V O L U M E 6 1 NUMBER 1 , 2006

ICAOJ O U R N A L

REGIONAL BODIES STRENGTHEN GLOBAL OVERSIGHT

Economic Liberalization

Mode S Surveillance

Economic LiberalizationAviation safetyand security issues

Mode S SurveillanceBringing benefitsto crowded airspace

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2006VOL. 61, NO.1

ICAO JournalThe magazine of the International Civil Aviation Organization

FEATURES

5 Evolving commercial and operating environment presents challengesfor regulatorsAs highlighted by a comprehensive ICAO study, economic liberalizationand changes in airline business practices have implications for safetyand security regulation which need to be addressed properly...

9 Regional safety oversight bodies deliver economies of scale and greater uniformityNewly formed regional organizations have contributed to impressiveimprovements in oversight capability around the globe ...

14 Icy waters of liberalization prove not so cold in realityAviation liberalization is not for the faint of heart, U.S. policymakersays of the ongoing effort to liberalize international markets ...

16 Cooperation is an important aspect of effective fight against terrorismWhile much progress has been made in strengthening the legal aviationsecurity regime, the widespread ratification of legal instruments remainsa crucial goal that calls for greater cooperation...

18 Varig joins growing list of operators performing line operationssafety auditsLOSA implementation provides a systemic snapshot of flightoperations that can engender a collaborative effort to improve safety...

21 Radar surveillance upgrade brings greater safety and efficiencyAlthough not yet fully operational, the evolutionary transition to Mode Ssurveillance begun in Europe has already brought benefits to crowded airspace...

24 Academia exploring innovative approaches to achieving “silent” flightWorking with partners in industry, university research departments hopeto conceive an aircraft design whose engine and airframe noise would beimperceptible in the urban environment around airports ...

UPDATE26 Ministerial conference in Tokyo focuses on international transport security

• Scheduled traffic tops two billion passengers in 2005...• ICAO to hold global symposium on air transport liberalization...• Survey highlights need for new air law instrument ...• States urged to support growth of safety oversight programme ...

Cover photo by Steffens Vogelsang/Masterfile

THE ICAOCOUNCIL

PresidentDr. ASSAD KOTAITE

1st Vice-PresidentL. A. DUPUIS

2nd Vice-PresidentM. A. AWAN

3rd Vice-PresidentA. SUAZO MORAZÁN

SecretaryDr. TAÏEB CHÉRIFSecretary General

Argentina – D. O. Valente

Australia – S. Clegg

Austria – S. Gehrer

Brazil – P. Bittencourt de Almeida

Cameroon – T. Tekou

Canada – L. A. Dupuis

Chile – G. Miranda Aguirre

China – Y. Zhang

Colombia – J. E. Ortiz Cuenca

Egypt – N. E. Kamel

Ethiopia – M. Belayneh

Finland – L. Lövkvist

France – J.-C. Chouvet

Germany – Dr. H. Mürl

Ghana – K. Kwakwa

Honduras – A. Suazo Morazán

Hungary – Dr. A. Sipos

India – Dr. N. Zaidi

Italy – F. Cristiani

Japan – H. Kono

Lebanon – H. Chaouk

Mexico – R. Kobeh González

Mozambique – D. de Deus

Nigeria – Dr. O. B. Aliu

Pakistan – M. A. Awan

Peru – J. Muñoz-Deacon

Republic Of Korea – S. Rhee

Russian Federation – I. M. Lysenko

Saint Lucia – H. A. Wilson

Saudi Arabia – S. A. R. Hashem

Singapore – K. P. Bong

South Africa – M. D. T. Peege

Spain – L. Adrover

Tunisia – M. Chérif

United Kingdom – N. Denton

United States –

WWW.ICAO.INT

Visit ICAO’s website for past issues of the ICAO Journal, news releases and a wealth of otherinformation, including a focus on the following key topics.

Aviation medicine: http://www.icao.int/icao/en/med/index.html

Environmental protection: http://www.icao.int/icao/en/env/index.html

Machine readable travel documents: http://www.icao.int/mrtd/Home/Index.cfm

Strategic objectives: http://www.icao.int/cgi/goto_m.pl?icao/en/strategic_objectives.htm

Trainair programme: http://www.icao.int/anb/trainair/Home/Index.html

Universal Security Audit Programme: http://www.icao.int/icao/en/atb/asa/index.html

ICAO JOURNAL4

Editor: Eric MacBurnie Production Clerk: Arlene BarnesEditorial Assistant: Regina Zorman Design Consultant: André Cordeau

THE OBJECTIVES of the Journal are to provide a concise account of theactivities of the International Civil Aviation Organization and to featureadditional information of interest to ICAO Contracting States and the inter-national aeronautical world. Copyright ©2006 International Civil AviationOrganization. Unsigned and Secretariat material may be reproduced in fullor in part provided that it is attributed to ICAO; for rights to reproduceother signed articles, please write to the editor.

OPINIONS EXPRESSED in signed articles or in advertisements appearing inthe ICAO Journal represent the author’s or advertiser’s opinion and do notnecessarily reflect the views of ICAO. The mention of specific companies orproducts in articles or advertisements does not imply that they are endorsedor recommended by ICAO in preference to others of a similar nature whichare not mentioned or advertised.

Published in Montreal, Canada. Second class mail registration No. 1610. ISSN1014-8876. Date of publication of Issue 1/2006: 15 February 2006. Publishedsix times annually in English, French and Spanish.

SUBSCRIPTIONS: $25 (by surface) and $35 (by air) per year. Single copiesavailable for $10. Prices in U.S. funds. For subscription and circulationinquiries, please contact ICAO Document Sales Unit. Telephone:+1 (514) 954-8022; Facsimile: +1 (514) 954-6769; E-mail: sales@icao.int.Important Note: Readers are advised that surface delivery may take aslong as six months, depending on location. Air mail is strongly recom-mended. The current issue may be viewed in PDF format without delayat ICAO’s website (http://icao.int/icao/en/jr/jr.cfm). Issues dated 2005or earlier are viewable using the downloadable DjVu reader. Plannedpublication dates for 2006 are 15 February, 13 April, 9 June, 7 August,8 September and 11 December.

ADVERTISING REPRESENTATIVE: Yves Allard, FCM Communications Inc., 835Montarville St., Longueuil, Quebec, Canada J4H 2M5.Telephone: +1 (450) 677-3535;Facsimile: +1 (450) 677-4445; e-mail: fcmcommunications@ videotron.ca.

EDITORIAL OFFICE: International Civil Aviation Organization, 999 Univer-sity St., Room 1205, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3C 5H7. Telephone:+1 (514) 954-8222; Facsimile: +1 (514) 954-6376; e-mail: emacburnie@icao.int.

GRAPHIC ART/DESIGN: Bang Marketing (www.bang-marketing.com). PRINTING:Transcontinental-O’Keefe Montreal (www.transcontinental-printing.com).

ICAO HEADQUARTERS: 999 University St., Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3C 5H7.Telephone +1 (514) 954-8219; Facsimile +1 (514) 954-6077; e-mail: icaohq@icao.int.

www.icao.int VISIT ICAO’s website for a wealth of information includingpast issues of the ICAO Journal, information on advertising in ICAO’s maga-zine, the latest news releases, a complete listing of ICAO publications andaudio visual training aids, the ICAO aviation training directory, Secretariat jobvacancies, technical cooperation project postings, and much more.

ICAO PUBLICATIONS: The Catalogue of ICAO Publications and Audio-VisualTraining Aids contains a list of all document titles as well as abstracts andindicates the availability of language versions. The catalogue is issued annu-ally in hard copy. Monthly supplements list new publications and audio-visual training aids as they become available, as well as amendments andsupplements. Most ICAO publications are issued in English, French,Russian and Spanish; Arabic and Chinese are being introduced on a gradualbasis. (The most efficient way to order an ICAO publication is online athttp://www.icao.int using VISA or Mastercard. All transactions conducted onthis server are encrypted and secure.)

ICAO ESHOP (www.icao.int/eshop): eSHOP is a commercial website offeringonline access to ICAO documentation for an annual fee. A subscription givesaccess to the full texts of international conventions and protocols, all annexesto the Convention on International Civil Aviation (the Chicago Convention),publications pertaining to air traffic management, and the annual reports ofthe ICAO Council.

DGCA DIRECTORY: ICAO has developed an electronic database of informationon national civil aviation administrations from around the world. The Directoryof National Civil Aviation Administrations (Document 7604) is continuouslyupdated, based on information received from ICAO’s 189 Contracting States.The online directory is available through ICAO’s website at an annual subscrip-tion fee of U.S. $150. For further information, please contact the DatabaseAdministrator (dgca@icao.int).

ICAO Journal

AfghanistanAlbaniaAlgeriaAndorraAngolaAntigua and BarbudaArgentinaArmeniaAustraliaAustriaAzerbaijanBahamasBahrainBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBeninBhutanBoliviaBosnia and

HerzegovinaBotswanaBrazilBrunei DarussalamBulgariaBurkina FasoBurundiCambodiaCameroonCanadaCape VerdeCentral African

RepublicChadChileChinaColombiaComorosCongoCook IslandsCosta RicaCôte d’IvoireCroatiaCubaCyprusCzech RepublicDemocratic People’s

Republic of KoreaDemocratic Republic

of the Congo

DenmarkDjiboutiDominican RepublicEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEquatorial GuineaEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFijiFinlandFranceGabonGambiaGeorgiaGermanyGhanaGreeceGrenadaGuatemalaGuineaGuinea-BissauGuyanaHaitiHondurasHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIran (Islamic

Republic of)IraqIrelandIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJordanKazakhstanKenyaKiribatiKuwaitKyrgyzstanLao People’s

Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanonLesothoLiberiaLibyan Arab

Jamahiriya

LithuaniaLuxembourgMadagascarMalawiMalaysiaMaldivesMaliMaltaMarshall IslandsMauritaniaMauritiusMexicoMicronesia

(Federated States of)MonacoMongoliaMoroccoMozambiqueMyanmarNamibiaNauruNepalNetherlandsNew ZealandNicaraguaNigerNigeriaNorwayOmanPakistanPalauPanamaPapua New GuineaParaguayPeruPhilippinesPolandPortugalQatarRepublic of KoreaRepublic of MoldovaRomaniaRussian FederationRwandaSaint Kitts and NevisSaint LuciaSaint Vincent and

the GrenadinesSamoaSan MarinoSao Tome and PrincipeSaudi Arabia

SenegalSerbia and MontenegroSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSlovakiaSloveniaSolomon IslandsSomaliaSouth AfricaSpainSri LankaSudanSurinameSwazilandSwedenSwitzerlandSyrian Arab RepublicTajikistanThailandThe former Yugoslav

Republic of Macedonia

Timor-LesteTogoTongaTrinidad and TobagoTunisiaTurkeyTurkmenistanUgandaUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUnited Republic

of TanzaniaUnited StatesUruguayUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuelaViet NamYemenZambiaZimbabwe

ICAO Headquarters

999 University StreetMontreal, QuebecCanada H3C 5H7Telephone: 514-954-8219Facsimile: 514-954-6077E-mail: icaohq@icao.intWebsite: www.icao.int

REGIONAL OFFICES

Asia and Pacific OfficeBangkok, ThailandTelephone: + 662-537-8189Facsimile: + 662-537-8199E-mail:icao_apac@bangkok.icao.int

Eastern and Southern African OfficeNairobi, KenyaTelephone: + 254-20-7622-395Facsimile: + 254-20-7623-028E-mail: icao@icao.unon.org

European and North Atlantic OfficeParis, FranceTelephone: + 33-1-46-41-85-85Facsimile: + 33-1-46-41-85-00E-mail: icaoeurnat@paris.icao.int

Middle East OfficeCairo, EgyptTelephone: + 202-267-4841Facsimile: + 202-267-4843E-mail: icaomid@cairo.icao.intWebsite: www.icao.int/mid

North American, Central Americanand Caribbean OfficeMexico City, MexicoTelephone: + 52-55-52-50-32-11Facsimile: + 52-55-52-03-27-57E-mail: icao_nacc@mexico.icao.int

South American OfficeLima, PeruTelephone: + 51-1-575-1646Facsimile: + 51-1-575-0974E-mail: mail@lima.icao.intWebsite: www.lima.icao.int

Western and Central African OfficeDakar, SenegalTelephone: + 221-839-93-93Facsimile: + 221-823-69-26E-mail: icaodkr@icao.sn

Promoting the Development of International Civil AviationThe International Civil AviationOrganization, created in 1944 to promotethe safe and orderly development of civilaviation worldwide, is a specialized agency ofthe United Nations. Headquartered in Montreal,ICAO develops international air transport standardsand regulations and serves as the medium for cooperation in all fields of civil aviation among its 189 Contracting States.

ICAO CONTRACTING STATES

series of major aircraft accidentsthat occurred last August andSeptember — claiming almost 500

lives — has once again focused the spot-light on aviation. With tremendous growthin air travel and the rapid expansion of theairline industry, how well is the global avia-tion safety regulatory system functioning?Can States adequately ensure safety andsecurity in an industry being transformedby globalization, liberalization and privatiza-tion? A recent study conducted by ICAOprovided some insight into these matters.

The study reviewed various situationsarising from regulatory liberalization and theevolution of business and operating practicesin the air transport industry to identify areasthat could have implications for safety andsecurity. The purpose was to determinewhether any gaps exist in the current ICAOprovisions for safety and security, and toensure that the global regulatory system,including the relevant ICAO standards andrecommended practices (SARPs), remainscapable of addressing changes and develop-ments in international civil aviation.

ICAO’s examination of the safety andsecurity aspects of economic liberalizationwas recently disseminated to its memberStates and may be found at ICAO’s website(www.icao.int/icao/en/atb/ecp/index.html).The study features a summary of specificsituations and their relevant ICAO provi-sions and guidance material, as well as asummary of the responsibilities of States.

Impact of liberalizationThe impact of liberalization on safety

and security, and their interrelationship,

ECONOMIC LIBERALIZATION

Evolving commercial and operating environmentpresents safety and security challenges

As highlighted by a comprehensive ICAO study, economic liberalization and changes in airline businesspractices have implications for safety and security regulation which need to be addressed properly.

is not a new issue. The subject has beendebated in many aviation forums, includ-ing the last two worldwide air transportconferences convened by ICAO in 1994and 2003.

While the latter conference in parti-cular produced a consensus in favour ofliberalization, describing it as a desirablegoal, there was also concern expressedover liberalization’s potential impact onsafety and security. Conference delegatesagreed that aviation safety and securitymust remain of paramount importance.Liberalization should be accompanied byappropriate safeguards, including safetyand security safeguards. The challengefor States, in brief, is to capture the bene-fits of economic liberalization withoutcompromising safety and security.

Many economic benefits are associatedwith liberalized policies. For example, allow-ing more open market access and multiple

airline designations, or lifting restrictionson capacity, pricing, and commercial oppor-tunities, may bring about growth in passen-ger and cargo traffic as well as increasedaircraft movements. It could also resultin more air carriers entering the market,with increased service options and pricingcompetition, as well as development oftravel and tourism and job creation.

Nevertheless, without precautionsthere can be a downside to liberalization’seffects. The resultant growth in air trans-port activity and the complexity of somecommercial arrangements can have reper-cussions for safety and security regulation.

Under the Convention on InternationalCivil Aviation (Chicago, 1944), each ICAOmember State is required to provide safetyand security oversight. It must meet thisobligation both for its own aircraft opera-tors and for foreign aircraft operating inits airspace. A State would not be able to

NUMBER 1, 2006 5

A recent ICAO study reaffirms that ultimate responsibility for aviation safety andsecurity rests with States, irrespective of changes in economic regulatory arrangements.

WANG YUANZHENG

ICAO SECRETARIAT

A

Jim

Jorg

enso

n

cope with the consequences of marketgrowth and liberalization generally with-out sufficient legal, regulatory and orga-nizational infrastructure, as well as thehuman and financial resources needed toperform these regulatory functions. Dueregard must be given not only to theexpected economic benefits of liberaliza-tion but to its potential impact on thecapacity to meet the corresponding safetyand security requirements. Clearly, it isimportant each State have a coherent poli-cy to ensure the continued safe, secureand orderly development of civil aviation.

While noting that safety standardshave been maintained in many liberalizedmarkets, the ICAO study revealed thateconomic liberalization and the evolutionof airline business practices have two majorimpacts on safety and security regulation.First, a significant increase in the level of

air transport activity can place a strain ona State’s capacity to perform its regulatoryrole. Secondly, some complex commercialarrangements involve a cascade of enti-ties, blurring accountability and making itmore difficult for States to identify theline of responsibility.

In some cases, the regulatory over-sight capacity of the State cannot keeppace with the growth in air transportactivity unless measures are taken toensure oversight responsibilities are notneglected. A State must be adequatelyequipped to handle a significant increasein activity, whether this takes the form ofa rapidly expanding fleet, growing numberof air carriers and operating personnel, new

ECONOMIC LIBERALIZATION

service providers or greater traffic volume.Some concerns exist over new entrant

operators or non-traditional service provi-ders. This is mainly based on the premisethat such entities — especially those with-out previous experience in the field —might not have the desired safety cultureor qualified and properly trained person-nel. States must increase their efforts toensure that such companies and theirpersonnel meet the required safety andsecurity requirements for certification orlicensing. Similarly, there is a need tomaintain continuous regulatory surveil-lance over their performance after licenceshave been awarded.

Another concern is the way that theindustry may respond to difficult times.Airlines facing financial exigencies oftenresort to various cost-saving measures, andwhere these impinge on aircraft opera-

tions or related per-sonnel, they have apotentially negativeeffect on maintainingsafety and security.To deal with possi-bly harmful develop-ments arising fromstaff lay-offs or out-sourcing, each Statemust maintain effec-tive surveillance forthe safe operation ofair carriers operat-ing in its territory.

Even in harsh times, they must ensurethat aviation safety and security are notcompromised by economic or commercialconsiderations.

