SRC DOCUMENT 6 SRC REVIEW PROCESS - Eurocontrol · PDF fileTHE SAFETY OF ATM PROGRAMMES...

EUROPEAN ORGANISATION FOR THE SAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION

EUROCONTROL

SAFETY REGULATION COMMISSION

SAFETY REGULATION COMMISSION DOCUMENT (SRC DOC)

SRC DOCUMENT 6

SRC REVIEW PROCESS – CO-ORDINATION OF NAA VIEWS ON THE SAFETY OF ATM PROGRAMMES

Edition : 4.0Edition Date : 29 June 2012Status : Released IssueDistribution : General PublicCategory : SRC Document

SRC Document 6 – SRC Review Process – Co-ordination of NAA Views on the Safety of ATM Programmes

Edition 4.0 Released Issue of 27

F.2 DOCUMENT CHARACTERISTICS

TITLE

SRC Document 6 SRC Review Process – Co-ordination of NAA Views on the Safety of ATM

Programmes

Document Identifier Reference SRC DOC 6

Edition Number 4.0 srcdoc06_e4.0_ri_web

Edition Date 29-06-2012

Abstract

This document describes the review process used by the SRC for the development of a SRC Review Report on the safety of European ATM programmes. The process and its output is intended to facilitate, through an early coordination of views, the harmonisation of the approaches used by the relevant authorities (i.e. NAAs and progressively EASA) when they exercise their acceptance and oversight responsibilities with regard to the implementation of those programmes.

Keywords

Interface Process Safety Deliverables Safety Policy

Review Cycle Process SRC Formal Response Safety Plan

Document Focal Point(s) Tel Unit

Gary MORTON +32 2 729 30 40 DSS/OVS/SAF

DOCUMENT INFORMATION

Status Distribution Category

Working Draft General Public Safety Regulatory Requirement

Draft Issue Restricted EUROCONTROL Requirement Application Document

Proposed Issue Restricted ESIMS ESARR Advisory Material

Released Issue Restricted SRC SRC Document

Restricted SRCCG DSS/OVS Document

Restricted DSS/OVS Comment / Response Document

COPIES OF SRC DELIVERABLES CAN BE OBTAINED FROM

Oversight Division (DSS/OVS)EUROCONTROL

Rue de la Fusée, 96 B-1130 Bruxelles

Tel: +32 2 729 51 38 Fax: +32 2 729 47 87

E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.eurocontrol.int/src



F.3 DOCUMENT APPROVAL

The following table identifies all management authorities who have approved this document.

Authority Name and Signature Date

Document Focal Point

(DSS/OVS/SAF)

« signed by Gary Morton »

(Gary MORTON)

29.06.2012

Head of Division (DSS/OVS)

« signed by Juan Vazquez‐Sanz »

(Juan VÁZQUEZ-SANZ)

29.06.2012

Chairman, SRC Co-ordination Group

(SRCCG)

« signed by Franz Nirschl »

(Franz Nirschl)

29.06.2012

Chairman, Safety Regulation

Commission (SRC)

« signed by Harry Daly »

(Harry DALY)

29.06.2012

(Space Left Intentionally Blank)



F.4 AMENDMENT RECORD

The following table records the complete history of this document.

Edition No.

Date Reason for Change Pages

Affected

0.01 March 2000 Internal DSS review. All

0.02 April 2000 Internal DSS review. All

0.03 May 2000 Internal DSS review. All

0.04 08-Aug-00 Internal DSS review. All

0.05 04-Sep-00 New Edition incorporating comments made by DSS, SQS and SRC Chairmanship.

All

0.06 20-Oct-00 Document reviewed to incorporate comments made by SRC Commissioners after SRC9.

Appendix A

0.10 14-Feb-01 Change of status of document to draft issue. Contents of document not modified.

All

0.20 01-Sep-01 Change of status of document to proposed issue. Contents of document not modified.

All

1.0 19-Oct-01 Change of status of document to released issue after approval at SRC12. Contents of document not modified.

All

2.0 07-Nov-02 Incorporation of information on RAD. Update of document format.

All

2.01 30-Oct-08 Complete review of document in the context of CND/SESAR.

All

2.02 January 2009 New draft document and internal DSS review. All

2.03 02-Feb-09 Review of the draft SRC DOC 6 after comment from SRCCG 12.

All

2.04 09-Feb-09 Internal DSS review and quality check. All

2.1 12-Feb-09 Document sent to SRC formal consultation (RFC No. 0903).

-

2.2 20-Mar-09 Comments from RFC No. 0903 incorporated. All

3.0 14-Apr-09 Document formally released. -

3.01 10-Sep-11 Document revised in accordance with the agreements made at SRC41.

All

3.1 06-Oct-11 Draft issue sent for SRCCG consultation (RFC No. 1120).

-

3.2 20-Jan-12 Comments from RFC Nos. 1119 and 1120 and incorporated. Document sent for additional SRCCG consultation.

All

3.3 23-Mar-12 Comments from RFC No. 1202 incorporated. Document sent for SRC consultation/approval.

All

4.0 29-Jun-12 No substantial or negative comments received from SRC consultation/approval (RFC No. 1208). Document formally released.

-



F.5 CONTENTS

Section Title Page

Foreword

F.1 Title Page ………………..………………………………………………………... 1

F.2 Document Characteristics ……………………………………………………...

2

F.3 Document Approval …………………………………………………………….. 3

F.4 Amendment Record …………………………………………………………….. 4

F.5 Contents …………………………………………………………………………...

