10.02.2017 nr 1.1-1/17/25
KÄSKKIRI
Tallinn
Juhtimissüsteemi dokumentide
kinnitamine
Tuginedes majandus- ja kommunikatsiooniministri 31. juuli 2006. a määruse nr 73
“Lennuameti põhimäärus” § 20 punktile 3:
1. Kinnitan:
1.1. AP 519 V1 FRM protseduuri – lisa 1;
1.2. VA 519-1 V1 Hindamisdokumendi (FRM Assessment document) – lisa 2;
1.3. VA 519-2 V1 Väsimuse riskijuhtimise (FRM) taotluse vormi – lisa 3;
1.4. AP 517 V1 FTL protseduuri – lisa 4;
1.5. VA 517-1 V1 Hindamislehe (IFTSS evaluation record) vormi – lisa 5;
1.6. VA 517-2 V1 Kontroll-lehe (Audit guidance for the Transition to EASA Subpart
FTL) vormi – lisa 6;
1.7. VA 517-3 V1 Vastavustabeli (Flight Time Specification Scheme Compliance
Table) – lisa 7.
(allkirjastatud digitaalselt)
Kristjan Telve
Peadirektor
KINNITATUD
Lennuameti peadirektori
10.02.2017
käskkirjaga nr 1.1-1/17/25
Lisa 4
Lennuaja spetsifikatsiooniskeemide ja individuaalsete lennuaja
spetsifikatsiooniskeemide heakskiitmise protseduur
1. EESMÄRK
Protseduuri eesmärk on anda Lennuameti inspektorile juhised lennuaja spetsifikatsiooniskeemide
ja individuaalsete lennuaja spetsifikatsiooniskeemide heakskiitmiseks vastavalt Euroopa
Parlamendi ja nõukogu määruse (EÜ) nr 216/2008 artiklile 8, IV lisa puntidele 7.f., 7.g. ja 8.f.
ning Euroopa Komisjoni määruse (EL) nr 965/2012 III lisa FTL-alajaole ja sellega seotud
sertifitseerimistingimustele.
2. KÄSITLUS- JA KAUSTUSALA
Protseduuri kohaldatakse ainult lennukitega tehtavate ärilise lennutranspordi lendude suhtes,
lähtudes Euroopa Komisjoni määruse (EL) nr 965/2012 III lisa FTL-alajaost ja
sertifitseerimistingimustest. Protseduuri ei kohaldata kopteritega toimuvate ärilise
lennutranspordi lendude ning takso- ja tellimuslendude (air-taxi operation), lennukiga toimuvate
kiirabilendude ja ühe piloodiga lennukiga tehtavate ärilise lennutranspordi lendude suhtes.
3. VOLITUSED JA VASTUTUSED
Lennuameti inspektor, kes võib heaks kiita käitaja lennuaja spetsifikatsiooniskeemid või
individuaalsed lennuaja spetsifikatsiooniskeemid peab olema läbinud sellealase koolituse.
Osakonna juhataja ning vaneminspektori volitused ja vastutus on määratletud ametijuhenditega.
4. TEGEVUSE KIRJELDUS. MEETOD
4.1 Lennuaja spetsifikatsiooniskeemide heaks kiitmine
Lennuamet kiidab heaks ärilise lennutegevuse ettevõtjate pakutud lennuaja
spetsifikatsiooniskeemid, kui käitaja on tõendanud nende vastavust määrusele (EÜ) nr 216/2008,
määruse (EL) nr 965/2012 III lisa FTL-alajaole või kohaldatavatele sertifitseerimistingimustele.
Selleks esitab käitaja Lennuametile taotluse lennuaja spetsifikatsiooniskeemide heakskiitmiseks
koos täidetud Vastavustabeli (Flight Time Specification Scheme Compliance Table) ja uuendatud
lennutegevuskäsiraamatuga.
4.1.1 Andmaks heakskiitu lennuaja spetsifikatsiooniskeemidele täidab Lennuameti inspektor
Vastavustabeli (Flight Time Specification Scheme Compliance Table) hinnates käitaja
lennutegevuskäsiraamatut, mis puudutab lennu- ja tööaja piiranguid ning nõudeid
puhkeajale (edaspidi FTL) või eraldi dokumenti (nt SMM Safety Management Manual),
mis puudutab väsimuse riskijuhtimist (edaspidi FRM) vastavalt Väsimuse riskijuhtimise
(FRM) heakskiitmise protseduurile;
lennutegevuskäsiraamatut, mis puudutab esmast ja korduvat väsimuse leevendamise
koolituskava ja koolitust;
tööülesannete graafikuid ja
andmete säilitamise süsteemi.
Lennuameti inspektor kasutab hindamisel järgmisi lühendeid:
LENNUAMET Dokument AP 517 V1 Leht 1/3
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800
DI – Documneted and Implemented;
DNI – Documented not implemented;
IND – Implemented not documented;
NDNI – Not documented not implemented;
N/A – Not Applicable
4.1.2 Järelevalve teostamise käigus (käitaja tegevuskohas) hindab Lennuameti inspektor käitaja
tegevust vastavalt Kontroll-lehele (Audit guidance for the Transition to EASA Subpart
FTL)
4.2 Individuaalsete lennuaja spetsifikatsiooniskeemide heaks kiitmine
Lennuamet võib määruse (EL) nr 965/2012 III lisa FTL-alajaost või sellega seotud
sertifitseerimistingimustest erandi teha (derogation) või kõrvale kalduda (deviation), kohaldades
vähemalt määruse (EL) nr 965/2012 III lisa FTL-alajao sätetega samaväärseid ohutustasemeid
hõlmavaid sätteid, et võtta paremini arvesse riiklikke kaalutlusi või tegevuspraktikat.
4.2.1 Määruse (EL) nr 965/2012 III lisa FTL-alajao mis tahes erandist tuleb teavitada ja seda
tuleb käsitada kooskõlas määruse (EÜ) nr 216/2008 artiklitega 14 ja 22, millega tagatakse
läbipaistvad ja mittediskrimineerivad otsused, mis põhinevad objektiivsetel
kriteeriumidel.
Kui käitaja pakutud individuaalne lennuaja spetsifikatsiooniskeem erineb kohaldatavatest
EASA väljastatud sertifitseerimistingimustest (Certification Specification), kasutab
Lennuamet määruse (EÜ) nr 216/2008 artikli 22 lõikes 2 kirjeldatud menetlust.
Kui käitaja pakutud individuaalne lennuaja spetsifikatsiooniskeem erineb kohaldatavatest
rakenduseeskirjadest (Implementing Rules), kasutab Lennuamet määruse (EÜ) nr
216/2008 artikli 14 lõikes 6 kirjeldatud menetlust.
4.2.2 Kui käitaja soovib teha erandi (derogation) või kõrvalekalde (deviation), peab ta enne
individuaalse lennuaja spetsifikatsiooniskeemi rakendamist esitama Lennuametile erandi
või kõrvalekalde täieliku kirjelduse. Kirjeldus peab sisaldama kõiki asjakohaste
käsiraamatute ja protseduuride muudatusi ning määruse (EÜ) nr 216/2008 ja FTL alajao
nõuete täitmist tõendavat hinnangut (safety case/risk assessment). Lennuamet viib läbi
sõltumatu hindamise, mis põhineb käitaja esitatud teabel, milleks kasutatakse
Hindamislehte (Individual Flight Time Specification Scheme (IFTSS) Assessment
Evaluation Record).
4.2.3 Heakskiidetud kõrvalekaldeid või erandeid hinnatakse pärast kohaldamist, et teha
kindlaks, kas sellised kõrvalekalded või erandid tuleks kinnitada või neid tuleks muuta.
Lennuamet viib läbi sõltumatu hindamise, mis põhineb käitaja esitatud teabel, milleks
käitaja kogub kahe aasta jooksul alates kõrvalekalde või erandi rakendamisest andmeid
tehtud kõrvalekalde või erandi kohta ning analüüsib kõnealuseid andmeid teaduslike
põhimõtete alusel, et hinnata õhusõiduki meeskonna väsimust käsitleva kõrvalekalde või
erandi mõju. Selline analüüs esitatakse Lennuametile aruande vormis.
4.2.4 Inspektoril on võimalus tutvuda Euroopa Liidus lubatud eranditega (Flexibility
Provisions) EASA kodulehel (https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-
library/regulations/flexibility-provisions).
VIITED
1. Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määrus (EÜ) nr 216/2008, mis käsitleb tsiviillennunduse
valdkonna ühiseeskirju ja millega luuakse Euroopa Lennundusohutusamet ning
tunnistatakse kehtetuks nõukogu direktiiv 91/670/EMÜ, määrus (EÜ) nr 1592/2002 ning
direktiiv 2004/36/EÜ;
2. Komisjoni rakendusmäärus (EL) nr 965/2012, millega kehtestatakse lennutegevusega
seotud tehnilised nõuded ja haldusmenetlused vastavalt Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu
määrusele (EÜ) nr 216/2008;
LENNUAMET Dokument AP 517 V1 Leht 2/3
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800
3. Komisjoni määrus (EL) nr 83/2014, millega muudetakse määrust (EL) nr 965/2012,
millega kehtestatakse lennutegevusega seotud tehnilised nõuded ja haldusmenetlused
vastavalt Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määrusele (EÜ) nr 216/2008
4. VA 517-1 V1 Hindamisleht (Individual Flight Time Specification Scheme (IFTSS)
Assessment Evaluation Record)
5. VA 517-2 V1 Kontroll-leht (Audit guidance for the Transition to EASA Subpart FTL)
6. VA 517-3 V1 Vastavustabel (Flight Time Specification Scheme Compliance Table)
Kadri Tusis
Lennutegevuse osakonna vaneminspektor
LENNUAMET Dokument AP 517 V1 Leht 3/3
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800
KINNITATUD
Lennuameti peadirektori
10.02.2017
käskkirjaga nr 1.1-1/17/25
Lisa 1
Väsimuse riskijuhtimise (FRM) heakskiitmise protseduur
1. EESMÄRK
Protseduuri eesmärk on anda vastavale Lennuameti inspektorile juhised väsimuse riskijuhtimise
(FRM) heakskiitmiseks vastavalt Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määruse (EÜ) nr 216/2008
artiklile 8, IV lisa puntidele 7.f., 7.g. ja 8.f. ning Euroopa Komisjoni määruse (EL) nr 965/2012
III lisa FTL-alajaole ja sellega seotud sertifitseerimistingimustele.
2. KÄSITLUS- JA KASUTUSALA
Käitaja peab kehtestama oma juhtimissüsteemi lahutamatu osana väsimuse riskijuhtimise (FRM)
ning seda sellisena rakendama ja järgima:
kehtestamaks maksimaalset igapäevast lennutööaeg juhul, kui meeskonnaliikmete
kohanemine ei ole teada ORO.FTL.205(b)(3);
haldamaks väsimust, kui öötöö on pikem kui 10 tundi CS FTL.1.205(a)(2) või
kasutamaks vähendatud puhkeaeg CS FTL.1.235(c).