The commercialization or privatizationof airports and air navigation servicesproviders in some States has led to thetransfer of government operations toautonomous entities or to the private sec-tor. With this change in ownership andcontrol, such entities often place moreemphasis on commercial results and mayimplement cost cuts to achieve theirgoals. Where this occurs, the State isultimately responsible, notwithstanding thechange in ownership or management ofthese entities, for the safety, security and

economic oversight of their operations.This is why ICAO recommends that gov-ernments allow autonomous entities onthe strict condition that these bodiesobserve all relevant obligations of theState. It is further recommended thataudits be conducted to ensure compli-ance with SARPs.

Clear accountabilityThe issues highlighted above, while chal-

lenging enough, generally concern airtransport activity occurring within a singlecountry. The situation becomes more com-plicated where it involves multiple partiesin different countries, because this mayraise questions about the delineation ofresponsibility for safety and security over-sight under the existing regulatory system.

States meet their obligations to ensurecompliance with SARPs through relevantnational laws and regulation, as well as pro-visions in bilateral air services agreements.With respect to aircraft operations, theChicago Convention and certain annexesassign responsibility for safety and securityoversight to the State of an aircraft’s reg-istry, the State issuing the operating certifi-cate, and the aircraft operator itself. Wherethese parties are of the same State, as istraditional, the trail of responsibility is quiteeasy to follow: the aircraft operator isresponsible to the State that issued itsoperating certificate, which also happensto be the State of registry. As the airlineindustry evolves along with globalizationand liberalization, however, these threeparties may be associated with differentcountries. This can complicate accountabili-ty, with responsibility shared among severalparties. Following are some examples ofthe sort of issues that can arise in thesecircumstances.

Operations of foreign-registered aircraft.The past two decades have seen air oper-ators increasingly employ foreign-regis-tered aircraft for various reasons. Moreand more, aircraft might be leased or other-wise interchanged and operated outsidethe State of registry, sometimes for longperiods of time. While such arrangementsare legitimate from an economic regulatoryperspective, they can present problems

6 ICAO JOURNAL

Economic liberalization is a desirable goal, but only whereStates can capture its economic benefits without compromisingsafety and security.

Ran

dK

.Pec

k

from a safety viewpoint. Simplyput, these arrangements maylead to the bifurcation of theState of registry and that of theoperator. This could result, forexample, in a situation whereoperators are subject to differ-ing implementations of theSARPs.

Flags of convenience. A majorsafety concern is the problemof “flags of convenience” asso-ciated with foreign-registeredaircraft. (The term “flag ofconvenience” derives from themaritime industry which deno-tes a situation in which com-mercial vessels owned bynationals of one State, but reg-istered in another, are allowedto operate freely between andamong other countries.) Whenan aircraft rarely, if ever,returns to the State of reg-istry, its airworthiness oversight becomesan issue in the absence of safety oversightarrangements made by the State of registryand the State of the operator.

Broadly speaking, there are two groupsusing foreign-registered aircraft that canbe deemed to operate under a flag ofconvenience: those that do so for fiscalpurposes, and those that seek to takeadvantage of a system with minimal or noeconomic or technical oversight. The firstgroup may not pose a serious problemprovided arrangements are made betweenthe States concerned, thus ensuringproper oversight. This may be accom-plished through bilateral agreementsunder Article 83 bis, which permitsStates to transfer all or a part of certainsafety oversight responsibilities underthe Chicago Convention. Even for thisgroup, the reality remains far from satis-factory in that relatively few bilateralagreements implementing Article 83 bishave been concluded, and around theworld numerous aircraft of all types arestill subject to split oversight responsibility.But it is the second group — operatorsattempting to avoid oversight — thatcreates a major safety problem that must

ECONOMIC LIBERALIZATION

not be overlooked.Operations involving foreign flight crew.

Split oversight problems may also occurin respect of foreign-licensed flight crew.As required by Article 32 (a) of theChicago Convention, “The pilot of everyaircraft and the other members of theoperating crew of every aircraft engagedin international navigation shall be pro-vided with certificates of competency andlicences issued or rendered valid by theState in which the aircraft is registered.”As a result, where an aircraft is operatedby a State other than the State of registry,such as in the case of “dry” leases (i.e. thelease of an aircraft without crew), the prob-lem of validation of foreign crew licensesby the State of registry could arise.

The issue becomes complicated whenthe rules and requirements for crewlicences in the State of registry are atvariance with the corresponding rules inthe country that initially issued thelicences. Differences between the lawsand regulations of the State of registryand those of the operator may also existin the case of a “wet” lease (i.e. a lease ofaircraft with crew). While the lessor usual-ly remains the official operator in such

cases, the lessee may alreadyoperate aircraft of a similartype under its air operatorcertificate (AOC). It may thenhappen that the wet-leasedaircraft are operated underthe lessee’s AOC and theState of the lessee, conse-quently, becomes the State ofthe operator. In such circum-stances, proper surveillanceof the operating crew maybecome difficult. The situationcould become more compli-cated still if the operationinvolves a “mixed” crew where,for example, the cabin crew isemployed by the lessee carrierbut the cockpit crew is provid-ed by a foreign lessor carrier.

Offshore operations. An “off-shore” operation involvesflights conducted entirelyaway from the designating

State, the State of registry, and the Stateof the operator. In a situation where thedesignated airlines of a bilateral agree-ment are granted so-called 7th freedomrights, allowing them to carry traffic fromthe second State to and from a third Statewithout need for the service to provide alink with the “home” State, such airlinesmay set up an operational base in a sec-ond country for services involving thirdcountries. Where the right to carry trafficfrom one point to another within the ter-ritory of a country (a privilege known ascabotage) or the right of establishment ispermitted, air carriers may operate inthe territory of the granting State. Such asituation could raise the question as tohow the required safety oversight shouldbe handled between the State of the ope-rator and the country in which the opera-tion is based.

Multiple parties and shared brand. Opera-tions involving multiple parties and the useof another’s brand include codesharingand franchising. Codesharing has been the

NUMBER 1, 2006 7

A significant increase in air transport activity can place a strainon a State’s capacity to perform its regulatory role.

Jim

Jorg

enso

n

Wang Yuanzheng, an Economist in the Economic PolicySection of the Air Transport Bureau at ICAO head-quarters in Montreal, is the coordinator and leadauthor of the study described in this article.

continued on page 33

These are testing times. Only the leanest and fittest survive. Morethan ever, an airline’s future depends on the cost-effectiveness of itsoperations. Your engines are an important part of that equation. That’swhy CFM invests extensively in a long-term program of innovationsto improve performance. Our Tech Insertion program, for example,offers airlines a reduction in operating costs of up to 20%, whilstreducing emissions and increasing EGT margin. To find out moreabout the engines that are constantly evolving, fly to www.cfm56.com

CFM International is a joint company of Snecma, France and General Electric Company, U.S.A.

IF YOU STOP EVOLVING

YOU STOP FLYING.

AFETY oversight functions areentrusted by the Convention onInternational Civil Aviation (the

Chicago Convention) and its annexes* tosovereign States. Foreign air carriers arerequired to comply with the operatingrules of host States, but it is the State thatissued the air carrier’s operating certificatethat is primarily responsible for ensuringcompliance with safety operating rules.The State where the aircraft is registered,meanwhile, is responsible for the airwor-thiness of aircraft flying its flag. The Statesof the operator and of aircraft registry canbe one and the same with respect to a par-ticular carrier, but increasingly they arenot. States can enter into bilateral agree-ments to heal this rift for aircraft basedabroad under Article 83 bis of the ChicagoConvention, but this provision has notbeen widely put into practice.

Regional organizations appear at firstglance to have no place in this picture.Although so-called regional economicintegration organizations are permitted toaccede to several recent aviation conven-tions, the Chicago Convention is not oneof them.

The regional safety oversight organiza-tion (RSOO) has arisen through a processof gradual delegation. ICAO ContractingStates cannot transfer away their safetyoversight responsibilities (except throughArticle 83 bis agreements), but they candelegate execution of safety oversightresponsibilities. Indeed, a State delegatesthe execution of its safety functions when

SAFETY OVERSIGHT

Regional safety oversight bodies delivereconomies of scale and greater uniformity

Newly formed regional organizations have contributed to impressive improvements in oversightcapability around the globe, yet they have the potential to assume even more functions delegatedby member States.

it privatizes its civil aviation authority(CAA) or contracts with any third partyfor carrying out safety oversight tasks.This kind of outsourcing has been goingon to some degree for a long time. What isrelatively new, however, is the delegationby States of the execution of safetyresponsibilities to a regional intergovern-mental organization. The U.S. FederalAviation Administration (FAA) has beeninvolved in this trend from the beginning,providing encouragement and assistanceto emerging regional organizations forwell over 10 years. It has also encouragedICAO to accommodate and support thephenomenon.

Pros and consA regional safety oversight organi-

zation has two immediately apparentadvantages. First, economies of scale canconserve precious human and fiscal

NUMBER 1, 2006 9

MICHAEL JENNISON

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

(UNITED STATES)

S

resources. Every State, and especiallydeveloping countries, has competinguses for scarce funds. It is difficult tomuster the political will necessary to puttogether the complex and technicallysophisticated organization needed tomeet international requirements. Just asair carriers must look at every cost itemon their ledgers to stay competitive,governments, too, must look for ways tobe more productive and efficient. This iswhy a regional approach can be appealingto small countries with relatively lowlevels of aviation activity; at the same time,some major aviation powers are poolingresources in regional organizations.

Second, and nearly as important, aregional organization promotes harmo-nization of safety requirements, reducingthe burden of compliance on strugglingair carriers. Uniformity of regulatoryapproaches to safety is a key ICAO goal.

One advantage of a regional safety oversight organization is that it serves to promotethe harmonization of safety requirements, thus reducing the burden of compliance onstruggling air carriers.

Jim

Jorg

enso

n

With the global reach of aviation, carriersmust be able to fly anywhere economi-cally and stay in compliance with aviationsafety rules.

The standards and recommended prac-tices (SARPs) set out in the 18 ICAOannexes provide the backbone of the inter-national regulation of civil aviation, butthey cannot implement themselves: it is upto States to enact domestic legislation tomake the SARPs effective in their territo-ries. Model laws and regulations publishedin the ICAO Manual of Model Regulations(Document 9388) must be adapted to localconditions and differing forms of govern-ment. With leeway for wide variations, aregional organization can help ensure thata suitable regulatory approach achievesthe widest possible coverage.

Better safety at lower cost may seemtoo good to disregard, but nonethelesssome States remain reluctant to joinwith others in an RSOO. Their principalconcern is sovereignty; States are reluc-tant to give up even the execution of theirresponsibilities and surrender any controlover the details of sophisticated andexpensive programmes. Indeed, someaspects of aviation safety are close to thecore sovereign responsibilities of States

SAFETY OVERSIGHT

— the health, welfare, and safety of thepopulation. States might also be concernedthat RSOOs could become unwieldybureaucracies with inefficiencies thatundercut the gains to be had from econo-mies of scale. They might worry that theRSOO could become unresponsive andunaccountable to the very States fromwhich it derives its authority. Indeed, inter-governmental organizations sometimeslet concerns like geographic proportionalrepresentation in staffing undermineefforts to maximize productivity.

Regional safety oversight is a good ideathat can produce very real benefits, butonly if it is implemented wisely.

Origins of regional safety oversightThe oldest regional safety oversight

organizations are between 10 and 15 yearsold. There were three simultaneousspurs to their emergence in the early1990s. With the dissolution of the SovietUnion, the Interstate Aviation Committeearose to handle regional airworthinessfunctions in the Commonwealth ofIndependent States. At about the sametime, civil aviation officials in Europebanded together to harmonize divergentcivil aviation laws and regulations and to

enter into a transatlantic dia-logue centered principallyon airworthiness harmo-nization. European regionalintegration subsequentlyaccelerated with politicaldevelopments in the Euro-pean Union. The mostimportant impetus to devel-opment of regional safetyoversight organizations inthe rest of the world, howev-er, was the advent of twomajor safety audit pro-grammes that disclosedwidespread non-compliancewith the ICAO SARPs.

The first of these pivotalprogrammes was the FAA’sInternational Aviation SafetyAssessment (IASA), whichbegan after a series ofaccidents (especially the

Avianca crash on Long Island, New York inJanuary 1990) resulted in investigativereports in the press and hearings in theU.S. Congress. IASA was based onArticle 33 of the Chicago Convention,which provides that foreign certificatesand licences “shall be recognized as validby the other Contracting States, providedthat the requirements under which suchcertificates or licences were issued orrendered valid are equal to or above theminimum standards” contained in theICAO annexes. Any Contracting State mayrequire that other States demonstrate thatthey are in compliance with the SARPs.

The assessments gauged CAA compli-ance with the ICAO annexes concernedwith personnel licensing, the operation ofaircraft and the airworthiness of aircraft,through questionnaires, checklists andvoluntary visits. States found not to be incompliance were asked for formal consul-tations. The FAA then worked with eachauthority to develop an action plan forachieving compliance with internationalstandards, meanwhile freezing operationsof the affected carriers in U.S. airspaceat their current level until the deficiencieswere cured, as validated by a reassessment.

The initial results of the IASA Program-me showed that between two-thirds andthree-quarters of the nearly 100 civil avia-tion authorities assessed under the IASAProgramme and responsible for oversee-ing more than 400 air carriers operatingto U.S. airports did not meet ICAO stan-dards in important ways.

The second programme of significanceemerged at ICAO, which began in 1996 toperform voluntary safety oversight assess-ments under its then Safety OversightProgramme. Although ICAO assessmentsof the time did not give a pass-fail grade,they nonetheless disclosed that a number ofStates were not in compliance with theSARPs. Indeed, according to an article inICAO Journal, they showed that “serioussafety problems” existed, and one practicalsolution advocated by ICAO was the estab-lishment of regional safety oversight mech-anisms (see December 1997, pp. 5-6).

The Universal Safety Oversight AuditProgramme (USOAP), the mandatory

10 ICAO JOURNAL

One Annex All AnnexesBreadth of delegation

Dept

hof

dele

gatio

n

100%

0%

IACEASA

OECS

RASOS(CASSOS)

ACSA

Potential for economyand uniformity

JAA(EAC)

SRVSOP

Approximation of the level of delegated authority for severalregional safety oversight organizations as of November 2005(two RSOOs still in planning stage indicated by parentheses).Breadth of delegation represents number of ICAO annexesfor which there is oversight responsibility; depth of delegationconcerns the level of authority, ranging from simple consul-tancy to full agency for execution, granted by member States.

audit programme that was the eventualsuccessor to the voluntary one, is basedmainly on the critical elements containedin Part A of the ICAO Safety OversightManual (Document 9734), which focuseson the establishment and management ofa State’s safety oversight system. Whilethe detailed findings of such audits areconfidential, a summary of the results areprovided to the governments of allContracting States.

Both IASA and USOAP have helpedgovernments amass the necessaryresources and find the political will tobuild effective, sustainable national safetyoversight programmes. They have alsohelped authorities use these additionalresources wisely by pinpointing the areasthat need improvement. The attractive-ness of RSOOs was apparent early on.Indeed, the Organization of EasternCaribbean States had an RSOO wellbefore its first external safety audit.

Both the FAA and ICAO have nurturedand encouraged RSOOs. ICAO is currentlyadapting its key guidance documents tomeet the needs of regional organizations,primarily in the form of Part B of theSafety Oversight Manual. This new infor-mation, which has been posted on theICAO secure site, focuses on the develop-ment and management of regional safetyoversight systems.

Conceptual frameworkCreating a regional safety oversight orga-

nization actually presents a range of options.

SAFETY OVERSIGHT

The more member States it serves, thewider the potential area of uniformity; themore power granted to it by memberStates, the more efficient and effective itcan become. The degree of delegation ofoversight functions must be gauged in twodimensions: breadth and depth.

Breadth of delegation is easy to evaluate.The wider the range of responsibilities thatthe RSOO takes over, the greater the poten-tial for financial savings and uniformity. Aquick way to evaluate breadth of delega-tion is to think in terms of the competen-cies covered by the ICAO annexes; thatis, an RSOO with full safety oversightauthority would be in charge of Annexes 1,6, and 8, which address personnel licens-ing, operation of aircraft and airworthinessof aircraft, respectively. Similarly, if it hadresponsibility for accident investigationand airports, the RSOO would be concern-ed with Annexes 13 and 14, and so on.

Depth of delegation is less obvious, butperhaps even more important. It is thedegree to which member States have dele-gated the execution of particular functions.At the far end of this sliding scale, wherethe delegation is total, the RSOO is an exe-cutive agent. It carries out all the memberStates’ functions within its area of compe-tence. Thus an RSOO that has fully delegat-ed functions under Annexes 1, 6, and 8would issue licences and certificates, over-see air carrier operations and aircraft air-worthiness, and would even run surveil-lance and enforcement programmes.Perhaps the acid test would be RSOO

issuance of air operator certificates (AOCs)on behalf of the State of the operator.

At the near end of the depth-of-delega-tion scale is a regional entity that has nodelegated oversight functions at all. Thissort of regional safety organization mightbe quite effective as a consultative bodyoffering expert advice on planning, training,surveillance and a host of other services.It could promulgate model regulationsand guidance, but while such an organiza-tion might advance uniformity and techni-cal competence, it is less likely to achievesignificant economies of scale.

Most RSOOs develop incrementally.They start with both narrow and limiteddelegations, perhaps even on an experi-mental basis, until the member States aresatisfied that the RSOO will be effectiveand accountable. In any case, a meansmust be established whereby the memberStates can ensure that the RSOO remainsfully accountable to them.

Constitutional arrangements are anotherkey concern. Regional safety organizationscan be created through a number of means.One effective method is for the memberStates to negotiate a free-standing treatydedicated to the purpose. If this is notpolitically feasible or practical, it may bepossible to build on an existing regionalbody. Perhaps, for example, a provisionin the regional organization’s foundingconvention provides for establishing admi-nistrative agencies, or perhaps the mandateof an existing safety agency or authoritycan be extended. It may also be possible to

NUMBER 1, 2006 11

When implemented wisely, regional safety oversight is a good idea that can produce very real benefits.

Jim

Jorg

enso

n

amend the basic convention of an existingregional entity to create a safety authority.

In any case, the RSOO should have allthe attributes and powers specified inthe ICAO Safety Oversight Manual. Thefounding convention must create theRSOO as a legal entity under the law ofthe member States and the larger regionalentity of which it is part.

