAS shall automatically begin the process for producing the final report.
Preparation of the final report
9.4.14
Once OAS receives and reviews the State’s comments, it produces the final report by incorporating the
comments, as necessary, into the draft report before it is sent to DD/MAC for approval.
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
Continuous Monitoring Manual
9-12
9.4.15
The final report is sent to the State according to the timeline defined in Appendix A and is also published on
the OLF. Findings are also posted on the OLF.
Note.— The relevant ICAO RO sends out validation final reports, while the MAC sends out audit and SSPIA
final reports to the States.
9.4.16
If translation of the final report into an ICAO working language other than the language of the activity is
required, additional time will be allocated, according to the timeline defined in Appendix A. If the final report is published
in a language other than English, the findings will be translated into English and published through the OLF.
Submission, assessment, implementation and validation of Corrective Action Plans
9.4.17
In response to a finding from an audit, that is, not satisfactory PQs, the State must prepare and submit
corrective action plans (CAPs) on the OLF within 45 calendar days from the date OAS sends out the final report, in
accordance with the timeline defined in Appendix A.
9.4.18
In order for OAS to review and validate CAPs, the State must submit and implement CAPs that meet certain
criteria. Proposed CAPs must address the associated PQ and all identified deficiencies. They should indicate the entity
responsible for taking each corrective action and the estimated implementation date of each corrective action. Guidance
for States on developing CAPs is provided in Appendix D.
9.4.19
OAS assesses proposed CAPs on the OLF to ensure that they address the associated findings. OAS
determines whether the CAPs are acceptable by the defined criteria and informs the State on the level of acceptability of
the CAPs. If a CAP does not address the finding or only partially addresses it, ICAO requests the State to revise and
resubmit the CAP.
9.4.20
The State can start implementing the corrective actions prior to OAS acceptance, though the State should
be prepared to make changes to their activities if ICAO requests the revision and resubmission of a CAP.
9.4.21
If the State makes any changes to the accepted CAP, the State shall submit a CAP update through the OLF.
The RO should monitor and assess the CAP update once submitted by the State.
9.4.22
The RO, through the RCMC, should continuously monitor States’ overall progress in resolving deficiencies
and correspond with States accordingly through CAP implementation.
9.4.23
OAS regularly monitors the State’s progress in implementing its CAPs through the OLF until each CAP is
fully implemented.
9.4.24
To demonstrate that a CAP is fully implemented, the State must submit relevant and complete evidence of
implementation to OAS through the OLF. If OAS confirms that the State has submitted all evidence of implementation, it
will then be able to assess and validate the full implementation of the CAP through the appropriate USOAP CMA activity,
in order to change the status of the associated PQ from not satisfactory to satisfactory or not applicable, as appropriate.
9.4.25
The USOAP CAP assessment and monitoring workflow, including associated timelines, is provided in
Appendix E.
______________________
Appendix A
USOAP CMA ACTIVITY TIMELINES
Several key phases and tasks during the USOAP CMA process are time-sensitive and should be initiated and completed
within the established timelines, as defined in Tables A-1 and A-2.
Table A-1.
USOAP CMA activity timelines (before the start of the activity)
Timelines by activity
(days noted below are calendar days)
Responsibilities/tasks
ICAO
State
Validations
Audits and SSPIAs
Publication/posting of
USOAP CMA schedule
Periodic (typically 12 months)
Notification letter to
States about conduct of
activity
Minimum of 120 days before start of activity
Acknowledging
receipt of notification
letter and
acceptance of
activity
30 days after receipt of notification letter
Minimum of 90
days before start of
activity
Confirmation letter to
States about the
validation scope
N/A
Acknowledging
receipt of
confirmation letter
30 days after
receipt of
confirmation letter
Updating CAPs
Ongoing
submission of CAP
updates at least 45
days before start of
validation
N/A
60 days before
start of validation
90 days before start
of audit and SSPIA
Latest date for changing scheduled activity
App A-1
Cost-recovery
activities
ICAO and the
Member State
shall mutually
agree on the
dates and
timelines for costrecovery
activities on a
case-by-case
basis.
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
Continuous Monitoring Manual
App A-2
Timelines by activity
(days noted below are calendar days)
Responsibilities/tasks
ICAO
State
Validations
Audits and SSPIAs
Submission of release
requests for short-term
seconded auditors,
SMEs or assessors to
their sponsoring
organization
60 days before
start of validation
Preparation of activity
plan (includes notifying
States of activity team
composition)
45 days before start of on-site activity
Table A-2.
90 days before start
of audit and SSPIA
USOAP CMA activity timelines (report production phase)
Timelines by activity
(days noted below are calendar days)
Responsibilities/tasks
ICAO
Cost-recovery
activities
State
Validations
Audits and SSPIAs
Cost-recovery
activities
90 days after last day of on-site activity
Provide draft report to
State
Provide comments
on draft report
45 days from receipt of draft report
Publication of final
report
30 days from receipt of State comments
Translation of report
Additional days as required
Submission/updating
of CAPs
45 days from ICAO sending the final report to State (audits and
validations only)
______________________
Appendix B
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU)
BETWEEN STATE [LONG NAME] AND THE INTERNATIONAL
CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION (ICAO) REGARDING
THE UNIVERSAL SAFETY OVERSIGHT AUDIT PROGRAMME
CONTINUOUS MONITORING APPROACH
(Generic Version)
Whereas the primary objective of the Organization continues to be that of ensuring the safety of international
civil aviation worldwide;
Whereas the 32nd Session of the Assembly of ICAO in Resolution A32-11 directed the Council to establish
the ICAO Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme (USOAP), providing for regular, mandatory, systematic and
harmonized safety audits to be carried out by ICAO, that such universal safety oversight programme shall apply to all
Contracting States, and that greater transparency and increased disclosure be implemented in the release of audit results;
Whereas the 32nd Session of the Assembly urged all Contracting States to sign a bilateral Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with the Organization, agreeing to audits to be carried out upon ICAO's initiative, but always with
the consent of the State to be audited, and outlining the rules of conduct for such audits;
Whereas the DGCA/06 Conference made recommendations to allow public access to appropriate
information on safety oversight audits and to develop an additional mechanism to rapidly resolve Significant Safety
Concerns (SSCs) identified under USOAP;
Whereas the 36th Session of the Assembly directed the Secretary General to examine options for the
continuation of the USOAP beyond 2010, including the possibility of adopting a Continuous Monitoring Approach (CMA);
Whereas the 37th Session of the Assembly directed the Secretary General to evolve the USOAP to a CMA,
which will incorporate the analysis of safety risk factors and be applied on a universal basis in order to assess States’
oversight capabilities;
Whereas the 37th Session of the Assembly directed the Secretary General to ensure that the CMA continues
to maintain as core elements the key safety provisions contained in Annex 1 – Personnel Licensing, Annex 6 – Operation
of Aircraft, Annex 8 – Airworthiness of Aircraft, Annex 11 – Air Traffic Services, Annex 13 – Aircraft Accident and Incident
Investigation, and Annex 14 – Aerodromes;
Whereas the 37th Session of the Assembly urged all Contracting States to submit to ICAO, in a timely
manner, and keep up to date all the information and documentation requested by ICAO for the purpose of ensuring the
effective implementation of the USOAP CMA;
App B-1
App B-2
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
Continuous Monitoring Manual
Whereas the 37th Session of the Assembly urged all Contracting States to cooperate with ICAO and, as
much as practicable, to accept continuous monitoring activities scheduled by the Organization, including audits and
validation missions, in order to facilitate the smooth functioning of the USOAP CMA;
Whereas the 37th Session of the Assembly directed the Secretary General to make all safety oversightrelated information generated by the USOAP CMA available to all Contracting States through the USOAP restricted
website;
Whereas the 37th Session of the Assembly directed the Secretary General to continue to foster coordination
and cooperation between USOAP and audit programmes of other organizations related to aviation safety, for the sharing
of confidential safety information in order to reduce the burden on States caused by repetitive audits or inspections and to
decrease the duplication of monitoring activities;
Recalling that transparency and the sharing of safety information are fundamental tenets of a safe air
transportation system; and
Recognizing that mutual trust between States as well as public confidence in the safety of air transportation
is contingent upon access to adequate safety information.
IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
PART I – USOAP CMA ACTIVITIES (GENERAL)
1.
Pursuant to Assembly Resolution A37-5, State [long name], hereafter referred to as State [abbreviated name],
hereby agrees to participate fully in the USOAP CMA by taking part in all USOAP CMA activities and by committing to
provide information related to the establishment and implementation of its safety oversight system on an ongoing basis,
whenever possible through the OLF. USOAP CMA activities will cover the Convention on International Civil Aviation
(Chicago, 1944) and the safety-related provisions of its Annexes.
2.
State [abbreviated name] and ICAO accept that all actions taken by the parties or activities carried out under
the USOAP CMA will be conducted in accordance with the guidelines and principles set forth in the third edition of ICAO
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme Continuous Monitoring Manual (Doc 9735).
3.
State [abbreviated name] agrees to facilitate the USOAP CMA by designating one or more appropriatelyqualified persons to act as National Continuous Monitoring Coordinator(s) (NCMCs) on an ongoing basis. The NCMCs act
as facilitators and as the primary points of contact for all USOAP CMA processes and activities. The NCMCs will be
responsible for providing ICAO with updates and information on an ongoing basis, either by providing ICAO with copies of
the relevant information and updates, or by directly inputting information through the OLF.
4.
Information to be submitted and updated regularly by the NCMCs through the OLF will include responses to
the State Aviation Activity Questionnaire (SAAQ), status of the USOAP Protocol Questions (PQs), responses to ICAO
Mandatory Information Requests (MIRs), information relating to Significant Safety Concerns (SSCs), updates to the State
Corrective Action Plan (CAP), including information regarding implementation status and, as far as practicable, any other
relevant safety information, as requested by ICAO. Details regarding the role of the NCMCs and the submission of
information through the OLF are contained in ICAO Doc 9735.
5.
State [abbreviated name] agrees to complete and maintain up-to-date Compliance Checklists, which contain
information on the implementation of the specific provisions of the relevant Annexes to the Chicago Convention. Whenever
possible, the State will provide this information through the Electronic Filing of Differences (EFOD) system.
Appendix B.
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (Generic version)
App B-3
6.
Based on information collected through the OLF, ICAO Headquarters may issue MIRs, Findings and
Recommendations (F&Rs) and/or SSCs which apply to State [abbreviated name]. Such MIRs, F&Rs and/or SSCs will be
notified to the State through the OLF, or by letter, and will be addressed by the State in accordance with the timelines set
out in the Part III of this MOU.
7.
All safety-related information generated by USOAP CMA activities will be made available to all ICAO Member
States through the OLF. A standardized report approved by the Council on the level of effective implementation of State
[abbreviated name]’s safety oversight system will be made available through the ICAO public website.
8.
If a Regional Safety Oversight Organization (RSOO) or any other entity performs safety-related activities on
behalf of State, [abbreviated name] ICAO, with the consent of State, [abbreviated name], may elect to enter into a working
arrangement with this RSOO or entity as appropriate, to facilitate the monitoring of the State.
PART II – USOAP CMA ON-SITE ACTIVITIES
9.
USOAP CMA on-site activities comprise USOAP Comprehensive Systems Approach (CSA) audits, as well
as ICAO Coordinated Validation Missions (ICVMs) and Safety Audits. Safety Audits are conducted on a cost-recovery
basis at the request of State, [abbreviated name]. When requested by State, [abbreviated name], an ICVM may also be
conducted on a cost-recovery basis.
10.
With the exception of Safety Audits and cost-recovery ICVMs, where all costs are borne by State,
[abbreviated name], ICAO will be responsible for the cost of transportation to and from State, [abbreviated name], as well
as for the daily subsistence allowance (DSA) of the team members.
11.
A periodic schedule of USOAP CMA on-site activities will be published in accordance with ICAO Doc 9735,
with the dates of Safety Audits to be agreed between ICAO and the States concerned on a case-by-case basis.
12.
Unless justified reasons lead the parties to mutually agree upon alternate dates, State [abbreviated name]
is expected to accept scheduled on-site activities.
13.
Notification of on-site activities of the USOAP CMA will be provided to the State by ICAO with at least 120
calendar days advance notice. When necessary or useful, State [abbreviated name] and ICAO may mutually agree to a
shorter notice period for any USOAP CMA on-site activity.
14.
No change in the periodic schedule of USOAP CSA audits will be allowed within ninety calendar days prior
to the starting date of the audit of the State, and no change to a scheduled ICVM will be allowed within sixty calendar days
prior to the starting date of the ICVM, except for a compelling reason, submitted to the President of the Council of ICAO
for his consideration. Any change made by the State to the dates of a scheduled Safety Audit will be made on a case-bycase basis, with the State concerned incurring all costs associated with the postponement or cancellation.
15.
The scope of all USOAP CMA on-site activities will be determined by ICAO based on information collected
and will be communicated to the State in advance of the activities, in accordance with the timelines stipulated in ICAO Doc
9735.
16.
All ICAO audit and ICVM teams will comprise experts in the disciplines related to the areas addressed by
the audit or ICVM. The composition of the team (names and areas of expertise) will be provided to the State at least fortyfive calendar days prior to the conduct of a USOAP CSA audit or ICVM. For Safety Audits, every effort will be made to
communicate the team composition to the State at least forty-five days prior; however, this timing may vary depending on
the specific circumstances.
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
Continuous Monitoring Manual
App B-4
17.
USOAP CMA on-site activities will be conducted in English, French or Spanish, as requested by the State.
If the language of the State, as notified to ICAO, is one of the three remaining ICAO working languages, every effort will
be made to ensure that at least one team member participating in the USOAP CMA on-site activity has command of that
ICAO working language.
18.
The ICAO team will develop a State-specific mission plan for each USOAP CMA on-site activity in State
[abbreviated name], containing information on the conduct of the scheduled activity. The plan will be forwarded to the
NCMCs prior to the activity to facilitate cooperation and coordination. Any modification to the State-specific mission plan
may be agreed between ICAO and the State during the opening meeting.
19.
20.
State [abbreviated name] agrees to facilitate USOAP CMA on-site activities by:
a)
providing access to selected organizations related to civil aviation activities and personnel involved in
the management or provision of personnel licences, air transport operations, maintenance and
airworthiness of aircraft, air navigation services, aerodrome operations as well as aircraft accident and
incident investigations, handling and shipping by air of dangerous goods and any other relevant activity
required by safety-related provisions in the Annexes to the Chicago Convention;
b)
making all relevant documents, files and information available to the ICAO team; and
c)
providing access to facilities and restricted areas at air traffic services, aerodromes and other areas
where the audit or ICVM is expected to be conducted.
