Aviation Safety Regulations Versus CNS/ATM Systems and Aviation Safety Regulations Versus CNS/ATM Systems and Functionalities Functionalities

International Journal of Aviation,
Aeronautics, and Aerospace
Volume 7 Issue 1 Article 8
2020
Aviation Safety Regulations versus CNS/ATM Systems and

Functionalities
Adeyinka Olumuyiwa Osunwusi
National Open University of Nigeria, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.erau.edu/ijaaa
Part of the Aviation Commons
Scholarly Commons Citation

Osunwusi, A. O. (2020). Aviation Safety Regulations versus CNS/ATM Systems and Functionalities.
International Journal of Aviation, Aeronautics, and Aerospace, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.15394/
ijaaa.2020.1448
This Literature Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarly Commons. It has
been accepted for inclusion in International Journal of Aviation, Aeronautics, and Aerospace by an authorized
administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected].
Osunwusi: Aviation Safety and CNS/ATM
The safety, security, efficiency, regularity, and sustainable development of

international civil aviation operations revolve around, and are, therefore, mediated,
administered, and regulated by a number of well-defined legal, policy, regulatory
and methodological frameworks. These frameworks prescribe, inter alia,
mandatory, advisory, prescriptive, or discretionary requirements in respect of
interactivities in the civil aviation milieu.
Fundamentally, in relation to this structured web of legal, policy, regulatory,
and methodological frameworks, the Convention on International Civil Aviation
(otherwise known as the Chicago Convention, 1944), which entered into force on
4 April 1947, clearly represents the locus classicus. This convention established the
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and is in accordance with
Articles 91(b) and 92(b) of the Convention. With an authentic text that incorporates
96 Articles, the Chicago Convention essentially governs the activities of ICAO
Contracting States, which are effectively States that have deposited either
instruments of ratification or notification of adherence in respect of the Convention
to the depositary – the Government of the United States of America.
The Chicago Convention embodies Annexes which have the status of
international Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs). Standards are
specifications “for physical characteristics, configuration, material, performance,
personnel or procedure, the uniform application of which is recognized as necessary
for the safety or regularity of international air navigation and to which Contracting
States will conform in accordance with the Convention” (ICAO, 2011, p. viii) while
Recommended Practices are specifications “for physical characteristics,
configuration, material, performance, personnel or procedure, the uniform
application of which is recognized as desirable in the interest of safety, regularity
or efficiency of international air navigation, and to which Contracting States will
endeavor to conform in accordance with the Convention” (ICAO, 2011, p. viii).
The ICAO’s SARPs have been identified as having made an important contribution
to “enhancing global aviation safety, interoperability, harmonization and
efficiency” (ICAO, 2007a, para. 1.2). Today, there are a total of five Procedures for
Air Navigation (PANS) and 19 Annexes, up from 18 following the addition of
Annex 19 on Safety Management. There are also over 12,000 SARPs across the 19
Annexes and 5 PANS to the Chicago Convention (ICAO, 2019).
PANS, strictly speaking, do not have the same status as SARPs because
while SARPs are adopted by the ICAO Council in pursuance of Article 37 of the
Chicago Convention and subject to the full procedure of Article 90 of the
Convention, the Procedures for Air Navigation are approved by the Council and
recommended to Contracting States for worldwide application (ICAO, 2015).
Frankly speaking, a greater chunk of the legal, policy, regulatory, and
methodological frameworks at the national, sub-regional, and regional levels are
directly distilled from the Chicago Convention 1944 and its Annexes. The Civil
Published by Scholarly Commons, 2020 1

International Journal of Aviation, Aeronautics, and Aerospace, Vol. 7 [2020], Iss. 1, Art. 8
Aviation Regulations of a State are, therefore, a domestication of the Annexes to

the Chicago Convention 1944 and reflect the requirements for uniformity in
standards, regulations, procedures, and organizational structures imposed by
Article 37 of the Convention. Article 38 of the Convention, though, allows a State
to - in the event of departures from international standards and procedures on the
grounds of impracticability of compliance or the desire to adopt differing
regulations or practices - file a notification to that effect with the International Civil
Aviation Organization.
This situation essentially underscores the global dimensions of civil
aviation operations and the global nature of the essential elements of the civil
aviation system. Huang (2009) noted that the risks incurred by civil aviation are
global in nature and that global risks essentially require global management and
call for international concerted action. Global management and international
concerted action in respect of civil aviation operations necessarily exert tremendous
demands not only on the imperativeness of consistency in terms of level of safety
throughout the world but also on the necessity of assuring and maintaining equal
levels of implementation of international civil aviation standards. It is equally true,
though, that, given a number of peculiarities and exigencies – including political,
geographical, developmental, governance and socio-economic realities, and
differences – there will always be challenges in terms of uniformity of
implementation of standards. This notwithstanding, international civil aviation
standards define thresholds below which international civil aviation operations
must not slide.
To ensure the continuing safety, security, efficiency, regularity, and
sustainable development of air navigation, a number of the Articles of the Chicago
Convention (e.g. Articles 12, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28, 32, and 37) impose wide-ranging
obligations and responsibilities on States. Article 12, for example, provides that
each Contracting State undertakes: to adopt measures to insure that every aircraft
flying over or maneuvering within its territory and every aircraft carrying its
nationality mark, wherever such aircraft may be, shall comply with applicable rules
and regulations; to maintain the uniformity of its regulations with those established
from time to time under the Convention; and to ensure the prosecution of all persons
violating applicable regulations.
Of particular significance to operational safety and security is Article 32,
under which a State incurs a responsibility in the area of facilitating the issuance of
certificates of competency and licenses or the validation of such certificates or
licenses issued by other States. To say the least, Article 32 to the Chicago
Convention is critically germane to ensuring and assuring not only the continuing
safety and security of international civil aviation operations but also the efficiency,
sustainability, regularity, and economic development of international air
navigation. The Article simply demands from States a responsibility that essentially
https://commons.erau.edu/ijaaa/vol7/iss1/8
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15394/ijaaa.2020.1448 2
targets the identification of functions and jobs that are critical to operational safety
and security as well as the appropriate training and licensing/certification of
personnel performing the identified functions and jobs.
Specifically, a license authorizes the performance of defined activities or
functions which should otherwise be prohibited given the potentially serious
implications of such functions or activities being performed improperly. The
overall objective, of course, is not only to provide a set of standards, practices, and
operational procedures which must be adhered to by the personnel so certified but
also to enthrone a virile mechanism for the confirmation of personnel competency
and for holding the personnel responsible and accountable for any actions
undertaken in the performance of their safety-critical duties, including any act of
commission or omission.
This paper explores the concept and nature of aviation safety within the
broader context of safety and safety regulation; examines the safety dimensions of
CNS/ATM (communication, navigation, surveillance/air traffic management)
systems and functionalities and identifies the critical elements of the air navigation
safety web. In addition, it examines the main issues and challenges relating to air
navigation safety, and presents an argument for globally-inclusive considerations
in respect of a harmonized approach to the regulation of all the safety-critical
elements of air navigation service, particularly the certification and/or licensing of
CNS/ATM systems and functionalities.
The Concept and Nature of Aviation Safety

The term ‘safety’ has been subjected to a wide variety of definitions and
conceptualizations with the implication that today there is, according to Fisher
(2006), the absence of a formal, operational definition for the term. Fisher (p. 14)
argues that the absence of an operational definition of safety and the resultant
susceptibility of the term to wide, subjective interpretations have the potential of
not only hindering “consistency in the delivery of regulatory programmes and
quantitative performance measurement” but also resulting in “conflicting priorities
and the consequent allocation of resources to lesser issues.”
This scenario notwithstanding, extant conceptualizations and
interpretations of the term reveal elements of consistency with operational realities
in the civil aviation realm. Transport Canada Civil Aviation’s (TCCA) working
definition of safety projects the term “safety” as “the condition where risks are
managed to acceptable levels” (Fisher, 2006, p. 14). Using a variation of the
definition provided by Hollnagel (2008), Lofquist, Greve and Olsson (2011) simply
describe safety as “a process that produces outcomes that are safe” (p. 532). Safety
has also been defined as the state in which the risk of harm to persons or property
is reduced to, and maintained at or below, an acceptable level through a continuing
process of hazard identification and risk management (EUROCONTROL, 2006).

