As a new aviation safety manager, one of your most critical responsibilities is ensuring the safety of operations through a robust Safety Management System (SMS). A cornerstone of any effective SMS is the hazard assessment, a proactive process to identify, evaluate, and mitigate risks in aviation operations.
This guide will walk you through how to conduct a hazard assessment that complies with the regulatory frameworks of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), and International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).
With practical examples and actionable steps, you’ll be equipped to enhance safety and meet compliance standards.
A hazard assessment is a systematic process to identify potential hazards in aviation operations, assess their risks, and implement controls to mitigate them. According to ICAO Annex 19, a hazard is any condition, event, or circumstance that could induce an accident or incident. The goal is to prevent safety events by addressing risks before they escalate.
Regulatory bodies like the FAA, EASA, and ICAO mandate hazard assessments as part of an SMS to ensure proactive safety management. For new safety managers, mastering this process is essential to building a safety culture and maintaining compliance.
Regulatory Compliance: FAA, EASA, and ICAO require hazard identification and risk management as core SMS components.
Proactive Safety: Identifying hazards early prevents accidents and incidents.
Operational Efficiency: Mitigating risks reduces disruptions and costs.
Safety Culture: Demonstrates commitment to safety, fostering trust among staff and stakeholders.
Follow these steps to perform a compliant and effective hazard assessment in aviation. Each step aligns with FAA, EASA, and ICAO standards, ensuring global applicability.
Before identifying hazards, define the scope of your assessment. Consider the operational environment, including:
Type of Operation: Commercial air transport, general aviation, maintenance, or ground handling.
Location: Airport, airspace, or maintenance facility.
Stakeholders: Pilots, cabin crew, ground staff, air traffic controllers, and management.
ICAO Doc 9859 emphasizes understanding the operational context to ensure relevant hazards are identified. For example, a hazard assessment for a regional airline operating in mountainous terrain will differ from one for an urban airport’s ground operations.
Example: A small regional airline conducting a hazard assessment for its fleet of turboprop aircraft might focus on operations in adverse weather, short runways, and pilot training.
Hazard identification involves gathering data to pinpoint potential safety risks. Use multiple sources to ensure comprehensive coverage:
Safety Reports: Review voluntary reports, incident reports, and near-miss data.
Employee Input: Engage frontline staff through surveys, interviews, or safety meetings.
Historical Data: Analyze past accidents or incidents in similar operations.
Regulatory Guidance: Refer to FAA Advisory Circulars (e.g., AC 120-92B), EASA Safety Management guidelines, and ICAO Doc 9859.
External Sources: Consult industry reports, such as those from the International Air Transport Association (IATA).
Techniques for Hazard Identification:
Brainstorming: Conduct workshops with cross-functional teams.
Checklists: Use FAA or EASA-provided checklists tailored to specific operations.
What-If Analysis: Pose scenarios like “What if a runway incursion occurs during peak hours?”
Example: During a hazard identification session at a busy airport, ground handling staff report frequent vehicle collisions near taxiways. This is identified as a hazard due to poor visibility and inadequate signage.
Once hazards are identified, evaluate their risks by analyzing likelihood and severity. FAA, EASA, and ICAO recommend using a risk matrix to quantify risks.
Risk Matrix Example:
|
Likelihood |
Severity |
Risk Level |
|---|---|---|
|
Frequent |
Catastrophic |
High |
|
Occasional |
Major |
Medium |
|
Remote |
Minor |
Low |
Likelihood: How often could the hazard occur? (e.g., Frequent, Occasional, Remote)
Severity: What would be the impact? (e.g., Catastrophic, Major, Minor)
FAA AC 120-92B and EASA AMC/GM to Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 provide guidance on risk assessment methodologies. ICAO’s Safety Management Manual (Doc 9859) suggests involving subject matter experts to ensure accuracy.
Example: For the vehicle collision hazard, the likelihood is “Occasional” due to peak-hour traffic, and the severity is “Major” due to potential injuries and aircraft damage. This results in a “Medium” risk level.
Related Articles on Aviation SMS Risk Matrix
Mitigation involves implementing controls to reduce the likelihood or severity of the hazard. Controls should follow the hierarchy of controls:
Elimination: Remove the hazard entirely (e.g., reroute vehicle paths away from taxiways).
Substitution: Replace the hazard with a safer alternative (e.g., use automated tugs instead of manual vehicles).
Engineering Controls: Implement physical changes (e.g., install barriers or warning lights).
Administrative Controls: Update procedures or training (e.g., mandatory safety briefings).