State [abbreviated name] agrees to provide support to the USOAP CMA on-site activities by:
a)
providing interpretation services for the duration of the on-site activity or as requested by the ICAO team;
b)
making accommodation arrangements for the ICAO team for the duration of the on-site activity;
c)
meeting the cost of transportation when visits to various locations within the State are required under
the State-specific mission plan;
d)
providing adequate working space with privacy for the ICAO team;
e)
providing access to a printer, photocopier, scanner and facsimile machine, if available; and
f)
providing Internet access, if available.
21.
During the conduct of a CSA audit or Safety Audit, the ICAO team will review the State's legislative and
regulatory provisions, examine records, documentation, facilities, equipment and tools, as well as conduct interviews to
determine the establishment and implementation of an effective safety oversight system, including the implementation of
ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) and Procedures for Air Navigation Services (PANS) as well as
the application of guidance material and relevant safety-related practices in general use in the aviation industry as referred
to in such material.
22.
During the conduct of an ICVM, the ICAO team may perform any of the activities identified in paragraph 21
in order to facilitate the validation of progress made by the State in resolving identified safety oversight deficiencies.
Appendix B.
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (Generic version)
App B-5
23.
Upon completion of the USOAP CMA on-site activity, the ICAO team will conduct a closing meeting in which
they will provide a summary of the results of the activity to government officials, as determined by the NCMC. These
officials may include senior Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) management and other State authorities responsible for the
areas covered by the scope of the activity. The ICAO team will also provide a briefing on the next steps in the USOAP CMA
process. If necessary and appropriate, the closing meeting will also be used to notify the State of any preliminary SSCs
identified during the activity.
24.
For CSA audits and Safety Audits, the ICAO team will provide the State with draft F&Rs prior to departing
the State. Formal written notification of any SSCs identified during the activity will be provided to State [abbreviated name]
within fifteen calendar days from the closing meeting.
25.
ICAO undertakes to make available to State [abbreviated name] a draft final report for any USOAP CMA onsite activity within ninety calendar days from the closing meeting. If the ICAO working language of the State is other than
the language of the activity, the draft final report will be translated into that language and timelines will be adjusted
accordingly. State [abbreviated name] commits to providing ICAO with its comments on the draft final report within fortyfive calendar days from receipt of the report in the ICAO working language of its choice. Any comments received will be
reviewed by ICAO before being incorporated into the final report.
26.
ICAO will provide State [abbreviated name] with the final report within 165 calendar days from the date of
the closing meeting. However, if translation is required into an ICAO working language other than the language of the
activity, this timeline will be adjusted accordingly. The final report will then be made available to all Member States of ICAO,
at least in English, through the OLF.
27.
Without prejudice to other privileges and immunities applicable to ICAO as a Specialized Agency of the
United Nations, and its personnel, all members of a USOAP CMA on-site activity team shall be immune from legal process
in respect of words spoken or written and all acts performed by them in their official capacity.
PART III – DEFICIENCIES AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
28.
If an SSC is notified to State [abbreviated name] following a USOAP CMA on-site activity or at any other
time, ICAO will provide State [abbreviated name] with a short time frame to resolve the SSC through immediate corrective
actions. If the SSC remains unresolved at the end of the prescribed time frame, the SSC will be made available to all
Member States of ICAO through the OLF.
29.
Should any deficiencies be identified, State [abbreviated name] undertakes to provide ICAO with a proposed
CAP within forty-five calendar days from the date of posting of the F&Rs on the OLF or from the date of notification of the
F&Rs through a draft final report. The CAP should provide specific actions and estimated implementation dates, as well
as a responsible office for taking action to correct the deficiencies identified in the F&Rs. If no CAP is submitted, ICAO will
contact State [abbreviated name] to determine the reasons for not providing a CAP and report its findings to Council.
30.
ICAO will provide State [abbreviated name] with feedback on the acceptability of any proposed CAP. If any
proposed corrective actions do not fully address the associated F&Rs, the State will be notified accordingly.
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
Continuous Monitoring Manual
App B-6
PART IV – DISPUTE RESOLUTION
31.
Any difference or dispute concerning the interpretation or the application of this Memorandum of
Understanding will be resolved by negotiation between the parties concerned.
For the International Civil
Aviation Organization
For the Appropriate Authority of
[State formal name]
Name:
Secretary General
Name:
Title:
Date:
Date:
______________________
Appendix C
SIGNIFICANT SAFETY CONCERN: PROCEDURE AND PROCESS
FLOWCHART
Identification, Confirmation and Resolution of Significant Safety Concerns
1.
PURPOSE
This procedure describes the mechanism for identifying, confirming and resolving an SSC.
2.
SCOPE
This procedure applies to all SSCs from the time they are identified as preliminary until they are considered as resolved
by the SSC Validation Committee.
3.
RESPONSIBILITY
3.1
Chief of the Safety and Air Navigation Oversight Audit Section (C/OAS) is the primary position responsible
for the effective implementation of this procedure and to ensure that all identified SSCs are effectively processed.
3.2
The SSC Focal Point is an ICAO technical staff member responsible for coordinating the SSC process and
the activities of the SSC Validation Committee.
3.3
The SSC Validation Committee is chaired by the Deputy Director of Monitoring, Analysis and Coordination
(DD/MAC) and comprised of C/OAS, SSC Focal Point, team leader (TL), if available, and a subject matter expert (SME)
or Standards and Procedures Officer from OAS Section (SPO/OAS) of the relevant audit area. This committee is
responsible for the review, confirmation and validation of the SSC and its resolution. A minimum of three members is
required for the Committee to convene and proceed.
4.
DEFINITION
Significant Safety Concern (SSC): Occurs when a Member State allows the holder of an authorization or approval to
exercise the privileges attached to it, although the minimum requirements established by the State and by the Standards
set forth in the Annexes to the Convention are not met, resulting in an immediate safety risk to international civil aviation
and therefore requires immediate attention.
App C-1
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
Continuous Monitoring Manual
App C-2
5.
PROCESS – FOUR MAIN STEPS:
5.1
Identification of Preliminary SSC
5.1.1
A preliminary SSC can be identified by one of two scenarios:
Scenario 1 – During an on-site USOAP CMA activity
5.1.1.1
Team members (TMs) report a preliminary SSC to the team leader (TL) as soon as it is identified. The TL
discusses the details with C/OAS. The process continues with step 5.1.2.
Scenario 2 – As part of the continuous monitoring process
5.1.1.2
A preliminary SSC may be identified by a PH (either at the MAC or RO), SPO/OAS, TO/OAS, USOAP auditor
or SME (either from ICAO HQ or RO) based on evidence and information collected from the State or other sources during
the continuous monitoring process. The matter is discussed with the SPO of the relevant audit area.
5.1.1.3
If the SPO agrees there is a concern, they discuss it with C/OAS and if C/OAS agrees, the SPO submits an
MIR to the State. The SPO reviews the evidence presented by the State in response to the MIR and if the preliminary SSC
still exists, then the process continues with step 5.1.2. If not, ongoing continuous monitoring by the MAC continues.
5.1.2
C/OAS evaluates the information and evidence collected for the preliminary SSC. C/OAS may consult with
an SPO/OAS or SME with experience in the audit area.
5.1.3
The initiator of the preliminary SSC must clearly indicate the immediate safety risk that the preliminary SSC
may pose to international civil aviation and must submit the following information to C/OAS:
a)
Audit area(s) and applicable PQ(s) and CE(s).
b)
Name of State.
c)
Name of the initiator (e.g. on-site team, SPO/OAS, RO, etc.).
d)
If on-site activity (Scenario 1 in 5.1.1), reference to existing finding – if other origin (Scenario 2 in 5.1.1),
reference to MIR.
e)
The draft SSC based upon the applicable PQ(s).
f)
Draft recommendations for resolution of the preliminary SSC.
