SKYbrary Aviation Safety - SMS Evaluation Tool · 2014. 10. 26. · within its aviation system,...
33
SM State Safety Program (SSP) Assessment Tool Safety Management International Collaboration Group ICG
Transcript of SKYbrary Aviation Safety - SMS Evaluation Tool · 2014. 10. 26. · within its aviation system,...
SM
StateSafetyProgram(SSP)AssessmentTool
Safety Management
International Collaboration Group
ICG
Version 1.0 – October 2014 Page 1 of 31 SM ICG SSP Assessment Tool
SM ICG SSP Assessment Tool Guidance
Background and Purpose
This tool has been developed by the Safety Management International Collaboration Group (SM ICG) to be used for assessing a State Safety Program (SSP). Use of this tool is voluntary; however, it can be used for initial assessment or continuous improvement of an SSP. The tool is based on a series of questions or expectations that can be used by a State to assess the effectiveness of its SSP. It requires an interaction with all SSP stakeholders including face-to-face discussions and interviews with a cross section of people as part of the assessment. It has been designed to indicate the State’s level of compliance with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) SSP Framework. It also attempts to integrate the SSP approach and the Eight Critical Elements (CE) of a Safety Oversight System, where applicable. It also has been developed to harmonize SSP implementation and assessment globally, thereby establishing a common standard for evaluating compliance and effectiveness of the SSP. Furthermore, the tool has also been designed to allow any State to use and adapt the tool to serve its own purposes based on the size and complexity of the State’s aviation system. Rather than remove elements, States should define how they interpret each element within their own Civil Aviation systems.). This tool can also be used to assess or compare another State’s SSP and serves as the basis for accepting a service provider SMS that has been approved by another State.
Initial Assessment
The State may use the tool as part of an initial assessment; however, this should be preceded by a gap analysis of the SSP. An initial assessment could be based on a desk top review of the documentation that focuses on assessing whether the expectations of compliance and performance are present and suitable. Once the desk top review has been satisfied, evidence should be collected to assess whether the expectations are met (present, operating, and suitable). Finally, an assessment should be made to determine if an expectation is being met effectively. This assumption cannot automatically be made based on whether the expectation is present, operating, and suitable. Effectiveness is achieved when the outcome produces the desired result each time. The collection of evidence should normally be carried out by a team including a team leader, with an appropriate level of competence in SSP, and technical specialists to support the assessment. It is important to structure the assessment in a way that allows interaction with a number of people at different levels of the organization to determine how effective aspects are throughout the organization. For example, determining the extent that the safety policy has been promulgated and understood by staff will require interaction with a cross-section of personnel.
On-going Monitoring and Continuous Improvement
For on-going monitoring and continuous improvement, the State may utilize this tool to assess the effectiveness of its SSP, identify changes to its aviation system, and continuously improve the processes within its SSP. Furthermore, this document is subject to change if the ICAO SSP Framework is modified or as States mature and learn more about SSP.
Competencies
The Tool should be used by State staff with training and competency in:
SSP based on the ICAO SSP and State Safety Oversight Frameworks;
Understanding of compliance and auditing;
Interview techniques;
Understanding of risk management;
Appreciation of the difference between compliance and performance for SSP effectiveness; and
Report writing techniques to allow narrative to be used to summarize the assessment.
Version 1.0 – October 2014 Page 2 of 31 SM ICG SSP Assessment Tool
It is recommended that staff are not only trained to use the tool in the classroom environment, but that they are provided additional training during a live assessment to familiarize themselves with the tool and its practical use.
Using the Tool (Instructions)
This tool evaluates the compliance and effectiveness of the SSP through a series of requirement questions. It also considers the Eight Critical Elements (CE) of a Safety Oversight System since there is commonality between the SSP Framework and the Eight Critical Elements (CE) of a Safety Oversight System. Thus, in this tool, SM ICG has taken a holistic view of a State's capabilities to manage safety within its aviation system, whereby both requirements of SSP and State Safety Oversight are considered in an integrated manner.
The tool was developed using 11 elements of the ICAO SSP Framework and the applicable Eight Critical Elements (CE) of a Safety Oversight System with the SSP Framework description, followed by requirement statements for the elements. For each element, a series of expectations for compliance and performance is listed. Each requirement should be reviewed to determine whether the expectations are being met and are present, suitable, operating and effective, using the definitions and guidance below, so that the overall effectiveness of the element can be justified and supported. Furthermore, the tool can be used by the State to record and document the assessment.
Applicability
This assessment tool can be used to assess any State’s SSP. However, due consideration should be given to the size, nature, and complexity of the State’s aviation system.
Definitions Used in the Tool
Present
There is evidence that the requirement is in place and documented within the State’s SSP.
Suitable
The requirement is being met and is suitable given the size and complexity of the State’s aviation system and the inherent risk in the system.
Operating
There is evidence that the requirement is being met, is in use, and an output is being produced.
Effective
There is evidence that the requirement is effective and achieving the desired outcome.
Note: For a requirement to be considered present, suitable, operating, and effective all the expectations must be met.
Evidence
Evidence includes documentation, reports, records of interviews, and discussions and is likely to vary for different requirements. For example, for an expectation to be present the evidence is likely to be documented only, whereas assessing whether it is operating may involve assessing records as well as face-to-face discussions with personnel.
The How it is achieved column should include summary statements and any references to documentation and records.
Version 1.0 – October 2014 Page 3 of 31 SM ICG SSP Assessment Tool
Verification
The Verification column is for recording any observations, conversations, records, and documents sampled.
Summary Comments
Once all requirements have been assessed, a judgment can be made on whether the overall effectiveness of the element has been achieved; this should be noted in the summary comments box.
Modifying the Tool
A State may adapt the terminology and tool to meet its own national requirements, but aligning to the SM ICG version may enable harmonization across States.
Developing Procedures
Each State will need to define procedures around the use of this tool, customized to its own organizational structure and approach to SSP.
Complementary SM ICG Products
The tool should be used in conjunction with other SM ICG products located on SKYbrary at: http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Safety_Management_International_Collaboration_Group_(SM_ICG).
The SSP Journey
For most States, SSP will take time to implement and several years to mature to a level where it is effective. The following diagram shows the different levels of SSP maturity as a State implements and develops its SSP. It also shows how the tool is used to assess the requirements against the State’s SSP maturity.
The SSP Assessment Tool can be used in stages, looking initially for whether the key elements of an SSP are present and suitable. At a later stage, the SSP can be assessed for how well it is operating and effective. The State can always strive towards excellence as part of its continuous improvement programs and promote SSP excellence by including expectations for each requirement. The expectations for each requirement have been determined by the SM ICG from m experiences.
Version 1.0 – October 2014 Page 4 of 31 SM ICG SSP Assessment Tool
Overview of the ICAO State Safety Program Framework (Annex 19, Attachment A) The State Safety Program should include documented processes for the following elements:
1. State safety policy and objectives
1.1. State safety legislative framework
1.2. State safety responsibilities and accountabilities
1.3. Accident and incident investigation
1.4. Enforcement policy
2. State safety risk management
2.1. Safety requirements for service provider’s SMS
2.2. Agreement on service provider’s safety performance
3. State safety assurance
3.1. Safety oversight
3.2. Safety data collection, analysis and exchange
3.3. Safety data driven targeting of oversight on areas of greater concern or need
4. State safety promotion
4.1. Internal training, communication and dissemination of safety information
4.2. External training, communication and dissemination of safety information
Overview of the ICAO Eight Critical Elements of a State Safety Oversight (Annex 19, Appendix 1) ICAO has identified and defined the following critical elements of a State’s safety oversight system: CE-1. Primary aviation legislation CE-2. Specific operating regulations CE-3. State civil aviation system and safety oversight functions CE-4. Technical personnel qualification and training CE-5. Technical guidance, tools and the provision of safety-critical information CE-6. Licensing, certification, authorization and approval obligations CE-7. Surveillance obligations CE-8. Resolution of safety concerns
SM
ICG
SS
P A
sses
smen
t T
oo
l
Ver
sion
1.0
– O
ctob
er 2
014
Pag
e 5
of 3
1 1
Sta
te S
afe
ty P
olic
y an
d O
bje
cti
ves
1. S
TA
TE
SA
FE
TY
AN
D P
OL
ICY
OB
JEC
TIV
ES
(S
SP
Co
mp
on
ent)
C
E 1
– P
rim
ary
Leg
isla
tio
n
CE
2 –
Op
era
tin
g R
egu
lati
on
s 1.
1 S
TA
TE
SA
FE
TY
LE
GIS
LA
TIV
E F
RA
ME
WO
RK
(S
SP
Fra
mew
ork)
T
he S
tate
has
pro
mul
gate
d a
natio
nal s
afet
y le
gisl
ativ
e fr
amew
ork
and
spec
ific
regu
latio
ns,
in c
ompl
ianc
e w
ith in
tern
atio
nal a
nd n
atio
nal s
tand
ards
, th
at
defin
e ho
w th
e S
tate
will
con
duct
the
man
agem
ent
of s
afet
y in
the
Sta
te. T
his
incl
udes
the
part
icip
atio
n of
Sta
te a
viat
ion
orga
niza
tions
in s
peci
fic a
ctiv
ities
re
late
d to
the
man
agem
ent o
f saf
ety
in th
e S
tate
, and
the
esta
blis
hmen
t of
the
role
s, r
espo
nsib
ilitie
s an
d re
latio
nshi
ps o
f suc
h or
gani
zatio
ns.
The
saf
ety
legi
slat
ive
fram
ewor
k an
d sp
ecifi
c re
gula
tions
are
per
iodi
cally
rev
iew
ed t
o en
sure
they
rem
ain
rele
vant
and
app
ropr
iate
to th
e S
tate
. E
FF
EC
TIV
EN
ES
S is
ach
ieve
d w
hen
the
Sta
te h
as p
rom
ulga
ted
a le
gisl
ativ
e fr
ame
wor
k an
d po
sses
ses
a co
mpr
ehen
sive
set
of s
afet
y re
gula
tions
tha
t are
in
com
plia
nce
with
inte
rnat
iona
l and
nat
iona
l sta
ndar
ds.
Acc
ount
abili
ties
and
resp
onsi
bilit
ies
are
clea
rly d
efin
ed a
nd im
plem
ente
d. T
here
is a
lso
evid
ence
tha
t re
gula
tions
app
ly to
all
aspe
cts
of th
e ci
vil a
viat
ion
syst
em a
nd t
he A
ccep
tabl
e Le
vel o
f Saf
ety
Per
form
ance
(A
LoS
P)
is m
aint
aine
d or
impr
ove
d.
IND
ICA
TO
RS
OF
CO
MP
LIA
NC
E +
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E
R
equ
irem
en
t E
xpec
tati
on
s P
SO
E
H
ow
it is
ach
ieve
d
Ver
ific
atio
n
1.1.
1 H
as t
he s
tate
pr
omul
gate
d a
natio
nal s
afet
y le
gisl
ativ
e fr
amew
ork
and
spec
ific
tech
nica
l re
gula
tions
?
a)
The
legi
slat
ive
fram
ew
ork
shou
ld
prov
ide
the
Sta
te w
ith th
e ne
cess
ary
auth
ority
to p
roac
tivel
y re
gula
te th
e in
dust
ry.
b)
Reg
ulat
ions
sho
uld,
as
min
imu
m m
eet
requ
irem
ents
in IC
AO
Ann
exes
. c)
T
here
is a
ssoc
iate
d gu
idan
ce m
ater
ial
to p
rovi
de a
dditi
onal
info
rmat
ion
and
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
the
regu
lato
ry
fram
ewor
k.
1.1.
