ECAST Process Guide V2.0 – Approved on 12 Apr 2007
MM, JR, PS
ECAST Process Guide V2.0
Action 8 - ECAST #1/07: ECAST Process Manual
B. Alcott, UK CAA, J. Beaufays and T. Blajev, EUROCONTROL, M. Masson, EASA
(Secretary), M. Piers, NLR, T. Johansen, Boeing and IFA, P. Sørensen (Chair),
R. van der Boom, Netherlands Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water
management, Directorate General of Transport and Aviation.
Date: 8 Mar 07
Due by: 12 Apr 07
Document status: Approved 12 Apr 07
Documentation
• A process chart file (PowerPoint) is attached.
• Background information is provided in the minutes of the ECAST#2-07
Process Development meeting, IATA, Brussels, 8 Mar 07, and in the minutes
of ECAST#2-07 plenary meeting, EASA, Cologne, 12 Apr 07.
1. Object
The ECAST process has been redesigned on 8 Mar 07 by the Process
Development Team.
The Process Guide is the process chart plus the comments presented in this
document.
The Process Guide provides guidelines for the application of ECAST, but is not
prescriptive. The guidelines are purposely short and generic: those teams
applying this process will be expected to further define each step.
For instance, event though this Process Guide encourages a Cost Benefits
Analysis (Cost/Benefit Analysis) be completed, it does not prescribe what
Cost/Benefit Analysis technique(s) to use.
Note: For clarity, the ECAST Process Guide depicts steps that are sequential
(with feedback loops). However, sequentially is indicative: some steps can be
performed in parallel, as appropriate.
The ECAST process features 3 phases:
1. Identify and Select Safety Issues
2. Analyze Safety Issues
3. Develop, Implement, and Monitor Action Plans
1/9
ECAST Process Guide V2.0 – Approved on 12 Apr 2007
MM, JR, PS
2. ECAST Structure
The following overall ECAST structure is recommended:
•
Strategy Team (ECAST Plenary) - A JIMDAT-like (CAST Joint
Implementation Measurement Data Analysis Team) in charge of strategy
definition, review and decision making. This team is responsible for identifying
measurements and methodologies to be used for monitoring the effectiveness
of interventions, action plans. Also, the Strategy Team will provide leadership
of the overall communication responsibilities as described below. As such,
this team may decide a dedicated Communications team should be created.
•
Analysis Team: A JSAT-like (CAST Joint Safety Analysis Team) membership
is composed of domain specialists and safety analysts with diverse, generic
and/or subject specific competences and experience. The analysis team will
evaluate data to identify significant events, causal and contextual factors, and
their safety risks.
•
Implementation Team: A JSIT-like (CAST Joint Safety Implementation
Team) formulates appropriate interventions or action plans.
3. ECAST Communications and Coordination
Communication
By the Strategy Team (ECAST Plenary) or a dedicated Communication Team
Communicate in Europe and worldwide on the ESSI/ECAST safety programme
and achievements. This could be in the form of, but not limited to:
- ESSI/ECAST website and provide links to main air transport safety related
websites.
- Brochure(s) (optional).
- Others?
Coordination with other safety initiatives worldwide
By the Strategy Team (ECAST Plenary) or any ECAST Team, depending on the
matter
Coordinate with other safety initiatives and programmes in Europe and
worldwide, as recommended by the ICAO Global Aviation Safety Roadmap.
Safety initiatives and programmes may include, but not be limited to CAST,
COSCAPs, ASET, PAAST, the EUROCONTROL European Safety Programme (ESP),
SESAR, EC Aviation Safety including research (FP7 building on SRA 2 by ACARE)
and CAA Safety Programmes. (See the ESSI #2-06 Action 12 document).
Ideally, establish interfaces with EASA Standardisation and auditing programs of
EASA, EUROCONTROL, IATA and ICAO. Although ECAST will ensure appropriate
coordination is maintained throughout the process, there are some specific steps
within the ECAST process that explicitly call for a level of coordination. These are
noted in the text below.