5.1.4
If C/OAS agrees that a preliminary SSC exists, then C/OAS contacts the SSC Focal Point to convene the
SSC Validation Committee. The process continues with step 5.2.
5.1.5
If C/OAS disagrees with the severity of the concern and does not agree that a preliminary SSC exists:
a)
If the concern was raised by a TL during an on-site activity (Scenario 1 in 5.1.1), C/OAS informs the TL
to not proceed with the preliminary SSC. The TL raises a finding instead and continues with the on-site
activity.
Appendix C.
Significant Safety Concern: Procedure and Process Flowchart
b)
App C-3
If the concern was raised as part of continuous monitoring (Scenario 2 in 5.1.1), no further action is
required.
5.2
Confirmation or Dismissal of the SSC by the SSC Validation Committee
5.2.1
The SSC Validation Committee reviews the information and evidence.
5.2.2
If the committee confirms the SSC, the SSC Focal Point finalizes the text of the SSC initial notification letter
and sends it to the State. The letter includes a due date (maximum of 15 days) by which the State must undertake its
corrective actions or mitigating measures to resolve the SSC. The letter is sent to the State through the fastest means and
ensuring that the State has received it.
5.2.3
Typical mitigating measures expected from States include actions to limit, suspend or cancel the noncompliant authorisation(s), approval(s), license(s) and/or certificate(s), as applicable.
5.2.4
If the committee does not confirm the SSC, C/OAS takes the same actions as outlined in 5.1.4.
5.2.5
The preliminary SSC may not be confirmed due to a number of reasons, including:
5.3
a)
the preliminary SSC is vague;
b)
evidence is insufficient to substantiate the preliminary SSC; or
c)
the finding is valid, but does not pose an immediate safety risk to international civil aviation.
Determination of Whether Actions Taken by the State Resolves the SSC
5.3.1
Upon receiving the SSC initial notification letter and by the due date specified in the letter, the State should
submit to the SSC Focal Point the following information and documents:
a)
State’s comments and observations;
b)
description of corrective actions and/or mitigating measures taken;
c)
documented evidences of corrective actions and/or mitigating measures taken with reference to the
associated PQs;
d)
action office(s) identified for implementation of each corrective action and/or mitigating measures; and
e)
estimated implementation date for each detailed step.
5.3.2
Following receipt of a State’s submissions, the SSC Focal Point convenes the SSC Validation Committee to
review the State’s responses and submissions to determine if:
a)
the supporting evidences and information are complete and relevant to the actions taken; and
b)
if the SSC is resolved.
5.3.3
If the evidence provided by the State confirms the SSC has been resolved, the SSC Focal Point records the
result of the review, prepares an SSC resolution letter and sends it to the State. The preliminary SSC is considered closed
and no further action is taken.
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
Continuous Monitoring Manual
App C-4
5.3.4
If the evidence shows that the actions taken by the State are not acceptable or not sufficient to resolve the
SSC, the SSC Focal Point prepares an SSC confirmation letter and sends it to the State. The SSC Focal Point posts the
SSC and State’s proposed corrective actions on the OLF (http://www.icao.int/usoap) to inform all Member States.
5.3.5
The SSC Focal Point also issues an ICAO Electronic Bulletin (EB), in all ICAO working languages, to inform
all Member States that an SSC has been identified and remains unresolved. If the SSC is not resolved by the State within
90 days after it is posted on the OLF, it will be indicated on the ICAO public website. The SSC will remain posted online
until it is resolved.
5.3.6
The SSC Focal Point emails the EB to the NCMC of the State and the RCMC at the ICAO RO.
5.3.7
C/OAS refers the State to the Monitoring and Assistance Review Board (MARB).
5.4
Ongoing assessment of unresolved SSCs
5.4.1
The State advises ICAO that the SSC has been resolved.
5.4.1.1
The State completes a self-assessment checklist which is validated by the appropriate SPO/OAS.
5.4.1.2
If the SPO agrees that the checklist is complete and the submitted information supports the State’s claim
that the SSC has been resolved, the SPO recommends to C/OAS if an ICVM is required to assess the resolution of the
SSC. If C/OAS determines that an ICVM is required, then C/OAS coordinates with the Oversight Support Unit (OSU) to
schedule the ICVM. The process continues with step 5.4.2. Otherwise, C/OAS contacts the SSC Focal Point to convene
the SSC Validation Committee. The process continues with step 5.4.3.
5.4.1.3
If the SPO disagrees, then the SPO coordinates with the relevant PH to obtain additional information from
the State. This may require the State to continue to update progress of its CAPs and advise ICAO when ready.
5.4.2
If the ICVM team agrees that the SSC has been resolved, the TL notifies C/OAS who contacts the SSC
Focal Point to convene the SSC Validation Committee. The process continues with step 5.4.3. Otherwise, the State
continues to update progress of its CAPs and advise ICAO when ready (see 5.4.1).
5.4.3
The SSC Focal Point convenes the SSC Validation Committee to review the actions taken by the State and
the supporting evidence.
5.4.4
If the SSC Validation Committee determines that the SSC has been resolved, the SSC Focal Point prepares
an SSC resolution letter to be sent to the State.
5.4.4.1
The SSC Focal Point issues an ICAO Electronic Bulletin (EB) announcing the resolution of the SSC and
removes the posted SSC from both the ICAO public website and the OLF.
5.4.4.2
The SSC Focal Point emails the EB to the NCMC and RCMC.
5.4.4.3
State.
C/OAS reports the SSC resolution to the MARB. The MAC continues with its continuous monitoring of the
5.4.5
If the SSC Validation Committee determines that the SSC has not been resolved, the SSC Focal Point
prepares an SSC letter to notify the State that the SSC remains unresolved and posted on website. The State continues
to update progress of its CAPs and advise ICAO when ready (see 5.4.1).
Appendix C.
Significant Safety Concern: Procedure and Process Flowchart
6.
6.1
App C-5
QUALITY RECORDS INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:
SSC letters (initial notification, confirmation and resolution).
Note 1.— All letters are signed by the DD/MAC and a copy is sent to RD/RO.
6.2
Notes to file regarding SSC Validation Committee decisions.
Note 2.— The SSC Focal Point records all decisions of the SSC Validation Committee in Notes to File and
forwards these to OAS for filing.
6.3
SSCs posted on the USOAP CMA online framework.
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
Continuous Monitoring Manual
App C-6
On-site Activity
(Team leader and
team members)
SPO/OAS
C/OAS
SSC Focal
Point
SSC Validation
Committee
(see Note 1)
Start I
Start II
A
Preliminary
SSC?
Identify preliminary SSC
Collect
evidence
TL inform
C/OAS
(see Block 1)
Issue
MIR
Y
B
N
A
N
N
AA
Preliminary
SSC?
Identify
premilinary SSC
Y
C
(see Note 4)
DD
C
Preliminary
SSC?
Y
Provide evidence
in response to MIR
(See Block 1)
Review
information
N
SPO
and C/OAS
agree?
(see Note 3)
B
(of on-site activity)
End
Confirm / dismiss SSC (within 15 days)
Continue with
on-site activity
Process as a
PQ finding
D
D
Start II
Start I
N
Confirm
SSC?