Väsimuse riskijuhtimist kirjeldab käitaja oma lennutegevuskäsiraamatus. See peab olema
kooskõlas lennuaja spetsifikatsiooniskeemi, käitaja suuruse ning tema tegevuse laadi ja
keerukusega, võttes arvesse tegevusega kaasnevaid ohte ja nendega seotud riske ning
kohaldatavat lennuaja spetsifikatsiooniskeemi.
Käitaja poolt kehtestatud, rakendatud ja järgitav väsimuse riskijuhtimine aitab väsimuse
riskijuhtimise üldist toimivust pidevalt parandada ja peab sisaldama järgmist:
käitaja üldiste väsimuse riskijuhtimise ideede ja põhimõtete kirjeldus (väsimuse
riskijuhtimise poliitika);
väsimuse riskijuhtimise protsesside dokumentatsioon, sealhulgas töötajatele nende
vastutusalade teadvustamise kord ning selle dokumentatsiooni muutmise kord;
teaduslikud põhimõtted ja teadmised;
ohtude tuvastamise ja riskihindamise kord, mis võimaldab juhtida meeskonnaliikme
pidevast väsimusest tekkivat tegevusriski (tekkivaid tegevusriske);
riskimaandamise kord, mis sisaldab meeskonnaliikme väsimusest käitajale tekkinud riski
(riskide) tõhusa maandamise viivitamatuid meetmeid, mille alusel saab väsimusriski
selliste meetmetega saavutatud maandamist pidevalt jälgida ja korrapäraselt hinnata;
väsimuse riskijuhtimise ohutuse tagamise kord;
väsimuse riskijuhtimise edendamise kord.
Käitaja võtab kasutusele riskimaandusmeetmeid, kui väsimuse riskijuhtimise ohutuse tagamise
korrast nähtub, et vajalikku ohutustaset ei säilitata.
3. VOLITUSED JA VASTUTUSED
Omamata väsimuse riskijuhtimise heakskiitu peab käitaja järgima Euroopa Komisjoni määruse
(EL) nr 965/2012 III lisa FTL-alajagu ja sellega seotud tingimusi.
Lennuameti inspektor, kes võib heaks kiita käitaja väsimuse riskijuhtimise (FRM), peab olema
läbinud sellealase koolituse.
LENNUAMET Dokument AP 519 V1 Leht 1/3
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800
4. TEGEVUSE KIRJELDUS. MEETOD
Andmaks heakskiitu käitaja väsimuse riskijuhtimisele peab Lennuameti inspektor järgima ICAO
Doc 9966 (FRMS Manual for Regulators) protseduure ja põhimõtteid, sealhulgas säilitama
andmed väsimuse riskijuhtimisega heakskiitmisega seotud tegevuste kohta (nt heakskiitmise
protsessi ja jätkuva järelevalve tulemused, leiud ja tähelepanekud). Kokkuvõtvalt koosneb
väsimuse riskijuhtimise rakendamine neljast faasist:
a. ettevalmistus;
b. prooviperiood;
c. rakendamine ja
d. parendamine.
4.1 Ettevalmistus
Käitaja teavitab Lennuametit väsimuse riskijuhtimise kasutusele võtmise soovist. Lennuameti
inspektor järgib ICAO Doc 9966 (FRMS Manual for Regulators) peatükis 6.2.1 toodud
protseduure ja põhimõtteid.
Peale käitaja teavitust hindab Lennuameti inspektor käitaja riskijuhtimise võimekust üldiselt, nt
kas juhtimissüsteemi (SMS) protsesse on efektiivselt kaasatud väsimusega kaasnevate riskide
maandamisel (toimiv raporteerimissüsteem, leidude sulgemine vastavalt ajakavale, asjakohane
väsimuse koolitus, kas on defineeritud adekvaatsed ohutusnäitajad (SPI) jne)
Lisaks toimub pidev käitaja nõustamine ning antud protsessi käigus esitab käitaja Lennuametile
muuhulgas:
a. kitsaskohtade analüüsi (gap analysis), mille tegemisse kaasab käitaja võtmeisikud;
b. väsimuse riskijuhtimise poliitika;
c. sobiva ressursside jaotuse kava;
d. väsimuse riskijuhtimise rakendamise kava;
e. väsimuse riskijuhtimise dokumenteerimise kava;
f. väsimuse riskijuhtimise edastamise kava;
g. koolituskava.
Lennuameti inspektori fookus on suunatud kitsaskohtade analüüsile (gap analysis),
võtmeisikutele ning väsimuse riskijuhtimise poliitikale ning dokumentatsioonile.
Kasutades hindamisdokumenti (FRM Evaluation Tool) viib Lennuameti inspektor läbi
dokumentide kontrolli (desktop review) ja annab hinnangu järgmisse faasi liikumise osas
teavitades käitajat kirjalikult.
4.2 Prooviperiood
Lennuameti inspektor järgib ICAO Doc 9966 (FRMS Manual for Regulators) peatükis 6.2.2
toodud protseduure ja põhimõtteid.
Selles faasis demonstreerib käitaja oma väsimuse riskijuhtimise võimekust. Lennuameti
inspektori fookus on seotud:
a. prooviperioodi ettevalmistamisel käitaja nõustamisega,
b. mis lõpeb käitajapoolse taotluse (VA 519-2) esitamisega prooviperioodi rakendamiseks;
c. väsimuse riskijuhtimise prooviperioodi hindamisega;
d. väsimuse riskijuhtimise jälgimisega ja
e. prooviperioodi tulemuste läbi vaatamisega.
Väsimuse riskijuhtimise hindamiseks kasutatakse hindamisdokumenti (FRM Evaluation Tool).
Lennuameti inspektor võib prooviperioodi tulemuste põhjal otsustada kas on vaja kohandada
väsimuse riskijuhtimise raamistikku.
LENNUAMET Dokument AP 519 V1 Leht 2/3
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800
4.3 Rakendamine
Käitaja esitab Lennuametile taotluse väsimuse riskijuhtimise rakendamiseks taotluse (VA 519-
2). Lennuameti inspektor järgib ICAO Doc 9966 (FRMS Manual for Regulators) peatükis 6.2.3
toodud protseduure ja põhimõtteid.
Kui Lennuameti inspektor on veendunud, et prooviperioodi väsimuse riskijuhtimine toimib ja
kätkeb endas piisavat ohutustaset, võib käitaja kasutada väsimuse riskijuhtimist ette antud
raamides.
Lennuamet annab heakskiidu väsimuse riskijuhtimisele vormil VA 510-3.
4.4 Parendamine
Lennuameti inspektor järgib ICAO Doc 9966 (FRMS Manual for Regulators) peatükis 6.2.4
toodud protseduure ja põhimõtteid.
Lennuameti lennutegevuse osakonna juhataja lisab väsimuse riskijuhtimise käitaja jätkuva
järelevalve plaani ja täpsustab vastutava inspektoriga järelevalve ulatuse. Väsimuse
riskijuhtimise hindamiseks jätkuva järelevalve käigus kasutatakse hindamisdokumenti (FRM
Evaluation Tool)
5. Väsimuse riskijuhtimise heakskiidu tühistamine
Kui Lennuameti inspektor tuvastab käitaja väsimuse riskijuhtimises puudujääke, siis olenevalt
puudujäägist järgides Euroopa Komisjoni määruse (EL) nr 965/2012 punkti ARO.GEN.350
toodud tegevusi, vähendatakse võrdeliselt käitaja väsimuse riskijuhtimisest tulenevaid eeliseid
kuni heakskiidu kehtestuks tunnistamiseni.
VIITED
1. Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määrus (EÜ) nr 216/2008, mis käsitleb tsiviillennunduse
valdkonna ühiseeskirju ja millega luuakse Euroopa Lennundusohutusamet ning
tunnistatakse kehtetuks nõukogu direktiiv 91/670/EMÜ, määrus (EÜ) nr 1592/2002 ning
direktiiv 2004/36/EÜ;
2. Komisjoni rakendusmäärus (EL) nr 965/2012, millega kehtestatakse lennutegevusega
seotud tehnilised nõuded ja haldusmenetlused vastavalt Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu
määrusele (EÜ) nr 216/2008;
3. Komisjoni määrus (EL) nr 83/2014, millega muudetakse määrust (EL) nr 965/2012,
millega kehtestatakse lennutegevusega seotud tehnilised nõuded ja haldusmenetlused
vastavalt Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määrusele (EÜ) nr 216/2008
4. ICAO Doc 9966 (FRMS Manual for Regulators)
5. VA 519-1 V1 Hindamisdokument (FRM Assessment Document)
6. VA 519-2 V1 Väsimuse riskijuhtimise (FRM) taotluse vorm
Kadri Tusis
Lennutegevuse osakonna vaneminspektor
LENNUAMET Dokument AP 519 V1 Leht 3/3
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800
KINNITATUD
Lennuameti peadirektori
10.02.2017
käskkirjaga nr 1.1-1/17/25
Lisa 2
Hindamisdokument (FRM Evaluation Tool)
Käitaja …………………………………………………Esindaja………………………………………………………………….DHS viitenumber………………
Vastutav inspektor…………………………………………………………………………….Inspektori allkiri……………………………………………………
Osalesid…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Tuvastatud mittevastavusi……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Heakskiidetud JAH EI
Kuupäev…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Kontrollimisel lähtuti: Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määruse (EÜ) nr 216/2008 artiklist 8, IV lisa puntidest 7.f., 7.g. ja 8.f. ning Euroopa Komisjoni
määruse (EL) nr 965/2012 III lisa FTL-alajaost ja sellega seotud tingimustest
The following FRM evaluation form can be used at different stages of FRM implementation (i.e. for the gap analysis, assessment of the FRM trial and during continued
oversight):
Phases 3&4. Launch and
Phase 1. Phase 2. Trial
Continuous Improvement
Preparation
The FRM evaluation form is presented in two parts:
Part 1 provides a summary evaluation that can be used to determine the presence of the key components of an FRM. It provides a description of performance criteria for each of the key
components, allowing evaluation of the development in each of the key component areas over time. “Excellence” markers are included to support ongoing oversight of the operator. As
the FRM matures, the Estonian CAA should encourage operators to move towards these markers as part of a performance based approach to continuous improvement.
Part 2 builds on Part 1 by identifying a series of elements within each of the FRM components to be evaluated for effectiveness and ongoing development.
Where an operator has integrated their FRM into their SMS, evidence of these FRM features need to be clearly and appropriately identified.
