NBAA Safety Committee Identifies Top Safety Focus Areas for 2014

NBAA Press Release

Washington, DC, March 5, 2014

For the second consecutive year, the National Business Aviation Association’s (NBAA’s) Safety Committee has published a list of recommended safety priorities for the business aviation industry. The list is intended to promote safety-focused discussion and advocacy among NBAA Members and the business aviation industry.

The list of NBAA Top Safety Focus Areas for 2014 is (in no particular order):

  • Professionalism
  • Positive Safety Culture
  • Single-Pilot Safety
  • Fitness for Duty
  • Airport Safety
  • Airmanship Skills
  • Distraction Management
  • Public Policy
  • Talent Pipeline
  • Technology Management

The committee developed the list with input from many of NBAA’s other standing committees, as well as from the FAA, the National Transportation Safety Board, the Flight Safety Foundation’s Business Advisory Committee and regional business aviation groups.

The list is first intended to serve as a conversation starter. “We want to start having discussions in our various spheres of influence on what each of these topics means on a personal basis,” said NBAA Safety Committee Chairman Eric Barfield. “But perhaps more importantly, we want to provoke a meaningful discussion among colleagues within the flight department and with the corporate office. It’s a conversation that goes both up and down the chain of command.”

The list also will serve to guide the Safety Committee’s work in support of safety advocacy for the year to come, providing a useful framework for developing future NBAA resources and education efforts in the coming months.

“Sometimes people don’t know what they don’t know when it comes to business aviation safety,” Barfield said. “We’re trying to educate them on those areas, as well as point out tools to help them continuously improve their safety processes and outcomes.”

First published in 2013 under the moniker “Top 10 Safety Focus Areas,” this year’s list was renamed to recognize the diversity within business aviation and give equal weight to all items listed. “This is no longer a prioritized list of concerns. Everybody has different priorities,” said Barfield. “Instead, these are key areas where the committee believes more discussion is warranted.”

The 2014 topics themselves are largely unchanged from 2013. Where changes to the list were introduced, they typically served to enhance or expand on topics and focus area descriptions from the previous year.

For example, “fatigue” is now aligned under a larger “fitness for duty” umbrella along with aeromedical issues and the growing concern with improper use of over-the-counter medications. ”Distraction management” is a new topic encompassing not only task saturation and situational awareness, but also distractions created by pressures stemming from the home and office. “Airmanship skills” and “airport safety” remain on the list, but have been expanded in scope.

Review NBAA’s Top Safety Focus Areas.
Learn more about the NBAA Safety Committee.

Civil Aviation Authority Safety Review for Offshore Rotor Operations

In September 2013, following a number of incidents involving offshore helicopter operations, the UK CAA, in conjunction with EASA and the Norwegian Civil Aviation Authority, conducted a safety review. The review examined the risks and hazards of operating in the North Sea and considered how these could be managed more effectively.

This comprehensive analysis of North Sea helicopter operations and safety performance proposes a series of actions and makes a number of important recommendations for the industry. The focus is now on managing the changes arising from the report in a considered and systematic way.

Although focused on oil and gas operations in the North Sea, the Review has indirect relevance for offshore Search and Rescue (SAR) too and will arguably be of interest to other offshore oil and gas locations around the world.

The Review contains 32 Actions which the UK CAA have committed to but more widely 29 Recommendations. Of these, 13 are to EASA, 12 to the Helicopter Industry (AOC Holders, MROs, ATOs and manufacturers), 3 to the oil and gas industry and one collectively to all three of these

Read the full report

Metro Aviation takes safety to the next level

So

urce: Metro Aviation, February 21 2014

MetroAviation

 

Metro Aviation takes safety to the next level

Metro AviationMetro Aviation recently achieved Level IV of the FAA’s Safety Management System (SMS) Pilot Project. Level IV is the highest level of the program, and Metro Aviation is one of only three organizations in the United States operating under 14 CFR 135 rules to achieve this milestone.  The Program provides a four level system to acknowledge development of a formal SMS that meets FAA expectations and ICAO international standards.