Y
Send SSC
initial
modification
letter
Inform TL (Start I)
Inform SPO (Start II)
Notify SSC
Focal Point
Convene SSC
Validation
Committee
(immediately)
Review
evidence
(see Blcok 1)
SSC initial
notification letter
(see Note 3)
Convene
SSC
Committee
D
D
D
Y
Resolved in
90 days of
posting?
N
Post SSC on ICAO
public website
Accept / dismiss resolution of SSC
Publish SSC EB
(see Note 9)
SSC confirmation
letter
(see Note 5)
N
Post SSC on
USOAP CMA
online framework
(see Note 6)
State is referred to
MARB
SSC
resolved?
Y
Send SSC
Send SSC confirmation
resolution
letter
letter to State (see Note 5)
(see Note 5)
Review
State
response
and
evidence
Submit response
and evidence within
15 days (maximum)
(see Notes 2 and 3 and
Block 2)
F
E
D
Y
Ongoing
continuous
monitoring
Report SSC
resolution
to MARB
Publish SSC
resolution in EB
(see Note 9)
F
Remove SSC
from online
posting
Complete SelfAssessment
Checklist
Advise ICAO that
SSC is resolved
End
Send SSC
resolution
letter to State
(see Note 5)
D
Access unresolved SSC
(see Note 7)
E
Verify SelfAssessment Checklist
Arrange an
ICVM if required
N
SSC
resolved?
Send letter to State
re:SSC remaining
unresolved and
posted
Convene SSC
Committee
Review
response
and evidence
Continue to update
progress on CAPs
Letter to State to: SSC
remains unresolved and
posted (see Note 5)
Appendix C.
Significant Safety Concern: Procedure and Process Flowchart
App C-7
NOTES
1)
2)
3)
4
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
Composition of SSC Validation Committee: DD/MAC (Chair), C/OAS, SSC Focal Point, TL, SPO/OAS or SME of the
relevant audit area. A minimum of three members must be present for the committee to convene.
State forwards its response (and related information) to the SSC Focal Point. See Block 2 for details.
Preliminary SSC may be identified by a PH (either at the MAC or RO), SPO/OAS, TO/OAS, USOAP auditor or ICVM
SME (either form ICAO HQ or RO) based on evidence and information collected from the State or other sources
during the continuous monitoring process.
MIR: mandatory information request.
All SSC letters are signed by DD/MAC.
MARB: Monitoring and Assistance Review Board.
The SPO/OAS may coordinate with the relevant PH (either at the MAC or RO) obtain additional information from the
State. This may require the State to continue to update their CAPs progress and resubmit a new checklist at a later
date.
If the State fails to meet the deadline to respond or to take appropriate action, the SSC Validation Committee will
process the SSC as unresolved.
EB: Electronic Bulletin. SSC Focal Point emails the EB to NCMC for the State and RCMC at the RO.
Block 1 – Preliminary SSC Information
a)
Identify audit area(s) and applicable PQ number(s) and CE(s)
b)
Name of State
c)
Name of the initiator (e.g. on-site team, SPO/OAS, etc.)
d)
If from on-site activity – reference to existing finding; if from HQ
– reference to MIR
e)
Draft preliminary SSC based on selected PQ(s)
f)
Draft recommendation for resolution of the preliminary SSC
Block 2 – Response(s) from State
a)
State’s comments and observations
b)
Corrective actions and/or mitigating measures taken
c)
Documented evidence of corrective actions and/or mitigating
measures taken
d)
Action office(s) identified for implementation of each corrective
action and/or mitigating measures and detailed steps
e)
Estimated implementation date for each detailed step
______________________
Appendix D
GUIDANCE FOR STATES ON DEVELOPING
CORRECTIVE ACTION PLANS
1.
OBJECTIVES
1.1
To enable ICAO, through the Monitoring, Analysis and Coordination (MAC) (formerly Monitoring and
Oversight) to review and assess the acceptability of a proposed corrective action plan (CAP), as well as monitor progress
in the implementation of the accepted CAPs, States must submit and update CAPs that meet certain criteria.
1.2
Following the tips and suggestions in this guidance will assist States to develop more effective CAPs that
would meet ICAO’s criteria.
2.
CRITERIA
Initial proposed CAPs and subsequent CAP updates should meet the following six criteria:
1)
Relevant – CAPs should address the issues and requirements related to the finding and corresponding
PQ and critical element (CE).
2)
Comprehensive – CAPs should be complete; including all elements or aspects associated with the
finding.
3)
Detailed – CAPs should be laid out in a step-by-step approach, as required, to outline the
implementation process.
4)
Specific – CAPs should identify who will do what, when, in coordination with the responsible office or
entity.
5)
Realistic – CAPs should be realistic in terms of contents and implementation timelines.
6)
Consistent – CAPs should be consistent in relation to other CAPs and with the State self-assessment.
3.
STATE COMMENTS
If the State disagrees with a finding issued by ICAO and does not submit a CAP for the finding, the State must provide a
clear and detailed reason in the “State Comment” field on the USOAP CMA online framework (OLF).
App D-1
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
Continuous Monitoring Manual
App D-2
4.
CAP MODULE
4.1
The State should enter the required information for each part of the CAP in the correct field of the CAP
module on the USOAP CMA online framework.
4.2
Step
The fields for the CAP module (as they appear on the OLF) are as follows:
Proposed
Action
See
“Developing
a CAP”
section
below.
Action
Office
Evidence
Reference
Est. Imp.
Date
See
“Action
Office”
section
below.
See
“Evidence
Reference”
section
below.
See
“Estimated
implementation
Date” section
below.
4.1
Rev. Imp. Date
If there is a
change to the
estimated
implementation
date, indicate
new revised
date.
Date of
Completion
Progress
Indicate
actual date
of
completion
of action
plan.
Indicate if “not
started”,
“completed”, or
percentage of
implementation
progress.
Developing a CAP – Steps and proposed action items
4.1.1
Ensure that the proposed actions in a CAP directly and fully address the finding and the ICAO provisions as
stated in the ICAO reference/guidance.
4.1.2
Break down large action items into smaller, more manageable elements.
4.1.3
Describe each proposed action in a clear and detailed manner.
4.1.4
List the step-by-step corrective actions in the correct sequential and/or chronological order (e.g. establishing
a requirement, elaborating on support procedure(s), generating associated checklists, and providing training before
implementing the corrective actions).
4.1.5
Provide a good and clear working plan and adequate detail for the implementation of each step of the
proposed corrective actions.
4.1.6
For findings associated with CEs 6, 7 and 8, i.e. “implementation” CEs, provide necessary details
(i.e. evidences and examples) on implemented requirements and procedures.
Note.— Evidences of progress in CAP implementation are attached (“imported”) by using the selfassessment filed on the USOAP CMA online framework.
4.2
Action office
4.2.1
Ensure that the responsible action office is indicated for each one of the corrective action steps.
4.2.2
If more than one organization or entity are involved in each step, identify and record each one clearly.
Appendix D.
Guidance for States on Developing Corrective Action Plans
App D-3
4.2.3
Ensure that the action offices identified in each step of the corrective action have the authority to complete
the action, especially with respect to the promulgation of legislation and/or regulations.
4.2.4
For higher-level corrective actions, such as the promulgation of primary aviation legislation, enter the name
of the entity which has the authority to complete the action.
4.2.5
thereafter.
Spell out the acronym for the title of an action office the first time it is used in the CAP; use the acronym
4.3
4.3.1
Evidence reference
Indicate the document containing the evidence in a clear manner.
4.3.2
Provide a specific and clear reference to the page, section or paragraph of the document that contains the
information that the ICAO validating officer needs to review and validate.