5


1. Introduction ……………………………………………..................................... 6

2. Scope of the Reviews ………………………..................................................

6

3. Regulatory Baseline ……………………………………………........................

7

4. Arrangements and Roles ………………………………………………………. 7

5. SRC Review Process …………………………………………………………… 5.1 Individual Review Process …………………………………………………………………. 5.1.1 Preparing the Review Plan …………………………………………………………... 5.1.2 Review Kick-off Meeting …………………………………………………………....... 5.1.3 Providing Comments or Question to the Owners of the Deliverables …………… 5.1.4 Writing the SRC Review Report …………………………………………………….. 5.1.5 Final Meeting …………………………………………………………………………... 5.1.6 Communication of the Results to SRCCG, SRC and the Programme/Project …. 5.1.7 Documentation of the Individual Review and Review Process …………………... 5.2 Annual Planning and Management ……………………………………………………….. 5.2.1 Development of the Schedule of the Annual SRC Review Programme (ASRP) 5.2.2 Reporting Progress …………………………………………………………………… 5.2.3 Documentation Management of the Review Process …………………………….. 5.2.4 Assessment of the Process and of the Results of the SRC Reviews …………… 5.2.5 Competence and Training of Reviewers ……………………………………………

9 10 11 17 18 18 19 19 19 20 21 21 22 22 22

Appendices

A. Safety Review Plan Structure …………………………………………………. 24

B. Comments: Comment Form and Advice for Comments …………………. 25

C. SRC Review Report ……………………………………………………………...

26



1. INTRODUCTION

This document applies to safety reviews undertaken by the Safety Regulation Commission (SRC). Those reviews assess ATM deliverables, at any stage of their life cycle, with regard to their compliance with applicable safety regulations. The outcome of a review is a harmonised safety regulatory opinion of SRC Member States regarding the potential safety regulatory impact(s) of the ATM development / project / programme, supported by the reviewed deliverable.

More specifically, the SRC reviews have the following objectives:

Ensure that the safety regulatory issues have been taken into consideration by the programmes at the earliest possible stage of its development;

Provide, through co-ordination with all stakeholders concerned, consolidated advise to support Member States wherever at a later stage their NAAs have to exercise their oversight responsibilities in regard to the local implementation of the programmes concerned;

Identify where current regulation is insufficient or new regulation is required;

Facilitate safety regulatory processes at national level, notably those related to the implementation by authorities of the safety oversight of changes established in ESARR 1.

The SRC review process does not lead to any sort of regulatory or legal acceptance or approval of the programmes concerned, and shall not replace the responsibilities of the authorities (NAA) in charge of the acceptance or approval of the implementation of these programmes at local level. It only serves to support the harmonisation of the approaches that the relevant authorities will have to adopt when exercising their responsibilities. As a consequence, the outcomes of the reviews are provided without any warranties of any kind, either expressed or implicit, and EUROCONTROL shall not be held liable for any direct or indirect loss resulting from the use of the SRC review.

2. SRC REVIEWS

SRC reviews are conducted for specific ATM developments, projects or programmes, that have been identified by SRC, as requiring a safety regulatory view of the Member States. SRC reviews provide, for the benefit of the relevant authorities, a harmonised safety regulatory approach for the implementation of those programmes and developments at national level.

The review outcomes are published along with reviewed deliverables. They are intended to:

Provide the safety regulatory advise to SRC member state authorities to support the exercise, at a later stage, of their responsibilities related to the acceptance and oversight of the developments concerned;



Summarise safety regulatory issues that needs to be brought into attention of the implementers who choose to use the reviewed document for their local implementation and the regulatory acceptance process;

Identify whether current regulation is insufficient or new regulation may be required; and

Facilitate safety oversight processes, notably those related to the implementation by NAAs of the safety oversight of changes required in ESARR 1 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 1034/2011.

3. REGULATORY BASELINE

Since this process addresses pan-European programmes or projects, the regulatory authorities of all EUROCONTROL Member States may benefit from the SRC reviews when exercising their oversight responsibilities at a later stage with regard to the local implementation of those programmes.

The regulatory baseline is the part of the regulations against which the reviews are conducted. The review consists of the assessment of the deliverables against ESARR 11, Edition 2.0, Attachment A, Article 9, paragraphs 1 and 2 ((a) to (h)): “Review procedure of the proposed changes”.

4. ARRANGEMENTS AND ROLES

The reviews should be conducted in accordance with the usual procedures of the SRC for coordination and consultation. The roles and arrangements of the entities involved in the reviews are;

Safety Regulation Commission (SRC)2 currently provides the platform for the coordination of views of the relevant authorities with regard to the safety of European ATM programmes. It provides and publishes the final reports of the review.

The SRC identifies the projects to be reviewed and is responsible for ensuring that sufficient resources are available for the agreed reviews. The role of the SRC includes the endorsement of the Annual Safety Review Plan (ASRP). The SRC is consulted regarding the outcomes of the individual reviews and gives its agreement regarding the publication of the final result of reviews. Once the Request for Comments process is completed, the SRC issues the final report of the review.

1 To note that ESARR 1 has been transposed in EU law through Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 1034/2011.

Both regulations are recognised as being identical. 2 SRC was established to provide advices to ensure, through co-operation between States on safety regulation, consistent

high levels of safety in ATM within the ECAC area. The task of SRC under its current Terms of References is, inter alia, to provide advice on the development of harmonised safety regulatory objectives and requirements for the ATM system which will be implemented and enforced by the EUROCONTROL Contracting Parties.