Safety has been identified as an essential element for the existence of civil
aviation (Mwikya & Mulwa, 2018) and has always been the prime reflection in the
conduct of all aviation activities (Bala et al, 2013) aside from having been
proclaimed by the aviation industry as its primary objective (Billings, 1997).
Safety is aviation’s first priority and is at the core of ICAO’s Strategic
Objectives, which also incorporate goals such as capacity and efficiency, security
and facilitation, economic development, and environmental protection. This creates
a multi-dimensional orientation that is a reflection of the increasing complexity and
dynamic nature of the civil aviation industry.
Aviation has been appropriately conceptualized as “a large industry, a true
system of systems” that must necessarily be managed as such (European
Commission, 2018, p. 11). As Lofquist (2010, p. 6) has also rightly noted: “The
civil aviation industry can be described as a complex system of overlapping socio-
technical systems embedded within a highly competitive business environment,
where safety is a primary, but not the only, goal.” For this reason, aviation safety
requires a multidisciplinary approach involving the technical, economic,
managerial, and legal perspectives (Huang, 2009) while the reliability of the
infrastructure in use constitutes one of the key elements of the safety of any modern
mode of transportation (Borener & Guzhva, 2014).
Conceptualized within the framework of civil aviation operations, safety
presents a two-pronged manifestation – from the perspective of operational safety
and from the technical perspective, otherwise referred to as system safety. Maurino
(2017) describes system safety as an engineering discipline whose objective is to
ensure the safety of technical system by designing “safety” into the system during
the system’s development. Maurino claims that “the significant progress in
technology accomplished by aviation between the 1960s and the 1980s was in no
small degree due to the contribution of system safety” (p. 8). From a historical
perspective, the author further highlights a four-step hierarchical precedence-based
architecture of intervention – design to eliminate safety concerns, incorporate
safety devices, provide warning devices, and develop procedures and training –
which emphasizes the exclusivity of improving technical systems and the
implications of human error in the course of actual system operations.
Within the context of its characteristic dynamism and complexity, the
aviation industry has always existed as an embodiment of a tremendous vitality,
which, according to Jung et al (2018), is premised upon the existence of a well-
established and global partnership. One of the key elements to maintaining the
vitality of civil aviation is ensuring safe, secure, efficient and environmentally
sustainable operation at the global, regional and national levels (Mwikya & Mulwa,
2018).
To say the least, security, efficiency, regularity, and environmental
sustainability are closely linked to the safety of civil aviation. For this reason, 16
of the Chicago Convention’s 19 Annexes deal with safety, including the Annexes
that relate to the efficiency and security of air navigation. Also, four PANS deal
with the issue of the safety and efficiency of air navigation.
There is, though, a clear distinction between aviation safety and aviation
security. Oster, Strong and Zorn (2013, p. 161) explains the distinction thus:
Improving aviation security involves thwarting attempts by individuals to
disrupt, damage, or destroy parts of the aviation system intentionally.
Improving other aspects of aviation safety involves reducing the chances
that unintentional mistakes or unexpected failures of parts of the system will
reduce the safety of air travel.
Notwithstanding this distinction, the fact remains that safety includes
security (Huang, 2009) and aviation security is an important part of aviation safety
(Oster et al., 2013). According to Huang (2009, p. 5), “No matter how airworthy an
aircraft is, and how competent its crew members are, air travel will not be safe if it
is subject to terrorist attacks.”
Aviation safety is essentially paradigmatic and multi-dimensional as its
nature rests squarely with a wide variety of operational, technical, and regulatory
exigencies. It has become the concern of the whole world and its importance is
unanimously recognized (Huang, 2009) just as it is also seen as “central to ensuring
that air transport continues to play a major role in driving sustainable economic and
social development” (Jung et al, 2018, p. 1).
The nature of aviation safety is such that there is nothing like absolute safety
or the complete elimination of risks, accidents, or incidents. This situation has been
attributed to the nature of the aviation industry, which renders the total elimination
of accidents or serious incidents unachievable (Bala et al., 2013). It has been
observed that if aviation must be free from any dangers or risks, it will not even
exist at all because flight is inherently a risky venture carried out in a hostile
environment at great speed (Huang, 2009). The importance of this reality is actually
the fact that the safety, security, and efficiency of aviation revolves around
regulatory, administrative, and operational approaches that are not only systematic,
proactive, multi-dimensional, and dynamic but also completely devoid of
complacency. As the late Dr. Assad Kotaite, the then President of the Council of
ICAO, had rightly reiterated in his opening address to the 2006 Directors General
of Civil Aviation Conference on a Global Strategy for Aviation Safety (ICAO,
2006, sec. 7.1) “There is absolutely no room for complacency where safety is
concerned, there never was and there never will be”.

Aviation Safety: A Paradigm Shift

There have been considerable improvements in aviation safety records and
this situation can be attributed to a wide variety of operational, technical, and
regulatory factors. Dehais et al. (2015) ascribe these improvements in safety records
to the development of automation in aviation, while Oster, Strong and Zorn (2013)
attribute the improvement in aviation safety to technological improvements in
aircraft, avionics and engines, improvement in navigational aids and air traffic
management, improvement in weather forecasting, and better understanding of
weather phenomena such as downdrafts and wind shear.
Paradoxically, these improvements have the potential to metamorphose into
a double-edged sword. Borener and Guzhva (2014) have argued, in relation to air
traffic management (ATM) operations, that the technological advances that
improve ATM efficiency and safety have a secondary impact in the form of what
the authors referred to as “degraded modes from malfunctioning or inoperable
systems” (p. 1753). With this perspective, the increasing betterment of the aviation
safety records consequent upon technological evolution may well be considered to
be more of a paradoxical phenomenon that requires a paradigm shift in safety
approaches in order to continue to ensure the safety, efficiency, and security of air
navigation.
Historically, aviation safety has been built upon the reactive analysis of past
accidents as well as the introduction of corrective actions to prevent the
reoccurrence of those events (Bala et al., 2014). This overture deploys the
prescriptive approach to managing safety and is also based exclusively on strict
compliance with regulatory requirements. It is premised upon an acceptance of the
fact that “learning from safety occurrences is an essential component to improving
aviation safety” (ICAO, 2007b, para. 1.1). It equally emphasizes a research focus
on aviation safety, which has been riveted on “analyzing accidents, investigating
their causes, and recommending corrective action” (Oster et al., 2013, p. 149).
Interestingly, however, the trend today is towards increasing emphasis on
proactive and predictive systems to manage safety (Galotti, Rao, & Maurino, 2006).
This is being driven by contemporary realities, including the reality of “a rapidly
expanding industry and limited resources at oversight authorities” (Galotti et al.,
2006, p. 6) as well as “evolving aviation safety realities particularly the connection
between organizational issues and safety and the complexities of human
performance within operational contexts” (Osunwusi, 2014, pp. 6, 10). These
realities are actually revealing the sheer inadequacy of this reactive and
predominantly regulatory approach to improving aviation safety thus forcing a
paradigm shift towards a systematic approach to aviation safety that integrates risk
management, compliance-based safety strategies and performance-based safety
approaches as well as emphasizes human factors and the organizational dimensions
of safety.
It has been argued that aviation safety goes beyond accident prevention
from a technical point of view and extends to more profound political, strategic,
and legal dimensions, including preventive, remedial, and punitive measures
(Huang, 2009). For this reason, there has been a shift towards a more proactive
approach, which, in the words of Oster et al. (2013, p. 149), “involves identifying
emerging risk factors, characterizing these risks through modeling exposure and
consequences, prioritizing this risk, and making recommendations with regard to
necessary improvements.”
This proactive approach conceptualizes aviation safety as a multi-
dimensional and multi-sectorial paradigm and extends the horizon of aviation
safety to capture the entire spectrum of aviation safety management, thus
culminating in the concept of Safety Management, which, according to Thomas
represents a collection of specific practices for organizational safety management
that has “emerged as a conglomerate of safety-related activities that enabled an
organization to discharge their responsibilities under the spectra of self-regulation”
(2012, pp. 1-2). It aims, in the words of Maurino (2017, p. 11), “at turning safety
and its management in socio-technical systems into a business function, along lines
similar to those through which finance, legal, human resources, quality and any
other business of the organization are managed as business functions.” It
emphasizes a systems approach on safety, while focusing, at an aviation
organization, on safety of the operation and the types of hazards that can contribute
to a catastrophic accident (Roelen & Klompstra, 2012), with the overall goal of
allowing the identification and management of flaws before accidents occur
(Kaspers et al, n.d.). Lofquist (2010, pp. 5-6) describes this type of approach as one
involving “interaction and involvement from the system operators and business
leaders and managers responsible for both system performance and for safety
outcomes prior to undesired events”, whilst also requiring “a robust safety
management system that is integrated into the overall strategic business objectives
of an organization within an expanded industrial business context that can
anticipate changes in an operative environment while balancing safety with
economic goals.”
The global civil aviation realm took a bold step towards proactive and
systematic safety strategies with the adoption on February 2013 by the ICAO
Council of Annex 19 – Safety Management – with an applicability date of
November 2013. As aviation safety management is becoming a regulatory
requirement rather than an industry best practice (Roelen & Klompstra, 2012),
ICAO has introduced - under a provision that took effect on 24 November 2006 - a
new requirement for States to ensure:
• The establishment of Safety Management System (SMS) as well as
an acceptable level of safety; and

