1 / 39

GA Joint Steering Committee

GA JSC SAT and Working Group Processes Corey Stephens Co-Chair, GA JSC SAT GA JSC SAT Meeting March 22, 2011 Washington, DC. GA Joint Steering Committee. Evolve GA JSC to a CAST like Model Voluntary commitments Consensus decision-making Data driven risk management Implementation-focused

inara
Download Presentation

GA Joint Steering Committee

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. GA JSC SAT and Working Group ProcessesCorey StephensCo-Chair, GA JSC SATGA JSC SAT MeetingMarch 22, 2011Washington, DC

  2. GA Joint Steering Committee • Evolve GA JSC to a CAST like Model • Voluntary commitments • Consensus decision-making • Data driven risk management • Implementation-focused • The GA JSC is a means to… Focus Limited Government/Industry Resources on Data Driven Risks and Solutions

  3. What is CAST? • Work began in 1997 after two significant accidents in 1996 (TWA 800 & ValueJet 592) • CAST focus was set by: • White House Commission on Aviation Safety • The National Civil Aviation Review Commission (NCARC) • Opportunity for industry and government to focus resources on one primary aviation safety initiative

  4. What is CAST? Vision • Key aviation stakeholders acting cooperatively to lead the world-wide aviation community to the highest levels of global commercial aviation safety by focusing on the right things. Mission • Enable a continuous improvement framework built on monitoring the effectiveness of implemented actions and modifying actions to achieve the goal. Goal • Reduce the US commercial aviation fatal accident rate 80% by 2007 and • Maintain a continuous reduction in fatality risk in US and International commercial aviation beyond 2007.

  5. CAST Safety Strategy How CAST Works Data Analysis Implement Safety Enhancements - U.S. Set Safety Priorities Agree on problems and interventions Influence Safety Enhancements - Worldwide Achieve consensus on priorities Integrate into existing work and distribute

  6. CAST Safety Strategy \ Ongoing Accident/Incident/Studies Master Contributing Factors Performance To Plan Review Incident Analysis Process CAST Plan Industry/ Government Action Develop/Revise Enhancements & Metrics Develop/Revise Enhancements & Metrics Develop/Revise Enhancements & Metrics Emerging/ Changing Risk Things to Watch Safer System Future Changes Analysis Process Information on System Performance 10-28-05 CAST-064

  7. CAST Safety Analysis Process 1. NTSB Accident Incident Reports 2. 21.3 Reports ASIAS data Airclaims data Historical Data Industry Pareto Plots JSAT JSAT 3. Accident Threat 4. Combined Threat Causal Analysis Intervention Strategy Cause Cause Cause Cause 5. JSAT JSAT 7. Industry Safer Skies 6. Government Implementation Strategy JSIT AvSP Measuring Progress to Goal Coordinated Plan 5.3-23

  8. Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST) CAST Joint Safety Analysis Teams (JSAT) • Data analyses • Safety enhancement development Joint Safety Implementation Teams (JSIT) • Master safety plan • Enhancement effectiveness • Future areas of study Joint Implementation Measurement Data Analysis Team (JIMDAT)

  9. CAST Accomplishments • Forensic analysis of US and world accidents since 1987 (ongoing) • Industry and government cooperative safety plan: • 72 Prioritized Safety Enhancements • 50 Complete and 22 underway • Projected 74% fatality risk reduction by 2020 • Development of proactive analytic processes for incident data • CAST was the recipient of the 2008 Collier Trophy For achieving an unprecedented safety level in U.S. commercial airline operations by reducing risk of a fatal airline accident by 83 percent, resulting in two consecutive years of no commercial scheduled airline fatalities

  10. For this discussion… GA JSC Groups and theirCASTCounterparts • GA JSC = CAST • Steering Committee = CAST ExCom • Safety Analysis Team (SAT) = JIMDAT • Working Groups (WGs) = JSAT/JSIT

  11. General Aviation Joint Steering Committee (GAJSC) Steering Committee Co-Chairs: Bruce Landsberg (AOPA/ASF) Tony Fazio (FAA/AVP) Government - FAA (AFS, AIR, ATO & ARP) - NASA (Research) - NWS Industry - GAMA, EAA, NBAA, NATA, & SAMA • Strategic guidance • Management/Approval of Safety Plan • Provide direction • Membership Outreach • Provides linkage to ASIAS • Identify future areas of study/risk • Charter safety studies • Provide guidance and direction • Draw data from various areas • Develop a prioritized Safety Plan • Develop metrics to measure effectiveness of safety solutions Safety Analysis Team Co-chairs: Corey Stephens (FAA) Jens Hennig(GAMA) Members: FAA, NTSB, AOPA, FSF, UAA, CGAR, FAST, NAFI, Insurance, Academia, SAFE Working Groups (To include SMEs from various general aviation segments, depending on study) • Data analyses • Safety enhancement • Mitigation development

