DSP Session - Ed.16-1

✈ IOSA Checklist
ISM Edition 16 Rev 1 – effective September 2023
NOTICE
DISCLAIMER. The information contained in this publication is subject to constant review in the light of changing
government requirements and regulations. No subscriber or other reader should act on the basis of any such
information without referring to applicable laws and regulations and/or without taking appropriate professional advice.
Although every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, the International Air Transport Association shall not be held
responsible for any loss or damage caused by errors, omissions, misprints or misinterpretation of the contents hereof.
Furthermore, the International Air Transport Association expressly disclaims any and all liability to any person or
entity, whether a purchaser of this publication or not, in respect of anything done or omitted, and the consequences of
anything done or omitted, by any such person or entity in reliance on the contents of this publication.
© International Air Transport Association. All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, recast,
reformatted or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or
any information storage and retrieval system, without the prior written permission from:
Senior Vice President
Operations, Safety and Security
International Air Transport Association
800 Place Victoria
P.O. Box 113
Montreal, Quebec
CANADA H4Z 1M1
IOSA Checklist
ISM Edition 16 Rev 1
© 2022 International Air Transport Association. All rights reserved.
Montreal—Geneva
Reference: DOC.F14 1 of 102 Issue Date: 10-MAY-2023

Effective Date: 1-SEP-2023
✈ IOSA Checklist
Section 3 — Operational Control and Flight Dispatch (DSP)

Applicability
Section 3 addresses the requirements for operational control of flights conducted by multi-engine aircraft and is
applicable to an operator that conducts such flights, whether operational control functions are conducted by the
operator or conducted for the operator by an external organization (outsourced). Specific provisions of this section
are applicable to an operator based on the operational system in use, the manner in which authority is delegated by
the operator, and the responsibilities, functions, duties or tasks assigned to the personnel involved.
The IOSA standards and recommended practices (ISARPs) in Section 3 are applicable only to those aircraft that are
of the type authorized in the Air Operator Certificate (AOC) and used in commercial passenger and/or cargo
operations, unless applicability is extended to encompass non-commercial operations as stated in a note immediately
under the body of the provision.
Subsections 3.5, 4.1, 4.3, and 4.6 contain provisions that allow for the use of variations, including Operational
Variations approved by the Authority, to achieve conformity with eligible aircraft tracking, alternate airport, fuel
planning and EDTO specifications. General guidance related to the safety risk management (SRM) processes
necessary to develop and use all such variations prefaces subsection 4.
Table 3.1 categorizes the personnel that are delegated the authority to exercise operational control, assigned the
overall responsibility for the overall operational control of a flight, assigned the individual responsibility to carry out
one or more functions, duties or tasks related to the operational control of a flight, or assigned the duty to provide
administrative support to others with responsibilities related to operational control.
Table 3.5 defines the competencies of operational control personnel appropriate to the assignment of overall
responsibility for operational control and/or to carry out one or more operational control functions, duties or tasks
according to their specific competencies.
All personnel used to perform operational control functions as defined in Table 3.1, or that act in a manner consistent
with the functional categories specified in Table 3.1 and the competencies specified in Table 3.5, irrespective of
management or post holder title, are subject to specified training and qualification provisions in this section relevant to
the operational control function performed.
Individual DSP provisions, and/or individual sub-specifications within a DSP provision, that:
 Do not begin with a conditional phrase are applicable to all operators unless determined otherwise by the
Auditor.
 Begin with a conditional phrase (“If the Operator...”) are applicable if the operator meets the condition(s)
stated in the phrase. The conditional phrase serves to define or limit the applicability of the provision (e.g. “If
the operator uses…” or “If an FOO or FOA is used…”).
 Begin with a conditional phrase that specifies the use of a Flight Operations Officer (FOO) by an operator
are applicable when the operator assigns the FOO, as defined in the IRM and delegated authority in
accordance with Table 3.1, responsibility to carry out operational control functions, duties or tasks related to
all of the competencies of operational control as specified in Table 3.5.
 Begin with a conditional phrase that specifies the use of a Flight Operations Assistant (FOA) by an operator
are applicable when the operator assigns the FOA, as defined in the IRM, responsibility to carry out
operational control functions, duties or tasks related to one or more, but not all, competencies of operational
control as specified in Table 3.5.
 Are applicable to all systems of operational control, but with differences in application to each system, will
have those differences explained in the associated Guidance Material (GM).
 Contain the phrase “personnel responsible for operational control” or “personnel with responsibility for
operational control” refer to any suitably qualified personnel with responsibility for operational control as
designated by the operator, to include the pilot-in-command (PIC) unless otherwise annotated.
 Contain training and qualification requirements are applicable to personnel, other than the PIC, that are
assigned responsibilities related to the operational control of flights. PIC training and qualification
requirements for all systems of operational control are specified in ISM Section 2 (FLT).
 Are eligible for conformance using variations, including Operational Variations approved by the Authority,
that contain a note referring to the additional SRM and safety monitoring requirements necessary to ensure
an acceptable level of safety is maintained.
Where operational functions, duties or tasks associated with operational control are outsourced to external service
providers, an operator retains overall responsibility for ensuring the management of safety in the operational control

✈ IOSA Checklist
of flights and must demonstrate processes for monitoring applicable external service providers in accordance with
DSP 1.11.2.
General Guidance
Authority and Responsibility
For the purposes of this section authority is defined as the delegated power or right to command or direct, to make
specific decisions, to grant permission and/or provide approval, or to control or modify a process.
For the purposes of this section responsibility is defined as an obligation to perform an assigned function, duty, task
or action. An assignment of responsibility typically also requires the delegation of an appropriate level of authority.
Operational Control
Operational control is defined as the exercise of authority to initiate, continue, divert or terminate a flight in the interest
of the safety and security of the aircraft and its occupants. An operator may delegate the authority for operational
control of a specific flight to qualified individuals, but typically retains overall authority to operate and control the entire
operation. An operator may also assign the responsibility to carry out specific operational control functions, duties, or
tasks related to the conduct of each flight to identifiable, qualified and knowledgeable individual(s), but would remain
responsible (and accountable) for the conduct of the entire operation.
Any individuals delegated the authority to make specific decisions regarding operational control would also be
responsible (and accountable) for those decisions. Additionally, individuals assigned the responsibility to carry out
specific operational control functions, duties, or tasks related to the conduct of each flight are also responsible (and
accountable) for the proper execution of those functions, duties, or tasks. In all cases, the authority and responsibility
attributes of operational control personnel are clearly defined and documented by the operator and communicated
throughout the organization.
It is important to note that when an operator assigns the responsibility for functions, duties or tasks related to the
initiation, continuation, diversion and termination of a flight to employees or external service providers, such operator
retains full responsibility (and accountability) for the proper execution of those functions, duties or tasks by ensuring:
 The training and qualification of such personnel meets any regulatory and operator requirements;
 Personnel are performing their duties diligently;
 The provisions of the Operations Manual are being complied with;
 An effective means of oversight is maintained to monitor the actions of such personnel for the purposes of
ensuring operator guidance and policy, as well regulatory requirements, are complied with.
Authority for the Operational Control of Each Flight
In order to practically exercise operational control of flight operations, an operator typically delegates the authority for
the initiation, continuation, diversion or termination of each flight to qualified individuals. Such delegation occurs in
conjunction with an operator's overall system of operational control as follows:
 Shared systems, wherein operational control authority is shared between the pilot-in-command (PIC) and a
flight operations officer/flight dispatcher (FOO) or designated member of management, such as the Director
of Flight Operations (or other designated post holder);
For example: The FOO (or designated member of management, as applicable) has the authority to divert,
delay or terminate a flight if in the judgment of the FOO, a designated member of management or the PIC,
the flight cannot operate or continue to operate safely as planned or released.
 Non-shared systems, wherein operational control authority is delegated only to the PIC.
For example: Only the PIC has the authority to terminate, delay, or divert a flight if in the judgment of the
PIC the flight cannot operate or continue to operate safely as planned.
Responsibility for Operational Control of Each Flight
While an operator retains full responsibility (and accountability) for the entire operation, the responsibility for the
practical operational control of each flight is typically assigned to qualified individuals. As with the delegation of
authority, the assignment of responsibility related to the operational control of each flight occurs in conjunction with a
system of operational control as follows:
 Shared systems, wherein operational control responsibility for each flight is shared between the PIC and an
FOO, or between the PIC and a designated member of management such as the Director of Flight
Operations (or other designated post holder). In either shared system, the PIC, FOO or designated member
of management, as applicable, may be assisted by other qualified personnel assigned the individual
responsibility (by the operator) to carry out specific operational control functions, duties or tasks. Such
personnel, however, typically do not share operational control responsibility with the PIC, FOO or designated
member of management, as applicable.
For example: The FOO (or designated member of management) and the PIC are jointly responsible (and
accountable) for the functions, duties or tasks associated with the operational control of a flight, such as pre-

✈ IOSA Checklist
flight planning, load planning, weight and balance, delay, dispatch release, diversion, termination, etc. In
such systems, the FOO (or designated member of management) may carry out such responsibilities
unassisted or be assisted by qualified personnel assigned the individual responsibility (by the operator) to
carry out specific operational control functions, duties or tasks.
 Non-shared systems, wherein the PIC is solely responsible for all duties, functions, or tasks regarding
operational control of each flight, and may carry out such responsibilities unassisted or be assisted by
qualified personnel assigned the individual responsibility (by the operator) to carry out specific operational
control functions, duties or tasks.
For example: The PIC is solely responsible (and accountable) for the duties, functions, duties or tasks
associated with the operational control of a flight, and the PIC either acts unassisted or is assisted by
qualified personnel in carrying out functions, duties or tasks such as preflight planning, load planning, weight
and balance, delay, dispatch release, diversion, termination, etc.
Responsibility for Individual Operational Control Functions, Duties, or Tasks
It is important to note that, except for purely non-shared (PIC-only) systems, and as illustrated by the examples in the
previous paragraph, the assignment of responsibilities related to the operational control of each flight can be further
subdivided among a number of qualified and specialized personnel. In such cases, the responsibility for individual or
specific operational control functions, duties or tasks is typically assigned to FOA personnel who support, brief and/or
assist the PIC, FOO personnel and/or designated member(s) of management, as applicable, in the safe conduct of
each flight. Examples of such qualified personnel include Weather Analysts, Navigation Analysts/Flight Planning
Specialists, Load Agents/Planners, Operations Coordinators/Planners/Controllers, Maintenance controllers and Air
Traffic Specialists.
Note:
. Some operators might choose to assign the responsibility for specialized operational control functions, such as
those described in the example, to fully qualified FOO personnel. In such cases, an FOO, although qualified in all
competencies of operational control, would be functionally acting as an FOA. Therefore, for the purpose of an audit,
FOO personnel acting in this limited capacity are assessed as FOA personnel.
Note:
. Load Agents/Planners/Controllers who perform load control functions within the scope of ground handling
operations may not be considered FOAs if trained and qualified in accordance with ISM Section 6 (GRH), Subsection
2.1, Training Program.
Administrative Support Personnel
FOA personnel are not to be confused with administrative personnel that lack any operational control authority, have
very limited operational control responsibilities, and who simply provide, collect or assemble operational documents
or data on behalf of the PIC, the FOO, designated member of management or the operator.
Administrative personnel may be present in any system of operational control, are excluded from the initial and
continuing qualification provisions of this section and may be qualified as competent through on-the-job training
(OJT), meeting criteria as specified in a job description, or through the mandatory use of written instruments such as
task cards, guidelines, or checklists.
Additional Note
For the purposes of this section, continuing qualification includes recurrent or refresher training as well as any training
necessary to meet recency-of-experience requirements.
Definitions, Abbreviations, Acronyms
Definitions of technical terms used in this ISM Section 3, as well as the meaning of abbreviations and acronyms, are
found in the IATA Reference Manual for Audit Programs (IRM).
1 Management and Control
1.1 Management System Overview
DSP 1.1.1
The Operator shall have a management system that ensures:
i. Management of safety and security in flight operations;
ii. Supervision and control of all flights, operational control functions and other associated activities;
iii. Compliance with standards of the Operator and requirements of the State of the Operator (hereinafter, the
State) and other applicable authorities. (GM) ◄
Documented and Implemented (Conformity)
Documented not Implemented (Finding)
Implemented not Documented (Finding)

✈ IOSA Checklist
Not Documented not Implemented (Finding)

N/A
Auditor Comments:
Click here to enter text.
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed management system structure for operational control systems.
Interviewed manager with responsibility for operational control.
Assessed status of conformity with all other DSP management system ISARPs.
Other Actions (Specify)
Guidance
Refer to the IRM for the definitions of Operational Control, Operator and State.
Refer to Guidance associated with ORG 1.1.1 located in ISM Section 1.
The specification in item i) ensures the management system addresses the elements of operational safety and
security specifically related to the operational control of flights. Safety and security management at this operational
level typically occurs within the greater context of the operator's overall or corporate safety and/or security
management plan. For example, the overall requirements for the dissemination of security information would
typically be specified in an operator's security plan, but the actual dissemination of such information to operational
control personnel would occur under the supervision of those individuals with assigned responsibilities related to the
operational control of flights (e.g. the transmission of security alerts to aircraft).
Applicable authorities as specified in item iii) refer to authorities that have jurisdiction over international operations
conducted by an operator over the high seas or the territory of a state that is other than the State of the Operator.
1.3 Accountability, Authorities and Responsibilities

DSP 1.3.1A
The Operator shall ensure the management system for operational control defines the safety accountability,
authorities and responsibilities of management and non-management personnel that perform functions relevant to
the operational control of flights. The management system shall also specify:
i. The levels of management with the authority to make decisions regarding risk tolerability with respect to
the safety and/or security of aircraft operations;
ii. Responsibilities for ensuring operational control is conducted in accordance with applicable regulations
and standards of the Operator;
iii. Lines of safety accountability within the organization, including direct accountability for safety and/or
security on the part of operational control senior management. [SMS] (GM) ◄
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed defined safety accountability/authorities/responsibilities (focus: applicable to
management/non-management personnel throughout operational control organization).
Interviewed responsible operational control manager(s).
Examined job descriptions of selected relevant management/non-management personnel in the operational
control organization.
Guidance
Depending on the operator, there might be a dedicated management system for operational control or the
management of operational control might rest with flight operations. In the latter case, it would be the flight
operations management system that has responsibility for conformity with this provision.
Refer to Guidance associated with ORG 1.3.1 located in ISM Section 1 for expanded information regarding

✈ IOSA Checklist
accountability, authority and responsibility as applicable to management and non-management personnel.
DSP 1.3.1B
The Operator shall ensure accountability, authorities and responsibilities for the operational control of flights are
defined and communicated throughout the organization, to include the authorities and responsibilities of the pilot-in
command (PIC) and, as applicable, the:
i. Flight operations officer (FOO), who supports, briefs and/or assists the PIC or designated member of
management regarding risk tolerability with respect to the safe conduct of each flight;
ii. Designated member of management or post holder that has joint authority with the PIC over the decision
functions, duties or tasks associated with the operational control of each flight;
iii. Flight operations assistant (FOA) who supports, briefs and/or assists the PIC, FOO, or designated member
of management in the safe conduct of each flight. [SMS](GM) ◄
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed defined accountability/authorities/responsibilities for personnel associated with operational
control of flights (focus: definitions for PIC and FOO/FOA/designated management member positions/functions;
communicated throughout organization).
Examined job descriptions of selected operations control personnel (focus: definition of authority/responsibilities
for role/position in operational control system).
Guidance
Refer to the IRM for definitions of Flight Operations Officer (FOO), Flight Operations Assistant (FOA) and Post
Holder.
The intent of this provision is to ensure the accountability, authorities and responsibilities of personnel that perform
functions relevant to the operational control of flights and the safety of aircraft operations are communicated
throughout the organization(s). The entities that receive such information are dependent upon the system of
operational control but always include the flight operations organization.
PIC roles and responsibilities are specified in ISM Section 2 (FLT).
Refer to Table 3.1, which contains definitions, duties and responsibilities of relevant operational control personnel
as well as examples of FOAs who might support or assist the FOO, designated member of management and/or
PIC.
The specification in item ii) refers to a designated member of management in a shared system of operational control
(e.g. director of flight operations or other designated post holder).
Refer to the legend of Table 3.1 for examples of FOA personnel who support or assist the FOO and/or PIC.
The description of duties and responsibilities of an FOO, FOA, and/or designated member of management typically
include a definition of the working relationship with the PIC (e.g. the joint responsibility of the PIC, FOO and, if
applicable, designated member of management in a shared system of operational control).
Refer to Guidance associated with ORG 4.2.1 located in ISM Section 1 regarding the need for internal
communication.
DSP 1.3.2A
The Operator shall have a process or procedure for the delegation of duties within the management system for
operational control that ensures managerial continuity is maintained when operational managers including, if
applicable, post holders are unable to carry out work duties. (GM) ◄

✈ IOSA Checklist

N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed processes for flight operations management system delegation of duties (focus: processes
maintain managerial continuity during periods when managers are absent).
Interviewed responsible manager(s) in flight operations.
Examined example(s) of delegation of duties due to absence of managers.
Guidance
Depending on the operator, there might be a dedicated management system for operational control or the
management of operational control might rest with flight operations. In the latter case, it would be the flight
operations management system that has responsibility for conformity with this provision.
The managers/post holders specified in this provision include, as a minimum, managerial personnel defined by the
operator or Authority as required to ensure control and supervision within the organization responsible for the
management of operational control.
The intent of this provision is for an operator to have a process or procedure that ensures a specific person (or
perhaps more than one person) is identified to assume the duties of any operational manager that is or is expected
to be, for any reason, unable to accomplish assigned work duties.
For the purpose of this provision, the use of telecommuting technology and/or being on call and continually
contactable are acceptable means for operational managers to remain available and capable of carrying out
assigned work duties.
Refer to the guidance associated with ORG 1.3.2, located in ISM Section 1, which addresses the performance of
work duties and the use of telecommuting technology and/or being on call and continually contactable.
DSP 1.3.2B
The Operator shall have a process or procedures for the delegation of duties within the management system for
operational control that ensures managerial and operational control continuity is maintained and responsibility for
operational control functions is assumed by qualified personnel when:
i. Managers directly responsible for the operational control of flights are unable to carry out work duties;
ii. If used in the system of operational control, FOO and/or FOA personnel are unable to carry out work
duties. (GM)
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed processes for management system delegation of duties for operational control personnel
(focus: operational control managerial continuity is maintained, operational; control responsibilities are assumed by
qualified personnel).
Examined example(s) of delegation of duties (focus: responsibilities for operational control are assumed by
qualified personnel).
Guidance
The intent of this provision is to ensure an operator has a process or procedures for succession in cases when
operational control personnel directly responsible for the operational control of flights are unable, for any reason, to

✈ IOSA Checklist
carry out work duties. Such process or procedures typically also address a handover of responsibilities that ensures
no loss of continuity in the operational control of flights.
The operational control personnel subject to the specifications of this provision include, as a minimum:
 Managerial personnel, as defined by the operator, with direct responsibility for ensuring the operational
control of flights;
 If applicable, FOO or FOA personnel who are delegated authority and/or responsibility in accordance with
DSP 1.3.4 and 1.3.5 respectively.
DSP 1.3.3
The Operator shall ensure a delegation of authority and assignment of responsibility within the management system
for liaison with regulatory authorities, original equipment manufacturers and other external entities relevant to
operational control. (GM) ◄
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified positions within operational control/flight dispatch with authority/responsibility for liaison with
regulators/other external entities.
Interviewed selected operational control managers with authority for liaison with external entities.
Examined job description for selected management positions (focus: authority/responsibility for liaison with
external entities).
Guidance
Refer to Guidance associated with ORG 1.3.3 located in ISM Section 1 regarding the need to coordinate and
communicate with external entities.
The specifications of this provision are intended to ensure ongoing compliance with regulations, organizational
standards and other applicable rules and requirements.
DSP 1.3.4
The Operator shall delegate the authority for operational control of each flight only to the PIC in a non-shared
system of operational control, or to a combination of suitably qualified individuals in a shared system of operational
control, to include the PIC and either:
i. An FOO in a shared system of operational control that requires the use of FOO personnel, or
ii. A designated member of management or post holder in a shared system of operational control that
requires the use of such management personnel. (GM)
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified specific system for operational control of flights as required by regulations.
Identified/Assessed operational control system (focus: specific type of shared/non-shared operational control
system in accordance with regulatory requirements).