•
The implementation of SMS by aviation organizations, specifically
aircraft operators, aircraft maintenance organizations, air traffic
service providers and certified aerodrome operators. (Osunwusi,
2014, p. 11)
Safety Management system (SMS) is defined as “the systematic
management of all activities to secure an acceptable level of safety” (van der Geest
et al., 2003, p. 33) or a planned, documented and verifiable method of managing
hazards and associated risks (Bottomley, 1999, cited in Thomas, 2012), which
effectively moves the primary mechanism for safety management from prescriptive
regulation to organizational responsibility (Thomas, 2012).
Thomas (2012) identifies three transitional phases for safety management.
Based on the transition of safety management from the fragile system of 1920s to
1970s – typified by accident investigation and individualized risk management –
and the safe system of 1970 to mid-1990s – typified by incident investigation and
technology/regulation to the modern Ultra-safe system of mid-1990s onwards,
typified by business management approach to safety, Thomas (2012, p. 3) also
defines SMS as the “third age of safety.”
Two interesting paradigmatic perspectives on safety have emerged from the
evolving proactive, predictive, and systematic approach to managing safety,
particularly within the context of human factors and the organizational
ramifications of safety. These perspectives relate to the emergence of the concepts
of “Safety Intelligence” and “Safety Wisdom.” Safety intelligence refers to the
various sources of quantitative information – incident data and other safety
information on precursor events – which an organization may use to identify and
assess various threats, and to provide “reasonable predictions about likely accidents
and measures to avoid them” (Makins et al., 2016, p. 3).
Safety Intelligence, as reiterated in ICAO (2013), not only “provides
actionable information used to drive ICAO’s safety strategy and programmes” but
also “enables the organization to create a holistic understanding of safety issues by
consolidating and benchmarking a number of safety performance indicators and
providing guidance used to develop assistance for Member States, regional and sub-
regional organizations” (p. 17). Safety wisdom, on its part, refers to “the judgment
and decision-making of those in senior positions who must decide what to do to
remain safe, and how they use quantitative and qualitative information to support
those decisions” (Makins et al., 2016, p. 5). It, therefore, rests squarely upon the
critical-thinking ability of those at the top of the organizational hierarchy as well as
on the perceptions of those leaders in relation to the philosophies of aviation safety
vis-à-vis organizational goals.
Another paradigmatic shift that has emerged from the safety management
concept is the organizational principle of safety culture or just culture, a paradigm
that the European Commission (2018) has referred to as an enduring safety mindset.
Safety or just culture represents a principle that lays a strong emphasis on a non-
punitive approach to safety information through an enduring protection of not only
the information but also those who file such information. It also emphasizes the
safety significance of non-criminalization of incidents and accidents. To be sure,
the presence of internal rules for Just Culture is already an important aspect of
European aviation organizations in keeping with Article 16(11) of Regulation (EU)
No. 376/2014.
Safety Dimensions of CNS/ATM Systems and Functionalities

Aviation accidents and incidents are not, to say the least, stand-alone
occurrences. As succinctly posited in the 2009 final report of the Causal Model of
Air Transport Safety project commissioned by the Netherlands’ Ministry of
Transport and Water Management,
Aviation accidents tend to result from a combination of many different
causal factors (human errors, technical failures, environmental and
management influences) in certain characteristic accident categories (loss
of control, collision, fire etc.), whose causes and consequences differ
according to the phase of flight in which they occur (taxi, take-off, en-route
etc.). (Ale et al., 2009, p. 8)
In ECORYS’ (2013) study, five accident categories are identified – based
on the EUROCONTROL Accident Incident Model – where ATM may contribute
significantly in terms of accident causation or prevention. The accident categories
comprise: mid-air collision, CFIT (controlled flight into terrain), runway collision,
taxiway collision, and wake turbulence accident. Interestingly, the air transport
operational sphere is replete with the history of accidents or incidents that
underscore the safety ramifications of CNS/ATM systems and functionalities in
respect of some of the accident categories identified in the ECORYS’ study or in
relation to the phases of flight highlighted in Ale et al (2009).
An often cited event in connection with the safety dimensions of CNS/ATM
technical operations is the fatal mid-air collision at an altitude of 34,890 feet on the
night of July 1, 2002 involving Bashkirian Airlines Flight 2937, a Tupolev TU-154
passenger jet on a northern heading of 004°, and DHL Flight 611, a Boeing 757
cargo jet on a western heading of 274°, over Ueberlingen, Germany in airspace
controlled by Switzerland’s private air navigation service provider - Skyguide. The
accident killed the two crew members of the Boeing 757 and all the 69 passengers
and crew aboard the Tupolev TU-154, including 45 Russian school children who
were on a school trip to Costa Dorada, Spain. Investigators identified a number of
causative factors including: procedural ambiguities in respect of TCAS’ use; and a
number of technical and procedural shortcomings on the part of Skyguide.
The series of CNS/ATM –related events contributing to the Ueberlingen
accident included a sectorisation work being carried out in the night from 1 to 2