4.3.3
Avoid broad and generic reference to a large document. Be as specific as possible.
4.4
Estimated implementation date
4.4.1
Ensure that an estimated implementation date (est. imp. date or EID) is entered for each step in order to
save the CAP.
4.4.2
Ensure that the EID is realistic for the action item.
4.4.3
Ensure that the EID is appropriate for the level of risk associated with the finding.
4.4.4
The EID should be the date of completion for the action item.
4.5 Responding to ICAO’s assessment
If ICAO initially assesses a CAP as not addressing or only partially addressing the finding, revise the CAP and ensure that
it addresses the shortcomings indicated by ICAO.
4.6
Updating Corrective Action Plans
4.6.1
As per the signed MOU between the Member State and ICAO, ensure continuous updating of CAPs by
indicating all of the following:
a)
a progress level (in percentage) for each action item as it is implemented; and
b)
the date of completion for each completed action item.
4.6.2
If the initial estimated implementation date of an action item has passed and the action has not been
completed (or not fully implemented yet), provide a revised implementation date.
______________________
Appendix E
CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN: ASSESSMENT
AND MONITORING WORKFLOW
Start
Upon receipt of audit draft
report
The State
develops CAPs
(Not to be submitted onto the
OLF before the final report)
ICAO (MAC)
Dispatches Audit Final
Report
ICAO (MAC) sends a
reminder message
to the State
The State submits
missing CAPs
(within 45 days)
The State submits CAP
onto the OLF
(within 45 days)
No
Has ICAO sent a
reminder message to
the State
CAPs
for all audit areas
Submitted?
No
yes
ICAO (OAS)
st
Performs 1 CAPs assessment and provides the State with a
summary of the assessment results
(within 60 days)
yes
State submits CAP amendments
(within 45 days)
ICAO (OAS)
nd
Perform 2 CAPs assessment and provides the State with a
summary of the assessment results
Hands it over to the ICAO accredited RO
(within 60 days)
•
•
•
•
•
ICAO (RO)
Continues with assessment of CAPs updates
Monitors implementation progress of the CAPs
Recommends readiness for validation to ICAO (MAC)
ICAO (MAC)
Schedules and arranges appropriate validation activities
End
Note 1.— CAPs can only be uploaded onto the OLF by area and not by PQs.
Note 2. — OLF will not accept CAP updates when CAPs are being assessed by ICAO.
Note 3. — ICAO will not conduct validation activities five years after the publication of an audit final report.
______________________
App E-1
Appendix F
GUIDELINES FOR NATIONAL
CONTINUOUS MONITORING COORDINATORS
1.
GENERAL
1.1
The national continuous monitoring coordinators (NCMCs) play an integral and pivotal role in supporting a
State’s participation in ICAO’s Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme (USOAP). The NCMCs serve as the primary
point of contact of the Member State in interacting with ICAO on all matters related to USOAP. This includes familiarizing,
implementing and completing all of the State’s responsibilities and duties as part of USOAP continuous monitoring
approach (CMA) processes and activities.
1.2
These guidelines relate to the responsibilities, functions, and duties of NCMCs in compliance with an ICAO
Member State’s obligations with respect to aviation safety oversight as signatories to the Convention on International Civil
Aviation (Doc 7300, hereafter referred to as the “Convention”) and Member States’ responsibilities under the USOAP CMA
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). It is directed at State authorities and intended as a guide to assist States in
selecting NCMCs and supporting their roles and responsibilities.
2.
WHY STATES NEED A NATIONAL CONTINUOUS MONITORING COORDINATOR?
2.1
State Obligations under USOAP
2.1.1
As a signatory to the Convention, each Contracting State is obligated to promulgate ICAO provisions in its
national legislative and regulatory framework in support of ICAO’s primary mandate – “…that international civil aviation
may be developed in a safe and orderly manner and that international air transport services may be established on the
basis of equality of opportunity and operated soundly and economically.”
2.1.2
In support of ICAO’s primary objective to ensure the safety of international civil aviation, USOAP was
launched in 1999 per Assembly Resolution A32-11 (32nd Assembly, 22 September to 2 October 1998) and expanded per
Assembly Resolution A33-8 (33rd Assembly, 22 September to 5 October 2001). The objective of USOAP is to ensure that
Contracting States are adequately discharging their responsibilities for safety oversight over their civil aviation system
through regular, mandatory, systematic and harmonized safety audits carried out by ICAO, as well as a systematic
reporting and monitoring mechanism on the States’ implementation of safety-related SARPs.
2.1.3
Under USOAP, safety oversight is a function performed by the State to ensure that individuals and
organizations conducting aviation activities under its jurisdiction comply with the State’s safety-related laws and regulations
promulgated from ICAO SARPs.
App F-1
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
Continuous Monitoring Manual
App F-2
2.1.4
Within ICAO, USOAP is managed by the Monitoring, Analysis and Coordination (MAC) (formerly Monitoring
and Oversight (MO)), Air Navigation Bureau (ANB), and executed by MAC’s Safety and Air Navigation Oversight Audit
Section (OAS), with the support and collaboration of the ICAO Regional Offices.
2.1.5
The success of a State’s participation in USOAP requires the continuous commitment of the State through
its full support and cooperation in all of the Programme’s activities. Accordingly, each Member State signs a Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) with ICAO, affirming the State’s active participation in USOAP.
2.1.6
The MOU requires the State to designate at least one or more appropriately qualified NCMCs on an ongoing
basis. The NCMC acts as the State’s primary point of contact for all USOAP CMA processes and activities.
2.1.7
Depending on the size and complexity of a State’s civil aviation safety oversight system, a State can select
additional individuals to support the NCMC as part of an NCMC team. Using an NCMC team has the advantage of
maintaining stability and improving succession planning, since it provides the State with an available pool of trained and
experienced individuals to serve as the NCMC as the need arises.
2.1.8
By appointing and designating an NCMC and/or an NCMC team, the State reaffirms its understanding that
its success in USOAP relies on how it engages the overall Programme through the individual or individuals selected to
facilitate the transmission of the State’s relevant safety information to ICAO.
2.2
NCMC’S ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
2.2.1
The NCMC is responsible for the submission, maintenance, and/or update of the State’s information, either
on the USOAP online framework (OLF) on an ongoing basis or in response to a specific request from ICAO. Before
submission, this State information should be coordinated internally, such as with the State’s safety oversight and accident
and incident investigation entities, as well as technical experts in all audit areas, to ensure accuracy and validity of the
information. This information includes, but is not limited to, the following:
a)
Protocol question (PQ) compliance status through PQ self-assessment.
b)
Corrective action plans (CAPs).
c)
Measures taken by the State in response to significant safety concerns (SSCs).
d)
State aviation activity questionnaire (SAAQ).
e)
Compliance checklists (CCs)/electronic filing of differences (EFOD).
f)
Response to mandatory information requests (MIRs).
g)
Other relevant safety information, as requested by ICAO.
2.2.2
The NCMC remains actively involved throughout the entire USOAP process on the State’s behalf by ensuring
effective and consistent communication between the State and ICAO on all USOAP matters. This allows ICAO to engage
with the NCMC in the continuous monitoring of the State, as well as coordinate with the pertinent Regional Office in the
planning and prioritization of the appropriate CMA activities and tasks.
2.2.3
The NCMC also serves as the primary point of contact with ICAO and the pertinent Regional Office before,
during, and after all scheduled USOAP CMA audit, validation, and assessment activities.
Appendix F.
