APEC Transportation Working Group (TPT-WG)
Steering Committee on Safe and Environment-Friendly Transportation Systems

Follow-on Survey Regarding Recommendations of the APEC TPT-WG
Group of Experts on Aviation Safety and Assistance (GEASA)

In the June 1995 Ministerial Joint Statement, the Transportation Working Group (TPT-WG) was directed to convene aviation safety representatives from each economy to identify aviation safety problems in the region and to make recommendations for necessary assistance. These safety representatives formed a Group of Experts on Aviation Safety and Assistance (GEASA.) The GEASA was directed to facilitate the harmonization, coordination, and transparency of transport policies, regulations, procedures, and standards and to have as a priority the review of transport regulatory practices and procedures and to pursue as far as possible their harmonization or mutual recognition.

The work of the GEASA began in April 1996 and resulted in a June 1997 report to Ministers entitled, "Aviation Safety in the APEC Economies," which identified ninety-two potential safety problems and resulted in recommendations in the five areas of: lack of adequate civil aviation safety oversight; lack of harmonization of civil aviation safety rules; concern regarding traffic conflicts; lack of good incident reporting data bases; and availability of appropriate skills in industry. The APEC Transport Ministers accepted the report at their June 1997 ministerial meeting and requested the GEASA to make recommendations to implement the recommendations. The GEASA submitted its recommendations in its November 1997, "Report to APEC Transport Ministers on Mechanisms to Implement Recommendations on Aviation Safety in APEC Economies." The report proposed that the newly formed TPT-WG Steering Committee on Safe and Environment-Friendly Transportation Systems (SCSE) be tasked with the monitoring of the implementation status of the safety programs recommended by the GEASA.

The SCSE agreed at the 13th TPT-WG meeting in Mexico City, Mexico, to begin monitoring the implementation of the GEASA recommendations by the APEC economies. It was agreed that this monitoring should be conducted through a survey to each economy, with results forwarded to the APEC Transport Ministers. A sample survey was presented at the 13th TPT-WG for comment and after consultation was later mailed in July 1998 to all APEC economies for completion by September 1998. The survey results were compiled and an interim report was provided at the 14^th TPT-WG meeting in April 1999. It was agreed at the 15^th TPT-WG that new APEC economies be provided with the opportunity to complete surveys as well as allowing existing economies to provide updates to their surveys. It was also agreed that an Aviation Safety Seminar be held during a future APEC meeting to focus on areas needing attention as identified from the surveys. The proposal for an Aviation Safety Seminar was accepted for the 17^th TPT-WG meeting.

The results of the surveys, a summary of the Aviation Safety Seminar, and other areas in the GEASA report highlighted for follow-up are provided below.

Completed surveys were received from sixteen of the 21 APEC economies. The economies were asked to respond to their implementation of the GEASA safety recommendations in nine areas. The results of responses are summarized below.

All economies reporting have made a public announcement or other indication that aviation safety is a high priority. A number of economies indicated that adequate revenue and personnel are in place for aviation safety oversight.

All economies reporting had established a civil aviation authority that was separate from the airline operations and was responsible for oversight of civil aviation safety operations. In all but two economies reporting, the CAA's were also responsible for the compliance and enforcement of civil aviation safety operations; in the other two economies, other government organizations were designated with compliance and enforcement responsibilities. All CAA's were responsible for other aviation functions, the most common being air traffic, security, airports and accident investigation. All CAA's had a designated office responsible for oversight of air carrier operations and continued airworthiness.

All but one of the economies reporting participate in Directors General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) meetings within their regions. The economies geographically located within the Asia-Pacific region participate in the ICAO Annual Conference of DGCAs of the Asia-Pacific region and two of the four Western Hemisphere economies also participate in this meeting. Half of the economies reported some participation in the ICAO Cooperative Development of Operational Safety and Continuing Airworthiness Project or COSCAP.

More than half of the economies reporting have developed a standard training course curriculum for its inspectors. Those that do not have a standard training course curriculum avail themselves of training from either ICAO experts, the United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority (U.K. CAA) or the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

Most of the economies reported participation in some type of harmonization activity. This could either be a regional program like the ICAO COSCAP, working individually with a country or groups of countries, or by individual economy review and comparison of regulations of other economies.

Approximately half of the economies reporting who are participating in the ICAO Asia Pacific Air Navigation Planning and Implementation Regional Group (APANPIRG) have endorsed its recommendation on Airborne Collision Avoidance Systems (ACAS) developed in June 1997. Most economies reporting indicate that they have regulations addressing ACAS and other economies are progressing work in this area.

All but one of the applicable economies reporting have ratified ICAO Article 83 bis and approximately half of these economies have developed the needed legislation or regulations needed to implement this standard within their own economy.

The majority of the economies reporting have responded that they had some type of accident/incident reporting system. Most of these systems are confidential and separate from the aviation safety regulator.

The majority of economies reporting have established certification criteria for pilots, mechanics and engineers and the training centers that might provide such airmen certification services.