Safety, Quality and Customer Service have been the hallmarks of Metro Aviation for more than 30 years and achieving Level IV reinforces Metro’s commitment to the highest level of safety.

“Metro Aviation has consistently gone beyond the traditional regulatory minimums and the goal of our SMS is to establish a level of safety in our organization that continues to set new standards,” said Metro Aviation Director of Safety Tarek Loutfy.

In addition to implementing SMS, Metro Aviation has embraced safety recommendations made by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to helicopter operators including the newly released Safety Alert on the use of simulators.  Metro has provided simulator training to its pilots for more than 5 years and is now a resource for others in the industry.

Metro is also committed to establishing an active SMS for their Part 145 Repair Station.  “The SMS will provide a uniform way of handling maintenance safety practices and procedures to ensure that all employees and management are on the same page,” said Managing Director Milton Geltz.

Metro Aviation voluntarily signed up to participate in the FAA’s program in 2010.  Although they have now achieved the highest level in the program, Metro will continue to research hazards and implement solutions in an effort to operate in the safest way possible

FAA Issues EMS Rule, Includes Additional Helicopter Operations

Source: Rotor News, Helicopter Association International (HAI) Feb 21 2014

 

FAA Issues EMS Rule, Includes Additional Helicopter Operations

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has finalized a rule requiring stronger safety measures for helicopter operators, including air ambulances. Changes include equipment, training and operational requirements, and all HAI members are strongly encouraged to review the rule.

The rule is primarily directed toward air ambulance operations, but also addresses commercial helicopter and general aviation helicopter operations, implementing new operational procedures and additional equipment requirements. Additionally, the rule revises requirements for equipment, pilot testing, and alternative airports as well as increasing weather minimums for all general aviation helicopter operations under Part 91 in Class G airspace.

For helicopter air ambulances, the rule requires operations with medical personnel on board to be conducted under Part 135 operating rules and introduces new weather minimums and visibility requirements for Part 135 operations. It mandates flight planning, preflight risk analyses, safety briefings for medical personnel, and the establishment of operations control centers (OCC) for certain operators to help with risk management and flight monitoring. The rule also includes provisions to encourage instrument flight rules (IFR) operations. It requires helicopter air ambulances to be equipped with both helicopter terrain awareness and warning systems. In addition, helicopter air ambulance pilots will be required to hold instrument ratings.

For all helicopters operated under Part 135, these rules require that operators carry more survival equipment for operations over water. Alternate airports named in flight plans must have higher weather minimums than are currently required. These helicopters must be equipped with radio altimeters and pilots must be able to demonstrate that they can maneuver the aircraft during an inadvertent encounter with instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) to get out of those conditions safely. As mentioned above, the rule assigns new weather minimums to part 91 helicopter operations in Class G airspace.

The following represents a summary of affected entities:

Part 135 All Rotorcraft Operators:
Requires each rotorcraft to be equipped with a radio altimeter ( Section 135.160)
Adds Section 135.168 equipment requirements for rotorcraft operated over water. Helicopter operations conducted over water will be required to carry additional safety equipment to assist passengers and crew in the event an accident occurs over water.

Revised alternate airport weather minimums for rotorcraft in Section 135.221. This rule improves the likelihood of being able to land at the alternate airport if weather conditions in the area deteriorate while the helicopter is en route.

Revises Section 135.293 to require pilot testing of rotorcraft handling in flat-light, whiteout, and brownout conditions and demonstration of competency in recovery from an IIMC.

Part 135 Helicopter Air Ambulance:
Requires helicopter air ambulance flights with medical personnel on board to be conducted under Part 135 (Section 135.1, 135.601).

Requires certificate holders with 10 or more helicopter air ambulances to establish operations control centers (OCC) (Section 135.619) and requires drug and alcohol testing for operations control specialists (Section 120.105 and 120.215).

Requires helicopter air ambulances to be equipped with HTAWS (Section 135.605).

Requires helicopter air ambulances to be equipped with a flight data monitoring system (Section 135.607).