2/9
ECAST Process Guide V2.0 – Approved on 12 Apr 2007
MM, JR, PS
Programme Reviews
By the Strategy Team (ECAST Plenary)
Review the ECAST programme at mid term (2012) and at programme end
(2017).
4. ECAST Process
ECAST Process Details
Phase 1 - Identify and Select Safety Issues
With the aid of historical incident data, as well as the application of
expert knowledge, ECAST will generate a list of safety issues that pose
risk to the European flying public and may be appropriate subjects of
mitigating action. This list will be made available for further analysis
that is the subject of Phase 2.
Step 1.1 – Assess and Prioritise Accident Risks and Causal factors in
Europe (Yearly Revised)
Performed by the Analysis Team
Using available accident and incident data sources and statistical summaries as
well as expert judgement, assess and prioritise safety risks and causal and
circumstantial or contributory factors (for instance, flight crew performance, airground communication, weather or technical factors) in Europe and for European
operators worldwide.
Accident risk categories should be drawn from the standard accident categories
developed by the CAST/ICAO Common Taxonomy.
http://www.intlaviationstandards.org/
Each year, a safety review is performed and safety priorities are re-assessed.
Step 1.2 –Review Safety Programmes – “Industry watch”
Performed by the Analysis Team
Identify and review safety programmes (led by industry, regulatory authorities,
etc.) that, in Europe and worldwide, are intended to address risks and causal
factors that have a strong likelihood of impacting the safety of Europe’s aviation
sector.
Step 1.3 – Recommend Priority Safety Issues (Includes CBA/RIA)
Performed by the Analysis Team
Recommend to the Strategy Team (ECAST Plenary) which safety issues have the
highest priority to develop and implement mitigating actions.
3/9
ECAST Process Guide V2.0 – Approved on 12 Apr 2007
MM, JR, PS
These recommendations should be based, at least in part on:
1. Those safety issues deemed to have the strongest likelihood of impact, as
determined in Step 1.2.
2. High level CBA (Cost Benefit Analysis)/RIA (Regulatory Impact
Assessment), essentially qualitative at this stage, is used in support to the
recommended selection.
3. Safety issues not fully, or sufficiently, covered in existing safety
programmes.
These recommendations are to be made to the Strategy Team as described in
Step 1.4.
Step 1.4 – Approve Recommended Safety Issue(s)?
Performed by the Strategy Team
Review and assess the safety issues recommended by the Analysis Team:
• If none of the recommended safety issues are approved, the process is
reiterated at Step 1.3 or above if deemed necessary;
• For all approved safety issues, the Strategy Team will direct follow-on activity,
as described below.
Step 1.5 – Launch New Safety Action?
Performed by the Strategy Team
For each safety issue selected as part of process Step 1.4, the Strategy Team
must decide whether to launch a new safety activity, initiative or programme, or
whether existing parallel initiatives/programmes will provide sufficient coverage
in the development and implementation of mitigating actions.
If the Strategy Team feels this level of support already exists, then this process
proceeds to Step 1.7, directing the Analysis Team to coordinate. If the Strategy
team determines that no such parallel initiative / programme exists, or that
existing coverage is inadequate to provide sufficient coverage, then this process
proceeds to Step 1.6.
Step 1.6 – Communicate Selected Issue(s), Look for Partners
Performed by the Strategy or by an ECAST Communication Team
Advertise the selected issue(s); look for internal partners (within ECAST) to
participate in the Safety Analysis Team (Phase 2) as well as for the Safety
Implementation Team (Phase 3), and for external partners (outside ECAST),
to participate in related safety programmes (for instance the Runway Safety
Initiative by FSF), industry and authorities representatives, communication
specialists, publishers, etc.
4/9
ECAST Process Guide V2.0 – Approved on 12 Apr 2007
MM, JR, PS
Phase 2 - Safety Issues Analysis
With the aid of historical incident data, as well as the application of
expert knowledge, ECAST will generate a list of safety issues that pose
risk to the European flying public and may be appropriate for mitigating
action. This list will be made available for further analysis that is the
subject of phase 2.