LENNUAMET VA 519-1 V1 Leht 1/24
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800
Part 1 Summary Evaluation
Effectiveness Initiating Present and suitable Operating Effective Excellence
Index
The FRM as a The FRM is still at the Achieved a successful The systems and processes of The FRM is working in an effective The organisation is an industry
whole implementation stage regulatory milestone two the FRM are operating. way and is striving for continuous leader and embraces and shares its
assessment improvement best practice
Safety Policy and The FRM is still at the Achieved a successful There is a safety policy in place Senior Management are clearly The organisation is an industry
Documentations implementation stage regulatory milestone two and Senior Management are involved in the FRM and the FRM leader and embraces best practice
phase 1 assessment committed to making the FRM Policy sets out the organisations
work and is providing intent to manage safety and is
appropriate resources to safety clearly evident in the day to day
management . operations
Risk Management The FRM is still at the Achieved a successful The hazard and risk registers are The organisation is continuously Key Personnel throughout the
implementation stage regulatory milestone two being built up and risks are identifying hazards and understands organisation are aware and
assessment starting to be managed in it biggest risks and is actively understand the risks relative to
proactive manner. managing them and this can be seen their responsibilities and are
in their safety performance. Fatigue continuously searching out new
Safety Risk management is hazards and risks and re-
proactive and predictive. evaluating existing risks
Safety Assurance The FRM is still at the Achieved a successful The Organisation has The organisation assures itself that The organisation is continuously
implementation stage regulatory milestone two established SPIs that it is is has an effective FRM and is assessing its approach to FRM, is
assessment monitoring and is auditing and managing its risk through audit, continuously improving its
assessing its FRM and its assessment and monitoring of its performance and seeking out and
outputs fatigue safety performance. embracing best practice
FRM Promotion The FRM is still at the Achieved a successful The organisation has trained its The organisation puts a considerable In addition the organisation
implementation stage regulatory milestone two people and has several mediums resource and effort into training its provides training and safety
assessment for fatigue awareness and people and publicising its safety promotion to its non-operational
countermeasures promotion that culture and other safety information stakeholders and actively
it uses for passing on fatigue and monitors the effectiveness of its researches fatigue risk awareness
safety information fatigue safety promotion and training from other industry’s
demonstrating continual learning.
LENNUAMET VA 519-1 V1 Leht 2/24
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800
Part 2
Performance and Compliance Markers
Performance and compliance markers identify a series of elements within each of the FRM components. These markers are evaluated according to the following
criteria, to allow assessment of compliance and their effectiveness:
P Present
There is evidence that the ‘marker’ is clearly visible and is documented within the organisation’s FRM Documentation.
S Suitable
The marker is not unsuitable based on the size, nature, complexity and the inherent risk in the activity that would also consider the industry sector
O Operating
There is evidence that the marker is in use and an output is being produced
E Effective
There is evidence that the element or component is effectively achieving the desired outcome
Different criteria are more relevant at different stages of FRM implementation:
The P and S criteria can be used to carry out a gap analysis. These criteria simply identify existence and appropriateness of the identified markers, but do not evaluate
output.
The O and E criteria are used for evaluation through the FRM trial, at final approval and continued oversight purposes. As the operator moves to a final approval there
needs to be evidence that the marker in use are producing an output (i.e. more and more compliance and performance markers are evaluated as “O”). This may be
sufficient to issue and FRM approval. However, for continued use of the FRM the operator needs to be able to demonstrate that the Compliance and Performance
markers being used are effective and can demonstrate through their output that the fatigue risks are being actively managed (i.e. more and more compliance and
performance markers are evaluated as “E”). Using the O and E elements of the evaluation form for ongoing oversight provides the regulator with a method to ensure the
FRM continues to be effective.
LENNUAMET VA 519-1 V1 Leht 3/24
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800
Excellence and Best Practice Markers
Excellence and best practice markers provide a description of elements that are considered to be excellent or industry best practice. They are not evaluated in according
to criteria. Instead, evidence of their existence should be described. These markers are include to support ongoing oversight of the operator, providing a method for the
regulator to evaluate increasing maturity and to recognise an operator striving for constant improvement of the FRM, as should be the goal of any performance based
approach.
Form Sections
The FRM Evaluation Form is separated into sections relating to the components of an FRM:
FRM Policy and Documents;
Fatigue Risk Management processes;
FRM Safety Assurance processes; and
FRM Promotion processes.
LENNUAMET VA 519-1 V1 Leht 4/24
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800
Part 2 Evaluation
1.0 FRM POLICY AND DOCUMENTATION
1.1 MANAGEMENT COMMITMENT AND RESPONSIBILITY
The organisation should define its FRM policy which should be in accordance with international and national requirements, and which shall be signed by the
Accountable Manager of the organisation. The FRM policy should reflect organisational commitments regarding fatigue management, including a clear statement
about the provision of the necessary human and financial resources for its implementation and be communicated, with visible endorsement, throughout the organisation.
The FRM policy should include the fatigue reporting procedures and clearly indicate which types of behaviours are unacceptable and shall include the conditions under
which disciplinary action would not apply. The FRM policy should be periodically reviewed to ensure its remains relevant and appropriate to the organisation.
EFFECTIVENESS is achieved when the organisation has defined its FRM policy that clearly states its intentions, objectives and philosophies and there is visible
evidence of safety leadership and management ‘walking the talk’ and demonstrating by example.
COMPLIANCE + PERFORMANCE MARKERS P S O E How it is achieved Authority Remarks
1.1.1 There is a FRM policy that includes a commitment towards achieving
the highest practical management of fatigue risk signed by the
Accountable/Executive Manager.
1.1.2 FRM practice reflects the published FRM policy.
1.1.3 The Accountable/Executive Manager and the senior management
team promote and demonstrate their commitment to the FRM Policy
through active and visible participation in the system.
1.1.4 The FRM policy is communicated to all employees.
1.1.5 The FRM policy includes a commitment to observe all applicable
legal requirements, standards, FRM principles and appropriate
resources.
1.1.6 The FRM policy actively encourages fatigue reporting.
1.1.7 The FRM policy states the organisation’s intentions, management
principles and commitment to continuous improvement in the FRM.
1.1.8 The FRM policy is reviewed periodically to ensure it remains current.
1.1.9 There is evidence of decision making, actions and behaviours that
reflect a positive safety culture.
EXCELLENCE AND BEST PRACTICE MARKERS P S O E How it is achieved Authority Remarks
1.1.12 Personnel at all levels are involved in the establishment and
maintenance of the FRM.
LENNUAMET VA 519-1 V1 Leht 5/24
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800
1.1.13 The FRM policy is used throughout the organisation and it is
implemented at all levels of the organisation.
1.1.14 The FRM policy is clearly visible, or available, to all personnel and
is included in key documentation and communication media.
1.1.15 FRM policy objectives drive the organisation’s goals and mission
statements.
1.1.16 The organisation regularly verifies that personnel throughout the
organisation are familiar with and have understood the policy and its
message.
AUTHORITY REMARKS
LENNUAMET VA 519-1 V1 Leht 6/24
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800
1.2 SAFETY ACCOUNTABILITIES
The organisation shall identify the accountable executive who, irrespective of other functions, shall have ultimate responsibility and accountability, on behalf of the
organisation, for the implementation and maintenance of the FRM. The organisation shall also identify the safety accountabilities of all members of senior
management, irrespective of other functions, as well as employees, with respect to the performance of the FRM. FRM responsibilities, accountabilities and authorities
shall be documented and communicated throughout the organisation, and shall include a definition of the levels of management with authority to make decisions
regarding fatigue risk tolerability.
EFFECTIVENESS is achieved when there are clear lines of safety accountabilities throughout the organisation including an accountable person who has ultimate
accountability for the FRM and the Accountable Executive/Manager and management team fully understand the fatigue risks faced by the organisation.
COMPLIANCE + PERFORMANCE MARKERS P S O E How it is achieved Authority Remarks
1.2.1 An Accountable Executive/Manager has been appointed with full
responsibility and ultimate accountability for the FRM to ensure it is
properly implemented and performing effectively.
1.2.2 The Accountable Executive/Manager has control of the financial and
human resources required for the proper implementation of an
effective FRM.
1.2.3 The Accountable Executive/Manager is fully aware of their FRM
roles and responsibilities in respect of the fatigue policy and
processes and safety culture of the organisation.
1.2.4 FRM accountabilities, authorities and responsibilities are defined
throughout the organisation.
1.2.5 Staff at all levels are aware of and understand their FRM
accountabilities, authorities and responsibilities regarding all
management processes, decisions and actions that could be affected
by fatigue.
1.2.6 Fatigue risk management is shared across the organisation (and is not
just the responsibility of the Safety Manager and his/her team).
1.2.7 There is evidence of employee involvement and consultation in the
establishment and operation of the FRM.
LENNUAMET VA 519-1 V1 Leht 7/24
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800
EXCELLENCE AND BEST PRACTICE MARKERS P S O E How it is achieved Authority Remarks
1.2.8 There is evidence that FRM principles have penetrated all levels of
the organisation and the impact of fatigue on the operation is part of
the daily operations considerations.
1.2.9 FRM accountabilities throughout the organisation are clearly
documented and acknowledged by the relevant individuals.
1.2.10 There is evidence that senior management recognises the significance
of contributions from all levels of the organisation.
AUTHORITY REMARKS
LENNUAMET VA 519-1 V1 Leht 8/24
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800
1.3 APPOINTMENT OF KEY PERSONNEL
The organisation shall identify a manager to be the responsible individual and focal point for the implementation and maintenance of an effective FRM. In addition the
committee(s) that supports the Accountable Manager and the Safety Manager in delivering an effective FRM should be defined and documented.
EFFECTIVENESS is achieved when the FRM is facilitated by the responsible individual and there is a structure of key personnel from the various operational areas of
the organisation.
COMPLIANCE + PERFORMANCE MARKERS P S O E How it is achieved Authority Remarks
1.3.1 A competent person with the appropriate knowledge, skills and
experience has been nominated to manage the operation of the FRM.
1.3.2 The person managing the operation of the FRM fulfils the required
job functions and responsibilities.
1.3.3 There is a direct reporting line between the FRM Manager and the
Accountable Executive/Manager. (Where the FRM is integrated
within an SMS, this reporting line could be FRM manager to the
Safety Manager who has a direct line to the Accountable Manager.)
1.3.4 The organisation has allocated sufficient resources to manage the
FRM including manpower for the investigation, analysis, auditing
and promotion of fatigue issues.
1.3.5 Staff in key roles are trained and kept current in keeping with their
roles and responsibilities.
1.3.6 The organisation has established a structured fatigue safety action
group or committee, appropriate for the size and complexity of ht e
organisation, consisting of a full range of senior management
representatives.
1.3.7 The fatigue safety action group / committee includes all stakeholders
and other experts are required.
LENNUAMET VA 519-1 V1 Leht 9/24
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800
EXCELLENCE AND BEST PRACTICE MARKERS P S O E How it is achieved Authority Remarks
1.3.8 Where the FRM is integrated into the SMS, the Safety Review Board
or its equivalent monitors the FRM performance of the operations
and the effectiveness of the FRM and is normally chaired by the
accountable executive.
1.3.9 The fatigue safety action group / committees are focused on fatigue
risk management issues and all attendees fully participate.
