REPORT DECEMBER 418 2016 Airline safety assessment mechanism safe travel Acknowledgements Safety Committee Aviation Subcommittee Photography used with permission courtesy of ©PPAMPicture/iStockphoto and ©Paiwei Wei/iStockphoto (Front cover) Feedback IOGP welcomes feedback on our reports: [email protected] Disclaimer Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this publication, neither IOGP nor any of its Members past present or future warrants its accuracy or will, regardless of its or their negligence, assume liability for any foreseeable or unforeseeable use made thereof, which liability is hereby excluded. Consequently, such use is at the recipient’s own risk on the basis that any use by the recipient constitutes agreement to the terms of this disclaimer. The recipient is obliged to inform any subsequent recipient of such terms. This publication is made available for information purposes and solely for the private use of the user. IOGP will not directly or indirectly endorse, approve or accredit the content of any course, event or otherwise where this publication will be reproduced. Copyright notice The contents of these pages are © International Association of Oil & Gas Producers. Permission is given to reproduce this report in whole or in part provided (i) that the copyright of IOGP and (ii) the sources are acknowledged. All other rights are reserved. Any other use requires the prior written permission of IOGP. These Terms and Conditions shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales. Disputes arising here from shall be exclusively subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales. REPORT DECEMBER 418 2016 Airline safety assessment mechanism Revision history VERSION DATE AMENDMENTS 2.0 May 2009 Update of Report 303 3.0 December 2016 See p.6 for the main changes Airline safety assessment mechanism 4 Contents 1. Introduction 8 1.1 Why an airline safety scoring system is needed 8 1.2 The need for formal risk assessment 9 1.3 Origins of the IOGP mechanism 10 1.4 Application of the mechanism 10 2. Summary 11 2.1 Score components of the airline safety assessment mechanism 11 2.2 Illustrative results 12 3. Safety Factors/Multipliers (SF) 14 3.1 Definition of accident rates (AR) 15 3.2 Accidents to be included in the analysis 15 Types of operation included 16 Types of operation excluded 16 Types of events included 16 Types of events excluded 16 3.3 Accident Severity Weighting 18 Fatal accidents (OF1) with >20 fatalities, weighted by a factor of 3.0 18 Fatal accidents (OF2) with >10 & ≤20 fatalities, weighted by a factor of 2.5 18 Fatal accidents (OF3) with ≤10 fatalities, weighted by a factor of 2.0 18 Serious accidents (OF4), weighted by a factor of 1.0 18 Minor accidents (OF5), weighted by a factor of 0.25 18 3.4 The ‘additional’ accident 20 3.5 Effective Accident Rate 21 3.6 Measuring number of flights 22 3.7 The ‘Safety factor’ concept 23 4. Airline Factors (AF) 24 4.1 Aircraft Fleet Age (AF1) 24 4.2 Airline Fleet Composition (AF2) 28 4.3 Aircraft Equipment (AF3) 31 4.4 Conduct of Operations (AF4) 32 4.5 Partnerships and alliances (AF5) 34 4.6 Airline Financial Standing (AF6) 35 4.7 Airline Maturity (AF7) 36 4.8 Airline Security (AF8) 37 Airline safety assessment mechanism 5 5. Country Factors (CF) 38 5.1 Regulatory Oversight (CF1) 38 5.2 National Safety Influences (CF2) 41 5.3 Air Traffic Environment (CF3) 42 5.4 Airfield Environment (CF4) 43 a. Terrain (CF4a – Table 17) 43 b. Climate (CF4b – Table 18) 44 5.5 Country Security (CF5) 44 6. Implementation of the mechanism 45 6.1 Calculating airline safety scores 45 6.2 Safe travel policies 46 6.3 Single sector journeys 49 6.4 Multi-sector journeys 49 Appendix A. Glossary of terms and abbreviations 51 Glossary of terms 51 Abbreviations 55 Appendix B. ASAM Spreadsheet Examples 57 Appendix C. Potential data sources and bibliography 61 C.1 Accident data and analysis 61 C.2 Airline schedules 61 C.3 Airline Fleet Data 61 C.4 Airline statistical data (including airline flight statistics) 62 C.5 Regulatory information 62 C.6 Security data 62 C.7 General airline data 63 C.8 Travel advice and information 63 C.9 Best practice 63 Airline safety assessment mechanism 6 Background to Version 3 This, IOGP ASAM Version 3, supersedes Version 2 published in 2009. The IOGP Aviation Subcommittee requested the re-convening of the previous Working Group to determine what changes might be considered necessary to update and improve the previous model to take account the advancement of the theory behind the methodology and in the underlying data, and the practical aspects of populating the mechanism. The main changes made to the ASAM as the consequence of the review were as follows: • Based on a further extensive analysis