Requires each helicopter air ambulance operator to establish and document, in its operations manual, an FAA-approved preflight risk analysis (Section 135.617).

Requires pilots to identify and document the highest obstacle along the planned route (Section 135.615).

Requires safety briefings or training for helicopter air ambulance medical personnel (Section 135.621).

Establishes visual flight rules (VFR) weather minimums for helicopter air ambulance operations (Section 135.609).

Permits instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at airports without weather reporting (Section 135.611).

Establishes procedures for transitioning between IFR and VFR on approach to, and departure from, heliports or landing areas (Section 135.613).

Requires pilots in commend to hold an instrument rating (Section 135.603).

The rule is primarily directed toward air ambulance operations, but also addresses commercial helicopter and general aviation helicopter operations, implementing new operational procedures and additional equipment requirements. Additionally, the rule revises requirements for equipment, pilot testing, and alternative airports as well as increasing weather minimums for all general aviation helicopter operations under Part 91 in Class G airspace.

For helicopter air ambulances, the rule requires operations with medical personnel on board to be conducted under Part 135 operating rules and introduces new weather minimums and visibility requirements for Part 135 operations. It mandates flight planning, preflight risk analyses, safety briefings for medical personnel, and the establishment of operations control centers (OCC) for certain operators to help with risk management and flight monitoring. The rule also includes provisions to encourage instrument flight rules (IFR) operations. It requires helicopter air ambulances to be equipped with both helicopter terrain awareness and warning systems. In addition, helicopter air ambulance pilots will be required to hold instrument ratings.

For all helicopters operated under Part 135, these rules require that operators carry more survival equipment for operations over water. Alternate airports named in flight plans must have higher weather minimums than are currently required. These helicopters must be equipped with radio altimeters and pilots must be able to demonstrate that they can maneuver the aircraft during an inadvertent encounter with instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) to get out of those conditions safely. As mentioned above, the rule assigns new weather minimums to part 91 helicopter operations in Class G airspace.

The following represents a summary of affected entities:

  • Part 135 All Rotorcraft Operators:
    Requires each rotorcraft to be equipped with a radio altimeter ( Section 135.160)
    Adds Section 135.168 equipment requirements for rotorcraft operated over water. Helicopter operations conducted over water will be required to carry additional safety equipment to assist passengers and crew in the event an accident occurs over water.
  • Revised alternate airport weather minimums for rotorcraft in Section 135.221. This rule improves the likelihood of being able to land at the alternate airport if weather conditions in the area deteriorate while the helicopter is en route.
  • Revises Section 135.293 to require pilot testing of rotorcraft handling in flat-light, whiteout, and brownout conditions and demonstration of competency in recovery from an IIMC.
  • Part 135 Helicopter Air Ambulance:
    Requires helicopter air ambulance flights with medical personnel on board to be conducted under Part 135 (Section 135.1, 135.601).
  • Requires certificate holders with 10 or more helicopter air ambulances to establish operations control centers (OCC) (Section 135.619) and requires drug and alcohol testing for operations control specialists (Section 120.105 and 120.215).
  • Requires helicopter air ambulances to be equipped with HTAWS (Section 135.605).
  • Requires helicopter air ambulances to be equipped with a flight data monitoring system (Section 135.607).
  • Requires each helicopter air ambulance operator to establish and document, in its operations manual, an FAA-approved preflight risk analysis (Section 135.617).
  • Requires pilots to identify and document the highest obstacle along the planned route (Section 135.615).
  • Requires safety briefings or training for helicopter air ambulance medical personnel (Section 135.621).
  • Establishes visual flight rules (VFR) weather minimums for helicopter air ambulance operations (Section 135.609).
  • Permits instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at airports without weather reporting (Section 135.611).
  • Establishes procedures for transitioning between IFR and VFR on approach to, and departure from, heliports or landing areas (Section 135.613).
  • Requires pilots in commend to hold an instrument rating (Section 135.603).