Safety Regulation Commission Co-ordination Group (SRCCG)3 conducts and supervises the reviews on behalf of the SRC. The SRCCG judges the benefit of the reviews against the effort required by the review. The SRCCG proposes the annual planning of reviews (ASRP) and the delivery of SRC Review Reports drafted by the SRC Review Manager. The members of the SRCCG nominate the reviewers and propose the experts to be involved in the reviews. The SRCCG is highly involved in the consultation of the results of the reviews and agrees that the final results of reviews are proposed to the SRC.

EUROCONTROL Oversight Division (DSS/OVS)4 is responsible for the coordination, management and conduct of the tasks which implement the SRC review process. The outcomes of the reviews are proposed by DSS/OVS to the SRCCG. Both the SRCCG and SRC are consulted and Comment/Response Documents (CRD) are produced to ensure full traceability of the issues raised during the consultation process and their adopted resolution(s).

Within DSS/OVS, the expert in charge of the overall process of the review5 is the SRC Review Manager who works in close co-ordination with the SRCCG. The SRC Review Manager’s role is to:

Contact the ATM project programme identified by SRC for reviews, in order to identify, anticipate and co-ordinate the actions of the reviews;

Plan the Annual SRC Review Programme (ASRP);

Propose the individual Review Plans to the SRCCG;

Coordinate resources (DSS and experts);

Report to SRCCG and SRC on the progress of the reviews;

Present the conclusions of each review to SRCCG and SRC,

Manage the publication of the review results.

The review process is finalised after the consultations of SRCCG and SRC and the results are forwarded by DSS to the project / programmes through the appropriate working interfaces. The review final reports are provided with the supporting documentation in association with the successive responses intended to express its views and positions.

The SRC review process is not an acceptance of the deliverables by authorities but a coordinated opinion, at a given time, which addresses the development of ATM systems. The reviewed deliverables are not related to a local implementation of ATM systems.

3 SRCCG supports the SRC in those areas relating to the SRC’s strategic, policy, regulatory, technical and procedural work

that have been assigned to it. The SRCCG undertakes those tasks and reports back to the SRC in accordance with SRC decisions.

4 DSS/OVS’ role is to, on behalf of the SRC, co-ordinate ATM safety regulatory activities and approaches at European level and to manage the production of harmonised regulatory requirements documents for adoption by States.

5 Please refer to SRC Document 3 - SRC Work Programme.



ATM Project / Programme

Safety deliverables of

ATM developments to

be reviewed

SRC

SRCCG

1. Identifies need to develop an

harmonised view of authorities on safety regulatory

matters

2. Agreement on reviews to be done and resources

EUROCONTROL

SRC DSS

DSS

Revised deliverables of the projects/programmes

Review outcomes : harmonised position

Member States

Annual SRC reviewIndividual review planReview TF deliverables managementConsultation

4. Review Management

3. Request to carry out reviews and TF

and comments

5. Progress of reviews and consultation

6. Progress of reviewsSpecific issues related to review resultsConsultation

7. Result and publication of review

outcomes

Figure 1 : Arrangements for SRC Reviews

The deliverables proposed to SRC for review are provided through working interfaces commonly agreed between the programmes and the SRC, and are consistent with the SRC’s Terms of Reference. This does not alter SRC’s obligations and reporting responsibilities to the Permanent Commission and Provisional Council of EUROCONTROL.

The proposals arising from the reviews for the improvement of safety regulatory aspects will be identified and recommended by the SRC within its overall advisory role. The report of the review should be delivered on time and should include recommendations. The result of the review will be communicated through SRC processes and be recorded and distributed to interested parties.

5. SRC REVIEW PROCESS

Several reviews should be managed at the same time by DSS/OVS. The number of reviews and their schedules, and more generally the reviews that SRC intends to perform during a year, are the inputs to the reviews activities.

The SRC review process consists of two levels of management, the:

individual review process which addresses the review of a specific deliverable (or a set of deliverables) selected for review by the SRC. The individual review process involves DSS/OVS and experts nominated by SRCCG.

annual planning and management of reviews, which periodically informs the SRC and SRCCG of the progress of the individual reviews.



5.1 Individual Review Process

The individual review process typically consists of several steps, which are depicted in Figure 2, and are further described in sections 5.1.1 through 5.1.7. The process steps are followed in several iterations, as appropriate, and can make use of the safety scanning (SCAN) methodology6 as necessary.

Start of Review in Accordance with Agreed Annual Schedule

1. Prepare the Review Plan

2. Kick-off Meeting

3. Provide comments/questions to the owner of the deliverable

4. Writing the Review Report

5. Final Meeting

6. Communication of Result to SRCCG and SRC

End of the Individual Review

Use of Safety SCAN as far as necessary;Gathering review material,Identification of the Regulatory Framework,Identification of the review scope, strategy, review task force (TF) members,Contact with TF members and contract of secondment when necessary,Schedule of the review,Drafting the review plan,Disclosure of the review material and plan to the task force members.

Safety SCAN as far as necessary;Provision of comments /questions,Feedback of the owner of the deliverable,Several meetings may be needed to achieve an agreement on the final result.

Safety SCAN to confirm scope, strategy, task force members;

Presentation of the review process and deliverable,Analysis of the first set of comments.

The task force members agree on final result and review report & pending issues, if any.

The reviewer in charge drafts the review report.Feedback of the task force members.This activity could be done by correspondence.