2 H
as th
e S
tate
de
velo
ped
and
impl
emen
ted
proc
edur
es fo
r th
e pe
riodi
c re
view
and
am
endm
ent
of it
s re
gula
tions
?
a)
Pro
cedu
res
exis
t for
rev
iew
ing
regu
latio
ns fo
r cu
rren
cy a
nd a
dequ
acy
that
incl
udes
: 1.
C
aptu
ring
and
anal
yzin
g dr
iver
s th
at
mig
ht p
rom
ote
reg
ulat
ory
chan
ge
incl
udin
g IC
AO
, ac
cide
nt r
epor
ts,
emer
ging
tech
nolo
gies
, cha
nges
in
the
avia
tion
syst
em,
etc;
2.
C
onsu
lting
with
the
indu
stry
;
3.
Prio
ritiz
atio
n of
tho
se c
hang
es;
and
4.
Cap
turin
g th
e im
pact
of r
egul
ator
y ch
ange
on
the
entir
e re
gula
tory
SM
ICG
SS
P A
sses
smen
t T
oo
l
Ver
sion
1.0
– O
ctob
er 2
014
Pag
e 6
of 3
1 1
Sta
te S
afe
ty P
olic
y an
d O
bje
cti
ves
IND
ICA
TO
RS
OF
CO
MP
LIA
NC
E
+ P
ER
F
OR
MA
NC
ER
equ
irem
en
t P
SO
E
H
ow
it is
ach
ieve
d
Ver
ific
atio
n
Exp
ecta
tio
ns
stru
ctur
e.
b)
Pro
cess
es a
nd m
etho
ds a
re in
pla
ce to
en
sure
that
the
safe
ty r
equi
rem
ents
in
resp
ect t
o ch
ange
s in
the
avia
tion
syst
em a
re b
eing
met
. (E
xam
ple
a ch
ange
in th
e A
ir T
raffi
c M
anag
emen
t (A
TM
) sy
ste
m.)
c)
A
re th
e pr
oced
ures
effi
cien
t and
do
they
pro
duce
res
ults
with
in t
he
expe
cted
tim
elin
es.
d)
The
se p
roce
dure
s ar
e do
cum
ente
d an
d ke
pt c
urre
nt.
1.1.
3 H
as th
e S
tate
de
velo
ped
and
impl
emen
ted
a pr
oced
ure
for
iden
tifyi
ng a
nd
notif
ying
diff
eren
ces,
if
any,
to IC
AO
?
a)
Pro
cedu
res
are
docu
men
ted.
b)
T
he p
roce
dure
incl
udes
the
iden
tific
atio
n of
per
sons
res
pons
ible
for
revi
ewin
g an
d au
thor
izin
g th
e di
ffere
nces
, and
the
pers
on n
otify
ing
ICA
O o
f the
diff
eren
ces.
c)
T
he o
utpu
ts a
re d
ocum
ente
d an
d av
aila
ble
for
revi
ew.
1.1.
4 D
oes
the
Sta
te h
ave
a re
cord
kee
ping
sy
stem
that
ens
ures
th
e re
tent
ion
of a
ll re
cord
s re
quire
d to
do
cum
ent a
nd
supp
ort S
SP
ac
tiviti
es?
a)
The
rec
ord
syst
em o
r sy
stem
s pr
ovid
es
the
cont
rol p
roce
sses
nec
essa
ry t
o en
sure
app
ropr
iate
iden
tific
atio
n,
legi
bilit
y, s
tora
ge, p
rote
ctio
n, a
rchi
ving
, re
trie
val,
rete
ntio
n tim
e, a
nd d
ispo
sitio
n of
SS
P r
elat
ed r
ecor
ds. (
The
Sta
te m
ay
have
one
or
mul
tiple
rec
ord
syst
ems.
) b)
T
he r
ecor
ds a
re r
etai
ned
and
avai
labl
e fo
r re
view
.
1.1.
5
Doe
s th
e S
tate
hav
e ap
prop
riate
st
anda
rds
defin
ing
tech
nica
l per
sonn
el
qual
ifica
tions
and
tr
aini
ng?
a)
The
re a
re m
inim
um k
now
ledg
e an
d ex
perie
nce
requ
irem
ents
for
the
tech
nica
l per
sonn
el p
erfo
rmin
g sa
fety
ov
ersi
ght
func
tions
. b)
A
ppro
pria
te t
rain
ing
is a
vaila
ble
to
mai
ntai
n an
d en
hanc
e th
e co
mpe
tenc
e of
insp
ecto
rs a
t the
req
uire
d le
vel.
SM
ICG
SS
P A
sses
smen
t T
oo
l
Ver
sion
1.0
– O
ctob
er 2
014
Pag
e 7
of 3
1 1
Sta
te S
afe
ty P
olic
y an
d O
bje
cti
ves
IND
ICA
TO
RS
OF
CO
MP
LIA
NC
E
+ P
ER
FO
RM
AN
CE
R
equ
irem
en
t P
SO
E
H
ow
it is
ach
ieve
d
Ver
ific
atio
n
Exp
ecta
tio
ns
c)
The
trai
ning
incl
udes
initi
al a
nd
recu
rren
t (pe
riodi
c) tr
aini
ng.
d)
App
ropr
iate
pro
cess
es a
re a
vaila
ble
to
asse
ss th
e ad
equa
cy o
f th
e in
spec
tor
skill
set
.
1.1
SU
MM
AR
Y C
OM
ME
NT
S
1.2
ST
AT
E S
AF
ET
Y R
ES
PO
NS
IBIL
ITIE
S A
ND
AC
CO
UN
TA
BIL
ITIE
S (
SS
P F
ram
ewor
k)
The
Sta
te h
as id
entif
ied,
def
ined
and
doc
umen
ted
the
requ
irem
ents
, re
spon
sibi
litie
s, a
nd a
ccou
ntab
ilitie
s re
gard
ing
the
esta
blis
hmen
t and
mai
nten
ance
of t
he
SS
P. T
his
incl
udes
the
dire
ctiv
es to
pla
n, o
rgan
ize,
dev
elop
, ma
inta
in, c
ontr
ol, a
nd c
ontin
uous
ly im
prov
e th
e S
SP
in a
ma
nner
tha
t mee
ts th
e S
tate
’s s
afet
y ob
ject
ives
. It a
lso
incl
udes
a c
lear
sta
tem
ent a
bout
the
prov
isio
n of
the
nece
ssar
y re
sour
ces
for
the
impl
emen
tatio
n of
the
SS
P.
EF
FE
CT
IVE
NE
SS
is a
chie
ved
whe
n th
ere
are
clea
r lin
es o
f saf
ety
acco
unta
bili
ties
thro
ugho
ut th
e en
titie
s re
spon
sibl
e fo
r m
aint
aini
ng a
nd im
prov
ing
the
SS
P
and
the
Acc
ount
able
Exe
cutiv
e an
d m
anag
emen
t tea
m fu
lly u
nder
stan
d th
e ris
ks fa
ced
by th
e S
tate
. IN
DIC
AT
OR
S O
F C
OM
PL
IAN
CE
+ P
ER
FO
RM
AN
CE
Req
uir
eme
nt
Exp
ecta
tio
ns
PS
O
E
H
ow
it is
ach
ieve
d
Ver
ific
atio
n
1.2.
1 a)
Has
the
Sta
te
iden
tifie
d th
e S
SP
P
lace
hold
er
orga
niza
tion
as w
ell
as t
he A
ccou
ntab
le
Per
son
for
the
adm
inis
trat
ion
and
coor
dina
tion
of t
he
SS
P?
a)
The
Sta
te h
as id
entif
ied
an o
rgan
izat
ion
with
the
appr
opria
te a
utho
rity
and
acco
unta
bilit
y th
at is
res
pons
ible
for
the
adm
inis
trat
ion
and
coor
dina
tion
of th
e S
SP
. b)
T
he S
tate
has
iden
tifie
d an
A
ccou
ntab
le/R
espo
nsib
le E
xecu
tive
at
the
appr
opria
te le
vel t
hat h
as fu
ll co
ntro
l of
res
ourc
es to
ens
ure
succ
essf
ul
impl
emen
tatio
n of
the
SS
P.
c)
The
Acc
ount
able
/Res
pons
ible
Exe
cutiv
e is
aw
are
of h
is/h
er r
ole
in th
e S
SP
.
SM
ICG
SS
P A
sses
smen
t T
oo
l
Ver
sion
1.0
– O
ctob
er 2
014
Pag
e 8
of 3
1 1
Sta
te S
afe
ty P
olic
y an
d O
bje
cti
ves
IND
ICA
TO
RS
OF
CO
MP
LIA
NC
E
+ P
ER
FO
RM
AN
CE
R
equ
irem
en
t P
S
O
E
Ho
w it
is a
chie
ved
V
erif
icat
ion
E
xpec
tati
on
s 1.
2.2
Has
the
Sta
te
appo
inte
d an
SS
P
Impl
emen
tatio
n T
eam
? (A
team
ma
y be
one
per
son
for
a sm
all S
tate
s.)
(As
appl
icab
le)
a)
The
Sta
te h
as id
entif
ied
an S
SP
Im
plem
enta
tion
team
that
incl
udes
m
embe
rshi
p fr
om a
ll pe
rtin
ent
gove
rnm
enta
l org
aniz
atio
ns a
nd is
co
mm
ensu
rate
with
the
siz
e an
d co
mpl
exity
of t
he S
tate
s av
iatio
n sy
stem
. b)
T
he m
embe
rs o
f the
team
sho
uld
poss
ess
appr
opria
te k
now
ledg
e,
expe
rienc
e an
d co
mpe
tenc
e as
rel
ated
to
SS
P im
plem
enta
tion.
c)
T
he m
embe
rs o
f the
team
are
aw
are
of
thei
r ro
le in
the
SS
P im
plem
enta
tion.
(N
ote:
The
rol
e of
the
impl
emen
tatio
n te
am w
ill c
hang
e on
ce th
e S
SP
is
impl
emen
ted.
)
1.2.
3 H
as th
e S
tate
de
fined
re
quire
men
ts,
resp
onsi
bilit
ies,
and
ac
coun
tabi
litie
s re
gard
ing
the
esta
blis
hmen
t an
d m
aint
enan
ce o
f the
S
SP
?
a)
The
Sta
te h
as id
entif
ied
pers
ons
resp
onsi
ble
and
acco
unta
ble
for
the
impl
emen
tatio
n an
d m
aint
enan
ce o
f its
S
SP
. b)
T
he S
tate
has
doc
umen
ted
a pr
oces
s fo
r m
aint
aini
ng th
e S
SP
. c)
T
he S
SP
mai
nten
ance
pro
cess
is
perio
dica
lly r
evie
wed
an
d up
date
d as
ne
cess
ary.
1.2.
4 H
as th
e S
tate
co
mpl
eted
a g
ap
anal
ysis
and
has
a
SS
P
Impl
emen
tatio
n P
lan
deve
lope
d,
whi
ch in
clud
es a
tim
efra
me
for
the
impl
emen
tatio
n of
ac
tions
and
gap
s as
id
entif
ied
in it
s S
SP
G
ap A
naly
sis?
(A
s
a)
The
Sta
te h
as d
evel
oped
an
SS
P g
ap
anal
ysis
pro
cess
. b)
T
he S
tate
has
per
form
ed a
n S
SP
gap
an
alys
is a
nd r
esul
ts a
re a
vaila
ble.
c)
T
he d
ata
from
the
SS
P g
ap a
naly
sis
has
been
ana
lyze
d.
d)
An
impl
eme
ntat
ion
plan
has
bee
n de
velo
ped
base
d on
the
SS
P g
ap
anal
ysis
. e)
T
he im
plem
enta
tion
plan
incl
udes
pr
oduc
ts,
mile
ston
es,
and
resp
onsi
bilit
ies.