AUTHORITY REMARKS
LENNUAMET VA 519-1 V1 Leht 10/24
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800
1.4 FRM DOCUMENTATION
The organisation shall develop and maintain FRM documentation describing the policy and objectives, the FRM requirements, processes and procedures, the
accountabilities, responsibilities and authorities for processes and procedures, and the FRM outputs. The organisation shall develop and maintain a Fatigue Risk
Management System manual to communicate its approach to the management of safety throughout the organisation, or shall incorporate the FRM documentation into
its existing organisation documentation.
EFFECTIVENESS is achieved when the organisation has FRM documentation that describes their approach to the management of fatigue that is used throughout the
organisation and is regularly reviewed and updated.
COMPLIANCE + PERFORMANCE MARKERS P S O E How it is achieved Authority Remarks
1.4.1 There is documentation that describes the FRM and the
interrelationships between all of its elements.
1.4.2 FRM documentation is regularly reviewed and updated with
appropriate version control in place.
1.4.3 FRM documentation is readily available to all personnel.
1.4.4 The FRM documentation details and references the means for the
storage of all FRM related records.
LENNUAMET VA 519-1 V1 Leht 11/24
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800
EXCELLENCE AND BEST PRACTICE MARKERS P S O E How it is achieved Authority Remarks
1.4.5 FRM documentation is incorporated into existing organisational
manuals.
1.4.6 The company has analysed and uses the most appropriate medium for
the delivery of documentation at both the corporate and operational
levels.
AUTHORTIY REMARKS
LENNUAMET VA 519-1 V1 Leht 12/24
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800
2.0 FATIGUE RISK IDENTIFICATION
The organisation shall develop and maintain a formal process that ensures that fatigue risks are identified. This should include the investigation of incidents and
accidents, even where fatigue was not primarily sighted to identify potential fatigue risks. Fatigue risk identification shall be based on a combination of reactive,
proactive and predictive methods of data collection as identified in the FRM manual.
EFFECTIVENESS is achieved when fatigue risks are being identified and reported throughout the organisation. Fatigue risks are captured in a risk register and
assessed in a systematic and timely manner.
COMPLIANCE + PERFORMANCE MARKERS P S O E How it is achieved Authority Remarks
2.1.1 The organisation has a reporting system to captures errors, hazards
and near misses that is practicable and accessible to all staff.
2.1.2 The organisation has proactively identified all the major fatigue risks
and assessed them in related to its current activities and operational
context.
2.1.3 The fatigue reporting system provides appropriate feedback to the
reporter of any actions taken (or not taken) and, where appropriate, to
the rest of the organisation.
2.1.4 Fatigue investigations are carried out to identify underlying causes
and potential level of risk.
2.1.5 Fatigue reports are acted on in a timely manner.
2.1.6 Fatigue risk identification is an ongoing process and involves all key
personnel and appropriate stakeholders.
2.1.7 Personnel responsible for investigating reports are trained in
investigation techniques.
2.1.8 Investigations establish causal/contributing factors (why it happened,
not just what happened).
2.1.9 Personnel are aware of the organisations reporting policy and
process.
LENNUAMET VA 519-1 V1 Leht 13/24
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800
EXCELLENCE AND BEST PRACTICE MARKERS P S O E How it is achieved Authority Remarks
2.1.10 There is an active fatigue reporting system with reporting levels
appropriate to the operational circumstances and related metrics.
2.1.11 Fatigue Reports include the reporter’s own errors and events that the
reporter would not normally report (roster and personal non-roster
actions that affected fatigue).
2.1.12 The fatigue reporting system empowers personnel to propose
preventative and corrective actions.
2.1.13 The fatigue reporting system is actively used throughout the
organisation.
2.1.14 There is a process in place to analyse fatigue reports and risk
registers to look for trends and gain useable management
information.
AUTHORITY REMARKS
LENNUAMET VA 519-1 V1 Leht 14/24
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800
2.2 FATIGUE RISK ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION PROCESS
The organisation shall develop and maintain formal process that ensures analysis, assessment and control of fatigue risks in operations to as low as reasonably
practicable.
EFFECTIVENESS is achieved when there is evidence that the process that ensures analysis, assessment and control of the fatigue risks in operations is being used to
effectively manage the fatigue risks.
COMPLIANCE + PERFORMANCE MARKERS P S O E How it is achieved Authority Remarks
2.2.1 There is a structured process for the management of fatigue risk that
includes the assessment of fatigue risk, which takes into account
consideration of scientific knowledge and operational influences.
2.2.2 There are criteria for evaluating the level of fatigue risk the
organisation is willing to accept.
2.2.3 The organisation has fatigue risk control strategies that include
control, avoidance, acceptance, mitigation, elimination and where
applicable a corrective action plan.
2.2.4 Corrective actions resulting from the fatigue risk assessment,
including timelines and allocation of responsibilities are documented.
2.2.5 Fatigue risk management is routinely applied in decision making
processes.
2.2.6 Effective and robust mitigations and controls are implemented.
2.2.7 Fatigue risk assessments and ratings are appropriately justified
against scientific knowledge principles and operational knowledge.
2.2.8 Senior management have visibility of medium and high fatigue risks
and their mitigation and controls.
LENNUAMET VA 519-1 V1 Leht 15/24
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800
EXCELLENCE AND BEST PRACTICE MARKERS P S O E How it is achieved Authority Remarks
2.2.9 There is evidence that fatigue risks are being managed to as low as
reasonably practical.
2.2.10 The organisation uses its fatigue risk management results to develop
best practice guidelines.
2.2.11 The fatigue risk management processes are reviewed and improved
on a periodic basis.
2.2.12 The organisation engages with the industry on FRM matters to
further flight safety.
AUTHORITY REMARKS
LENNUAMET VA 519-1 V1 Leht 16/24
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800
3.1 FRM PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND MEASUREMENT
The organisation shall develop and maintain the means to verify the safety performance of the organisation and to validate the effectiveness of fatigue risk controls.
The safety performance of the organisation shall be verified in reference to the safety performance indicators and safety performance targets of the FRM.
EFFECTIVENESS is achieved when the organisation has developed a series of FRM performance indicators that are appropriate to the type of operation. There is a
means to measure and monitor trends and take appropriate action when necessary.
COMPLIANCE + PERFORMANCE MARKERS P S O E How it is achieved Authority Remarks
3.1.1 Fatigue mitigation objectives have been established.
3.1.2 Safety performance indicators relevant to fatigue mitigation
objectives have been defined, promulgated and are being monitored
and analysed for trends.
3.1.3 The above safety performance indicators are linked to the
organisation’s FRM policy.
3.1.4 Fatigue risk mitigations and controls are being verified /audited to
confirm they are working and effective.
3.1.5 Audits are carried out that focus on the fatigue mitigation
performance of the organisation.
3.1.6 Fatigue mitigation objectives and performance indicators are
reviewed and updated periodically.
3.1.7 Fatigue mitigation objectives and goals are specific, measureable,
agreed to, relevant and time-based.
3.1.8 Fatigue Risk Assurance and Compliance Monitoring activities feed
back into the fatigue hazard identification process.
LENNUAMET VA 519-1 V1 Leht 17/24
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800
EXCELLENCE AND BEST PRACTICE MARKERS P S O E How it is achieved Authority Remarks
3.1.9 When establishing and reviewing fatigue risk objectives and
performance indicators, the organisation considers:- hazards and
risks; financial, operational and business requirements; and, views of
interested parties.
AUTHORITY REMARKS
LENNUAMET VA 519-1 V1 Leht 18/24
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800
3.2 THE MANAGEMENT OF CHANGE
The organisation shall develop and maintain a formal process to identify changes within the organisation and its operation, which may affect established fatigue
management processes, to describe the arrangements to ensure fatigue safety performance before implementing changes, and to eliminate or modify fatigue risk controls
that are no longer needed or effective due to changes in the operational environment.
EFFECTIVENESS is achieved when the organisation uses the fatigue risk management system to proactively assess all major changes to the organisation and its
operations to ensure appropriate fatigue mitigation is maintained.
COMPLIANCE + PERFORMANCE MARKERS P S O E How it is achieved Authority Remarks
3.2.1 The organisation has established a process and conducts formal
fatigue hazard analyses/risk assessment for major operational
changes, major organisational changes and changes in key personnel.
3.2.2 Fatigue safety case/risk assessments consider the influences of all the
associated task and contextual factors connected to the duty or flight
(such as airport, frequency, experience, et) as well as the
physiological fatigue factors.
3.2.3 The FSAG is involved in the change management process.
3.2.4 During the change management process previous fatigue risk
assessments and existing hazards are reviewed for possible effects
(negative and positive).
3.2.5 All organisational and operational changes which could impact
fatigue risks are subject to the change management process.
LENNUAMET VA 519-1 V1 Leht 19/24
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800
EXCELLENCE AND BEST PRACTICE MARKERS P S O E How it is achieved Authority Remarks
3.2.6 Validation of the fatigue related safety performance after
organisational and operational changes have taken place to assure
assumptions remain valid and the change was effective.
3.2.7 Fatigue risk accountabilities, authorities and responsibilities are
reviewed as part of the change.
AUTHORITY REMARKS
LENNUAMET VA 519-1 V1 Leht 20/24
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800
3.3 CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT OF THE FRM
The organisation shall develop and maintain a formal process to identify the causes of substandard performance of the FRM, determine the implications of substandard
performance of the FRM, determine substandard performance in operations, and eliminate or mitigate such causes.
EFFECTIVENESS is achieved when the organisation routinely monitors the FRM performance to identify potential areas of improvement and the outcomes of this
process lead to improvements to the FRM.
COMPLIANCE + PERFORMANCE MARKERS P S O E How it is achieved Authority Remarks
3.3.1 The Safety Review Board or equivalent has the necessary authority to
make decisions related to the improvement and effectiveness of the
FRM.
3.3.2 The FRM is periodically reviewed for improvements in safety
performance.
3.3.3 There is evidence of the maintenance and continuous improvement of
the FRM.
EXCELLENCE AND BEST PRACTICE MARKERS P S O E How it is achieved Authority Remarks
3.3.4 Evidence of lessons learnt is incorporated into the FRM policy and
procedures.
3.3.6 Best practice is sought and embraced.
AUTHORITY REMARKS
LENNUAMET VA 519-1 V1 Leht 21/24
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800
4.1 TRAINING AND EDUCATION
All personnel are trained and competent to perform their FRM related duties and the training programme is monitored for its effectiveness and updated.
EFFECTIVENESS is achieved when all personnel are trained and demonstrate the necessary competencies perform their FRM related duties and the training
programme is monitored for its effectiveness and updated.
COMPLIANCE + PERFORMANCE MARKERS P S O E How it is achieved Authority Remarks
4.1.1 There is a documented process to identify FRM training
requirements so that personnel are competent to perform their duties.
4.1.2 There is a process in place to measure the effectiveness of training
and to take appropriate action to improve subsequent training.
4.1.3 There is a process that evaluates the individual’s competence and
takes appropriate remedial action when necessary.