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE): Provide safety gear (e.g., high-visibility vests).
EASA Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 emphasizes that mitigations must be practical and proportionate to the risk. Document all controls to demonstrate compliance during audits.
Example: To mitigate vehicle collisions, the airport installs illuminated signage (engineering control) and mandates refresher training for ground staff (administrative control).
After selecting mitigations, implement them and monitor their effectiveness. This aligns with FAA Part 5 and ICAO Annex 19, which require continuous monitoring within an SMS.
Implementation: Assign responsibilities, set timelines, and allocate resources.
Monitoring: Use safety performance indicators (SPIs) to track outcomes, such as the number of vehicle incidents per month.
Feedback Loop: Collect feedback from staff to identify issues with controls.
Example: After implementing new signage and training, the airport tracks vehicle incidents. A 50% reduction in near-misses within three months indicates effective controls.
Documentation is critical for regulatory compliance and audits. FAA, EASA, and ICAO require records of hazard assessments, risk analyses, and mitigation plans.
Hazard Register: Maintain a database of identified hazards, risks, and controls.
Safety Reports: Submit findings to management and regulatory authorities as required.
Audit Trail: Ensure all steps are traceable for FAA, EASA, or ICAO inspections.
Example: The airport’s hazard register documents the vehicle collision hazard, its medium risk level, implemented controls (signage and training), and monitoring results.
Each regulatory body has specific requirements for hazard assessments within an SMS:
Regulation: 14 CFR Part 5 (SMS for Part 121 operators) mandates hazard identification and risk management.
Guidance: Advisory Circular 120-92B provides tools like risk matrices and checklists.
Key Requirement: Operators must integrate hazard assessments into daily operations and report findings to the FAA.
Regulation: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 requires SMS for air operators, including hazard identification.
Guidance: Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC) and Guidance Material (GM) outline risk assessment processes.
Key Requirement: Operators must demonstrate a proactive approach to safety and maintain a hazard register.
Standard: Annex 19 mandates SMS for all member states, with hazard identification as a core component.
Guidance: Doc 9859 (Safety Management Manual) provides a framework for hazard assessments.
Key Requirement: Assessments must be systematic, documented, and integrated into the SMS.
By aligning your hazard assessment with these standards, you ensure global compliance and enhance interoperability with international partners.
Hazard: Aircraft and ground vehicles entering the runway without clearance.
Context: Small airport with limited air traffic control resources.
Risk Assessment: Likelihood (Occasional), Severity (Catastrophic) = High Risk.
Mitigations:
Engineering: Install runway guard lights.
Administrative: Implement mandatory runway safety training for pilots and drivers.
Monitoring: Track runway incursion incidents via SPIs.
Compliance: Aligns with FAA AC 150/5200-37 and ICAO Annex 14.
Hazard: Pilot fatigue during ultra-long-haul flights.
Context: International airline operating 16-hour flights.
Risk Assessment: Likelihood (Frequent), Severity (Major) = High Risk.
Mitigations:
Administrative: Adjust crew rostering to ensure adequate rest periods.
Substitution: Use augmented crews for long flights.
Monitoring: Monitor fatigue reports and flight data for trends.
Compliance: Meets EASA ORO.FTL and ICAO Annex 6 standards.
Engage Frontline Staff: Pilots, mechanics, and ground crew provide valuable insights into hazards.
Leverage Technology: Use SMS software to streamline hazard tracking and reporting.
Stay Updated: Regularly review FAA, EASA, and ICAO guidance for changes.
Conduct Regular Reviews: Reassess hazards annually or after significant operational changes.
Build a Safety Culture: Encourage open reporting without fear of reprisal.
Challenge: Resistance to reporting hazards due to fear of blame.
Solution: Promote a non-punitive reporting culture, as recommended by ICAO Doc 9859.
Challenge: Limited resources for mitigation.
Solution: Prioritize high-risk hazards and seek cost-effective controls, such as training.
Challenge: Keeping up with regulatory changes.
Solution: Subscribe to FAA, EASA, and ICAO newsletters and attend industry webinars.
Conducting a hazard assessment in aviation is a critical skill for new safety managers. By following a systematic process—
Use the examples and tips provided to build a robust SMS that protects your operations and fosters a culture of safety.
Start your hazard assessment today, engage your team, and take proactive steps to keep safety first. For additional resources, visit the FAA, EASA, or ICAO websites or consult industry experts to refine your approach.
SMS Pro's Proactive Hazard Analysis Tool (PHAT) reduces documentation nightmares for aviation safety managers.