✈ IOSA Checklist
Examined job description for positions with delegated authority for operational control of flights (focus:
authority/responsibilities appropriate for specific type of shared/non-shared system of operational control).
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: applicability/exercise of operational control
authority).
Guidance
Refer to the IRM for the definition of Flight Monitoring.
Refer to General Guidance in the beginning this section for the definition of Authority in the context of operational
control.
The intent of this provision is to ensure an operator delegates the authority to initiate, continue, divert or terminate a
flight in the interest of the safety and security of the aircraft and its occupants (operational control) only to
appropriately qualified individuals.
Examples of operational control systems are provided in the following table as a means to identify how authority is
typically delegated by an operator.
System of
Operational Location System Description
Control
Shared system Operational control authority is shared between the PIC and a flight operations
(i), (ii)
(General) officer/flight dispatcher (FOO) or a designated member of management.
The PIC and FOO have joint authority over the decisions, functions, duties or
Full Shared tasks associated with the operational control of a flight. Such systems are
System (PIC and (i) characterized by the use of flight monitoring and a dedicated communications
FOO) system (voice or electronic) separate from the ATC system in order to maintain
shared authority.
The PIC and FOO have joint authority over all preflight decisions, functions,
duties or tasks associated with the operational control of a flight, but during flight
the PIC has sole authority. Such systems typically include an agreed point of
Partial Shared transition from joint to sole responsibility (e.g. pushback or throttle advance for
System (PIC and (i) takeoff). This point of transition also typically coincides with the point when the
FOO) MEL is no longer applicable and flight crew's transition to in-flight procedures.
Partial shared systems are characterized by the use of flight monitoring if required
by the Authority or desired by the Operator, and typically lack the dedicated
communications system necessary to maintain shared authority in flight.
Functionally equivalent to a full shared system except that the PIC and a
Shared System designated member of management, often the Director of Flight Operations or any
(PIC and (ii) suitably qualified and knowledgeable member of management designated by the
Management) operator, have joint authority over the decisions, functions, duties or tasks
associated with the operational control of a flight.
Non-shared Main Operational control authority is delegated only to the PIC who may or may not be
system (General) standard assisted by other support personnel.
The PIC has sole authority over any and all decisions and completes all tasks
(unassisted) related to the operational control of each flight. This does not preclude
Non-shared Main administrative personnel from providing, collecting or assembling operational
System (PIC-only) standard documents or data related to each flight on behalf of the PIC and as defined in
Table 3.1. Such systems may employ flight monitoring if required by the Authority
or desired by the operator.
The PIC has sole authority over any and all decisions regarding operational
control. However, the PIC is assisted by others (e.g. FOO, FOA or a member of
Non-shared
Main management) that lack operational control authority but are assigned the
System (PIC-
standard responsibility to carry out specific functions, duties or tasks, such as flight planning,
assisted)
flight support, briefing and in-flight monitoring. Such systems employ flight
monitoring if required by the Authority or desired by the operator.

✈ IOSA Checklist
Note: An FOA can be used in combination with FOOs or designated members of management in all systems of
operational control except purely non-shared (PIC-only) systems. If such personnel are delegated authority in a
shared system, however, it would be limited to their specific area of competency.
Table 3.1 categorizes operational control personnel, defines their authority, identifies their responsibilities and
illustrates the relationship of such responsibilities to the operation as a whole.
DSP 1.3.5
The Operator shall retain the overall responsibility for operational control of each flight and assign the responsibility
to carry out functions, duties or tasks related to the operational control of each flight only to the PIC, or to a
combination of suitably qualified personnel as defined in Table 3.1, to include the PIC and, as applicable to the
system of operational control responsibility:
i. If the Operator has a shared system of operational control responsibility, either of the following:
a. An FOO, who shares overall operational control responsibility with the PIC and/or supports, briefs
and/or assists the PIC in the safe conduct of each flight, or
b. A designated member of management or post holder who shares overall operational control
responsibility with the PIC and/or supports, briefs and/or assists the PIC or FOO in the safe
conduct of each flight.
Note:
FOA and/or administrative personnel can be used in combination with FOOs and/or designated members
of management in a shared system of operational control, but neither would share operational control
responsibility with the PIC, FOO or designated member of management.
ii. If the Operator has a non-shared system of operational control responsibility, one or more of the following:
a. An FOO who supports, briefs and/or assists the PIC in the safe conduct of each flight, or
b. A designated member of management or post holder who supports, briefs and/or assists the PIC
or FOO in the safe conduct of each flight, or
c. FOA personnel who support, brief and/or assist the PIC or FOO in the safe conduct of each flight,
and/or
d. Administrative personnel who do not support, brief and/or assist the PIC or FOO, but provide,
collect or assemble operational documents or data relevant to the conduct of each flight. (GM)
Note:
An operator may choose to assign limited responsibilities to fully qualified FOO personnel, or to use them
only to carry out individual or specific operational control functions, duties or tasks. In such cases, an FOO
would be functionally acting as an FOA.
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed operational control system (focus: operator has overall responsibility for operational
control; responsibilities for individual functions/duties/tasks assigned to positions as specified in Table 3.1).
Examined job description for positions with responsibility for individual operational control functions/duties/tasks
(focus: position responsibilities appropriate for specific type of shared/non-shared system of operational control).
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: responsibilities for individual
functions/duties/tasks).
Guidance
Refer to General Guidance in the beginning this section for the definition of Responsibility in the context of
operational control.
The intent of this provision is to specify the various ways operational control responsibilities can be assigned by an
operator and to ensure only suitably trained and qualified individuals, in addition to the PIC, are assigned overall

✈ IOSA Checklist
responsibility for operational control or the responsibility to carry out one or more functions, duties or tasks related
to the operational control of each flight.
The specifications of this provision apply irrespective of post holder titles or whether personnel positions are
described in the OM. If personnel are assigned the responsibility to carry out operational control functions, duties or
tasks, and act in a manner consistent with the specifications of this provision or the descriptions found in Table 3.1,
the specifications of this provision are applicable, as well as the specifications of ensuing provisions that require
such personnel to be trained and qualified for the operational control responsibilities, functions, duties or tasks that
they are performing.
Examples of operational control systems are provided in the following table as a means to identify how
responsibility is typically assigned by an operator.
System of
Operational Item System Description
Control
Shared systems (i) (a), Operational control responsibility is shared between the PIC and an FOO or
(General) (i) (b) designated member of management.
The PIC and FOO are jointly responsible for the decisions, functions, duties or
Full Shared tasks associated with the operational control of a flight. Such systems are
System (PIC and (i) (a) characterized by flight monitoring and a dedicated communications system (voice
FOO) or electronic) separate from the ATC system in order to maintain joint
responsibility.
The PIC and FOO are jointly responsible for all preflight decisions, functions,
duties or tasks associated with the operational control of a flight, but during flight
Partial Shared
the PIC has sole responsibility. Such systems are characterized by the use of
System (PIC and (i) (a)
flight monitoring if required by the Authority or desired by the Operator and
FOO)
typically lack the dedicated communications system necessary to maintain shared
responsibility in flight.
Functionally equivalent to a full shared system except that the PIC and a
designated member of management, often the Director of Flight Operations or
any suitably qualified and knowledgeable member of management designated by
Shared System
the operator are jointly responsible for the functions, duties or tasks associated
(PIC and (i) (b)
with the operational control of a flight. The responsibility to carry out actual
Management)
functions, duties or tasks such as flight planning, supporting/
briefing the crew or flight monitoring is typically assigned to other non-
management personnel (e.g. FOOs and/or FOAs).
Non-shared
Operational control responsibility is assigned only to the PIC who may or may not
Systems (ii) (a)–(d)
be assisted by other support personnel.
(General)
The PIC is solely responsible for completing all tasks (unassisted) related to the
Parent
operational control of each flight. This does not preclude administrative personnel
Non-shared provision
from providing, collecting or assembling operational documents or data related to
System (PIC-only) and/or
each flight on behalf of the PIC as defined in Table 3.1. Such systems employ
(ii) (d)
flight monitoring if required by the Authority or desired by the operator.
The PIC is solely responsible for all decisions regarding operational control.
However, the PIC may be assisted by others, such as an FOA, or an FOO or
Non-shared
member of management that functions as an FOA, who is assigned the
System (PIC- (ii) (a)–(c)
responsibility to carry out specific functions, duties or tasks, such as flight
assisted)
planning, support, briefing and in-flight monitoring. Such systems employ flight
monitoring if required by the Authority or desired by the operator.
Note:
 FOOs can be present in shared or non-shared systems of operational control to support, brief and/or
assist the PIC or designated member of management in all competencies of operational control.
 FOAs can be present in any system of operational control except purely non-shared (PIC-only) systems,
but their responsibilities are limited to their area(s) of expertise.

✈ IOSA Checklist
 FOAs may be assigned specific flight responsibilities depending on area of expertise or general (non-
flight specific) responsibilities in support of other operational control personnel or functions.
 The responsibilities of administrative personnel used in operational control functions are limited to the
provision or collection of operational data.
Table 3.1 categorizes operational control personnel, defines their authority, identifies their responsibilities and
illustrates the relationship of such responsibilities to the operation as a whole.
Table 3.5 defines the competencies of individuals assigned the responsibility for operational control and/or the
responsibility to carry out individual operational control functions, duties or tasks.
When operational control functions are outsourced to external service providers, an operator would retain overall
responsibility for operational control and would ensure such service providers are subjected to contractual and
monitoring processes as specified in DSP 1.11.1 and 1.11.2.
FOO and/or FOA responsibilities for operational control typically begin when assigned a flight during flight
preparation and end after flight termination.
DSP 1.3.6
If an FOO is used in the system of operational control, the Operator shall assign responsibility to such personnel for:
i. Assisting the PIC in flight preparation and providing required information;
ii. Assisting the PIC in preparing the operational and ATS flight plans;
iii. When applicable, signing the operational and ATS flight plans;
iv. Filing the ATS flight plan with the appropriate ATS unit;
v. Furnishing the PIC, while in flight, with appropriate information necessary for the safe conduct of the flight;
vi. If the Operator tracks aircraft position in accordance with DSP 3.5.2 and/or DSP 3.5.3, notifying the
appropriate ATS unit when the position of the aircraft cannot be determined by an aircraft tracking
capability, and attempts to establish communication are unsuccessful;
vii. In the event of an emergency, initiating relevant procedures as specified in the OM. (GM)
Note:
An operator may choose to assign responsibility for one or more of the specified functions to an FOA, or the PIC
may be assigned the responsibility for filing the flight plan in the case of iv) and/or for obtaining the necessary
information in the case of v).
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed FOO responsibilities in operational control system (focus: definition of individual
functions/duties/tasks assigned to FOO in specific type of shared/non-shared system of operational control).
Examined job description for FOO position (focus: position responsibilities appropriate for assigned
functions/duties/tasks in specific type of shared/non-shared system of operational control).
Examined training/qualification records of selected FOO personnel (focus: qualifications appropriate for
assigned responsibilities in operational control system).
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: assignment of functional responsibilities/duties to
FOO personnel).
Guidance
Refer to the IRM for the definition of Aircraft Tracking.
The specifications of this provision apply to each FOO qualified in all applicable competencies of operational
control, whether licensed or not, who participates in an approved or accepted system of operational control and:
 Is delegated authority in accordance with DSP 1.3.4, and/or
 Is assigned the responsibility in accordance with DSP 1.3.5 to carry out operational control functions,

✈ IOSA Checklist
duties or tasks related to all applicable competencies specified in Table 3.5.

The authority and responsibilities of an FOO are defined in Table 3.1.
The specification in item v) may be satisfied by the PIC if such information is available from other sources that can
be accessed while in flight.
DSP 1.3.7
The Operator shall have a process to be used in the event of an emergency situation that endangers the safety of
the aircraft or persons, including those situations that become known first to the Operator. Such process shall
ensure the FOO, FOA or other delegated person:
i. Initiates emergency procedures, as outlined in the OM, while avoiding taking any action that would conflict
with ATC procedures;
ii. Notifies the appropriate authorities, without delay, of the nature of the situation;
iii. Requests assistance, if required;
iv. Conveys, by any available means, safety-related information to the PIC that may be necessary for the safe
conduct of the flight, including information related to any necessary amendments to the flight plan. (GM)
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed OM procedure for implementation of emergency procedures/actions (focus: definition of
operational control positions/persons with assigned responsibility for initiating emergency procedures/notifying
authorities/requesting assistance).
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: preparedness to implement emergency actions).
Guidance
The specification in item ii) refers to notification to the appropriate authorities without delay and/or within a period(s)
specified by each applicable authority.
Applicable authorities include those authorities that have jurisdiction over international operations conducted by an
operator over the high seas or the territory of a state that is other than the State of the Operator.
Processes used for operational control of flights in the event of an emergency would typically be compatible with
any operating procedures that have been established by the agencies providing system services for air traffic
control. Such compatibility is necessary to avoid conflict and ensure an effective exchange of information between
the operator and any of the service agencies.
During an operational emergency, the procedures specified in item i) would normally be designed to not conflict with
ATC procedures, such as separation standards, controller instructions, minimum flight altitude assignments or any
other restrictions imposed by ATC. During an emergency, however, the PIC may exercise emergency authority and
take any action necessary in the interest of the safety of the passengers and aircraft.
It would also be important in this context for the PIC to convey relevant information to the FOO, FOA or other
delegated person during the course of the flight with respect to the emergency situation.
1.4 Communication and Coordination

DSP 1.4.1
The Operator shall have a system that enables effective communication of relevant safety and operational
information throughout the operational control management system and in all areas where operational control is
conducted. Such system shall ensure:
i. Personnel maintain an awareness of the SMS;
ii. Safety-critical information is conveyed;

✈ IOSA Checklist
iii. If applicable, external service providers are provided with information relevant to operations conducted.
[SMS](GM) ◄
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed communication system(s) in operational center/office (focus: capability for communicating
information relevant to operations among operational personnel involved).
Examined examples of information communication/transfer in operational center/office.
Interviewed selected non-management operational control personnel.
Guidance
The specifications of this provision may be satisfied by the flight operations organization and/or other
organization(s) with responsibilities related to the operational control of flights.
This specification also applies to coordination among appropriate managerial personnel associated with supervision
of operational control.
DSP 1.4.2
The Operator shall have a communication system that ensures operational control personnel are provided with or
have access to information relevant to the safe conduct of each flight, to include information associated with:
i. The aircraft (MEL, maintenance);
ii. Meteorology;
iii. Safety, including current accident and incident notification procedures;
iv. Routes, including over water and critical terrain (NOTAMs, facilities, outages);
v. Air Traffic Services (ATS). (GM)
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed system for dissemination of operational safety information in operational center/office
(focus: capability for communicating safety information relevant to operational control personnel; definition of types
of safety information required to be disseminated).
Identified/Assessed accident/incident notification procedures for use by operational control personnel.
Examined names/numbers of applicable personnel on mass messaging list.
Examined examples of operational safety information disseminated in operational center/office.
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: operational control personnel have access to
information relevant to safe conduct of flights, accident/incident notification procedures).
Guidance
The specifications of this provision apply to the PIC, an FOO, a designated member of management and/or an FOA
whose job functions require access to information in one or more of the areas specified.

✈ IOSA Checklist
An effective system ensures operational control personnel are in receipt of relevant and current information, as
necessary, to complete operational control functions, duties or tasks.
Accident and incident notification procedures are typically contained in an operator's Emergency Response Plan or
Manual, or in a dedicated checklist accessible in the Dispatch or Operations Control location.
1.5 Provision of Resources

DSP 1.5.1
The Operator shall have the necessary facilities, workspace, equipment and supporting services, as well as work
environment, to satisfy operational control safety and security requirements. (GM) ◄
Note:
Conformity with this provision does not require specifications to be documented by the Operator.
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: adequate facilities/workspace/equipment for
operational control activities).
Guidance
The specifications of this provision refer only to the infrastructure and resource requirements that would be
necessary to deliver safe and secure flight operations, to include operational control and support facilities, services
and equipment.
The specifications of this provision may be satisfied by the flight operations organization and/or other
organization(s) with responsibilities related to the operational control of flights.
Implementation of this standard (i.e. adequacy of physical resources, work environment) is typically assessed
through observations made by the auditor(s) during the course of the on-site audit.
DSP 1.5.2
The Operator shall have a selection process for management and non-management operational control positions
within the organization that require the performance of functions relevant to the safety or security of aircraft
operations. Such process shall ensure candidates are selected on the basis of knowledge, skills, training and
experience appropriate for the position. (GM) ◄
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed standards/processes for selection of operational control personnel in functions relevant to
safety of flights.
Interviewed personnel that perform operational control functions relevant to safety of flights.