4.1.4 Training includes initial and recurrent training.
4.1.5 A training record is maintained for each employee trained.
4.1.6 An annual training plan is in place.
4.1.6 Training exercises and methods for all employees are kept current to
reflect new techniques, technologies, results of investigations,
corrective actions and regulatory changes.
LENNUAMET VA 519-1 V1 Leht 22/24
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800
EXCELLENCE AND BEST PRACTICE MARKERS P S O E How it is achieved Authority Remarks
4.1.8 Training includes human and organisational factors including non
technical skills with the intent of reducing fatigue related human
error.
4.1.9 A training needs analysis is carried out for all staff and is regularly
reviewed.
4.1.10 Employees have a mechanism to request additional training in
relation to the role in FRM.
4.1.11 Management recognise and uses informal opportunities to instruct
employees in fatigue management.
AUTHORITY REMARKS
LENNUAMET VA 519-1 V1 Leht 23/24
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800
4.2 SAFETY COMMUNICATION
The organisation shall develop and maintain formal means for safety communication that ensures that all personnel are fully aware of the FRM, conveys fatigue related
safety critical information, and explains why particular actions are taken and why safety procedures are introduced or changed.
EFFECTIVENESS is achieved when all personnel are aware of the FRM, fatigue-related safety critical information and their role in respect of fatigue management.
COMPLIANCE + PERFORMANCE MARKERS P S O E How it is achieved Authority Remarks
4.2.1 FRM plans and strategies are communicated throughout the
organisation to staff.
4.2.2 Significant fatigue-related events and investigation outcomes are
communicated to relevant staff, including contracted organisations
where appropriate.
4.2.2 There is an FRM communication strategy defining appropriate
methods and media.
EXCELLENCE AND BEST PRACTICE MARKERS P S O E How it is achieved Authority Remarks
4.2.3 Significant fatigue-related events and investigation outcomes from
external sources are communicated to staff, including contracted
organisations where appropriate.
4.2.5 The effectiveness of FRM communication is routinely assessed and
the strategy revised as required.
4.2.6 Fatigue related information is appropriately shared with other parties.
AUTHORITY REMARKS
LENNUAMET VA 519-1 V1 Leht 24/24
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800
KINNITATUD
Lennuameti peadirektori
10.02.2017
käskkirjaga nr 1.1-1/17/25
Lisa 3
Väsimuse riskijuhtimise (FRM) prooviperioodi taotluse vorm
Väsimuse riskijuhtimise (FRM) taotluse vorm
Väsimuse riskijuhtimise (FRM) prooviperioodi taotlus
Väsimuse riskijuhtimise (FRM) taotlus
Käitaja andmed
Nimi
Registrikood
Postiaadress
Telefoninumber
E-posti aadress
Käesoleva taotlusega esitan (ORO.FTL.120):
üldiste väsimuse riskijuhtimise ideede ja põhimõtete kirjelduse (väsimuse
riskijuhtimise poliitika);
väsimuse riskijuhtimise protsesside dokumentatsiooni, sealhulgas töötajatele nende
vastutusalade teadvustamise korra ning selle dokumentatsiooni muutmise korra;
teaduslikud põhimõtted ja teadmised;
ohtude tuvastamise ja riskihindamise korra, mis võimaldab juhtida
meeskonnaliikme pidevast väsimusest tekkivat tegevusriski (tekkivaid
tegevusriske);
riskimaandamise korra, mis sisaldab meeskonnaliikme väsimusest käitajale tekkinud
riski (riskide) tõhusa maandamise viivitamatuid meetmeid, mille alusel saab
väsimusriski selliste meetmetega saavutatud maandamist pidevalt jälgida ja
korrapäraselt hinnata;
väsimuse riskijuhtimise ohutuse tagamise korra;
väsimuse riskijuhtimise edendamise korra.
LENNUAMET VA 519-2 V1 Leht 1/2
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800
Kinnitan, et väsimuse riskijuhtimine on kooskõlas lennuaja spetsifikatsiooniskeemi, käitaja
suuruse ning tegevuse laadi ja keerukusega, võttes arvesse tegevusega kaasnevaid ohte ja
nendega seotud riske ning kohaldatavat lennuaja spetsifikatsiooniskeemi.
Kinnitan, et kasutusele võetakse riskimaandusmeetmeid, kui väsimuse riskijuhtimise
ohutuse tagamise korrast nähtub, et vajalikku ohutustaset ei säilitata.
Nimi: ……………………... Kuupäev: ……………………...
Allkiri: ……………………
LENNUAMET VA 519-2 V1 Leht 2/2
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800
KINNITATUD
Lennuameti peadirektori
10.02.2017
käskkirjaga nr 1.1-1/17/25
Lisa 5
Individual Flight Time Specification Scheme (IFTSS) Assessment Evaluation Record
Käitaja …………………………….. Esindaja …………………. DHS viitenumber …….……………
Vastutav inspektor ……………………………………………………
Inspektori allkiri ………………………………………………………
Osalesid ……………………………………………………………………………………………………
Tuvastatud mittevastavusi ……………………………………………………………………….………
Heakskiidetud JAH …….EI …….
Kuupäev……………………………………………………………………………………………………
Kontrollimisel lähtuti: Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määruse (EÜ) nr 216/2008 artiklist 8, IV lisa
puntidest 7.f., 7.g. ja 8.f. ning Euroopa Komisjoni määruse (EL) nr 965/2012 III lisa FTL-alajaost ja
sellega seotud sertifitseerimistingimustest
Introduction
This evaluation guide provides Estonian CAA inspector with a framework to assist in the evaluation of an
individual flight time specification scheme (IFTSS) under the provisions of ARO.OPS.235 (b), (c) and/or
(d). The objective is to provide a consistent and proportionate approach. Estonian CAA should be satisfied
that a valid safety case has been produced to support an IFTSS deviating and/or derogating from the
Agency’s certification specifications (CS-FTL) and/or Implementing Rules (Subpart FTL).
How to use the IFTSS Assessment Evaluation Record
Estonian CAA will need to judge how deep it needs to go into the assessment of the operator’s assessment.
Estonian CAA needs to be satisfied that the presented evidence is relevant to the types of flight operations.
The processes and procedures described must be sufficient to uncover and manage different causes of crew
member fatigue that may require different controls and strategies to mitigate the associated risks. Deviating
and/or derogating from EASA CS-FTL and/or Subpart FTL might have both intended and unintended
consequences. Therefore the operator is required to identify an upper boundary which flight and duty times
will not exceed and a lower boundary under which no rest period will be shortened even when using
mitigations and processes within an FRM. It aims to offer an extra layer of insurance and sets clear
expectations amongst all stakeholders.
Estonian CAA will need to make a judgement of the organisation’s capability and competence in producing
a valid safety case/risk assessment. This will include a review of the organisation’s management system
capabilities to support the required assurance and review processes should approval of the IFTSS be
granted.
The evaluation has seven interrelated steps:
0 Assessment of the safety performance of the organisation.
Based on the safety performance of the organisation and taking into account its oversight records, the
Estonian CAA determines if the organisation is in general capable and able to manage IFTSS.
1 Assessment of the scope and impact of the proposed IFTSS.
Estonian CAA studies the IFTSS safety case and submitted documentation to understand the IFTSS, its
scope, its operational environment, its overall impact, the reasons for it, any related services, and the system
components used by those services. Estonian CAA verifies that it has received all necessary documentation
to start its assessment.
LENNUAMET VA 517-1 V1 Leht 1/8
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800
2 Identification and assessment of IFTSS and its consequences.
Estonian CAA analyses the IFTSS and its consequences to determine whether an appropriate identification
process of the impacts and possible risks of fatigue has been carried out.
3 Evaluation of the way that likelihood and severity have been classified and how the arising
fatigue risk is managed.
Estonian CAA reviews the likelihood and severity classification to assess whether it is appropriate and
justified and whether appropriate risk management strategies are used and applied consistently.
4 Assessing the fatigue mitigation measures.
Estonian CAA assesses fatigue mitigations to determine whether the proposed measures are reasonable and
robust enough and the risks arising from fatigue will be reduced to an acceptable level.
5 Assessing the claims, arguments and evidence provided to demonstrate that the safety case or
safety risk assessment is valid.
Estonian CAA considers the arguments and justification to judge whether the IFTSS is valid and does not
have an adverse effect on safety.
6. Safety case or safety risk assessment assurance.
Estonian CAA assesses the ability of the operator of managing the implementation of the IFTSS including
any transitional risks. This shall also include an assurance plan to consider the residual risk once the IFTSS
has been implemented and how other changes that might have a direct or indirect impact on crew member
fatigue are managed.
Organisational Capabilities
To assess the organisational capability the following questions should be answered:
1 Does the operator have an approved FRM in accordance with ORO.FTL.120? Yes No
2 Is the proposed IFTSS within the capabilities of the operator? Yes No
(The assessment of some of the following performance indicators might help to assess an operators
overall management capability:
- Are findings being addressed and closed in a timely manner?
- Trend of commander’s discretions in seasonal period
- Trend and process to address fatigue in ASR/MOR
3 Does the operator have sufficient fatigue management knowledge? Yes No
(The operator may demonstrate sufficient fatigue management knowledge by providing training
records for their staff or by demonstrating that the service of fatigue management experts is
available.
4 Has the operator previously undertaken a similar change successfully? Yes No
5 Is the IFTSS to be controlled by the management team internally without the use of external Yes No
consultants to support the project?
(External consultants might help improving the quality of the data.)
6 Does the competent authority have confidence that the operator can successfully manage the Yes No
project and deliver the objectives?
7 Is the impact of the IFTSS low in respect of the operator and the aviation system? Yes No
8 Do other applicable EU and National requirements than the requirements of Regulation (EU) No Yes No
965/2012 as amended by Regulation (EU) No 83/2014 allow the change to be implemented?
Proceed to step 1 if at least six responses to the questions are YES.
LENNUAMET VA 517-1 V1 Leht 2/8
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800
Step 1 – Assessment of the scope and impact of the change
Objective: To assure that the operator understands the IFTSS it submits and understands the direct and indirect safety
impact of the IFTSS, considering the full extent of the system and operations concerned.
Actions Evaluation guidance Comments:
1.1 Review the documentation to What element(s) is the IFTSS
determine whether it adequately deviating from?
describes the scope of the Why?
IFTSS. Is the IFTSS described
qualitatively and quantitatively?
1.2 Review the documentation to Have at least the following been
determine whether the IFTSS considered?
considers the environment in People
which the operator / services Procedures
operate? Equipment
Stakeholders
Physical environment
Operator’s safety culture
Legal and regulatory environment
Natural hazards
External threats
1.3 Review the documentation to Have all expected interfaces to
determine whether the other services and systems been
interfaces with other services described?
and activities have been
assessed?
1.4 Review the documentation to Is it:
determine whether it is Clear?
adequate to provide an Complete?
understanding of the IFTSS. Appropriate?
Consistent?
Unambiguous?
Does it make sense?
Pertinent to the IFTSS?
