[Peetwo]

M&M and the three Stooges - The envy of the World??  

Referring to the bollocks graphic handed to the Rev Forsyth's panel and supposedly representing the 'outstanding' results from the 2008 ICAO USOAP audit of Australia..  



..it can be seen that besides excelling (almost 100%) in AAI, along with the USA we are clearly the role model for those ICAO States seeking guidance for perfect implementation of SARPs listed critical element 'Organisation'...

Here is the ASRR comparison & comments on 'organisation' in comparison to other leading aviation safety nations:

..Around the world, governments have adopted different organisational structures to regulate their civil aviation sectors. Australia has a decentralised system, with an independent aviation safety regulator, an independent accident investigator, and an independent air navigation service provider, with other aviation matters overseen by other agencies. This structure is in the minority internationally, although broadly similar to the UK, New Zealand and Singapore. Many other countries, including China, France, the United Arab Emirates and Indonesia, have a single agency responsible for all aviation matters. Other countries, such as the US and Canada, apply approaches in between these two models, with an aviation safety regulator reporting to government through the national transport department...

---

..As a result of this decentralised structure, the functions typically associated with a country’s aviation authority are, in Australia, split across a number of different entities, as detailed in Table 2. The roles and responsibilities of each entity are set out in Australia’s State Safety Program (SSP), first released in 2011 in accordance with ICAO requirements. Australia’s SSP is discussed in more detail in section 3.1.1.

In the Panel’s view, the structure of Australia’s aviation safety regulatory system is sound. While a number of issues have been identified in how the system operates, significant structural change is not warranted.

So not hugely critical but excellence no...
However we have to remember that the ASRR graphic actually depicts the self-assessment  of individual States through the developing CMA process based on a 'Performance Based' SMS ideology, which as part of the process sources State safety information through the representative protocol questions (RPQs):

The Evolution of a Performance Based System


The findings of the USOAP results’ analysis demonstrate that establishing strong safety oversight systems is a necessary first step to ensure the successful transition to improved safety management. Therefore, safety strategies must have the ability to consider the varying maturity levels of State’s safety oversight systems. States that have not yet implemented the eight critical elements of a safety oversight system effectively must first resolve these deficiencies and develop a sound foundation upon which to build their State Safety Programmes. Only those States having mature safety oversight systems will be able to realize the benefits associated with safety management principles, and achieve further reductions in their accident rates.

Representative Protocol Questions

ICAO safety experts analysed further the identified relationship between USOAP results and safety performance based on accident rates. The in-depth analysis led to the identification of a representative sub-set of protocol questions (RPQs), notably 114 out of 975 in total, which maintained the high correlation factor between the LEI percentage and the accident rate. This is an important finding as it will allow States to better focus their resources and safety improvement efforts and realize the desired reduction of accident rates in a timely and more efficient manner.

  &..

The PQs are developed by the ICAO Secretariat and used for the verification of State's compliance to ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPS). The PQs enable auditing against the critical elements of a safety oversight system and provide guidance to the auditors on what evidence should be requested and reviewed. They also can be used by States to conduct internal audits.

Here is a link for the RPQs: List of Representative Protocol Questions

Now here is your chance, referring to the 114 RPQs if you put yourself as the 'auditor' of M&M's department and the three Stooges - i.e. CASA, ASA & ATSB - taking the RPQs in a tick-a-box survey of compliance, how do you think we would sit in 'Organisation' compliance with the ICAO SARPs.

Notes - Remember that according to the latest version of the M&M SSP:

a) ASA are a 'service provider' and therefore their SMS is supposedly oversighted by CAsA;
b) CASA have primary responsibility for oversight of the SSP;
c) The ATSB primary function is as the Annex 13 AAI and their secondary function is as the archivist of the Annex 19 defined safety investigation, concerns & issues database.

Also remember that in referring to the 114 RPQs you will also have to cross reference the applicable Australian ICAO SARP notified differences in order to appropriately tick or cross the boxes -  

Here is a QR link for the over 3000 Australian notified differences to ICAO: H67/16

Have fun...


MTF...P2