July, 2002, in order to re-arrange the Zurich area control sectors for which there
were neither briefings regarding the technical and operational implications nor
coordination with adjacent air traffic control (ATC) units; the maintenance work
being carried out, consequent upon the sectorisation exercise, on the image
processing system of the main radar, which resulted in the use of a fallback system
with the consequence of delayed radar data and an increase of the separation
minimum from 5 to 7 NM. Other issues included the switching off for maintenance
of the ground-based optical collision warning system, which could have drawn the
attention of the duty air traffic controller (ATCO) to the pending collision; the lack
of information to the duty ATCO, who was handling two workstations at the time
of the accident, in respect of the maintenance of the main radar and the optical
collision warning system; the non-availability to the Skyguide ATCO at the time
of the accident of direct phone connections with adjacent ATC units; and the lack
of an automatic change-over of incoming calls to the bypass system.
One particular downside of the outcome of the Ueberlingen accident is that
Peter Nielsen, the lone ATCO handling the airspace at the time of the accident, and
not an ATSEP (air traffic safety electronics personnel), had to pay the supreme
price when, on February 24, 2004, he was stabbed and killed by a Russian, Vitaly
Kaloyev, who had lost his wife and two children in the accident.
Beyond the Ueberlingen accident, there are quite a number of accidents or
incidents where investigations had initially targeted the functional integrity of CNS
systems or where either on-board avionics working cooperatively with ground-
based CNS/ATM systems or a component of the CNS system has been implicated.
An example is Alitalia Flight AZ404, a DC 9 airliner, which crashed into the
Stadlerberg Mountain, Weiach, Switzerland on 14 November 1990, as it
approached Runway 14 of Zurich Airport, Switzerland on an international
passenger flight that originated from Milan Linate Airport, Italy killing all 46
people on board. Investigation found multiple factors leading to CFIT (controlled
flight into terrain) with the initial focus of investigators being on whether the ILS
was sending the proper signal consequent upon the mysterious glide path shown on
the Radar track. Aside from pilot error and GPWS (ground proximity warning
system) failure caused by a short-circuit on the NAV receiver, investigation
concluded that the pilot’s Instrument Landing System (ILS) display provided
incorrect values due to a faulty NAV receiver as the ADI/HSI had apparently
captured the glide slope.
Less than a year before Ueberlingen, specifically on October 8, 2001, at
Milano Linate Airport, Italy, a Scandinavian Airlines MD 87 jet, on a take-off,
crashed into a private Cessna 525 aircraft, which had strayed onto the runway in
dense fog, killing all 110 passengers and crew aboard the MD 87 and all 4
passengers and crew aboard the Cessna as well as 4 airport workers on the ground.
The lack of an Advanced Surface Movement Guidance and Control System (A-
SMGCS) radar at Linate prevented the ATCO from detecting the presence of the
Cessna on taxiway R6 intersecting the runway. The deployment of the same type
of surveillance system could have also helped to prevent aviation’s deadliest
disaster at Los Rodeos (now Tenerife-North Airport) on March 27, 1977, which
recorded 583 fatalities.
There is also the case of Loftleider Icelandic Airways Flight LL001, a DC
8 airliner operated on behalf of Garuda Indonesia Airways, which crashed, on 15
November 1978, into a rubber and coconut plantation about 2 kilometres from the
threshold of runway 22 of Colombo-Katunayake Airport, Sri Lanka while on a
Radar vectored ILS approach, killing 183 out of the 262 people on board. Although
the probable causes of the accident were crew’s error, erroneous distance/altitude
information provided by the Radar controller and the failure of approach lighting
system, the Icelandic Directorate of Civil Aviation blamed the accident on
inadequate maintenance of ILS facilities resulting in a downward bending of the
glide path approximately 3.5 nautical miles from touchdown zone. The Icelandic
authority also revealed that the ILS at Colombo-Katunayake Airport had not been
calibrated for 11 months as against international calibration policy requiring ground
checks and flight calibration to be carried out once in three months and once every
six months respectively.
The reference to inadequate maintenance of ILS facilities as a causative
factor in a fatal air accident is not only an unmistakable pointer to the safety
criticality of CNS/ATM systems and functionalities but is also a clear wake-up call
to the need for globally-inclusive and internationally harmonized and standardized
procedures for assuring the competency and certification of personnel involved in
the task of ensuring the adequate maintenance, operation, trouble shooting and
calibration of safety-critical CNS/ATM systems. Underscoring the significance of
this reality and having regard to the need “to safeguard against erosion of technical
expertise”, van der Geest et al. (2003, p. 123) have, through Recommendation 7-3
in the seminal report on Aviation Safety Management in Switzerland, re-echoed the
need for the licensing and certification of air traffic safety electronics personnel
(ATSEP) and ATC equipment. Aside from this, the ATSEPs have been identified
as playing a crucial part in the ATM system such that “mistakes of the ATSEPs
might lead to incorrect operation of systems, with a potential negative impact on
safety” (ECORYS, 2013, p. 30).
Two air events – an incident with no fatality and an accident involving 229
fatalities – vividly depict the possible nexus between CNS/ATM-related
inadequacies, confusion, and failures and the possibility of a CFIT accident. The
incident involved an Air New Zealand Flight NZ60 – a Boeing 767 – on an auto-
coupled ILS approach to runway 08 at Faleolo International Airport, Apia, Western
Samoa, which, on the night of 29 July 2000, carried out a missed approach from an
altitude of about 400ft, some 6 miles short of the runway due to a suspected

erroneous glideslope capture. The timely go-around executed by the pilot in

command helped to avert a CFIT that could have claimed 176 lives. Investigations
revealed that the NZ60 crew had knowledge of NOTAMs on the status of Faleolo,
including the fact that the ILS Glideslope had no standby transmitter and the fact
that the ILS Glideslope, VOR, and ILS/DME were unmonitored. Investigations
also revealed that the ILS Glideslope was actually in the control (monitor) bypass
mode and operating without standby transmitter. With this, the unserviceable
transmitter was sending out invalid glideslope guidance information with the
transmission of only the Carrier plus Side Bands (CSB) while the Side Bands only
(SBO) signal was missing. The aircraft’s on-board cockpit glide path and localizer
indications, though, were perfectly normal. The NZ60 incident actually provoked a
response from the Secretary General of ICAO through the issuance of State Letter
AN 7/5-01/52 dated 11 May, 2001, on the general subject of incidents caused by
operational use of ILS signals radiated during testing and maintenance procedures.
The air accident, which killed 229 passengers and crew, occurred on August
6, 1997, and involved Korean Air Flight 801 – a Boeing 747-300 – which crashed
into a remote area on Nimitz Hill, some 3 nautical miles short of the runway while
on approach to runway 6L of Antonio B. Won Pat International Airport in the U.S.
territory of Guam. The CNS/ATM issues related to the event included: the fact that
the airport’s ILS Glideslope was unserviceable, while the captain believed it was in
service; and the crew’s confusion about the location of the DME such that while
the captain believed that the system was sited at the airport, it was actually located
at the NIMITZ VOR site located some 3.3 nautical miles from the airport.
Aside from the direct implication of CNS/ATM facility functional
inadequacy or failure on the safety of air navigation, quite a number of studies has
established positive correlations between CNS/ATM performance and/or service
availability and the safety and efficiency of air traffic services. A 2014 study
(Borener & Guzhva, 2014), which probed the direct impact of communication and
surveillance facility service outages on aviation safety in terms of traffic separation
events, found that unscheduled service outages of ATM systems were associated
with lost or reduced traffic separation events, albeit the likelihood of a separation
event was not dependent upon the type of facility that experienced a service outage.
The seminal study – conducted with a data sample comprising 222 communication
and 116 surveillance unscheduled service outages – revealed that the reduced or
lost traffic separations associated with ATM facility service outages can be
considered precursors to hazardous loss of traffic separation events.
Beyond air accidents and incidents, the safety significance of CNS/ATM
technical operation is underscored, to a greater extent, by the increasing
complexities of air navigation services, the continuous and sustained growth of
traffic volumes worldwide, and the huge financial implication of investments in air
navigation systems (vis-à-vis the emergence of new business models and their
implications on safety). There is also the continuous emergence of new

technologies, which is driving a revolutionary paradigm shift towards
modernization, harmonization, system interoperability and extensive networking.
Of particular relevance to the emergence of new technologies is the emerging
threats and risks of cyber security to civil aviation operations.
As a corollary, the ongoing rapid transformation of the roles, jobs, and
functions of ATSEPs consequent upon the increasing complexity of CNS/ATM
operational and technical environments as well as the exponential growths of
technological innovations, particularly the increasing incursion of automation
technology into the CNS/ATM techno-operational terrains also constitutes a clear
pointer to the safety dimensions of CNS/ATM systems and functionalities. It has
been argued that “the heterogeneity and complexity of existing and emerging
automated CNS/ATM systems are re-defining not only the roles and tasks of
ATSEP but also issues surrounding their competency, certification, and
authorization” (Osunwusi, 2019, p. 13).
This dimension brings into focus the safety dimension of the human
elements in civil aviation operations. The human element, according to Dumitru
and Boscoianu (2015, sec. 1) “is the most flexible, adaptable and valuable part of
the aeronautical environment, while being the most vulnerable.” The vulnerabilities
surrounding the human element actually represent the key element underscoring
the safety significance of aviation operations. They also exert great demands in
respect of the institutionalization of competency-based, certification-enabled, and
globally-harmonized procedures and mechanisms for safely managing and
mitigating the hazardous effects of these vulnerabilities.
Elements of the Air Navigation Safety Web