1.5 Review the documentation to Do the defined impacts consider:
determine whether the various • Direct interactions with what
direct and indirect impacts of has been changed
the proposed IFTSS have been • Knock-on effects from the
defined? direct interactions
• Indirect impacts
1.6 Review the documentation to Have interactions of the IFTSS on
determine whether the operator individuals or systems with other
has considered the cumulative elements been considered?
effects of the IFTSS.
1.7 Determine whether the IFTSS Are there un-validated
safety case makes a clear assumptions?
conclusion for the safety of the
proposed IFTSS.
1.8 Has the IFTSS safety case been For significant IFTSSs you would
signed and accepted by an expect to see the Accountable
appropriately authorised person Manager signing the safety case.
in the operator?
Has the IFTSS been understood and described to continue to assess the
IFTSS safety case? If so continue to step 2
LENNUAMET VA 517-1 V1 Leht 3/8
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800
Step 2 – Assessing hazard and consequence identification
Objective: To assure that an appropriate hazard identification process has been carried out in respect of the IFTSS and
the range of consequences on crew member fatigue have been identified and documented.
Actions Evaluation Guidance Comments
2.1 Are the impacts on fatigue and How is this documented? Have
related consequence existing procedures been
identification processes followed?
documented?
2.2 Who were the people involved Have the right people been chosen
in the process? (this may include subcontractors
and external stakeholders)? Why?
2.3 Which method(s) were used Was the impact fatigue
for impact on fatigue and identification processes
consequence identification? appropriate for the IFTSS
concerned?
2.4 Have human performance Have the following been
related hazards other than considered: working environment,
fatigue and their consequences communication, human
been identified? physiology, stress?
2.5 Has the impact on fatigue There may not be complete data or
identification been based on information available because the
suitable information or data? IFTSS is needed for future
operations. Have predictive and
proactive processes been used
adequately?
2.6 Confirm that there are records This may be included as part of the
for the impact on fatigue and safety case documentation or held
consequence identification. separately (but cross referred to)
stemming from the operator’s
FRM/SMS documentation.
2.7 Have impacts on fatigue Impacts on fatigue outside of the
associated with external control of the operator such as
stakeholders been considered? providers for crew
accommodation and positioning
(including commuting) should be
considered.
2.8 Review the records and assess This may require further advice
whether the obvious impacts from specialists or colleagues.
on fatigue (that you are aware
of through experience or
previous assessments of
similar work) and their
consequences have been
identified.
2.9 Trace impacts on fatigue Some impacts on fatigue may have
through the documentation to multiple consequences (e.g.
their consequences. transient & cumulative) and this
needs to be reflected in the
documentation.
2.10 Assess from the This should include impacts on
documentation whether you fatigue and their consequences
believe that sufficient effort related to the transitional phase of
has been expended identifying the implementation of the IFTSS.
and documenting the impacts
on fatigue.
2.11 Is there evidence to support This can either be based on
the assumed quantitative historical scientific data, or on a
impact and the rates of success predictive analysis on the basis of
of mitigations (safety setting safety requirements and
requirements)? showing that they are met.
LENNUAMET VA 517-1 V1 Leht 4/8
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800
Step 3 – Evaluate the way that likelihood and severity have been classified and how the arising fatigue risk is
managed
Objective: To assure an acceptable classification has been used to classify the likelihood and severity of the fatigue
consequences identified and an acceptable risk tolerability matrix has been used to classify the acceptability of the risks
identified.
Actions Evaluation Guidance Comments
3.1 Have appropriate likelihood Are they the same as that used in
and severity definitions been the operator’s SMS?
provided and used to classify This may be qualitative definitions
the consequences? supported by expert judgement or
quantitative definitions when data
is available.
3.2 Has a risk tolerability matrix Is this the same as that used in the
been defined and used? operator’s SMS?
3.3 Have the likelihood and Is the likelihood, severity and risk
severity for each fatigue scored before and after mitigating
consequence been recorded and action has been taken?
an overall risk score calculated?
3.4 Has a likelihood and severity Does the classification match the
level been recorded and the definitions?
overall risk calculated for the Appears the classification
fatigue consequences reasonable?
identified? Does the risk score match the risk
tolerability matrix / classification?
3.5 Has the review of likelihood What is the operator’s process for
and severity taken into account this review?
the effectiveness of other
existing barriers and defences?
3.6 Is the risk adequately Where a risk remains tolerable has
controlled? the decision to accept this risk
been made by an appropriately
authorised person and the
reasoning behind the acceptance
been recorded?
LENNUAMET VA 517-1 V1 Leht 5/8
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800
Step 4 – Assessing the risk mitigation measures
Objective: To assure reasonable and pertinent fatigue mitigations have been identified and actioned.
Actions Evaluation Guidance Comments
4.1 Check that the fatigue Confirm that this is carried out to
mitigations are established, existing procedures and processes.
recorded and will continue to be
effective.
4.2 Determine who was involved in Were appropriate people involved
establishing the fatigue in the decision making and is there
mitigations appropriate ownership of
mitigations in accordance with
defined roles and responsibilities?
4.3 Review the fatigue mitigations. Are the mitigations reasonable and
Assess whether the measures robust?
are appropriate and pertinent. Are the mitigations practical and
realistic?
Are the mitigations directly related
to the fatigue cause?
4.4 Review the fatigue mitigations, Has the residual risk arising from
are they appropriate, achievable fatigue been calculated after
and is the residual risk taking into consideration all
considered appropriate after the fatigue mitigations?
risk reduction strategies.
4.5 Have the fatigue mitigation Do the mitigation actions impact
actions considered the effect on any existing barriers or defences
existing barriers or defences? related to current other risks or
safety requirements?
4.6 Have HF principles been Is there an over reliance on human
considered in the choice of action as a fatigue mitigation?
fatigue mitigations. How fail safe and error tolerant is
the measure?
LENNUAMET VA 517-1 V1 Leht 6/8
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800
Step 5 – Assessing the claims, arguments and evidence provided to demonstrate that the safety case or safety risk
assessment is valid
Objective: To assure good arguments supported by acceptable levels of evidence are in place to support the claims.
Actions Evaluation Guidance Comments
5.1 Are the safety arguments Is it possible to reject the arguments?
sound? Do the mitigating measures meet the
applicable regulatory requirements?
Do they provide an equivalent level of
protection from fatigue/safety?
Has a compliance monitoring system
feedback loop been included in the
proposed IFTSS?
Do they addressed everything?
Confirm that an argument (a
justification) for all claims is made.
Assess the reasonableness of the
arguments.
Confirm that the claims have the
necessary evidence to support them.
5.2 Confirm that the safety case The safety case documentation should
documentation complies with reflect the processes and procedures
the procedures found in the detailed in the operator’s SMM (or
Safety Management (or Fatigue FRM documentation if the operator has
Risk Management if the one).
operator has one) of the
operator.
5.3 Have transitional risks been Additional hazards and risks may be
considered and addressed. associated with the transition from the
existing operation to the IFTSS
operation and will need to be identified
and addressed.
5.4 Have conclusions for the safety Review the conclusions:
case been included? Ensure that the conclusion states that
the IFTSS and the transitional
arrangements can be implemented
safely.
5.5 Some mitigations may take the Legal requirements may come from
form of legal requirements ICAO, EU Regulations, EASA, the
applicable to the IFTSS under competent authority or other national
consideration. Have these been legislation.
captured and addressed in the
safety case?
LENNUAMET VA 517-1 V1 Leht 7/8
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800
Step 6 – Safety Case or Safety Risk Assessment Assurance
Objective: To assure the safety case has included a safety assurance function, which will check and verify the hazard
identification and risk management processes will achieve the desired outcome..
Actions Evaluation Guidance Comments
6.1 Has the operator identified the Some of the mitigating controls
critical mitigating controls that will be more critical than others.
will be subject to safety This should be highlighted.
assurance checking? Critical in terms of:
Impact.
Robustness of the controls.
Number of remaining barriers in
place.
6.2 How does the operator Has an appropriate plan for
confirm the mitigating controls checking the barriers and defences
or defences will be checked to been defined?
verify they are effective? Have performance indicators been
established?
Are there adequate contingency
plans in place?
6.3 How will the operator test that How are they going to monitor and
the assumptions made in the review the assumptions after the
safety case are valid? IFTSS has been implemented?
How will they gather sufficient
data to support the claims?
6.4 When and how often will the The original claims made in the
safety case be reviewed? safety case may be affected by
changes in the system,
environment or operator.
6.5 Does the operator’s change Changes in the system,
management procedure take environment, operator may have a
account of the need to review direct, indirect or knock-on effect
the safety cases? on fatigue.
LENNUAMET VA 520-1 V1 Leht 8/8
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800
KINNITATUD
Lennuameti peadirektori
10.02.2017
käskkirjaga nr 1.1-1/17/25
Lisa 6
Audit guidance for the Transition to EASA Subpart FTL
(Elements under performance based requirements managed under the operators SMS. This does not cover FRM applications.)
Käitaja ……………………………………………… Esindaja …………………………………… DHS viitenumber ……..………………..
Vastutav inspektor ………………………………………………………. Inspektori allkiri…………………………………………………...
Osalesid…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Tuvastatud mittevastavusi ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Heakskiidetud JAH EI
Kuupäev……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Kontrollimisel lähtuti: Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määruse (EÜ) nr 216/2008 artiklist 8, IV lisa puntidest 7.f., 7.g. ja 8.f. ning
Euroopa Komisjoni määruse (EL) nr 965/2012 III lisa FTL-alajaost ja sellega seotud sertifitseerimistingimustest
1. ORO.FTL.110 Operator responsibilities/ ORO.GEN.200 Management System
Ref: Marker How is it achieved? Remarks
1.1 Crew member fatigue is indicated as a potential hazard on the organisations
hazard log and the risk register identifies specific operational aspects where
fatigue could generate an increased risk. (ORO.GEN.200)
1.2 The Operator’s Fatigue management processes are managed as part of the BP
operators SMS processes. (ORO.GEN.200)
1.3 There is a method by which crew can report fatigue (ASR / specific Fatigue
reporting form) (ORO.GEN.200(a)(3)).
1.4 The Operator has demonstrated, within their operation / operations, how
fatigue risks are:
identified and assessed
monitored
controlled
(ORO.GEN.200 / ORO.FTL.110 (b)(d)(e)(g))
1.5 The consideration of fatigue risk is undertaken at the earliest opportunity in BP
the flight planning / network scheduling process. As a minimum this would
be on a seasonal (summer/winter) basis. (AMC1 ORO.FTL110)
2. ORO.FTL.110 (a) Operator responsibilities
“Duty rosters are published sufficiently in advance to provide the opportunity for crew members to obtain adequate rest”
Ref: Marker How is it achieved? Remarks
LENNUAMET VA 517-2 V1 Leht 1/7
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800
2.1 Rosters are published at least 14 days in advance. (AMC1 ORO.FTL.110(a))
3. ORO.FTL.110 (b) Operator Responsibilities
“The Operator ensures that flight duty periods are planned in a way that enables crew members to remain sufficiently free from fatigue so that they can operate to a
satisfactory level of safety under all circumstances.”