SM
ICG
SS
P A
sses
smen
t T
oo
l
Ver
sion
1.0
– O
ctob
er 2
014
Pag
e 9
of 3
1 1
Sta
te S
afe
ty P
olic
y an
d O
bje
cti
ves
IND
ICA
TO
RS
OF
CO
MP
LIA
NC
E +
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E
Req
uir
eme
nt
PS
O
E
H
ow
it is
ach
ieve
d
Ver
ific
atio
n
Exp
ecta
tio
ns
appl
icab
le)
f)
Res
ourc
es a
re a
lloca
ted
to a
ddre
ss th
e ga
ps.
g)
The
impl
emen
tatio
n pl
an a
nd r
esou
rces
al
loca
ted
to a
ddre
ss t
he g
aps
are
appr
opria
te a
nd a
dequ
ate.
h)
T
he A
ccou
ntab
le/R
espo
nsib
le E
xecu
tive
is r
espo
nsib
le fo
r th
e S
SP
and
the
impl
emen
tatio
n pl
an.
i) T
he im
plem
enta
tion
plan
is r
evie
wed
re
gula
rly b
y th
e m
anag
emen
t tea
m a
nd
upda
ted
or m
odifi
ed a
s ap
prop
riate
. 1.
2.5
Is t
here
a
docu
men
ted
stat
emen
t abo
ut th
e pr
ovis
ion
of th
e ne
cess
ary
reso
urce
s fo
r th
e im
plem
enta
tion,
m
anag
emen
t, an
d m
aint
enan
ce o
f the
S
SP
?
a)
A d
ocum
ent e
xist
s th
at id
entif
ies
the
reso
urce
req
uire
men
ts fo
r S
SP
im
plem
enta
tion,
man
agem
ent a
nd
mai
nten
ance
. b)
T
he d
ocum
ent
is s
igne
d an
d is
su
ppor
ted
by t
he
Acc
ount
able
/Res
pons
ible
E
xecu
tive/
Man
agem
ent T
eam
. c)
T
his
docu
men
t is
perio
dica
lly r
evie
wed
an
d up
date
d by
A
ccou
ntab
le/R
espo
nsib
le
Exe
cutiv
e/M
anag
emen
t Tea
m a
s ne
cess
ary.
1.2.
6 D
oes
the
[Sta
te]
SS
P A
ccou
ntab
le
Exe
cutiv
e h
ave
cont
rol o
f th
e ne
cess
ary
reso
urce
s re
quire
d fo
r th
e im
plem
enta
tion
of
the
SS
P?
a)
The
Sta
te p
osse
sses
a d
ocum
ent
that
in
dica
tes
that
the
Acc
ount
able
/Res
pons
ible
Exe
cutiv
e ha
s co
ntro
l of t
he fi
nanc
ial a
nd h
uman
re
sour
ces
requ
ired
for
the
prop
er
impl
emen
tatio
n of
an
effe
ctiv
e S
SP
. b)
T
here
is e
vide
nce
that
the
Sta
te
allo
cate
s ne
cess
ary
reso
urce
s fo
r im
plem
enta
tion
of S
SP
. c)
T
he S
tate
has
mec
hani
sms
in p
lace
to
dete
rmin
e th
e re
sour
ces
nece
ssar
y an
d a
docu
men
t exi
sts
show
ing
the
SM
ICG
SS
P A
sses
smen
t T
oo
l
Ver
sion
1.0
– O
ctob
er 2
014
Pag
e 10
of 3
1 1
Sta
te S
afe
ty P
olic
y an
d O
bje
cti
ves
IND
ICA
TO
RS
OF
CO
MP
LIA
NC
E +
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E
Req
uir
eme
nt
PS
O
E
H
ow
it is
ach
ieve
d
Ver
ific
atio
n
Exp
ecta
tio
ns
allo
catio
n of
res
ourc
es.
1.2.
7 H
as th
e S
tate
de
fined
the
spe
cific
ac
tiviti
es a
nd
acco
unta
bilit
ies
rela
ted
to th
e m
anag
emen
t of
safe
ty in
the
Sta
te
that
eac
h av
iatio
n re
gula
tory
or
gani
zatio
n un
der
the
SS
P is
ac
coun
tabl
e fo
r?
a)
The
re is
evi
denc
e th
at th
e S
tate
an
alyz
es it
s av
iatio
n sy
stem
and
id
entif
ied
key
activ
ities
. b)
T
here
are
app
ropr
iate
ly d
efin
ed s
afet
y ac
coun
tabi
litie
s fo
r pe
rson
nel a
t lev
els
of t
he o
rgan
izat
ion.
c)
S
afet
y fu
nctio
ns a
t all
orga
niza
tiona
l le
vels
are
cle
arly
def
ined
, co
mpr
ehen
sive
, and
doc
umen
ted.
d)
C
omm
unic
atio
n pr
otoc
ols
are
clea
r an
d ef
fect
ive
for
all l
evel
s of
the
orga
niza
tion.
e)
T
he d
ocum
ent i
s co
mpr
ehen
sive
and
ba
sed
on th
e an
alys
is o
f the
avi
atio
n sy
stem
.
1.2.
8 D
oes
the
Sta
te h
ave
a m
echa
nism
or
plat
form
for
the
coor
dina
tion
of S
SP
im
plem
enta
tion
and
cont
inuo
us
mon
itorin
g ac
tiviti
es
invo
lvin
g re
leva
nt
Sta
te r
egul
ator
y an
d ad
min
istr
ativ
e or
gani
zatio
ns?
a)
All
Sta
te o
rgan
izat
ions
that
may
be
invo
lved
with
the
SS
P h
ave
been
id
entif
ied.
b)
T
he S
tate
has
dev
elop
ed a
pro
cess
for
coor
dina
ting
activ
ities
with
all
appr
opria
te S
tate
org
aniz
atio
ns.
c)
The
Sta
te d
ocum
ents
the
coor
dina
tion
amon
g re
leva
nt S
tate
org
aniz
atio
ns.
d)
Coo
rdin
atio
n am
ong
the
Sta
te's
or
gani
zatio
ns is
eff
ectiv
e an
d ad
equa
te
as in
dica
ted
by t
he r
esol
utio
n of
id
entif
ied
gaps
. e)
T
he S
tate
has
a w
orki
ng c
ompl
ianc
e an
d m
onito
ring
syst
em fo
r co
ordi
natio
n an
d fa
cilit
atio
n of
impl
emen
tatio
n of
S
SP
am
ong
Sta
te o
rgan
izat
ions
.
1.2.
9 D
oes
the
Sta
te S
SP
A
ccou
ntab
le P
erso
n co
ordi
nate
, as
a)
The
Acc
ount
able
/Res
pons
ible
Exe
cutiv
e ho
lds
regu
lar
mee
tings
with
all
appr
opria
te S
tate
org
aniz
atio
ns in
volv
ed
SM
ICG
SS
P A
sses
smen
t T
oo
l
Ver
sion
1.0
– O
ctob
er 2
014
Pag
e 11
of 3
1 1
Sta
te S
afe
ty P
olic
y an
d O
bje
cti
ves
IND
ICA
TO
RS
OF
CO
MP
LIA
NC
E
+
P
ER
FO
RM
AN
CE
Req
uir
eme
nt
PS
O
E
H
ow
it is
ach
ieve
d
Ver
ific
atio
n
Exp
ecta
tio
ns
appr
opria
te, t
he
SS
P a
ctiv
ities
of t
he
diff
eren
t Sta
te
avia
tion
orga
niza
tions
?
with
thei
r S
SP
. b)
R
egul
ar a
nd a
dequ
ate
com
mun
icat
ion
occu
rs b
etw
een
the
Acc
ount
able
/Res
pons
ible
Exe
cutiv
e an
d ot
her
appr
opria
te S
tate
org
aniz
atio
ns.
c)
The
SS
P im
plem
enta
tion
plan
and
oth
er
activ
ities
pro
gres
s an
d m
ilest
ones
are
ac
hiev
ed.
d)
All
pert
inen
t org
aniz
atio
ns a
re a
war
e of
th
eir
role
in th
e S
SP
. 1.
2.10
H
as th
e S
tate
es
tabl
ishe
d a
safe
ty
polic
y?
a)
The
re is
a s
afet
y po
licy
that
incl
udes
a
com
mitm
ent
tow
ards
ach
ievi
ng th
e hi
ghes
t sa
fety
sta
ndar
ds a
nd is
bas
ed
on th
e S
SP
. b)
T
he s
afet
y po
licy
incl
udes
a
com
mitm
ent
to o
bser
ve a
ll ap
plic
able
le
gal r
equi
rem
ents
pro
vidi
ng a
ppro
pria
te
reso
urce
s an
d de
finin
g sa
fety
as
a pr
imar
y re
spon
sibi
lity
of a
ll M
anag
ers.
c)
T
he s
afet
y po
licy
activ
ely
enco
urag
es
volu
ntar
y re
port
ing
of h
azar
ds,
inci
dent
s, a
nd s
afet
y is
sues
inte
rnal
ly
and
exte
rnal
ly.
d)
The
saf
ety
polic
y st
ates
the
Sta
te’s
in
tent
ions
, man
agem
ent p
rinci
ples
, and
co
mm
itmen
t to
con
tinuo
us im
prov
em
ent
in th
e sa
fety
leve
l. e)
T
here
is c
omm
itmen
t by
seni
or
man
agem
ent t
o de
velo
p an
d im
prov
e
the
SS
P.
f)
A d
isci
plin
ary
polic
y ha
s be
en d
efin
ed
that
cle
arly
iden
tifie
s th
e co
nditi
ons
unde
r w
hich
pun
itive
act
ion
wou
ld b
e co
nsid
ered
(e.
g. il
lega
l act
ivity
, ne
glig
ence
, or
will
ful m
isco
nduc
t).
g)
The
re is
a s
tate
men
t ex
pre
ssin
g th
at
empl
oyee
s ar
e bo
und
by a
cod
e of
SM
ICG
SS
P A
sses
smen
t T
oo
l
Ver
sion
1.0
– O
ctob
er 2
014
Pag
e 12
of 3
1 1
Sta
te S
afe
ty P
olic
y an
d O
bje
cti
ves
IND
ICA
TO
RS
OF
CO
MP
LIA
NC
E
+
MA
NC
E
PE
RF
OR
Req
uir
eme
nt
PS
O
E
H
ow
it is
ach
ieve
d
Ver
ific
atio
n
Exp
ecta
tio
ns
cond
uct.
h)
The
re is
evi
denc
e of
dec
isio
n m
akin
g,
actio
ns a
nd b
ehav
iors
tha
t re
flect
a
posi
tive
safe
ty c
ultu
re.
i) T
here
is a
saf
ety
polic
y si
gned
by
the
Acc
ount
able
/Res
pons
ible
Exe
cutiv
e.
j) T
he A
ccou
ntab
le/R
espo
nsib
le E
xecu
tive
and
the
seni
or m
anag
emen
t tea
m
prom
ote
and
dem
onst
rate
thei
r co
mm
itmen
t to
the
safe
ty p
olic
y th
roug
h ac
tive
and
visi
ble
part
icip
atio
n in
the
SS
P.
k)
The
re is
a p
roce
ss a
nd e
vide
nce
that
th
e sa
fety
pol
icy
is r
evie
wed
per
iodi
cally
to
ens
ure
it re
mai
ns c
urre
nt.
l) T
he s
afet
y po
licy
is c
omm
unic
ated
to
all
pers
onne
l with
the
inte
nt th
at th
ey a
re
mad
e aw
are
of t
heir
indi
vidu
al
cont
ribut
ions
and
obl
igat
ions
with
reg
ard
to S
afet
y.
m)
The
re is
a p
roce
ss a
nd e
vide
nce
that
th
e sa
fety
pol
icy
is c
omm
unic
ated
to
empl
oyee
s an
d th
ey a
re a
war
e of
thei
r ob
ligat
ions
und
er th
e sa
fety
pol
icy.