  12. GAJSC Safety Strategy Industry Action Monitor Effect Approves DIP & Assigns Industry Government Responsibility Approves Proposed Mitigations Approves Priority / Assigns Resources to WG Government Action Ongoing Fatal AccidentStudies Amend Safety Plan Review Proposed Mitigations Evaluate Cost & Benefit Accident Selection Identification of System Changes Develops Detailed Implementation Plans (DIP) Aviation System GA Safety Plan GAJSC SAT WG Establish SAT Accident Area Proposed NASA ASIAS FAA Academia Detailed Accident Review and Propose Mitigations NTSB Manufacturers Pilots Develop, Revise & Monitoring of Metrics General Aviation NAS Safety State  Time  08-16-2011 GAJSC

  13. GA JSC Working Group Process Step 1: Analysis

  14. Typical CAST JSAT Membership ALPA/APA FAA (AIR, AFS, ASA, AAI, ATO) Airbus EASA ATA Transport Canada NASA Engine companies – (PW, GE, RR-Allison) Boeing RAA NACA AIA NATCA

  15. GA JSC WG Process Charter Development Establish Team Select Data Set Review Data Assign Standard Problem Statements Evaluate Problem Importance Develop Event Sequence Record Characteristics/ Indicators Identify Problems (what/why) Global Review of Characteristics/ Indicators Technical Review & Report Results Identify Intervention Strategies Evaluate Intervention Effectiveness Prioritize Interventions 5.5-24

  16. Developed Event Sequence Facts and data Pilot - controller voice events Missed calls Events that occurred or should have Time coded each event

  17. Develop Problem Statements • Problem statements • What went wrong • Deficiency definition • Potential reason • Something which happened or didn’t happen

  18. Sample Standard Problem StatementsCAST Examples 10 FLIGHTCREW – Failure of flight crew to follow established procedures (SOP) 39 AIRCRAFT EQUIPMENT – DESIGN NOT ERROR TOLERANT System design does not provide adequate redundancy to counteract errors or alerting of the effects of errors 44 FLIGHTCREW – Flight crew failure to recognize and correct unstable approach 100 REGULATORS – INSUFFICIENT AIR CARRIER OVERSIGHT . Insufficient regulatory oversight of air carrier operations including management and training practices

  19. Identify Intervention Strategies • Intervention strategies • Suggested solutions • Things to do to prevent or mitigate the problem • Etc.

  20. Intervention Effectiveness Power Effectiveness of a specific intervention in reducing the likelihood that a specific accident would have occurred (“Perfect World”) Confidence Confidence that this specific intervention will have the desired effect Future Global Applicability How well the intervention can be extrapolated to apply to a world-wide fleet in the future

  21. Effectiveness Rating Scales POWER This scale is to be used to judge the effectiveness of a specific intervention in reducing the likelihood that a specific accident would have occurred had the intervention been in place and operating as intended. (“perfect world”) 0 1 3 2 6 5 4 Highly effective Completely effective Not at all effective Slightly effective Quite effective Hardly any effect Moderately effective CONFIDENCE This scale is to be used to define the level of confidence that you have that this specific intervention will have the desired effect. 0 1 3 2 6 5 4 Completely confident Slightly confident Moderately confident Hardly any confidence Highly confident Quite confident Not at all confident FUTURE GLOBAL APPLICABILITY This scale is to be used to estimate how well the intervention can be extrapolated to apply to a world-wide fleet in the future. (for example: how often the situation it addresses occurs in accident scenarios; whether its impact is on present and future operations (equippage, traffic, regulatory differences); and whether it is applicable across airlines/airplanes/regions. 0 1 3 2 6 5 4 Completely applicable Hardly any applicable Slightly applicable Moderately applicable Highly applicable Quite applicable Not at all applicable

  22. GA JSC Working Group Process Step 2: Implementation

  23. GA JSC Feasibility Scales Technical Financial Operational Schedule Regulatory Sociological

  24. GA JSC Safety Enhancements Develop Safety Enhancements from Interventions Collect detailed resource information Prepare Detailed Implementation Plans (DIP’s)

