1. Industry Workshop Regulation 376/2014 - 27 April 2015 -
The European Commission and the
European Aviation Safety Agency

2. - Regulation (EU) 376/2014-
Brussels - 27 April 2015

3. Background More proactive and evidence- based European Safety Policy
Fits in the context of existing safety management processes

4. Main objectives:
Prevent accidents through reporting, analysis and follow-up of relevant safety information at industry, national and EU level
Ensure continued availability of safety information (enhanced Just Culture)
Improve information exchange within the EU
Applicable from 15 November 2015

5. - 376/2014 Roadmap-
Brussels - 27 April 2015

6. Developed by Commission with EASA help
Aim to support MS and industry
Collaborative effort
Roadmap implementation started in Dec
End in Nov 2015 with application Regulation 376/2014

7. List of occurrences to be reported under MOR Guidance material
Workshops for the industry
EASA organisations - 4 December 2014 in Cologne
Entire industry - 27 April 2015 in Brussels
Workshops for the Member States
30 March 2015 in Brussels
Autumn in Brussels

8. EU risk classification scheme Technical support
ECCAIRS/ADREP compatibility
Taxonomy
Standard reporting forms
European reporting portal
Technical means facilitating the implementation of the Regulation
Trainings

9. Communication and promotion material
Development of a Policy Model for the Internal Industry Just Culture Policy
3 meetings (March/ May /June 2015)
Communication and promotion material
For CAT and for GA
To be develop Summer 2015
High Level Conference
1st October 2015 in Brussels
Presentation of deliverables

10. Questions?

11. - Guidance Material -
Brussels - 27 April 2015

12. Prepared by the Commission with the support of EASA
Objective
support common understanding and harmonised application of 376/2014
Scope
covers entire Regulation 376/2014

13. Addressed to:
Aviation professionals
Industry organisations
Aviation competent authorities
States

14. Timeline 1st draft circulated - 24 March
Discussion with the MS - 30 March
Revised draft circulated - 23 April
Discussion with the industry - 27 April
Revised draft circulated for comments - End May
Finalisation and dissemination - Summer 2015

15. Final structure Divided according to targeted stakeholders’ category
Format of questions
Include provisions interpretation, key principles, examples, best practices and means of compliance

16. Questions?

17. - Industry Workshop -
Brussels - 27 April 2015

18. Participation

21. Reporting, analysis and follow-up of occurrences
Brussels - 27 April 2015

22. - Reporting - Main principles

23. Clarification of reporters under MORS with examples
Clarification of occurrences to be reported under MORS:
Reportable occurrences are those contained in the IR
Report occurrences in relevant Annex not all in IR

24. Clarification on reportable occurrences:
Judgment by reporter when required to assess if aircraft endangered
When doubt, should report
Possible assessment by organisations
Accountability

25. Questions?

26. Mandatory and Voluntary Reporting

27. Clarification on differences between MORS and VORS
Yes
Yes
Occ. listed in the IR
MORS
Person in Article 4(6)
Occurrence No No
VORS

28. Questions?

29. Reporting and Information Flow - Timeline -

30. Timeline Timeline Authority stores the report in the National DB
Mandatory Report
Authority stores the report in the National DB
Authority Reporting to ECR
Authority updates report in ECR 1M
Reporting to Organization
Reporting to Authority
Reporting follow-up to Authority
Reporting final report to Authority
72h
Individuals
72h
72h 2M 1M 2M 3M T0
Timeline T0 1M 3M
Individuals
Voluntary Report
Reporting to Organization
Reporting to Authority

31. Timeline For Design and Production Organisations, given that:
The reportable occurrence is the unsafe condition (Part-21 definition), and
The person to report is the responsible of the identification of the unsafe condition,
The T0 starts when the unsafe condition is identified.