Step 2.1 – Collect data, Analyse Risks and Causal Factors
Performed by the Analysis Team
With the aid of both quantitative data (e.g. accident and incident data statistical
summaries, etc.) and qualitative information (e.g., literature review, expert
judgement, surveys, questionnaires and interviews, develop a greater
understanding of the selected issue(s).
This data / information will be analysed in depth by the Analysis Team to better
determine the overall risks and causal/contributory factors of the safety issue.
Where appropriate, and if possible, the efficacy of ongoing or former safety
enhancements will be assessed.
Step 2.2 – Define Safety Performance Metrics
Two types of metrics are required:
•
Generic Safety Metrics: For instance accident or serious incident rates and
other high level indicators.
•
Risk Specific Metrics: In addition, risk specific metrics should be defined, for
instance “number of runway incursions” for runway safety.
Step 2.3 – Define Baseline and Safety Objectives
Performed by the Analysis Team
Using the knowledge gained through analysis (Step 2.1), define the safety
baseline and realistic, reasonably achievable, issue-specific safety enhancement
objectives. Objectives are expressed using the safety performance metrics
defined in Step 2.2.
Defining realistic objective(s) includes a Cost/Benefit Analysis component.
Note: Objectives should be numerically expressed:
•
•
•
•
Allows defining the baseline and scoping the efforts;
Progress towards the goal also is easier to visualise and to monitor;
Risks and costs can be more easily combined;
Serves management purposes.
5/9
ECAST Process Guide V2.0 – Approved on 12 Apr 2007
MM, JR, PS
Step 2.4 – Recommend Safety Enhancements (Includes Cost/Benefit
Analysis and/or Regulatory Impact Assessment)
Performed by the Analysis Team
Assess safety enhancements in terms of costs and benefits.
Safety benefits are assessed. Optionally, other types of benefits such as
operational improvements, ATM capacity improvement, delay reduction or
environment protection can be integrated in the analysis.
The Cost/Benefit Analysis methodologies defined in CAST or in the EC FP6
ASICBA Cost/Benefit Analysis project can be used, for instance. Other
methodologies can be considered. Cost/Benefit Analysis methodology should be
adapted to the topic and scope of analysis.
When safety benefits target regulation, Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) can
be used instead of Cost/Benefit Analysis. Reference for RIA in Europe is EASA
Management Board Decision MB/7/03, Sections 1 and 2.
Safety enhancements with favourable Cost/Benefit Analysis or RIA are
recommended to the Strategy Team.
Step 2.5 – Approve Recommended Safety Enhancements
Performed by the Strategy Team
Review and assess the Safety Enhancements recommended by the Safety
Analysis Team.
If none of the recommended Safety Enhancements are approved, the process is
reiterated at Step 2.4 or above if deemed necessary.
Step 2.6 – Develop New Actions Plans(s)?
Performed by the Strategy Team
Based on a review of pre-existing Action Plans (AP), if any, a decision will be
taken whether the development of new APs are needed or not. This decision will
be taken considering:
o
o
If satisfactory ECAST APs already exist (for instance inherited from
JSSI) and are being implemented;
If APs are implemented by other safety programmes, in which case
further consideration will be given to coordination, development of
synergies with, or participation in these existing safety
programmes, materialised by Step 2.8.
6/9
ECAST Process Guide V2.0 – Approved on 12 Apr 2007
MM, JR, PS
Phase 3 - Actions Plans Development, Implementation and Monitoring
For each safety issue selected in Phase 2, ECAST will develop, assess,
select, implement and monitor cost-efficient Actions Plans. Using the
safety performance metrics defined in Phase 2, ECAST will monitor action
plans efficacy to achieve the stated safety objectives, and take corrective
actions if necessary.