Finnair Makes Fatigue Risk Visible in Day of Operation

Source:

Sextant Readings Solutions Jeppesen logo high resFatigue Risk Management tools that make a difference.

Finnair Makes Fatigue Risk Visible in Day of Operation

A few years ago, Finnair became the first airline to plan their pilots with direct influence by a mathematical fatigue model during crew schedule construction. In recent months the airline has expanded its usage to also include fatigue “alerts” that are automatically pushed to the planners in day of operation.

Finnair is using the alert monitor, a feature of Jeppesen Crew Tracking. The alert monitor re-evaluates the entire operation every few seconds and flag potential crew problems to the planner such as late check-ins, too short connection times, breach of maximum duty time etc.

The alert monitor has been in use at Finnair for several years, but it has until now only been used to resolve issues around operational feasibility and regulatory compliance. Now, supporting a performance-based approach, the human physiology is taken into account through the use of the Boeing Alertness Model – allowing for a more precise address of flight safety.

Jan Ahonen Crew Tracking SpecialistJari Ahonen, Crew Tracking Specialist, Finnair, showing fatigue alerts in the system

“The alert monitor is our main tool for not missing out taking action where needed,” says Jari Ahonen at Finnair.  “Fatigue alerts are now present as a new category in the monitor enabling us to put extra attention to problematic scheduling patterns – going beyond what regulation requires. Also during problem resolution, when recombining flights for our crew, we have fatigue indicators available in our planning GUI and can take that into account.”

 

IHST Knows Why Helicopter Accidents are Happening; It’s Now Trying to Stop Them

Source RotorCraftPro  jhadmin posted on January 09, 2014 09:08

IHST Knows Why Helicopter Accidents are Happening; It’s Now Trying to Stop Them

Author: James Careless

In its quest to bring the global helicopter accident rate to zero, the International Helicopter Safety Team (IHST) has analyzed more than 1,000 U.S. civil helicopter accidents and their causes. Having done so, the IHST’s investigators have come to two clear conclusions: (1) Helicopter accidents are ultimately caused by incorrect human decisions, and (2) the evidence shows that reducing the accident rate to zero is actually possible.

“After going through the NTSB investigations in detail, one thing has become obvious: No one has invented a new way to crash a helicopter,” says Matt Zuccaro, IHST co-chair and president of Helicopter Association International. “The reasons helicopters crashed ten years ago remain the same today, and all of their causes can be traced back to the people who flew, serviced, or managed the helicopters.”

The Main Culprit

Based on U.S. data from the calendar years, 2000, 2001, and 2006, the majority of helicopter accidents occur in the Personal/Private (18.5%) and Instructional (17.6%) categories, followed by Aerial Applications (10.3%) and EMS (7.6%). The full breakdown is available online at www.ihst.org.

Despite the difference in flight applications, the main factor leading to both fatal and nonfatal accidents remains constant across all categories. “The analysis of the accidents revealed that a majority of them had a standard problem with pilot judgment and action,” said Fred Brisbois, co-chair of the IHST’s U.S. Safety Implementation Team and Sikorsky Aircraft’s former director of aviation & product safety.  He continued, “The initiating event in the accident sequence was the absence of adequate preparation or planning by the pilot, or in some cases incorrect judgment in reaction to the situation or event.”

‘Absence of adequate preparation’ covers many elements. It includes not checking what the weather is going to be like along the entire flight path, as opposed to just the departure and arrival locations. “A common issue is VFR-trained pilots finding themselves flying in IFR conditions, for which they are not trained,” said Bob Sheffield, an IHST Executive Committee member and AgustaWestland’s Senior Advisor on Safety and Fleet Operational Improvements. “Had they properly looked at the weather forecast before they flew, they could have avoided this situation and stayed safe.”

In such circumstances, under-prepared pilots can save themselves, their passengers, and their aircraft by just landing at the soonest, safest available location. “It’s such an easy solution to the problem,” Zuccaro said. “It’s better to wait on the ground until you can fly safely again, than to push the odds and risk disaster.”