Guidelines for National Continuous Monitoring Coordinators
App F-3
2.2.4
Once the proposed dates and scope of a planned USOAP CMA activity are agreed to by ICAO and the State,
the NCMC will support the State’s efforts to facilitate the activity in the before, during and after stages. The NCMC’s
support includes, but is not limited to, the following:
a)
The NCMC should provide internal training on USOAP and the OLF in preparation for a USOAP CMA
activity, especially to State counterparts and others participating in the activity.
b)
The NCMC will assist the State in arranging for the appropriate staff from its CAA, or other relevant
entities, to be available for interview by the ICAO USOAP team, as required.
c)
The NCMC will provide all necessary State resources and information in support of the USOAP team’s
work.
2.3 NCMC COORDINATION WITH
REGIONAL CONTINUOUS MONITORING COORDINATORS (RCMCS)
2.3.1
For regional coordination and implementation of the USOAP CMA, each ICAO Regional Office is responsible
for identifying one or more RCMCs to act as primary point of contact for the State NCMCs on all USOAP technical and
operational matters at the regional level.
2.3.2
The RCMCs essentially serve as a bridge between OAS, the executing arm of USOAP, and the State
NCMCs, in the implementation of USOAP processes and activities. Among their USOAP-related functions are:
a)
The RCMCs communicate with the NCMCs on the various USOAP CMA tasks of the States, including
completion of the online PQ self-assessment, timely response to MIRs, development of acceptable
CAPs, and appropriate and prompt follow-up actions on SSCs.
b)
The RCMCs coordinate with the NCMC to ensure that the State submits its CAPs in a timely manner,
implements the proposed actions based on the timelines outlined in the CAPs, revises or updates the
CAPs as necessary, and brings up to date the progress of the State’s CAP implementation as
documented on the online framework.
c)
The RCMCs coordinate with the NCMCs to ensure that the States scheduled for a USOAP CMA activity
fully implement their CAPs and submit the required information, documentation, and evidence in
preparation for the upcoming activity.
2.3.3
The NCMC is encouraged to coordinate with other NCMCs and the RCMC through attendance of regional
NCMC meetings, or similar activities. These events provide an opportunity for NCMCs to share experiences and lessons,
as well as exchange best practices with their counterparts.
2.4
SELECTING AN NCMC
2.4.1
The selection of an appropriately qualified NCMC by a State is vital for the State’s successful participation
in the USOAP CMA process. The NCMC plays a direct and active role in supporting and facilitating the State’s fulfilment
of its responsibilities and tasks as required under the MOU. This in turn contributes to the overall improvement of aviation
safety in the State as well as globally.
2.4.2
As the primary point of contact of the State with ICAO on all USOAP matters, the NCMC represents the
State and should be empowered accordingly to enable the NCMC to carry out the USOAP-related responsibilities
effectively.
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
Continuous Monitoring Manual
App F-4
2.4.3
A State should select an NCMC with the full support of the Director General, or equivalent position, and
without any (perceived or real) conflict of interest to ensure transparency and independence of the NCMC.
2.4.4
To ensure successful completion of the NCMC’s responsibilities and tasks, the State should provide the
NCMC with the following:
a)
explicit written authority for the NCMC to coordinate the collection of the necessary State information
and USOAP-related documentation with the relevant areas and entities of the State;
b)
sufficient autonomy to enable the NCMC to facilitate the State’s participation in the USOAP CMA
activities and processes; and
c)
appropriate time and resources, such as an NCMC support team depending on the size and complexity
of the State’s safety oversight system, particularly if the NCMC has additional assigned duties within the
State.
2.4.5
In selecting the appropriate individual, the State should ensure that the NCMC is capable of coordinating
and managing the State’s USOAP responsibilities, taking into account the size and complexity of its safety oversight
system. The State may consider forming an NCMC support team, comprised of multiple relevant officers from within a
State’s civil aviation authority and associated entities that can support the NCMC with their diverse responsibilities. It has
been observed that some States that have utilized an NCMC support team have been more effective in fulfilling their
USOAP CMA responsibilities.
2.4.6
If a State selects an NCMC team structure, it must ensure the designation of a primary NCMC, who will serve
as the primary point of contact for the State’s USOAP CMA activities and coordinator of the other team members. The
availability of an NCMC support team allows a State to select an alternate NCMC in the event of temporary absence of
the primary NCMC as well as a possible successor in the event of an NCMC’s departure from the role.
2.4.7
A State should select an NCMC, and, if appropriate, an NCMC support team, on a long-term and/or
permanent basis to ensure continuity of the State’s participation in the USOAP CMA, as well as the sustainability of the
overall Programme.
2.4.8
When selecting an NCMC, it is strongly recommended that States should consider the following basic
qualifications and experience:
a)
a minimum of four years of experience working within a civil aviation organization, or equivalent
organization, in a technical or associated aviation safety role;
b)
knowledge and competency in aviation-related matters;
c)
proficiency in English and the language necessary to support the assigned duties;
d)
proficiency (or at least intermediate level) in the use of Microsoft Office software (i.e. Word, Outlook,
Excel, and PowerPoint) and other relevant computer software (e.g. Adobe Acrobat);
e)
knowledge of ICAO organizational structure, functions, and activities;
f)
excellent knowledge of the USOAP CMA; and
g)
knowledge of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Doc 7300), ICAO SARPs, and related ICAO
documentation and guidance material.
Appendix F.
Guidelines for National Continuous Monitoring Coordinators
App F-5
2.4.9
In addition, it is strongly recommended that States consider the following additional qualifications and
experience that would be highly desirable when selecting an NCMC:
a)
specialized experience in any of the civil aviation authority’s technical areas;
b)
experience in performing assessments or audits;
c)
experience working in an international environment;
d)
experience in implementing quality management systems and/or safety management systems; and
e)
experience in programme and/or project management.
2.4.10
Once the NCMC or NCMC team has been selected by a State, the name and contact information should be
communicated officially and promptly to ICAO, specifically to the Monitoring, Analysis and Coordination (MAC) of the Air
Navigation Bureau (via email at usoapinbox@icao.int), and the pertinent ICAO Regional Office to avoid disruption in
communication between the State and ICAO. Any changes to the NCMC or NCMC team should also be conveyed to both
MAC and the relevant Regional Office.
2.5
TRAINING AN NCMC
2.5.1
To support the USOAP work of the NCMC, ICAO offers a range of training, either online or in-person
workshops. It is beneficial that once selected, the NCMCs should complete the training necessary to perform their required
tasks. States should ensure that the NCMCs have both the time and resources necessary to obtain the appropriate
competencies to support the States at the desired level. The benefits of supporting competency-based training include:
a)
ensuring that the NCMCs achieve a performance level that allows them to work independently and
effectively;
b)
supporting the Director General and other relevant decision-makers in monitoring the ongoing
effectiveness of the overall safety oversight system through the identification, collection, and ongoing
management of information for USOAP CMA activities; and
c)
supporting the identification of gaps in the State’s safety oversight system and the determination of the
appropriate means to address any possible deficiencies.
2.5.2
The State should ensure that the NCMCs complete the following ICAO training courses to carry out the
various activities associated with the USOAP CMA:
a)
USOAP CBT training (Phase 1):
1)
This training course familiarizes participants with the USOAP CMA activities required under the
MOU. The training will assist individuals in preparation for a USOAP CMA audit and validation
activity, as well as for the day-to-day safety oversight activities necessary to support the USOAP
CMA.
2)
This training module is complimentary to the State’s NCMC upon request through the USOAP CMA
Computer-based Training website:
https://www.icao.int/safety/CMAForum/Pages/USOAPCMA-CBT.aspx.