The constitution of an RSOO must ofcourse take into account the varying sys-

SAFETY OVERSIGHT

tems of government found among themember States. In addition to a mixture oftypes of government there may exist multi-ple official languages. The constitution canalso provide for the evolution of the organ-ization as experience proves useful, eitherthrough planned growth or amendment.

Finally, it is important to highlightenforcement, a core obligation under theChicago Convention, as a particular areaof concern. An effective RSOO might havedelegated wide-ranging surveillance pow-ers while leaving enforcement and thecorrection of deficiencies to the nationalauthorities. Enforcement must not beneglected, since no regulatory systemcan rely entirely on voluntary complianceand still be effective. At the same time,the use of enforcement must balance theregulatory interests of the governmentwith the rights of the individual.

Existing RSOOsThere are several RSOOs around the

world. Following is a brief description ofeight of these safety agencies.

East African Community (EAC). Kenya,Tanzania, and Uganda comprise the EAC,a regional intergovernmental organiza-tion established by treaty in 1999 andheadquartered in Arusha, Tanzania. TheEAC is committed to creating an RSOOwith fully delegated authority for safetyoversight. Kenya Airways is the EAC’sprincipal international carrier, and theKenyan CAA is leading the harmoniza-tion effort. The FAA is assisting EAC offi-cials in developing a common aviationregulatory code and training and guidancematerials. The EAC’s safety authoritycould potentially expand to include othercountries.

Organization of Eastern Caribbean States(OECS). The OECS was established bythe 1981 Treaty of Basseterre. The EasternCaribbean Civil Aviation Authority(ECCAA) was established under Article 6of the treaty, which authorizes regionalagencies. Member States have promul-gated identical civil aviation acts thatdelegate safety oversight responsibilitiesto the Director General of the ECCAA,who is headquartered in Antigua. LIAT

Airlines, which is based in Antigua andBarbuda and has 11 Caribbean govern-ments among its shareholders, has themost significant operations outside theregion. The FAA has assisted the ECCAAin developing effective safety oversightcapabilities. OECS member Statesinclude Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica,Grenada, Montserrat, Saint Lucia, SaintKitts and Nevis, and Saint Vincent andthe Grenadines (Anguilla and the BritishVirgin Islands are associate members).

Regional Safety Oversight System for theCaribbean (RASOS). In 2001, the directorsgeneral of civil aviation (DGCAs) repre-senting 13 Caribbean States formed theAssociation of Civil Aviation Authorities ofthe Caribbean (ACAAC), based in Kingston,Jamaica. RASOS is the association’s ope-rating arm. Created by memorandum ofagreement among the directors general,RASOS focuses on harmonizing rules, stan-dards, inspection procedures and sharingof technical resources. It has developed acadre of experienced operations and airwor-thiness inspectors available to the memberCAAs. RASOS is developing training facili-ties and technical libraries, and encouragesharmonized guidance materials. Jamaicaand Trinidad and Tobago, for example,have published harmonized manuals.RASOS is also encouraging regional harmo-nization of enforcement. RASOS memberStates include the OECS members identi-fied above, plus Barbados, Guyana, Haiti,Jamaica, Suriname, and Trinidad andTobago.

Caribbean Aviation Safety and SecurityOversight System (CASSOS). The CaribbeanCommunity and Common Market (CARI-COM) was established by the 1973 Treatyof Chaguaramas, which, like the OECStreaty, provides for regional agencies.CARICOM is in the process of establishingCASSOS as an aviation safety mechanismthat will essentially elevate and expand

12 ICAO JOURNAL

MORE INFORMATIONFROM ICAO JOURNAL

A number of ICAO Journal articles havefocused on various aspects of regional safe-ty oversight. Below appears a summary ofprevious articles.

For more on the ICAO Safety Oversight Pro-gramme and its successor, the USOAP, see:• “Recent assessments disclose serious

safety problems that call for internationalaction,” Issue 10/1997, pp. 5-6;

• “Safety assessment proves helpful inisolating the problem areas, identifyingsolutions,” Issue 1/1999, page 15;

• “Expanding programme to adopt systemsapproach to future audits,” Issue 9/2003,pp. 4-7; and

• “ICAO and FAA collaboration strengthenssafety oversight initiatives worldwide,”Issue 9/2003, pp. 11-12.

For more on ACSA, see:• “New regional body has enhanced the

safety oversight capability of its memberStates,” Issue 9/2003, pp. 13-15.

For a recent article on EASA, see:• “New regulatory agency endowed with

range of powers to ensure its effective-ness,” Issue 3/2005, pp. 16-18.

For more on JAA/ECAC, see:• “European inspection programme targets

aircraft during airport turnarounds,” Issue9/2003, pp. 20-21.

On the practice of outsourcing, see:• “ANS providers place strong emphasis

on implementing best practices,” Issue3/2003, pp. 12-14; and

• “Commercialization of service providerdepends on successful strategies,” Issue3/2003, pp. 15-16.

* The technical annexes to the Chicago Convention,numbering 18 in all, contain provisions for the safe,secure, orderly and efficient development of interna-tional aviation.

Michael Jennison is Assistant Chief Counsel forInternational Affairs and Legal Policy at the FAA.

continued on page 34

HE road to a liberalized air trans-port environment is fraught withobstacles, but the positive result

makes the ordeal worthwhile, accordingto a senior U.S. policymaker who spoke atICAO headquarters late last year.

“There is nothing easy about libera-lizing aviation markets,” admitted JeffreyN. Shane, the Under Secretary for Policyin the U.S. Department of Transportation(DOT), in delivering the second annualDr. Assad Kotaite lecture to the MontrealBranch of the Royal Aeronautical Societyon 8 December. The speech by Mr. Shane,which referred to a pending U.S.-EuropeanUnion (EU) Open Skies Agreement as anentirely new level of liberalization totransatlantic air services that would “facil-itate the most important reinvention ofinternational aviation we have ever seen,”

ECONOMIC LIBERALIZATION

Icy waters of liberalization provenot so cold in reality

Aviation liberalization is not for the faint of heart, U.S. policymaker says of the ongoing effortto liberalize international markets.

ICAO SECRETARIATrecalled the lessons learned from the U.S.experience in advancing aviation liberali-zation over a period of three decades.

While open skies agreements are com-monplace today, early U.S. efforts to intro-duce liberalization — both domesticallyand later in international markets —encountered strong resistance. Domesticderegulation was enshrined in U.S. law in1977 only after highly contentious Senatehearings where the proponents and oppo-nents of continued economic regulationof the industry came out in force,recounted Mr. Shane. Shortly thereafter,the U.S. government began a quest forliberal bilateral agreements, a processthat made the United States highlyunpopular within the international avia-tion community.

“Aviation liberalization is not for thefaint of heart,” Mr. Shane summarized asthe first and most important lessonlearned. “It is the classic good deed thatwill not go unpunished.”

The debate, characterized by Mr. Shaneas tense and at times nasty, involvedtrading partners, established U.S. inter-national airlines, and the InternationalAir Transport Association (IATA), whosesystem of multilateral tariff agreementswas not compatible with a U.S. policy ofprice competition. But despite disagree-ment even within the U.S. governmentover the virtues of liberalization, a numberof liberalized bilateral agreements soontook place with trading partners inEurope, the Middle East and Asia, estab-lishing “an important new model forinternational aviation relations.”

The early successes were followed by aperiod of Congressional lobbying by U.S.international airlines, which complainedbitterly about the new agreements.

Congress responded with new legislationthat placed greater emphasis on theconsequences of liberal aviation agree-ments for U.S. carriers, with the goal ofstrengthening the competitive position ofU.S. air carriers to at least assure equalityof opportunity with foreign carriers. Therewere also numerous public hearings onaviation policy, and a Congressionalreport that was highly critical of the per-formance of the government agenciesresponsible for aviation policy.

As a result, the United States was lessaggressive about pursuing liberal agree-ments for a period of years, with U.S. nego-tiators focusing less on grand reformsthan on individual market-specific issues,recalled Mr. Shane. During this period ofrelative quiet in international aviation rela-tions, U.S. airlines began to exploit moreeffectively the broad new freedoms thathad been delivered — sometimes overtheir own vehement objections — in theearlier bilateral agreements.

“In fact,” recounted Mr. Shane, “the per-formance of U.S. airlines in internationalmarkets during the 1980s was extraordi-nary. They carried nearly twice the num-ber of passengers in 1990 as in 1980; theirmarket share grew by about 20 percent;their revenues attributable to internationaloperations more than doubled; and thepercentage contribution of internationalservices to their overall system-widerevenues increased by about 20 percent.

“Consumers benefited in even more dra-matic ways. In 1980 there had been17 U.S. gateways with non-stop servicesto Europe; by 1990, that number hadincreased to 25. The number of non-stoproutes across the North Atlantic — city-pairs with non-stop service — grew from92 in 1980 to 161 in 1990. Similarly dramatic

ICAO JOURNAL

Jeffrey Shane, Under Secretary for Policy inthe U.S. Department of Transport, right,with ICAO Council President Dr. AssadKotaite. Mr. Shane delivered the 2nd annualDr. Assad Kotaite lecture in Montreal inDecember.

Ric

har

dT.

Slat

ter

T

14

increases were seen in the number ofgateways and non-stop routes to theAsia/Pacific region and to Latin America.Passenger growth was consistentlystronger in liberalized markets than innon-liberalized markets. Cargo carried byU.S. airlines more than doubled between1980 and 1990.”

The next major step in the U.S. embra-cement of liberalization was the CitiesProgramme proposed in 1990. Under thisinitiative, if an airline from a liberal tradingpartner wished to serve a U.S. gatewaythat was not listed for service in the appli-cable bilateral agreement and no U.S.airline was offering to serve the samecity, the new service would be permittedwithout the need for new negotiation.“DOT decided, in other words, not to letthe traditional bilateral negotiatingprocess stand in the way of beneficial airservice without a good reason,” Mr. Shaneexplained.

The programme represented a dramaticdeparture from past policy as even themost liberal bilateral agreements of thetime still contained major restrictions onthe operation of airlines in internationalmarkets, many required for the purposeof protecting U.S. airlines, particularlyafter the Congressional criticism of thelate 1970s and early 1980s.

After finalizing this proposal, a number ofnew services were launched without furthernegotiations. And while there were somecomplaints from U.S. airlines, it was “noth-ing like the attacks of a decade before,”remarked Mr. Shane.

The positive experience with the CitiesProgramme led to a new and even moreexciting concept: the possibility of an“open skies” approach to international airservices, a policy that was adopted in1992. Under this approach, airlines ofcountries that agreed to open their airservices markets to U.S. carriers wouldreceive, in return, open access to andthrough the United States.

Predictably, the initiative to expand libe-ralization was criticized by U.S. airlines,which asserted that the first open skiesagreement, signed with the Netherlandsin 1992, granted KLM access to every

ECONOMIC LIBERALIZATION

point in the United States and from anyU.S. point to any point in the world with-out awarding benefits of similar magni-tude to the United States, as requiredby the International Air TransportationCompetition Act of 1990.

Mr. Shane observed that the first OpenSkies Agreement was only possiblebecause the legislative requirement toobtain “benefits of similar magnitude”had been interpreted in the broadest pos-sible way by DOT, an interpretation thatwas never challenged. According to thisview of the legislation, U.S. negotiatorswere not expected to obtain “preciselyequal economic benefits.”

In its final order adopting the new policy,pointed out Mr. Shane, DOT addressedthe contentious issue with the followingstatement:

“We are frankly and firmly committedto freer trade in civil aviation services,and our commitment is grounded, inlarge part, on our experience with boththe market-oriented and the restrictiveapproaches that govern many of ourcurrent bilateral aviation relationships.We have seen much larger dividends inthose markets which allow greater scopefor airline prices and service initiatives.Indeed, if we were to embark on negotia-tion initiatives only where we could antici-pate precisely equal economic benefits,we would have been deterred from someof the most successful agreements wehave achieved in the last decade. As withthe Cities Programme before, we find

that the Open-Skies Programme repre-sents a further progression along thepath toward a truly open environment forinternational aviation service. …”

This initial experience with open skies,in other words, made clear that there isconsiderable latitude in the implementa-tion of legislative mandates. “Legislationrelating to economic policy is typicallynuanced and rarely categorical,” Mr. Shaneexplained. “Thus, statutory languageenacted in 1980 to moderate perceivedliberalizing excesses on the part of U.S.aviation delegations was no obstacle tothe adoption of the Open Skies policy adozen years later.”

Among the lessons learned from theU.S. experience with implementing libera-lization over the decades, remarked Mr.Shane, liberalization gets easier with time.

“Partly,” he quipped, “that’s becauseyou develop calluses. But mostly, it’sbecause the sceptics discover that the icywaters of liberalization really aren’t thatbad once you have been swimming inthem for a while.”

Another lesson, he said, is that liberali-zation begets more liberalization.

In this respect, Mr. Shane expressedconfidence that a tentative U.S.-EU agree-ment on transatlantic services will result

NUMBER 1, 2006 15

International aviation liberalization has been beneficial for both industry and consumers,although its introduction was controversial and initially opposed by many establishedU.S. international airlines.

Ran

dK

.Pec

k

This article is a summary of the 2nd annual Dr. AssadKotaite lecture, presented by Jeffrey N. Shane, UnderSecretary for Policy in the U.S. Department of Trans-portation to the Montreal Branch of the Royal Aero-nautical Society on 8 December 2005. Mr. Shane’s speechis available in its entirety at the U.S. DOT website(www.dot.gov/affairs/shanesp120805).

continued on page 34

FFICIALS of the United NationsOffice on Drugs and Crime(UNODC) met with ICAO officials

at the end of November to explore oppor-tunities for greater cooperation in theinternational fight against terrorism. TheUNODC is the office within the UNSecretariat that is responsible for interna-tional action against illicit drugs, crimeand terrorism.

ICAO and UNODC already cooperatein some respects, in recent years con-ducting joint activities to promote aware-ness of terrorism countermeasures.ICAO, for example, has taken part in sev-eral seminars conducted by the UNODCTerrorism Protection Branch (TPB), andexperts from UNODC and ICAO havemade joint presentations at several ICAOaviation security seminars and workshops

AVIATION SECURITY

Cooperation is an important aspectof effective fight against terrorism

While much progress has been made in strengthening the legal aviation security regime,the widespread ratification of legal instruments remains a crucial goal that calls for greatercooperation between international organizations.

JEAN-PAUL LABORDE • ANDREA TRESO

UNITED NATIONS OFFICE

ON DRUGS AND CRIME

O

since 2004. Both ICAO and UNODC aremembers of the UN Counter-TerrorismImplementation Task Force, which focuseson issues such as how to strengthen thecapacity of the UN system to assist Statesin combating terrorism.

With civil aviation a primary target ofterrorist acts, ICAO has become animportant actor within the UN system inthe fight against terrorism and the promo-tion of international cooperation in securitymatters. Prevention and suppression ofterrorism, as well as efforts to facilitateinternational cooperation, are also amongthe main goals of UNODC, which is head-quartered in Vienna.

TPB’s mandate is to address the crimi-nal justice aspects of terrorism, a task itfulfils by providing technical assistance toStates that request it. This assistancefocuses on efforts to ratify and implementthe 12 (soon to be 13) international conven-tions and protocols, also known as “uni-versal instruments,” relating to terrorism.Among these instruments are five avia-

tion security treatiesdeveloped through theICAO framework tocombat acts of unlawfulinterference with civilaviation. Concurrently,ICAO assists States toimplement the provi-sions of Annex 17 to the1944 Chicago Conven-tion. Hence the activi-ties of UNODC andICAO in their respec-tive fields of criminallaw and aviation secu-rity are highly comple-mentary.

Legal framework. A UN resolutionadopted shortly after the events of11 September 2001 legally binds all 191 UNmember States to comply with the provi-sions of the universal instruments, includ-ing the five aviation security conventions,by introducing appropriate domestic legisla-tion. Collectively, the instruments representa global legal framework for preventingterrorist acts and for pursuing perpetratorsof terrorism, thereby harmonizing domes-tic laws and bridging gaps in different legalsystems. The instruments oblige State par-ties, for example, to adopt legislation thathelps establish common definitions of cer-tain terrorist offences while clarifying juris-diction on the basis of territorial consi-derations, the nationality of the victims orperpetrators, and the country of registra-tion of the aircraft in question.

By laying down the basic principle of“extradite or prosecute,” the tools suppliedto States by the universal instruments arevery powerful. It will take still more time,however, for all States to become partiesto the aviation security treaties and toincorporate their provisions into alldomestic laws, thereby establishing a trulyuniversal legal regime against acts ofunlawful interference with civil aviation.

The five aviation security conventionsthat are part of the global legal frameworkcomprise the following air law instru-ments, listed in order of their adoption bydiplomatic conferences (all five conven-tions have entered into force):• The Convention on Offences andCertain Other Acts Committed on BoardAircraft (Tokyo, 1963);• The Convention for the Suppression ofUnlawful Seizure of Aircraft (The Hague,1970);

ICAO JOURNAL

UNODC’s TPB has provided counter-terrorism legislativetraining to more than 1,000 national officials in charge ofcounter-terrorism efforts. Pictured is a regional TPB workshopunder way in Nairobi in December 2005.

UN

OD

Cp

ho

to

16

• The Convention for the Suppression ofUnlawful Acts Against the Safety of CivilAviation (Montreal, 1971);• The Protocol for the Suppression ofUnlawful Acts of Violence at AirportsServing International Civil Aviation, sup-plementary to the Convention for theSuppression of Unlawful Acts against theSafety of Civil Aviation (Montreal, 1988);and• The Convention on the Marking ofPlastic Explosives for the Purpose ofDetection (Montreal, 1991).

The other seven universal instrumentsrelating to the prevention and suppres-sion of terrorism are as follows (again,listed in chronological order):• The Convention on the Prevention andPunishment of Crimes against InternationalProtected Persons (New York, 1973);• The International Convention againstthe Taking of Hostages (New York, 1979);• The Convention on the Physical Protec-tion of Nuclear Material (Vienna, 1980) andits Amendment adopted on 8 July 2005(which has not yet entered into force);• The Convention for the Suppression ofUnlawful Acts Against the Safety ofMaritime Navigation (Rome, 1988) andits Protocol adopted on 14 October 2005(which has not yet entered into force);• The Protocol for the Suppression ofUnlawful Acts against the Safety of FixedPlatforms Located on the ContinentalShelf (Rome, 1988) and its Protocoladopted on 14 October 2005 (which hasnot yet entered into force);• The International Convention for theSuppression of Terrorist Bombing (NewYork, 1997); and• The International Convention for theSuppression of the Financing of Terrorism(New York, 1999).