Ref: Marker How is it achieved? Remarks
3.1 The Operator has developed their own Fatigue Management rostering rules
to manage the risks associated with their type of operation(s), specifically in
relation to the requirements of (b) (AMC1 ORO.FTL.110)
3.2 The Operator has a procedure for managing the possibility that crew
working overtime or on rostered days off, might encounter elevated levels of
fatigue during the duty. (ORO.FTL.110 (b)(d))
3.3 The Operator can demonstrate that the FDP’s are developed to take into
account sufficient time for pre-flight duties, taxiing, flight time and
turnaround times. (AMC1 ORO.FTL110 (b))
4. ORO.FTL.110 (c) Operator Responsibilities
“Specify reporting times that allow sufficient time for ground duties“
Ref: Marker How is it achieved? Remarks
4.1 Specified reporting times demonstrate that they allow sufficient time for
ground duties.
4.2 The reporting times specified by the Operator take account of the type of
operation, the size and type of the aircraft and the reporting airport
conditions. (GM1 ORO.FTL.205(a)(1))
5. ORO.FTL.110 (d) Operator Responsibilities
“Take into account the relationship between the frequency and pattern of FDP’s and rest periods and give consideration to the cumulative effects of undertaking long duty
hours combined with minimum rest periods”
Ref: Marker How is it achieved? Remarks
5.1 The Operator considers the cumulative effects of undertaking long duty
hours combined with minimum rest periods
5.2 Procedures are in place to consider the relationship between the frequency
and pattern of flight duty periods and rest periods when rosters are
constructed. (AMC1 ORO.FTL.110)
5.3 The operator can demonstrate that they distribute the work evenly. (AMC1
ORO.FTL.110 (a))
5.4 The Operator has developed their own fatigue management rostering rules
to manage the risks associated with their type of operation(s), (specifically
in relation to the requirements of (d). (AMC1 ORO.FTL.110)
6. ORO.FTL.110 (e) Operator Responsibilities
“Allocate duty patterns which avoid practices that cause a serious disruption of an established sleep/work pattern, such as alternating day/night duties”
LENNUAMET VA 517-2 V1 Leht 2/7
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800
Ref: Marker How is it achieved? Remarks
6.1 The Operator has processes in place to monitor and manage the fatigue
associated with transitions from ‘earlies’ to ‘lates’, and vice versa
6.2 The Operator has a process to assess and, where possible avoid or minimise
the impact of work patterns which contain undesirable practices (alternating
day/night, alternating eastward/westward – westward/eastward transitions,
long positioning duties). (AMC1 ORO.FTL.110 (b)(1)).
(Note: This AMC reference also applies to the requirements under (d) and
(g).)
7. ORO.FTL.110 (f) Operator Responsibilities
“Comply with the provisions concerning disruptive schedules in accordance with ARO.OPS.230”
Ref: Marker How is it achieved? Remarks
7.1 Rostering system rules can demonstrate that they comply with the
Disruptive Schedules requirements. (CS FTL.1.235(a))
8. ORO.FTL.110 (g) Operator Responsibilities
“Provide rest periods of sufficient time to enable crew members to overcome the effects of the previous duties and to be rested by the start of the following flight duty
period”
Ref: Marker How is it achieved? Remarks
8.1 The Operator can demonstrate that they have considered not only the length
of the rest period but it’s placement during the day (24 hour periods) such
that the crew members can be suitably rested to operate.
8.2 The Operator can demonstrate that they roster sufficient rest periods to
recover from long flights crossing time-zones. (AMC1 ORO.FTL.110
(b)(2))
8.3 Where crew are called off standby, or additional overtime is offered to crew
members on days off, the Operator has a procedure to ensure that
consideration is given to the impact of this extra duty on the subsequent
duties already rostered.
9. ORO.FTL.110 (h) Operator Responsibilities
“Plan recurrent extended recovery rest periods and notify crew members sufficiently in advance”
Ref: Marker How is it achieved? Remarks
9.1 Recurrent extended recovery rest periods are planned and crew members
notified sufficiently in advance.
9.2 Roster stability/disruption metrics have been established to demonstrate the
level of disruption to which rosters are subjected after the planned roster has
been issued
9.3 Where crew are called from standby or reserve, or additional overtime is
offered to crew members on days off, the Operator has a procedure to ensure
LENNUAMET VA 517-2 V1 Leht 3/7
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800
that the crew member being called is sufficiently rested for the duty.
10. ORO.FTL.110 (i) Operator Responsibilities
“Plan flight duties in order to be completed within the allowable flight duty period taking into account the time necessary for pre-flight duties, the sector and turnaround
times”
Ref: Marker How is it achieved? Remarks
10.1 Flight duties are planned in order that they are completed within the
allowable flight duty period, taking into account the time necessary for pre-
flight duties, the sector and turnaround times (ORO.FTL.110(i)).
11. ORO.FTL.110 (j) Operator Responsibilities
“Change a schedule and/or crew arrangements if the actual operation exceeds the maximum flight duty period on more than 33% of the flight duties in that schedule during
a scheduled seasonal period”
Ref: Marker How is it achieved? Remarks
11.1 The Operator has a process for ensuring that schedules and/or crew
arrangements are changed if the actual operation exceeds the maximum
flight duty period on more than 33% of the flight duties in that schedule
during a scheduled seasonal period.
11.2 The operator has established and monitors performance indicators for
operational robustness of rosters. (AMC1 ORO.FTL.110(j) / GM1
ORO.FTL.110(j))
12. Demonstration of Compliance.
Fatigue metrics and methods are in place that demonstrates that the requirements of ORO.FTL.110 and AMC1 ORO.FTL.110 are being met. (ORO.GEN.200 (a)(6))
Ref: Marker How is it achieved? Remarks
12.1 The Operator’s crewing system is able undertake all of the ORO.FTL.110
Operator Responsibilities (a-j).
12.2 The Operator’s crewing system is capable of monitoring compliance with
regulatory prescriptive numerical limits and the requirements under
ORO.FTL.110.
12.3 Appropriate fatigue metrics have been selected and are monitored.
12.4 Roster stability/disruption metrics have been established to demonstrate the
level of disruption to which rosters are subjected after the planned roster has
been issued. (ORO.FTL.110 (b)(d)(e)(g)(j))
12.5 There is evidence that fatigue metrics are used to inform fatigue
management decisions made by the Operator. For example, how to schedule
a charter flight or new route.
12.6 There is a systematic process for evaluating the effectiveness of the
Operator’s fatigue management procedures required to demonstrate
ORO.FTL.110 under the Operator’s SMS. (ORO.GEN.200)
12.7 Fatigue risk mitigations and controls are being verified / audited to confirm
LENNUAMET VA 517-2 V1 Leht 4/7
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800
their effectiveness. (ORO.GEN.200)
13. ORO.FTL.115 Crew Responsibilities
Ref: Marker How is it achieved? Remarks
13.1 The Operator has a method for advising the crew members of their
responsibilities under ORO.FTL.115.
14. ORO.FTL.200 Home Base
Ref: Marker How is it achieved? Remarks
14.1 The Operator maintains a record of the home base to which the crew are
assigned. (ORO.FTL.245(a)(1)(iv))
15. ORO.FTL.205 Flight Duty Period (FDP)
Ref: Marker How is it achieved? Remarks
15.1 The Operator has established procedures which specify how a commander
can reduce an FDP or increase a rest period (ORO.FTL.205 (a)2).
15.2 The Operator has a process to ensure that all discretion is reported by the
Commander. (ORO.FTL.205(f)(4))
15.3 The Operator has developed a non-punitive process for the use of
Commanders Discretion and described this process in the operations manual
(ORO.FTL.205(f)(6)).
15.4 The Operators process for commanders discretion complies with the
requirements of AMC1 ORO.FTL.205(f).
15.5 The Operator has established procedures in the operations manual for
delayed reporting (ORO.FTL.205(g)) in accordance with CS FTL.1.205(d).
15.6 The Operator maintains records of delayed reporting (CS FTL.1.205(d)(1)).
15.7 Detailed delayed reporting procedures have been established in the
operations manual for the notification and management of delayed
reporting. (including method of notification at home base or away from
base, notification times, avoidance of disturbing sleep. GM CS
FTL.1.205(d)) CS FTL.1.205(d).
15.8 Specific fatigue risk processes are in place to manage duties of more than 10
hours that encroach or encompass the night period (0200-0459), in relation
to the surrounding duties and rest period. (CS FTL.1.205) in accordance
with GM1 CS FTL.1.205(a)(2)
16. ORO.FTL.210 (c) Flight Times and Duty Periods (post flight duty periods)
Ref: Marker How is it achieved? Remarks
16.1 The Operator has specified the minimum time for post flight duties.
16.2 When specifying the minimum time for post flight duties the Operator is
able to demonstrate that they have considered the type of operation, the size
and type of the aircraft and the airport conditions. (AMC1 ORO.FTL.210
LENNUAMET VA 517-2 V1 Leht 5/7
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800
(c))
17. ORO.FTL.220 Split Duty
Ref: Marker How is it achieved? Remarks
17.1 The Operator has specified the times for post and pre-flight duties and
travelling time within the operations manual. (CS FTL.1.220 (b))
17.2 The times specified by the Operator take into consideration the aircraft type,
type of operation and airport conditions. (GM1 CS FTL.1.220(b))
18. ORO.FTL.225 Standby and Duties at the Airport
Ref: Marker How is it achieved? Remarks
18.1 The Operator has specified the maximum duration of any standby within
their FTS scheme. (ORO.FTL.225 (f)(1))
18.2 The Operator can demonstrate that the response time provided from a call
out from standby (other than at the airport) allows the crew member to
arrive from their place of rest to the reporting time with a reasonable time.
(CS FTL.1.225(b)(10) & GM1 CS FTL.1225(b))
18.3 The Operator has a procedure to avoid ensure that a call out from standby
(other than airport standby) combined with the allocated FDP does not
create an “awake” time of greater than 18 hours. (GM1 CS FTL.1.225(b)(2))
18.4 Where the Operator has elected to move to 25% accountability for other
than at the airport standby duties, they have a method to track (and a have
process to conduct regular assurance of) the Civil Aviation (Working Time)
Regulations annual working time standby hours requirements.
19. ORO.FTL.230 Reserve
Ref: Marker How is it achieved? Remarks
19.1 The Flight Time Specification Scheme specifies the maximum duration of
any single reserve period and the number of reserve periods that can be
consecutively assigned.
19.2 The Operator’s reserve process includes a period of 8 hours where the crew
member cannot be contacted. (CS FTL.1.230 (d))
19.3 The Operator’s procedures include a notification process that avoids
interference with normal sleeping patterns, where possible. (GM1 CS
FTL.1.230)
20. ORO.FTL.235 (b) Rest Periods
Ref: Marker How is it achieved? Remarks
20.1 The Operator can demonstrate when the crew member is away from base
that the location of the chosen suitable accommodation allows for an 8 hour
sleep opportunity in addition to the time needed for travelling and
physiological needs.