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
Continuous Monitoring Manual
App F-6
b)
Online framework (OLF) tutorial:
1)
c)
to the main features on the OLF through interactive modules. This online tutorial provides an
overview of the functionality of the OLF and introduces new users (to the main features on the OLF
through interactive modules).
Manage SAAQ and State profile module:
1)
This module provides ICAO, NCMCs, and individual users with the functionalities to complete and
update the State aviation activity questionnaire (SAAQ) information on the OLF.
d)
Online framework (OLF) work user management tutorial: the tutorial provides NCMCs with the
information necessary to maintain the relevant OLF access level for their State’s users.
e)
USOAP CMA workshop:
1)
This workshop provides States with updated information on the overall ICAO USOAP CMA and
training on the OLF. The workshop is conducted in-person or in a virtual environment in at least
one of the ICAO Regions annually, as appropriate.
Note.— The OLF tutorial, manage SAAQ and State profile module tutorial, and the OLF work user
management tutorial are provided on the USOAP CMA online framework.
2.5.3
Upon completion of these training courses, the NCMCs will acquire basic proficiency and understanding of
ICAO, the USOAP CMA, their responsibilities as NCMCs, as well as the resources available to support the NCMCs as the
State’s primary focal point.
2.5.4
As USOAP CMA evolves, ICAO also continuously reviews and updates the relevant training courses that it
offers. It welcomes comments and feedbacks from the trainees in order to improve and strengthen the training courses.
3.
3.1
WHAT DOES AN NCMC DO?
Preparing the State for USOAP CMA Activities
3.1.1
In the preparation for any upcoming USOAP CMA activity, the NCMC ensures consistent and prompt
communication between the State and ICAO, including, first and foremost, an agreement between ICAO and the State on
the dates and scope of a planned USOAP activity.
3.1.2
Once the dates and scope of a USOAP activity are established, the NCMC ensures the accuracy and
currency of all relevant and required State information, documents and supporting material on the OLF. They include, but
are not limited to, the following:
a)
SAAQ: the NCMC should review and update the State’s SAAQ information on a periodic basis, at least
once a year;
b)
CC/EFOD: the NCMC should be aware of amendments to ICAO provisions and ensure the continued
accuracy of the State’s identified differences;
Appendix F.
Guidelines for National Continuous Monitoring Coordinators
App F-7
c)
CAPs: the NCMC should ensure that the State’s corrective action plans are developed and updated
accordingly on the OLF, referencing the guidance document in Appendix D, “Guidance for States on
Developing Corrective Action Plans”; and
d)
PQ self-assessment: the NCMC should update the State’s self-assessment at regular intervals, or when
there are organizational or operational changes at the CAA level or to the PQ status, in a comprehensive
and organized manner.
3.1.3
The NCMC facilitates the preparation of the activity by providing the requested information and documents
to the USOAP CMA team leader (TL), including contact information of the State’s counterparts, suggestions of suitable
lodging accommodations, adequate transportation options, as appropriate, and, if applicable, a list of State service
providers for industry visits by the ICAO team.
3.1.4
An essential element of the preparation for a USOAP activity is the USOAP activity plan, which describes
details of the activity and is forwarded by the TL to the State, through the NCMC. The NCMC ensures that the activity plan
is accepted by the State Authority and acknowledged by all the State’s participants in the activity. The NCMC also provides
assistance and support to the TL to ensure effective implementation of the activity plan and resolve any issue that may
affect the timely implementation of the plan.
3.1.5
In case of an on-site USOAP activity, the NCMC participates in the organization and provision of logistics
locally, such as the following:
a)
determining suitable locations for the opening meeting and the work in each audit area;
b)
coordinating participation of the State Authority’s management in the various meetings held during the
activity;
c)
ensuring the planning of visits to industry, as coordinated by the TL; and
d)
coordinating debriefing meetings, as required, and as agreed upon with the TL.
3.1.6
The NCMC facilitates the ICAO team’s receipt of entry visas, as necessary, and the team’s immigration
process on arrival, as appropriate.
3.1.7
The NCMC organizes transport for the ICAO team, as appropriate. This includes round-trip transport to all
locations associated with the on-site activity, such as the airport, the hotel, the State’s Authority, and visits to the industry.
The NCMC may provide a list of State-recommended hotels, taking into consideration proximity to activity location(s),
traffic, security, and other important factors.
3.2
USOAP CMA ON-SITE ACTIVITIES
3.2.1
During a USOAP CMA on-site activity, the NCMC ensures that the ICAO team is met on arrival, as
appropriate.
3.2.2
The NCMC ensures the consistent availability of the appropriate counterparts to the ICAO team to respond
to PQs and other relevant questions throughout the activity. The NCMC further ensures that all counterparts must be
capable of producing any required evidence to the ICAO team in a timely manner.
3.2.3
The NCMC organizes, in coordination with the TL, periodic briefings with pertinent State officials, as needed.
Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
Continuous Monitoring Manual
App F-8
3.2.4
The NCMC ensures that the Director General, or equivalent, of the State Authority is informed of the progress
and preliminary results of the activity.
3.2.5
The NCMC maintains daily communication with the TL for the duration of the on-site activity. Potential
schedule changes, the unavailability of management and/or activity team counterparts, location concerns, and other
pertinent information must be shared with the TL as soon as possible in order to coordinate appropriate alternatives and
adjust the activity’s overall schedule accordingly.
3.2.6
The NCMC ensures that the State’s focal points for specific audit areas are well prepared and have the
necessary and acceptable evidences to facilitate interviews and enable the ICAO team to make a valid and realistic
assessment.
3.2.7
The NCMC participates in the opening meeting, all briefings, and the closing meeting held by the ICAO team
during the on-site activity.
3.3
USOAP CMA OFF-SITE ACTIVITIES
3.3.1
During a USOAP CMA off-site activity, the NCMC ensures reliable means of communication, as well as the
availability of the appropriate qualified State counterparts to interact and communicate with the ICAO team throughout the
activity. All counterparts must be capable of communicating and producing any required evidence to the ICAO team in a
timely manner.
3.3.2
The NCMC organizes, in coordination with the ICAO TL and team members, as applicable, periodic briefings
with pertinent State officials, as needed.
3.3.3
The NCMC ensures that the Director General, or equivalent, of the State Authority is informed of the progress
and preliminary results of the activity.
3.3.4
The NCMC maintains continuous daily communication with the TL for the duration of the off-site activity.
Potential communication changes, the unavailability of management and/or activity team counterparts, and other pertinent
information must be shared with the TL as soon as possible in order to coordinate appropriate alternatives and adjust the
planned activities accordingly.
3.3.5
The NCMC participates in the opening meeting, all briefings, and the closing meeting held by the ICAO team
during the off-site activity.
3.4
3.4.1
time frame.
USOAP CMA POST-ACTIVITY ACTIONS
The NCMC ensures that the State feedback form is completed and submitted to ICAO within the required
3.4.2
The NCMC ensures the State’s timely review of the draft activity report, as applicable, and provides relevant
feedback in accordance with the established time frame.
3.4.3
The NCMC ensures the submission of all State CAPs to ICAO in accordance with the deadline outlined in
Appendix A and the guidance described in Appendix D of this manual. The NCMC should contact the pertinent ICAO
Regional Office if assistance is required with the development of acceptable CAPs. Once the CAPs have been assessed
by either ICAO Headquarters or the Regional Office, they should be updated, as needed, on the OLF.
— END —