All information, review report and deliverables, are send to the SRCCG and SRC in accordance with usual SRC arrangement (CRD process).Meeting as necessary.

Figure 2 : Individual SRC Review Process

6 A safety SCAN is a method of structured review against a list of 'Safety Fundamentals'. These Safety Fundamentals are

basic design criteria for safe systems and are divided into four groups: Regulatory framework, Safety management, Operational safety performance, and Safety architecture. A safety SCAN may also be focused on only the relevant groups of Safety Fundamentals. Please refer to the SRC Document 46 and its annexes for more detailed information on safety SCAN."



The process may require some iteration, for example if the kick-off meeting identifies competences missing from the proposed TF-members

Throughout the review process, from its early planning stages to its detailed activity, it is necessary to put in place effective practices to ensure that the review provides adequate results in a timely manner, having regard to the next stages of development and within the required resources and costs.

The deliverables would be analysed with regard to their safety regulatory impacts; the short, medium and long term should be considered. Consequently, the anticipation of the regulatory impact should be done at a period which allows the most effective decision making in ATM development. The review process is a sampling and iterative process which could include different phases of the life cycle of an ATM development. The traceability of all comments and their resolutions will be maintained for each review.

The reviewers should ensure that the review:

Addresses deliverables that are recognised to be important by NAAs, SRC and other authorities;

Identifies the:

compliance with regulations,

need for amendments to existing regulations,

need for the development of regulations

Potential inconsistencies between regulations.

Is specific; all safety recommendations and advice would address the deliverable under review and its environment;

Gives a SRC position with regard the provided safety arguments from a regulatory point of view;

Issues:

practical recommendations for the next stages;

considerations regarding training, qualification and human factors;

all necessary monitoring of safety occurrences when the ATM development will be locally implemented.

5.1.1 Preparing the Review Plan

The SRC Review Manager should propose to SRCCG a plan, taking into account the strategy, the limitation of the scope and the identified resources.

For the benefit of this essential stage, it is advised to use, as far as necessary for the relevant groups of Safety Fundamentals, the Safety scanning (SCAN)7 methodology.

7 Please refer to the SRC Document 46 and its annexes for more detailed information.



The preparation of the review plan includes the following sub-tasks:

Gathering review material,

Identification of the Regulatory Framework

identification of the review scope and strategy,

Identifying the resources needed for the review,

Contact with TF members and contract of secondment when necessary,

Schedule of the review and planning,

Drafting the review plan,

Disclosure of the review material and plan to the task force members.

A maximum of four review meetings are planned, as well as the final date of the provision of the SRC Review Report. The preparation of the review plan is essential for the review of the deliverables and this stage paves the way for the overall review process.

5.1.1.1 Gathering the Review Material

Within DSS/OVS, the SRC Review Manager proposes to SRCCG the name of a Lead Reviewer who is in charge of managing a specific review.

According to their respective expertise, DSS/OVS reviewers are nominated by the Review Manager to perform the review and to help the Lead Reviewer.

The review material is identified by the Lead Reviewer with the help of the Reviewers. The Lead Reviewer will contact the ATM development and gather the safety documentation to support the review. The documentation may consist of:

Safety plan,

Safety assessment,

Safety cases,

All document concerning the environment of the ATM development,

Declaration of conformity and suitability for use (if any),

All available justification and evidences to support the safety documentation,

All associated regulations and standards (implementing rules, EUROCAE documents, etc.).

Before launching the next review activities, it should be ensured that the documentation is sufficiently complete and accurate to be reviewed.

5.1.1.2 Review Scope and Strategy

On the basis of the material gathered for review, the Lead Reviewer and the DSS/OVS reviewers would define the scope and the strategy of the review. A specific brain storming could be dedicated to this activity and, for the relevant group of Safety Fundamentals, the use of the SCAN methodology would support the Lead Reviewer in identifying the review scope and strategy.



The identification of the scope and strategy of the review is essential to help, as far as possible and at a later stage, the acceptance by Authorities of the final Safety Arguments, proposed by ANSPs, in accordance with ESARR 1, Edition 2.0, Attachment A, Article 9, paragraph 2 (e)8.

5.1.1.2.1 Scope

The scope of the review is the domain over which the review of the deliverable is effective. It is the range of application or of subjects embraced by the review and the field covered by the deliverable to be reviewed.

In accordance with the life cycle of the programme under review, and taking into account a regulatory point of view, the scope of those reviews should be extended to cover various domains dealing with applicable regulations (in accordance with the various ATM domain and the various phases of the life cycle: installation, maintenance, training of ATCOs, contingency planning, etc.).

A single safety assessment may cover the intended scope of the review but several inter-related deliverables may be considered.

The definition of the scope would be supported, for the relevant groups of Safety Fundamentals, by the SCAN methodology. This stage is essential to specify the competences needed for reviews.

The definition of the scope is performed by the Lead Reviewer. It should be done in close co-ordination with the responsible of the ATM development.