In addition to promoting the ratificationand implementation of these 12 instru-ments, TPB’s work will now include, inaccordance with Resolution 2005/19 ofthe Economic and Social Council of theUnited Nations (ECOSOC), the promo-tion of the International Convention onthe Suppression of Acts of NuclearTerrorism. This instrument was adoptedby the UN General Assembly in April 2005

AVIATION SECURITY

and opened for signature in New York inSeptember 2005.

TPB, under an expanded mandateapproved by the UN General Assemblyin October 2002, has contributed to consi-derable improvement in the status ofratification and, more pointedly, theimplementation of the aviation securityconventions and other universal instru-ments in the past three years. It has, forexample, provided legislative and capacity-building assistance, including specializedtraining for criminal justice officials, espe-cially judges and prosecutors, in closecoordination with the Counter-TerrorismCommittee (CTC) of the Security Counciland its Executive Directorate (CTED).On request from States, moreover, it hashelped establish effective mechanismsfor international cooperation in the crimi-nal aspects of terrorism, especially extra-dition and mutual legal assistance.

The TPB’s achievements are evident inthe numbers. By mid-2001, only two Stateshad ratified all of the universal instru-ments, including the aviation securitytreaties; by September 2005, however,this number had risen to 70. Over 110 Stateshave been assisted through regional andsub-regional workshops or more directlythrough bilateral efforts to ratify and

implement the aviation security treatiesand other universal instruments. During2004-05, for example, TPB organized10 regional workshops at which 75 Stateswere assisted in the drafting of criminallaws and legislative amendments, manyof which focus on aviation security. Inapproximately one-third of these States,new legislation has been drafted, while in37 of the 75 countries TPB has trainedjudges and prosecutors in the applicationof the universal instruments for interna-tional judicial cooperation.

In addition to assistance for the 75 Statesthat participated in regional workshopsup to September 2005, TPB has providedlegislative advice to 47 governments thattook part in national workshops conduct-ed by UNODC. Through such workshops,TPB has provided counter-terrorism legis-lative training to more than 1,000 nationalofficials in charge of counter-terrorismwork, and has familiarized these officialswith the criminal law aspects of the avia-tion security treaties and other universalinstruments.

NUMBER 1, 2006 17

The creation of a global legal framework for the fight against terrorism is a significantaccomplishment. It will take time, however, before all States become parties to thesecurity-related legal instruments, and still more time before they incorporate theirprovisions into all domestic laws.

Ger

ryEr

cola

ni

Jean-Paul Laborde is the Chief of the TerrorismPrevention Branch of the United Nations Office onDrugs and Crime (UNODC). He is based at UNODC’sheadquarters in Vienna. Andrea Treso, CrimePrevention Expert, Terrorism Prevention Branch, worksin UNODC’s New York Liaison Office.

continued on page 36

LONG with a growing number ofproactive air carriers around theworld, Varig Airlines recently

established its own line operations safetyaudit (LOSA) programme to observeflight crews at work so that it can identifysafety issues in a routine operationalcontext. Varig’s LOSA implementation isnotable because it was developed entirelyin-house using ICAO Document 9803.Significantly, the quality of its data isjudged to be very high, and are thereforesuitable for entry in the LOSA archivesmaintained by the University of Texas atAustin. This research material is used byhuman factors specialists to identify thestrengths and weaknesses of an airline’sflight operations system.

ICAO Document 9803, essentially a blue-print for setting up a LOSA programme,was compiled following ICAO’s decision toendorse LOSA as the primary tool fordeveloping countermeasures to humanerror in aviation operations. It was pro-duced with extensive input from humanfactors experts at The University ofTexas at Austin, Continental Airlines, USAirways, and the international offshoot ofthe Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA).The manual describes basic error concepts,implementation methodology, and thesafety change process that should occurfollowing implementation of LOSA. Itincludes a case study focused on oneairline’s experience in implementing theprogramme, as well as examples of appro-priate reporting forms and a list of recom-mended reading and reference material.*

HUMAN FACTORS

Varig joins growing list of operatorsperforming line operations safety audits

LOSA implementation provides the air carrier with a systemic snapshot of flight operationsthat can engender a collaborative effort to improve safety.

CAPT. RONALD VAN DER PUT

VARIG AIRLINES

(BRAZIL)

A

While providing valuable guidance toairlines, the ICAO document was neverintended to convert readers into instantexpert observers or LOSA auditors. Varigused the manual as an introduction to theconcept, methodology and tools of LOSA.The company worked with both ICAOand human factors experts at theUniversity of Texas at Austin, where theLOSA concept was conceived, to developand implement an initiative that it callsthe Programme for Observation of LineFlights (PROL).

The in-house effort to create the newsafety programme at Varig formally com-menced in mid-2004,when the airline joinedforces with ICAF, aBrazilian human factorsresearch centre, andBrazil’s Civil AviationAuthority (DAC) toestablish a team withinthe air carrier responsi-ble for implementingthe LOSA concept. InNovember of that year,Varig and ICAF sentsafety specialists to anICAO LOSA seminar inSeattle, held concur-rently with an International Air TransportAssociation (IATA) human factors meet-ing. Following these informative events,Varig and ICAF signed a memorandum ofagreement in December 2004 to formallyestablish the airline’s LOSA research anddevelopment team.

Varig’s LOSA team, which began itswork with weekly meetings, soon recruitedtwo additional members, one a represen-tative of Brazil’s National Pilots Union(SNA), the other a retired captain who

had gained experience implementingLOSA at EVA Air following his retirementas a line pilot at Varig.

The most demanding tasks facing theteam were the creation of an in-houseLOSA manual and the selection of theobservers. With the support of aircraft fleetmanagers and the SNA, the LOSA teamnarrowed an initial pool of 1,800 pilots to85 on the basis of administrative files.With feedback from fleet managers, thecompany then identified 30 captains who

18 ICAO JOURNAL

Varig Airlines’ LOSA programme initially focused on Boeing737 operations, but has expanded to other fleets includingVarig’s long-haul aircraft. The programme’s first group ofinstructors and observer pilots, shown above, commencedformal LOSA observations in August 2005.

were mainly instructors or check airmenwith experience in cockpit resource mana-gement (CRM) and line-oriented flighttraining (LOFT). Twenty percent of thisselect group were retired line pilots whohad continued working for Varig as flightsimulator instructors. Among the newLOSA observers were pilot union mem-bers, both of the SNA and the VarigAirlines Pilots Association (APVAR).

The next step was to develop a trainingsyllabus for the newly appointed obser-vers, but before beginning this processVarig signed a protocol with the SNA toofficially launch the programme. Theentire group of observers was required tosign a contract binding them to upholdthe programme’s protocol and statementof ethics, including a promise to maintainconfidentiality. The contract, in fact, pro-vides for an observer’s dismissal in theevent that collected data are used in aninappropriate manner.

An educational campaign was thenundertaken, beginning with the electronicdissemination of the protocol and a bulletindescribing the programme guidelines toall Varig pilots. The programme protocolwas also posted at the Varig CorporateSafety Office website. No stone was leftunturned in this effort to promote aware-ness: information folders were sent toevery line pilot, briefings were providedfor both flight crews and ground staff,

and banners were hung at operationaldispatch offices. The SNA Safety Officealso backed the awareness campaign,posting the protocol and informationabout PROL at its website.

The Varig team joined an IATA humanfactors working group in May 2005 to learnmore about the latest LOSA developments.About the same time, the National Acci-dent Prevention Committee (CNPAA), acomponent of the Brazilian AccidentInvestigation and Prevention Agency(CENIPA), convened a safety meetingattended by representatives of regulatoryauthorities as well as flight safety officersfrom aircraft operators based all overBrazil. This led to the creation of a LOSAtask force with the goal of developing regu-lation based on ICAO Document 9803.The task force was also directed to draft arelated amendment to the CENIPA acci-dent prevention programme.

Varig’s first course for LOSA observerswas held in June 2005. The training syl-labus comprised two days, of which thefirst — attended by representatives of theBrazilian Accident Investigation andPrevention Agency, the Brazilian CivilAviation Authority and airline safety offi-cers from outside Varig — featured infor-mation of a general nature, including areview of the Tenerife runway accident of1977 from the perspective of a safetyanalysis tool known as the threat anderror management (TEM) framework.(For more on TEM, see “ICAO examiningways to monitor safety during normal ATSoperations,” Issue No. 3/2004, pp 14-16).

One important issue raised by theBrazilian Civil Aviation Authority on the firstday of the course was the necessity forthe airline to officially create an observerfunction before observers couldlegally occupy a cockpit jump-seat. The second day of thecourse focused more on practicaltraining, and was therefore limit-ed to observers and companytraining department members.

The initial training effortwas followed by on-the-jobtraining which involved moni-toring flight deck activities on

both legs of the Boeing 737 shuttle oper-ation between Rio de Janeiro and SaoPaulo. The data collected during thistraining exercise, which involved a totalof 38 flights by two variants of the B737over a 10-day period, was analysed usingspecial software to generate Varig’s firstLOSA reports. The results of this earlyanalysis are shown in the accompanyingtable. As indicated, during the practicaltraining phase observers identified a totalof 66 threats, 91 errors that needed to bemanaged by the flight crews, and 35 occa-sions when the aircraft entered an unde-sired state. (An “undesired aircraft state”is said to occur when the flight crewplaces the aircraft in a situation whereexisting margins of safety are reduced.)

With this practical experience in hand,the observers participated in an exerciseknown as “recalibration” training, inwhich observation forms were reviewedand discussed with a focus on how threatsand errors had been classified, and areview of the findings of undesired air-craft states. The recalibration process wasuseful in resolving doubts about how to fillout the form and featured electronic pass-words known only to the programmemanager so that individual observerscould be identified when necessary.

The results of the shuttle flight obser-vations were shared with fleet managersand the shuttle service crews, but onlyafter the data had been carefully analysedand software issues had been addressed.Pilots and fleet managers were informedthat the data would not be used to reporterrors to management for disciplinaryreasons, thereby respecting the pro-gramme’s requirement for confidentialityand immunity from punishment.

HUMAN FACTORS

NUMBER 1, 2006 19

Undesired Flight Phase Threats Errors Aircraft State

Pre-flight/taxi-out 39 31 13

Take-off/climb 8 17 5

Cruise 7 5 1

Descent/appch/landing 9 36 16

Taxi-in 3 2 0

Total 66 91 35

Results of initial LOSA reports submitted byobserver trainees at Varig Airlines in mid-2005

Toward the end of June Varig made a for-mal presentation on its implementation ofLOSA to ICAO and The LOSA Colla-borative, a special unit partnered with theUniversity of Texas in the research, devel-opment and implementation of LOSA world-wide. The significance of the data collectedduring the observers’ training exercise andlater analysed was discussed in depth, withhuman factors experts offering practicaladvice. Another presentation on Varig’s

experience was made at a LOSA workshoporganized by the SNA in Rio de Janeiro, thefirst international workshop of its kind.

The next milestone was the launch offormal observations in August 2005. Theofficial programme was initiated with thegoal of observing 400 flights, a validsample of the airline’s total operations,involving some 14,000 monthly depar-tures. The flights earmarked for LOSAhad to reflect a cross-section of differenttypes of operations and consequently

HUMAN FACTORS

this selection was influenced by factorssuch as aircraft type, destination, time ofday and type of crew.

The LOSA team identified a three-month period for performing the observa-tions, from August to October inclusive, inpart to avoid conducting the audits duringhigh season. Keeping the observers’schedule up-to-date proved to be a full-timetask because of aircraft type changes thatwould affect the schedule, as well as the

requirement to avoidconducting LOSA onany flights involvingcheckrides or instruc-tion. Because schedul-ing adjustments were sodemanding, the LOSAteam recruited a coor-dinator who could alsoaddress other adminis-trative issues that mightarise. A company flightattendant who alsoserved as a safety advis-er was chosen for thispivotal role.

At the time of writ-ing in mid-November2005, 350 flights hadbeen audited, and theVarig Safety Office hadbegun evaluating thequality of the dataand classifying infor-mation on the basis ofthreats, errors and unde-sired aircraft states. Asflight crew participationin PROL is entirely vol-untary, it is encourag-

ing that refusal to take part has so farbeen very limited; among the first 350planned observation flights, LOSA obser-vers were denied flight deck access onjust five occasions.

As the collection of data grew, fleetmanagers and LOSA team representa-tives from ICAF and SNA convened around table meeting in order to validatethe process, in particular the verificationof routine operational issues related tospecific aircraft types.

The programme protocol requires thatthe Varig Safety Office provides both man-agement and flight crews with a reportbased on the completed analysis of col-lected data. It also calls for managementto prepare a report on the correctiveactions recommended as a result of thePROL report; this is why it is importantfor fleet managers to participate in theanalysis of data. Once corrective actionshave been implemented, it is the responsi-bility of the Safety Office to follow up anddetermine whether the corrective actionswere adequately implemented.

Initiatives such as PROL are not possi-ble, of course, without funding. In thecase of Varig, the cost of the programmeentails the services of three full-time safe-ty specialists in the company’s SafetyOffice as well as the part-time employ-ment of personnel from ICAF and oneconsultant for a period of six months. Inaddition, LOSA observers are paid accord-ing to their status: active pilots receive thesame hourly rate earned on flight duty,while retired pilots are paid at the samerate as a simulator instructor. Aside fromthese costs, PROL required the attentionof a number of staff members, and depend-ed on support from various departments.It called on the company’s informationtechnology department for support indeveloping web-based forms; from crewscheduling when coordinating the obser-vers’ activities; and from the chief pilotand fleet managers when analysing thedata. Not to be overlooked, the LOSA teamalso required support from the company’slegal office, since it was essential forlawyers to review the LOSA protocol andrelated contracts.

Including the cost of installing a suit-able software programme, in this case aproduct known as Sphinx at a price of U.S. $5,800, the total cost of performing

20 ICAO JOURNAL

UNION SUPPORTS FLIGHTSAFETY INITIATIVE

Brazil’s National Pilots Union (SNA) understands that the successof safety initiatives such as LOSA depends on the full support offront-line personnel because the monitoring of normal flight oper-ations must be conducted on a voluntary basis. But while no oneis compelled to participate, considering the value of real opera-tional data to safety enhancement and the assurance of confi-dentiality, cooperation can only benefit everyone.

An effective approach to safety enhancement requires frequentand realistic snapshots of the civil aviation system that canreveal threats that may led to an accident. LOSA is just such atool: trained observers build a database used to generate reportson the strengths and weaknesses of the system. Reports on LOSAresults can provide a starting point for remedial actions designedto address shortcomings. In this collaborative environment, oper-ating personnel work side-by-side with management and safetyauthorities to collect insightful operational data that supports aproactive approach to safety issues, instead of a reactive one.

Aside from a safer operation, the business-like approach toflight safety represented by programmes such as LOSA can allowan airline to reduce its costs by, for example, negotiating lowerinsurance premiums.

* Document 9803, Line Operations Safety Audit(LOSA), can be obtained from the ICAO DocumentSales Unit, tel. +1 (514) 954-8022; e-mail sales@icao.int.

Capt. Ronald Van der Put is the Corporate Flight SafetyManager at Varig Airlines. This article was co-authoredby Dr. Rosana D’Orio, the Human Factors CoordinatorFlight Safety at Varig, and Dr. Selma Ribeiro, of ICAF, aBrazilian human factors research centre.

continued on page 36

continued on page 37

CAPT. CÉLIO EUGÊNIO DE ABREU JÚNIOR

NATIONAL PILOTS UNION

(BRAZIL)

ORK aimed directly towardsthe implementation of Mode Ssurveillance in Europe com-

menced in earnest several years ago withthe adoption of the initial implementationstrategy for secondary surveillance radar(SSR) Mode S enhanced surveillance.Although those initial plans were signifi-cantly modified over the intervening years,the work undertaken in the mid-1990sresulted in the establishment of a solidplatform, based on recognized cost-benefitmetrics, for implementing both Mode Selementary and Mode S enhanced surveil-lance. The implementation is now beingcoordinated and advanced through acombination of two Eurocontrol program-mes, one focused on Mode S; the otheron the airborne collision avoidance sys-tem (ACAS).

SSR Mode S is, of course,significantly different from aconventional radar system.Simply put, conventionalSSR (i.e. SSR Modes A andC) regularly interrogates allaircraft within range, where-as a Mode S radar station,using ground station inter-rogator codes, establishesselective interrogations withindividual aircraft within itscoverage area.

Before describing thestatus of Mode S imple-mentation in Europe,including the steps thathave been taken to resolvecertain implementation

MODE S IMPLEMENTATION

Radar surveillance upgrade bringsgreater safety and efficiency

Although not yet fully operational, the evolutionary transition to Mode S surveillance begunin Europe has already brought benefits to crowded airspace.

JOHN LAW

EUROCONTROL

issues, it is useful to first review therationale for upgrading Europe’s surveil-lance system.

Important system upgradeIn Europe, the predominant reason for

upgrading from surveillance based onconventional and monopulse SSR (MSSR)Mode A/C to radar based on Mode S is tomaintain the existing level of flight safetydespite rapid traffic growth. In airspaceexperiencing high traffic density, theexisting SSR/MSSR stations are reachingthe limit of their operational capability, aproblem compounded by radio frequencycongestion. In this surveillance environ-ment, Mode S selective interrogation willnot only maintain probability of targetdetection at an acceptable level, but willalso improve the quality and integrity ofdetection, identification and altitudereporting. These improvements translateinto benefits in terms of safety, capacity

and efficiency, which are essential tosupport future air traffic management(ATM) needs in Europe’s high trafficdensity airspace.