The Aviation Safety Initiative of the TPT-WG Steering Committee on Safe and Environment-Friendly Transportation Systems sponsored a seminar titled ¡§Setting the Stage for Aviation Safety¡¨ on March 28, 2000, during TPT-WG17. The United States, as lead of the SCSE Aviation Safety Initiative, volunteered to organize the seminar and welcomed the assistance of all Economies including the nomination of agenda items and speakers for the seminar.

It was noted that the survey results of the Economies¡¦ implementation of the GEASA safety recommendations revealed that one recommendation in particular, ¡§High Priority for Civil Aviation Safety,¡¨ should receive a focus during the Aviation Safety Seminar. Based on this finding, the seminar presentations focused on the economic argument for aviation safety as well as the management philosophy and the necessary regulatory framework required to ensure aviation safety. The topics discussed during the seminar included the following areas:

• The Economic Argument: Enlisting support of high-level government officials by finding and presenting economic data to show that aviation is key to economic development through the expansion of trade and investment opportunities, enabling integration into a global marketplace, developing a skilled workforce, and promoting tourism, business, and local travel;

• The Regulatory Framework: Developing requisite standards, policy statements, and resulting funding requirements for aviation system improvements.

• The Management Philosophy: maintaining aviation priorities given potential pitfalls (e.g. competing funding priorities) and developing a safety culture including oversight of industry to ensure compliance.

Approximately 50 participants from 19 APEC Economies attended the seminar. Presentations made during the seminar are posted on the APEC website.

In addition to the nine recommendation areas noted above in the surveys, the GEASA report highlighted three areas for follow-up reporting.

• Civil Aviation Academy Approach

It was recommended in the original GEASA report, that ICAO should develop a standard curriculum for training of civil aviation safety inspectors. The first installment, in what is expected to be a series of ICAO courses for government civil aviation safety inspectors, has been developed and delivered. At the request of ICAO, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) developed generic training courses through the ICAO Trainair Program. These courses are designed for official aviation safety inspectors in the operations and airworthiness fields who are responsible for certification of air operators and maintenance organizations. The courses were validated by a worldwide cross section of official aviation safety personnel. The courses were completed and delivered to ICAO in September 2000 and are available for instruction to all APEC economies.

In addition to the United States, Canada and Singapore also expressed an interest in participating in the ICAO Trainair Program as either a contributor of course material or as a provider of course instruction.

• Harmonization of Civil Aviation Safety Rules

During the GEASA meetings, it was noted that the FAA was developing a model aviation regulatory document, which would be compatible with ICAO Annexes, Standards, and Recommended Practices, and the aviation regulations of other economies. In July 1999, the United States FAA completed its first development of the model aviation regulatory document and provided it to ICAO for use in its projects and initiatives. The model regulatory document consists of a civil aviation law, regulations and implementing standards for flight operations, and continuing airworthiness of aircraft. The model regulations were developed using ICAO material, comparisons of the U.S. Federal Aviation Regulations, the European Joint Aviation Requirements (used by some APEC economies,) and regulatory material from the APEC economies of Australia and Canada. The document is cross-referenced to ICAO, FAA, and JAA requirements. The model document was updated twice based on input from a cross-section of worldwide aviation safety experts, including experts from some APEC economies. The current version, (Version 2.0) was provided to ICAO in September 2000. The document is available on the FAA web site at http://www.faa.gov/avr/iasa/index.htm.

• Incident Reporting and Analysis Systems

The GEASA noted that for future reference, a reporting should be made on the efforts of both ICAO, toward the development of an international standard for universal reporting of incidents, and on the continued development of the Global Aviation Information Network (GAIN) program.

During the 32^nd ICAO Assembly in 1998, a resolution was passed to improve safety through enhanced collection, analysis and dissemination of safety information. This culminated in a September 1999 recommendation to ICAO Annex 13, that States should establish non-punitive incident reporting systems, promote establishment of safety information sharing networks, and facilitate free exchange of information on potential safety deficiencies. This recommendation has now become part of the ICAO Annex 13, Chapter 8, paragraph 8.7.

The GAIN program continues to evolve by expanding and enhancing existing systems through an international cooperative effort. This international cooperative effort involves ICAO, some APEC Economies, and industry. Areas of emphasis include expansion of existing safety information sharing among users, the development and use of analytical methods and tools, and the continuation of regular international GAIN World Conferences to development and assess progress. Further information can be obtained from the GAIN Internet site at www.gainweb.org.

It appears that the aviation safety items raised by the GEASA are well understood and being implemented in the APEC economies that participated in the GEASA work. It also appears that there are several worldwide aviation safety initiatives underway in which APEC economies are directly involved. Consequently it appears that no further work is needed at this time as follow up to the GEASA report. The Aviation Safety Initiative of the SCSE will continue to be responsive to any requests for future follow up work in these areas.

It is recommended that the TPT-WG 18 endorse this report and forward to the APEC Transport Ministers.