The scope of the reviews should take into account various parameters, such as:

Applicable regulations;

SES implementation priorities;

Inter-dependences of ATM domains;

Environment of operations;

Innovative aspects of the programme (operational, technical);

Complexity of the programme and its environment;

Type of change;

Operational and Safety impact of the programmes;

Industry maturity with regard the programme;

Deadline for implementation;

Extension of the implementation;

8 Article 9, paragraph 2 (e) “assess the acceptability of safety arguments presented taking account of:

(i) the identification of hazards; (ii) the consistency of the allocation of severity classes; (iii) the validity of the safety objectives; (iv) the validity, effectiveness and feasibility of safety requirements and any other safety-related conditions identified; (v) the demonstration that the safety objectives, safety requirements and other safety-related conditions are continuously

met; (vi) the demonstration that the process used to produce the safety arguments meets the applicable safety regulatory

requirements;”



Propositions for priorities.

how the document under review is expected to be used by implementers in the production of local safety arguments

5.1.1.2.2 Strategy

The Lead Reviewer will define an approach adapted to the proposed deliverable, taking into account its stage of life cycle and the applicable regulations. The depth and the accuracy of the verification of the implementation of those regulations would be adapted to the type of deliverable to be verified.

In order to perform this verification of compliance, both strategies of reviews could be considered: The Overall Safety Regulatory Impact, and the Regulatory Aspects of Safety Arguments.

The strategy of the review depends of the stage of life cycle associated to the reviewed deliverables (Operational Services and Environment Descriptions (OSED), safety assessment or safety case). The strategy will be different depending upon the type of deliverable and the information related to safety that they contain.

Some types of documents do not contain many detailed safety information like the definition or specification documents. In this case, it is proposed to focus on the Overall Safety Regulatory Impact.

With regard to the Overall Safety Regulatory Impact, the reviewers would address the following topics (non exhaustive list);

Existing safety regulatory framework (change, new regulation, etc.);

Organisational aspects linked to the implementation of the programme;

Personnel qualifications, training and licensing issues (ATCO, ATSEP, etc.);

Aircraft impact;

Certification (airborne, other);

Modification of the functional system (ATM, other);

Airspace mandate linked to aircraft equipage and airspace definition;

Publication of information to users;

Development of further guidance for local implementation;

Oversight arrangements;

Authorisations / acceptance (as airspace changes, separation);

Specific / further verification;

Safety monitoring;

Involvement of different regulatory bodies (States, NAAs, EASA);

Documents for next stages of implementation (Implementer);

Safety requirements for next stage of implementation.



The safety assessment documents or the safety cases and their associated evidences contain more detailed information on safety. In this case, it is proposed to focus on the Regulatory and Standards Aspects of Safety Arguments9, for example:

With regard to the system safe design aspects:

Technology maturity;

Types of Redundancies;

Impact on workload;

Quality of system interface;

Robustness of safety barriers;

Single and common modes of failures;

Degraded mode;

Fault containments and tolerance;

Recovery methods.

With regard to the safe implementation at functional level:

Data shared with other system;

Redundancies at functional level;

Network impact;

External provision (Power, …);

Transition period;

Maintenance;

Withdraw of the previous system;

Operational restrictions;

Off line work;

Parameters;

Number of location / extension of system;

Contingency.

5.1.1.3 Identifying the Resources Needed for the Review

The Review Team is the DSS/OVS entity in charge of an individual review; the review team consists in the Lead Reviewer and DSS Reviewers.

The Lead Reviewer will:

Develop the individual review plan

Support and provide adequate information to all reviewers;

9 It is highly recommended that the reviewers have the necessary knowledge to undertake the review of the Regulatory and

Standards Aspects of Safety Arguments, for instance by attending the EUROCONTROL training courses on safety assessment methodologies and development of safety arguments, or attending the NLR/University of Kassel training course on Safety scanning.



Build the Review Task Force in accordance with the proposals of the SRCCG by;

verifying that the skills of the proposed experts are consistent with those required to perform a review;

contacting experts nominated by SRCCG;

arranging secondment where necessary;

Define, in cooperation with the reviewers, the scope, strategy and schedule of the review;

Manage the reviews: ask for comments, organise meetings, gather the comments and ensure their traceability;

Maintain up-to-date documentation control of the review;

Inform the SRC Review Manager of the progress of the review;

Draft the final SRC Review Report;

Prepare the consultation process.

Reviewers will support the Lead Reviewer as appropriate, by providing written comments and by participating in meetings and all actions identified by the Lead Reviewer. The members of the SRCCG nominate national experts or any other experts to participate in the review.

For the relevant groups of Safety Fundamentals, the use of the SCAN methodology may support the Lead Reviewer in building the task force.

The Review Task Force consists of:

The Review Team (Lead Reviewer and DSS reviewers)

Experts nominated by the SRCCG. The experts should ensure their independence from the programmes/projects under review. When necessary, the SRCCG may identify ad-hoc specialist to assist the Task Forces, composed of experts in the field in question or to address specific issues in the review process;

Experts from any authorities or professional associations identified by SRCCG and/or DSS/OVS;

EUROCONTROL experts identified by the Lead Reviewer for their specific expertise;

Representatives of ANSPs and those involved in ATM development (e.g. project manager, safety manager of the ATM development) are invited to participate in the review task forces. They do not provide comments but are consulted to clarify technical and implementation aspects and, if necessary, they may coordinate inputs to SRC at a national level through their national representative to the SRC or through the SRC’s consultation process used in the review.



The programmes/projects which provides inputs (deliverables to be reviewed) to the review process. The programme/project manager nominates a “focal point” who is responsible for releasing the safety documentation under reviewed and for updating it, in accordance with the results of the review. The focal point participates in the meetings of the review and ensures a close coordination with the Lead Reviewer. The Focal Point answers the questions of the reviewers, updates the safety deliverable, and coordinates any necessary actions with the programme/project manager, if it is required by the review.

5.1.1.4 Schedule of the Review and Planning

Taking into account the constraints of the Review Task Force Members, the Lead Reviewer should anticipate the number of meetings, their location, the inputs which should be provided by the Task Forces and confirms the timescale for the consultation process.