The first step in upgrading Europe’ssurveillance system is to establish Mode Selementary surveillance (ELS). This ad-vancement will present the air trafficcontroller with a better surveillance pictureby eliminating synchronous garble, provid-ing improved tracking through greater dataintegrity and precision, and enhanced verti-cal tracking through provision of 25-footaltitude reporting increments. ELS will alsoenable system acquisition of downlinkedaircraft identification.

The second step is known as Mode Senhanced surveillance (EHS). This buildson the concept of elementary surveillanceby providing the extraction of further air-craft-derived information known as down-linked aircraft parameters.

Ground acquisition of downlinked air-craft parameters will givecontrollers better informa-tion for the tactical separa-tion of aircraft, while alsocreating the opportunity todeploy better controllersupport tools using aircraft-derived data. Downlinkedparameters include suchdata as magnetic heading,indicated airspeed, verticalrate and the altitude select-ed by the flight crew in theaircraft’s autoflight system(commonly known as “selectedaltitude”). Currently, Mode Senhanced surveillance isbeing implemented in majorterminal control areas andthe en-route airspace of

W

NUMBER 1, 2006 21

OverlappingMode S Radar

Coverage

1234567+

Figure 1. Extent of European Mode S radar coverage at the end of 2005.

three European States: France, Germanyand the United Kingdom.

Mode S and ACAS Programme. TheEurocontrol Mode S and ACAS imple-mentation programme coordinates theintroduction of Mode S technology inEurope, and involves a number of Statesresponsible for traffic management inmuch of the highest density airspace inEurope. It provides participating Statesand air navigation service providers withcommon tools to enable the implementa-tion of interoperable Mode S groundstation designs. These tools include oper-

ational guidelines and procedures, sys-tem implementation concepts and safetyassessments, and delivery of interfacespecifications.

Performance monitoring tools are alsoavailable, with the establishment of acoordinated airborne monitoring projectto track progress of installation of Mode Stransponders on the aircraft fleet and toprovide confirmation of their functionalperformance. In addition, specimen aero-nautical information circulars are beingdeveloped as necessary, and support isprovided for the development of Mode Sspecifications by the European Orga-nization for Civil Aviation Equipment(EUROCAE) as well as for the ICAO stan-dards. The programme also supports theEuropean Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)and national airworthiness authorities intheir development of Mode S airworthi-ness, equipment carriage and certifica-tion requirements.

Mode S radar installation. A significantnumber of operational Mode S radarshave now been installed in Europe by

MODE S IMPLEMENTATION

civil and military operators alike. By theend of 2005, over 50 Mode S systems hadbeen installed for air traffic control (ATC)or air defence, and more than 80 radarsare expected to be operational by theend of 2006. In addition, a further 14Mode S radars are being utilized for test,research and development purposes.Figure 1 illustrates the extent of EuropeanMode S radar coverage at the end of 2005;good multiple coverage and redundancylevels have been achieved.

Code allocation process. It is essentialfor each Mode S interrogator to be allo-

cated a separate interrogator code toprevent interference by other Mode Sinterrogators operating in coincident orcontiguous airspace. The original designof the Mode S system limited the numberof interrogator codes available (exclud-ing zero) to 15 interrogator identifiercodes, which proved to be insufficient foroperational needs. Design modificationsintroduced a further 63 codes which areknown as surveillance identifier codes.At this stage, however, only some 70 per-cent of installed Mode S transponderscan support the surveillance code func-tionality, and therefore it is not yet possibleto exploit this capability.

Consequently, a rigorous process mustbe used to control interrogator code allo-cation. The need to have a process thatensures that the current and future Mode Sinfrastructure will be able to interoperatesuccessfully has been borne out by experi-ence. Coordination between ANS providersin the functioning of their radar networks isnot only desirable, but also a necessity in aMode S surveillance environment.

The ICAO European Air NavigationPlanning Group (EANPG) has developedprovisions for administering and monitor-ing the Mode S interrogator code alloca-tions. The allocation plan is managed byEurocontrol, in close coordination withthe ICAO European and North AtlanticOffice. Representatives of the national regu-latory authorities of European States andthose international organizations applyingfor interrogator codes meet at regularintervals to approve the allocations.

Airborne installation requirements. Tofacilitate the introduction of Mode S sur-veillance in the face of some significantimplementation issues — among themthe unavailability of certificated transpon-der equipment — the transitional arrange-ments have been extended until March2007. Beyond this date, aircraft which arerequired to carry Mode S transponderequipment must be compliant with eitherelementary or enhanced surveillance.

A blanket exemption against therequirements of Mode S elementary sur-veillance is available for all aircraft until31 March 2007; exemptions for meetingenhanced surveillance requirements, how-ever, must be obtained on an individual air-frame basis. This exemption policy aims tomaintain the necessary momentum forinstallation of transponders compliant withMode S ELS and EHS requirements whilealso seeking, in a pragmatic manner, totake account of the equipage and costissues faced by aircraft operators. Never-theless, aircraft operators are beingencouraged to install Mode S ELS- andEHS-compliant equipment as soon as pos-sible as no further extension of the transi-tional arrangements is likely.

The exemptions process is being man-aged on behalf of the regulatory authori-ties of the States implementing Mode Sradar surveillance by the Exemption Coor-dination Cell established within the Euro-control Mode S and ACAS Programme.

In parallel, a significant effort is beingmade to verify performance in the opera-tional environment. This is taking placethrough monitoring of both Mode Sground stations and Mode S transpon-ders already installed on aircraft.

22 ICAO JOURNAL

Figure 2. Mode S EHS coverage area for lower airspace (left) and upper airspaceanticipated by 2008.

A number of issues affecting requiredfunctionality have been identified withcertain Mode S transponders, and theseare being resolved in coordination withavionics manufacturers and regulatoryauthorities, either through modificationsto the affected Mode S transponders or tothe ground stations. Experience in thisarea has shown the value and necessityfor close coordination with the appropri-ate regulatory authorities. Without this, anextensive avionics implementation pro-gramme cannot be achieved successfully.

Initial operationsThe operational introduction of Mode S

elementary surveillance does not lend itselfto the “big-bang” approach, but ratherneeds to be evolutionary in nature.

The operational use of aircraft identifi-cation will eventually obviate the need fordiscrete Mode A code assignments, andgate-to-gate Mode S operations will negatethe need for SSR code changes completely.It is necessary, however, for ATC to gainconfidence in the integrity of the down-linked aircraft ID. Airborne monitoring ishelping in this respect. It is also importantto establish the means for flight crew tore-set incorrect aircraft ID on the groundbecause, once airborne, it is not possibleon the majority of commercial aircraft tocorrect the ID that has been entered.Furthermore, the use of transmitted air-craft ID needs to be accomplished withoutincreasing controller or flight crew work-load. It is important that the well estab-lished procedures for aircraft transferbetween ATC units are not disturbed to theextent that the benefits of Mode S elemen-tary surveillance are compromised.

The initial use of aircraft identification iscoordinated by the Mode S and ACASProgramme. This involves taking account ofMode S coverage, redundancy requirementsand progress in modifying the ground ATCsystems to permit correlation of surveillancedata and the transmitted aircraft ID againststored flight plan information.

Mode S elementary surveillance isbeing introduced initially in the airspace ofBelgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg,the Netherlands and Switzerland. Even

MODE S IMPLEMENTATION

before ELS is fully introduced, however,the Mode S radars now in operation areproviding improved surveillance quality,despite the fact some Mode S transpon-ders do not yet support their operation inpure Mode S mode.

Unlike the need for a cohesive opera-tional introduction of Mode S elementarysurveillance, enhanced surveillance canbe introduced as soon as the groundinfrastructure is in place. The initialEuropean Mode S EHS surveillance areais shown in Figure 2.

An example of the early use of EHSdownlinked aircraft parameters in ATC is apioneering initiative taken by the UnitedKingdom’s National Air Traffic Services(NATS). NATS introduced a vertical stack

list tool in late 2005 which allows con-trollers to manage holding patterns inLondon Terminal Control airspace moreefficiently. This tool capitalizes on theimproved tracking and integrity of surveil-lance data inherent with Mode S and theprovision of downlinked parameters fromaircraft capable of enhanced surveillance.It presents a vertical depiction of aircraftwithin a holding pattern, and, in practicalterms, makes it possible for controllers tocontinuously view call signs and occupiedflight levels even though SSR labels mayoverlap on their radar displays.

There are also a number of safety bene-fits. For example, downlinked selected

altitude values will be visible to con-trollers. With this information, the poten-tial exists for controllers to reduce theincidence of altitude violations or “busts.”Figure 3 illustrates the vertical stack listtool display being used by NATS. Shownin the right-hand column of the verticalstack list window and in the label blockson the radar display is the downlinkedselected altitude.

ConclusionA near-term reality in Europe, Mode S

radar surveillance offers improved sur-veillance data capability, efficiency andsafety. Moreover, it offers the capacity tohandle the rising traffic demand of theforseeable future. As the implementation

of Mode S gathers speed across Europe,a number of implementation issues havearisen; these are being addressedmethodically, yet aggressively.

Mode S is being deployed in Europeanairspace not a moment too soon and,although not yet fully operational, isalready providing improved surveillancefor the safe and efficient handling of airtraffic in high density airspace. ■■

NUMBER 1, 2006 23

Figure 3. A new tool for managing aircraft holding patterns utilizes downlinkedaircraft parameters in the EHS environment.

Fig

ure

co

urt

esy

of

U.K

. Nat

ion

al A

ir T

raff

ic S

ervi

ces

John Law is the Mode S and ACAS ProgrammeManager at Eurocontrol, where he is responsible forthe implementation of Mode S and airborne collisionavoidance systems in Europe.

Further information on all aspects of Mode S radarsurveillance implementation in Europe can be foundby visiting www.eurocontrol.int/mode-s.

major barrier in the expansion ofairport operations is aircraftnoise. According to Greener by

Design, a U.K. initiative to address envi-ronmental concerns, “the downwardtrend in noise exposure around airportsof past years … has now flattened out atmajor airports. Virtually all the older air-craft have been phased out and, while thecontinued fleet renewal will introduceprogressively quieter types, the benefitwill be appreciably less than has beenachieved from phasing out of Chapter 2aircraft.”

Among the various projects that areexploring ways to reduce aircraft noise,

AERONAUTICAL RESEARCH

Academia exploring innovative approachesto achieving “silent” flight

Working with partners in industry, university research departments hope to conceive an aircraftdesign whose engine and airframe noise would be imperceptible in the urban environmentaround airports.

PAUL COLLINS • ANN DOWLING

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY

(UNITED KINGDOM)

EDWARD GREITZER

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

(UNITED STATES)

A

the Silent Aircraft Initiative (SAI) waslaunched in November 2003 with theambitious aim of addressing this situationin a new way. The SAI approach was tostart with the goal of a radical reductionin noise as a primary design criterion anddefine, at a conceptual level, the type ofaircraft and engine system that couldachieve this goal.

Noise reduction targets have alreadybeen set by the aviation community. WhatSAI aims for is a bolder reduction, to thepoint where the noise of an aircraft wouldbe imperceptible to the people living inthe urban environment around airports.This challenging goal can only beachieved by an aircraft with highly inte-grated airframe and engines, and withthe design and mode of operation togeth-er optimized for low noise emission.

From the outset of the project it was rec-ognized that the skills and capabilities of arange of partners in academia, industryand government would be needed to suc-

ceed. Involving a widerange of partners in thework was, in fact, exactlywhat the Cambridge-MITInstitute (CMI) had in mindwhen it set up the initiative.

CMI is a U.K. govern-ment-supported joint ven-ture between CambridgeUniversity and Massachu-setts Institute of Tech-nology (MIT), a U.S. univer-sity with strong connectionswith industry and a trackrecord in translating itsresearch ideas into the mar-ketplace. SAI is one of theCMI’s “knowledge integra-

tion communities” — a research communi-ty that aims to find new ways in which aca-demia and industry can work together andexchange knowledge to advance technolo-gy in areas such as aerospace. As well asacademic researchers at Cambridge, MITand other universities, the “silent aircraft”community comprises airframers, enginemanufacturers, airport and airline opera-tors, air traffic control (ATC) agencies, reg-ulators and noise measurement specialists— a thriving, still growing, community ofover 30 participants.

The idea behind the knowledge inte-gration community is to foster linkagesand two-way flows of informationbetween young students, at one end, andsenior colleagues from industry at theother; between manufacturers and air-port noise lobby groups; and betweenacademic researchers and their col-leagues in commerce. Creating such acommunity, in which ideas, knowledge,suggestions and solutions can beexchanged among a range of participantsfaster than could otherwise be done, canhelp boost the competitiveness of theU.K. aerospace industry.

The SAI research work is divided intofive major areas. Airframe and enginesare obvious focal points, but it is in theireffective integration — the third area ofresearch — that some of the biggestadvances can be made. The OperationsTeam is focused on ways to reduce noiseby changing take-off and approach proce-dures. Finally, economics researchersare looking into both the regulatory sce-narios under which the aircraft wouldmeet an airline’s business case, and thepossible benefits to the U.K. economy,both nationally and regionally.

24 ICAO JOURNAL

Baseline (conventional) wing slat and high-lift systemmounted in a wind tunnel for noise assessment.

The current conceptual design fea-tures an airframe concept that is radicallydifferent from current aircraft. Modernjet engines are much quieter than theirpredecessors, and when throttled backon approach to landing, the airframe gen-erates half of the noise heard on theground. To create the desired noisereduction, researchers have adopted adesign in which the wings blend seam-lessly into the aircraft body in aconfiguration sometimes referredto as a “flying wing.”

Such aircraft shapes have beenexamined in the past becausethey have good aerodynamic effi-ciency and reduced drag. SAIresearchers plan to use the exten-sive surface area provided by thisshape to shield listeners on theground from much of the enginenoise; by mounting the enginesabove the fuselage, much of theaircraft noise can be reflectedupwards without compromisingthe overall efficiency of the air-craft. An initial computer-aideddesign (CAD) rendering of this conceptualaircraft, whose design continues to evolve,is shown in the adjacent illustration.

To reduce the amount of engine noiseat take-off, the engine exhaust velocitymust be decreased. The specific require-ment to meet SAI’s low-noise target isthat the exit area for air leaving theengine needs to be nearly three timesthat of a conventional design. To achievelow noise at take-off while obtainingcompetitive fuel efficiency in cruise, thecurrent design uses an exhaust nozzlethat varies in area so different bypassratios can be set near the ground and atcruise. The engines are also embeddedwithin the airframe rather than in podsattached to the wing. This leads to lessdrag as well as increased propulsive effi-ciency. The longer inlet and exit ducts inthis configuration also provide scope tofurther reduce engine noise by allowingadditional acoustic liners to absorb theengine noise.

Embedding the engines within the air-frame implies a high degree of airframe

AERONAUTICAL RESEARCH

and engine integration. Engine airflow isnow affected by the airframe; similarly,the embedded engines alter the flowaround the aircraft and thus affect lift anddrag. According to recent findingsembedded engines could provide sub-stantial performance benefits, but thereremain several obstacles that must beovercome before this configurationbecomes practical.

The conceptual design of the aircraft isbeing carried out using industry designtools whenever possible. Boeing hasmade available its multidisciplinarydesign optimization code, WingMOD,which helps identify the optimum aircraftplanform subject to over 200 constraintsaround the aircraft mission. Similarly,Rolls-Royce allows the research team touse its design, performance and noiseevaluation tools to examine ideas aboutpotential engine designs. Further, indus-try partners have been a source of helpand advice and provide ongoing in-depthreviews of emerging design concepts.

Current research is addressing some ofthe major sources of noise and is investi-gating ways to reduce it. A four-by-five footwind tunnel has been equipped with anarray of 100 microphones that pinpointsnoise sources and separates them fromthe background noise of the tunnel. Theundercarriage, a major source of noise inthe approach configuration, is being stud-ied in the wind tunnel to see if it can bemade quieter. Even the surface roughness

of the airframe is being examined to deter-mine the effect on noise level.

The way aircraft are flown can have asubstantial impact on the noise level onthe ground. Noise reduction, for exam-ple, can be achieved by optimizing enginepower settings throughout the climb forlow noise, and, similarly, using low noiseas a major criterion when choosing thespeed and trajectory during approach.

Most sources of sound are directlyrelated to the aircraft’s speed, with noisediminishing as speed is reduced. Onechallenge is to design an aircraft that canfly very slowly on approach. High-liftdevices now in use, such as wing leading-edge slats, are too noisy. Similarly, con-ventional aircraft use their flaps orextended undercarriage early in theapproach to increase drag and slowdown. Both flaps and landing gear, how-ever, are significant sources of noise.

The accompanying photo (page 24)illustrates a conventional slat-wingconfiguration installed in a wind tunnel, abaseline reference for the noise reductionresearch. Through wind tunnel tests such

NUMBER 1, 2006 25

CAD rendering of a “silent” aircraft design features an airframe and engine configuration thatis radically different from existing designs. A final conceptual design is expected to be ready forindustry review in autumn 2006.

Paul Collins is Project Manager of the Silent AircraftInitiative and coordinates its “Knowledge IntegrationCommunity.” Ann Dowling is Professor of MechanicalEngineering and Head of the Division in whichresearch into aeronautical engineering is carried outat the University of Cambridge. She is the CambridgePrincipal Investigator for the Silent Aircraft Initiative.Edward Greitzer is the H.N. Slater Professor ofAeronautics and Astronautics at MIT. He is the MITPrincipal Investigator for the Silent Aircraft Initiative.

For more information about the Silent AircraftInitiative, visit the SAI website (http://silentaircraft.org).

continued on page 37

Ministers who gathered for a conference on international trans-port security in Tokyo in mid-January were unanimous in theirdesire to send the world a strong message of their commit-ment to assure security in transportation through cooperationamong countries. At the end of the two-day conference, whichfocused on enhancing security while maintaining smooth andefficient transportation systems, they declared their intentionto intensify efforts to achieve more active and wider ranginginternational and domestic cooperation.

ICAO Council Dr. Assad Kotaite, a keynote speaker at theconference, emphasized that global efforts should be designedto create an impenetrable security net that covers all modes oftransportation, individually and collectively.

“Our motivation must remain our solid conviction that onemore act of unlawful interference, whatever form it takes, is onetoo many,” the Council President informed participants.