LENNUAMET VA 517-2 V1 Leht 6/7
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800
21. CS FTL.1.235 Rest Periods (b)(2) & (5)
Ref: Marker How is it achieved? Remarks
21.1 The Operator can demonstrate there is a process for monitoring the effects
of rotations and combinations of rotations on crew member’s fatigue level,
including how they will adapt the patterns of work if necessary. (CS FTL
1.235 (b)(2)).
21.2 The Operator can demonstrate that the monitoring of the combinations of
rotations is being conducted under their management system. (CS
FTL.1.235(b)(5))
21.3 The Operator ensures the requirements with relation to days off
22. ORO.FTL.240 - Nutrition
Ref: Marker How is it achieved? Remarks
22.1 The Operator can demonstrate there is a meal and drink opportunity,
especially where the FDP exceeds 6 hours.
22.2 The Operator has specified in accordance with AMC1 ORO.FTL.240 how
the crew member nutrition is ensured. (Minimum duration, time frames)
23. ORO.FTL.250 – Fatigue Management Training
Ref: Marker How is it achieved? Remarks
23.1 All crew members have completed a Fatigue Management education and
awareness training programme which conforms to the training syllabus for
fatigue management training specified in AMC1 ORO.FTL.250.
23.2 The Operator has trained its crew on their specific fatigue risks and the
operator’s processes for reporting fatigue. (AMC1 ORO.GEN.200(a)(4))
23.3 “Management personnel concerned” (ORO.FTL.250) directly or indirectly
with crew scheduling have received appropriate fatigue awareness and
countermeasures training.
23.4 Personnel responsible for the preparation and maintenance of rosters
(crewing and rostering staff) have received appropriate fatigue awareness
and countermeasures training.
23.5 The Operator has identified how often recurrent training will take place.
(ORO.FTL.250(a))
23.6 The initial and recurrent training syllabus is suitable for the organisation’s
operations and is adapted for the required groups. (ORO.FTL.250(a))
23.7 Training records are kept up to date (AMC1 ORO.GEN.200(a)(4) &(6))
23.8 The effectiveness of the training is continuously measured, for example via BP
feedback forms at the end of the training.
LENNUAMET VA 517-2 V1 Leht 7/7
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800
KINNITATUD
Lennuameti peadirektori
10.02.2017
käskkirjaga nr 1.1-1/17/25
Lisa 7
Flight Time Specification Scheme Compliance Table
Käitaja ……………………………………………… Esindaja …………………………………… DHS viitenumber ……..………………..
Vastutav inspektor ………………………………………………………. Inspektori allkiri…………………………………………………...
Osalesid…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Tuvastatud mittevastavusi ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Heakskiidetud JAH EI
Kuupäev……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Ko
ntrollimisel lähtuti: Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määruse (EÜ) nr 216/2008 artiklist 8, IV lisa puntidest 7.f., 7.g. ja 8.f. ning
Euroopa Komisjoni määruse (EL) nr 965/2012 III lisa FTL-alajaost ja sellega seotud sertifitseerimistingimustest
The applicant/ operator should complete the „Operator OM-A Reference/ or Not Applicable“ column, if a requirement is not applicable to your
flight time specification scheme complete column with „N/A“. Upon completion, return Flight Time Specification Scheme Compliance Table to
Estonian CAA together with the updated OM-A. These documents will be reviewed and you will be advised if they meet with the EASA Subpart
FTL requirements.
EASA Reference Operator Estonian CAA
OM-A Comment
Reference/ or
Not
Applicable
ORO.FTL.100 Scope
CS FTL.1.100 Applicability
ORO.FTL.105 Definitions
GM1 ORO.FTL.105(1) Definitions – Acclimatised
GM2 ORO.FTL.105(1) Definitions – Acclimatised ‘Point of Departure’
GM3 ORO.FTL.105(1) Definitions – Acclimatised ‘Time Elapsed Since Reporting at Reference Time’
GM1 ORO.FTL.105(2) Definitions – Reference Time
GM1 ORO.FTL.105(3) Definitions – Adequate Furniture for ‘Accommodation’
GM1 ORO.FTL.105(8) Definitions – Determination of Disruptive Schedules
LENNUAMET VA 517-3 V1 Leht 1/5
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800
GM1 ORO.FTL.105(10) Definitions – Elements of Standby for Duty
GM1 ORO.FTL.105(17) Definitions – Operating Crew Member
ORO.FTL.110 Operator responsibilities
AMC1 ORO.FTL.110 Operator responsibilities – Scheduling
AMC1 ORO.FTL.110(a) Operator responsibilities – Publication of Rosters
AMC1 ORO.FTL.110(j) Operator responsibilities – Operational Robustness of Rosters
GM1 ORO.FTL.110(j) Operator responsibilities – Operational Robustness of Rosters
ORO.FTL.115 Crew member responsibilities
ORO.FTL.120 Fatigue risk management (FRM)
AMC1 ORO.FTL.120(b)(1) Fatigue risk management (FRM) – Commercial Air Transport Operators FRM
Policy
AMC2 ORO.FTL.120(b)(2) Fatigue risk management (FRM) – Commercial Air Transport Operators FRM
Documentation
AMC1 ORO.FTL.120(b)(4) Fatigue risk management (FRM) – Commercial Air Transport Operators
Identification of Hazards
AMC2 ORO.FTL.120(b)(4) Fatigue risk management (FRM) – Commercial Air Transport Operators Risk
Assessment
AMC1 ORO.FTL.120(b)(5) Fatigue risk management (FRM) – Commercial Air Transport Risk Mitigation
AMC1 ORO.FTL.120(b)(8) Fatigue risk management (FRM) – Commercial Air Transport FRM Safety
Assurance Processes
AMC1 ORO.FTL.120(b)(9) Fatigue risk management (FRM) – Commercial Air Transport FRM Promotion
Process
ORO.FTL.125 Flight time specification schemes
ORO.FTL.200 Home base
CS FTL.1.200 Home base
GM1 CS FTL.1.200 Home base – Travelling time
LENNUAMET VA 520-3 V1 Leht 2/5
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800
ORO.FTL.205 Flight duty period (FDP)
CS FTL.1.205 Flight duty period (FDP)
AMC1 ORO.FTL.205(f) Flight duty period (FDP) – Unforeseen Circumstances in Actual Flight Operations
– Commander’s Discretion
GM1 CS FTL.1.205(a)(2) Flight duty period (FDP) – Night Duties – Appropriate Fatigue Risk
Management
GM1 CS FTL.1.205(c)(1)(ii) Flight duty period (FDP) – In-Flight Rest
GM2 CS FTL.1.205(c)(1)(ii) Flight duty period (FDP) – In-Flight Rest
GM1 CS FTL.1.205(d) Flight duty period (FDP) – Delayed Reporting
GM1 ORO.FTL.205(a)(1) Flight duty period (FDP) – Reporting Times
GM1 ORO.FTL.205(b)(1) Flight duty period (FDP) – Reference Time
GM1 ORO.FTL.205(f)(1)(i) Flight duty period (FDP) – Commander’s Discretion
ORO.FTL.210 Flight times and duty periods
AMC1 ORO.FTL.210(c) Flight Times and Duty Periods – Post-Flight
Duties
ORO.FTL.215 Positioning
ORO.FTL.220 Split duty
CS FTL.1.220 Split Duty
GM1 CS FTL.1.220(b) Split Duty – Post, Pre-Flight Duty and Travelling Times
ORO.FTL.225 Standby and duties at the airport
CS FTL.1.225 Standby
GM1 CS FTL.1.225 Standby – Minimum Rest and Standby
GM1 CS FTL.1.225(b) Standby – Standby Other than Airport Standby Notification
GM1 CS FTL.1.225(b)(2) Standby – Awake Time
ORO.FTL.230 Reserve
LENNUAMET VA 520-3 V1 Leht 3/5
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800
CS FTL.1.230 Reserve
GM1 CS.FTL.1.230 Reserve – Reserve Notification
GM2 CS.FTL.1.230 Reserve – Notification in Advance
GM1 CS FTL1.230(c) Reserve – Recurrent Extended Recovery Rest
GM1 ORO.FTL.230(a) Reserve – Rostering of Reserve
ORO.FTL.235 Rest periods
CS FTL.1.235 Rest periods
AMC1 ORO.FTL.235(b) Rest periods – Minimum Rest Period Away from Home Base
GM1 CS FTL.1.235(b)(3) Rest periods – Time Elapsed Since Reporting
GM1 ORO.FTL.235(a)(2) Rest periods – Minimum Rest Period at Home Base if Suitable Accommodation
is Provided
ORO.FTL.240 Nutrition
AMC1 ORO.FTL.240 Nutrition – Meal Opportunity
ORO.FTL.245 Records of home base, flight times, duty and rest periods
ORO.FTL.250 Fatigue management training
AMC1 ORO.FTL.250 Fatigue management training – Training Syllabus Fatigue Management Training
LENNUAMET VA 520-3 V1 Leht 4/5
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800
The following are areas that require further detailed processes and procedures as part of the approval process. Please include reference to where
the supporting procedure is documented. In order to support the processing of an operators application, operators should send in their specific
processes and procedures with their Application. The FTL approval will not be granted until all the processes and procedures required under the
regulations have been reviewed and accepted.
Where FRM approval is applied for then an FRM manual will be required at the time of application.
EASA Reference Reference to the Estonian
documented CAA
procedure Comment
ORO.FTL.110 Operator Responsibilities (all elements)
ORO.FTL.200 Home Base (records of crew bases)
ORO.FTL.205 Flight Duty Period (FDP) (a) (Reduce FDP or increase rest), (c) (reporting times for crew),
(f)(6) (discretion process), (g) (delayed reporting)
CS FTL.1.205 Flight Duty Period (FDP) (a)(2) (night duties), (d) (Delayed Reporting)
ORO.FTL.210 Flight Times and Duty Periods (post flight duty periods)
ORO.FTL.220 Split Duty process
ORO.FTL.225 Standby and Duties at the Airport (f)(1) & (2), (elements of standby)
CS FTL.1.225 Standby and Duties at the Airport (b) (home standby procedures)
ORO.FTL.230 Reserve (b) (reserve procedures)
ORO.FTL.235 Rest Periods (b) (ensuring 8 hours sleep opportunity process)
CS FTL 1.235 Rest Periods (b)(2) & (5) (rotation / combinations of rotation monitoring)
ORO.FTL.240 Nutrition (b) (procedure for ensuring nutrition during an FDP)
ORO.FTL.250 Fatigue Management Training (b) (training programme)
LENNUAMET VA 520-3 V1 Leht 5/5
Lõõtsa 5 / 11415 Tallinn / 610 3500 /
[email protected] / www.ecaa.ee
Registrikood 70000800