In managing safety and creating the margin of safety, aviation has always
relied on overlapping and interacting systems (Oster et al., 2013) consequent upon
the inherent dynamic and complex nature of the industry. The aviation system has
been described as being not merely safe, but resilient (European Commission,
2018) while air traffic services have been conceptualized as team efforts that
necessarily involve different groups working collaboratively to deliver a seamless
service to the aircraft (ICAO, 2004). However, in terms of what actually constitute
aviation safety, including operational flight safety, a holistic consideration and
examination of these “overlapping and interacting systems” are important not only
for a meaningful conceptualization of the paradigm of aviation safety but also for
the effective and efficient management of safety.
In relation to the shortcomings attending investigations into air accidents
and incidents in recent times, Lofquist (2010) identifies, as one problem for the
civil aviation industry, the excessive focus upon incidents and accidents as
extraordinary events, while Oster, Strong and Zorn (2013, p. 150) note rather

frankly that by “focusing on the root cause of an accident, organizational and

managerial conditions that contributed to the accident may be overlooked.” It can
also be argued, as a corollary, that by focusing attention on a restrictive set of
functionalities to the exclusion of others that are clearly enmeshed in the same
safety web, functionalities as well as technical, operational, and administrative
elements that impact operational safety may be overlooked.
The implication of this argument is that aviation safety is effectively a
multi-dimensional and multi-sectorial concept whose influence permeates every
fabric of the aviation system. Within this perspective, this paper proposes, as
illustrated in Figure 1, the safety-critical elements of the air navigation safety web,
based on functions and jobs relevant to air navigation and ATM.
A function is defined in ECORYS’ (ECORYS, 2013, pp. 15-16) study on
safety-related and safety-critical functions and jobs in Air Traffic Management/Air
Navigation Services (ATM/ANS) as “an activity performed either by humans or a
system which transforms an input into an output on the basis of established
procedures and objectives” while a job is “all activities, intellectual and physical,
performed by a person undertaking his/her prescribed duties”.
ATSEP
AERO
COMMS
ATCO
ANSP AIS
AEROMET
FLIGHT
CAA CREW
AIRPORT
AUTHORITY AIRLINE AME
CABIN
DISPATCHER CREW
Figure 1: Air Navigation Safety Web.
The study also identifies functions and jobs within the ATM/ANS services
that are “safety-related” and “safety-critical;” a safety-related function being a
function, the failure of which could impact safety and a safety-related job being a
job that “involves performing at least one safety-related function” (p. 33) while “A
function is safety-critical if a failure of the function could impact the safety and
there are no barriers within the ATM/ANS system to prevent an accident following
the of the function” (p. 33) and a job is safety-critical “if the job involves
performing at least one safety-critical function” (p. 33).
Based on the definitions of safety-related and safety-critical functions and
jobs and the application of the EUROCONTROL Accident Incident Model, which
was originally christened the “Integrated Risk Picture (IRP) model”, the ECORYS
study identifies a total of 143 safety-related functions with the following 26 jobs
regarded as safety-related: Air traffic controller, ATC supervisor, ATC instructor,
ATC Assessor, ATC Examiner, ATSEP – System Monitoring and Control, ATSEP
– Surveillance, ATSEP – Navigation, ATSEP – Communication, ATSEP – Data
Processing, ATSEP – Instructor, Meteorological information officer, Aeronautical
information service officer, Aerodrome Flight Information officer, Flight
information service officer, Airspace Management Cell (AMC) coordinator, High
level airspace policy makers, Network management officer, Flow Management
Position (FMP), Airspace designers, Navigation data provision officer, ATM/ANS
technical system designer, On-the-Job-Training-Instructor, HR Manager, Staff
instructor, and safety management officer.
Of the 143 safety-related functions identified, 28 functions and 9 associated
jobs are regarded as safety-critical. The safety-critical jobs are: Air traffic
controller, ATSEP – System Monitoring and Control, ATSEP – Surveillance,
ATSEP – Navigation, ATSEP – Communication, ATSEP – Data Processing,
Aeronautical information service officer, Navigation data provision officer, and
ATM/ANS technical system designer.
Aside from this, and having regard to the nature and safety significance of
the jobs and functions of CNS/ATM technical personnel, the International Labour
Organization (ILO) - in its International Standard Classification of Occupations
and under ILO List of Professional Occupations No. 3155-ISCO 88 Minor Group
(ILO, 2012, p. 75) – classifies ATSEPs as aviation professionals who occupy the
same professional level as air traffic controllers, aircraft pilots and related associate
professionals.
Air Navigation Safety: Issues and Challenges

The safety of air navigation revolves around a wide variety of factors
emanating from both within and outside the aviation system. The Working Paper
A36-WP/242, presented by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Member States of
the Arab Civil Aviation Commission (ACAC) to the 36th Session of the ICAO

General Assembly in 2007, emphasize the fact that “Development and growth of
air traffic at the international level require the adoption of modern methodologies,
mechanisms and approaches in planning and implementing all elements relating to
air navigation” (ICAO, 2007c, para. 4.1).
The expanding aviation system of today “comprises multiple and
interrelated systems that are geopolitically diverse, technologically complex and
highly multidisciplinary” (ICAO, 2013, p. 4). With this perspective, the question of
whether the aviation industry will continue to be characterized by steady
transformations is, perhaps, no longer open to debate. These transformations may
not necessarily be limited to the future as they are actually becoming realities in the
contemporary aviation realm. It is also clear that the transformational movement
will continue to reveal issues and challenges that have far-reaching implications for
the safety of civil aviation operations.
Smith, Roelen and den Hertog (2016, p. 3) note that transformations
affecting the future of aviation system will come in the following two distinct
categories:
• Progressive or rapid-onset physical, functional, and procedural
changes that stakeholders plan for the aviation system with the
deliberate intention of improving throughput, safety and/or
efficiency/economics.
• Unintentional technological innovation, shifting operational tasks,
subtle changes in organizations or actors in the system, and
contextual factors external to aviation itself that can nonetheless
influence the robustness of the support systems upon which
operational safety depends.
The European Commission (2018) identifies five major challenges to safety

in aviation. These are: 1) New Business Models ( the development of new business
models due to the development of new technologies and increasing business
competitiveness); 2) Automation (the increasing automation of aviation and the
safety implications of automation failures); 3) Drones (the increasing presence of
unmanned aircraft and challenges associated with safety and regulation); 4) Cyber-
security (the emerging threats of cyber-attacks); and 5) Adverse weather (the safety
implications of weather-induced phenomena such as icing, thunderstorms, fog,
micro bursts, and so on).
Oster et al (2013) identify the emerging issues and challenges in aviation
safety as including: challenges relating to improving and maintaining the
remarkable improvements in safety performance; issues surrounding the increasing
development of larger and long-range aircraft and the concomitant demands in
terms of reliability and performance; issues surrounding the extension of the safety
record of large airlines to other less safe segments of commercial aviation;
challenge relating to the increasing need to factor in safety risks from aviation
infrastructure especially in respect of airport/runway operations and air navigation;
issues surrounding the imperativeness of human factors in aviation safety; and
challenges relating to the need to improve and extend data analytics.
In relation to the provision of air navigation services, the International
Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) has identified challenges relating to
corporatization, privatization, outsourcing, and subcontracting, which have “led to
increasing fragmentation both in the provision of air traffic services and in the
maintenance of navigational aids and ground-based equipment such as radar and
telecommunications” (ICAO, 2004, sub-section 1.1.). There are also challenges
related to environmental issues (including the problem of carbon emission), the
increasing evolution of new technologies, and the emerging threats and risks of
cyber security.
CNS/ATM Functionalities: Certification Considerations