The ministerial declaration included a joint statement onaviation security which included a call for measures to addressvulnerabilities within the global civil aviation network as a “highcollective priority.”

While acknowledging that more stringent security measureshave been applied since September 2001, the ministers observ-ed that terrorists remain a serious threat, citing the example ofthe suicide bombing of two Russian airliners in 2004, and theystressed the need to promote international research and develop-ment to improve explosives detection technologies. They alsoencouraged States to register with the ICAO aviation securitypoint-of-contact network so that they can maintain effectivecommunication during situations of heightened threat or security-related emergencies.

Security measures must be compatible with the efficient flow ofpassengers and goods, through increased capacity building, theministers added. Also stressed was the importance of promotingcompatible security measures that reduce regulatory divergence.

Identified were eight principles on which international effortsto ensure aviation security should be based, the first of these

being the implementation and enforcement of the standardsand recommended practices (SARPs) contained in Annex 17 tothe Convention on International Civil Aviation and other ICAOprovisions relating to aviation security.

The conference also issued a ministerial statement on avianinfluenza in light of the factthat a disease pandemic hasthe same potential to disrupttransport systems as a securitycrisis. The ministers indicatedthat they would endeavour tominimize any negative impacton transport systems by anoutbreak of avian flu or otherinfectious diseases.

The ministers called for theestablishment of a new inter-national working group to pro-mote cooperation in groundtransport; unlike the maritimeand aviation modes of trans-

port, which promote cooperation through the InternationalMaritime Organization (IMO) and ICAO, there is no internationalframework for ground transport safety.

The entire declaration, including the statement on aviationsecurity and its eight principles to guide international efforts,is posted at the conference’s website (http://www.mlit.go.jp).It was approved by the ministers responsible for transportsecurity in Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany, Indo-nesia, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, the Republic of Korea, theRussian Federation, Singapore, the United Kingdom, and theUnited States.

In his address, Dr. Kotaite reviewed developments in the fieldof aviation security since 2001, and outlined ICAO’s role inassisting member States in enhancing security systems, speci-fically by achieving compliance with ICAO Annex 17 standards.The Council President focused on the long-term global strategyfor aviation, including the critical need to assess new andemerging threats while continually monitoring and upgradingexisting security processes. Another critical objective he citedwas the expeditious clearance of passengers while maintainingthe highest level of security. On this last point, Dr. Kotaiteemphasized the importance of risk management using newtechnologies, and pointed to machine readable travel docu-ments (MRTDs) and biometrics as essential elements in theglobal effort to facilitate air travel while preventing terrorism.Some 110 States currently use MRTDs, he observed.

Looking to the future, the Council President spoke of theneed for new legal work. “The legal dimension of the securitychallenge will need close scrutiny,” he said of apparent gaps

ICAO UPDATE Ministerial Conference focuses on transport security

Ministers from 14 countries signed a Ministerial Declaration ontransport security, including a statement on aviation security,during the conference held recently in Tokyo.

Declaration urges States to enforce existing security standards and to address vulnerabilitiesin all transport systems

ICAO Council President Dr.AssadKotaite with Kazuo Kitagawa, theMinister of Land, Infrastructureand Transport of Japan.

26 ICAO JOURNAL

NUMBER 1, 2006 27

and inadequacies in the existing international aviation legalconventions (see article on this page).

“More study is needed with regard to potentially devastatingattacks involving bacteriological, chemical or even nuclear sub-stances, as well as electronic or computer-based attacks on airtraffic control networks or aircraft,” Dr. Kotaite explained. “Thelegal conventions which aim at the repression of suicide attacksagainst civil aviation will not be effective against the suicide per-petrators themselves. Serious penalties should therefore beimposed on those organizing, instigating, sponsoring or finan-cing such terrorist acts and harbouring terrorists themselves.”

Attended by over 200 participants, the conference featuredindividual sessions on maritime, aviation and land transportsecurity. In addition to ICAO, representatives from the EuropeanCommission, the IMO and the World Customs Organization(WCO) also took part. The conference was chaired by theMinister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of Japan.

Discussions with government leaders. While in Tokyo from10 to 14 January, the Council President — accompanied by theICAO Regional Director of the Asia and Pacific Office —discussed various aviation matters with the Minister of Land,Infrastructure and Transport of Japan; the Senior Vice-Ministerfor Foreign Affairs; the Director General, Global IssuesDepartment at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the DirectorGeneral of Civil Aviation; and the President of Japan Airlines.Among topics discussed with the Japanese authorities were theglobal safety conference to be held at ICAO headquarters thisMarch to address recent safety concerns, the integration of the

voluntarily funded activities of the ICAO aviation security plan ofaction into the organization’s regular programme budget, andthe ratification of certain international air law instruments.

While in Japan Dr. Kotaite also met with the ministers of trans-port of Australia and Singapore, the Minister of Civil Aviation ofChina, and the Assistant Secretary, U.S. Transportation SecurityAdministration (TSA). ■■

Survey highlights needfor new air law instrumentICAO Contracting States have indicated that there is a needto amend the existing international air law instruments oralternatively to adopt a new instrument to cover the new andemerging threats to civil aviation, according to the results ofa survey conducted by the organization recently.

Of 54 replies received from Contracting States — one reply wasalso received from an industry body, the International Federationof Air Line Pilots’ Associations (IFALPA) — in early November2005, 50 States representing 92.5 percent of total respondentsindicated they would support creation of a new international legalinstrument, either in the form of an amendment or a separateconvention, to address the new and emerging security threats.

Among the new and emerging threats that have been identi-fied by ICAO are the misuse of aircraft as weapons; suicideattacks in the air and on the ground; electronic attacks usingradio transmitters or other means to jam or interfere withground or airborne navigation or guidance control systems;

Advertising in

ICAO Publications

positions you

worldwide.

For further advertising information,please contact us.

FCM Communications Inc.835 Montarville St.Longueuil, Québec

Canada J4H 2M5

Telephone: +1 (450) 677-3535Facsimile: +1 (450) 677-4445

fcmcommunications@videotron.ca

A�unique�advertising�

opportunity

The�2007�ICAO�Agenda

featuring

pertinent�editorial�and�promotional�contentin�the�6�official�languages�of�ICAO

ICAOJOURNAL

Official Magazine of the International Civil Aviation Organization

Rate No. 39 – January 2006

Tap into the global network of ICAO and its 189Member States and reach key decision-makers

Optimizing security and efficiency

through enhanced ID technology

Tap into the global network of

ICAO and its 188 Member States

and reach key decision-makers

ICAOMRTD Report

A new ICAO publication

programme during the first cycle of audits (1999-2004).In a letter disseminated to member States in early Decem-

ber, ICAO indicated that unless the requirement for moreexperts can be met, the number of audits planned and otherUSOAP activities, including training course development andseminars and workshops, could be adversely affected.Seconded experts are required on a long-term basis becausebudget constraints prevent ICAO from recruiting more staff.

Under the new phase of the programme, USOAP requiresstaff with expertise in more than one specialty area. Candidatesselected for secondment receive training in all matters relatedto the programme and the conduct of USOAP audits.

USOAP experts must have extensive work experience witha national civil aviation organization as an inspector or auditor.They must also have good knowledge of the Convention onInternational Civil Aviation, the adoption and implementation ofICAO SARPs, and related ICAO documentation and guidancematerial. Also required is a command of English and one of theother official languages of the organization (i.e. Arabic, Chinese,French, Russian or Spanish). Among desirable qualifications,USOAP experts should have extensive experience working inan aviation industry environment such as an airline, aviationtraining centre or approved maintenance organization. Alsodesired is certification as an ISO auditor and/or certificationas an approved ICAO auditor in one of the technical areascovered by the programme.

USOAP came into being in January 1999 after ICAO wasgiven a mandate to conduct regular, mandatory, systematicand harmonized safety audits of all Contracting States. ■■

28 ICAO JOURNAL

computer-based attacks which block or alter aeronauticalcommunications; chemical and biological attacks against passen-gers; misuse of nuclear or other radioactive materials; andattacks on aircraft using a man-portable air defence system(MANPADS).

Based on the results of the survey, ICAO has decided toform a Secretariat study group to focus on the issue. Thegroup is expected to meet for the first time in 2006. In themeantime, member States that have not yet responded tothe questionnaire are being urged to do so by 31 March 2006. ■■

States urged to activelysupport growth of USOAPICAO will expand its team of seconded safety oversightexperts as soon as possible because of the high volume ofaudit missions and related activities resulting from the expan-sion of the Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme (USOAP).Member States have been invited to nominate three more experts,preferably before 30 March 2006, to join the five already onsecondment to USOAP.

The additional experts will complement ICAO’s own auditingstaff and are needed for a period of two to three years in orderto support the effective implementation of the comprehensivesystems approach for audits. In place since January 2005,the new approach encompasses provisions in all safety-relatedannexes and not only those standards and recommendedpractices (SARPs) related to personnel licensing and theoperation and airworthiness of aircraft — the focus of the

NUMBER 1, 2006 29

Scheduled traffic tops twobillion passengers in 2005World airline traffic in 2005 grew by about 5.5 percent over2004, according to preliminary figures analysed at year’s endby ICAO. Tonne-kilometres performed on total scheduledservices (i.e. domestic and international services combined)rose from 459,000 million in 2004 to about 485,500 million in2005 (a tonne-kilometre is a combined measure of passen-ger, freight and mail traffic which also takes into account thedistance flown).

Statistics supplied by ICAO’s 189 Contracting States showan increase of 7.5 percent in passenger-kilometres performedon total scheduled services, while international passenger-kilometres performed rose by some 8.5 percent in comparisonwith 2004. The number of passengers carried on total schedu-led services in 2005 exceeded two billion for the first time, upfrom more than 1.8 billion in 2004, the previous record.

Aircraft seating capacity also rose last year, but at a slightlyslower pace than in the previous year, resulting in an averagepassenger load factor of almost 75 percent in both total trafficand in international services. This compares with 2004 aver-age passenger load factors of 73 percent for total servicesand 74 percent on international routes.

Scheduled freight tonne-kilometres performed showed littlechange over 2004. Both total and international freight tonne-kilometres performed grew by about 1 percent, and thereforefreight carried worldwide on scheduled services remained atabout 38 million tonnes.

On a regional basis, the airlines of the Middle East conti-nued to experience strong traffic growth, followed by those ofLatin America and the Caribbean, and Africa. Growth for airlinesin Asia/Pacific and Europe was similar to the world average,while airlines from North America showed increases in totalfreight traffic that were below the world average. ■■

ICAO to hold global symposiumon air transport liberalizationICAO will hold a two-day global symposium on air transportliberalization on 18-19 September 2006 in Dubai, United ArabEmirates. The meeting, hosted by the Department of CivilAviation, Government of Dubai, will take place in the DubaiInternational Convention and Exhibition Centre.

The air transport symposium will be the first such globalevent organized by ICAO since the 2003 Worldwide AirTransport Conference. The purpose is to build on the outcome ofthe 2003 conference, which produced considerable guidancematerial as well as a policy framework for liberalization. Thesymposium will provide a forum for States to share theirexperiences in liberalization, exchange information and viewson trends and issues, and learn about different policy optionsand approaches to liberalization.

While primarily organized for government policymakers, airservice agreement negotiators and aviation regulators, thesymposium will be open to the aviation industry and all othersinterested in air transport regulatory policy, among them finan-ciers, consultants and academics. The programme coverstopical and practical issues in international air transport regu-lation, which will be addressed by prominent speakers and

ICAO disseminates guidelineson managing PNR dataICAO recently disseminated guidelines on passenger namerecord (PNR) data to its member States. The guidance mate-rial is intended for States that may require access to PNRdata to supplement identification data received through anadvance passenger information (API) system.

Completed with the assistance of a Secretariat study group,the guidelines seek to establish uniform measures for PNR datatransfer and the subsequent handling of such data. They areintended to assist States in implementing a recommendedpractice that became effective on 11 July 2005, and that calls onContracting States to ensure that their data requirements and thehandling of such data conform with the ICAO guidelines. ■■

Annex 17 amendmentadopted by CouncilAn important amendment to Annex 17 of the ChicagoConvention has been adopted by ICAO Council and willbecome applicable on 1 July 2006. The document containsprovisions, including standards and recommended practices(SARPs), for aviation security.

Amendment 11 is intended to ensure that the measures inICAO Annex 17 are commensurate with the level of threatfaced by civil aviation. Proposed by the Aviation SecurityPanel following meetings it held in 2004 and 2005, the revi-sions are based on a review of Annex 17 provisions thatfocused on clarifying the wording of existing SARPs. Thechanges are expected to facilitate the common interpretation ofSARPs by Contracting States as well as the ease of auditingcompliance with SARPs under the ICAO Universal SecurityAudit Programme (USAP).

Contracting States are required to notify ICAO before 10 April2006 if there is any part of the amendment of which theydisapprove. States have also been requested to notify ICAOby 1 June 2006 of any differences that will exist between theirnational regulations or practices and the amended Annex 17,as well as the dates by which they anticipate achieving compli-ance with the amended annex. ■■

panelists from a cross-section of States, regions and entities.Ample time is reserved for open discussion by delegates.

Participants will achieve a better understanding of variousaspects of the liberalization process, including issues as seenfrom different perspectives. They will gain valuable insightinto the pros and cons of various regulatory approaches thatmay be useful in developing a more coherent and balancedpolicy for the benefit of all stakeholders in international airtransport. Detailed information about the symposium can befound at the ICAO website (www.icao.int/dubai2006).

The symposium provides an excellent opportunity for parti-cipants to meet not only their counterparts among delegatesto the ICAO meeting, but also aviation industry executivesattending the concurrent 12th World Route DevelopmentForum (Routes). Routes is an annual gathering of airline routeplanners and airport representatives from around the world.Information about Routes may be found at its website(www.routesonline.com). ■■

ICAO Council appointmentDr. Nasim Zaidi has been appointed

Representative of India on the Councilof ICAO, and commenced his tenure on21 November 2005.

A long-time civil servant, Dr. Zaidiserved in increasingly responsible posi-tions at both the state and federal levels.Most recently, he served for three yearsas Joint Secretary in the Ministry ofCivil Aviation in the Government of India,a post that involved handling airportinfrastructure matters and issues related

to airspace management and aviation security.Dr. Zaidi was active in setting up two “greenfield” airports at

Hyderabad and Bangalore through public-private partnerships.He also has experience in developing gateway airports —specifically, New Delhi and Mumbai — through a restructuringprocess involving public-private partnership. He oversaw formu-lation of complex concession agreements for the above men-tioned airports, as well as agreements involving governmentfinancial support, land leases, finances and, on the technicalside, agreements concerning CNS/ATM infrastructure. Dr. Zaidiwas also responsible for formulating draft legislation to esta-blish an Airport Economic Regulatory Authority.

In the field of aviation security, Dr. Zaidi was involved indevelopment of the relevant legal framework as well as a contin-gency plan for addressing aircraft hijackings and terrorismthreats. In the operational and managerial spheres, he hasserved as a member of several committees involved with matterssuch as slot allocation, institutional restructuring and strength-ening of CNS/ATM services.

Dr. Zaidi obtained a master’s degree in public administrationfrom Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, andhas a post-graduate diploma in business finance from theIndian Institute of Finance. He also holds a doctorate in bio-chemistry, and has published several papers in scientific andadministrative journals. ■■

Dr. N. Zaidi(India)

30 ICAO JOURNAL

ICAO Council appointmentGonzalo Miranda Aguirre has beenappointed Representative of Chile onthe Council of ICAO. His appointmenttook effect on 3 October 2005.

Mr. Miranda is a graduate of theInstitute of Political Sciences of theUniversidad de Chile, Santiago, wherehe obtained a master of political sci-ences and a diploma in strategicmanagement and decision making.He also holds a master of businessadministration from Chile’s Institute for

Executive Development.Mr. Miranda began his career in 1958 when he joined the

Chilean Air Force. Among his assignments over the years, heserved as a flight instructor at the Chilean Air Force Academyand as the Commander of various Air Force units.

Ultimately reaching the rank of Air Force General, Mr. Mirandahas served in a number of high-level posts over the course ofhis career. He was appointed Executive Director of the 1988International Air and Space Fair which took place in Santiago.In the United Kingdom, he served as Mission Chief and AirAttaché to the Chilean Embassy in London. From 1994 to 1997,Mr. Miranda was the Director General of Civil Aviation of Chile’sNational Civil Aviation Administration. He served as UnderSecretary in the Ministry of Defense for Police Affairs from 2000to 2005, and was recently appointed Air Attaché to the ChileanAir Force Mission in Washington, D.C. ■■

G. Miranda Aguirre(Chile)

DEPOSIT BY POLAND

Poland has formally become involved in the InternationalCOSPAS-SARSAT Programme as a user State with itsdeposit of a letter of notification during a brief ceremonyat ICAO headquarters recently. Shown on the occasionare Roman Jankowiak, Poland’s Senior Trade Commis-sioner in Montreal (left), and Denys Wibaux, Director of theICAO Legal Bureau. The COSPAS-SARSAT system com-prises two satellite constellations and associated groundstations that are used to locate the site of an emergencyor accident.

Fellowship training programmecontinues current focusThe ICAO-Singapore Developing Country Training Programme,which has been awarding fellowship training at the SingaporeAviation Academy (SAA) since 2001, is offering the samecourses in 2006 that were made available in 2004-05because of an overwhelming response to the course offerings.The current programme focuses on integrated safety manage-ment systems, safety oversight, civil aviation management,and CNS/ATM developments.

Various training sessions, ranging from five days to threeweeks in duration, are available from mid-April to late August2006. The fellowships are intended for participants nominat-ed by their respective governments. For more details, consultthe SAA website (www.saa.com.sg/fellowships).

Since its inception, the joint programme has provided162 fellowships to participants from more than 59 ICAO mem-ber States. It is sponsored by the Singaporean Government andadministered by ICAO’s Technical Cooperation Bureau. ■■

States reminded ofACAS recommendationsICAO recently disseminated a letter to member States draw-ing attention to recommendations concerning the airbornecollision avoidance system (ACAS). The recommendations,arising from a meeting of the Surveillance and ConflictResolution Systems Panel (SCRSP) held in November 2004,reflect a continuing need to confirm the safety benefits of ACASand to detect and correct, if possible, potential problems aris-ing from traffic density increases, airspace structure evolutionand changes to air traffic operations.