1.
2.11
H
as th
e S
tate
in
itiat
ed a
uni
fied
SS
P d
ocum
ent a
s pa
rt o
f the
SS
P
impl
emen
tatio
n pl
an
to d
escr
ibe
its S
SP
fr
amew
ork
com
pone
nts
and
elem
ents
?
a)
The
SS
P is
app
ropr
iate
for
the
size
and
co
mpl
exity
of t
he S
tate
’s a
viat
ion
syst
em.
b)
The
re is
a c
ompr
ehen
sive
SS
P
docu
men
t des
crib
ing
how
that
Sta
te
mee
ts th
e IC
AO
SS
P F
ram
ewor
k.
c)
Thi
s do
cum
ent i
s re
view
ed b
y an
d in
clud
es in
puts
fro
m a
ll st
akeh
olde
rs
with
in th
e go
vern
men
t.
d)
Thi
s do
cum
ent
is c
lear
and
con
cise
. e)
T
he S
SP
do
cum
ent i
s si
gned
by
the
Acc
ount
able
/Res
pons
ible
Exe
cutiv
e.
SM
ICG
SS
P A
sses
smen
t T
oo
l
Ver
sion
1.0
– O
ctob
er 2
014
Pag
e 13
of 3
1 1
Sta
te S
afe
ty P
olic
y an
d O
bje
cti
ves
IND
ICA
TO
RS
OF
CO
MP
LIA
NC
E +
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E
Req
uir
eme
nt
PS
O
E
H
ow
it is
ach
ieve
d
Ver
ific
atio
n
Exp
ecta
tio
ns
f)
The
Acc
ount
able
/Res
pons
ible
Exe
cutiv
e an
d th
e se
nior
man
agem
ent t
eam
pr
omot
e an
d de
mon
stra
te th
eir
com
mitm
ent
to th
e S
SP
. g)
T
here
is a
pro
cess
and
evi
denc
e ex
ists
th
at th
e S
SP
doc
umen
t is
com
mun
icat
ed to
em
ploy
ees.
h)
T
he S
tate
has
est
ablis
hed
a pr
oces
s to
st
ore,
arc
hive
and
pro
tect
all
docu
men
ts
rela
ting
to th
e S
SP
. i)
The
SS
P d
ocu
men
t is
read
ily a
cces
sibl
e to
em
ploy
ees.
j)
The
re is
pro
cess
to a
ssur
e th
at th
e S
SP
is
per
iodi
cally
rev
iew
ed a
nd u
pdat
ed a
s ne
cess
ary.
k)
T
his
revi
ew s
houl
d en
sure
that
the
SS
P
is w
orki
ng e
ffect
ivel
y, c
onsi
der
chan
ges
in th
e av
iatio
n sy
stem
and
ass
ure
the
Acc
epta
ble
Leve
l of S
afet
y P
erfo
rman
ce
is m
aint
aine
d.
1.2.
12
If th
e au
thor
ity
dele
gate
s its
dut
ies
to o
ther
Civ
il A
viat
ion
Aut
horit
y (C
AA
) di
visi
ons,
S
tate
bod
ies,
C
ontr
actin
g S
tate
s,
regi
onal
or
gani
zatio
ns,
priv
ate
agen
cies
or
indi
vidu
als,
then
ha
ve th
e de
lega
ted
task
s be
en c
lear
ly
defin
ed a
nd
requ
irem
ents
for
com
pete
ncy
been
es
tabl
ishe
d?
a)
The
re a
re le
gal m
echa
nism
s fo
r th
e de
lega
tion.
b)
T
he p
roce
dure
s fo
r de
lega
tion
are
clea
rly d
ocum
ente
d.
c)
The
Sta
te h
as d
ocum
ente
d ap
prop
riate
ac
coun
tabi
lity
and
resp
onsi
bilit
y w
ithin
th
e de
lega
tion
polic
y.
d)
Com
pete
ncy
requ
irem
ent
s fo
r de
lega
ted
entit
ies
are
docu
men
ted
and
read
ily
avai
labl
e to
del
egat
es a
nd a
ppro
pria
te
pers
onne
l. e)
T
he S
tate
has
est
ablis
hed
a pr
oces
s to
re
view
and
mon
itor
the
dele
gate
d en
titie
s.
f)
Min
imu
m q
ualif
icat
ions
and
exp
erie
nce
SM
ICG
SS
P A
sses
smen
t T
oo
l
Ver
sion
1.0
– O
ctob
er 2
014
Pag
e 14
of 3
1 1
Sta
te S
afe
ty P
olic
y an
d O
bje
cti
ves
IND
ICA
TO
RS
OF
CO
MP
LIA
NC
E +
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E
Req
uir
eme
nt
PS
O
E
H
ow
it is
ach
ieve
d
Ver
ific
atio
n
Exp
ecta
tio
ns
requ
ired
for
indi
vidu
als
rece
ivin
g de
lega
tion
are
docu
men
ted.
1.2
SU
MM
AR
Y C
OM
ME
NT
S
1.3
AC
CID
EN
T A
ND
INC
IDE
NT
INV
ES
TIG
AT
ION
(S
SP
Fra
me
wor
k)
The
Sta
te h
as e
stab
lishe
d an
inde
pend
ent a
ccid
ent a
nd in
cide
nt in
vest
igat
ion
proc
ess,
the
sol
e ob
ject
ive
of w
hich
is t
he p
reve
ntio
n of
acc
iden
ts a
nd in
cide
nts,
an
d no
t the
app
ortio
ning
of b
lam
e or
liab
ility
. Suc
h in
vest
igat
ions
are
in s
uppo
rt o
f the
man
agem
ent o
f saf
ety
in th
e S
tate
. In
the
oper
atio
n of
the
SS
P, t
he
Sta
te m
aint
ains
the
inde
pend
ence
of t
he a
ccid
ent a
nd in
cide
nt in
vest
igat
ion
orga
niza
tion
from
oth
er S
tate
avi
atio
n or
gani
zatio
ns.
E
FF
EC
TIV
EN
ES
S is
ach
ieve
d w
hen
ther
e is
evi
denc
e th
at a
ccid
ents
and
inci
dent
s ar
e in
vest
igat
ed th
orou
ghly
and
rec
omm
enda
tions
are
mad
e th
at
cont
ribut
e to
the
over
all s
afet
y of
the
syst
em.
The
re is
als
o cl
ear
evid
ence
of
the
inde
pend
ence
of t
he a
ccid
ent
and
inci
dent
inve
stig
atio
n pr
oces
s.
IND
ICA
TO
RS
OF
CO
MP
LIA
NC
E +
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E
R
equ
irem
en
t E
xpec
tati
on
s P
S
OE
H
ow
it is
ach
ieve
d
Ver
ific
atio
n
1.3.
1 H
as th
e S
tate
es
tabl
ishe
d, a
s pa
rt
of th
e m
anag
emen
t of
saf
ety,
an
inde
pend
ent
acci
dent
and
in
cide
nt in
vest
igat
ion
proc
ess,
the
sol
e ob
ject
ive
of w
hich
is
the
prev
entio
n of
ac
cide
nts
and
a)
The
Sta
te h
as a
n ac
cide
nt a
nd
inve
stig
atio
n bo
dy a
nd/o
r pr
oces
s th
at c
ompl
ies
with
ICA
O A
nnex
13.
b)
T
he S
tate
mai
ntai
ns t
he
inde
pend
ence
of
the
acci
dent
and
in
cide
nt in
vest
igat
ion
orga
niza
tion/
proc
ess
from
oth
er
gove
rnm
ent
avia
tion
orga
niza
tions
. c)
T
here
is e
vide
nce
that
the
obje
ctiv
e of
the
acc
iden
t an
d in
cide
nt
SM
ICG
SS
P A
sses
smen
t T
oo
l
Ver
sion
1.0
– O
ctob
er 2
014
Pag
e 15
of 3
1 1
Sta
te S
afe
ty P
olic
y an
d O
bje
cti
ves
IND
ICA
TO
RS
OF
CO
MP
LIA
NC
E +
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E
Req
uir
eme
nt
PS
O
E
Ho
w it
is a
chie
ved
V
erif
icat
ion
E
xpec
tati
on
s in
cide
nts,
and
not
th
e ap
port
ioni
ng o
f bl
ame
or li
abili
ty?
inve
stig
atio
n pr
oces
s is
to p
reve
nt
acci
dent
s an
d in
cide
nts,
and
not
the
ap
port
ioni
ng o
f bla
me
or li
abili
ty.
d)
The
Sta
te h
as e
stab
lishe
d m
eans
to
ensu
re th
at a
ppro
pria
te s
afet
y m
easu
res
are
take
n af
ter
safe
ty
reco
mm
end
atio
ns h
ave
been
is
sued
by
a ci
vil a
viat
ion
safe
ty
inve
stig
atio
n au
thor
ity.
1.3
SU
MM
AR
Y C
OM
ME
NT
S
1.4
EN
FO
RC
EM
EN
T P
OL
ICY
(S
SP
Fra
mew
ork)
T
he S
tate
has
pro
mul
gate
d an
enf
orce
men
t pol
icy
that
est
ablis
hes
the
cond
ition
s an
d ci
rcum
stan
ces
unde
r w
hich
ser
vice
pro
vide
rs a
re a
llow
ed to
dea
l with
, an
d re
solv
e, e
vent
s in
volv
ing
cert
ain
safe
ty d
evia
tions
, int
erna
lly, w
ithin
the
cont
ext o
f the
ser
vice
pro
vide
r’s s
afet
y m
anag
emen
t sys
tem
(S
MS
), a
nd to
the
satis
fact
ion
of th
e ap
prop
riate
Sta
te a
utho
rity.
The
enf
orce
men
t pol
icy
also
est
ablis
hes
the
cond
ition
s an
d ci
rcum
stan
ces
unde
r w
hich
to
deal
with
saf
ety
devi
atio
ns th
roug
h es
tabl
ishe
d en
forc
emen
t pr
oced
ures
. E
FF
EC
TIV
EN
ES
S is
ach
ieve
d by
pro
mul
gatio
n of
enf
orce
men
t po
licie
s th
at e
stab
lish
cond
ition
s an
d ci
rcum
stan
ces
unde
r w
hich
ser
vice
pro
vide
rs a
re a
llow
ed
to d
eal w
ith c
erta
in s
afet
y de
viat
ions
inte
rnal
ly.
The
re is
evi
denc
e th
at th
e en
forc
emen
t pol
icy
is a
pplie
d in
app
ropr
iate
man
ner
and
exce
ptio
ns to
the
enfo
rcem
ent p
olic
y pr
omot
e be
havi
ors
cons
iste
nt w
ith r
obus
t saf
ety
cultu
re.
IND
ICA
TO
RS
OF
CO
MP
LIA
NC
E +
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E
R
equ
irem
en
t E
xpec
tati
on
s P
S
OE
H
ow
it is
ach
ieve
d
Ver
ific
atio
n
1.4.
1 H
as th
e S
tate
pr
omul
gate
d an
en
forc
emen
t pol
icy?
a)
The
enf
orce
men
t po
licy
esta
blis
hes
the
cond
ition
s an
d ci
rcum
stan
ces
to
deal
with
saf
ety
devi
atio
ns.
b)
The
enf
orce
men
t pol
icy
is
docu
men
ted.