32. Questions?

33. Interaction with regulation (EU) No 216/2008 and its IRs

34. Interaction with BR216/2008 Requirements Common BR216/2008* R376/2014*
Applicable to Foreign organisations
Reporting between organisations
Linked to approval
Individuals
Mandatory list
Mandatory fields
Deadlines in analysis
ECCAIRS/ADREP
Data Quality
Disidentification
Data protection
BR216/2008*
R376/2014*
Requirements
Common
* Not exhaustive list of requirements

35. Interaction with
BR216/2008
Reporting requirements existing in other EU legislations are consistent with reporting requirements under Regulation 376/2014
Both obligations should be discharged by one reporting channel avoiding the establishment of two parallel systems
Compliance with Regulation 216/2008 and its IRs should not exempt organisations from compliance with this Regulation, and vice versa

36. Interaction with
BR216/2008
EASA is studying a dedicated RMT to update the Implementing Rules of BR216/2008 and related AMCs and GM to properly reflect requirements defined in Regulation 376/2014 in view to:
Provide legal certainty on reporting obligations
Clarify the scope of competent authority oversight and
Support the promotion of a just culture

37. Questions?

38. Reporting to the Competent authority

39. Initial notification*
Information flow
Initial notification*
Report to organisation
Report to ECR
Report to Comp. Aut.
Yes
Occ. listed in the IR
Yes
Person in Article 4(6)
Occurrence No
Yes No
Possibility to report to organisation
Occurrence involves safety risk No
No notification
*Note: for the purpose of simplification, the scheme indicates that the reporting by individuals is made to the organisation while it is recognised by the Regulation that individuals may report directly to the competent authority.

40. Analysis and follow-up notification*
Information flow
Analysis and follow-up notification*
Report analysis results and action to the Comp. Aut.
Yes
Organisation analyses occurrence and adopt relevant action, if any
Occurrence notified by the organisation to the Comp. Aut.
Organisation identifies safety risk
Transfer to ECR No
No obligation to report but Comp. Aut. may ask the reporting
*Note: for the purpose of simplification, the scheme only addresses the reporting through organisations while the competent authority may receive occurrences directly from individuals.

41. Questions?

42. Analysis and Follow-up

43. Analysis and follow-up required under 376/2014 fits into existing processes
Management systems
SMS
Similar safety processes require by EU law or equivalent
Not intended to create a parallel system but ensure system exists and support it

44. Questions?

45. Reporting Format and related Requirements
Brussels - 27 April 2015

46. Support for Reporting Free format (C.A. Forms) Organisation Manual
ECCAIRS
Minimum Data Fields
EU Risk Classification
Data Quality checks
ECCAIRS/ADREP Compatibility
Reporting means
Minimum Data Fields
Risk Classification
Data Quality checks

47. ADREP/ECCAIRS Compatibility
ADREP taxonomy compatibility means a reporting using a taxonomy compliant with the latest version of the ADREP taxonomy as integrated in ECCAIRS.
This could be done by using the so-called RIT, defined and maintained at EU level
ECCAIRS software compatibility means using mean of reporting which uses technical means and data formats that enables a direct upload of information in an ECCAIRS database.
Organisations are expected to agree this technical solution with their competent authority

48. Compatible Reporting Means
Acceptable means available to facilitate compliance:
Off-line reporting form (mostly for individuals, small/med organisations)
On-line reporting form (mostly for individuals, small/med organisations)
E5X file format (mostly for large organisations)
Use of the ECCAIRS system
Organisations can agree with their Competent Authority any other means that provide similar levels of completeness and quality of data, and use the ADREP taxonomy

49. Compatible Reporting Means Off-line report On-line report
Data transfer file (E5X)

50. What This Means Reduced Interface Taxonomy - Subset of ADREP
We encourage organisations to use the RIT in their systems
Welcome feedback and support to improve taxonomy
E5X Data Transfer Format
EASA working with SMS Software Companies to enable compatibility for their user communities
Support available for organisations through EASA and NAAs
European Portal - On-line and off-line reporting
Standardises and simplifies reporting to competent authority
Reports offered: GA Report, Flight Operations, Aerodrome, ATM, Birdstrike, Dangerous Goods and Technical

