1 / 21

Single Worldwide Airworthiness and Environmental Codes

Single Worldwide Airworthiness and Environmental Codes. Presented by Thaddee Sulocki - JAA Dorenda Baker - FAA. General Background. Overview of Tasking Formation of the International Working Group Working Methods Analytical Hierarchy Process and Ranking. Overview of Tasking.

peony
Télécharger la présentation

Single Worldwide Airworthiness and Environmental Codes

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. Single Worldwide Airworthiness and Environmental Codes Presented by Thaddee Sulocki - JAA Dorenda Baker - FAA

  2. General Background • Overview of Tasking • Formation of the International Working Group • Working Methods • Analytical Hierarchy Process and Ranking

  3. Overview of Tasking • Decision to start a study at the 17th FAA/JAA Annual International Conference (June 2000) • Two Terms of Reference (TOR), one on a “Single Code”, one on a “Single Process” • Activity on the “Single Process” not yet started

  4. The "Single Worldwide Airworthiness and Environmental Code" TOR • Review present methods for the development of airworthiness and environmental codes, policies, and guidance among the affected authorities. • Review present methods for adoption of these codes, policies, and guidance worldwide. • Review present methods for identification and resolution of additional national requirements (ANRs) and operational standards that lead to design requirements.

  5. The "Single Worldwide Airworthiness and Environmental Code" TOR • Recommend work priorities (e.g., products (aircraft, engine, propeller) and legal issues). • Recommend the optimal solution and the next steps with associated timelines to achieve it. • Evaluation of the potential methods must consider effectiveness, efficiency, feasibility (in particular legal constraints), public perception, institutional changes (e.g., EASA), work program priorities, and the ability to gain support of Authorities worldwide.

  6. Formation of the Group • An International Working Group was formed for the “Single Code” • First meeting in March 2001 • Meetings were attended by representatives from industry and airworthiness authorities • ICAO Resolution in Fall 2001, supporting the activity

  7. Working Methods • International Working Group Divided into five main sub-groups • Questionnaire • Operating Procedures • Minimal Requirements • Adoption • Evaluation

  8. Questionnaire • Survey of ICAO Contracting States • Most national airworthiness and certification standards are based on or are similar to the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) or Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR). • It is reasonable to presume that the ICAO Contracting States could recognize a Worldwide Code.

  9. Possible End Products • FAR (developed by FAA) • JAR (developed by JAA) • FAR or JAR (developed jointly under the Harmonisation Process) • IAR (developed through an arrangement) • Industry Standard (developed by Industry)

  10. Possible ways of reaching Global Implementation • On a voluntary basis • Through an ICAO mechanism/instrument • Through a global arrangement (assumed more binding than the current ICAO)

  11. 15 Options

  12. Analytical Hierarchy Process Evaluation Exercise - General • Using the Analytical Hierarchy Process, a multi-criteria decision making tool • AHP : • Defines and weights criteria • Compares options in regard to each criteria • Checks for inconsistency in voting • Allows discussion • Allows sensitivity analysis

  13. Evaluation Exercise – Objectives The Group defined • An overall objective for having common certification requirements and procedures, then, • A regulatory objective for this specific exercise • Finally, a series of criteria to assess each option

  14. Evaluation Exercise – Criteria • Expected degree of global implementation 20.4% • Political and legal barriers 19.8% • Commitment ("binding level") 17.4% • Transparency ("openness") 15% • Flexibility (incl. "reactivity") 13.7% • Resources requirement 8.9% • Time to implement 4.8%

  15. Evaluation Exercise - Criteria

  16. Results

  17. RECOMMENDATIONS Presented by Thaddee Sulocki - JAA Dorenda Baker - FAA

  18. Recommendations • The International Working Group recommends: • Option 8: “A code based on the harmonized FAR/JAR developed by FAA and JAA and adopted by ICAO,” as the optimal solution of the 15 options evaluated.

  19. Recommendations • Option 8 should be pursued through a phased approach • Phase I: Promote Current FAR/JAR Harmonization Work Program. • Phase II: Develop concept of having the Harmonized FAR/JAR recognized under the ICAO umbrella. • Phase III: Seek ICAO Agreement and Implement.

  20. Recommendations • An individual or group should be specifically tasked to undertake and monitor the implementation of the recommended option.

  21. Questions?? • Discussion of Recommendations • Suggestions for next steps

More Related