One phenomenal dilemma of the global aviation safety realm is the
undeniable fact that while the aviation system and aviation safety issues have
steadily maintained their dynamic and multi-dimensional nature, the mechanisms
for international standards, rules, and modus operandi from which national safety
frameworks at institutional, regulatory, and legal levels draw their sustenance have
remained, to a great extent, characteristically static, one-dimensional and
bureaucratic. The existing regulatory frameworks for air navigation services and air
traffic management on the global, regional and national levels are essentially
disproportionate, disjointed, and incomprehensive.
Presently, there is a noticeable lack of any form of harmonized and globally-
inclusive approach to system and personnel regulation as far as the provision of air
navigation services, specifically CNS/ATM services, are concerned. This
represents a fundamental safety gap particularly given the fact that such regulations
have the potential of serving as a vehicle for fostering and ensuring the continuing
safety, efficiency, and security of international air navigation. Kistan, Gardi and
Sabatini note:
While there is a comprehensive regulatory framework for ATM
(International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA), FAA, Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), etc.),
today, ground-based ATM systems are not required to be formally certified
in the same manner as avionics. For example, ATM systems are not
required to comply with either the Radio Technical Commission for
Aeronautics (RTCA) DO-278 or DO-254. (2018, p. 13)
Van der Geest et al. (2003) have also noted not only the fact that ATC
equipment, unlike aeronautical equipment, is not certified but also the fact that ATC
equipment technicians are not licensed contrary to almost all other personnel in

aviation. While observing that Switzerland’s Skyguide is not an exception, the

authors posited that “it does nevertheless seem illogical that rulemaking around
safety critical equipment and the associated personnel are so poorly developed”
(van der Geest, 2003, p. 81). In the context of the European Union, this lack of a
comprehensive regulatory framework for ground-based ATM systems extends, as
revealed in the ECORYS’ ( ECORYS, 2013, p. 11) study, to “other functions and
jobs related to the design, production and maintenance of ATM/ANS systems and
constituents as defined in Regulation (EC) No. 1108/2009.”
As noted in the ECORYS’ (2013) report, although the European Union’s
(EU) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 1035/2011 establishes
safety provisions in respect of the engineering and technical personnel involved in
the provision of CNS/ATM services, the regulation “neither provides any criterion
for the definition of safety-related or safety-critical tasks performed by engineering
and technical personnel, nor does it establish any requirement for its
implementation” (ECORYS, 2013, p. 11). Aside from the noticeable absence of a
comprehensive regulatory framework for CNS/ATM systems, the existing
procedural and regulatory frameworks relating to the certification of CNS/ATM
functionalities are equally disproportionate, and disjointed both at the global and
regional levels. For instance, while there is a lack of a comprehensive licensing
framework for air traffic safety electronics personnel (ATSEPs) in relation to the
European Union, Commission Regulation (EU) No. 805/2011, which regulates air
traffic controllers (ATCOs), contains specific requirements for the licensing of air
traffic controllers, including persons and organisations involved therein, albeit
there is a formalized designation for ‘safety-related’ and/or ‘safety-critical’
functions in relation to both ATSEPs and ATCOs (ECORYS, 2013, p. 11).
On the global perspective, despite the fact that there are international
SARPs and a wide variety of guidance material regulating air traffic safety systems,
there is no globally harmonized procedures for regulating the function of ATSEP
nor is there any system of certification that will confer the responsibility that will
mandate accountability. This scenario reflects the present unsafe status whereby air
traffic controllers are essentially licensed, while there is no form of licensing or
certification regime in respect of all the other safety-critical and security-sensitive
personnel within the same air traffic management system.
Within this context, it is pertinent to state that Annex 1 to the Convention
on International Civil Aviation currently provides Standards and Recommended
Practices for the licensing of the following aviation personnel: flight crew members
(pilots, flight engineers and flight navigators); air traffic controllers; aeronautical
station operators; aircraft maintenance personnel
(technicians/engineers/mechanics); and flight operations officers/flight dispatchers
(ICAO, 2011, Chapter 1, section 1.2). However, there are currently growing
agitations in respect of the need to expeditiously include certain critical functions
hitherto excluded from Annex 1 given contemporary and emerging civil aviation
operational realities, particularly the human factors and safety implications of the
increasing incursion of the new technologies into civil aviation operation terrains.
The International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) has, for instance, argued for
the introduction of a set of ICAO regulations that cover the licensing of all air
navigation service providers including maintenance organizations and suppliers of
safety-critical parts (ICAO, 2004).
Having regard to the peculiarities of their operational terrains, the
identification of the safety-criticality of certain civil aviation functions, and the
leeway copiously provided by Article 38 of the Chicago Convention 1944, some
States – including Nigeria, which deposited a notification of adherence in respect
of the Chicago Convention on 14 November 1960 - have entrenched in their
national laws appropriate training, licensing and/or certification regimes for certain
functions and personnel hitherto excluded from ICAO Annex 1. For example, Part
2 (Personnel Licensing) of the Nigeria Civil Aviation Regulations provides for the
licensing of the following aviation personnel: flight crew members (pilots and flight
engineers); flight dispatchers; flight instructors/ground instructors; aircraft
maintenance engineers; aviation repair specialists; air traffic safety electronics
personnel (ATSEP); parachute riggers; flight radio telephony operators (restricted
licence); air traffic controllers; aeronautical station operators; and cabin crew
(Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority, 2015, Part 2, Sub-section 2.2.1.1).
In spite of this kind of initiative by the States concerned, concerns still
remain on the need to harmonize the licensing procedures and ensure the
international uniformity requirements contained in Article 37 to the Convention on
International Civil Aviation. In recent times, therefore, the agitations for the
inclusion of certain aviation functions and jobs in ICAO Annex 1 - in order to meet
Article 37 requirements - have been escalated to the ICAO General Assembly,
which convenes every three years. Table 1 highlights some of the events and efforts
that are especially relevant to the agitation for the inclusion of ATSEP in ICAO
Annex 1 (Personnel Licensing) in recent times.
It is pertinent to observe, at this juncture, that reactions and responses at the
ICAO General Assembly level to the deafening cries for the institutionalization of
a globally harmonized and comprehensive certification and personnel regulation
frameworks for the air navigation services realm have been somewhat mixed. At
best, the situation reflects a lack of adequate comprehension of the philosophies of
aviation safety particularly in the context of the growing complexity and
modernization of civil aviation operations. For example, with respect to the joint
working paper, A36-WP/210, presented to the 36th Session of the Assembly in
2007 by IFATSEA (International Federation of Air Traffic Safety Electronics
Associations) and ITF, the ICAO Technical Commission, in view of the support of
the majority of delegates for the proposal on licensing standards for ATSEP,

“agreed that the concept of establishing licensing requirements for ATSEP could
be supported in principle but had to be referred to the ICAO Council for further
consideration in view of its financial implications” (ICAO Technical Commission,
2007, para. 30.4.5).
However, in respect of Working Paper A37-WP/160 on ATSEP
competencies and licenses presented to the 37th Session of the Assembly in 2010
by IFATSEA, the Commission reports:
Other comments shared were: in relation to A37-WP/160, that licensing was
not the only means of demonstrating ATSEP competencies; that new
provisions developed by the NGAP Task Force should not overly impact
developing States and that transition measures be considered in the case of
new requirements; and that the scope of the NGAP Task Force be expanded
in a timely manner to include the development of competencies for
aerodrome professionals. (ICAO Technical Commission, 2010, para. 45.8)
In consideration of Working Paper A38-WP/151 presented to the 38th

Session of the Assembly in 2013 by Indonesia, an ICAO Contracting State, the
Commission comments:
The Commission recalled that ICAO had developed in cooperation with

International Federation of Air Traffic Safety Electronics Associations (IFATSEA),
competency frameworks for ATSEPs as a means to foster high quality and globally
uniform training. The Commission did not come to consensus on whether a
sufficient safety case was available to justify the development of international
licensing provisions for personnel outside of the scope of the existing disciplines
covered under Annex 1. (ICAO Technical Commission, 2013, para. 38.12)
Table 1
Events Relevant to the Struggles for the Establishment of Universal ATSEP Certification
Principles and Standards
Year Events
2000 30th IFATSEA General Assembly, Montreal, Canada – Interactions among
IFATSEA members, the ICAO secretariat and ICAO Air Navigation Commission
members led to the recognition of the fact that ATSEPs were trained to certain
standards.
2003 ICAO 11th Air Navigation Conference, Montreal, Canada, 22 September-3 October
– The conference, inter alia, highlighted the need to subject issues surrounding the
training, competency, and qualification of ATSEP to further investigation.
2004 Development of an ATSEP Training Manual, November – The Training Manual
was approved by the ICAO and the unedited version published as ICAO Doc 7192 –
AN/857 (Part E-2). The Manual effectively set the stage for any proposal regarding
the inclusion of ATSEP in ICAO Annex 1.
2004 35th ICAO General Assembly, Montreal, Canada, 28 September – 8 October –
Under Agenda Item 23: Consolidated statement of continuing ICAO policies and
practices related to communications, navigation, and surveillance/air traffic
management (CNS/ATM) systems, the International Transport Workers’ Federation
(ITF) presented Working Paper A35-WP/198 on “Personnel Regulation as a Tool to
Support Safety and Security in Air Traffic Services”, which invited the Assembly to,
inter alia, develop requirements for the certification or licensing of ATSEPs and
other safety or security sensitive or critical functions as well as request the ICAO
Secretariat to develop proposals for the regulation of working time for ATSEPs and
ATCOs.
2007 36th ICAO General Assembly, Montreal, Canada, 18-28 September – Under
Agenda Item 30: Other Safety Matters, IFATSEA and ITF presented a joint working
paper, A36-WP/210. The working paper invited the ICAO General Assembly to,
inter alia, develop regulatory requirements for the licensing of ATSEPs and for the
certification of safety-critical CNS/ATM systems and equipment.
2010 37th ICAO General Assembly, Montreal, Canada, 28 September - 8 October –
Under Agenda Item 45: Next Generation of Aviation Professionals, IFATSEA
presented working paper, A37-WP/160, on “Competencies and Licenses of Air
Traffic Safety Electronic Personnel (ATSEP)”, which invited the Assembly to
recognize the global context of ATM/ANS, support the updating of ICAO regulations
including Annex 1, and endorse the concept of ATSEP licensing.
Under Agenda Item 38: Other issues to be considered by the Technical Commission,
Indonesia presented working paper, A38-WP/151, on “The Integration of Air
Navigation Personnel into Annex 1”, which invited the Assembly to request the
ICAO Council to update Annex 1 – Personnel Licensing – by developing
requirements for air navigation personnel, comprising AIS personnel, ATSEPs, and
flight procedure designer personnel.
Under Agenda Item 37, IFATSEA presented working paper, A39-WP/298, on “The
Inclusion of Air Traffic Safety Electronics Personnel into Annex 1”, which invited
the Assembly to request the Council to undertake the necessary steps to develop
licensing requirements for ATSEP including updating ICAO Annex 1.

