Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T11:31:58.293Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Consistent and up-to-date aviation safety targets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2016

P. Brooker
P. Brooker*
Affiliation:
Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is a need for consistency between aviation safety targets – target levels of safety (TLS). Consistent ‘risk philosophy’ ensures that resources can be allocated in areas where they will be most beneficial in reducing the number of potential accidents and fatalities. Many existing aviation targets were devised decades ago, have not been brought up to date to take account of the considerable improvement in the sector’s safety performance, and are not targeted at some specific future year. It appears feasible to construct consistent and up-to-date sets of TLSs covering the full range of aviation needs, in particular for air traffic management. However, this requires significant, more demanding, changes to some TLS values. One caveat to note is that the safety of ‘loosely coupled’ aviation systems may be better described and managed by the Health and Safety Executive version of risk assessment rather than by a TLS approach.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 108 , Issue 1085 , July 2004 , pp. 345 - 356
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2004 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Howard, R.W. Breaking through the 106 Barrier, Aeronaut J, 1992, 96 (957), pp 260–270.Google Scholar
2. Baumgartner, M. One safe sky for Europe – A revolution in European ATM, The Controller, 8-12 July 2003.Google Scholar
3. Eurocontrol SRC, Safety minima study: Review of existing standards and practices, SRC Doc 1, Eurocontrol, Brussels, 2000.Google Scholar
4. Boeing (Commercial Airplane) statistical summary of commercial jet airplane accidents worldwide operations 1959–2002, 2003. http://www.boeing.com/news/techissues/pdf/statsum.pdf Google Scholar
5. Evans, A. W. Accidental fatalities in transport, J Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society, 2003, 166, (2), 253–260.Google Scholar
6. JAA Advisory Joint Material relating to JAR 25 Large Aeroplanes, AMJ 25.1309, Change 16, Joint Airworthiness Authorities, 2003.Google Scholar
7. Eurocontrol SRC, Risk Assessment and Mitigation in ATM, Eurocontrol Safety Regulatory Requirement ESARR 4, Edition 1.0, Eurocontrol, Brussels, 2000.Google Scholar
8. Eurocontrol SRC Aircraft Accidents/Incidents and ATM Contribution: Review and Analysis of Historical Data, SRC Doc 2, 2002.Google Scholar
9. Fiorino, F. FAA’s ‘Stock’ in safety, Aviation Week & Space Technology, 14 July 2003.Google Scholar
10. FAA/Eurocontrol A concept paper for separation safety modeling: An FAA/Eurocontrol cooperative effort on air traffic modeling for separation standards, 1998. http://www.faa.gov/asd/ia-or/pdf/cpcomplete.pdf Google Scholar
11. Davies, E.H. and Sharpe, A.G. Review of the Target Level of Safety for NAT MNPS Airspace, CS Report 9301, NATS, London, 1993.Google Scholar
12. ICAO RGCSP Working Group A Meeting: Summary of Discussions and Conclusions, ICAO, 1995.Google Scholar
13. Harrison, D. and Moek, G. European studies to investigate the feasibility of using 1000ft vertical separation minima above FL 290: Part II – Precision data analysis and collision risk assessment, J Institute of Navigation, 1992, 45, pp 91–106.Google Scholar
14. Hollnagel, E. Human Reliability Analysis, Context and Control, Academic Press, London, 1993.Google Scholar
15. Hollnagel, E. and Amalberti, R. The emperors new clothes, or whatever happened to ‘human error’? 4th International Workshop on Human Error, Safety and System Development, Linköping, Sweden, 2001.Google Scholar
16. Brooker, P. Future air traffic management: quantitative en route safety assessment Part 1 – Review of present methods, Part 2 – New approaches, J Institute of Navigation, 2002, 55 (2), pp 197–211 and 55, (3), pp 363–379.Google Scholar
17. Profit, R. Systematic safety management in the air traffic services, Euromoney, London, 1995.Google Scholar
18. Reason, J. Human Error, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, 1990.Google Scholar
19. Maurino, D.E., Reason, J., Johnston, N. and Lee, R.B. Beyond Aviation Human Factors, Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot UK, 1995.Google Scholar
20. Kelly, R.J. and Davis, J.M. Required navigation performance (RNP) for precision approach and landing with GNSS Application, Navigation, 1994, 41 (1), 1–30.Google Scholar
21. Hunter, R.D. The development of obstacle clearance criteria for ILS operations at civil airports, CAA Paper 80009, 1980, CAA.Google Scholar
22. ICAO Manual for the use of the Collision Risk Model (CRM) for ILS Operations, Doc 9274-AN/904, 1980.Google Scholar
23. Mccormick, C. Beating the weather: precision runway monitor permits simultaneous IFR approaches to closely-spaced parallel runways, Airports International, 16-18 January/February 2002.Google Scholar
24. FAA Precision Runway Monitor Demonstration Report, DOT/FAA/RD-91/5, FAA, 1991.Google Scholar
25. Cusden, F. Safety Implications of the Precision Runway Monitor, CS Report 9304, CAA, 1993.Google Scholar
26. CAA Air Traffic Services Safety Requirements, CAP 670, CAA, 1998.Google Scholar
27. Eurocontrol Eurocontrol ATM Strategy for the Years 2000+ Volume 2 (2003 Version), 2003.Google Scholar
28. Eurocontrol SRC, ECAC Safety Minima for ATM, SRC Policy Doc 1, Edition 1, Eurocontrol, Brussels, 2001.Google Scholar
29. EsVan, G.W.H., A review of civil aviation accidents: air traffic management related accidents: 1980-1999. 4th international air traffic management R&D Seminar, 2001. http://atm2001.eurocontrol.fr/finalpapers/pap05.pdf Google Scholar
30. Weick, K.E. Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems, Administrative Science Quarterly, 1976, 21, (1), pp 1–19.Google Scholar
31. Perrow, C. Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies, Basic Books, New York, 1984.Google Scholar
32. Foot, P.B. A review of the results of a Trial Hazard Analysis of airspace sectors 24 and 26S, CS Report 9427, CAA, 1994.Google Scholar
33. HSE – Health and Safety Executive The Tolerability of Risk from Nuclear Power Stations, HMSO; Reducing Risks, Protecting People, HSE Books, 1992 and 1999.Google Scholar