SM
ICG
SS
P A
sses
smen
t T
oo
l
Ver
sion
1.0
– O
ctob
er 2
014
Pag
e 16
of 3
1 1
Sta
te S
afe
ty P
olic
y an
d O
bje
cti
ves
IND
ICA
TO
RS
OF
CO
MP
LIA
NC
E
+ P
ER
FO
RM
AN
CE
R
equ
irem
en
t P
S
OE
H
ow
it is
ach
ieve
d
Ver
ific
atio
n
Exp
ecta
tio
ns
c)
The
enf
orce
men
t po
licy
esta
blis
hes
the
cond
ition
s an
d ci
rcum
stan
ces
unde
r w
hich
ser
vice
pro
vide
rs a
re
allo
wed
to
deal
with
, an
d re
solv
e ev
ents
invo
lvin
g ce
rtai
n sa
fety
is
sues
inte
rnal
ly, w
ithin
the
cont
ext
of th
e se
rvic
e pr
ovid
er’s
SM
S.
d)
The
re is
evi
denc
e th
at th
e en
forc
emen
t pol
icy
is a
pplie
d in
ap
prop
riate
man
ner
and
exce
ptio
ns
to th
e en
forc
emen
t pol
icy
prom
ote
beha
vior
s co
nsis
tent
with
rob
ust
safe
ty c
ultu
re.
1.4
SU
MM
AR
Y C
OM
ME
NT
S
SM
ICG
SS
P A
sses
smen
t T
oo
l
Ver
sion
1.0
– O
ctob
er 2
014
Pag
e 17
of 3
1 2
Sta
te S
afe
ty R
isk
Man
ag
eme
nt
2 S
AF
ET
Y R
ISK
MA
NA
GE
ME
NT
(S
SP
Co
mp
on
ent)
2.
1 S
AF
ET
Y R
EQ
UIR
EM
EN
TS
FO
R T
HE
SE
RV
ICE
PR
OV
IDE
RS
’ SM
S (
SS
P F
ram
ew
ork)
T
he S
tate
has
est
ablis
hed
the
cont
rols
that
gov
ern
how
ser
vice
pro
vide
rs w
ill id
entif
y ha
zard
s an
d m
anag
e sa
fety
ris
ks. T
hese
incl
ude
the
requ
irem
ents
, sp
ecifi
c op
erat
ing
regu
latio
ns, a
nd im
plem
enta
tion
polic
ies
for
the
serv
ice
prov
ider
’s S
MS
. The
req
uire
men
ts, s
peci
fic o
pera
ting
regu
latio
ns, a
nd
impl
emen
tatio
n po
licie
s ar
e pe
riodi
cally
rev
iew
ed
to e
nsur
e th
ey r
emai
n re
leva
nt a
nd a
ppro
pria
te to
the
serv
ice
prov
ider
s.
EF
FE
CT
IVE
NE
SS
is a
chie
ved
whe
n S
MS
reg
ulat
ions
are
est
ablis
hed
for
serv
ice
prov
ider
s id
entif
ied
in IC
AO
Ann
ex 1
9 an
d re
gula
tions
con
sist
ent
with
ICA
O
requ
irem
ents
whi
le ta
king
into
con
side
ratio
n th
e si
ze a
nd c
ompl
exity
of t
he s
ervi
ce p
rovi
ders
IND
ICA
TO
RS
OF
CO
MP
LIA
NC
E +
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E
R
equ
irem
en
t E
xpec
tati
on
s P
S
O
E
H
ow
it is
ach
ieve
d
Ver
ific
atio
n
2.1.
1 H
as th
e S
tate
pr
omul
gate
d re
gula
tions
to
requ
ire s
ervi
ce
prov
ider
s to
im
plem
ent a
saf
ety
man
agem
ent
syst
em?
a)
The
Saf
ety
Man
agem
ent S
yste
m
requ
irem
ents
that
are
pro
mul
gate
d by
the
Sta
te in
clud
e, a
s a
min
imu
m:
1.
Saf
ety
polic
y an
d ob
ject
ives
1.
1 M
anag
emen
t com
mitm
ent
an
d re
spon
sibi
lity
1.2
Saf
ety
acco
unta
bilit
ies
1.3
App
oint
men
t of k
ey s
afet
y pe
rson
nel
1.4
Coo
rdin
atio
n of
em
erge
ncy
resp
onse
pla
nnin
g
1.5
SM
S d
ocum
enta
tion
2.
Saf
ety
risk
man
agem
ent
2.1
Haz
ard
iden
tific
atio
n
2.2
Saf
ety
risk
asse
ssm
ent a
nd
miti
gatio
n 3.
S
afet
y as
sura
nce
3.1
Saf
ety
perf
orm
ance
m
onito
ring
and
mea
sure
me
nt
3.2
The
man
agem
ent o
f cha
nge
3.3
Con
tinuo
us im
prov
em
ent
of
the
SM
S
4.
Saf
ety
prom
otio
n 4.
1 T
rain
ing
and
educ
atio
n
4.2
Saf
ety
com
mun
icat
ion
SM
ICG
SS
P A
sses
smen
t T
oo
l
Ver
sion
1.0
– O
ctob
er 2
014
Pag
e 18
of 3
1 2
Sta
te S
afe
ty R
isk
Man
ag
eme
nt
IND
ICA
TO
RS
OF
CO
MP
LIA
NC
E
+ P
ER
FO
RM
AN
CE
R
equ
irem
en
t P
S
O
E
H
ow
it is
ach
ieve
d
Ver
ific
atio
n
Exp
ecta
tio
ns
b)
The
Sta
te p
rovi
des
guid
ance
m
ater
ial t
o in
dust
ry r
elat
ed to
the
impl
emen
tatio
n of
SM
S.
c)
SM
S r
egul
atio
ns a
nd g
uida
nce
take
in
to c
onsi
dera
tion
the
size
and
co
mpl
exity
of t
he s
ervi
ce p
rovi
ders
. d)
S
MS
reg
ulat
ions
and
gui
danc
e m
ater
ial a
re p
erio
dica
lly r
evie
wed
to
ens
ure
they
rem
ain
rele
vant
and
ap
prop
riate
to th
e se
rvic
e pr
ovid
ers.
e)
S
MS
reg
ulat
ions
are
inte
grat
ed a
nd
com
patib
le w
ith e
xist
ing
safe
ty
regu
latio
ns.
2.1
SU
MM
AR
Y C
OM
ME
NT
S
2.2
AG
RE
EM
EN
T O
N T
HE
SE
RV
ICE
PR
OV
IDE
R’S
SA
FE
TY
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E (
SS
P F
ram
ew
ork)
A
gree
men
t on
the
serv
ice
prov
ider
’s s
afet
y pe
rfor
man
ce -
The
Sta
te h
as a
gree
d w
ith in
divi
dual
ser
vice
pro
vide
rs o
n th
e sa
fety
per
form
ance
of t
heir
SM
S. T
he
agre
ed s
afet
y pe
rfor
man
ce o
f an
indi
vidu
al s
ervi
ce p
rovi
der’s
SM
S is
per
iodi
cally
rev
iew
ed to
ens
ure
it re
mai
ns r
elev
ant a
nd a
ppr
opria
te to
the
serv
ice
prov
ider
s.
EF
FE
CT
IVE
NE
SS
: S
afe
ty p
erfo
rma
nce
mea
sure
s ar
e po
sitiv
ely
impr
ovi
ng s
ervi
ce p
rovi
der
perf
orm
ance
. IND
ICA
TO
RS
OF
CO
MP
LIA
NC
E +
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E
R
equ
irem
en
t E
xpec
tati
on
s P
S
O
E
H
ow
it is
ach
ieve
d
Ver
ific
atio
n
2.2.
1 H
as th
e S
tate
ag
reem
ent o
n th
e se
rvic
e pr
ovid
er’s
sa
fety
a)
The
Sta
te p
osse
sses
a p
roce
ss f
or
acce
ptan
ce o
f the
ser
vice
pr
ovid
er’s
pro
cess
for
deve
lopi
ng
safe
ty p
erfo
rman
ce in
dica
tors
.
SM
ICG
SS
P A
sses
smen
t T
oo
l
Ver
sion
1.0
– O
ctob
er 2
014
Pag
e 19
of 3
1 2
Sta
te S
afe
ty R
isk
Man
ag
eme
nt
IND
ICA
TO
RS
OF
CO
MP
LIA
NC
E +
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E
R
equ
irem
en
t E
xpec
tati
on
s P
S
O
E
H
ow
it is
ach
ieve
d
Ver
ific
atio
n
perf
orm
ance
?
2.2.
2 H
as th
e S
tate
in
divi
dual
ly
agre
ed/a
ccep
ted
serv
ice
prov
ider
s’
perf
orm
ance
in
dica
tors
?
a)
Gui
danc
e ex
ists
for
Sta
te
pers
onne
l to
asse
ss th
e ad
equa
cy
and
appl
icab
ility
of t
he s
ervi
ce
prov
ider
’s p
roce
ss fo
r de
velo
ping
sa
fety
per
form
ance
indi
cato
rs.
b)
The
re is
evi
denc
e th
at s
afet
y pe
rfor
man
ce in
dica
tors
are
co
mm
ensu
rate
with
the
sco
pe a
nd
com
plex
ity o
f the
ser
vice
pro
vide
r’s
oper
atio
nal c
onte
xt.
2.2.
3 A
re th
e ag
reed
sa
fety
per
form
ance
in
dica
tors
pe
riodi
cally
re
view
ed b
y th
e [S
tate
] to
ensu
re
they
rem
ain
rele
vant
an
d ap
prop
riate
to
the
serv
ice
prov
ider
?
a)
A p
roce
ss a
nd e
vide
nce
exis
ts t
hat
safe
ty p
erfo
rman
ce in
dica
tors
are
pe
riodi
cally
rev
iew
ed b
y th
e S
tate
to
ens
ure
that
they
rem
ain
rel
evan
t an
d re
mai
n ap
prop
riate
to th
e se
rvic
e pr
ovid
er.
b)
Agr
eed
perf
orm
ance
is c
onsi
sten
t w
ith t
he r
isk
area
s co
ntai
ned
in t
he
natio
nal s
afet
y pl
ans.
2.2
SU
MM
AR
Y C
OM
ME
NT
S
SM
ICG
SS
P A
sses
smen
t T
oo
l
Ver
sion
1.0
– O
ctob
er 2
014
Pag
e 20
of 3
1 3
Sta
te S
afe
ty A
ssu
ran
ce
3.
ST
AT
E S
AF
ET
Y A
SS
UR
AN
CE
(S
SP
Co
mp
on
ent)
C
E 3
– S
tate
’s C
ivil
Avi
atio
n S
yste
m a
nd
Saf
ety
ove
rsig
ht
Fu
nct
ion
s C
E7
– S
urv
eilla
nce
Ob
ligat
ion
s C
E8
– R
eso
luti
on
of
Saf
ety
Co
nce
rns
3.1
SA
FE
TY
OV
ER
SIG
HT
(S
SP
Fra
mew
ork)
T
he S
tate
has
est
ablis
hed
mec
hani
sms
to e
nsur
e ef
fect
ive
mon
itorin
g of
the
eigh
t crit
ical
ele
men
ts o
f the
saf
ety
over
sigh
t fun
ctio
n. T
he S
tate
has
als
o es
tabl
ishe
d m
echa
nism
s to
ens
ure
that
the
iden
tific
atio
n of
ha
zard
s an
d th
e m
anag
emen
t of s
afet
y ris
ks b
y se
rvic
e pr
ovid
ers
follo
w e
stab
lishe
d re
gula
tory
co
ntro
ls (
requ
irem
ents
, sp
ecifi
c op
erat
ing
regu
latio
ns,
and
impl
emen
tatio
n po
licie
s). T
hese
mec
hani
sms
incl
ude
insp
ectio
ns,
aud
its, a
nd s
urve
ys to
ens
ure
that
reg
ulat
ory
safe
ty r
isk
cont
rols
are
app
ropr
iate
ly in
tegr
ated
into
the
serv
ice
prov
ider
’s S
MS
, tha
t the
y ar
e be
ing
prac
tice
d as
des
igne
d, a
nd t
hat
the
regu
lato
ry c
ontr
ols
have
the
inte
nded
effe
ct o
n sa
fety
ris
ks.