In light of the meeting’s recommendation, which wasapproved by the ICAO Air Navigation Commission in mid-2005, ICAO has requested that Contracting States continueto monitor ACAS performance using the guidelines con-tained in the draft ACAS Manual. (While not yet available inprint form, the manual may be accessed at the ICAO securewebsite.)

ICAO has also requested that States in a position to do sotake steps to maintain their expertise in ACAS design. ■■

NUMBER 1, 2006 31

Regional air navigation systemplanners meet in SantiagoAn air navigation planning and implementation meeting heldrecently in Santiago, Chile focused on various technical andoperational issues facing the Latin American and Caribbeanregions. The participants discussed, among other things, theestablishment of a maximum two-year period for eliminatingurgent deficiencies. It was also proposed that where thistimeframe cannot be met, an alternate facility or procedurewould be designated in the Air Navigation Plan as a lastresort, or alternatively a risk analysis concerning that defi-ciency would be undertaken where the choice of an alternateis not feasible. The proposal to implement last-resort actiontakes effect at the end of 2007.

Among other developments at the 13th meeting of the Carib-bean/South American Regional Planning and ImplementationGroup (GREPECAS) were:• the development of a new set of traffic forecasts for sixmajor route groups and for the top 25 city pairs in each of thesix groups, and airport movement forecasts and peak-periodanalyses;• agreement on 1 March 2006 as the target date for imple-menting national programmes for aviation security, qualitycontrol in aviation security, and cargo security;• the development of a regional strategy for implementingair-ground data links and deployment of the aeronauticaltelecommunication network (ATN);• agreement on target dates for regional implementation ofautomatic dependent surveillance-contract (ADS-C) and auto-matic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) technolo-gies; and• the adoption of an action plan for implementing air trafficflow management in the CAR/SAM regions.

The meeting, held from 14 to 18 November 2005, wasattended by 90 participants from 17 GREPECAS memberStates, five other ICAO Contracting States and seven inter-national organizations. ■■

Commemorative day calls for“greening of aviation”International Civil Aviation Day, celebrated annually since 1994to mark the creation of ICAO on 7 December 1944, focused in2005 on an environmental theme. In a call for the “greening ofaviation,” ICAO highlighted efforts to maximize civil aviation’scompatibility with the quality of the environment.

Commenting on ICAO’s role in the global effort towards amore sustainable aviation sector, ICAO Council PresidentDr. Assad Kotaite pointed to a range of standards, policiesand guidance material developed by the organization thathave contributed to more efficient aircraft operations, thusreducing fuel consumption and consequent air pollution. Henevertheless emphasized the need for even more concertedefforts on the environmental front, pointing out that theremarkable growth of the air transport sector is outpacingenvironmental achievements.

Dr. Kotaite underscored ICAO’s pivotal role in addressingaviation’s impact on the environment. The entry into force ofthe Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations FrameworkConvention on Climate Change in February 2005, he pointedout, gave new impetus to ICAO’s efforts to address green-house gas emissions and reinforced its leadership role in avia-tion and climate change.

In his message to mark the event, ICAO Secretary GeneralDr. Taïeb Chérif outlined how the organization had recentlystrengthened its commitment to environmental protection.Protection of the environment had received high priority whenthe organization adopted its six strategic objectives last year,he recalled. Moreover, he added, ICAO’s new business planhas stressed the organization’s status as the leading interna-tional organization pursuing unified and coordinated measu-res for reducing civil aviation’s impact on the environment.

As it moves ahead, Dr. Chérif added, “ICAO builds on astrong record of setting standards for the certification of air-craft noise and engine emissions, and developing policies tominimize the effect of aircraft operations on the environment.”

Emphasizing the importance of reliable information to policydevelopment, Dr. Chérif announced that ICAO will publish itsfirst Environment Report in 2007. The authoritative report willserve as a valuable reference resource at ICAO’s triennial ses-sions of the Assembly. The document will also be of value to theaviation community, relevant UN bodies, specific non-govern-mental organizations, universities and the news media. ■■

BangladeshAircraft on civil register 35

Active pilot licences 334

Commercial air transport operators 20

Approved maintenance organizations 7

Aviation training establishments 4

Aircraft manufacturing organizations 0

Aircraft type certificates issued 0

International airports 2

(dat

a fr

om N

ovem

ber 2

004)

AV

IA

TI

ON

PR

OF

IL

E

32 ICAO JOURNAL

ANC appointmentAdrian G. Sayce, of the United Kingdom,has been appointed President of theICAO Air Navigation Commission (ANC)for a period of one year commencing1 January 2006. Mr. Sayce has been amember of the ANC since 2002.

Prior to his appointment as ANCPresident, Mr. Sayce served asChairman of the ANC Working Groupon Procedural Matters, and asRapporteur for two ANC ad hoc work-

ing groups concerned respectively with cockpit security(2004) and consultation with industry (2005).

Trained both in aeronautical engineering and law, Mr. Saycecommenced his career in aviation in 1968, joining the U.K.Civil Aviation Authority in 1983 as a Design RequirementsSurveyor. He was appointed an Aircraft Systems DesignSurveyor in 1985, and served as Senior Research ProjectManager from 1989 to 1994. Before his appointment as AirNavigation Commissioner and Alternate Representative of theUnited Kingdom on the Council of ICAO, he served as Head,Strategic Safety and Analysis and Deputy Head of Policy inthe U.K. CAA’s Safety Regulation Group.

Mr. Sayce holds a degree in law from the Nottingham LawSchool, of the U.K. He obtained a master of science degreein air transport engineering from Cranfield University, and wasnamed a chartered engineer by the Royal Aeronautical

Society, where he remains a Fellow. Mr. Sayce is soon tocomplete a master of law programme at the University ofWales, specializing in environmental law.

The Air Navigation Commission, the technical arm of the ICAOCouncil, is comprised of 19 experts nominated by ContractingStates and appointed by the Council. The body provides adviceto the Council on any issue related to air navigation. ■■

Volcano watch specialistsmeet in Lima The second meeting of the International Airways Volcano WatchOperations Group (IAVWOPSG) was held in Lima, Peru in lateSeptember 2005. The meeting at the ICAO South AmericanOffice was attended by 18 experts from eight volcanic ash advi-sory centre (VAAC) provider States as well as the ComprehensiveNuclear Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO), International AirTransport Association (IATA), International Federation of Air LinePilots’ Associations (IFALPA), International Union of Geodesyand Geophysics (IUGG) and the World Meteorological Organi-zation (WMO).

The group reviewed IAVW-related provisions in both ICAOAnnex 3 and in regional air navigation plans. It also addressed anumber of issues related to the operation, implementation andfuture of the IAVW Operations Group, in particular the evaluationof new techniques for real-time detection and identification ofvolcanic eruptions. Also discussed was the development oferuption source parameters for improving forecasts of volcanicash movement in the atmosphere. ■■

Adrian Sayce

NUMBER 1, 2006 33

Air transport studycontinued from page 7

most prevalent element in transnational airline alliance arrange-ments and can take a variety of forms. Although it is usually treat-ed as a commercial arrangement, the complexity of some code-sharing arrangements can make it difficult for safety and securityauthorities to determine their level of involvement vis-à-vis otherauthorities. In these circumstances, the question of responsibilityand accountability for safety and security can lead to uncertainty.Also, since such arrangements allow an operator to use the nameor assume the public face of another carrier (e.g. in the case offranchising), the need to safeguard reputation has led to someregulatory action. Some States, for instance, require foreign air-lines that have codesharing arrangements with their national air-lines to demonstrate a comparable level of safety. This may raisestill other questions: should all States whose airlines are involvedin a codesharing operation be involved in such safety oversightand, if so, to what extent?

Another concern arising from codesharing relates to thesecurity implications caused by the potential transfer of a threatagainst one airline to its partner in a codesharing arrangement,and any subsequent additional security measures imposed bythe appropriate authorities. Since technical and operational regu-lations may vary considerably from one partner airline (and itsState) to another, this raises the question as to how to handleaccountability and responsibility for safety and security amongthe partner airlines and their States.

Cross-border airline merger/acquisition. Where mergers oracquisitions are permitted across national boundaries, this canlead to such companies having operations or places of businessin different States, or operating mainly outside the State inwhich their registered offices and/or owners are located. Thissituation could raise questions about the attribution of regula-tory oversight responsibility among the States concerned when,for instance, the merged airline has two principal places of busi-ness, or a decision must be made about how to apply standardswhen differences in their implementation exist in the countriesconcerned.

Outsourcing activities. Airlines may outsource activities thatdirectly affect aircraft operation. Examples include ground hand-ling performed by contractors, repair or maintenance work per-formed in foreign countries, and the contracting out of certainflight operations or crew administration to another company. Ineach of these areas, multinational industries have emerged toprovide such services. Some States have also encountered thesituation where an AOC applicant has only a corporate skeleton,with most of its proposed operational activities to be performedby foreign companies. This phenomenon, sometimes referredto as a “virtual airline,” could present challenges for the licensingand safety oversight authorities from both the State issuing theAOC and the State of the outsourced activity. The onus is on theStates concerned to ensure that such a practice or entity properlymeets the safety and security requirements.

While some of the above situations already make it difficultto identify or attribute individual responsibility for safetyand/or security compliance and oversight, it could becomemore problematic when dealing with a complex situation combin-ing many of the features described above. As the industry evolvesand liberalization spreads, States face an increasing number of

such situations. The objective, regardless of the form of regulatoryor commercial arrangement, is to ensure that it is always clearwhich State or delegated authority is responsible for safety andsecurity oversight for any given aircraft operation.

Along with the trends of liberalization and globalization aswell as broader regional economic integration, many Stateshave taken a regional approach as an effective means in pursu-ing regulatory change in international air transport. In someregions, States have taken steps to strengthen safety regula-tion, including the delegation of certain regulatory functions toa regional body. While these regional arrangements have manyadvantages and can bring benefits, chiefly economies of scaleand the promotion of uniformity within the region, they vary agreat deal in the extent to which they delegate the execution ofnational responsibilities. This situation could raise the issue ofharmonization on a broader scale. In addition, there is clearly aneed for transparency of such regional arrangements so that allparties affected, especially third parties, know exactly whatfunctions have been delegated to the regional body and whatremains with the State. (For more on regional safety oversightorganizations, see “Regional safety oversight bodies delivereconomies of scale and greater uniformity,” page 9.)

Conclusions. The global aviation system continues to be funda-mentally safe. While existing ICAO provisions and guidance mate-rial on overseeing aviation safety and security are generally ade-quate to address various situations, the SARPs and guidance mate-rial need to adapt to the evolution of business practices. In particu-lar, States should be strongly encouraged to use Article 83 bis, auseful means of addressing complex situations involving aircrafttransferred abroad. More attention should also be given to improv-ing the enforcement and implementation of relevant SARPs andguidance material, and to efforts to address the identified safetyand security oversight shortfalls on a worldwide basis.

Safety and security must remain of paramount importance inthe operation and development of international air transportand should at no time be compromised by economic considera-tions. All parties — governments, air operators and serviceproviders — must have a clear understanding of their respec-tive responsibilities for safety and security compliance andoversight. States must accept their primary responsibility forensuring regulatory oversight of safety and security, irrespec-tive of any change in economic regulatory arrangements.

As the findings of the recent study indicate, ICAO needs tocontinue closely monitoring industry and regulatory develop-ments. Moreover, there is a need for appropriate action toensure that the global regulatory system for aviation safety andsecurity continues to work effectively in dealing with the evolu-tion of the air transport industry and the increasingly complex,often multinational business practices.

ICAO, for its part, has already taken action to further improvethe implementation of SARPs and guidance material, and toassist member States in resolving safety- and security-relateddeficiencies. One major development is the recent decision toconvene a two-day global conference on the subject of aviationsafety. The gathering of the world’s directors general of civil avi-ation at ICAO headquarters in March 2006 will focus on shapinga renewed global strategy for aviation safety. Given the thrust ofthis meeting, it can be expected that transparency and the shar-ing of information will be among the major issues to be dis-cussed. ■■

34 ICAO JOURNAL

Regional safety oversightcontinued from page 12

RASOS to a community-wide organization. The FAA is assistingCARICOM in the development of an agreement to create CASSOSunder the Chaguaramas Treaty. It is in the final stages of negotia-tion. The CARICOM member States are Antigua and Barbuda,the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana,Haiti, Jamaica, Montserrat, Saint Lucia, Saint Kitts and Nevis,Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, and Trinidad andTobago (associates are Anguilla, Bermuda, the British VirginIslands, Cayman Islands and Turks and Caicos Islands).

Agency on Aeronautical Safety for Central America (ACSA).ACSA is known in English by its Spanish acronym, whichstands for Agencia Centroamericana de Seguridad Aeronáutica.It was established in 1999 by the executive council of theCentral American Corporation for Air Navigation Services, alsoknown in English by its Spanish acronym, COCESNA(Corporación Centroamericana de Servicios de NavegaciónAérea). ACSA was formed to harmonize and standardize safetyoversight in the region and is based in Costa Rica. Legislationadopted by its member States allows delegation of the exerciseof safety oversight authority, but so far ACSA only providestechnical assistance to member States. With the assistance ofthe FAA and the European JAA it has drafted civil aviation regu-lations and guidance material, as well as developed trainingprogrammes, to be adopted by each CAA. ACSA memberStates are Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Hondurasand Nicaragua.

Regional System for Cooperation on Operational SafetyOversight (SRVSOP). SRVSOP is an arm of the Latin AmericanCivil Aviation Commission (LACAC). Known in English by itsSpanish initials (which stand for Sistema Regional deCooperación para la Vigilancia de la Seguridad Operacional),SRVSOP was established in response to the IASA and USOAPaudit programmes by a 1998 memorandum between LACACand ICAO. Eleven of LACAC’s 21 member States participate.

Airbus, Embraer, and the FAA are observers. SRVSOP is collo-cated with the ICAO South American Office in Lima, Peru.SRVSOP’s purpose is to help member States establish safetyoversight systems that comply with Annexes 1, 6, and 8. It iscurrently developing Latin American aviation regulations, orLARs. LAR 145, dealing with repair stations, was recentlyapproved with a goal of harmonizing national rules within fiveyears. SRVSOP also promotes uniform guidance and proce-dures and facilitates technical assistance to participating States.The FAA supports its regional oversight efforts and providestraining. Membership includes Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile,Cuba, Ecuador, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). EASA was estab-lished in 2002 by a regulation of the European Parliament andthe Council of the European Union (EU). In September 2003, ittook over EU member State responsibilities for aircraft typecertification as well as the environmental certification of aircraftand other aeronautical products. Headquartered in Cologne,Germany, EASA is an independent executive body with a legalpersonality and autonomy in legal, administrative and financialmatters. It adopts certification specifications and guidancematerial, conducts technical inspections, and issues certi-ficates. The EU has not granted EASA the authority to issuelegislation or regulations, but the agency assists the EuropeanCommission in developing aeronautical legislation. During thecurrent transitional period most of the work is being done bypersonnel of member State national authorities, but on behalf ofEASA. EASA plans gradually to assume further responsibilitiesfrom member States, including air carrier operations, aircrewlicensing, air traffic control (ATC) and airports. It will eventuallyissue AOCs, but will leave enforcement with the national autho-rities. On behalf of the European Commission, EASA has devel-oped bilateral agreements on aircraft certification with Canadaand the Interstate Aviation Committee, and is negotiatingagreements with the FAA. EASA membership comprises the25 States of the European Union.

Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA). The JAA is an associatedbody of the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC), withheadquarters in Hoofdorp, Netherlands. The JAA began as aninformal coordination effort to develop a model European avia-tion regulatory code, the Joint Aviation Regulations (JARs).Adopted by the European Union in 1999, the JARs currentlycover airworthiness, operations and flight crew licensing, andhas been used as a model for safety oversight regulation in somecountries outside Europe. The JAA has worked intensively toharmonize its regulatory approach with the FAA’s FederalAviation Regulations (FARs). JAA membership results fromsigning the “JAA Arrangements,” a document adopted in Cyprusin 1990. The JAA’s future, which depends to a great extent onthe evolution of EASA, is uncertain. JAA membership consistsof the ECAC member States; in other words, the 25 EU memberStates plus Armenia, Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Iceland, The formerYugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Monaco, Norway, Republic ofMoldova, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro, Switzerland, Turkey,and Ukraine.

The Interstate Aviation Committee (IAC). Shortly after thedissolution of the Soviet Union, the IAC was formed through anintergovernmental agreement on civil aviation and airspace useadopted in 1991. The IAC performs the airworthiness and acci-dent investigation functions of the member States and acts as a

Economic liberalizationcontinued from page 15

in further liberalization. And he is enthused about its anticipatedimpact.

A U.S.-EU agreement “can be expected to enhance the qualityof competition across the Atlantic in a dramatic way. It wouldbring nearly 750 million people and many of the world’s greatairlines together under a single liberalized regime. It wouldtake liberalization to the next level, linking two huge marketsand allowing airlines from both sides of the Atlantic unprece-dented flexibility in how they build, manage, and expand theiroperations. It would give us the momentum to do even more infollow-on U.S.-EU accords. And it would instantly become a newmultilateral template for aviation liberalization elsewhere in theworld. A U.S.-EU agreement would be, quite simply, the mostimportant thing we could do to enhance the contribution thatair transport makes to all our economies.”

The advent of a new and more relevant model for the conductof international aviation relations “is an opportunity we shouldnot squander,” Mr. Shane asserted. ■■

NUMBER 1, 2006 35

consultant in other areas. As the aircraft type and productioncertification authority for IAC States, it has issued a full rangeof airworthiness regulations. In 2004, the IAC entered into aworking arrangement on airworthiness with EASA. The IAC alsocoordinates ATC responsibilities. IAC membership includesAzerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,Republic of Moldova, the Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Turk-menistan, Uzbekistan, and Ukraine.

Financial considerations. Safety oversight requires asophisticated systems approach, with qualified experts in a vari-ety of aviation disciplines. To attract competent technical staff,CAAs have to offer pay that is comparable to industry salariesand which may well exceed typical civil servant salaries.Moreover, there is a natural tendency to allocate funds for visi-ble infrastructure projects such as runways and passenger ter-minals instead of on regulations, guidance publications, train-ing programmes and safety surveillance systems. Sufficientfunding can be hard to obtain in part because safety oversightactivities are largely invisible.

