曝光臺 注意防騙 網曝天貓店富美金盛家居專營店坑蒙拐騙欺詐消費者

recently joined the surveys and were unlikely to attain the 70% level at this stage, and the
remaining 6 are above 50% but still well below the 70% target. The overall average
maturity score for ATM Safety Regulators is now 76%, an increase of 23% since 2002.
ANSPs' Maturity scores range
77
67
58
47 45
36
24 26
10 11
31
95 94 98 100 100 100 94
86 86 89 91
0
20
40
60
80
100
2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009
Min-Max limits
Interquartile range
70 73
PRR 2009 Chapter 3: Safety
21
Figure 31: ECAC Regulator Maturity Profile
3.3.7 The Regulatory average has improved over the years of the survey but still lags behind
the ANSP average. Significant improvements seem to have arisen from the rationalisation
of the standards. Over the years, a lack of financial and human resources has been a
recurring theme for ATM Safety Regulators.
3.4 New safety indicators proposed by SAFREP
3.4.1 The SAFREP Task Force was created by the Director General of EUROCONTROL in the
aftermath of the Linate and Überlingen accidents, dealing, inter alia, with safety reporting
and data collection. After having delivered its report in 2005, the Task Force was put in
abeyance, pending a need for other tasks. The SAFREP Task Force was reactivated at the
end of 2006 to develop key performance indicators in the area of Safety, following a
recommendation of the PRC.
3.4.2 SAFREP was given the task to develop this framework and report back to the Provisional
Council of EUROCONTROL within three years (i.e. by end-2009). Practically all major
ANSPs, a number of Regulators, the EC, IATA, IFATCA and other representative
organisations were involved in the task force.
3.4.3 As planned, at end-2009 the SAFREP Task Force presented a framework for the
measurement of safety performance, which was developed, for the relevant parts, in
coordination with CANSO and ICAO; it enjoys a wide acceptance from all parties and
has been discussed and in part adopted by the FAA.
3.4.4 At the end of three years of work, SAFREP delivered:
 Two main ‘lagging’ (reactive) indicators based on ATM-related incident reports:
number of serious Separation Minima Infringements and Runway Incursions
(severity8 A and B), as well as the number of ATM-induced accidents per annum;
 A methodology and tool to classify the severity of incidents based on objective data,
together with a severity/risk of recurrence matrix. These were also adopted by the
FAA;
 A composite safety performance indicator: the Aerospace Performance Factor (APF),
still under test in Europe to ensure harmonization across the ECAC area;
8 As assessed in accordance with EUROCONTROL ESARR 2 - EAM 2/GUI 1
Regulators' Maturity scores range
67 69
43
55 55
63
33 35
17 16 17
31
97 98 100 100 100
92 84 87 88
78 79
65
0
20
40
60
80
100
2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009
Min-Max limits
Interquartile range
PRR 2009 Chapter 3: Safety
22
 A revised Safety Maturity Survey Framework (a ‘leading’ safety indicator) for both
Regulators and ANSPs (the latter in cooperation with CANSO).
3.4.5 In order to keep a wider scope, both the current and the revised Safety Maturity Survey
Frameworks are conceived to measure the level of maturity perceived by Regulators and
ANSPs under national legislative and regulatory system built on existing ESARR
requirements.
3.4.6 The new SES II regulatory requirements aiming at improving safety maturity at European
Union level are not yet included in the revised safety maturity questionnaire.
Safety requirements applicable to all ICAO
Contracting States
27 EU Member
States
Additional SES II requirements not
explicitly included in the questionnaires
ECAC+
Member States
Figure 32: Scope of Safety Maturity Survey Framework
3.4.7 The SAFREP Task Force has already taken the initiative to adapt the revised Safety
Maturity Framework to the new SES II regulatory environment while keeping the ability
to measure safety maturity in a wider area.
3.4.8 However, the Safety Maturity Surveys remain based on self-assessment. The PRC
considers that independent assessment and validation of the results will need to be put in
place if the methodology is to be used in a context of performance regulation.
3.5 EC safety legislation and SES II
3.5.1 The SES II legislation will be a key driver for improving ATM safety in the years to
come. Safety is a crucial element of the SES II performance scheme, which will include
　
中國航空網 www.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：Performance Review Report 2009(24)