EF
FE
CT
IVE
NE
SS
is a
chie
ved
whe
n th
e S
tate
has
dev
elop
ed a
nd im
plem
ente
d ef
fect
ive
mec
hani
sms
to e
nsur
e th
e ei
ght c
ritic
al e
lem
ents
are
con
tro
lled
and
man
aged
. T
here
is a
mea
ns to
mea
sure
the
effe
ctiv
enes
s of
the
Sta
te’s
com
plia
nce
with
the
Eig
ht C
ritic
al E
lem
ents
of a
Saf
ety
Ove
rsig
ht S
yste
m.
IND
ICA
TO
RS
OF
CO
MP
LIA
NC
E +
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E
R
equ
irem
en
t E
xpec
tati
on
s P
S
O
E
H
ow
it is
ach
ieve
d
Ver
ific
atio
n
3.1.
1 H
as th
e S
tate
es
tabl
ishe
d a
form
al
over
sigh
t pro
gram
* to
ens
ure
satis
fact
ory
com
plia
nce
by
serv
ice
prov
ider
s w
ith S
tate
saf
ety
regu
latio
ns a
nd
requ
irem
ents
? *C
ertif
icat
ion,
se
rvic
e, a
nd
surv
eilla
nce
a)
The
Sta
te le
gisl
atio
n id
entif
ied
the
auth
ority
res
pons
ible
for
the
safe
ty
over
sigh
t of s
ervi
ce p
rovi
ders
and
pr
ovid
es a
ll th
e ne
cess
ary
mea
ns
to e
xecu
te th
eir
safe
ty o
vers
ight
ta
sks.
b)
A
n ov
ersi
ght s
yste
m e
xist
s an
d pr
oced
ures
are
doc
umen
ted
and
obje
ctiv
es a
re c
lear
ly s
tate
d.
c)
The
ove
rsig
ht s
yste
m
enco
mpa
sses
the
Eig
ht C
ritic
al
Ele
men
ts o
f a S
afet
y O
vers
ight
S
yste
m a
s d
ocum
ente
d in
ICA
O
Ann
ex 1
9, A
ppen
dix
1.
d)
Acc
ount
abili
ty fo
r ov
ersi
ght
activ
ities
is a
t the
Man
agem
ent
leve
l. e)
T
he in
spec
tor
wor
kfor
ce is
ad
equa
te, c
ompe
tent
, and
trai
ned.
f)
T
he S
tate
ens
ures
tha
t per
sonn
el
perf
orm
ing
safe
ty o
vers
ight
SM
ICG
SS
P A
sses
smen
t T
oo
l
Ver
sion
1.0
– O
cP
age
21 o
f 31
3 S
tate
Sa
fety
Ass
ura
nc
e to
ber
201
4
IND
ICA
TO
RS
OF
CO
MP
LIA
NC
E +
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E
Req
uir
eme
nt
P
S
O
E
Ho
w it
is a
chie
ved
V
erif
icat
ion
E
xpec
tati
on
s fu
nctio
ns a
re p
rovi
ded
with
gu
idan
ce t
hat
addr
esse
s et
hics
, pe
rson
al c
ondu
ct a
nd t
he
avoi
danc
e of
act
ual o
r pe
rcei
ved
conf
licts
of i
nter
est i
n th
e pe
rfor
man
ce o
f of
ficia
l dut
ies.
g)
P
roce
dure
s ar
e de
taile
d en
ough
to
ensu
re a
sta
ndar
dize
d ap
proa
ch
incl
udin
g pr
oced
ures
for
: 1.
S
ettin
g sc
ope
of o
vers
ight
ac
tiviti
es;
2.
Set
ting
scop
e of
ove
rsig
ht
activ
ities
; 3.
U
tiliz
atio
n of
diff
eren
t ap
proa
ches
of o
vers
ight
(in
spec
tion,
aud
its, p
roce
ss
revi
ew, e
tc.)
; 4.
M
easu
ring
regu
lato
ry
com
plia
nce;
5.
A
sses
sing
the
effe
ctiv
enes
s of
se
rvic
e pr
ovid
er’s
ove
rall
SM
S;
6.
Doc
umen
ting
and
clas
sify
ing
surv
eilla
nce
findi
ngs
of
com
plia
nce
and
non-
com
plia
nce;
and
7.
A
mea
ns to
com
mun
icat
e fin
ding
s to
ser
vice
pro
vide
rs.
h)
The
pro
gram
incl
udes
a r
evie
w
proc
ess
to e
nsur
e th
e va
lidity
of t
he
surv
eilla
nce
findi
ngs
and
the
qual
ity
of th
e su
rvei
llanc
e ac
tivity
. 3.
1.2
Has
the
Sta
te
deve
lope
d a
proc
ess
to ta
ke
appr
opria
te
corr
ectiv
e m
easu
res
to r
esol
ve id
entif
ied
a)
The
pro
cess
is d
ocum
ente
d an
d th
e ob
ject
ive
clea
rly s
tate
d.
b)
The
pro
cess
ens
ures
that
all
defic
ienc
ies
and/
or s
afet
y is
sues
ar
e ad
dres
sed
in a
sta
ndar
dize
d m
anne
r.
SM
ICG
SS
P A
sses
smen
t T
oo
l
Ver
sion
1.0
– O
ctob
er 2
014
Pag
e 22
of 3
1 3
Sta
te S
afe
ty A
ssu
ran
ce
IND
ICA
TO
RS
OF
CO
MP
LIA
NC
E
+ P
ER
FO
RM
AN
CE
R
equ
irem
en
t P
S
O
E
H
ow
it is
ach
ieve
d
Ver
ific
atio
n
Exp
ecta
tio
ns
defic
ienc
ies
and
safe
ty is
sues
re
sulti
ng f
rom
the
ov
ersi
ght s
yste
m?
c)
The
cor
rect
ive
mea
sure
pro
cess
in
clud
es a
pro
gres
sive
app
roac
h to
th
e ac
tions
the
Sta
te ta
kes,
whi
ch
is b
ased
on
the
seve
rity
of t
he
findi
ngs.
d)
P
rogr
am c
ont
ains
, as
a m
inim
um
, th
e fo
llow
ing:
1.
T
he t
ypes
of
actio
ns t
hat c
an
be t
aken
; 2.
T
imef
ram
es f
or c
orre
ctiv
e m
easu
res
to b
e co
mpl
eted
; 3.
C
orre
ctiv
e m
easu
res
that
are
tr
acke
d an
d ev
alua
ted
to
ensu
re t
hat a
ny s
ervi
ce
prov
ider
def
icie
ncie
s ar
e co
rrec
ted;
4.
R
equi
rem
ents
for
serv
ice
prov
ider
s to
iden
tify
root
cau
ses
and
cont
ribut
ing
fact
ors
for
iden
tifie
d no
n-co
mpl
ianc
es a
nd
thos
e no
n-co
mpl
ianc
e th
at a
re
addr
esse
d;
5.
Req
uire
men
ts fo
r se
rvic
e pr
ovid
ers
to d
evel
op c
orre
ctiv
e ac
tions
tha
t ens
ure
non-
com
plia
nces
do
not r
ecur
by
addr
essi
ng th
e ro
ot c
ause
s;
6.
Req
uire
men
ts fo
r se
rvic
e pr
ovid
ers
to d
evel
op c
orre
ctiv
e ac
tions
tha
t ens
ure
the
iden
tifie
d no
n-co
mpl
ianc
es a
re
corr
ecte
d in
a ti
mel
y m
ann
er;
and
7.
A p
roce
ss th
at e
xist
s fo
r th
e S
tate
to ta
ke m
ore
serio
us
actio
ns w
hen
the
serv
ice
prov
ider
doe
s no
t res
pond
SM
ICG
SS
P A
sses
smen
t T
oo
l
Ver
sion
1.0
– O
ctob
er 2
014
Pag
e 23
of 3
1 3
Sta
te S
afe
ty A
ssu
ran
ce
IND
ICA
TO
RS
OF
CO
MP
LIA
NC
E +
PE
RF
O
RM
AN
CE
R
equ
irem
en
t P
S
O
E
H
ow
it is
ach
ieve
d
Ver
ific
atio
n
Exp
ecta
tio
ns
appr
opria
tely
to a
req
uest
for
corr
ectiv
e ac
tions
.
3.1.
3 D
oes
the
Sta
te
over
sigh
t sys
tem
en
sure
per
iodi
c as
sess
men
t of
all
appr
oved
or
gani
zatio
ns?
a)
All
appr
oved
org
aniz
atio
ns a
re
subj
ect
to t
he S
tate
’s o
vers
ight
pr
ogra
m.
b)
All
orga
niza
tions
hav
e a
defin
ed
surv
eilla
nce
freq
uenc
y.
c)
Sur
veill
ance
is p
lann
ed a
nd c
arrie
d ou
t. d)
T
he a
utho
rity
has
the
nece
ssar
y to
ols
to r
ecor
d its
sur
veill
ance
pla
n.
e)
Man
agem
ent a
ccou
ntab
ility
is
appr
opria
te to
ens
ure
that
the
surv
eilla
nce
prog
ram
is d
eliv
ered
. f)
T
he s
urve
illan
ce p
rogr
am in
clud
es
both
pla
nned
and
unp
lann
ed
activ
ities
.
3.1.
4 D
oes
the
auth
ority
co
nduc
t ove
rsig
ht o
f ta
sks
dele
gate
d to
ot
her
CA
A d
ivis
ions
, S
tate
bod
ies,
co
ntra
ctin
g S
tate
s,
regi
onal
or
gani
zatio
ns,
priv
ate
agen
cies
or
indi
vidu
als?
a)
A p
roce
ss e
xist
s to
allo
w f
or
dele
gatio
n.
b)
A li
st a
nd a
gree
men
t of a
ll de
lega
ted
task
s is
ava
ilabl
e.
c)
The
re is
evi
denc
e th
at d
eleg
ated
ta
sks
and
indi
vidu
als
perf
orm
ing
thes
e ta
sks
are
over
seen
. T
he
resu
lts a
re d
ocum
ente
d.
d)
The
re is
evi
denc
e th
at d
efic
ienc
ies
are
addr
esse
d.
3.1.
5 D
oes
the
Sta
te h
ave
suff
icie
nt h
uman
re
sour
ces
to c
arry
ou
t its
ove
rsig
ht
func
tions
?
a)
The
re is
a m
etho
dolo
gy fo
r de
term
inin
g re
sour
ce n
eeds
. b)
R
esou
rces
are
app
ropr
iate
for
the
size
and
com
plex
ity o
f th
e av
iatio
n sy
stem
of t
he S
tate
. c)
M
inim
um
qua
lific
atio
ns a
nd
expe
rienc
e ar
e es
tabl
ishe
d fo
r pe
rson
nel.