✈ IOSA Checklist
Guidance
The operational control positions subject to the specifications of this provision include, as a minimum:
 Managerial personnel, as defined by the operator, required to ensure control and supervision of flight
operations in accordance with DSP 1.1.1;
 Post holders as required by the Authority if applicable;
FOO knowledge, skill and experience requirements are in accordance with DSP 1.5.6 and 1.5.7.
FOA knowledge, skill and experience requirements are in accordance with DSP 1.5.7.
FOO and FOA training requirements are in accordance with the applicable provisions of Subsection 2, Training and
Qualification.
PIC knowledge, skill, experience and training requirements are in accordance with the applicable provisions of ISM
Section 2 (FLT), Subsection 2, Training and Qualification.
DSP 1.5.3
The Operator shall have a process to ensure applicants hired in operational control functions are required to
demonstrate the capability of speaking and reading in a language that will permit communication with other areas
within the organization relevant to operational control.
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed requirement for language evaluation prior to hiring/selection of operational control
personnel (focus: evaluation of speaking/reading skills; level of proficiency required that permits communication in
subjects relevant to operational control of flights).
Identified the language/methodology used for communication with staff in different areas across the operator's
network on matters pertaining to operational control.
Examined language evaluation syllabus (focus: demonstration of speaking/reading language proficiency).
Examined selected operational control personnel selection records (focus: completion of language evaluation
prior to selection).
DSP 1.5.4
If a licensed FOO is used in the system of operational control, the Operator shall ensure each FOO, prior to being
assigned to operational control duties, holds a valid Flight Operations Officer or Flight Dispatcher license issued or
recognized by the State. (GM)
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified use of FOO in operational control system (focus: applicable to FOO/Flight Dispatcher function as
defined in Table 3.1).
Identified regulatory requirement for FOO licensing.
Examined selected FOO personnel selection records (focus: possession of valid license prior to assignment to

✈ IOSA Checklist
perform FOO duties).

Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: valid license for personnel that perform FOO
function as defined in Table 3.1).
Guidance
The specifications of this provision apply only to each FOO qualified in all applicable competencies of operational
control who participates in an approved or accepted system of operational control and:
duties or tasks related to all applicable competencies specified in Table 3.5, and
 Requires licensing or certification by the State in order to participate in an approved or accepted system of
DSP 1.5.6
If an FOO is used in the system of operational control, the Operator should ensure personnel hired to perform the
FOO functions are not less than 21 years of age and meet one or more of the following criteria:
i. Have, as a minimum, one year of experience as an assistant in the operational control of air transport
flights, or
ii. Have satisfactorily completed a formal training course as a flight operations officer or flight dispatcher, or
iii. Have, as a minimum, a total of two years of service in any one or combination of the following:
a. Flight crew member in air transport operations;
b. Meteorologist in an organization dispatching aircraft;
c. Air traffic controller;
d. Technical supervisor of FOO personnel;
e. Technical supervisor of air transportation systems. (GM)
Documented not Implemented (Observation)
Implemented not Documented (Observation)
Not Documented not Implemented (Observation)
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified use of FOO in operational control system (focus: applicable to FOO/Flight Dispatcher function as
Identified/Assessed age/training/experience prerequisites for personnel prior to selection/hiring as FOO (focus:
definition of specific age/training/experience prerequisites that must be satisfied).
Examined selected FOO personnel training/qualification records (focus: completion/satisfaction of defined
age/training/experience prerequisites prior to selection/hiring as FOO).
Guidance
DSP 1.5.7
If an FOO or FOA is used in the system of operational control, the Operator shall have a process to ensure such

✈ IOSA Checklist
personnel, prior to being assigned duties in an operational control function:

i. As applicable, meet minimum age, knowledge, experience and skill requirements of the State;
ii. Are trained to a minimum competency level acceptable to the Operator and/or State;
iii. For FOAs, have demonstrated the ability to provide assistance in their area(s) of competency to, as
applicable, the PIC and/or FOO. (GM)
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified the use of FOO/FOA in operational control system (focus: applicable to FOA function as defined in
Table 3.1).
Identified/Assessed prerequisites for FOO/FOA personnel prior to assignment to perform operational control
duties (focus: definition of specific prerequisites that must be satisfied; defined prerequisites include all regulatory
requirements/knowledge/proficiencies as defined in Table 3.5/relevant operational control abilities).
Examined selected FOO/FOA personnel training/qualification records (focus: completion/satisfaction of defined
age/training/experience prerequisites prior to selection/hiring as FOO/FOA).
Guidance
The specifications of this provision apply to FOO personnel (whether licensed or not) and/or FOA personnel who
are delegated authority and/or assigned responsibilities in accordance with DSP 1.3.4 and/or DSP 1.3.5
respectively, and are assigned to carry out operational control functions, duties or tasks as an FOO or FOA as
defined in Table 3.5.
1.6 Documentation System

DSP 1.6.1
The Operator shall have a system for the management and control of documentation and/or data used directly in
the conduct or support of operational control, to include the operations manual (OM) and other documents
referenced in the OM that contain information and/or guidance relevant to operational control personnel. Such
system shall include elements as specified in ORG Table 1.1. (GM) ◄
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed system(s) for management/control of documentation/data used in operational control
system (focus: system addresses applicable documentation types/elements as specified in ORG Table 1.1).
Examined selected parts of OM/other documents used in operational control system.
Interviewed person(s) responsible for operational control documentation management/control process.
Traced life of an OM and/or Training Manual revision from inception to publication to obsolescence.
Guidance
Refer to the IRM for the definitions of Documentation, Electronic Documentation and Paper Documentation.
Refer to ORG 2.5.1 and associated Guidance, and Table 1.1, located in ISM Section 1.

✈ IOSA Checklist
Internal documents are subject to management and control by the operator.

This provision refers to the library, which may be any organized system for documentation retention, and which
contains current manuals, regulatory publications and other essential documents associated with operational
control.
Documents received from external sources:
 Are normally managed by the operator and controlled by the issuing entity.
 May include applicable regulations and associated documents, original manufacturer's manuals and
documents and/or data produced externally for the operator.
 May include dangerous goods documents, route and airports charts, FMS databases, airport analysis data,
weight/mass and balance data and performance data.
The specifications of this provision may be satisfied by the flight operations organization's external documentation
dissemination and retention processes if such processes are used in conjunction with the operator's system of
DSP 1.6.3
The Operator shall ensure the system for the management and control of operational control documentation as
specified in ORG 2.5.1 and Table 1.1 addresses, as a minimum, the following documents from external sources:
i. As applicable, regulations of the State of the Operator and of other states or authorities relevant to
operations;
ii. As applicable, ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices; (SARPS), manuals, regional supplementary
procedures and/or circulars;
iii. Airworthiness Directives (ADs);
iv. As applicable, Aeronautical Information Publications, (AIP) and NOTAMS;
v. State-approved or State-Accepted Aircraft Flight Manuals (AFM);
vi. Manufacturer's Aircraft Operating Manuals (AOMs), including performance data, weight and balance
data/manuals, checklists and MEL/CDL;
vii. As applicable, other manufacturer's operational communications. (GM)
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed system(s) for management/control of documentation/data used in operational control
system (focus: system addresses documents from external sources; definition of applicable external documents).
Examined selected documents from external sources (focus: application of management/control elements).
Guidance
Refer to the IRM for the definitions of Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP), Aircraft Operating Manual (AOM),
Approved Flight Manual, Airworthiness Directive (AD), Configuration Deviation List (CDL), Master Minimum
Equipment List (MMEL), Minimum Equipment List (MEL), State Acceptance and State Approval.
The specifications of this provision may be satisfied by the flight operations organization documentation
management and control system, if used in conjunction with the operator's system of operational control.
The specifications in item i) refer to:
 Applicable regulations imposed on an operator by the State that issues the Air Operator Certificate (AOC);
 Regulations issued by other states and/or authorities that actively regulate foreign operators, which may be
done through issuance of an Operational Specification (OPS SPEC) or specific state legislation;
 Regulations, standards, recommended practices, supplemental procedures and/or guidance material that
are applicable to the operations of the operator by any states or authorities with jurisdiction over the
operations of the operator. Applicable authorities would include those that have jurisdiction over

✈ IOSA Checklist
international operations conducted by an operator over the high seas or over the territory of a state that is
other than the State of the Operator.
The specification in item ii) refers to applicable ICAO standards and/or recommended practices that are referenced
in the operator's documentation.
The specification for the manufacturer's AFM in item v) may be replaced by an Aircraft Operating Manual (AOM)
customized by the manufacturer for the specific use in flight operations by an operator.
The specification in item vi) refers to bulletins or directives distributed by the manufacturer for the purposes of
amending aircraft technical specifications and/or operating procedures.
The specification in item vii) refers to operational communications received from the manufacturer of equipment that
is installed on the aircraft, typically from the manufacturers of the engines, components and safety equipment.
DSP 1.6.4
The Operator shall have a system for the management and control of documentation and/or data used directly in
the conduct or support of operations. Such system shall ensure documentation:
i. Meets all required elements specified in Table 1.1;
ii. Contains legible and accurate information;
iii. Is presented in a format appropriate for use in operations. (GM) ►
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed system(s) for management/control of content/format of operational documentation/data
used in operational control system.
Examined selected parts of the OM (focus: legibility/accuracy/format; approval as applicable).
Guidance
Refer to the IRM for the definitions of Operations Manual, State Acceptance and State Approval.
The intent of this provision is for an operator to provide operational documentation in a form that is acceptable to the
Authority and useable by all relevant personnel.
Documentation used in the support of operations control may:
 Exist in paper or electronic form;
 Be issued in more than one language.
1.7 Operations Manual

DSP 1.7.1
The Operator shall have an Operations Manual (OM) for the use of operational control personnel, which may be
issued in separate parts, and which contains or references the policies, procedures and other guidance or
information necessary for compliance with applicable regulations, laws, rules and Operator standards. As a
minimum, the OM shall:
i. Be managed and controlled in accordance with DSP 1.6.1;
ii. Have all parts relevant to operational control personnel clearly identified and defined;
iii. Be in accordance with the specifications in Table 3.2. (GM)
N/A

✈ IOSA Checklist
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed operational documents that comprise the OM (focus: external documents referenced in
OM/used by operational control personnel).
Examined selected parts of OM (focus: contents in accordance with in Table 3.2).
Guidance
The intent of this provision is to ensure operational control personnel are able to find all information necessary to
perform their functions either within the OM or within another document that is referenced in the OM. The OM is
normally identified as a source of operational information approved or accepted for the purpose by the operator or
the State.
Refer to the FLT 1.7.4 and associated guidance for human factors principles observed in the design of the OM.
DSP 1.7.2
The Operator shall have a description of the Operational Flight Plan (OFP) or equivalent document that is published
in the OM and includes:
i. Guidance for use by operational control personnel;
ii. An outline of the content in accordance with specifications in Table 3.3. (GM)
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed description of OFP in OM.
Examined selected OFP(s).
Other Action (Specify)
Guidance
Items readily available in other documentation, obtained from another acceptable source or irrelevant to the type of
operation may be omitted from the OFP.
DSP 1.7.4
If an FOO or FOA is used in the system of operational control, the Operator shall have guidance and procedures to
enable such personnel, as applicable, to comply with the conditions and limitations specified in the AOC. (GM)
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified use of FOO/FOA in operational control system (focus: applicable to FOO/FOA/designated
management member functions as defined in Table 3.1).
Identified/Assessed OM guidance/procedures used by FOO/FOA personnel (focus: procedures ensure
compliance with AOC conditions/limitations).

✈ IOSA Checklist
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: compliance with AOC conditions/limitations by
FOO/FOA personnel).
Guidance
The specifications of this provision apply to FOO or FOA personnel who are delegated authority and/or assigned
responsibilities in accordance with DSP 1.3.4 and/or DSP 1.3.5, respectively.
Refer to Guidance associated with FLT 1.2.1 for information on the content of the AOC, to include conditions and
limitations.
The intent of this provision is to ensure conditions and limitations of the AOC are available in documentation for use,
as required, by flight operations officers/flight dispatchers (FOO) and/or flight operations assistants (FOA).
1.8 Records System

DSP 1.8.1
The Operator shall have a system for the management and control of operational control records to ensure the
content and retention of such records is in accordance with requirements of the Authority, as applicable, and to
ensure operational records are subjected to standardized processes for:
i. Identification;
ii. Legibility;
iii. Maintenance;
iv. Retention and retrieval;
v. Protection, integrity and security;
vi. Disposal, deletion (electronic records) and archiving. (GM) ◄
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed system for management/control of records in operational control system (focus: system
includes standardized processes as specified in standard).
Examined selected operational control records.
Guidance
Refer to guidance associated with ORG 2.6.1 located in ISM Section 1.
DSP 1.8.2
The Operator shall ensure the system for the management and control of operational control records as specified in
DSP 1.8.1 addresses, as a minimum, records that document or include:
i. Operational information, communications and data for each flight specified in DSP 1.8.4 and Table 3.4;
ii. The fulfillment of FOO and/or FOA qualification requirements specified in DSP 1.8.6, 1.8.8 and 1.8.9, as
applicable;
iii. A signed copy of the OFP or equivalent document, as specified in DSP 3.2.5.
N/A
Auditor Comments:

✈ IOSA Checklist

Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed system for management/control of records in operational control system (focus: definition
of information documented in records system).
Examined selected operational control records (focus: include information specified in Table 3.4; communication
records; FOO/FOA training/qualification records; OFP records).
Guidance
The specifications in item (i) may be satisfied by the flight operations organization records system, if used in
conjunction with the operator's system of operational control.
DSP 1.8.3
If the Operator uses an electronic system for the management and control of operational control records, the
Operator shall ensure the system provides for a scheduled generation of backup record files. (GM) ◄
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed electronic system for management/control of records (focus: system includes backup
process that defines a schedule for periodic file backup).
Examined selected records of backup files (focus: records periodically backed up in accordance with system
process).
Guidance
DSP 1.8.4
The Operator shall have a process or procedures to record and retain operational information, communications and
data for each flight. As a minimum, such retained flight information and data shall be in accordance with the
specifications in Table 3.4 and retained for a period of time determined by the Operator or the Authority. (GM)
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed process or procedures for management/control of records in operational control system
(focus: retention of information/data for each flight as specified in Table 3.4).
Examined selected operational control records (focus: information/data for each flight as specified in Table 3.4).

✈ IOSA Checklist
Guidance
Operational information and data may be retained by different means (e.g. ACARS logs, paper logs, manually,
computer systems).
Fuel and oil consumption records are typically maintained in accordance with MNT 3.1.1.
The communications typically subject to the record keeping specifications of this provision include operational voice,
text, or data communications to/from:
 Flights from the period beginning at the originating station when flight crew begins their duties on the flight
deck until the flight crew finishes their duties on the flight deck at the terminating station;
 If applicable, the operations control center.
Aircraft tracking data is typically retained only for the purposes of determining an aircraft's position in the event of an
accident.
DSP 1.8.6
If an FOO or FOA is used in the system of operational control, the Operator shall ensure training records for such
personnel, as applicable, are managed and maintained in accordance with DSP 1.8.1, to include records that
document completion of:
i. Initial qualification;
ii. Continuing qualification;
iii. Competency evaluations. (GM)
Note:
Records that document the completion of competency evaluations shall be retained for a period in accordance with
requirements of the Authority, but not less than one year.
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified use of FOO/FOA in operational control system (focus: applicable to FOO/FOA functions as defined in
Table 3.1).
Identified/Assessed system for management/control of records in operational control system (focus: retention of
FOO/FOA training/qualification information).
Examined selected operational control records (focus: FOO/FOA training/qualification information).
Guidance
The specifications of this provision apply to FOO or FOA personnel that are delegated authority and/or assigned
Initial qualification training records are typically retained permanently while an individual is employed by an
operator, unless required otherwise by the Authority.
Continuing qualification training records are typically retained for three years to ensure that the subjects required in
DSP 2.2.2 have been covered during that time period.
PIC training records are addressed in ISM Section 2 (FLT).
DSP 1.8.8
If the Operator has a flight deck familiarization program for FOO personnel in accordance with DSP 2.3.4, the
Operator should have a procedure to retain a record of the operational flight deck familiarization activities completed
by each FOO for a period of time in accordance with requirements of the Operator and/or Authority. (GM)

✈ IOSA Checklist

N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified use of FOO in operational control system (focus: applicable to FOO functions as defined in Table 3.1).
Identified/Assessed procedure for retention of records (focus: retention of FOO operational flight deck
familiarization activities; retention period in accordance with regulatory requirements).
Examined selected operational control records (focus: FOO operational flight deck familiarization activities).
Guidance
Refer to DSP 2.3.4 for the flight deck familiarization program specifications including recurrent training intervals.
In light of the DSP 2.3.4 recurrent training interval, the minimum record retention period is typically 12 months
unless a longer retention period is specified by the Authority.
DSP 1.8.9
If a licensed FOO is used in the system of operational control, the Operator shall have a procedure to retain a copy
of the license of each FOO for a period of time, in accordance with the requirements of the Operator and/or
Authority. (GM)
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified use of licensed FOO in operational control system (focus: applicable to FOO functions as defined in
Table 3.1).
Identified/Assessed procedure for retention of records (focus: retention of FOO license copy).
Examined selected operational control records (focus: FOO license copy).
Guidance
This provision is only applicable to operators that have a state requirement for licensing of FOO personnel in
conjunction with an approved system of operational control.
1.10 Quality Assurance Program

DSP 1.10.1
The Operator shall have a quality assurance program that provides for the auditing and evaluation of the
management system and operational control functions at planned intervals to ensure the organization(s) with
responsibility for operational control is (are):
i. Complying with applicable regulations and standards;
ii. Satisfying stated operational control needs;
iii. Identifying areas requiring improvement;
iv. Identifying hazards to operations;
v. Assessing the effectiveness of safety risk controls. [SMS](GM) ◄

✈ IOSA Checklist

N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed quality assurance program in operational control system (focus: role/purpose within
organization/SMS; definition of audit program scope/objectives; description of program elements/procedures for
ongoing auditing of management/operational areas).
Interviewed responsible quality assurance program manager.
Examined selected operational control audit reports (focus: audit scope/process/organizational interface).
Guidance
Refer to the IRM for the definition of Quality Assurance (QA).
Refer to Table 3.1 for examples of operational control functions that could be subjected to audit and evaluation as
part of an operator's quality assurance program.
Previous audit results could be made available by the operator as evidence of program implementation.
Audit records generated by the quality assurance program would be managed and controlled in accordance with
DSP 1.8.1.
The management systems responsible for operational control might vary according to the operator and/or State.
If operational control is under the flight operations management system, refer to ISM Section 2 (FLT), Subsection
1.10.
Refer to Guidance associated with ORG 2.1.1 located in ISM Section 1 for typical audit program requirements.
DSP 1.10.2
The Operator shall have an audit planning process and sufficient resources to ensure audits of operational control
functions are:
i. Scheduled at intervals to meet regulatory and management system requirements;
ii. Conducted within the scheduled interval. (GM) ◄
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed quality assurance audit planning process in operational control system (focus: audits
planned/scheduled/conducted in accordance with applicable internal/external requirements).
Identified/Assessed audit resources (focus: availability of sufficient auditors/other resources to accomplish audit
plan).
Crosschecked audit plan with selected audit reports (focus: audits conducted in accordance with audit plan).
Guidance
Intervals of surveillance activities might vary depending on the operator.
Previous outcomes would typically be considered in determining audit intervals.
DSP 1.10.3