Adequate preparation goes further than just proper pilot training and pre-flight briefings. It also covers everything from an aircraft’s flying abilities and respecting its limits to having sufficient fuel onboard, and keeping the aircraft properly maintained in line with manufacturers’ specifications and product updates.

Meanwhile, when it comes to training, adequate preparation translates to using available simulators to increase student pilot knowledge before going airborne, and not running avoidable risks when in an aircraft.  “Some helicopter instructors have been taking student pilots to 700′ and then having the students try to auto-rotate to landing, which is dangerous and unnecessary,” said Sheffield. “We recommend starting rotation training from at least 1,500′ AGL and resuming engine power no lower than 500′ AGL to minimize the risk until the student gains some proficiency.”

The Management Gap

The IHST has identified other human-controlled factors that contribute to helicopter accidents. They include not having a Safety Management System (SMS) in place, and not installing and/or paying attention to Health & Usage Monitoring Systems (HUMS) and Flight Data Monitoring (FDM).

“It’s the small operators who don’t have an SMS in place, because they see it as too onerous a job to create,” Bob Sheffield said. “I usually can change their minds, after I get them talking about a particular issue that they faced that was safety-related – say a flight that went wrong due to bad weather – and what they did after the fact to prevent the incident from happening again. Because this is what an SMS really
is: a compendium of lessons learned about safe flying and potential dangers, which are systematically organized and laid out for everyone to see and use.”

HUMS can also make a difference, but only if they are both installed and given attention. “The UK Civil Aviation Authority did an analysis of how HUMS was working for Bristow Helicopters in the North Sea,” Sheffield noted. “They found that up to 67% of incident equipment failures could be predicted accurately, based on the HUMS data before such failures actually took place.”

Regarding FDM, IHST has found that data compiled during flight operations is extremely useful not just to researching issues that occur, but also for prevention. “Before I came to AgustaWestland, I was Managing Director for Shell Aircraft, which flies more than one million passengers a year to its oil and gas properties,” said Sheffield. “Using Flight Data Monitoring information, we were able to show pilots what kinds of maneuvers went outside our operating envelopes. The result was that we went from an average of 1.3 exceedances on every flight to 0.13 per flight in just four years; a tenfold drop.”

The Need for Cultural Change

IHST’s research revealed two serious cultural issues that can lead to accidents occurring.

The first cultural issue is shortcuts. “Many smaller operators are pushed on their costs, and so they sometimes cut corners on required maintenance, pilot training, and other management functions to try to keep cost down,” said Matt Zuccaro. “The problem is that taking shortcuts always comes back to haunt you, sooner or later, simply because the ability of the aircraft and/or pilot to cope with normal flying changes has been compromised.”

The second cultural issue is the “mission first” attitude for which helicopter pilots are renowned. “Imagine that the flying conditions are unsafe for a VFR-only pilot, and then ask him to fly to pick up a package; chances are he won’t,” Zuccaro said. “Now change the scenario. Tell him that the pickup is for a critically injured infant at an accident scene. Chances are he will make the flight, because a life-saving mission comes first – even if the pilot is not capable of flying safely in such conditions.”

For the helicopter industry to get its accident rate down to zero – and get as close as it can to this point as a matter of practice – both cultural elements must change. “We must get operators big and small to understand that corner-cutting is too risky to do, and that the ‘mission first’ attitude, although admirable, is also too dangerous to continue,” said Zuccaro. “In both cases, we must switch to a ‘safety first’
culture, because only by putting safety first can we truly bring accident rates down and keep them down.”

The IHST’s Response

Having compiled all this information about helicopter accidents, the IHST is doing whatever it can to communicate its findings and solutions to helicopter operators, owners, and pilots. This includes a tremendous amount of free information on www.ihst.org, plus ongoing training sessions being held around the world. The safety group is also working “with our international partners to share common lessons learned to develop effective safety tools,” Brisbois said. “We will be holding an International Safety Symposium next year, immediately after Heli-Expo 2014, to foster the exchange of information and ideas to continue our resolve to reducing the accident rate.”