SM
ICG
SS
P A
sses
smen
t T
oo
l
Ver
sion
1.0
– O
ctob
er 2
014
Pag
e 24
of 3
1 3
Sta
te S
afe
ty A
ssu
ran
ce
IND
ICA
TO
RS
OF
CO
MP
LIA
NC
E +
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E
R
equ
irem
en
t E
xpec
tati
on
s P
S
O
E
H
ow
it is
ach
ieve
d
Ver
ific
atio
n
3.1
SU
MM
AR
Y C
OM
ME
NT
S
3.2
SA
FE
TY
DA
TA
CO
LL
EC
TIO
N, A
NA
LY
SIS
AN
D E
XC
HA
NG
E (
SS
P F
ram
ewor
k)
The
Sta
te h
as e
stab
lishe
d m
echa
nism
s to
ens
ure
the
capt
ure
and
stor
age
of d
ata
on h
azar
ds a
nd s
afet
y ris
ks a
t bot
h an
indi
vidu
al a
nd a
ggre
gate
Sta
te le
vel.
The
Sta
te h
as a
lso
esta
blis
hed
mec
hani
sms
to d
evel
op in
form
atio
n fr
om th
e st
ored
dat
a an
d to
act
ivel
y ex
chan
ge s
afet
y in
form
atio
n w
ith s
ervi
ce p
rovi
ders
an
d/ o
r ot
her
Sta
tes
as a
ppro
pria
te.
EF
FE
CT
IVE
NE
SS
: T
he S
tate
col
lect
s th
e rig
ht in
form
atio
n to
eva
luat
e sa
fety
ris
ks a
nd is
abl
e to
dem
onst
rate
an
impr
ovem
ent i
n sa
fety
. IND
ICA
TO
RS
OF
CO
MP
LIA
NC
E +
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E
R
equ
irem
en
t E
xpec
tati
on
s P
S
O
EH
ow
it is
ach
ieve
d
Ver
ific
atio
n
3.2.
1 H
as th
e S
tate
est
ablis
hed
mec
hani
sms
to e
nsur
e th
e m
anda
tory
rep
ortin
g,
eval
uatio
n, a
nd p
roce
ssin
g of
acc
iden
t and
ser
ious
in
cide
nt d
ata
at t
he
aggr
egat
e S
tate
leve
l?
a)
A p
roce
ss h
as b
een
esta
blis
hed
to
ensu
re m
anda
tory
, acc
iden
t, an
d in
cide
nt d
ata
are
repo
rted
, ca
ptur
ed,
and
stor
ed.
b)
Crit
eria
hav
e be
en e
stab
lishe
d fo
r th
e ty
pe o
f dat
a to
be
prov
ided
into
th
e m
anda
tory
rep
ortin
g sy
stem
. c)
A
mec
hani
sm e
xist
s to
eva
luat
e th
e ef
fect
iven
ess
of th
e m
anda
tory
re
port
ing
syst
em.
d)
The
res
ults
of m
anda
tory
rep
ortin
g an
d in
vest
igat
ion
activ
ities
are
use
d in
the
iden
tific
atio
n of
def
icie
ncie
s an
d sa
fety
con
cern
s an
d th
eir
reso
lutio
n.
3.2.
2 H
as th
e S
tate
est
ablis
hed
a vo
lunt
ary
repo
rtin
g sy
stem
to
fac
ilita
te th
e co
llect
ion
of
data
on
haza
rds
and
a)
A p
roce
ss h
as b
een
esta
blis
hed
to
enco
urag
e vo
lunt
ary
repo
rtin
g of
sa
fety
dat
a.
b)
The
re a
re p
roce
sses
for
the
capt
ure,
SM
ICG
SS
P A
sses
smen
t T
oo
l
Ver
sion
1.0
– O
ctob
er 2
014
Pag
e 25
of 3
1 3
Sta
te S
afe
ty A
ssu
ran
ce
asso
ciat
ed s
afet
y ri
sks
that
m
ay n
ot b
e ca
ptur
ed b
y a
man
dato
ry in
cide
nt
repo
rtin
g sy
stem
?
stor
age,
and
pro
tect
ion
of v
olun
tary
re
port
ed s
afet
y da
ta.
c)
Crit
eria
hav
e be
en e
stab
lishe
d fo
r th
e ty
pe o
f da
ta t
o be
pro
vide
d in
to
the
volu
ntar
y re
port
ing
syst
em.
d)
A m
echa
nism
exi
sts
to e
valu
ate
the
effe
ctiv
enes
s of
the
volu
ntar
y re
port
ing
syst
em.
e)
The
res
ults
of v
olun
tary
rep
ortin
g ar
e us
ed in
the
iden
tific
atio
n of
de
ficie
ncie
s an
d sa
fety
con
cern
s an
d th
eir
reso
lutio
n.
3.2.
3 H
as th
e S
tate
est
ablis
hed
mec
hani
sms
to e
nsur
e th
e ca
ptur
e an
d st
orag
e of
dat
a on
haz
ards
and
saf
ety
risks
at
bot
h th
e in
divi
dual
and
ag
greg
ate
Sta
te le
vel?
a)
The
re a
re p
roce
sses
for
the
capt
ure
and
stor
age
of o
ther
dat
a re
latin
g to
va
rious
asp
ects
of
the
SS
P in
clud
ing
data
from
: 1.
O
vers
ight
/sur
veill
ance
; 2.
In
tern
al r
evie
ws;
3.
In
dust
ry d
ata;
4.
O
ther
Sta
tes
data
; and
5.
V
olun
tary
rep
ortin
g sy
stem
s.
3.2.
4 H
as th
e S
tate
est
ablis
hed
mec
hani
sms
to d
evel
op
info
rmat
ion
from
the
stor
ed
data
and
to p
rom
ote
the
exch
ange
of s
afet
y in
form
atio
n w
ith s
ervi
ce
prov
ider
s an
d/or
oth
er
Sta
tes,
as
appr
opria
te?
a)
Pro
cess
es e
xist
to
anal
yze
the
colle
cted
dat
a to
iden
tify
tren
ds a
nd
haza
rds
in th
e sy
stem
. b)
T
he h
azar
ds a
re a
naly
zed
to a
sses
s th
e le
vel o
f ris
k as
soci
ated
with
the
ha
zard
. c)
P
roce
sses
exi
st to
pro
mot
e ex
chan
ge o
f saf
ety
info
rmat
ion
with
in th
e S
tate
, ser
vice
pro
vide
rs
and
othe
r S
tate
s.
3.2.
5 H
as th
e S
tate
est
ablis
hed
an A
ccep
tabl
e Le
vel o
f S
afet
y P
erfo
rman
ce
(ALo
SP
)?
a)
The
Sta
te p
osse
sses
a p
roce
ss f
or
esta
blis
hing
an
ALo
SP
. b)
T
he A
LoS
P a
nd a
ssoc
iate
d sa
fety
in
dica
tors
are
app
ropr
iate
and
re
leva
nt to
the
scop
e an
d co
mpl
exity
of
the
Sta
te’s
avi
atio
n ac
tiviti
es.
c)
The
Sta
te p
osse
sses
a p
roce
ss f
or
mon
itorin
g th
e A
LoS
P.
SM
ICG
SS
P A
sses
smen
t T
oo
l
Ver
sion
1.0
– O
ctob
er 2
014
Pag
e 26
of 3
1 3
Sta
te S
afe
ty A
ssu
ran
ce
d)
The
ALo
SP
is c
omm
unic
ated
, re
view
ed p
erio
dica
lly, a
nd u
pdat
ed.
e)
Ass
essm
ents
of s
afet
y le
vels
are
ca
rrie
d ou
t usi
ng v
alid
ated
saf
ety
targ
ets
and
thre
shol
ds o
n a
regu
lar
basi
s, a
nd s
afet
y re
com
men
dat
ions
/dire
ctiv
es a
re
issu
ed w
hen
nece
ssar
y.
f)
The
Sta
te p
osse
sses
a p
roce
ss t
o en
sure
that
it m
eets
val
idat
ed s
afet
y ta
rget
s.
3.2
SU
MM
AR
Y C
OM
ME
NT
S
SM
ICG
SS
P A
sses
smen
t T
oo
l
Ver
sion
1.0
– O
ctob
er 2
014
Pag
e 27
of 3
1 3
Sta
te S
afe
ty A
ssu
ran
ce
3.3
SA
FE
TY
DA
TA
DR
IVE
N T
AR
GE
TIN
G O
F O
VE
RS
IGH
T O
F A
RE
AS
OF
GR
EA
TE
R C
ON
CE
RN
OR
NE
ED
(S
SP
Fra
mew
ork)
T
he S
tate
has
est
ablis
hed
proc
edur
es t
o pr
iorit
ize
insp
ectio
ns,
audi
ts, a
nd s
urve
ys to
war
ds th
ose
area
s of
gre
ater
saf
ety
conc
ern
or n
eed,
as
iden
tifie
d by
the
anal
ysis
of
data
on
haza
rds,
the
ir co
nseq
uenc
es in
ope
ratio
ns,
and
the
asse
ssed
saf
ety
risks
. E
FF
EC
TIV
EN
ES
S: T
he S
tate
has
a d
ata
colle
ctio
n m
echa
nism
that
pro
vide
s th
e in
form
atio
n re
quire
d to
adj
ust i
ts o
vers
ight
to a
reas
of g
reat
est n
eed.
Dat
a is
av
aila
ble
to d
emon
stra
te t
hat
the
inte
rven
tion
has
wor
ked
or is
nee
ded.
IND
ICA
TO
RS
OF
CO
MP
LIA
NC
E +
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E
R
equ
irem
en
t E
xpec
tati
on
s P
S
O
EH
ow
it is
ach
ieve
d
Ver
ific
atio
n
3.3.
1 H
as th
e S
tate
dev
elop
ed
proc
edur
es to
prio
ritiz
e in
spec
tions
, aud
its, a
nd
surv
eys
tow
ards
tho
se a
reas
of
gre
ater
saf
ety
conc
ern
or
need
?
a)
Sur
veill
ance
pla
nnin
g is
bas
ed o
n co
llect
ed s
afet
y da
ta a
nd o
ther
pe
rtin
ent i
nfor
mat
ion.
b)
T
here
are
doc
umen
ted
proc
esse
s an
d pr
oced
ures
that
incl
ude,
as
a m
inim
um
: 1.
M
etho
ds fo
r pr
iorit
izin
g su
rvei
llanc
e ba
sed
on s
afet
y ris
k pr
ofile
; 2.
A
sta
ndar
dize
d m
etho
d fo
r es
tabl
ishi
ng a
n ac
cept
able
fr
eque
ncy
for
surv
eilla
nce
exis
ts; a
nd
3.
Eva
luat
ion
crite
ria fo
r as
sess
ing
the
effe
ctiv
enes
s of
ris
k ba
sed
over
sigh
t act
iviti
es.
c)
Pro
cess
es e
xist
for
est
ablis
hing
and
m
onito
ring
an a
ccep
tabl
e sa
fety
le
vel.
3.3
SU
MM
AR
Y C
OM
ME
NT
S
SM
ICG
SS
P A
sses
smen
t T
oo
l
Ver
sion
1.0
– O
ctob
er 2
014
Pag
e 28
of 3
1 4
Sta
te S
afe
ty P
rom
oti
on
4.0
ST
AT
E S
AF
ET
Y P
RO
MO
TIO
N (
SS
P C
om
po
nen
t)
CE
4 -
Tec
hn
ical
Per
son
nel
Qu
alif
icat
ion
an
d T
rain
ing
C
E5
– T
ech
nic
al G
uid
ance
, To
ols
an
d t
he
Pro
visi
on
of
Saf
ety
Cri
tic
al In
form
atio
n
4.1
INT
ER
NA
L T
RA
ININ
G, C
OM
MU
NIC
AT
ION
AN
D D
ISS
EM
INA
TIO
N O
F S
AF
ET
Y IN
FO
RM
AT
ION
(S
SP
Fra
mew
ork)
T
he S
tate
pro
vide
s tr
aini
ng a
nd fo
ster
s aw
aren
ess
and
two-
way
com
mun
icat
ion
of s
afet
y-re
leva
nt in
form
atio
n to
sup
port
, with
in t
he S
tate
avi
atio
n or
gani
zatio
ns, t
he d
evel
opm
ent o
f an
orga
niza
tiona
l cu
lture
that
fost
ers
an e
ffect
ive
and
effic
ient
SS
P.