✈ IOSA Checklist
The Operator shall have a process to ensure significant issues arising from operational control quality assurance
and risk management are subject to management review in accordance with ORG 4.1.1. [SMS] (GM) ◄
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed process for management review of operational control quality assurance issues (focus:
continual improvement of quality assurance program).
Examined selected records/documents of management review of operational control quality assurance program
issues (focus: specific issues/changes identified/implemented to improve quality assurance program).
Guidance
Significant issues would be defined by the operator but are typically regarded as those issues that could affect the
safety and/or quality of operations.
Refer to ORG 4.1.1, ORG 4.1.2, and associated Guidance located in ISM Section 1.
DSP 1.10.4
The Operator shall have a process for addressing findings that result from audits conducted under the quality
assurance program, which ensures:
i. Identification of root cause(s);
ii. Development of corrective action as appropriate to address findings;
iii. Implementation of corrective action in appropriate operational areas;
iv. Evaluation of corrective action to determine effectiveness. (GM) ◄
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed process for addressing/closing operational control audit findings.
Examined selected audit reports/records (focus: identification of root cause, development/implementation of
corrective action, follow-up to evaluate effectiveness).
Guidance
1.11 Quality Control of Outsourced Operations and Products

DSP 1.11.1A
If the Operator has external service providers conduct outsourced operational control functions, the Operator should
ensure a service provider selection process is in place that ensures:
i. Relevant safety and security selection criteria are established;
ii. Service providers are evaluated against such criteria prior to selection. (GM) ◄

✈ IOSA Checklist

N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed selection process for external service providers.
Interviewed responsible manager in operational control.
Examined selected records/documents that demonstrate application of the selection process.
Guidance
The intent of this provision is for an operator to define relevant safety and security criteria for use in the evaluation
and potential selection of operational control service providers. This is the first step in the management of external
service providers and would take place prior to the operator signing an agreement with a provider. The process
need be applied only one time leading up to the selection of an individual service provider.
DSP 1.11.1B
If the Operator has external service providers conduct outsourced operational control functions, the Operator shall
have a process to ensure a contract or agreement is executed with such external service providers. Such
contract(s) or agreement(s) shall identify the application of specific documented requirements that can be monitored
by the Operator, to ensure requirements that affect the safety of flight operations are being fulfilled by the service
provider. (GM) ◄
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed processes for contract/agreement production/execution with external service providers that
conduct outsourced operational control functions.
Examined selected operational control outsourcing contracts/agreements (focus: inclusion of or reference to
specific requirements applicable to external service providers).
Guidance
Refer to the IRM for the definitions of Operational Function (Aircraft Operations) and Outsourcing.
Examples of operational control functions that might be outsourced typically include flight planning, aircraft tracking,
the provision of position information of flights in distress to appropriate organizations, flight monitoring, and/or
weight and balance provision/computation.
DSP 1.11.2
If the Operator has external service providers conduct operational functions associated with the operational control
of flights, the Operator shall have a process to monitor such external service providers, to ensure requirements that
affect the safety of flight operations are being fulfilled. (GM) ◄
Note:

✈ IOSA Checklist
IOSA registration as the only means to monitor is acceptable provided the Operator obtains the latest of the
applicable audit report(s) through official program channels and considers the content of such report(s).
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed processes used for monitoring external operational control service providers (focus:
monitoring process ensures provider is fulfilling applicable safety/security requirements).
Examined selected records/reports resulting from monitoring of operational control service providers (focus:
monitoring process ensures provider is fulfilling applicable safety/security requirements).
Guidance
An operator would typically use external auditing in accordance with DSP 1.11.5 as the preferred process for the
monitoring and control of external organizations.
DSP 1.11.3
The Operator should have processes to ensure data, equipment or other operational products relevant to the safety
and security of aircraft operations that are purchased or otherwise acquired from an external vendor or supplier
(other than electronic navigation data products as specified in DSP 1.11.4) meet the product technical requirements
specified by the Operator prior to being used in the operational control of flights. (GM) ◄
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed processes for acceptance of acquired products used in operational control system.
Examined selected product acceptance records (focus: acquired products meet applicable operational control
technical requirements).
Guidance
Conformity with this provision ensures databases and other internal and external sources of operational data
provided for operational control are current, accurate and complete.
Examples of acquired operational control data or products typically include performance data, weight and balance
data, aircraft tracking systems/products, meteorological reporting/monitoring and NOTAMs.
DSP 1.11.4
If the Operator uses electronic navigation data products for application in operational control, the Operator shall
have processes, approved or accepted by the State, if required, which ensure such electronic navigation data
products acquired from suppliers, prior to being used in operations:
i. Are assessed for a level of data integrity commensurate with the intended application;

✈ IOSA Checklist
ii. Are compatible with the intended function of equipment in which it is installed. (GM)
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed processes for acceptance of electronic navigation data products acquired for application in
operational control (focus: assessment for data integrity/functionality are compatible with intended use; processes
have regulatory acceptance).
Examined selected product acceptance records (focus: products assessed for data integrity/functionality).
Guidance
Refer to the IRM for the definition of Navigation Data Integrity.
The responsibility of ensuring electronic navigation data is assessed for integrity and is compatible with the intended
application rests with the operator.
Navigation database integrity can be assured by obtaining data from a supplier accredited in accordance with
approved or accepted standards of data integrity and quality. Such standards include but are not limited to:
 RTCA/DO-200A, Standards for Processing Aeronautical Data, issued 09/28/98;
 RTCA/DO-201A, Standards for Aeronautical Information, issued 04/19/00;
 Advisory Circular (AC) 20-153, Acceptance of Data Processes and Associated Navigation Databases,
issued 09/20/10.
The specifications in items i) and ii) may be satisfied by an operator, in accordance with State-approved or-
accepted methods for assuring data integrity and compatibility, such as:
 Obtaining a letter of acceptance from an applicable authority stating the data supplier conforms to a
recognized standard for data integrity and compatibility that provides an assurance level of navigation data
integrity and quality sufficient to support the intended application, or
 The existence of operator validation processes to determine navigation data compatibility and accuracy
that provide an assurance level of navigation data integrity and quality sufficient to support the intended
application.
Monitoring and control of electronic navigation data products acquired from suppliers are also in accordance with
DSP 1.11.3.
DSP 1.11.5
If the Operator has external service providers conduct operational functions associated with the operational control
of flights, the Operator should include auditing as a process for the monitoring of external service providers in
accordance with DSP 1.11.2. (GM) ◄
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed auditing processes used for monitoring external operational control service providers.
Examined selected records/reports resulting from auditing of operational control service providers (focus: audit
process ensures provider is fulfilling applicable safety requirements).

✈ IOSA Checklist

Guidance
Monitoring and control of external organizations by an operator might include random samplings, product audits,
supplier audits, or other similar methods.
1.12 Safety Management

Risk Management
DSP 1.12.1
The Operator shall have a hazard identification program in the organization responsible for the operational control
of flights that includes a combination of reactive and proactive methods of hazard identification. [SMS] (GM) ◄
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed safety hazard identification program in operational control system (focus: program
identifies hazards to aircraft operations; describes/defines method(s) of safety data collection/analysis).
Identified/Assessed role of operational control in cross-discipline safety hazard identification program (focus:
participation with other operational disciplines).
Interviewed person(s) that perform operational control data collection/analysis to identify hazards to aircraft
operations.
Examined selected examples of hazards identified through operational control data collection/analysis.
Guidance
Refer to the IRM for the definitions of Hazard (Aircraft Operations) and Safety Risk.
Hazard identification is an element of the Safety Risk Management component of the SMS framework.
The specifications of this provision may be satisfied by the hazard identification program in the flight operations
organization if such program includes the operational control system.
Hazard identification specific to an operational activity (e.g. aircraft tracking, alternate airport selection, fuel planning
and/or ETOPS/EDTO) is an SRM process that is central to the development and use of variations, including
Operational Variations approved by the Authority, in accordance with applicable provisions in subsections 3 and 4.
DSP 1.12.2
The Operator shall have a safety risk assessment and mitigation program in the organization responsible for the
operational control of flights that specifies processes to ensure:
i. Hazards are analyzed to determine the corresponding safety risks to aircraft operations;
ii. Safety risks are assessed to determine the requirement for risk mitigation action(s);
iii. When required, risk mitigation actions are developed and implemented in operational control. [SMS]
[Eff] (GM) ◄
N/A
Auditor Comments:

✈ IOSA Checklist

Assessment Tool
Desired Outcome
• The Operator maintains an overview of its operational control risks and through implementation of mitigation
actions, as applicable, ensures risks are at an acceptable level.
Suitability Criteria (Suitable to the size, complexity and nature of operations)
• Number and type of analyzed hazards and corresponding risks.
• Means used for recording risks and mitigation (control) actions.
• Safety data used for the identification of hazards.
Effectiveness Criteria
(i) All relevant operational control hazards are analyzed for corresponding safety risks.
(ii) Safety risks are expressed in at least the following components:
- Likelihood of an occurrence.
- Severity of the consequence of an occurrence.
- Likelihood and severity have clear criteria assigned.
(iii) A matrix quantifies safety risk tolerability to ensure standardization and consistency in the risk assessment
process, which is based on clear criteria.
(iv) Risk register(s) across the operational control capture risk assessment information, risk mitigation (control)
and monitoring actions.
(v) Risk mitigation (control) actions include timelines, allocation of responsibilities and risk control strategies (e.g.
hazard elimination, risk avoidance, risk acceptance, risk mitigation).
(vi) Mitigation (control) actions are implemented to reduce the risk to a level of “as low as reasonably practical”.
(vii) Identified risks and mitigation actions are regularly reviewed for accuracy and relevance.
(viii) Effectiveness of risk mitigation (control) actions are monitored at least yearly.
(ix) Personnel performing risk assessments are appropriately trained in accordance with ORG 4.3.1.
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed safety risk assessment/mitigation program in operational control system (focus: hazards
analyzed to identify/define risk; risk assessed to determine appropriate action; action implemented/monitored to
mitigate risk).
Identified/Assessed role of operational control in cross-discipline safety risk assessment/mitigation program
(focus: participation with other operational disciplines).
Interviewed person(s) that perform operational control risk assessment/mitigation.
Examined selected records/documents that illustrate risk assessment/mitigation actions.
Guidance
Refer to the IRM for the definitions of Estimated Time of Use (ETU), EDTO (Extended Diversion Time Operations),
Risk Registry, Safety Risk, Safety Risk Assessment (SRA), Safety Risk Management and Safety Risk Mitigation.
Risk assessment and mitigation is an element of the Safety Risk Management component of the SMS framework.
Hazards relevant to the conduct of aircraft operations are potentially associated with:
 Weather (e.g. adverse, extreme and space);
 Geophysical events (e.g. volcanic ash, earthquakes, tsunamis);
 Operations in airspace affected by armed conflict (i.e. Conflict Zones);
 ATM congestion;
 Mechanical failure;
 Geography (e.g. adverse terrain, large bodies of water, polar);
 Airport constraints (e.g. isolated, runway closure, rescue and RFFS capability);
 Alternate airport selection, specification and availability at the estimated time of use (ETU);
 Preflight fuel planning and in-flight fuel management;
 Critical fuel scenarios;
 ETOPS/EDTO;
 Variations to prescriptive regulations or international standards including Operational Variations approved
by the Authority;

✈ IOSA Checklist
 Operational considerations (e.g. area of operations, diversion time);

 The capabilities of an individual aircraft (e.g. cargo smoke detection, fire suppression systems, open MEL
items);
 The properties of items to be transported as cargo;
 The quantity and distribution of dangerous goods items to be transported;
 Criminal and/or unauthorized activities directed at manned aircraft or in the vicinity of manned aircraft
operations (e.g. laser pointing, unauthorized UAS/RPAS operations);
 Flights using aircraft to transport cargo in the passenger cabin, without passengers;
 Any other condition(s) that could pose a safety risk to aircraft operations.
The specifications of this provision may be satisfied by the safety risk assessment and mitigation program in the
flight operations organization if such program includes the operational control system.
Risk assessment and mitigation specific to an operational activity (e.g. aircraft tracking, alternate airport selection,
fuel planning and/or ETOPS/EDTO) is an SRM process central to the development and use of variations in
accordance with applicable provisions in subsections 3 and 4.
Operational Reporting
DSP 1.12.3
The Operator shall have an operational safety reporting system in the organization responsible for the operational
control of flights that:
i. Encourages and facilitates operational control personnel to submit reports that identify safety hazards,
expose safety deficiencies and raise safety concerns;
ii. Ensures mandatory reporting in accordance with applicable regulations;
iii. Includes analysis and operational control management action as necessary to address safety issues
identified through the reporting system. [SMS](GM) ◄
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed operational safety reporting system in operational control (focus: system urges/facilitates
reporting of hazards/safety concerns; includes analysis/action to validate/address reported hazards/safety
concerns).
Interviewed person(s) that perform operational safety report review/analysis/follow-up in operational control.
Examined data that indicates robustness of operational control safety reporting system (focus: quantity of
reports submitted/hazards identified).
Examined records of selected operational control safety reports (focus: analysis/follow-up to identify/address
reported hazards/safety concerns).
Guidance
Safety reporting is a key aspect of SMS hazard identification and risk management.
Safety reporting specific to an operational activity (e.g. aircraft tracking, alternate airport selection, fuel planning
and/or ETOPS/EDTO) is an SRM process central to the development and use of variations in accordance with
applicable provisions in subsections 3 and 4.
The specifications of this provision may be satisfied by the operational reporting system in the flight operations
organization if such system includes the operational control system.

✈ IOSA Checklist
DSP 1.12.4
The Operator should have a confidential safety reporting system in the organization responsible for the operational
control of flights that encourages and facilitates the reporting of events, hazards and/or concerns resulting from or
associated with human performance in operations. (GM) ◄
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed confidential safety reporting system in operational control (focus: system urges/facilitates
reporting of events/hazards/safety concerns caused by humans; report/reporters are de-identified; includes
analysis/action to validate/address reported hazards/safety concerns).
Examined records of selected operational control confidential safety reports (focus: report/reporter de-
identification; analysis/follow-up to identify/address reported hazards/safety concerns).
Guidance
The specifications of this provision may be satisfied by a confidential reporting system in the flight operations
organization if such system includes the operational control system.
Safety Performance Monitoring and Management

DSP 1.12.5
The Operator shall have processes in the organization responsible for the operational control of flights for setting
safety performance indicators (SPIs) and, as applicable, safety performance targets (SPTs) as means to monitor its
safety performance, the achievement of its safety objectives and to validate the effectiveness of risk controls.
[SMS] (GM) ◄
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed program for setting SPIs and SPTs in operational control (focus: program defines the
development and implementation of SPIs and SPTs that are aligned with safety objectives).
Interviewed responsible manager(s) in operational control.
Examined selected SPIs and SPTs (focus: SPIs and SPTs are being used to monitor operational performance
toward effectiveness of risk controls and achievement of safety objectives).
Examined records/documents that confirm monitoring of operational control SPIs and SPTs (focus: monitoring of
operational safety performance, assess/validate risk control effectiveness).
Guidance
Refer to the IRM for the definitions of Safety Assurance, Safety Objective, Safety Performance Indicator (SPI) and
Safety Performance Target (SPT).
Setting SPIs that are consistent with the operator's safety objectives is an element of the Safety Assurance
component of the SMS framework.

✈ IOSA Checklist
SPIs are used by an operator to track and compare its operational performance against the achievement of its
safety objectives and to focus attention on the performance of the organization in managing operational risks and
maintaining compliance with relevant regulatory requirements.
SPTs define short-term and medium-term safety performance management desired achievements. They act as
‘milestones’ that provide confidence that the organization is on track to achieving its safety objectives and provide a
measurable way of verifying the effectiveness of safety performance management activities. The setting of SPTs is
normally accomplished after considering what is realistically achievable and, where historical trend data are
available, the recent performance of the particular SPI.
It is not always necessary or appropriate to set or define SPTs as there could be some SPIs that are better
monitored for trends rather than against a targeted number. Safety reporting is an example of when having a target
could either discourage people not to report (if the target is not to exceed a number) or to report trivial matters to
meet a target (if the target is to reach a certain number).
The specifications of this provision may be satisfied by processes in the flight operations organization if such
processes include setting SPIs for the operational control system.
Refer to Guidance associated with ORG 1.4.1 (safety objectives) and 1.4.2 (SPIs and SPTs) located in ISM Section
1.
2 Training and Qualification

General Guidance
Many of the provisions of this subsection contain specifications related to the recurring frequency of training and
evaluation events for operational control personnel. Such provisions, with a few exceptions, define cycles or intervals
for the completion of recurrent training and/or evaluation expressed in months since training was first completed or
qualification was first established. It is important to note, however, that for the purpose of conformity with these
provisions, such intervals are nominal and that the actual interval may vary slightly. For example, an Operator may
adjust the frequency of evaluations to minimize overlap, provide scheduling flexibility, preserve the original
qualification date, and/or to ensure evaluations are consistently completed in accordance with the nominal cycle set
forth by the State and/or applicable authorities. Accommodations of this nature are commonplace and vary widely by
regulatory jurisdiction. In all cases, however, the auditor will make the determination of whether or not such
accommodations fit within the nominal cycles established in each provision.
2.1 Training and Evaluation Program
General
DSP 2.1.1
The Operator shall have a training program, approved or accepted by the Authority, to ensure the operational
control personnel as specified in Table 3.1, as applicable to the Operator, are competent to perform any assigned
duties relevant to operational control in accordance with the applicable specifications of Table 3.5 prior to being
assigned to operational control duties. Such program shall, as a minimum, address:
i. Initial qualification;
ii. Continuing qualification. (GM)
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed training program for operational control personnel (focus: program addresses
initial/continuing qualification for functions specified in Table 3.1).
Examined training/qualification course curricula for operational control personnel (focus: course content as
specified in Table 3.5).
Examined training/qualification records of selected operational control personnel (focus: completion of
initial/recurrent training).