As for IHST’s goal of reducing helicopter accidents by 80% by the year 2016? “We have changed this goal, to aim for the zero accident goal on an ongoing basis,” Matt Zuccaro replied. “The problem with the 80% goal is that – although accident rates have indeed fallen since IHST was formed – there is an absence of reliable global information on helicopter hours and usage. As well, the 80% reduction implies that the remaining 20% of accidents are acceptable, which of course they are not.”

In all its efforts, the IHST will continue to hammer home the concept that helicopter accidents are indeed avoidable, through a combination of proper preparation and training, flight planning, onboard systems and flight monitoring, and compliance with regular maintenance schedules and manufacturer advisories.

“Every accident is preventable,” concluded Brisbois, who has 42 years’ experience in aircraft safety. “Design standards and system safety engineering throughout the industry have had a remarkable and positive impact on improving the design and airworthiness of helicopters. The human factors aspect remains to be the biggest problem: Simply put, it’s poor planning before going to the aircraft that sets the stage for poor aeronautical decision-making in the cockpit.

Corrective/Preventative Action Management

Corrective/Preventative Action Management

Q-Pulse manages non-conformance through the CA/PA, (Corrective Action/Preventative Action) module, by automating established workflows and highlighting areas of improvement. Any type of aviation organization can identify, manage, control and correct areas of non-compliance in order to correct and pass any type of regulatory requirements.

Direct access to compliance actions from a central register streamlines the management of processes, reducing the effort spent managing activities and accelerating time to completion for actions. Role-based message management closes the loop on overdue processes by enabling the conditional escalation of actions to other roles where required, and the setup of different workflows based on record content.

Once collected in the CA/PA Management module, information can be viewed in isolation, either in groups of related information or across the complete organization. Robust security allocates access to information as you require it.

Any number of reports can be published and saved in personal or shared folders which significantly reduce the amount of time and effort spent searching for information. In addition, the Analysis module provides extensive graphical grouping and trend reports that greatly assist in spotting related issues and more importantly help identify opportunities for improvement.

The flexibility and capability of the CA/PA Management module ensures Q-Pulse is core in enabling an organization to reap significant benefits from their compliance efforts.

The objectives for CA/PA Management are to:

  • Automate the non-conformance process for the business within a single system
  • Extend the non-conformance process throughout a business with a centralized approach
  • Promote a systematic and holistic approach to non-conformance management
  • Notify and manage those responsible for non-conformances that in turn promote reduction in recurrence
  • Streamline non-conformance management to increase stakeholder satisfaction and improve the bottom line

Aviation Hazard, Occurrence and Incident Reporting and Investigation

Safety is the biggest focus within aviation, as a failure to comply in a process or procedure can lead to a catastrophic effect. Worldwide governing bodies, including ICAO, IBAC and IATA, encourage and enforce any company associated with aviation to have an effective safety management solution in place. As the US moves through the SMS rulemaking effort, the FAA has provided guidance for operators including Air Carriers, MRO’s, Manufacturers, Flight Schools, Corporate, Charter and General Aviation.

Throughout industry, it is widely acknowledged that encouraging a non-punitive reporting culture, or “just culture”, is an effective way to ensure quality and safety related incidents are reported – in turn, helping to prevent future occurrences.

As with any module in Q-Pulse, Incident Reporting and Investigation can be configured to manage multiple types of reports. Reports can be automated to include areas such as Bird Strikes, TCAS RA, Airprox, Flight Crew Reports, Cabin Crew Reports, Ground Handling Reports, Confidential Reporting and Voluntary Reporting programs (ASAP, MSAP) and any other type of report required in order to manage safety effectively and efficiently.

Through the Q-Pulse Incident Reporting and Investigation module, established workflows can be defined for each individual report with individual/department notifications of actions required, timescales for completion and escalation policies. Q-Pulse seamlessly integrates with an organization’s email software, ensuring that all individuals concerned with an incident have full visibility of the progress of on-going actions.