  25. GA JSC WG Reports Standard Problem Statements Interventions Prioritized Recommendations Detailed Implementation Plans (DIPs)

  26. What’s a DIP?

  27. GA JSC SAT (Safety Analysis Team) Process Safety Plan Development

  28. Develops a Prioritization Methodology (GA JSC SAT) Identifies the most effective solutions derived from all accident categories Considers effectiveness vs. resources Tests solutions against fatal and hull loss accidents Creates draft master strategic safety plan Identifies areas for future study/mitigation

  29. General Methodology for Calculating the Potential Benefit of a Safety Enhancing Intervention =  ( ) Accident Risk Reduction , Effectiveness that an intervention has for reducing the accident rate if incorporated Portion of world fleet with intervention implemented

  30. Spreadsheet Example – Historical Airplane Accidents & Proposed Safety Enhancements – CAST Example

  31. Basics of the Selection Spreadsheet Effectiveness Each safety enhancements is evaluated against each undesired condition in the set to determine how effective the enhancement would be at eliminating these conditions if the enhancement were put in place. Implementation Implementation level is based on the portion of the affected population with the enhancement incorporated or predicted to be incorporated by a future date. Severity Weighting To account for differences in severity or significance of the undesired conditions, a weighting value can be entered so that the relative risk of the undesired conditions is realized.

  32. Severity Weighting OverviewCAST Example • To account for differences in fatality risk associated with each accident in the data set, a severity value was applied. In this assessment, the severity value represented the portion of people onboard that perished in the given accident. • Example: Comparison of two fatal accidents • 757 CFIT accident, 98% perished. Weighting factor is .98 • 747 Turbulence accident, .6% perished. Weighting factor is .006 • Hypothetically assume an assessment showed that the chance of these accident occurring would have been reduced by proposed safety enhancements by 50%. • The associated portion of fatality risk eliminated can be determined using the severity weighting factor as follows: • 757 CFIT.98 x .5 = .49 • 747 Turbulence, .006 x .5 = .003

  33. Analysis Tool Output • The spreadsheet output can be set up to show the effect that an individual safety enhancement, or group of safety enhancements have on reducing exposure to the undesired condition. Fatality Risk Reduction SE1 SE2 SE3 SE1 & SE1 & SE2 SE3

  34. Robust CAST Methodology • Detailed event sequence - problem identification from worldwide accidents and incidents • Broad-based teams (45-50 specialists /team) • Over 450 problem statements (contributing factors) • Over 900 interventions proposed • Analyzed for effectiveness and synergy- CAST Safety Enhancements

  35. CAST Process Led to Integrated Strategic Safety Plan • Part 121 or equivalent passenger and cargo operations studied • Current CAST plan: • 72 Prioritized Safety Enhancements • 50 Complete and 22 underway • Projected 74% fatality risk reduction by 2020 • Industry and Government implementing plan

  36. Resource Cost Vs. Risk ReductionCAST Example 100% 10000 Risk Reduction APPROVED PLAN $ 9000 Total Cost in $ (Millions) 8000 75% 7000 6000 $ Risk Eliminated by Safety Enhancements 50% 5000 Resource Cost ($ Millions) 2007 2020 4000 3000 25% 2000 $ 1000 $ $ 0% 0 All JSIT Proposed Enhancements (2020 Implementation Level) Completed Completed + Plan (2020 Implementation Level) Completed + Plan (2007 Implementation Level)

  37. Cost SavingsCAST Example Part 121 Aviation Industry Cost Due to Fatal/Hull Loss Accidents 100 Historical cost of accidents per flight cycle 80 Savings ~ $74/Flight Cycle Or ~ $814 Million Dollars/Year 74% Risk reduction Dollars/Flt. Cycle 60 40 Cost of accident fatalities following implementation of the CAST plan @ 2020 levels 20 0 2007 2020

  38. What the GA JSC can accomplish • GA accident and incident data drives direction of GA JSC activities • GA JSC to charge the SAT with chartering study groups on specific topics • Working groups of SMEs formed to identify risks and develop mitigations • Mitigations are assessed and prioritized • A cooperative industry/government GA safety plan is developed and implemented

  39. GA JSC SAT & WGs - Moving Forward • History shows focused action and introduction of new capabilities have led to accident risk reductions • Joint industry and government teams working together to a common goal can further enhance the safety of our very safe aviation system • Full implementation will require a coordinated effort between industry and government • The GA JSC is moving forward to meet the challenge

More Related