The difficulty of marshalling sufficient resources for safetyoversight is compounded in small and developing countries.Competing uses for scarce resources may be more compelling,and the disparity in pay between government and industry maybe greater. Even the basic arithmetic may not add up. As citedby ICAO in an article published in ICAO Journal in December1997, the 100 smallest aviation States account collectively for atmost 1 percent of global aviation activity, but require perhaps400 qualified inspectors to carry out effective oversight (not tomention the proper safety oversight infrastructure). A small avia-tion State thus might expend as much as 10 times the resourcesfor a given level of aviation activity as a large State.

A regional organization can help by lowering costs, but itdoes not necessarily help in developing the political will toimplement proper safety oversight. States and regional organi-zations simply have to recognize that safety oversight is anessential overhead. It is especially important in countries whereaviation is an engine of development, considering the criticalimportance of maintaining the confidence of the travelling public.

Several different means are used to generate funding for civilaviation authorities. Among these are general tax revenues, aportion of the charges levied by airports and air navigationservices (ANS) providers, and sometimes airline ticket taxes aswell as exit or entry taxes levied on international passengers.

According to recently revised ICAO guidance material, onlysafety and economic oversight costs that are directly related toservice provision and imposed on providers may be included inthe cost basis for airport and ANS charges. The establishedinternational policy on charges and taxes on international civilaviation is found in Article 15 of the Chicago Convention, aswell as ICAO’s Policies on Charges for Airports and AirNavigation Services (Document 9082) and Policies on Taxationin the Field of International Air Transport (Document 8632),which are available free of charge at the ICAO website.

Sources of effective funding are all the more essential indesigning an effective RSOO. Grants and assistance from thirdparties may be crucial during the development of the RSOO, butadequate funding for normal operations must be sustainableover the long haul, with adequate support from member States.

Prospects for growth. The emergence of the FAA andICAO audit programmes, as well as several RSOOs and ICAO’srenewed emphasis on safety, have resulted in impressiveimprovements in oversight capability around the globe. Evenso, about 30 percent of countries subject to IASA assessmentsstill do not fully meet international standards, and severalEuropean countries have established so-called “blacklists” ofnon-compliant air carriers after a series of recent accidents. Asthis brief survey suggests, there is potential for further develop-ment of RSOOs, with much more to be gained in both economyand uniformity.

Assuming the work begun by the existing regional organiza-tions brings satisfactory results, member States should considerorderly expansion of the areas of safety oversight entrusted totheir RSOO. At the same time, however, they should considergranting RSOOs a fuller delegation of the execution of safetyoversight. More can be done to encourage regional safety coop-eration. ICAO, industrialized countries, the more prosperousdeveloping countries, industry and financial institutions can allplay an important role in this respect.

Regional cooperation is highly desirable, and more coopera-tion is better than less. Maximum benefits accrue when thedelegation of the execution of safety oversight responsibilitiesreaches its maximum breadth and depth, provided adequatesafeguards are in place. The safeguards must ensure account-ability to the member States, which retain their rights and respon-sibilities under the Chicago Convention, and must ensure equitableenjoyment of the benefits. ■■

InterContinental MontrealICAO Preferred Rate

$159.00 cdn

Earn Priority Club Points™ for every visit

Connected to the ICAO building

InterContinental Montreal360 St-Antoine West

Montreal, Quebec, CanadaH2Y 3X4

1-800-361-3600www.montreal.intercontinental.com

36 ICAO JOURNAL

Aviation securitycontinued from page 17

To ensure the efficient delivery of its legal advisory servicesin criminal law matters, UNODC has developed a variety oftechnical assistance tools such as manuals and guides. Thesetools assist TPB experts in the training of judges and prosecutors.Among other things, the tools include a legislative guide to theuniversal instruments; a guide for the legislative incorporation ofthe provisions of the universal instruments; a counter-terrorismlegislative database on the anti-terrorism legislation in 140 States;manuals on extradition and mutual legal assistance; and relevantcomputer software.

Cooperation with other entities. In order to ensure an inte-grated and effective response to terrorism, TPB has been buildingpartnerships with other entities, both internal and external tothe UN system, that are involved in the prevention and suppres-sion of terrorism. For example, TPB has been working closelywith several UN departments, programmes and funds, special-ized agencies and with other international organizations. It hasalso cooperated with regional, sub-regional and non-govern-mental organizations and institutes.

Cooperation with other entities has included joint technicalprojects, contributions to reports, participation in meetings andbriefings, mutual technical support, and sharing of information,including lessons learned. One of TPB’s goals is to expand itspartnerships to ensure that requests made by States for technicalassistance receive an efficient response. Such cooperation hasnot only mobilized additional funding, but has resulted in a largeraudience, increased attention and additional expertise. It hashelped avoid duplication of efforts and resources, and has maxi-mized impact and cost effectiveness.

Since ICAO and TPB offer their respective expertise in avia-tion security and criminal law to assist States in implementingthe provisions of aviation security treaties, they form ideal part-ners within the UN system.

Although civil aviation is not directly related to the TPB’swork, the provision of special legal advisory services to helpStates ratify outstanding aviation security treaties and incorpo-rate security provisions into domestic laws is one of its mainconcerns. This work is facilitated by a widespread presence inthe field. TPB has experts — mostly working part-time — in theMiddle East and North Africa, West Africa, Latin and CentralAmerica, the Commonwealth of Independent States andCentral Asia, as well as in South-east Asia and the Pacific. TPB’swork, in addition, is supported by UNODC’s 21 field offices aswell as ICAO regional offices in Mexico City, Dakar, Cairo andBangkok, where there are stationed regional officers who spe-cialize in aviation security matters.

While TPB provides legal advisory services in criminal lawmatters, ICAO programmes help States to implement the security-related aspects of the aviation security treaties as well as theAnnex 17 standards. In order to assess the implementation ofthese international standards, ICAO has been conducting auditsunder its Universal Security Audit Programme (USAP) since2002. As of 30 November, 104 States had been audited by ICAOaudit teams, and the first round of audits of all 189 ICAOContracting States should be completed by the end of 2007. Inaddition to helping States improve their aviation security sys-tems by identifying deficiencies and developing projects to rectify

shortcomings, the security audits are expected to provide usefulfeedback concerning Annex 17 provisions.

As noted above, UNODC and ICAO have conducted variousjoint activities. The two organizations, for example, made jointpresentations at aviation security and regional assistance work-shops and seminars in Kyiv and Tunis in 2004, and in Marra-kech in 2005. As a further step to increase cooperation,UNODC and CTED briefed the ICAO Council on their activitiesin November 2005. Under discussion are possible future jointtechnical cooperation activities and the sharing of informationand technical assistance tools by UNODC and ICAO.

Although all UN member States are legally bound to imple-ment effective counter-terrorism measures, many governmentsdo not have the resources or the capacity to fulfill their obliga-tions. Domestic weaknesses such as lack of legislation, ineffec-tive border control or poor financial oversight can be exploitedby terrorists, as can the lack of a mechanism for effective inter-national cooperation. It is critical therefore to increase technicalassistance to States that are unable to strengthen their ability todeal more effectively with terrorist threats.

Through its legal advisory services and training programmesfor criminal justice officials, UNODC has contributed signifi-cantly to improvements. At the same time, ICAO has been helpingStates comply with international security standards.

A strong legal framework helps to ensure that terrorists willhave neither a safe haven nor the resources and means to committerrorist acts. This legal solution, as well as efforts to provideStates with the capacity to prevent and suppress acts of unlawfulinterference with civil aviation, are important elements of anycomprehensive counter-terrorism strategy. In this respect, thework carried out by TPB and ICAO has helped to enhance globalaviation security and suppress terrorism.

While much progress has been made in strengthening thelegal aviation security regime, widespread ratification of theuniversal instruments, and especially the implementation of theaviation security treaties, remains a distant goal. This is whyincreased cooperation between ICAO and the UNODC’s TPB isvital in the fight against terrorism. ■■

LOSA Programmecontinued from page 20

400 LOSA observations in 2005 is estimated at U.S. $63,000.The cost and effort of implementing PROL is justified if only

because the initiative will allow Varig to manage safety in aproactive manner through a detailed knowledge of all aspects ofits operations. This approach inspires confidence amongemployees, and by successfully enhancing safety, can have asimilar effect on the airline’s customers.

Importantly, PROL gives pilots the opportunity to activelyparticipate in a programme that will almost certainly improvetheir operating environment. Another advantage stems fromthe cost of insurance, which is expected to decline as a result ofLOSA implementation. Varig has already briefed insurancecompanies on the implementation of the programme, and is inthe process of renegotiating contracts with insurers followingtheir positive written feedback. Like the 30 airlines worldwidethat have so far embraced LOSA, insurers recognize the valueof monitoring routine operations in a manner that promotessafety change. ■■

NUMBER 1, 2006 37

Aircraft noise researchcontinued from page 25

as this and computational modelling, SAI researchers are inves-tigating ways of obtaining high lift and drag on approach whilegenerating less noise. Various mechanisms are being examinedincluding suction, novel ways to use the engine as an air-brake,and even vectored thrust, which exploits the low speed engineexhaust. The impact of these features on aircraft noise emis-sion, aircraft controllability and fuel efficiency is beingassessed, and eventually the best design options will be refinedto yield the silent aircraft and the ideal approach trajectory.

A key feature of the project is the substantive collaborationbetween industry and academia, made possible because universi-ty researchers and their industrial partners have found new waysof working together. In addition to having each student developideas and technology concepts that enable them to earn a univer-sity degree, the results of the research need to be integrated intoa workable design concept. Researchers are thus learning towork as part of an integrated product team, with weekly video-conferences and even more regular e-mail and telephone contact.

Members of the team have formed task forces to addressspecific design questions at crucial stages of the project, involvingaspects such as the aircraft design range and engine configuration.These are short and intense activities, drawing on members fromall research areas, and frequently involve an exchange of personnel.

There are biannual formal meetings of all the partners in theresearch initiative, but interaction between some partners hap-pens almost on a daily basis. One innovation is the “briefingroom,” an informal meeting of about an hour where industryexperts are quizzed about their work. The time limit keeps thediscussion focused on relevant design issues. On several differ-ent levels, the Silent Aircraft Initiative has been an instructiveand useful experiment in academic-industry interaction.

Another aspect of SAI is its appeal to undergraduates. The proj-ect to define a “silent” aircraft has sparked student enthusiasm foraviation and aerospace engineering. Among evidence of this wasthe strong response to a notice posted last summer at CambridgeUniversity’s Engineering Department. Undergraduates wereinvited to get involved in some of the engineering challengesinherent in designing an aircraft that is radically quieter than con-ventional aeroplanes; the turnout for the information meeting farexceeded expectations, with an overflow crowd that filled thedepartment’s large central courtyard, forcing organizers to shiftthe meeting from an office to a large lecture theatre. The SAI proj-ect has been equally popular with industrial trainees who haveworked on secondment with the university researchers.

Work is in progress on further iterations in the aircraft con-figuration and operational aspects, together with improvedfidelity noise estimates. The final version of the conceptualdesign will be ready in September 2006, at which point industrywill undertake an in-depth review. It should be emphasized,however, that even if all research results are positive, it couldtake another 20 years or more to turn today’s concept into acommercial aircraft. In the meantime, it is possible — and indeedpart of the project strategy — for some quiet technologies or pro-cedures currently being developed by the researchers to findearlier application.

In the nearer term, the Operations Team is developing anadvanced form of a continuous descent approach (CDA) that

could allow today’s aircraft to gain immediate benefits. SAIresearchers hope to test out these improved approaches in tri-als at Nottingham East Midlands Airport next year. The experi-ment requires the collaboration of many of the project’s indus-trial partners, among them the U.K. Civil Aviation Authority,U.K. National Air Traffic Services, and air carriers such asDHL, easyJet and Thomsonfly. For this research community,early success in demonstrating enhanced CDA benefits wouldprovide strong support indeed for a new approach to a complexand difficult engineering problem. ■■

Safety initiativecontinued from page 20

For the LOSA process to proceed productively, organization-al culture must be supportive. It is essential that the voluntaryparticipation of pilots be respected, and that a non-punitive pol-icy be followed: unless pilots are confident that an observer onthe flight deck will bring no repercussions, their behaviour maynot mirror operational reality. The importance of trust, there-fore, cannot be overstated.

The signing of a LOSA protocol served to demonstrate to allthose involved in the programme that transparency is para-mount, and reflected a commitment to a process that wouldlead to safety improvements and a safer operating environment.

The SNA encourages pilots to support PROL. The LOSAprocess requires a collaborative approach, giving pilots an impor-tant opportunity to participate in a worthwhile safety initiative. ■■

IN THESPOTLIGHT ...

DEPOSIT BY PAKISTANPakistan recently deposited an instrument of ratification of theProtocol relating to an amendment of Article 50(a) of the Conventionon International Civil Aviation (1990) and an instrument of acces-sion to the Protocol for the amendment of the 1956 Agreementon the Joint Financing of Certain Air Navigation Services in Iceland(1982). Shown on the occasion are (l-r): Saif Ullah Chattha, ConsulGeneral of Pakistan in Montreal; Shahid Malik, High Commissionerof Pakistan; ICAO Secretary General Dr. Taïeb Chérif; Mokhtar AhmedAwan, Representative of Pakistan on the Council of ICAO; and ICAOLegal Bureau Director Denys Wibaux.

AIRPORT SECURITY SEMINARA seminar on airport security matters was held in Santa Cruz, Boliviafrom 14 to 18 November 2005. Conducted by ICAO’s Technical CooperationBureau, the seminar was co-sponsored by the Aeropuertos Españoles yNavegación Aérea (AENA), of Spain, and the Spanish Agency of InternationalCooperation (AECI). Fifty-eight participants from 15 States attendedpresentations on security, facilitation and training given by expertsfrom Bolivia, Peru, Uruguay, Spain and ICAO.

MIDDLE EAST OFFICEDuring his stay in Cairo, Egypt in September 2005, ICAO CouncilPresident Dr. Assad Kotaite visited the ICAO Middle East Office,where he addressed the staff on ICAO’s recently adopted unifiedstrategy to resolve safety-related deficiencies, as well as on thecurrent budgetary constraints facing the organization.

REGIONAL WORKSHOPSRegional workshops on airport and route facility management were held inPort of Spain and in Cairo during October and November 2005, respectively.The workshops assisted member States in dealing with economic, organizationaland other managerial issues related to airports and air navigation services(ANS), and provided the participants with an opportunity to exchange viewsand information. Special attention was given to the revised ICAO policy andguidance in the field of airport and ANS economics and management, as wellas new ideas related to the performance of the air navigation system. Picturedis the workshop in Port of Spain last October, which attracted 39 participants fromeight States in the region; the Cairo workshop was attended by 46 participantsfrom 16 States.

TRAFFIC FORECASTERS MEETThe ICAO Caribbean and South American Traffic ForecastingGroup (CAR/SAM TFG), established in 1996, held its sixthmeeting at the ICAO South American Office in Lima, Peruin September 2005. The CAR/SAM TFG holds its meetingsperiodically with the objective of assisting regional airnavigation system planners through the developmentof aircraft movement forecasts and peak-period analyses.The forecasts produced during the recent meeting werepresented to the 13th meeting of the CAR/SAM RegionalPlanning and Implementation Group (GREPECAS) inNovember 2005.

SAFETY ROADMAPThe Global Aviation Safety Roadmap, a strategic action plan for future aviation safety, wasformally presented to ICAO on 16 December 2005. Developed by the Airports Council Inter-national (ACI), Airbus, Boeing, the Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation (CANSO), theFlight Safety Foundation (FSF), the International Air Transport Association (IATA) and theInternational Federation of Air Line Pilots’ Associations (IFALPA), the action plan is currentlyunder review by the ICAO Air Navigation Commission and will likely be tabled at a conferenceof the world’s directors general of civil aviation (DGCAs) in March. The roadmap covers the2005-2010 time frame, and was developed by industry with the primary objective of providinga common frame of reference for all stakeholders including States, regulators, airline opera-tors, airports, aircraft manufacturers, pilot associations, safety organizations and air trafficservice providers. Pictured on the occasion are (l-r): Paul Lamy, Chief of the ICAO Flight SafetySection; William Voss, Director of the ICAO Air Navigation Bureau; Mike Comber, Director,ICAO Relations at IATA; ICAO Council President Dr. Assad Kotaite; David Mawdsley, DirectorSafety at IATA; Adrian Sayce, President of the ICAO Air Navigation Commission for 2006; andLibin Wen, Second Vice-President of the ICAO Air Navigation Commission.

DEPOSIT BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATIONThe Russian Federation has deposited an instrument ofratification of four Protocols of amendment to the ChicagoConvention relating to Article 56 of 1989 (increasingmembership of the ICAO Air Navigation Commission to19 members); Article 50(a) of 1990 (increasing membershipof the ICAO Council to 36 members); the Final Paragraph of1995 (referring to the authentic Arabic text of the ChicagoConvention); and the Final Paragraph of 1998 (referringto the authentic Chinese text of the Convention). Shownat the brief ceremony at ICAO headquarters are IgorM. Lysenko, Representative of the Russian Federation onthe Council of ICAO (at left), and ICAO Secretary GeneralDr. Taïeb Chérif.

DEPOSIT BY BANGLADESHBangladesh deposited an instru-ment of accession to the Conven-tion on the Marking of PlasticExplosives for the Purpose ofDetection during a brief ceremonyat ICAO headquarters recently.Shown on that occasion are (l-r):Rafiq Ahmed Khan, High Commis-sioner for Bangladesh (Ottawa); Dr.Taïeb Chérif, ICAO Secretary Gener-al; and Denys Wibaux, Director ofthe ICAO Legal Bureau.

VOLCANO WATCHThe International Airways Volcano WatchOperations Group met at the ICAO SouthAmerican Office at the end of September 2005to review IAVW-related provisions in both ICAOAnnex 3 and in regional air navigation plans.(For more about the meeting, see text onpage 32.)