51. Mandatory Data
Fields
Organisations and competent authorities databases shall contain the mandatory data fields listed in Annex I
Mandatory data fields include common data fields as well as fields to be provided only when relevant in the context of the occurrence
If the information is not known, it may be transmitted with the value “Unknown” or other relevant value (e.g. "Not applicable”)

52. Data quality check should address:
Errors in data entry
Completeness of data, specially referring to mandatory data,
Proper use of the ADREP taxonomy
Improve data consistency
EASA and the JRC should support by:
Publishing standard quality rules
Developing the necessary methods in ECCAIRS environment to facilitate MS achieving
Providing the necessary training

53. European Risk
Classification
All organisations, Member States and EASA shall store and transmit the occurrence risk value
Only MS and EASA are required to use EU RC Scheme
Organisations can use any risk methodology
The competent authority shall review, amend and endorse RC in accordance with the EU RC Scheme

54. European Risk Classification
Timescales for Development – 2 Phases of Work
Phase 1 – 2015: Development of structure and concepts of the European Risk Classification Scheme
Phase 2 – 2016: Development of supporting material for implementation
Key principles established from previous work carried out in ECAST and NoA Sub Group - compatibility with ARMS/ RAT etc

55. Commission gave EASA responsibility for leading the activity
European Risk
Classification
Commission gave EASA responsibility for leading the activity
Commission provided detailed ToRs to EASA for the work
Group established in January and 1st meeting held on March

56. Membership from cross section of industry
European Risk
Classification
Membership from cross section of industry
ATM – CANSO and Eurocontrol
NAAs – France, Spain and UK
ARMS Developers and Research Organisations
Airlines and Trade Organisations (AEA, EBAA, ERA, IACA, IATA)
Airports (ACI Europe) and Manufacturers (ASD)
First meeting reviewed existing schemes and agreed work programme

57. Questions?

58. Information Use and Protection to Sources and Others involved
Brussels - 27 April 2015

59. Just Culture in context of an Organisation

60. Key Principle
Employees and contracted personnel who report or are mentioned in occurrence reports shall not be subject to any prejudice by their employer or by the organisation for which the services are provided on the basis of the information supplied by the reporter

61. Organisations are required to adopt internal rules to support the implementation of this principle
Mandatory consultation of staff representatives
Template policy and guidance will be prepared to support industry

62. Two exceptions to protection principle
cases of wilful misconduct
unacceptable behaviour
i.e. where there has been a manifest, severe and serious disregard of an obvious risk and profound failure of professional responsibility to take such care as is evidently required in the circumstances, causing foreseeable damage to a person or property, or which seriously compromises the level of aviation safety

63. In line with Just Culture principle where individuals are protected but not absolve from their normal responsibilities
Not protect for the sake of protecting but for encouraging people to report

64. Questions?

65. Just Culture in context of the State

66. MS prevented to institute proceedings on the basis of occurrences unless if national criminal law allows it
When administrative or disciplinary proceedings instituted, information cannot be used against reporter or other involved

67. Two exceptions to protection principle
cases of wilful misconduct
unacceptable behaviour
i.e. where there has been a manifest, severe and serious disregard of an obvious risk and profound failure of professional responsibility to take such care as is evidently required in the circumstances, causing foreseeable damage to a person or property, or which seriously compromises the level of aviation safety

68. Questions?

69. Limitations to Information Availability and Use

70. Strong limitations to sharing and use of information from occurrence reports
Principle : organisations, MS and EASA shall not make available or use the information:
in order to attribute blame or liability or
for any purpose other than the maintenance or improvement of aviation safety

71. Principle:
Member States and EASA shall not be prevented from taking any action necessary for maintaining or improving aviation safety

72. Information cannot be made available or used to attribute blame or liability towards the reporter or any other person mentioned in the report
Sharing occurrences information to answer request from citizens under FOI or from judicial authorities prevented

73. Exception
Situations in which an investigation under Regulation (EU) No 996/2010 has been instituted

74. Questions?

75. Conclusion The European Commission and the
European Aviation Safety Agency