The Commission comments further:
The Commission noted that the absence of international licensing

provisions would not preclude States or regions from establishing their
own national certification or licensing requirements. The Commission
agreed that, resources permitting, the ICAO Council be requested to
identify the safety case for the development of international licensing
provisions beyond the current scope of disciplines covered under Annex 1.
(ICAO Technical Commission, 2013, para. 38.12)
A literal interpretation of the ICAO Technical Commission’s comments

above would suggest not only a tacit admission of the safety significance and an
endorsement of licensing provisions for ATSEPs but also a veiled dismissal of the
need for international uniformity in the spirit of Article 37 to the Chicago
Convention. The comments also suggest a situation where operational safety is held
hostage by undue and unsafe considerations of the economic consequences of
treading the paths of safety, security, and operational efficiency.
Conclusion
This paper explored issues surrounding aviation safety within the context of
a globally-harmonized and comprehensive safety regulation environment and with
an emphasis on the safety ramifications of CNS/ATM systems and functionalities.
The dynamic and complex nature of aviation safety is quite incontestable and is
tied to the evolutionary strides of the aviation systems. The larger picture that this
assertion is painting is that functionalities, tasks, systems, and techniques that were
considered safe or unsafe at a point in time in the past may not necessarily be the
case today. As Huang (2009) has rightly argued:
Safety is also a dynamic rather than static concept. It has a strong temporal
sense. What was considered safe or unsafe yesterday may not be so today.
(p. 4)
The imperativeness of institutionalizing a unified and globally-inclusive

approach to the regulation of CNS/ATM systems and personnel cannot be
overemphasized. A unified approach to system certification has the potential of not
only checking the chaotic deployment of a multiplicity of systems but also ensuring
that CNS/ATM systems are designed, built, installed, and commissioned in
accordance with the same globally-specified standards of safety, security, and
reliability.
The benefits of a unified approach to regulating CNS/ATM personnel include:
• Harmonized licensing and certification approaches that foster the

standardization of competences and a uniform level of service as well as
uniform and highest standards of operational safety;
• The efficiency, safety, and regularity of operations strengthened by
harmonized and globally-standardized competency-based training and
certification frameworks that emphasize responsibility and accountability;
• The consequential development and availability of well-defined globally-
inclusive safety requirements for personnel involved in the maintenance,
operation, installation, supervision, calibration, and commissioning of
CNS/ATM systems. The safety requirements will also provide veritable
means for confirming and certifying the competence of personnel;
• Harmonized environments for coordinating all air traffic management
activities in furtherance of the safety, security, efficiency, and regularity of
air navigation; and
• The harmonization of regulatory frameworks for air navigation services
vis-à-vis the global civil aviation regulatory framework.
To be sure, automation is a naked reality of today’s ATM operational
environments. Although, the reality surrounding the “ironies” and “surprises” of
automation has been sufficiently acknowledged and defined (e.g., Bainbridge,
1983; Dehais et al., 2015; Sarter, Woods & Billings, 1997), CNS/ATM technical
personnel continue to face challenges of novelties such that there is an overarching
need for harmonized, standardized and well-defined competency-based training
and regulatory frameworks that are tailored towards specific levels of automation.

References
Ale, B., Bellamy, L. J., Cooke, R., Duyvis, M., Kurowicka, D., Lin, P. H., . . .
Spouge, J. (2009). Causal model for air transport safety: Final report.
Amsterdam: The Ministry of Transport and Water Management.
Bainbridge, L. (1983). Ironies of automation. Automatica, 19(6), 775-779.
Retrieved from www.ise.ncsu.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2017/02/
Bainbridge_1983_ Automatica.pdf/
Bala, I., Sharma, S. K., & Kumar, S. (2013). Exploring raw safety aspects in
aviation industry. Computer Engineering and Intelligent Systems, 4(1), 80-
97.
Bala, I., Sharma, S. K., Kumar, S., & Shrivastava, R. (2014). Exploring safety
aspects of aviation industry. Advances in Aerospace Science and
Applications, 4(1), 37-44.
Billings, C. E. (1997). Aviation automation: The search for a human-centered
approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Borener, S. S., & Guzhva, V. S. (2014). Analysis of the effects of communication
and surveillance facility service outages on traffic separations. Risk
Analysis, 34(9), 1753-1762. doi:10.1111/risa.12192
Dehais, F., Peysakhovich, V., Scannella, S., Fongue, J., & Gateau, T. (2015).
“Automation surprise” in Aviation. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual
ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems CHI 2015, 18-
23 April 2015, Republic of Korea. doi:10.1145/2702123.2702521
Dumitru, I. M., & Boscoianu, M. (2015). Human factors contribution to aviation
safety. International Conference of Scientific Paper AFASES 2015,
Brasov, Romania, 28-30 May, 2015.
ECORYS. (2013). Study on safety-related and safety-critical functions and
related jobs in ATM/ANS. Rotterdam: ECORYS.
EUROCONTROL. (2006). Implementation of ATM safety management systems
remains a priority for Europe. ICAO Journal, 61(6), 20-25.
European Commission. (2018). Aviation safety – Challenges and ways forward
for a safe future. http://dx.doi.org/10.2777/417337
Fisher, B. (2006). Business model focused on risk management enhances safety
programme decision-making. ICAO Journal, 61(6), 14-16.
Galotti, V., Rao, A., & Maurino, D. (2006). ICAO initiative promotes global
approach to SMS implementation. ICAO Journal, 61(6), 6-39.
Huang, J. (2009). Aviation safety and ICAO. The Netherlands: Kluwer Law
International.
ICAO. (2004). Personnel regulation as a tool to support safety and security in air
traffic services. Technical Commission Working Paper A35-WP/198, 35th
Session of the ICAO General Assembly. Retrieved from www.icao.int/
Meetings/AMC/MA/Assembly 35th Session/wp198_en.pdf
ICAO. (2006). Report of the directors general of civil aviation conference on a

