Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T04:57:03.240Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Equipment failures in ATC: Finding an appropriate safety target

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2016

B. Subotic,
W. Ochieng and
A. Majumdar
B. Subotic
Affiliation:
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College London, London, UK
W. Ochieng
Affiliation:
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College London, London, UK
A. Majumdar
Affiliation:
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College London, London, UK
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

The aviation community is currently faced with various approaches for the determination of Target Levels of Safety (TLS). The targets are usually derived for a specific airspace region, for a specific type of operation or a specific phase of flight. Therefore, current practices support the determination of TLS for specific aviation components in isolation. This paper argues that the setting of a new safety target for aviation has to be driven by an integrated system approach. Relevant past research on TLS is reviewed and augmented with the results from operational reports from two countries. A possible safety target for the year 2020 is suggested and scoped down to estimate the safety budget for air traffic control (ATC) equipment. The paper concludes with a discussion of the results and recommends useful practices to achieve the proposed integrated safety approach.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 109 , Issue 1096 , June 2005, pp. 277 - 284
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2005 

References

1. Howard, R.W.. Breaking through the 106 barrier. Aeronaut J, September 1992, 96, (957), pp 260–270.Google Scholar
2. Perrow, C., Normal Accidents, Princeton University Press, 1999, USA.Google Scholar
3. Graham, G.M., Kinnersly, S and Joyce, A.. Safety reporting and aviation target levels of safety. In Johnson, C.W, Investigation and Reporting of Incidents and Accidents (IRIA 2002). Department of Computing Science, 2002, University of Glasgow, Scotland.Google Scholar
4. Federal Aviation Administration. System Safety Handbook, Chapter 3. From http://www.asy.faa.gov/RISK/SSHandbook/contents.htm, 2000.Google Scholar
5. Saldana, M.A.M., Herrero, S.G., Del Campo, M.A.M. and Ritzel, D. O.. Assessing Definitions and Concepts within the Safety Profession. From http://www.aahperd.org/iejhe/2003_first/ritzel.pdf, 2002.Google Scholar
6. Van Es, G.W.H.. Review of air traffic management-related accidents worldwide: 1980-2001, National Aerospace Laboratory NLR, 2003, Netherlands.Google Scholar
7. Eurocontrol. Cora 2 Safety Analysis: Exploratory Preliminary System Safety Assessment (PSSA), 2004, Paris.Google Scholar
8. International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Annex 13: Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation, 2001.Google Scholar
9. Hai, L.. Civil Aviation Safety Outline (2001-2020). From; http://www.seaskyad.com/ad@cca_english/content/content_0206_special_articles/article16.htm, 2004.Google Scholar
10. Federal Aviation Administration. Aviation Safety. http://www.faa.gov/AviationSafety/, 2004.Google Scholar
11. Federal Aviation Administration. FAA Strategic plan. From http://www.faa.gov/AviationSafety/http://api.hq.faa.gov/sp01/sp.html, 2001.Google Scholar
12. Brooker, P.. Consistent and up-to-date aviation safety targets. Draft version. 2004, Cranfield University, Cranfield.Google Scholar
13. Reid, J.W.. Safety by Design. Lecture 4: Cost and acceptability of risk, Hazardous forum: London, 1996.Google Scholar
14. Joint Aviation Administration. Joint Aviation Requirements for Large Aeroplanes (JAR-25), 1994.Google Scholar
15. Eurocontrol SRC DOC 1. Safety Minima Study: Review Of Existing Standards And Practices. From; http://www.eurocontrol.int/src/documents/deliverables/srcdoc1ri.pdf, 2000.Google Scholar
16. International Civil Aviation Organization. Outlook for Air Transport to the Year 2005, ICAO Circular 270-AT/111. Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 1997.Google Scholar
17. International Civil Aviation Organization. manual of air traffic forecasting (Doc 8991-AT/722/2), Montreal, Canada, 1985.Google Scholar
18. EUROCONTROL SRC DOC 2. Aircraft Accidents/Incidents and ATM Contribution: Review and Analysis of Historical Data. From http://www.eurocontrol.int/src/documents/deliverables/srcdoc2_e30_ri_ integrated.pdf, 2002.Google Scholar
19. Boeing. Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane Accidents: Worldwide Operations 1959 – 2003. From http://www.boeing.com/news/techissues/pdf/statsum.pdf, 2004.Google Scholar
20. International Civil Aviation Organization. Annex 11: Air Traffic Services, Montreal, 2001b, Quebec, Canada.Google Scholar
21. International Civil Aviation Organization. All-Weather Operations Panel, Fifteenth meeting. 1994, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
22. EUROCONTROL SRC. ESARR 4: Risk Assessment and Mitigation in ATM, 2001, Paris.Google Scholar
23. EUROCONTROL SRC POL DOC 1. ECAC Safety Minima for ATM. EUROCONTROL Safety Regulation Commission, 2001, Paris.Google Scholar
24. Reason, J.T., Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents, Ashgate Publishing, 1997, Aldershot, England.Google Scholar
25. Civil Aviation Authority. Aviation safety review 1990-1999, CAP 701, 2000, Civil Aviation Authority, London.Google Scholar
26. Profit, R., Systematic Safety Management in the Air Traffic Services, 1995, Euromoney Publications, London.Google Scholar