Depending of the type of the deliverable, its scope and the review strategy, the meetings should be planned, as well the final date of the provision of the SRC Review Report. The consultation process is scheduled in the review plan and is done by correspondence using normal SRC procedures. The number of meetings and the duration of the review are under the responsibility of the Lead Reviewer and should be coordinated with the SRC Review Manager to confirm the overall planning of reviews.

5.1.1.5 Drafting the Review Plan

The Lead Reviewer should propose a review plan taking into account the strategy, the limitation of the scope and the identified resources to SRCCG. The Lead Reviewer should draft the review plan.

5.1.1.6 Disclosure of the Review Material and Plan to the Task Force Members

Once the review plan has been proposed to SRCCG and accepted, the Lead Reviewer will send the review package to the members of the review task force, i.e. the:

Deliverables to be reviewed and the associated regulations and standards,

Review plans: Review the scope and strategy, task force members’ names, planning of the meetings, etc.

Forms used for the comments.

Any relevant documents exchanged amongst the reviewers will be recorded by the Lead Reviewer.

5.1.2 Review Kick-off Meeting

The kick-off meeting is the official start of the review done. At the end of the preparation phase, the task force members will have the full review package, including the review plan and should start to provide comments/feedback before the kick-off meeting.



During the kick-off meeting, the Lead Reviewer presents the review plan and review management methodology.

For the benefit of this kick-off meeting, it is advised to use, as far as necessary for the relevant group of Safety Fundamentals, the SCAN10 methodology.

The focal point identified by the responsible ATM development (i.e. ATM project manager) would give a presentation on the subject, including the ATM development objective and the contents of the deliverable and any other useful information to the Task Force. The focal point would also be available to answer initial questions.

The task forces members would present their comments and would ask for any clarifications.

The quality of the available documentation should be acceptable to launch the review. Several criteria should be taken into consideration to assess if deliverables are ready for review:

Maturity of the deliverable: clarity, readability, overall consistency, etc.

Existing validations and evidences dealing with innovative aspects in the deliverable,

Results of previous reviews made in the domain under consideration,

Priority given to the deliverable by SRC.

In case of issues with regards the quality of the documentation, the decision on whether to continue with the review should be taken at this stage. The need to postpone a SRC review is neither a decision of the Lead Reviewer nor a result of any standardised process. It should be examined on a case-by-case basis and agreed by the Task Force Members.

5.1.3 Providing Comments or Questions to the Owners of the Deliverables

The Review Task Force will comment on the proposed deliverables. When doing so, the members of the Review Task Force should take into account the proposed review strategy and scope. Should the Task Force decide to use the Safety Scanning Tool for the relevant groups of Safety Fundamentals, SRC Document 46 ‘Safety Scanning’, Annex C ‘Guidance on Interpreting and Using the Safety Scanning Results’ should be consulted for guidance on the interpretation of the results.

The reviewers will provide written comments before each planned meeting. The comments are to be systematically sent to the Task Force Members by the originator. The deadline for providing comment is decided by the Task Force Members.

The lead Reviewer will collate comments. DSS/OVS will maintain a record of all comments and their resolution by the Programme/Project, reporting to the SRCCG on their status on a regular basis. If necessary, a new review cycle may be initiated in the SRC review schedule.

10 Please refer to the SRC Document 46 and its annexes for more detailed information.



As all review-related deliverables, together with the draft review report, are systematically sent at the time of the Request for Comment (RFC) to SRCCG and/or SRC, those consultation periods are opportunities for Member States to provide any additional comments.

5.1.4 Writing the SRC Review Report

The lead reviewer will, in full coordination with the Review Task Force, draft and dispatch the draft SRC Review Report to the review task force members before the final meeting. This report presents the harmonised position of the Review Task Force and provides recommendations and the regulatory position regarding the implementation of the applicable safety regulatory requirements.

The review report will highlight items of significance and, where necessary, propose mechanisms to advise national and pan European certification bodies of these concerns so that they can be added to other documents of a more mandatory nature.

Safety considerations might be identified by using the SCAN tool but not resolved during the SRC review. Those safety considerations should be documented in a Safety Register. As an output of the Safety Scanning Tool, the lead reviewer would draft and would dispatch the Safety Register as part of the SRC Review Report to all consulted parties (i.e. SRCCG, SRC) and to the programme/project under review.

5.1.5 Final Meeting

The draft SRC Review Report is discussed at the final meeting before launching formal consultation with the SRCCG and SRC. The lead reviewer will present to the Review Task Force the conclusion of the review and the next stages of the consultation process. The focal point nominated by the programme/project concerned should ensure that the comments are incorporated into the final deliverable and should ensure that all comments and questions provided in the comments have been answered.

5.1.6 Communication of the Results to SRCCG, SRC and the Programme/Project

SRCCG will agree a draft response to be transmitted to the Programme/Project and the SRC, including:

Comments with their rationale,

Appropriate decisions about the next steps of the interface process,

A formal request for SRC proposed actions,

A SRC statement made at the end of interface process in order to summarise the conclusions achieved throughout the complete process,

Outstanding issues (e.g. the Safety Register as defined in §5.1.4) and any other related documentation (e.g. annual assessment of the process, as defined in §5.2.4).

Whenever necessary, SRC may agree to advise the EUROCONTROL Permanent Commission, through the Provisional Council, on the programme/project under consideration from a safety regulatory perspective.