Current reports within the organization can be set up with a user friendly report designer, providing a complete overview at any time of safety performance. Furthermore, management can analyze the aggregate incident/occurrence data to identify trends, highlight improvement opportunities and mitigate risks throughout the organization.

For airlines, Q-Pulse Incident Reporting and Investigation can integrate with Flight Data Management (FOQA) solutions allowing the safety department direct access to specific FOQA events that are pertinent to their investigations, streamlining processes and delivering corrective/preventative actions in a timely manner.

The objectives for Incident Reporting and Investigation are to:

  • Capture reported data that reflects an organization’s adherence to regulator’s procedures
  • Provide a simple and effective incident reporting design interface
  • Applies automatically on-going action tracking and communication that replicates a company’s existing workflow

Provides an effective, user friendly overview to aid trend analysis, highlight areas of improvement and manage

Aviation SMS and FOQA Integration

Sextant Readings recognizes that within the aviation industry there are many IT suppliers that provide systems to manage the day to day running of the organization. While Sextant Readings specializes in compliance, safety and quality software, there are also other IT suppliers that have synergies to allow Q-Pulse to effectively manage the data integrated from these systems to manage both quality and safety. Through integration, Sextant Readings’s approach is to create a holistic view of safety and in turn allow the organization to have a full understanding of areas of concern which can be identified for improvement.

FOQA integration is an extension of Q-Pulse that provides a two-way interface between Flight Operational Quality Assurance (FOQA) analysis through Flight Data Monitoring (FDM) solutions and the Safety Management System (SMS), which in turn streamlines the incident investigation process. Flight safety data can be centralized and at the same time improve visibility and accessibility throughout an organization.

Q-Pulse FOQA Integration encourages the reporting and subsequent investigation of events where operational parameters have been exceeded. Through the incidents being reported and investigated, corrective or preventative action can be taken to mitigate risks and in turn improve safety levels.

The FOQA data is instantly accessible from the SMS, allowing quick access to events related to an investigation, which in turn saves time and promotes corrective actions to be implemented more quickly.

Q-Pulse FDM Integration allows full analysis of related incidents and in turn can provide a review of associated incidents and enable the identification of trends, leading to improved safety levels and increased efficiency performance.
Ideagen Gael is partnered with three major FOQA solution suppliers:

  • Aerobytes
  • Flight Data Services
  • Sagem

Ideagen Gael is constantly working with other vendors to increase the scope of Q-Pulse FOQA Integration.

The objectives of FOQA Integration are to:

  • Encourage reporting and investigation of events where operational parameters have been exceeded
  • Improve safety levels and mitigate risk
  • Improve efficiency in the process of safety management
  • Identify trends for analysis and identify changes in processes and procedures where necessary

Aviation Safety Data Sharing Integration with Q-Pulse

ASIAS (Aviation Safety Information Sharing and Analysis System) supported by the FAA and STEADES (Safety Trend Evaluation and Analysis Data Exchange System) provided by IATA and are aviation safety incident data management and analysis programs.

  • ASIAS combines data from a number of sources, including Flight Operations Quality Assurance programs (FOQA), Aviation Safety Action Programs (ASAP), the Aviation Safety Reporting System, the Air Traffic Safety Action Program for air traffic controllers, the national offload program, radar track data and data from ASDE-X.
  • The STEADES database provides the world’s largest database of de-identified airline incident reports, providing a secure environment for airlines to pool safety information for global benchmarking and analysis needs.

Both provide data on key safety performance indicators, helping airlines to benchmark and establish safety performance targets.

Operator data is made available to ASIAS using Application Program Interface (API) capability of Q-Pulse. STEADES integration with Q-Pulse allows customers to provide their data to IATA directly, securely and with confidence to contribute to the powerful analysis tool that IATA provides.

The objectives of STEADES integration is to:

  • Simplify the process for Ideagen Gael’s customers to provide data in a format required by regulators
  • Ensure data is communicated in a secure and confidential manner
  • Provides Ideagen Gael’s customers with the ability to contribute to the appropriate program with minimal effort.