✈ IOSA Checklist

Guidance
Refer to the IRM for the definitions of Continuing Qualification, State Acceptance and State Approval.
Not all states require the approval or acceptance of a training program for operational control personnel. In such
cases, state acceptance is considered implicit.
A training program for operational control personnel typically addresses:
 For FOO and FOA personnel, initial and continuing qualification in accordance with the specifications of
Table 3.1 and Table 3.5;
 For FOO and FOA personnel, a method of qualification through written, oral and/or practical evaluation;
 For administrative support personnel as defined in Table 3.1, on-the-job training (OJT), job descriptions,
task cards, guidelines, checklists, training materials or other written means to establish competence.
FOO personnel who have completed training programs conducted in accordance with ICAO Doc 7192-AN/857, Part
D, Training Manual–Flight Operations Officers/Flight Dispatchers, meet the specifications of this provision.
FOO initial training programs contain all of the competencies in Table 3.5 that are relevant to the operations of the
operator.
FOA initial training programs contain the competencies in Table 3.5 that are relevant to their job function as
determined by the operator.
DSP 2.1.2
If an FOO or FOA is used in the system of operational control, the Operator shall ensure the training program
specifies minimum training hours for such personnel, as applicable, in accordance with requirements of the
Operator and/or State. (GM)
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Table 3.1).
Identified/Assessed training program minimum hours for FOO/FOA personnel (focus: hours in accordance with
regulatory requirements).
Examined training/qualification course curricula for FOO/FOA personnel (focus: initial/recurrent program
elements specify minimum training hours).
Examined training/qualification records of selected FOO/FOA personnel (focus: completion of initial/recurrent
training).
Guidance
The training curriculum normally specifies minimum training hours for each subject area and also indicates whether
it has been mandated by the Authority or operator.
DSP 2.1.3
The Operator shall have a process to ensure course materials used in training programs for personnel responsible
for operational control are periodically evaluated to ensure compliance with the qualification and performance

✈ IOSA Checklist
standards of the Operator and/or Authority. (GM)

N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed process for periodic evaluation of course materials used in training program for operational
control personnel (focus: evaluation addresses compliance with applicable qualification/performance standards).
Examined selected records of training courseware evaluation (focus: completion of periodic courseware
evaluations).
Guidance
Such process typically provides:
 Continual improvement and effectiveness;
 Incorporation of the latest regulatory and operational changes in a timely manner.
Instructors and Evaluators

DSP 2.1.7
If an FOO or FOA is used in the system of operational control, the Operator shall have a process to ensure those
individuals designated to evaluate the competency of such personnel, as applicable, are current and qualified to
conduct such evaluations. (GM)
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Table 3.1).
Identified/Assessed qualification program for FOO/FOA evaluators (focus: curriculum based on defined
competency standards/criteria).
Examined training/qualification records of selected FOO/FOA evaluators (focus: completion of evaluator
qualification program).
Guidance
The intent of this provision is to ensure:
 Personnel delegated to evaluate FOO personnel are themselves current and qualified as an FOO in
accordance with requirements of the State and/or operator;
 Personnel delegated to evaluate FOA personnel are themselves current and qualified in the applicable
competencies of operational control in accordance with requirements of the State and/or operator.
The specifications of this provision refer to personnel delegated to evaluate the competency of operational control
personnel only. The qualifications for individuals delegated to train operational control personnel are in accordance

✈ IOSA Checklist
with requirements of the State and/or operator.
2.2 Training Elements

DSP 2.2.2
If an FOO or FOA is used in the system of operational control, the Operator shall ensure such personnel receive
recurrent training in the applicable competencies of operational control, as specified in Table 3.5. Recurrent training
shall be completed on a frequency in accordance with requirements of the Authority, if applicable, but not less than
once during every 36-month period plus or minus one month from the original qualification anniversary date or base
month.(GM)
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Table 3.1).
Identified/Assessed recurrent training/evaluation program for FOO/FOA personnel (focus: curriculum
addresses knowledge/proficiency in competencies as specified in Table 3.5; training interval not greater than 36
months).
Examined training/qualification records of selected FOO/FOA personnel (focus: completion of recurrent
training/evaluation every 36 months).
Guidance
Human factors training is accomplished in accordance with DSP 2.2.3.
Dangerous goods training is accomplished in accordance with DSP 2.2.4.
 The recurrent training program for FOO personnel addresses all of the competencies that are relevant to
the operations of the operator as specified in Table 3.5;
 The recurrent training program for FOA personnel addresses each of the competencies relevant to their
specific job function and to the operations of the operator as specified in Table 3.5.
Different methods of conducting recurrent training are acceptable, including formal classroom study, home study,
computer-based training, seminars and meetings. All recurrent training, regardless of method, is documented and
retained in accordance with DSP 1.8.1.
DSP 2.2.3
If an FOO is used in the system of operational control, the Operator shall ensure such personnel receive training in
human factors on a frequency in accordance with requirements of the Authority, if applicable, but not less than once
during every 36-month period plus or minus one month from the original qualification anniversary date or base
month.(GM)
N/A
Auditor Comments:

✈ IOSA Checklist
Auditor Actions
Identified use of FOO in operational control system (focus: applicable to FOO function as defined in Table 3.1).
Identified/Assessed human factors training program for FOO personnel (focus: training interval not greater than
36 months).
Examined training/qualification records of selected FOO personnel (focus: completion of human factors training
every 36 months).
Guidance
Refer to the IRM for the definition of Human Factors.
duties or tasks related to all applicable competencies defined in Table 3.5.
DSP 2.2.4
If the Operator transports dangerous goods as cargo, and an FOO or FOA is used in the system of operational
control with duties or responsibilities related to the carriage of dangerous goods, the Operator shall ensure such
personnel receive training and evaluation in dangerous goods during initial ground training and subsequently during
recurrent training on a frequency in accordance with requirements of the Authority, if applicable, but not less than
once during every 24-month period. (GM)
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Table 3.1).
Identified FOO/FOA duties/responsibilities related to transport of dangerous goods.
Identified/Assessed dangerous goods training program for FOO/FOA personnel (focus: curriculum addresses
knowledge/proficiency in dangerous goods; training interval not greater than 24 months).
Examined training/qualification records of selected FOO/FOA personnel (focus: completion of dangerous goods
training every 24 months).
Guidance
responsibilities in accordance with GRH 3.4.2, GRH 3.4.3, DSP 1.3.4 and/or DSP 1.3.5 respectively, and perform or
directly supervise job functions related to the carriage of dangerous goods as defined by the Authority.
The curriculum for dangerous goods training for operational control personnel is determined by the operator and
may vary depending on specific responsibilities and duty function(s).
Recurrent training in dangerous goods is typically completed within a validity period that expires 24 months from the
previous training to ensure knowledge is current, unless a shorter period is defined by a competent authority.
However, when such recurrent training is completed within the final 3 months of the 24-month validity period, the
new validity period may extend from the month on which the recurrent training was completed until 24 months from
the expiry month of the current validity period. If such recurrent training is completed prior to the final three months
(or 90 days) of the validity period, the new validity period would extend 24 months from the month the recurrent
training was completed.

✈ IOSA Checklist
Refer to DGR 1.5 and Appendix H.6 for guidance that includes adapted task lists for well-defined job functions.
Refer to the General Guidance at the beginning of this section for additional information regarding the application of
the recurrent training interval.
2.3 Line Qualification

DSP 2.3.1
If an FOO, FOA or designated member of management is used in the system of operational control, the Operator
shall have a line qualification program to ensure such personnel, prior to being assigned to operational control
duties, have demonstrated proficiency in the competencies of operational control as specified in Table 3.5, as
applicable to the Operator, and have demonstrated the ability to:
i. Assist the PIC in flight preparation and provide the relevant information required;
ii. File a flight plan with the appropriate ATS unit;
iii. Furnish the PIC in flight, by appropriate means, with information that may be necessary for the safe
conduct of the flight;
iv. Initiate, in the event of an emergency, applicable procedures as outlined in the OM. (GM)
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified use of FOO/FOA/designated management personnel in operational control system (focus: applicable
to FOO/FOA functions as defined in Table 3.1).
Identified/Assessed line qualification program for FOO/FOA/designated management personnel (focus:
curriculum includes evaluation of competencies as defined in Table 3.5).
Examined training/qualification records of selected FOO/FOA/designated management personnel (focus:
completion of line qualification prior to operational control duty assignment).
Guidance
The specifications of this provision apply to designated members of management, as well as FOO or FOA
personnel, who are delegated authority and/or assigned responsibilities in accordance with DSP 1.3.4 and/or DSP
1.3.5, respectively.
Competencies of operational control are defined in Table 3.5.
Demonstrations of proficiency are recorded in accordance with DSP 1.8.1.
 FOO personnel demonstrate the ability to perform all duty functions;
 FOA personnel demonstrate the ability to perform specific duty functions associated with their assigned
area(s) of responsibility;
 A designated member of management that is directly involved with or directly performs the functions
specified in this provision demonstrates the same functional abilities as specified for an FOO or FOA.
Where the performance of one or more functions specified in this provision is delegated to others (e.g. to
FOOs or FOAs), a designated member of management would typically demonstrate the knowledge
necessary to accept the specified responsibilities and have an understanding of how such functions are
associated with the operational control of flights.
Item ii) refers to planning activities that involve ATS (e.g. flight plan filing, re-routes during flight, traffic flow
management and/or slot controls).
DSP 2.3.3
If an FOO is used in the system of operational control, the Operator shall ensure such personnel who have not

✈ IOSA Checklist
performed duties as an FOO for a period of 12 consecutive months are not assigned to perform FOO duties until re-
qualified, by demonstrating knowledge and/or proficiency in accordance with DSP 2.1.1. (GM)
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified use of FOO in operational control system (focus: applicable to FOO/Flight Dispatcher functions as
Identified/Assessed re-qualification program for FOO personnel (focus: applicable when FOO duties have not
been performed for 12 months; curriculum addresses knowledge/proficiency in competencies as specified in Table
3.5).
Examined training/qualification records of selected FOO personnel (focus: completion of re-qualification prior to
re-assignment to operational control duty).
Guidance
DSP 2.3.4
If an FOO is used in the system of operational control, the Operator shall ensure such personnel are not assigned
to FOO duties unless, within the preceding 12 months plus or minus one month from the original qualification
anniversary date or base month, they have either:
i. Observed one familiarization flight from the flight deck of an aircraft over any area or route segment where
responsibility for operational control will be exercised, or
ii. If approved by the State and/or if access to the aircraft flight deck is restricted by the Authority, observed a
Line Operational Simulation (LOS) profile accomplished in a representative flight simulator approved for
the purpose by the State, and such profile addresses the areas or route segments where responsibility for
operational control will be exercised. (GM)
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed flight familiarization program for FOO personnel (focus: flight familiarization required every
12 months; requires observation over representative area/route during line flight/simulator LOS).
Examined training/qualification records of selected FOO personnel (focus: completion of flight familiarization
every 12 months).

✈ IOSA Checklist
Guidance
Operators subject to laws or regulations of the State that prohibit the application of specification i) of this provision,
and that cannot comply with specification ii) of this provision due to the non-existence of a representative flight
training device, may demonstrate an equivalent method of ensuring the specifications of this provision are satisfied.
The familiarization flight or LOS is typically representative of the operational environment within which the FOO will
be working. Examples of a representative environment include-ultra long haul, long haul, short haul, over water,
mountainous terrain, ETOPS/EDTO, areas of special navigational requirements, or passenger versus cargo flights.
Familiarization flights typically include at least one takeoff and landing as well as a minimum of 2.5 to 5 hours on the
flight deck. If a flight is operating a long-haul segment of more than 5 hours, the FOO is typically permitted to take a
break during the cruise portion of the flight.
An operator, in accordance with the requirements of the State and other applicable authorities, may adjust the
frequency of evaluations specified in this provision to minimize overlap, preserve the original qualification date and
to ensure evaluations are completed within the annual cycle and any constraints set forth by the operator, State
and/or applicable authorities.
2.4 Special Qualification

DSP 2.4.1
If the Operator uses FOO personnel and the Operator's method of Operational Control requires shared
responsibility between an FOO and the PIC, the Operator should ensure FOO personnel complete resource
management training that addresses issues of mutual concern to FOOs and flight crew members. Such training
should be conducted for the purposes of enhancing coordination, ensuring a mutual understanding of the human
factors involved in joint operational control and achieving common learning objectives as set out by the appropriate
operational control and flight operations management personnel. (GM)
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified shared operational control system (focus: PIC+FOO share responsibility for safety of flight).
Identified/Assessed resource management training program for FOO personnel (focus: curriculum includes
jointly developed learning objectives; addresses human factors issues involved in shared operational control).
Examined training/qualification records of selected FOO personnel (focus: completion of PIC-FOO resource
management training).
Guidance
control, whether licensed or not, who participates in an approved or accepted shared (including partial shared)
system of operational control and:
 Is delegated authority in accordance with DSP 1.3.4;
The intent of this provision is to ensure that resource management issues of mutual concern to FOO personnel and

✈ IOSA Checklist
flight crew members are addressed for the purposes of enhancing coordination and to foster a mutual
understanding of the human and other factors involved in joint operational control.
Such training is typically accomplished using common learning objectives, determined during interdepartmental
coordination meetings, which are subsequently incorporated into the respective training curricula. It is possible that
although the learning objectives are determined jointly that the development of curricula and administration of the
training occurs independently within each department.
The training specified in this provision does not require the physical presence of FOO personnel and flight crew
members at a common training location.
2.5 SMS Training

DSP 2.5.1
The Operator shall have a program that ensures its operational control personnel are trained and competent to
perform SMS duties. The scope of such training shall be appropriate to each individual's involvement in the SMS.
[SMS](GM) ◄
Note:
The specifications of this provision are applicable to personnel of the Operator that perform operational control
functions.
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed SMS training program for operational control (focus: program ensures training for the
operator’s operational control personnel as appropriate to individual SMS involvement).
Examined initial/recurrent training curricula/syllabi for management/non-management operational control
personnel (focus: training in individually relevant SMS duties/responsibilities).
Examined selected management/non-management operational control personnel training records (focus:
completion of SMS training).
Guidance
SMS training is an element of the Safety Promotion component of the SMS framework.
The specifications of this provision may be satisfied by a training program in the flight operations organization if
such program includes SMS training for operational control personnel.
DSP 2.5.2
If the Operator outsources operational control functions to external service providers, the Operator should have a
program that ensures personnel of external service providers are trained and competent to perform SMS duties.
The scope of such training should be appropriate to individual involvement in the Operator’s SMS. [SMS](GM) ◄
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed SMS training program for operational control (focus: program ensures training for

✈ IOSA Checklist
operational control personnel of external service providers as appropriate to individual SMS involvement).
Interviewed SMS manager and/or designated management representative(s).
Examined selected outsourcing contracts/agreements (focus: inclusion of requirement of SMS training for
applicable service provider personnel).
Examined selected records/reports resulting from monitoring of service providers (focus: monitoring process
ensures applicable personnel of service providers have completed SMS training).
Guidance
SMS training is an element of the Safety Promotion component of the SMS framework.
3 Line Operations
3.1 General
DSP 3.1.2
The Operator shall have a process or procedures to ensure the PIC is provided with all documents, information and
data necessary for the safe conduct of the flight. (GM)
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed operational control process/procedure for provision of documentation to flight crew (focus:
definition of required documents/information/data provided to flight crew).
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: PIC provided with documents/information/data
necessary for safe conduct of flight).
Guidance
The OM typically specifies the documents required by the PIC for the safe conduct of each flight. This list of
required documents may also be replicated on the folder/envelope containing such documents or displayed in the
operational control/flight dispatch center/office for reference purposes. Additionally, the process or procedures
associated with the provision of flight documents typically includes safeguards to ensure all of the required
documents are provided to the PIC prior to each flight.
3.2 Flight Preparation and Planning

DSP 3.2.2
If an FOO or FOA is used in the system of operational control, the Operator shall have a process or procedures to
ensure such personnel, as applicable, and the PIC use a common set of flight documents for each planned flight.
(GM)
N/A
Auditor Comments:

✈ IOSA Checklist
Auditor Actions
Table 3.1).
Identified/Assessed process/procedures for development/issuance of documents for each flight (focus:
documents issued to PIC are common with those used by FOO/FOA personnel).
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: common flight planning documents used by PIC
and FOO/FOA personnel).
Guidance
responsibilities in accordance with DSP 1.3.4 and/or DSP 1.3.5 respectively.
Refer to Table 2.2 found in ISM Section 2 (FLT) for OM documentation requirements.
DSP 3.2.3
The Operator shall have a procedure to ensure an Operational Flight Plan (OFP) and Air Traffic Services (ATS)
Flight Plan is generated for every intended flight. (GM)
Note:
The specifications of this provision are applicable to commercial and/or non-commercial operations.
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed procedure for production/issuance of Operational/ATS flight plans (focus: both OFP and
ATS flight plans are produced/issued for each flight).
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: production/issuance of OFP and ATS flight plan
for each flight).
Guidance
The intent of this provision is to ensure the generation of an OFP and ATS flight plan for all flights conducted by the
operator.
DSP 3.2.4
If an FOO or FOA is used in the system of operational control, the Operator shall have guidance and procedures to
ensure such personnel, as applicable, assist the PIC in flight preparation, furnish required operational information
as necessary and either:
i. Prepare the OFP and ATS flight plan, or
ii. Assist the PIC in the preparation of the OFP and ATS flight plan. (GM)
N/A
Auditor Comments:

✈ IOSA Checklist
Auditor Actions
Table 3.1).
Identified/Assessed guidance/procedures for FOO/FOA personnel to provide PIC with assistance in flight
preparation (focus: procedures include preparation of the OFP/ATC flight plan).
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: FOO/FOA assistance to PIC in flight preparation).
Guidance
In a non-shared system of operational control, the ATS flight plan may be prepared by the PIC.
DSP 3.2.5
The Operator shall have guidance and procedures that ensure the original OFP or equivalent document is accepted
and signed by the following personnel, using either manuscript or an approved electronic method:
i. The PIC for all systems of operational control;
ii. The FOO for a shared system of operational control;
iii. Designated member of management or post holder in a shared system of operational control that requires
the use of such management personnel. (GM)
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified type of operational control system (focus: shared or non-shared system).
Identified/Assessed guidance/procedures for acceptance of OFP (focus: method of signature acceptance for
OFP amendments).
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: acceptance of OFP by PIC and, if applicable,
FOO or designated member of management).
Coordinated with FLT Auditor (focus: complementary procedure for PIC acceptance of OFP).
Guidance
In a shared system of operational control, the signatures (manuscript or electronic) of both the PIC and the FOO or,
if applicable, the designated member of management, are required on the OFP or equivalent document (e.g.
dispatch release).
The specification in item iii) refers to a designated member of management in a shared system of operational
control (e.g. director of flight operations or other designated post holder).
Refer to Table 3.1 for the definitions of authorities and responsibilities associated with operational control personnel.
DSP 3.2.6
If an FOO is used in a full shared system of operational control, the Operator shall have guidance and procedures
to ensure en route amendments to the OFP are coordinated and verified through:
i. A signature (manuscript or approved electronic method) by the FOO or other person responsible for
operational control;
ii. A recorded agreement of the PIC. (GM)