5.1.7 Documentation of the Individual Review and Review Process

All steps of the individual review process are to be documented, recorded and archived, including the traceability between documents related to the review. Records will include as a minimum:

The reviewers’ comments;

The report of the meetings;

Agreed actions – modifications as a result of comments;

Outstanding actions and unresolved issues (e.g. the Safety Register);

The SRC Review Report;

The updates of the ASRP;

Any other related documentation.

The SRC Review Reports are formal SRC publications and as such are published on the EUROCONTROL SRC website and all documents related to the review are always available to the SRC and, if necessary, to Member States upon request. All the documents supporting the SRC review are managed and archived through DSS/OVS’ standardised documentation processes.

Review activities of ATM changes deliverable

Annual SRC Reviewprogramme

Reviews schedule and progress management

Reviewstask forces

SRC-CG


1- Preparing the review plan

2- Kick off meeting

3- Providing the comments /questions to the owner of the

deliverable

6- communication of result to SRC CG and

SRC

5- Final meeting

Start of the Review in accordance with agreed annual schedule

4- Writing the review report



2- Kick off meeting


deliverable


SRC

5- Final meeting





2- Kick off meeting


deliverable


SRC

5- Final meeting



Review activities of ATM changes deliverable

Annual SRC Reviewprogramme

Reviews schedule and progress management

Reviewstask forces

SRC-CG



2- Kick off meeting


deliverable


SRC

5- Final meeting





2- Kick off meeting


deliverable


SRC

5- Final meeting





2- Kick off meeting


deliverable


SRC

5- Final meeting



Figure 3: Annual SRC Review Planning

5.2 Annual Planning and Management

As the programme/project concerned will produce numerous deliverables, an immediate and complete assessment of all planned deliverables is prohibitive in terms of time and resources. Consequently, an initial selection of deliverables should be made to identify the deliverables that are to be reviewed by the SRC. This initial selection should take input from the Safety Team. The deliverables will be selected by SRCCG co-ordination. The depth of the technical work will also be related to this prioritisation exercise.



The SRC Review Manager, through close co-ordination with the SRCCG, drafts the annual planning of SRC reviews. This plan is initiated by the SRCCG and agreed by the SRCCG and the SRC. The discussions addressing the annual review plan are initiated, as far as possible, by the SRCCG at the last meeting the year before.

Regarding the programmes/projects deliverables proposed for reviews, the SRCCG would provide a coarse filter, prior to the start of any review, to anticipate as far as possible the degree to which:

a review is wanted / needed,

a review will be beneficial,

any recommendations coming from the review will be acted upon.

The result of the ‘coarse filter’ should then be used be to determine the level of effort to be expended per review.

The Annual SRC Review Programme (ASRP) should address the:

Deliverables identified to be reviewed and their associated priorities (impact, date of implementation);

Schedule of the review programme, the resources required and other organisational arrangements needed in order to carry out the assessments;

Grouping of reviews per review cycles;

Objectives and expected outcomes of the assessments;

Actual progress of the on-going reviews.

Status of the reviews which have been undertaken within the current year to ensure their traceability (e.g. planned, in progress, finished, delayed, frozen).

5.2.1 Development of the Schedule of the Annual SRC Review Programme (ASRP)

The ASRP identifies the list of reviews with their priority to the SRCCG. The ASRP is developed and updated by the SRC Review Manager, in close coordination with the representatives designated by the Programme/Project Managers.

The ASRP is the framework which identifies all individual reviews for a period of one year. The deliverables to be reviewed and the outcomes of the review process should be provided in accordance with the schedule defined in the ASRP.

There is a need to control the number and the extent of the reviews. To plan them, the SRC Review Manager takes into account the arrangements, resource allocation and the reviews which are foreseen for a year. The SRC review process will be iterative. Different deliverables of a programme/project can be submitted to successive cycles of SRC reviews (e.g. pre-implementation safety cases, post-implementation safety cases, or any other documents related to the programme/project having a safety regulatory interest).

Due to resource constraints, this iterative process cannot be applied for all deliverables for a given ATM development. Whereas the formal assessment of these programmes/projects is particularly useful in their development phase, this is very resource intensive and cannot be sustained.



5.2.2 Reporting Progress

The SRC Review Manager plans and ensures a systematic report to the SRCCG regarding the status of the on-going reviews. Should the review require additional time than previously scheduled, it will be justified to the SRCCG. The reviews to be performed each year are identified in the ASRP which is updated before each SRC and their progress is communicated to SRCCG.

The overall status of the review will be presented annually to the SRC.

On an annual basis, the SRC will report to the EUROCONTROL Permanent Commission, through the Provisional Council, about the reviews performed during the year. This report will denote the request for reviews, the reviews carried out and the associated SRC Review Reports and any safety issues identified by the SRC review process.

5.2.3 Documentation Management of the Review Process

The SRC Review Manager records the documentation dealing with the planning of the review process in accordance with DSS/OVS’ documentation management procedure.

5.2.4 Assessment of the Process and of the Results of the SRC Reviews

The SRC Review Manager is in charge of continuously improving the review process. This continuous improvement relies on:

For each review, an assessment, of how the declared objectives of the review process were met. This assessment will particularly address whether the views expressed are both shared and representative,

Feedback from Reviewers and task forces during the reviews.

Feedback from SRC and SRCCG members during the consultation period,

The lessons learnt from reviews are annually communicated to the SRC and SRCCG. DSS/OVS would take all measures to effectively improve the review process and its outcomes.