EF
FE
CT
IVE
NE
SS
is a
chie
ved
whe
n th
e S
tate
has
impl
emen
ted
effe
ctiv
e sa
fety
pro
mot
ion
tool
s, in
clud
ing
trai
ning
and
aw
aren
ess.
IND
ICA
TO
RS
OF
CO
MP
LIA
NC
E +
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E
R
equ
irem
en
t E
xpec
tati
on
s P
S
O
EH
ow
it is
ach
ieve
d
Ver
ific
atio
n
4.1.
1 H
as th
e au
thor
ity d
evel
oped
a
form
al tr
aini
ng p
rogr
am
deta
iling
wha
t typ
e of
trai
ning
sh
ould
be
prov
ided
to
pers
onne
l?
a)
A tr
aini
ng p
olic
y ex
ists
that
id
entif
ies
trai
ning
req
uire
men
ts
(incl
udin
g S
MS
and
SS
P)
and
freq
uenc
y fo
r re
leva
nt p
erso
nnel
. b)
A
trai
ning
pro
gram
exi
sts
and
shou
ld c
onsi
st o
f:
1.
Initi
al tr
aini
ng;
2.
Rec
urre
nt o
r up
date
trai
ning
; 3.
S
peci
aliz
ed tr
aini
ng, a
s ap
plic
able
; and
4.
O
n th
e Jo
b T
rain
ing
(OJT
).
c)
The
trai
ning
pol
icy
and
prog
ram
ar
e re
view
ed
and
upda
ted
perio
dica
lly.
d)
A p
erso
nnel
trai
ning
rec
ord
keep
ing
syst
em e
xist
s.
e)
Per
sonn
el c
ompe
tenc
ies
and
qual
ifica
tions
are
est
ablis
hed
and
are
effe
ctiv
e in
att
ract
ing
tale
nt.
(Add
ition
al c
riter
ia fo
r tr
aini
ng
qual
ifica
tion
are
addr
esse
d in
R
equi
rem
ent 1
.1.5
.
SM
ICG
SS
P A
sses
smen
t T
oo
l
Ver
sion
1.0
– O
ctob
er 2
014
Pag
e 29
of 3
1 4
Sta
te S
afe
ty P
rom
oti
on
IND
ICA
TO
RS
OF
CO
MP
LIA
NC
E +
PE
RF
O
RM
AN
CE
R
equ
irem
en
t P
S
O
EH
ow
it is
ach
ieve
d
Ver
ific
atio
n
Exp
ecta
tio
ns
4.1.
2 D
oes
the
Sta
te m
aint
ain
a m
echa
nism
for
the
cons
olid
atio
n, c
omm
unic
atio
n,
and
shar
ing
of s
afet
y in
form
atio
n am
ongs
t its
re
gula
tory
and
adm
inis
trat
ive
orga
niza
tions
invo
lved
in th
e S
SP
?
a)
The
Sta
te m
aint
ains
a p
roce
ss t
o sh
are
safe
ty in
form
atio
n w
ith it
s re
leva
nt o
rgan
izat
ions
and
em
ploy
ees.
b)
E
vide
nce
exis
ts t
hat
the
Sta
te is
sh
arin
g sa
fety
info
rmat
ion
with
its
orga
niza
tions
and
em
ploy
ees.
c)
E
vide
nce
exis
ts t
hat
empl
oyee
s ar
e aw
are
of s
hare
d sa
fety
in
form
atio
n an
d a
feed
back
pr
oces
s ex
ists
for
empl
oyee
s to
pr
ovid
e in
puts
reg
ardi
ng th
is
info
rmat
ion.
4.1
SU
MM
AR
Y C
OM
ME
NT
S
SM
ICG
SS
P A
sses
smen
t T
oo
l
Ver
sion
1.0
– O
ctob
er 2
014
Pag
e 30
of 3
1 4
Sta
te S
afe
ty P
rom
oti
on
4.2
EX
TE
RN
AL
TR
AIN
ING
, C
OM
MU
NIC
AT
ION
AN
D D
ISS
EM
INA
TIO
N O
F S
AF
ET
Y IN
FO
RM
AT
ION
(S
SP
Fra
mew
ork)
T
he S
tate
pro
vide
s ed
ucat
ion
and
prom
otes
aw
aren
ess
of s
afet
y ris
ks a
nd tw
o-w
ay c
omm
unic
atio
n of
saf
ety-
rele
vant
info
rmat
ion
to s
uppo
rt, a
mon
g se
rvic
e pr
ovid
ers,
the
deve
lopm
ent o
f an
orga
niza
tiona
l cul
ture
that
fost
ers
an e
ffect
ive
and
effic
ient
SM
S.
EF
FE
CT
IVE
NE
SS
: T
he in
dust
ry is
wel
l edu
cate
d in
res
pect
to s
afet
y an
d is
an
activ
e pa
rtic
ipan
t with
the
Sta
te in
driv
ing
Sta
te s
afet
y fo
rwar
d.
IND
ICA
TO
RS
OF
CO
MP
LIA
NC
E +
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E
PS
O
E
Ho
w it
is a
chie
ved
V
erif
icat
ion
R
equ
irem
en
t E
xpec
tati
on
s
4.
2.1
Doe
s th
e S
tate
faci
litat
e th
e co
ntin
uing
edu
catio
n,
com
mun
icat
ion,
and
sha
ring
of s
afet
y in
form
atio
n w
ith a
nd
amon
gst
its s
ervi
ce
prov
ider
s?
a)
A p
roce
ss e
xist
s to
ens
ure
safe
ty
info
rmat
ion
is c
omm
unic
ated
with
th
e in
dust
ry in
a ti
mel
y m
anne
r (e
.g.,
web
bas
ed).
b)
S
afet
y in
form
atio
n is
upd
ated
on
a re
gula
r ba
sis
and
is d
isse
min
ated
. c)
T
here
are
mec
hani
sms
to c
ondu
ct
prom
otio
n to
the
indu
stry
and
ge
nera
l pub
lic.
d)
The
re is
a p
roce
ss t
o ev
alua
te t
he
effe
ctiv
enes
s of
the
com
mun
icat
ion
to e
nsur
e th
at it
has
rea
ched
its
inte
nded
aud
ienc
e.
e)
A p
roce
ss e
xist
s fo
r sh
arin
g pe
rfor
man
ce a
nd tr
ends
. f)
T
he a
utho
rity
ensu
res
that
ed
ucat
ion/
trai
ning
is p
rovi
ded
to it
s se
rvic
e pr
ovid
ers
on t
he a
pplic
able
le
gisl
atio
n an
d re
gula
tions
.
4.2.
2 D
o S
tate
reg
ulat
ory
orga
niza
tions
par
ticip
ate
in
regi
onal
and
glo
bal a
viat
ion
safe
ty in
form
atio
n sh
arin
g an
d ex
chan
ge a
nd f
acili
tate
the
part
icip
atio
n of
the
ir re
spec
tive
serv
ice
prov
ider
s in
th
e sa
me?
a)
Evi
denc
e ex
ists
that
the
Sta
te
part
icip
ates
in r
egio
nal a
nd g
loba
l av
iatio
n sa
fety
info
rmat
ion
and
exch
ange
act
iviti
es.
b)
Evi
denc
e ex
ists
that
the
Sta
te
shar
es in
form
atio
n w
ith t
he
indu
stry
abo
ut s
afet
y in
form
atio
n sh
arin
g op
port
uniti
es.
4.2.
3 Is
the
re a
form
al p
roce
ss fo
r th
e ex
tern
al d
isse
min
atio
n of
re
gula
tory
doc
umen
ts a
nd
a)
A p
roce
ss e
xist
s fo
r ex
tern
al
diss
emin
atio
n of
reg
ulat
ory
docu
men
ts a
nd in
form
atio
n to
the
SM
ICG
SS
P A
sses
smen
t T
oo
l
Ver
sion
1.0
– O
ctob
er 2
014
Pag
e 31
of 3
1 4
Sta
te S
afe
ty P
rom
oti
on
IND
ICA
TO
RS
OF
CO
MP
LIA
NC
E +
PE
RF
PS
O
E
Ho
w it
is a
chie
ved
V
erif
icat
ion
O
RM
AN
CE
R
equ
irem
en
t
E
xpec
tati
on
s in
form
atio
n to
ser
vice
pr
ovid
ers
and
a m
eans
of
assu
ring
the
effe
ctiv
enes
s of
th
is p
roce
ss?
indu
stry
. b)
T
he p
roce
ss is
rev
iew
ed to
ens
ure
that
it is
effe
ctiv
e an
d pe
rtin
ent.
4.2.
4 Is
the
SS
P d
ocum
ent a
nd it
s as
soci
ated
saf
ety
polic
y,
enfo
rcem
ent p
olic
y, a
nd
aggr
egat
e sa
fety
indi
cato
rs
incl
uded
in th
e S
tate
’s s
afet
y in
form
atio
n co
mm
unic
atio
n an
d sh
arin
g pr
oces
s?
a)
The
SS
P d
ocu
men
t and
rel
ated
do
cum
ents
are
ava
ilabl
e to
the
indu
stry
and
pub
lic.
b)
The
re is
evi
denc
e th
at th
e in
dust
ry
is a
war
e of
the
SS
P
docu
men
tatio
n.
4.2
SU
MM
AR
Y C
OM
ME
NT
S
SM ICG SSP Assessment Tool
Version 1.0 – October 2014 SM ICG SSP Assessment Tool
This document was developed by the Safety Management International Group (SM ICG). The purpose of the SM ICG is to promote a common understanding of Safety Management System (SMS)/State Safety Program (SSP) principles and requirements, facilitating their application across the international aviation community. The current core membership of the SM ICG includes the Aviation Safety and Security Agency (AESA) of Spain, the National Civil Aviation Agency (ANAC) of Brazil, the Civil Aviation Authority of the Netherlands (CAA NL), the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand (CAA NZ), the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) of Australia, the Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC) in France, the Ente Nazionale per l'Aviazione Civile (ENAC) in Italy, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), the Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA) of Switzerland, the Finnish Transport Safety Agency (Trafi), Japan Civil Aviation Bureau (JCAB), the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Aviation Safety Organization, Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) and the Civil Aviation Authority of United Kingdom (UK CAA). Additionally, the Civil Aviation Department of Hong Kong (CAD HK), the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), and the United Arab Emirates General Civil Aviation Authority (UAE GCAA) are observers to this group. Members of the SM ICG:
Collaborate on common SMS/SSP topics of interest Share lessons learned Encourage the progression of a harmonized SMS/SSP Share products with the aviation community Collaborate with international organizations such as ICAO and civil aviation authorities that have
implemented or are implementing SMS and SSP The SM ICG welcomes any feedback on the evaluation tool or its application. For further information regarding the SM ICG or feedback on the evaluation tool please contact: Regine Hamelijnck Jacqueline Booth Amer M. Younossi EASA TCCA FAA, Aviation Safety +49 221 8999 1000 (613) 952-7974 (202) 267-5164 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Carlos Eduardo Pellegrino Ian Banks ANAC CASA +55 213 5015 147 +61 2 6217 1513 [email protected] [email protected] SM ICG products can be found on SKYbrary at: http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Safety_Management_International_Collaboration_Group (SM_ICG)