✈ IOSA Checklist

N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified use of FOO in shared operational control system (focus: applicable to FOO/FOA functions as defined
in Table 3.1).
Identified/Assessed guidance/procedures for coordination/verification of en route amendments to OFP (focus:
PIC-FOO coordinate en route OFP amendments/verification recorded).
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: en route OFP amendment coordination).
Coordinated with FLT auditor (focus: coordination of en route amendments to OFP between PIC and FOO).
Guidance
Refer to the guidance associated with DSP 1.3.4 for the definition of a full shared system of operational control.
control, whether licensed or not, who participates in an approved or accepted shared (except partial shared) system
of operational control and:
 Is delegated authority in accordance with DSP 1.3.4;
FOO personnel that participate in a partial shared system typically lack the dedicated equipment necessary to
ensure en route amendments to the OFP can be coordinated and verified.
DSP 3.2.7
If an FOO or FOA is used in the system of operational control, the Operator shall have a process or procedures to
ensure Operator changes in an ATS flight plan are, when practicable, coordinated with the appropriate ATS unit
before transmission to the aircraft by the FOO, FOA or other delegated person. (GM)
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Table 3.1).
Identified/Assessed process/procedures for coordination of ATC flight plan changes (focus: FOO/FOA
coordinates changes with ATC prior to flight plan transmission to flight crew).
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: coordination of changes to ATS flight plan by
FOO/FOA).
Guidance
The intent of this provision is to ensure ATS flight plan changes that occur prior to departure and/or en route are,
when practicable, coordinated with the appropriate ATS unit prior to transmission to the aircraft. When such
coordination is not possible, the flight crew remains responsible for obtaining an appropriate clearance from an ATS

✈ IOSA Checklist
unit, if applicable, before making a change in flight plan.
DSP 3.2.8A
The Operator shall have guidance and procedures to ensure a flight will not be commenced unless it has been
ascertained, by every reasonable means available, that conditions and ground facilities required for the flight are
adequate for the type of operation. (GM)
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed guidance/procedures for assessment of required conditions/ground facilities prior to flight
departure (focus: flight planning accounts for adequacy of conditions/facilities for type of flight operation).
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: assessment of relevant conditions/ground
facilities prior to flight departure).
Coordinated with FLT auditor (focus: flight crew preflight assessment of conditions/facilities).
Guidance
The term “reasonable means” used in this standard is intended to denote the use, at the point of departure, of
information available to the operator either through official information published by the aeronautical information
services or readily obtainable from other sources.
A review of factors to determine if the conditions at the airport(s) of operation are acceptable for operations typically
includes, as applicable:
 Navigation aids;
 Runways, taxiways, ramp areas;
 Curfews;
 PPR (prior permission required);
 Field conditions;
 Lighting;
 ARFF/RFFS (airport rescue and firefighting/rescue and firefighting services);
 Applicable operating minima.
Guidance for assessing the level of RFFS deemed acceptable by aircraft operators using airports for differing
purposes is described in ICAO Annex 6. Part 1, Attachment I.
DSP 3.2.8B
The Operator shall ensure a flight will not commence or continue as planned unless it has been ascertained by
every reasonable means available that the airspace containing the intended route from the airport of departure to
the airport of arrival, including the intended take-off, destination and en route alternate airports, can be safely used
for the planned operation. (GM)
Note:
If the Operator conducts operations over or near areas of armed conflict, a risk assessment shall be conducted and
appropriate risk mitigation measures taken to ensure a safe flight.
N/A

✈ IOSA Checklist
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed flight planning process and procedures (focus: flights are not commenced or continued
unless intended airspace/airports of use have been assessed and determined to be safe for the planned
operations).
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: airspace/airports of intended use are assessed
for safe operations prior to and during the conduct of a flight).
Coordinated with FLT auditor (focus: flight crew preflight and en route assessment of airspace/airports of
intended use).
Guidance
The term “reasonable means” in this standard is intended to denote the use, at the point of departure or while the
aircraft is in flight, of information available to the operator either through official information published by the
aeronautical information services or readily obtainable from other sources.
Guidance on safety risk assessments is contained in the Safety Management Manual (SMM) (Doc 9859).
The Risk Assessment Manual for Civil Aircraft Operations Over or Near Conflict Zones (Doc 10084) contains further
guidance on risk assessment for air operators when flying over or near conflict zones.
DSP 3.2.9A
If the Operator is authorized to conduct certain portions of a commercial flight under visual flight rules (VFR), the
Operator shall have guidance and procedures that:
i. Specify the type of flight plan to be filed with the appropriate ATS unit;
ii. Require current meteorological reports, or a combination of current reports and forecasts, to indicate that
meteorological conditions along the portion of the flight to be flown under VFR will, at the appropriate time,
be such as to make compliance with VFR possible. (GM)
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified authorization for portions of flights to be conducted under VFR.
Identified/Assessed guidance/procedures applicable to conducting portions of flights under VFR (focus: flight
planning accounts for type of flight plan to be filed/required meteorological conditions; determination of expected
times when meteorological conditions will permit compliance with VFR).
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: guidance/procedures for control of flights to be
conducted under partial VFR, availability of meteorological reports, determination of expected times/conditions that
will permit compliance with VFR).
Guidance
 Operations that require compliance with VFR are practicable under the anticipated meteorological
conditions;
 The operator has guidance and procedures for determining expected times when meteorological
conditions will permit compliance with VFR.
The specification in item i) refers to the type of flight plan to be filed in instances where certain portions of a flight
will be conducted under VFR. In some cases, it may be possible to identify VFR portions in a predominantly

✈ IOSA Checklist
instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan (e.g. Y and Z designation on an ICAO flight plan). In other cases, an IFR
Flight Plan is normally filed for all flights and an instrument clearance obtained or cancelled en route in accordance
with FLT 3.10.2.
Guidance related to the filing of a composite ICAO flight plan, and the use of the Y designation for flights initially
operated under IFR and Z designation for flights initially operated under VFR, is contained in Amendment 1 to the
Procedures for Air Navigation Services–Air Traffic Management (PANS-ATM, Doc 4444).
DSP 3.2.9B
The Operator shall have guidance and procedures to ensure a flight to be conducted in accordance with IFR does
not:
i. Take off from the departure airport unless the meteorological conditions are at or above the operator's
established airport takeoff operating minima for that operation; and
ii. Take off, or continue beyond the point of in-flight re-planning, unless at the airport of intended landing or at
each required alternate airport, current meteorological reports or a combination of current reports and
forecasts indicate that the meteorological conditions will be, at the estimated time of use (ETU), at or
above the operator's established airport operating minima for that operation. (GM)
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed guidance/procedures for the assessment of airport meteorological conditions prior to
departure of IFR flights (focus: flight planning determines that conditions at departure/destination/alternate airports
meet all applicable requirements).
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations office (focus: procedures for monitoring/assessing
meteorological conditions for operational airports).
Coordinated with FLT auditor (focus: flight crew assessment of meteorological conditions for operational
airports).
Guidance
Refer to the IRM for the definitions of Alternate Airport, In-flight Re-planning Point and Estimated Time of Use
(ETU).
 Flights do not take off or continue beyond the point of in-flight re-planning unless the meteorological
conditions at each airport specified in i) or ii), are or will be at or above the operator's established airport
operating minima for the operation at the ETU;
 The operator has guidance and procedures for determining the ETU.
The ETU specified in (ii) is typically the estimated time of arrival derived from the OFP. However, some operators
may apply a time margin as required by the State.
The specification in item ii) would require the definition and application of alternate airport planning minima in
accordance with DSP 3.2.9C.
DSP 3.2.9C
The Operator shall have guidance and procedures, approved or accepted by the State, for determining whether an
approach and landing can be safely conducted at each required alternate airport at the ETU. Such guidance and
procedures shall specify the appropriate incremental values for visibility (and ceiling, if required), to be added to the
Operator's established airport operating minima. (GM)

✈ IOSA Checklist

N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed guidance/procedures for the application of safety margins in the assessment/selection of
planned alternate airports (focus: flight planning takes into account defined additives/margins to alternate airport
operating minima/times of arrival to account for forecast uncertainties, determination of ETU).
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: procedures for monitoring/assessing
approach/landing suitability for planned alternate airport, determination of ETU).
Coordinated with FLT auditor (focus: flight crew assessment of suitability of planned alternate airports).
Guidance
The intent of this provision is for the operator to have a means to ensure, with a reasonable degree of certainty, that
at the ETU of an alternate airport, the meteorological conditions will be at or above the operator's established
operating minima for an instrument approach. This is practically accomplished through guidance and procedures for
the definition and application of alternate planning minima and the determination of an ETU.
The specified visibility (and, if required, ceiling) additives are typically dependent on the approach facility
configuration and State requirements for a ceiling to be taken into account.
The ETU for alternate airports is normally determined in accordance with the type of operational control system and
requirements of the State:
 In a non-shared system of operational control, the ETU is typically expressed as a time margin (e.g. one
hour before to one hour after the ETA at the alternate airport);
 In a shared system of operational control, the ETU is typically considered to be a specific point in time
coupled with a requirement to ensure the alternate airport remains at or above appropriate minima for the
duration of the flight.
Specific requirements for en route alternate airports are addressed in DSP 3.6.5.
When determining an ETU, the operator might use a variable time margin based on specific flight parameters that
can be monitored after departure by an FOO or FOA and communicated to the PIC.
An operator, in accordance with the requirements of the Authority, typically uses technical guidance for the
development or application of alternate airport planning minima. Such guidance might be derived from one or more
of the following source references, as applicable:
 ICAO Flight Planning and Fuel Management Manual (Doc 9976).
 Commission Regulation EC No. 965/2012.
 FAR 121.625–Alternate Airport Weather Minima.
 FAR 121.631(b)–Original Dispatch or Flight Release, Redispatch or Amendment of Dispatch or Flight
Release.
 FAA OPSPEC C055 Table.
 Any equivalent reference document approved or accepted by the Authority for the development or
application of alternate planning minima designed to conform to the specifications of the provision.
3.3 Aircraft Performance and Load Planning

DSP 3.3.1
The Operator shall have guidance and procedures to ensure a planned flight does not exceed:
i. The maximum performance takeoff, en route and landing weight limits, based upon environmental
conditions expected at the times of departure, along the route of flight and at arrival;
ii. The aircraft structural ramp, takeoff and landing weight limits. (GM)

✈ IOSA Checklist

N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed guidance/procedures for application of aircraft performance data for planned flights (focus:
flight planning accounts for aircraft takeoff/en route/landing performance weight limitations).
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: guidance/procedures/restrictions that ensure
flights do not exceed aircraft performance weight limitations).
Coordinated with FLT auditor (focus: preflight consideration of aircraft performance limitations).
Guidance
The intent of this provision is to ensure the presence of guidance and procedures for the calculation of maximum
takeoff and landing weights, based on takeoff, en route, landing performance, structural limitations as well as any
applicable MEL restrictions. Additionally, such guidance and procedures address the means used to prevent an
aircraft from being loaded in a manner that precludes a flight from being operated overweight (e.g. notification of
weight restrictions to a Load Control Center/office or equivalent).
DSP 3.3.3
The Operator shall ensure qualified personnel perform weight and balance calculations. (GM)
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified specific personnel that perform weight/balance calculations.
Identified/Assessed weight/balance training/qualification program for operational control personnel (if
applicable) (focus: applicable to personnel that perform weight/balance calculations; program includes
demonstration of competence in weight/balance calculation).
Examined training/qualification records of selected operational control personnel (if applicable) (focus:
completion of weight/balance training program by operational control personnel that perform weight/balance
calculations).
Coordinated with FLT auditor (if applicable) (focus: flight crew members are qualified to perform weight/balance
calculations).
Coordinated with ground handling operations (if applicable) (focus: load control personnel are qualified to
perform weight/balance calculations).
Guidance
Weight and balance calculations may be delegated to a FOO or an appropriately qualified FOA.
The PIC may complete weight and balance calculations, if qualified in accordance with ISM Section 2 (FLT),
Subsection 2.1, Training and Evaluation Program.
Load control personnel that perform functions within the scope of ground handling operations may complete weight
and balance calculations if qualified in accordance with ISM Section 6 (GRH), Subsection 2.1, Training Program.
3.4 Icing Conditions

✈ IOSA Checklist
DSP 3.4.1
The Operator shall have guidance and procedures to ensure a flight to be operated in known or expected icing
conditions shall not be commenced unless the aircraft is certificated and equipped to be operated in such
conditions. (GM)
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed guidance/procedures for consideration of aircraft type for flights planned into expected in-
flight icing conditions (focus: flight planning accounts for aircraft certified/equipped for icing conditions).
Examined selected flight planning records (focus: aircraft certified/equipped for flight into icing conditions).
Coordinated with MNT auditor (focus: verification of fleet(s) certified/equipped for in-flight icing conditions;
identification of any exceptions).
Guidance
The intent of this provision is to ensure flights planned to operate in known icing conductions are only conducted
using appropriately certificated and equipped aircraft, which includes consideration of inoperative items on the
Minimum Equipment List (MEL). Additionally, if the operator uses a mixed fleet including aircraft that are and are not
suitably equipped for operations in icing conditions, the operator would have a means to preclude unequipped
aircraft from being used on flights in known icing conditions.
DSP 3.4.3
If the Operator conducts flights from any airport when conditions are conducive to ground aircraft icing, the Operator
shall have guidance and procedures to ensure a flight planned to operate in known or suspected ground icing
conditions is subjected to the following:
i. The aircraft has been inspected for ice accretion;
ii. If necessary, the aircraft has been given appropriate de/anti-icing treatment. (GM)
Note:
The specifications of this provision are applicable to commercial and/or non-commercial operations.
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified the operation of commercial/non-commercial flights at airports/stations during times when there is
potential for ground icing conditions.
Identified/Assessed guidance/procedures for flights planned into airports with known/suspected ground icing
conditions (focus: flight planning accounts for possibility of required aircraft de-/anti-icing operations).
Examined selected flight planning records (focus: consideration of requirement for aircraft de-/anti-icing
operations).
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: procedures for flights planned to operate in
known/suspected ground icing conditions).

✈ IOSA Checklist
Guidance
Refer to GRH 4.2.1 located in ISM Section 6 for specifications and associated Guidance related to the
establishment and maintenance of a De-/Anti-icing Program.
Additional guidance may be found in ICAO Doc 9640-AN/940, Manual of Aircraft Ground De-icing/Anti-icing
Operations.
3.5 Aircraft Tracking

DSP 3.5.1
The Operator shall have an aircraft tracking capability to track its aircraft throughout its areas of operations. (GM)
Note:
A specific tracking interval or reporting method is not defined by this provision.
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed Aircraft tracking capability for duration of all flights (focus: operational control
procedures/capability for the determination of aircraft position).
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: aircraft tracking process).
Coordinated with FLT auditor (focus: verification of flight crew responsibilities, if any, related to Aircraft tracking).
Guidance
Refer to the IRM for the definition of Aircraft Tracking.
The intent of this provision is to ensure operators implement the ground-based capability to track their aircraft
throughout their planned (i.e. actual) area(s) of operations rather than all areas of potential operations as defined in
the Air Operator Certificate (AOC) and related operations specifications.
This “core” tracking capability refers to a process that maintains and updates, at standardized intervals, a ground-
based record of the four-dimensional (4D) position of individual aircraft in flight.
For the purposes of aircraft tracking the 4D position of an aircraft is defined by latitude, longitude, altitude, and time.
Aircraft tracking may be accomplished by obtaining aircraft position information from sources including, but not
limited to, ACARS position reports, ADS-B position data, ADS-C position data, HF Radio position reports or Air
Traffic Services Units (ATSUs). Use of commercial aircraft tracking services to track airplanes will generally suffice
as a means to implement this ISARP if the service can track the aircraft across the operations.
This provision establishes the foundation that will support the implementation of the aircraft tracking provisions that
follow.
Guidance on aircraft tracking implementation is contained in:
 ICAO Annex 6, Part 1.
 ICAO Aircraft Tracking Implementation Guidelines (Cir 347).
 ICAO Global Aviation Distress Safety System Concept of Operations Document.
 Commission Regulation EC No. 965/2012 CAT.GEN.MPA.205 and related AMC and GM.
DSP 3.5.2
The Operator should track the position of an aircraft through automated reporting at least every 15 minutes for the
portion(s) of the planned in-flight operation(s) under the following conditions:
i. The aircraft has a maximum certificated takeoff mass of over 27,000 kg and a seating capacity greater
than 19, and
ii. Where an Air Traffic Services Unit (ATSU) obtains aircraft position information at greater than 15-minute

✈ IOSA Checklist
intervals. (GM)
Note:
Variations to automated reporting intervals may be applied provided risks to the operation resulting from such
variations are managed using a risk management process.
Note:
An Operator in conformity with the specifications of this provision is deemed in conformity with DSP 3.5.3.
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed Aircraft tracking capability for duration of applicable flights (focus: operational control
Guidance
Refer to the IRM for the definition of Aircraft Tracking, which includes definitions for 4D/15 Service and 4D/15
Tracking.
The intent of this recommendation is to encourage operators to obtain aircraft position data under the conditions
stipulated. The provision recommends that four-dimensional aircraft position information be obtained by the
operator using automated reporting means at 15-minute intervals (4D/15) or less when an ATSU obtains this
information at greater than 15-minute intervals. It is important to note that this is a recommended practice applicable
in all planned (i.e. actual) area(s) of operations rather than all areas of potential operations as defined in the Air
Operator Certificate (AOC) and related operations specifications. It is also applicable to a wide range of aircraft
given the low takeoff mass threshold.
The risk management process specified in this provision is intended to be strategic in nature and scope. It is not
intended, for example, that a specific risk assessment be conducted on a tactical basis by operational personnel
and/or the flight crew. Rather, the process would be used by the operator to develop mitigations that would be
imbedded in policy and procedure (e.g. MEL, theater-specific guidance or other guidance for use by operational
personnel) that would in turn allow for flight commencement (dispatch) in accordance with the risk management
outcome(s) of the process.
Variations allow for situations where the technical challenges or the duration of exposure may not warrant and/or
support 4D/15 tracking. The risk management process does not relieve operators of the responsibility to track their
aircraft. It simply defines a risk-based methodology that allows for the commencement of a flight or series of flights
when the recommended or required automated reporting interval is not achievable in accordance with either DSP
3.5.2 or 3.5.3.
The circumstances when a risk assessment process would be applicable include the following singular (i.e. one- off)
or long-term (i.e. continual) scenarios:
 Aircraft equipment failure prior to dispatch (commencement) rendering 4D/15 Tracking unserviceable;
 Systemic (non-aircraft dependent) failure rendering 4D/15 Tracking unachievable;
 Regular short exposure to lack of 4D/15 coverage (e.g. short A to B flights);
 Temporary airspace closures that may force unequipped aircraft onto routes that would typically require
4D/15 Tracking;
 Technologically challenging areas (e.g. Polar Routes);
 Other scenarios where, subject to risk assessment results, the technical challenges or the level of
exposure may not warrant (justify) 4D/15 Tracking.
The risk management process specified in this provision may allow for variations in the means of reporting (e.g.
manual vs. automated) as well as the reporting interval as long as the risks associated with such variations are
appropriately managed. The risk management process would typically consider factors such as:

✈ IOSA Checklist
 Capability of the operator’s operational control systems and processes, including those for contacting ATS
units;
 Overall capability of the airplane and its systems;
 Available means to determine the position of, and communicate with, the airplane;
 Frequency and duration of gaps in automated reporting;
 Human factors consequences resulting from changes to flight crew procedures;
 Specific mitigation measures and contingency procedures.
The above reference to human factors consequences refers to the hazards associated with making manual position
reports (e.g. HF, VHF, ACARS). Manual position reporting at the 15-minute interval defined for automated reporting
is not considered a viable method to meet tracking requirements as the additional workload required would distract
the flight crew from other duties and have a negative impact on the safety of the operation. Manual position
reporting at reduced intervals could introduce a level of uncertainty regarding accuracy (i.e. introduce a greater
potential for error).
Guidance on aircraft tracking is contained in:
 ICAO Annex 6, Part 1;
 ICAO Aircraft Tracking Implementation Guidelines (Cir 347);
 ICAO Global Aviation Distress Safety System Concept of Operations Document;
DSP 3.5.3
If the Operator conducts flight operations in oceanic areas, the Operator shall track the position of an aircraft
through automated reporting at least every 15 minutes for the portion(s) of the in-flight operation that is planned in
an oceanic area(s) under the following conditions:
i. The aircraft has a maximum certificated takeoff mass of over 45 500 kg and a seating capacity greater
than 19; and
ii. Where an Air Traffic Services Unit (ATSU) obtains aircraft position information at greater than 15-minute
intervals. (GM)
Note:
. For the purpose of aircraft tracking, an oceanic area is defined as the airspace that overlies waters outside the
territory of a state.
Note:
. Variations to automated reporting intervals may be applied provided risks to the operation resulting from such
variations are managed using a risk management process.
Note:
. An Operator in conformity with the specifications of DSP 3.5.2 is deemed in conformity with the specifications of
this provision.
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed Aircraft tracking capability for duration of applicable flights (focus: operational control
Guidance
The intent of this provision is to establish an automated aircraft position reporting interval that is to be maintained in

✈ IOSA Checklist
oceanic areas by either the operator or by the relevant ATS unit. It is important to note that if tracking data becomes
unavailable after flight commencement, there is no implied requirement for the operator to take on the tracking
responsibility or have a backup means (note use of word “planned” in the body of the provision). Additionally, once
airborne, if the aircraft operates outside of the planned route or area (e.g. unplanned diversion) and 4D/15 position
data cannot be obtained, the operation may continue.
The risk management process specified in this provision is intended to be strategic in nature and scope. It is not
intended, for example, that a specific risk assessment be conducted on a tactical basis by operational personnel
and/or the flight crew. Rather, the process would be used by the operator to develop mitigations that would be
imbedded in policy and procedure (e.g. MEL, theater specific guidance or other guidance for use by operational
personnel) that would in turn allow for flight commencement (dispatch) in accordance with the risk management
outcome(s) of the process.
Variations allow for situations where the technical challenges or the duration of exposure may not warrant and/or
support 4D/15 tracking. The risk management process does not relieve operators of the responsibility to track their
aircraft. It simply defines a risk-based methodology that allows for the commencement of a flight or series of flights
when the recommended or required automated reporting interval is not achievable in accordance with either DSP
3.5.2 or DSP 3.5.3.
The circumstances when a risk assessment process would be applicable include the following singular (i.e. one- off)
or long-term (i.e. continual) scenarios:
 Aircraft equipment failure prior to dispatch (commencement) rendering 4D/15 Tracking unserviceable;
 Systemic (non-aircraft dependent) failure rendering 4D/15 Tracking unachievable;
 Regular short exposure to lack of 4D/15 coverage (e.g. short A-to-B flights);
 Temporary airspace closures that may force unequipped aircraft onto routes that would typically require
4D/15 Tracking;
 Technologically challenging areas (e.g. Polar Routes);
 Other scenarios where, subject to risk assessment results, the technical challenges or the level of
exposure may not warrant (justify) 4D/15 Tracking.
The risk management process may allow for variations in the means of reporting (e.g. manual vs. automated) as
well as the reporting interval as long as the risks associated with such variations are appropriately managed. The
risk management process would typically consider factors such as:
 Capability of the operator’s operational control systems and processes, including those for contacting ATS
units;
 Overall capability of the airplane and its systems;
 Available means to determine the position of, and communicate with, the airplane;
 Frequency and duration of gaps in automated reporting;
 Human factors consequences resulting from changes to flight crew procedures; and
 Specific mitigation measures and contingency procedures.
The above reference to human factors consequences refers to the hazards associated with making manual position
reports (e.g. HF, VHF, ACARS). Manual position reporting at the 15-minute interval defined for automated reporting
is not considered a viable method to meet tracking requirements as the additional workload required would distract
the flight crew from other duties and have a negative impact on the safety of the operation. Manual position
reporting at reduced intervals could introduce a level of uncertainty regarding accuracy (i.e. introduce a greater
potential for error).
Guidance on aircraft tracking is contained in:
 ICAO Annex 6, Part 1;
 ICAO Aircraft Tracking Implementation Guidelines (Cir 347);
 ICAO Global Aviation Distress Safety System Concept of Operations Document;
3.6 Flight Monitoring and In-Flight Management

DSP 3.6.1
If an FOO or FOA is used in a shared system of operational control, the Operator shall have procedures and
equipment that ensure effective communication between the:
i. FOO and the PIC;

✈ IOSA Checklist
ii. If applicable, FOA and the PIC;

iii. FOO, PIC and maintenance. (GM)
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified use of FOO/FOA in shared operational control system (focus: applicable to FOO/FOA functions as
Identified/Assessed procedures/equipment for communications within the operational control system (focus:
capability for effective communication with flight crew/maintenance operations).
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: FOO/FOA communication with flight
crew/maintenance operations).
Guidance
Refer to the IRM for the definition of Operational Control–Shared Responsibility.
The specifications of this provision apply to FOO or FOA personnel who participate in an approved or accepted
shared system of operational control and who are delegated authority and/or assigned responsibilities in
accordance with DSP 1.3.4 and/or DSP 1.3.5, as applicable.
FOO or FOA personnel that participate in a partial shared system might lack the dedicated equipment necessary to
maintain shared responsibility in flight.
The communications system can be direct voice or electronic, but an effective system would be reliable, clear and
understandable over the entire route of the flight. An effective system would also perform adequately, and
appropriate personnel would be knowledgeable in its use.
DSP 3.6.2
If required by the State, the Operator shall have a system of operational control that includes flight monitoring for
the duration of a flight and ensures timely notification to the Operator by the PIC of en route flight movement and/or
significant deviation from the operational flight plan. (GM)
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified regulatory requirement for an operational control system that includes flight monitoring.
Identified/Assessed implementation of flight monitoring for duration of all flights (focus: operational control
procedures/capability for timely PIC communication/notification of en route flight movement/OFP deviations).
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: flight monitoring process; communication with
flight crew).
Coordinated with FLT auditor (focus: verification of flight crew notifications to operational control).
Guidance

✈ IOSA Checklist
DSP 3.6.3
The Operator should have a system of operational control that includes flight monitoring for the duration of a flight
and ensures timely notification to the Operator by the PIC of en route flight movement and/or significant deviation
from the operational flight plan. (GM)
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed implementation of flight monitoring for duration of all flights (focus: operational control
procedures/capability for timely PIC communication/notification of en route flight movement/OFP deviations).
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: flight monitoring process; communication with
flight crew).
Coordinated with FLT auditor (focus: verification of flight crew notifications to operational control).
Guidance
The intent of this provision is to ensure each flight conducted by the operator is “monitored” by suitably qualified
operational control personnel in accordance with the IRM definition and the requirements of the applicable
Authority.
DSP 3.6.4
If the Operator has a system of operational control that includes automated flight monitoring, the Operator should
have an adequate backup method of flight monitoring in case of failure of the automated system. (GM)
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified implementation of an automated flight monitoring system.
Identified/Assessed implementation of a backup method of flight monitoring (focus: operational control
plan/procedures/capability for flight monitoring in event of automated system failure; process for transition from
automated system to backup method).
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: backup flight monitoring process).
Guidance
Refer to the IRM for the definition of Automated Flight Monitoring System.
DSP 3.6.5A
The Operator shall have guidance and procedures to ensure a flight is not continued toward the airport of intended
landing unless the latest available information indicates, at the ETU, a landing can be made either at that airport or

✈ IOSA Checklist
at least one destination alternate airport. (GM)

N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed guidance/procedures for monitoring/assessing conditions at flight destination/alternate
airports (focus: flight continuation permitted only if information indicates landing can be made at
destination/alternate airport).
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: monitoring of destination/alternate airport
conditions/information during flight).
Guidance
The intent of this provision is to ensure personnel with operational control responsibilities have access to the most
current and accurate information available in order to support informed decision-making related to safe flight
completion. This is especially important when the conditions under which a flight was originally planned have
changed after takeoff (e.g. unplanned re-release) or because the flight was planned with a re-release point (a pre-
planned re-release). In either case, the overriding intent is to ensure operational control personnel, including flight
crews, have access to the most current and accurate information available. Access to such information is typically
necessary to ensure flights do not proceed beyond the last possible point of diversion to an en route alternate
airport (appropriate for the aircraft type) and continue to the destination when, in the opinion of either the PIC or, in
a shared system of operational control, the PIC and FOO it is unsafe to do so.
The ETU for an airport of intended landing is normally determined in accordance with the type of operational control
system and requirements of the State:
 In a non-shared system of operational control, the ETU is typically expressed as a time margin (e.g. one
hour before to one hour after the ETA at the alternate airport);
 In a shared system of operational control, the ETU is typically considered to be a specific point in time
coupled with a requirement to ensure the alternate airport remains at or above appropriate minima for the
duration of the flight.
Information that would be useful in determining whether a landing can be made at the destination or any required
alternate is typically related to:
 Meteorological conditions, both en route and at the airport of intended landing, to include hazardous
phenomena such as thunderstorms, turbulence, icing and restrictions to visibility.
 Field conditions, such as runway condition and availability and status of navigation aids.
 En route navigation systems and facilities status, where possible failures could affect the safe continuation
or completion of the flight.
 En route fuel supply, including actual en route consumption compared to planned consumption, as well as
the impact of any changes of alternate airport or additional en route delays.
 Aircraft equipment that becomes inoperative, which results in an increased fuel consumption or a
performance or operational decrement that could affect the flight crew's ability to make a safe landing at an
approved airport.
 Air traffic management concerns, such as re-routes, altitude or speed restrictions and facilities or system
failures or delays.
 Security concerns that could affect the routing of the flight or its airport of intended landing.
Refer to Table 2.2 found in ISM Section 2 (FLT) for OM documentation requirements.
DSP 3.6.5B
If the Operator selects and specifies en route alternate airports on the OFP, the Operator shall have guidance and

✈ IOSA Checklist
procedures to ensure en route alternate airports selected and specified on the OFP are available for approach and
landing, and the forecast at those airports is for conditions to be at or above the operating minima approved for the
operation at the ETU. (GM)
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified requirement for selection of en route alternate airports.
Identified/Assessed guidance/procedures for selection/designation of en route alternate airports (focus: flight
planning includes assessment/selection/designation on OFP of en route alternate airports with conditions that will
permit approach/landing at ETU).
Examined selected OFPs (focus: specification of en route alternate airports).
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: monitoring of en route airports
conditions/information during flight).
Guidance
The intent of this provision is for the operator to have a methodology to protect a diversion should a situation occur
that may require an aircraft to divert while en route. For example, such a methodology typically includes ensuring
that operational control personnel and pilots are knowledgeable about diversion airport alternates, applicable
meteorological conditions, and have the means to obtain information related to the availability of en route alternates.
One way to ensure a reasonable certainty that the weather conditions at a required en route alternate will be at or
above operating minima approved for the operation is through the application and use of planning minima (at the
planning stage) as specified in DSP 3.2.9C. This is done to increase the probability that a flight will land safely after
a diversion to an en route alternate airport.
The ETU for an en route alternate airport is typically understood to be the earliest to the latest possible landing time
at that airport.
Refer to Subsection 4.5 for provisions that specify the additional steps necessary to protect an en route alternate
airport when aircraft are engaged in operations beyond 60 minutes (from a point on a route to an en route alternate
airport) or ETOPS/EDTO.
DSP 3.6.5C
The Operator shall have procedures to ensure that the inadequacy of any facilities observed during the course of
flight operations is reported to the responsible authority without undue delay, and to further ensure that information
relevant to any such inadequacy is immediately disseminated to applicable operating areas within the Operator's
organization. (GM)
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed procedures for identifying/reporting inadequacy of relevant/required facilities during course
of flight operations (focus: inadequate facilities reported to responsible authority/communicated to applicable
operating areas within organization).
Examined selected flight records (focus: identification/notification of inadequate facilities).

✈ IOSA Checklist
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: procedures for reporting of inadequate facilities
observed during flights to applicable authorities/operational areas of organization).
Guidance
The specifications of this provision address situations when operational control personnel learn of the inadequacy of
facilities (e.g. navigation aid outages, runway closures) from flight crew reports, ATS, airport authorities or other
credible sources. Operational control personnel would be expected to convey any safety-critical outages to
applicable authorities and relevant operational areas within the organization.
DSP 3.6.6
The Operator shall have guidance and procedures to ensure notification to the Operator when a flight has been
completed. (GM)
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed guidance/procedures for notification of flight completion (focus: operational control
personnel receive notification once flight is completed).
Examined flight records (focus: flight completion notification).
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: procedures for flight completion notifications).
Guidance
Refer to the IRM for the definitions associated with Flight Time (Aircraft).
Notification of the safe landing of an aircraft permits the operator to discard 4D/15 aircraft tracking data obtained in
accordance with DSP 3.5.2 and/or DSP 3.5.3.
3.7 Emergency Response

DSP 3.7.1
If the Operator conducts international flights with aircraft that have emergency and survival equipment on board, the
Operator shall ensure the availability of information for immediate communication to rescue coordination centers
that describes such equipment, to include, as applicable:
i. The number, color and type of lifesaving rafts and pyrotechnics;
ii. Details of emergency medical and water supplies;
iii. Type and frequencies of the emergency portable radio equipment. (GM)
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified aircraft used for international flights that have emergency/survival equipment on board.

✈ IOSA Checklist
Identified/Assessed availability of information that describes onboard emergency/survival equipment for the
purpose of communication to rescue coordination centers in the event missing aircraft (focus: definition of required
information to be communicated; responsibility for communication).
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: preparedness to communicate
emergency/survival equipment information to SAR centers).
Guidance
Refer to the IRM for the definition of International Flight.
The intent of this provision is for an operator to have published information that describes the emergency and
survival equipment carried on board aircraft engaged in international operations, and to have such information
readily available when necessary for immediate communication to search and rescue (SAR) facilities.
DSP 3.7.2
The Operator shall have guidance and procedures to ensure FOO, FOA or other designated personnel:
i. Notify the appropriate authority in the quickest manner of any accident involving an aircraft that results in a
fatal or serious injury to any person or substantial damage to the aircraft or property;
ii. Make position information of a flight in distress available to the appropriate organizations as established by
the State. (GM)
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed guidance/procedures for notification to appropriate authority in event of accident resulting
in serious injury/substantial damage (focus: procedures/responsibility for providing timely accident notification).
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: preparedness to provide accident notification to
the appropriate authority).
Guidance
Refer to the IRM for the definition of Autonomous Distress Tracking (ADT)
The intent of this provision is to ensure applicable operational control personnel provide timely aircraft accident
notification or position information of a flight in distress to the appropriate authority by designated personnel using
the system specified in DSP 1.4.2 and if applicable, the specifications of ORG 1.7.11.
Position information of an aircraft in distress aims at establishing, to a reasonable extent, the location of a potential
accident site within a 6 NM radius.
Descriptive information relevant to an aircraft in distress may be found in Table 4.12 (xxx) located in ISM Section 4
(MNT).
DSP 3.7.3
If the Operator transports dangerous goods as cargo, the Operator shall ensure FOO, FOA and/or other designated
operational control personnel:
i. Have access to the same information pertaining to dangerous goods carried as cargo on board the aircraft
that is provided to the PIC;
ii. Are assigned the responsibility to provide detailed information without delay about dangerous goods
carried as cargo to emergency services responding to an accident or serious incident involving the
Operator's aircraft. (GM)

✈ IOSA Checklist

N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified authority for transport of dangerous goods as cargo.
Identified/Assessed guidance/procedures for notification to emergency services responding to an aircraft
accident (focus: procedures/responsibility for providing timely dangerous goods information).
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: access to same dangerous goods information as
provided to PIC; preparedness to provide dangerous goods information in event of accident).
Guidance
Refer to the IRM for the definitions of Dangerous Goods Regulations (DGR) and NOTOC (Notification to Captain).
 Applicable operational control personnel have access to the same dangerous goods information that has
been provided to the PIC;
 The operator assigns an operational control person the responsibility to provide specific information
regarding onboard dangerous goods to emergency services personnel that are responding to an accident
or serious incident involving the operator's aircraft.
An operator, in accordance with requirements of the Authority, typically develops guidance related to the transport
of dangerous goods based on technical information from one or more source reference documents, to include:
 Dangerous Goods Regulations (DGR);
 An equivalent dangerous goods manual, dangerous goods emergency response guide or other reference
document approved or accepted by the Authority for the development of flight crew guidance related to the
transportation of dangerous goods by air.
The dangerous goods information provided to the PIC is specified in GRH 3.3.4 located in ISM Section 6.
4 Operational Control Requirements and Specifications

General Guidance
Operators are increasingly reliant on the use of variations, including Operational Variations approved by the Authority.
Such alternative means of compliance allow for greater operational flexibility without degrading the safety
performance of an operational activity. This presumption is dependent on the presence of specific organizational and
operational capabilities, the results of SRM activities and the determination of acceptable standards of safety
performance.
Certain provisions in sub-sections 4.1, 4.3, and 4.5 contain a variation option applicable only to those operators that
use SRM processes to support conformity with selected alternate airport selection, fuel planning and/or EDTO
ISARPs. These options are typically presented as alternatives to one or more “prescriptive” specifications of the
parent provision.
In order to take advantage of any variation, including Operational Variations approved by the Authority, operators
would have the resources necessary to analyze operational hazards, manage the associated safety risks and achieve
target levels of safety performance. These processes are typically attributed to the implementation of a safety
management system (SMS).
The determination that operators will be able to reach a target level of safety performance necessary to ensure safety
is dependent on numerous organizational and operational capabilities that typically include, but are not limited to,
those that are compiled in the following table.
Note:
The table is provided as guidance material and does not introduce new requirements or specifications. It should be
used as an aid in evaluating an operator's ability to achieve conformity with the eligible provisions contained in this