If necessary, a workshop on the lessons learnt from the SRC review process will be held in EUROCONTROL on a annual basis, for attendance by those involved in the review process.

5.2.5 Competence and Training of Reviewers

The quality and the variety of expertises involved in reviews are essential to achieve the objectives of reviews. The human resources involved in the review process should at least include:

Experts, which are:

nominated by Authorities (EC, EASA, NAAs, non European Authorities, etc.),

nominated by SRC Member States to participate in Task Forces for the purpose of the SRC reviews,



identified as having specific expertises from airlines, industry, controller and pilot associations, etc.), for instance on the basis of the result of the safety SCAN done by the Lead Reviewer.

EUROCONTROL experts, DSS /OVS staff having adequate expertise and trained in review management,

Eventually, external contractors, sufficient assurances should be given as regards their independence from the Programme/Project subject to review, and preferably under the condition of being a qualified entity.

Taking into account the potential high number of safety deliverables of programmes/projects and the limited resources available, the efficiency of the review process is crucial to ensure that the maximum number of reviews can be performed. The resources needed for reviews are identified and anticipated when the ASRP is developed in accordance with the number and the complexity of the deliverables to review.

The review process therefore relies on the knowledge and skills of the reviewer in the regulatory domain and in the specific ATM domain addressed by the deliverable.

The reviewer should be able to co-ordinate within their organisation within a strict time limit to achieve maximum of contribution in different domains with regard the deliverable under review. The reviewer should be able to gather sound arguments addressing technical aspects, design, implementation and operational practices.

The adequate competence and appropriate technical, operational and institutional expertise of the Reviewers is key to the SRC reviews. The Reviewers, the members of the Task Forces, national officials and other resources assigned to the SRC reviews will be trained regarding the review methodology, including an introduction of the Safety scanning methodology and process. Before participating in a review, it will be verified by the Lead Reviewer that:

A list of nominated reviewers, identified by their domains of competences, should be created. Those reviewers should be proposed by the NAAs with their curriculum vitae describing their competences and experience;

Each member of the review team will be instructed in the review methodology prior the start of the review.

(Space Left Intentionally Blank)



APPENDIX A – SAFETY REVIEW PLAN STRUCTURE

CHAPTER 1 – Introduction

1.1 Project Background

1.2 Safety Regulatory Review Background

1.3 Document Information

1.3.1 Intended Audience

1.3.2 Document Structure

1.3.3 Glossary of Terms

1.3.4 Abbreviations and Acronyms

CHAPTER 2 – Review of <name of the project or deliverable>

2.1 Review Scope

2.2 Review Documentation

2.2.1 Project Documentation

2.2.2 Material Supporting the Review

2.3 Review Objectives

2.4 Review Strategy

2.5 Review Organisation

2.6 Review Deliverable

2.7 Regulatory Requirements

CHAPTER 3 – Review Organisation

3.1 Review Roles

3.2 Review Task Force

3.3 Collecting Questions and Comments

3.4 Review Planning

REFERENCES



APPENDIX B – COMMENTS: COMMENT FORM AND ADVICE FOR COMMENTS

HML

Editorial: EQ

CommentRef.

Organisation Originator Section Page Classification Description Action Agreed

High:Medium

Low:

Question:

Comment Classification

Figure 5 : Format of the Comments Form (Excel Spread Sheet)



APPENDIX C – SRC REVIEW REPORT

This SRC Review Report (RR) denotes the SRC advices to implementers and National Supervisory Authorities ensuing from a review of the <reference of the deliverables, date, version>.

The review was conducted by nominees from NAA/Member States of the SRC Coordination Group dates <dates of the SRC request for review>. The States and Organisations represented in the review task force were:

<names of the States / organisations>

The SRC Review Report on the high-level safety regulatory requirements is intended for information purposes only. They do not constitute formal approval, acceptance, certification or other legal commitment which remain the responsibility of the authorities and entities concerned, and should not be interpreted, or inferred as being such. This SRC Review Report is provided without any warranty of any kind, either express or implied. EUROCONTROL shall not be held liable for any direct or indirect loss resulting from the use of the review.

Review Objectives

The main objective of this safety regulatory review is to anticipate, as far as possible, the compliance with applicable regulatory requirements/regulations and the potential safety regulatory impacts of the further development phases of <name of the project> to ensure that all identified safety regulatory advices can be taken in consideration at earliest possible stage of the project.

The process followed during this review is summarised in the SRC Document 6.

1. Description of the reviewed ATM programme/Project and associated deliverables

2. SRC Conclusions and Advices

(Results, Draft Position and Issues Raised)

3. Applicable Regulations and Standards

<provide references to all regulations which have been taken into consideration for the review>

4. Other Reference Documents <To be adapted to the type of review>

Related Regulatory Requirements

Related EASA/JAA Material

Related FAA Advisory Circular Material

Related EUROCAE/RTCA Standards, etc.



Codicil to the Advice Drafted by the SRCCG Working Group

NB: This list should be circulated to the Working Group (task force and reviewers) for final approval and may be subject to modification.

1. < express the list of conclusions, advice and recommendations resulting from the review>

Next Steps

1. ……

Recommendations to the SRC

1. ……

(***)

SRC DOCUMENT 6 SRC REVIEW PROCESS - Eurocontrol · PDF fileTHE SAFETY OF ATM PROGRAMMES...

Documents

Transcript of SRC DOCUMENT 6 SRC REVIEW PROCESS - Eurocontrol · PDF fileTHE SAFETY OF ATM PROGRAMMES...