Step 3.1 – Develop Action Plans
Performed by the Implementation Team
Safety enhancement recommendations approved because of favourable
Cost/Benefit Analysis or RIA lead to developing action plan(s).
This activity will include the designation of parties/stakeholders responsible for
implementation, definition of tasks and deliverables, time scales and task
dependencies.
More specific Cost/Benefit Analysis or RIA is performed at action plan level.
Step 3.2 – Recommend Action Plans (Includes Cost/Benefit Analysis
and/or Regulatory Impact Assessment)
Performed by the Analysis Team
Recommend to the Strategy Team Actions Plans (AP) with favourable
Cost/Benefit Analysis or RIA.
Step 3.3 –Approve Action Plan(s)?
Performed by the Strategy Team
Review and assess the AP(s) recommended by the Implementation Team:
• If none of the recommended AP is approved, the process is reiterated at Step
3.1 or above if deemed necessary;
• Else, for each AP approved, proceed to Step 3.4.
Step 3.4 – Implement Action Plans
Performed by the Implementation Team
Engage the responsible parties/stakeholders in the actual implementation of the
approved Action Plans.
7/9
ECAST Process Guide V2.0 – Approved on 12 Apr 2007
MM, JR, PS
Step 3.5 – Monitor Action Plans Implementation
Performed by the Implementation Team
A monitoring process has to be defined. Examples are provided for instance by CAST,
COSCAP, and EUROCONTROL ECIP1.
The monitoring process is adapted to the AP characteristics and to the
organisation(s) in charge: EASA, national CAA, operators, manufacturers,
EUROCONTROL, ANSP, etc.
Notes:
• Those who monitor might differ from those who implement.
• Not all actions are one-shot: some are continuous or should be repeated,
periodically.
Step 3.6 – Assessment of Action Plans implementation OK?
Performed by the Strategy Team
Review and assess AP implementation:
• If AP implementation doesn’t proceed as planned, implementation issues are
reviewed and corrective measures are taken; the process is reiterated at Step
3.4 or at Step 3.1.
Step 3.7 – Monitor Action Plan Efficacy
Performed by the Implementation Team
Using the safety performance metrics defined in Step 2.2., monitor action plans
efficacy to achieve the stated safety objectives.
Step 3.7 is particularly important because actual safety enhancements eventually
justify investments; that’s the selling point of ECAST, with a strong link to
Communication.
Note:
• Actual safety performance (risk reduction, stagnation or increase) partially
depends on safety actions and other factors, intentional or fortuitous, external
to ECAST. Thus, there is no perfect relation between the action plan efficacy
and achievement of the stated safety objectives. (The same applies to all
safety initiatives).
1
The ECIP mechanism allows harmonised pan-European implementation of safety plans
agreed by the EUROCONTROL Member States. High level actions (called ECIP
objectives), implementation dates and scope (e.g. regional, Pan-European,
harmonisation) are approved by the EUROCONTROL Provisional Council and included in
the ECIP Document. Depending on scope, Member States establish the respective
implementation action plans in their National CIP Documents. This is done on annual
basis. The CIP documents also identify the actor (e.g. CAA, ANSP, airport authority)
responsible for implementing each action. Implementation progress review is also
performed on annual basis. EUROCONTROL is supporting Member States in the planning
and review of activities through dedicated Contact Persons. More information on:
http://www.eurocontrol.int/safety-nets/public/subsite_homepage/homepage.html
8/9
ECAST Process Guide V2.0 – Approved on 12 Apr 2007
MM, JR, PS
Step 3.8 – Safety Objectives achieved?
Performed by the Strategy Team
Review and assess safety objective(s) achievement:
•
If objectives are not achieved, or objective achievement does not progress as
expected, corrective measures are taken and the process is reiterated at any
of the above steps, as deemed necessary.
Programme performance and lessons learned are used to adjust metrics,
objectives, programmes and action plans;
•
Else, the programme is completed for the selected safety issue.
Programme performance is reviewed for further improvements.
(See also page 3: Programme Review).
9/9