global strategy for aviation safety, Doc 9866, DGCA/06, 20-22 March
2006, Montreal, Canada.
ICAO. (2007a). Agenda item 25: Follow-up of the DGCA/06 conference on a
global strategy for aviation safety. Working Paper A36-WP/50, 36th
Session of ICAO General Assembly, 25 July 2007. Retrieved from
www.icao.int/Meetings/AMC/MA/Assembly 36th Session/wp50_en.pdf
ICAO. (2007b). Agenda item 28: Protection of certain accident and incident
records and of safety data collection and processing systems in order to
improve aviation safety. Working Paper A36-WP/112, 36th Session of
ICAO General Assembly, 29 September 2007.
ICAO. (2007c). Agenda item 32: Development of an up-to-date consolidated
statement of continuing ICAO policies and practices related to a global
ATM system and communications, navigation and surveillance/air traffic
management (CNS/ATM) systems. Working Paper A36-WP/242, 36th
Session of ICAO General Assembly, 18 September 2007.
ICAO. (2011). Annex 1 to the convention on international civil aviation –
personnel licensing (11th ed.). Montreal, Canada: Author.
ICAO. (2013). State of global aviation safety. Montreal, Canada: Author.
ICAO. (2015). Procedures for air navigation services – training (PANS-TRG),
Doc 9868 (2nd ed.). Montreal, Canada: Author.
ICAO. (2019). How ICAO develops standards. Retrieved from
www.icao.int/about-icao/AirNavigationCommission/Pages/how-icao-
develops-standards.aspx
ICAO Technical Commission. (2007). Report of the technical commission on
agenda item 30. Working Paper A36-WP/359, 36th Session of ICAO
General Assembly, 26 September 2007. Retrieved from
www.icao.int/Meetings/AMC/MA/Assembly 36th Session/wp359_en.pdf
agenda items 38, 40, 41 and 45. Working Paper A37-WP/399, 37th
Session of ICAO General Assembly, 5 October 2010. Retrieved from
www.icao.int/Meetings/AMC/Assembly37/Working Papers by
Number/wp399_en.pdf
agenda items 35, 36, 37 and 38. Working Paper A38-WP/413, 38th
Session of ICAO General Assembly, 10 October 2013. Retrieved from
www.icao.int/Meetings/a38/Documents/WP/wp413_en.pdf
ILO. (2012). International standard classification of occupations – ISCO-08, 1.
Geneva: International Labour Organization.
Jung, H., Merens, M., Valipour, M., Liang, X., Abboud, D., Wen, H. A., . . .
Zimmerman, R. (2018). Data-driven decision-making processes, data

services and applications for global aviation safety. ITU Journal: ICT
Discoveries, Special Issue No. 2, 16 Nov. 2018.
Kaspers, S., Karanikas, N., Roelen, A., Piric, S., & de Boer, R. J. (n.d.). Review of
existing aviation safety metrics. RAAK PRO Project – Measuring Safety
in Aviation, Project S10931. Retrieved from www.amsterdamuas.com/
.../aviation/measuring-safety-in-aviation-project/review-existing- safety-
metrics17.pdf/
Kistan, T., Gardi, A., & Sabatini, R. (2018). Machine learning and cognitive
ergonomics in air traffic management: Recent developments and
considerations for certification. Aerospace 2018, 5, 103.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/aerospace5040103
Lofquist, E. A. (2010). The art of measuring nothing: The paradox of measuring
safety in a changing civil aviation industry using traditional safety metrics.
Safety Science, 48(10), 1520-1529.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2010.05.006
Lofquist, E.A., Greve, A., & Olsson, U.H. (2011). Modeling attitudes and
perceptions as predictors for changing safety margins during
organizational change. Safety Science, 49, 531-541.
doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2010.11.007
Makins, N., Kirwan, B., Bettignies-Thiebaux, B., Bieder, C., Kennedy, R., Sujan,
M-A., . . . Reader, T. (2016). Keeping the aviation industry safe – Safety
intelligence and safety wisdom. A Future Sky Safety White Paper.
doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.14656.53763
Maurino, D. (2017). Why SMS: An introduction and overview of safety
management systems. ITF Discussion Paper 2017-16. Paris: International
Transport Forum.
Mwikya, N. K., & Mulwa, S.A. (2018). Implementation of aviation safety
standards and performance of air transport industry: A conceptual
perspective. African Journal of Business and Management, 4(2), 20-33.
Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority. (2015). Nigeria civil aviation regulations.
Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.gov.ng/regulations/ncaa-regulations/
Oster, C. V., Strong, J. S., & Zorn, C. K. (2013). Analyzing aviation safety:
Problems, challenges, opportunities. Research in Transportation
Economics, 43, 148-164.
Osunwusi, A. O. (2014). Safety management system: A systems approach to
aviation safety. NAAEMAG (Official Journal of the National Association
of Air Traffic Engineers), 4(03), 10-25.
Osunwusi, A. O. (2019). Aviation automation and CNS/ATM-related human-
technology interface: ATSEP competency considerations. International
Journal of Aviation, Aeronautics, and Aerospace, 6(4).
https://doi.org/10.15394/ijaaa.2019.1390
Roelen, A. L. C., & Klompstra, M. B. (2012). The challenges in defining aviation

safety performance indicators, Preprint for PSAM 11 & ESREL 2012, 25-
29 June2012, Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved from www.researchgate.net/
publication/267406066_The_Challenges_in_defining_aviation_safety_per
formance_indicators
Sarter, N. B., Woods, D. D., & Billings, C.E. (1997). Automation surprises. In G.
Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (2nd ed.).
New York: Wiley.
Smith, B. E., Roelen, A. L. C., & den Hertog, R. (2016). Aviation safety concerns
for the future. Journal of Safety Studies, 2(2), 1-11.
Thomas, M. J. W. (2012). A systematic review of the effectiveness of safety
management systems. Canberra, ACT: Australian Transport Safety
Bureau.
van der Geest, P. J., Piers, M. A., de Jong, H. H., Finger, M., Slater, D. H., van
Es, G. W. H., & van der Nat, G. J. (2003). Aviation safety management in
Switzerland: Recovering from the myth of perfection. Zurich and
Amsterdam: Swiss Department of Environment, Traffic, Energy and
Communication (DETEC) and National Aerospace Laboratory (NLR).

Aviation Safety Regulations Versus CNS/ATM Systems and Aviation Safety Regulations Versus CNS/ATM Systems and Functionalities Functionalities

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aviation Safety Regulations Versus CNS/ATM Systems and Aviation Safety Regulations Versus CNS/ATM Systems and Functionalities Functionalities

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aviation Safety Regulations Versus CNS/ATM Systems and Aviation Safety Regulations Versus CNS/ATM Systems and Functionalities Functionalities

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Aviation,

Aeronautics, and Aerospace

Volume 7 Issue 1 Article 8

Aviation Safety Regulations versus CNS/ATM Systems and

Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.erau.edu/ijaaa

Part of the Aviation Commons

Scholarly Commons Citation

The safety, security, efficiency, regularity, and sustainable development of

Published by Scholarly Commons, 2020 1

Aviation Regulations of a State are, therefore, a domestication of the Annexes to

The Concept and Nature of Aviation Safety

Published by Scholarly Commons, 2020 3

Published by Scholarly Commons, 2020 5

Aviation Safety: A Paradigm Shift

Published by Scholarly Commons, 2020 7

Safety Dimensions of CNS/ATM Systems and Functionalities

Published by Scholarly Commons, 2020 9

Published by Scholarly Commons, 2020 11

erroneous glideslope capture. The timely go-around executed by the pilot in

implications on safety). There is also the continuous emergence of new

Elements of the Air Navigation Safety Web

Published by Scholarly Commons, 2020 13

frankly that by “focusing on the root cause of an accident, organizational and

Figure 1: Air Navigation Safety Web.

Air Navigation Safety: Issues and Challenges

Published by Scholarly Commons, 2020 15

The European Commission (2018) identifies five major challenges to safety

CNS/ATM Functionalities: Certification Considerations

Published by Scholarly Commons, 2020 17

aviation. While observing that Switzerland’s Skyguide is not an exception, the

Published by Scholarly Commons, 2020 19

In consideration of Working Paper A38-WP/151 presented to the 38th

The Commission recalled that ICAO had developed in cooperation with

Published by Scholarly Commons, 2020 21

The Commission comments further:

The Commission noted that the absence of international licensing

A literal interpretation of the ICAO Technical Commission’s comments

The imperativeness of institutionalizing a unified and globally-inclusive

• Harmonized licensing and certification approaches that foster the

Published by Scholarly Commons, 2020 23

ICAO. (2006). Report of the directors general of civil aviation conference on a

Published by Scholarly Commons, 2020 25

Roelen, A. L. C., & Klompstra, M. B. (2012). The challenges in defining aviation

Published by Scholarly Commons, 2020 27

You might also like