of commercial passenger aircraft accidents over the past 10 years, it was concluded that there was a strong correlation between aircraft accident rates and aircraft age out to 40 years, after which the data points became limited and inconclusive. The aircraft age factor was therefore modified to reflect a straight-line reduction from 1.00 to zero over 40 years. • The Fleet Mix scores (AF2) have also been revised to take account of the changes in technology levels as new generation types that are continuously being introduced. Less modern types have in general been adjusted downwards in 0.25 score intervals, thereby increasing the numbers of older types scoring zero for AF2. Each 0.2 interval corresponds to a different decade of aircraft development. A new Table 6 reflects the revised Fleet Mix type scores. • The Aircraft Equipment (AF3) default value has also been modified to reflect the fact that aircraft invariably have some degree of the relevant equipment fit to a minimum value of 0.5 plus 0.5 of the Fleet Mix (AF2) score. • The Airline Finance score (AF6) had previously proved impractical to populate with meaningful data. Therefore a simplified Finance Score, based on the airlines past five years reported operating profit was adopted as a means of scoring those airlines for which such data was available. The scale adopted is from 1.00 to zero in line with the percentage operating profit over the range +10% to minus 10%. The default value for the majority of airlines with no meaningful finance data remains 0.50. • Previously the Country Regulation Factor (CF1) assessment was somewhat arbitrary. Now that ICAO publishes online summaries of its ongoing audits of all Member States oversight, it is possible to have a more reliable source of country’s regulatory performance and this has been adopted based on ICAO percentage scores. Provision is also made for a 25 percentage point reduction to apply to countries on a one-off basis, based on any further identified regulatory deficiency. This includes any EU Country Ban, a US FAA IASA Category 2 rating and ICAO’s own cautionary ‘Red Flag’ associated with certain country audit scores. Airline safety assessment mechanism 7 Other aspects of the ASAM were unchanged, including the calculation of the Safety Multiplier and the relative weighting of the various Airline and Country Factors included in the mechanism. A number of editorial and style changes have also been made to the report. Airline safety assessment mechanism 8 1. Introduction 1.1 Why an airline safety scoring system is needed This report contains an updated mechanism (Issue 3) for assessing the safety of scheduled commercial airlines. The mechanism is based on earlier work carried out in this area by organizations represented on the working group that drafted this report. The often unspoken requisite for all travellers is safe arrival at his or her destination on each and every occasion a journey is undertaken. For personal travellers, this is an individual concern but for business travellers it is also a matter for the businesses involved, whether the traveller is a full time employee or a contractor travelling for that business. Statistically the chance of being involved in an accident with a scheduled airline is small – less than one per 100,000 flights – and the chance of being fatally or seriously injured is an order less than this at around 1.3 per million flights. The best charter airlines, those operating in all but name on a scheduled basis, achieve similar levels of safety to the best-scheduled carriers. While specifically aimed at scheduled airlines engaged in regular public transport, the mechanism is also applicable to those non-scheduled carriers that operate to a recognizable schedule such as European inclusive tour-type operations. It is not applicable however, to ad hoc charter operators, where the route system operated varies on a weekly or more frequent basis. Combination passenger/cargo flights may also be included, but not usually all-cargo flights. On a distance-flown basis, air travel has become one of the safest forms of travel. However, because of the longer distances involved in air travel compared to most surface journeys, it is the accident rate per flight that is of most concern. This is especially so for frequent travellers whose journeys often involve multiple-sector flights around the world; in extreme cases, accident rates for such flights can be more than 25 times the industry norm, reflecting unsafe operations and putting passengers and crew alike at risk. This geographic context is important since, although it continues to become safer overall, airline safety varies widely around the world by airline as well as by the aircraft types used.