✈ IOSA Checklist
subsection.
Organizational and Operational
Description
Capabilities
This is demonstrable organizational and operational process
management and control that is dependent on robust subordinate or
related processes including:
 The development of policy and procedure;
Organizational and Operational Process  The staffing of positions with an appropriate number of
Management and Control qualified personnel;
Operators typically possess the requisite
 Training to the operator's policy and procedure and to ensure
knowledge, skills, experience, resources
personnel remain competent and qualified;
and technologies necessary to implement
and oversee the many systems and  Implementation or the demonstration of performance in
processes required to use variations, accordance with policy and procedure;
including Operational Variations approved  Data reporting, measurement and analysis for the purpose of
by the Authority. monitoring the effectiveness and efficiency of systems,
processes, policies and/or procedures;
 An adjustment component or subsystem to respond to any
underperformance or deviation and for the purpose of
continuous improvement.
These are the key operator capabilities necessary to support
operational activities related to alternate selection, fuel planning and/or
ETOPS/EDTO including:
 Operational control systems and standard operating
procedures that provide the direction for the conduct of flight
operations;
 Ground-based and airborne tools and technologies to improve
Specific Operational Capabilities situational awareness and operational capability;
(operational control, aircraft, airport,
 Flight monitoring that encompasses the activities necessary
infrastructure and meteorological)
to effectively exercise operational control;
 Field condition monitoring at the destination, en route, en
route alternate and destination alternate airports (as
applicable) nominated for use by the flight up until the flight is
no longer dependent on the use of the applicable airports
 Rapid and reliable communication capabilities;
 Weather reporting and monitoring capability.
SRM processes interface with the internal system of production
(related to a specific system or process) for data reporting,
measurement and analysis, as well as other organizational systems.
These include the interfaces with SMS and Quality systems to ensure
operational systems and processes are subjected to the organization's
overarching safety and quality assurance processes, and:
 Appropriate data from many sources are isolated and
(Tactical) SRM processes extracted;
(specific to the development and use of  Reports from operational personnel are collated and
variations, including Operational Variations analyzed;
approved by the Authority)  Feedback and control references are provided against which
hazard analysis and consequence management can be
measured;
 Material is provided for root cause and safety trend analysis;
 Data are collected relevant to the mitigation of safety risks;
 Identification and analysis of applicable hazards;
 Assessment, control and of resultant safety risks.

✈ IOSA Checklist
Organizational and Operational

Description
Capabilities
This is the monitoring and measurement of safety performance through
An Oversight Component appropriate safety performance measures that continuously track
(safety performance monitoring and system safety performance as necessary to determine whether an
measurement) operator's system is truly operating in accordance with design
expectations.
Refer to the IRM for the definition of Safety Risk Management (SRM).
The variation options in the applicable sub-section 4 provisions allow for alternative means of compliance so long as
hazards are identified and safety risk assessment processes are used to ensure safety risks are mitigated or
controlled to an acceptable level
The applicable sub-section 4 provisions are also designed to ensure the operator possesses the capabilities to
sustain demonstrable levels of safety performance that are acceptable to the State and the operator.
4.1 Alternate and Isolated Airports
DSP 4.1.1
The Operator shall have a system, process and/or procedures for alternate airport selection to ensure an
appropriate takeoff alternate airport is selected and specified on the OFP whenever:
i. The meteorological conditions at the airport of departure are below the applicable airport operating landing
minima, and/or
ii. Other operational conditions exist, as defined by the State or the Operator, that would preclude a return to
the departure airport. (GM)
Note:
The Operator may conform with this provision through Operational Variations approved by the Authority or other
variations to takeoff alternate airport selection criteria provided each variation is subjected to the Operator’s SRM
processes and safety performance monitoring to ensure an acceptable level of safety is maintained.
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed system/process/procedures for takeoff alternate airport selection (focus: flight planning
includes assessment/selection/designation on OFP of takeoff alternate airport when meteorological/other conditions
preclude flight return to departure airport).
Examined selected OFPs (focus: designation of takeoff alternate airport).
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: process for selection of takeoff alternate airports).
Coordinated with FLT auditor(s) (focus: complementary process for selection/designation of takeoff alternate
airport). If the Operator conforms through Operational Variation (see Note), the following additional actions
apply
Identified applicable variation(s) used for takeoff alternate airport selection (focus: differences from any basic
requirements specified in the provision).
Examined safety risk assessment(s) applicable to use of variation(s) (focus: consistent with applicable
regulatory requirements; identification and mitigation of applicable risks).
Examined records of safety performance monitoring applicable to use of variation(s) (focus: monitoring of risk
associated with applicable variations).
Guidance
Refer to the IRM for the definition of Operational Variations.
The intent of this provision is to ensure a methodology exists for the selection and specification of takeoff alternate
airports when required. The selection of such airports is typically intended to address an operational condition (e.g.
an emergency during or immediately after takeoff) that would require the flight crew to land the aircraft as soon as

✈ IOSA Checklist
practicable. Accordingly, the applicable operating landing minima specified in the provision would typically refer to
the minimum ceiling and/or visibility/runway visual range for landing with an engine inoperative as established by
the operator.
Takeoff alternates are typically selected during the planning stage but may be selected after flight commencement
when necessary via radio, ACARS, or any other communication means acceptable to the operator and the State.
The appropriateness of an airport for selection as a takeoff alternate is dependent on many factors including, but
not limited to, the operational conditions specified in DSP 3.2.8.
An operator may use a system, a process or procedures alone or in any combination in order to fulfill operational
requirements related to the selection of takeoff alternate airports. In all cases, however, the robustness of any
methodologies used for takeoff alternate airport selection is commensurate with the breadth and complexity of the
operation.
A description of the typical relevant organizational and operational capabilities related to the use of variations,
including Operational Variations approved by the Authority, can be found in the General Guidance at the beginning
of this subsection.
Variations to alternate airport selection are typically approved or accepted by the State.
The subordinate SRM processes of an existing organizational SMS can be applied to variations to ensure the
desired level of safety is being achieved. Such SRM processes would typically consider at least the following:
 Capabilities of the operator;
 Overall capability of the aircraft and its systems;
 Available airport technologies, capabilities and infrastructure;
 Quality and reliability of meteorological information;
 Identified hazards and safety risks associated with each alternate aerodrome variation; and
 Specific mitigation measures.
Guidance on safety risk management and performance of safety risk assessments is contained in the ICAO Safety
Management Manual (SMM) (Doc 9859).
Examples of variations related to the selection of alternate airports are contained in the ICAO Flight Planning and
Fuel Management Manual (Doc 9976).
DSP 4.1.2
The Operator shall have a system, process, and/or procedures for alternate airport selection to ensure a takeoff
alternate airport selected in accordance with DSP 4.1.1 is located within a specified flying time from the airport of
departure as follows (as applicable to the Operator):
i. For aircraft with two engines, not more than one hour flying time from the airport of departure calculated at
the single-engine cruise speed, determined from the aircraft operating manual in ISA and still air conditions
using the actual takeoff mass.
ii. For aircraft with three or more engines, not more than two hours flying time from the airport of departure
calculated at the all-engine operating cruise speed, determined from the aircraft operating manual in ISA
and still air conditions using the actual takeoff mass.
iii. For aircraft engaged in ETOPS/EDTO, where an alternate airport meeting the flight time criteria of i) or ii) is
not available, the first available alternate airport located within the maximum diversion flying time approved
for the Operator considering the actual takeoff mass. (GM)
Note:
. Pre-existing approved ETOPS/EDTO calculations for the determination of threshold distances substantially similar
to those specified in items i), ii) or iii) may be used to conform with maximum diversion flight time calculations. For
example, operators may be authorized by the State to define diversion distances for each aircraft type, rounded up
to easily recalled figures, that are based on maximum certificated takeoff mass or on takeoff masses largely
representative of those used in operations.
Note:
. The Operator may conform with this provision through Operational Variations approved by the Authority or other
variations to takeoff alternate airport selection criteria provided each variation is subjected to the Operator’s SRM
processes and safety performance monitoring to ensure an acceptable level of safety is maintained.

✈ IOSA Checklist
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified operator procedures for designating takeoff alternate airports on the OFP.
Identified/Assessed system/process/procedures for selection/designation of a takeoff alternate airport located a
specified distance in flying time from the departure airport (focus: flight planning takes into account
regulatory/operational conditions/requirements/factors applicable to the operator/flight; such
conditions/requirements/factors that are considered/assessed in the takeoff alternate process are defined).
Examined selected OFPs (focus: designation of takeoff alternate airport in accordance with relevant factors).
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: process for selection/designation of takeoff
alternate airports).
Coordinated with FLT auditor(s) (focus: complementary distance criteria for selection/designation of takeoff
alternate airport). If the Operator conforms through Operational Variation (see Note), the following additional
actions apply
Identified applicable variation(s) used for takeoff alternate airport selection (focus: differences from any basic
Guidance
The principal intent of this provision is to address the safety risks associated with continuing a flight to an alternate
airport when a landing as soon as practicable is warranted, but a return to the airport of departure immediately after
takeoff is not possible. As a practical matter, and to limit the exposure to such risks, this requires the operator to
calculate the maximum diversion flight time for each aircraft type to ensure a takeoff alternate, when required, will
be located within a prescribed flight time from the airport of departure.
An operator may use a system, process, and/or procedures alone or in any combination in order to fulfill operational
requirements related to the selection of alternate airports. In all cases, however, the robustness of any
methodologies used for takeoff alternate airport selection is commensurate with the breadth and complexity of the
operation.
of this subsection.
DSP 4.1.4
The Operator shall have a system, process and/or procedures for alternate airport selection that takes into account
meteorological conditions and relevant operational information to ensure a minimum of one destination alternate

✈ IOSA Checklist
airport is specified on the OFP and the ATS flight plan, except under one or more of the following conditions (as
approved or accepted by the Authority based on the operations of the Operator):
i. When, based on the duration of the flight (from the departure airport, or from the point of in-flight re-
planning to the destination), there is reasonable certainty that, at the ETU of the destination airport:
a. The approach and landing may be made under visual meteorological conditions (VMC), as
defined by the State; and
b. Separate runways are usable with at least one runway having an operational instrument approach
procedure.
ii. When, based on the duration of the flight (from the departure airport, or from the point of in-flight re-
planning to the destination airport), there is reasonable certainty that, at the ETU of the destination airport,
the visibility will be at least 3 miles (5 km) and the ceiling will be at or above one or more of the following
prescribed heights, (as approved or accepted by the Authority based on the operations of the Operator):
a. The ceiling height for VMC, as defined by the State, or
b. 1,500 feet above the lowest (TERPS) circling MDA, if a circling approach is required and
authorized for that airport, or
c. 2,000 feet or 500 feet above the (PANS-OPS) circling height, whichever is greater, or
d. 2,000 feet or 1,500 feet above the lowest applicable HAT/HAA, whichever is greater. (GM)
Note:
. The specifications of this provision are not applicable for flights conducted under isolated airport operations as
specified in DSP 4.1.7.
Note:
. Conformity with item ii) requires the definition of the ceiling and visibility expected at the ETU of the destination
airport. Other determinants such as flight time (e.g. 6 hours) or the availability of separate runways may also be
used to further limit the instances when a flight may depart without nominating a destination alternate but are not
required to achieve conformity with item ii).
Note:
variations to destination alternate airport selection criteria provided each variation is subjected to the Operator’s
SRM processes and safety performance monitoring to ensure an acceptable level of safety is maintained.
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified regulatory requirements (including AMC) and exceptions for designation of a minimum of one
destination alternate airport.
Identified/Assessed system/process/procedures for selection of a minimum of one destination alternate airport
(focus: flight planning takes into account regulatory/operational conditions/requirements/factors applicable to the
operator/flight; such conditions/requirements/factors that are considered/assessed in the destination alternate
airport selection process are defined).
Examined selected OFPs/ATS flight plans (focus: designation of destination alternate airport in accordance with
relevant factors).
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: process for selection/designation of destination
alternate airport).
Coordinated with FLT auditor (focus: complementary distance criteria for selection/designation of a minimum of
one destination alternate airport). If the Operator conforms through Operational Variation (see Note), the
following additional actions apply
Identified applicable variation(s) used for destination alternate airport selection (focus: differences from any
basic requirements specified in the provision).

✈ IOSA Checklist

Guidance
Refer to the IRM for the definitions of Domestic Flight, Isolated Airport, PANS-OPS and TERPS, and for the
abbreviations HAT and HAA.
The principal intent of this provision is to address the safety risks associated with unavailability of the destination
airport. As a practical matter this is typically accomplished by the selection and specification of alternate airports in
accordance with the technical specifications of the provision and/or to otherwise ensure, to the extent reasonably
practicable, that an airport of intended landing will be available to a flight at the ETU.
Item i) identifies the basic operational specifications for alternate airport selection, although an operator may
conform to a minimum of one of the numbered specifications of the provision and be in overall conformance with the
intent of the entire provision. Individual conformity with items i) and ii) is “as approved or accepted by the Authority
based on the operations of the Operator” and dependent on many factors including the regulatory environment and
the type of operations conducted.
The ETU is typically defined as one hour before to one hour after the estimated time of arrival at the destination
airport.
Isolated airport operations, by definition, preclude the designation of a destination alternate airport and are
conducted in accordance with the planning specifications of DSP 4.1.7 and the fuel specifications of DSP 4.3.11.
For the purposes of item ii), separate runways are two or more runways at the same airport configured such that if
one runway is closed, operations to the other runway(s) can be conducted.
Applicable authorities typically include those authorities that have jurisdiction over international operations
conducted by an operator over the high seas or the territory of a state that is other than the State of the Operator.
The operator may use a system, process and/or procedures alone or in any combination in order to fulfill
operational requirements related to the selection of alternate airports. In all cases, however, the robustness of any
methodologies used for destination alternate airport selection is commensurate with the breadth and complexity of
the operation.
of this subsection.
desired level of safety is being achieved. Such SRM processes would typically consider at least the following.
DSP 4.1.5
The Operator shall have a system, process and/or procedures for alternate airport selection that takes into account
meteorological conditions and relevant operational information to ensure a second destination alternate airport is
specified on the OFP and the ATS flight plan under one or more of the following conditions (as approved or
accepted by the Authority based on the operations of the Operator):
i. When, for the destination airport, meteorological conditions at the ETU will be below the Operator's
established airport operating minima.
ii. When, for the destination airport, meteorological information is not available (unless the Authority will not
permit the initiation of a flight in the absence of such information).
iii. If the Operator conducts operations to airports with “marginal” meteorological conditions as defined in the
OM, when, for such operations, the meteorological conditions at the ETU of the destination and first

✈ IOSA Checklist
alternate airports will be marginal.

iv. If the Operator conducts extended over-water operations as defined in the OM, when, for such operations,
the meteorological conditions at the ETU of the destination airport will be below the Operator's established
operating minima for that operation, unless there is a reasonable certainty that the first alternate airport will
be at or above the Operator's established operating minima at the ETU. (GM)
Note:
Note:
variations to destination alternate airport selection criteria provided each variation is subjected to the Operator’s
SRM processes and safety performance monitoring to ensure an acceptable level of safety is maintained
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed system/process/procedures for selection of a second destination alternate airport (focus:
flight planning takes into account regulatory/operational conditions/requirements/factors applicable to the
operator/flight; such conditions/requirements/factors that are considered/assessed in the destination alternate
airport selection process are defined).
Examined selected OFPs/ATS flight plans (focus: designation of second destination alternate airport in
accordance with relevant factors).
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: system/process for selection/designation of
second destination alternate airport).
Coordinated with FLT auditor(s) (focus: complementary criteria for selection/designation of second destination
alternate airport). If the Operator conforms through Operational Variation (see Note), the following additional
actions apply
Identified applicable variation(s) used for destination alternate airport selection (focus differences from any basic
Guidance
The principal intent of this provision is to address the safety risks associated with lack of weather reporting for the
destination airport or its unavailability at the ETU due to the prevailing meteorological conditions. As a practical
matter this may be accomplished by the selection and specification of a second alternate in accordance with the
technical specifications of the provision and/or to otherwise ensure, to the extent reasonably practicable, that an
airport of intended landing will be available to a flight at the ETU.
An operator may conform to a minimum of one of the numbered specifications of the provision and be in overall
conformity with the intent of the entire provision. Individual conformity with items i) through iv) is “as applicable to
the operator” and dependent on many factors including the regulatory environment and the type of operations
conducted.
Isolated airport operations, by definition, preclude the designation of any destination alternate airport and are
conducted in accordance with the planning specifications of DSP 4.1.7 and the fuel specifications of DSP 4.3.11.
The specifications in ii) define a condition that triggers the selection and specification of a second destination
alternate except in cases when the operator is not authorized to depart in the absence of any destination weather
information. In such cases, the Authority may authorize departures without nominating a second destination
alternate if, for example:

✈ IOSA Checklist
 The FOO and flight crew obtain and consider those weather reports and forecasts which are available;
 The FOO and flight crew ensure adequate contingency plans (such as extra fuel) are available to deal with
an unfavorable change in conditions.
The term “marginal” as used in item (iii) is typically not defined by regulation. This, to some extent, is because the
definition of what constitutes “marginal” depends on the nature of the meteorological conditions present, the type of
operation being conducted and the capabilities of the airborne and ground-based equipment available. In any case,
an operator, in order to conform to item iii) must clearly define the term including the conditions under which a
second alternate is required.
The specifications in item iii) are typically applicable to flights conducted between airports within the territories of
one nation or country, or between nearby countries as approved or accepted by the applicable authorities.
The specification in item iv) is applicable if the term “extended overwater operations” is defined by regulation of the
State and by the operator. Such term is typically defined as an operation over water at a horizontal distance of more
than 50 nautical miles from the nearest shoreline.
An operator may use a system, process and/or procedures alone or in any combination in order to fulfill operational
methodologies for destination alternate airport selection is commensurate with the breadth and complexity of the
operation.
of this subsection.
DSP 4.1.7
If the Operator conducts isolated airport operations that preclude the selection of any destination alternate airport in
accordance with DSP 4.1.4 or 4.1.5, the Operator shall have a process to ensure, for each flight into an isolated
destination airport:
i. The designation of a point of safe return (PSR);
ii. The flight does not continue past the PSR unless a current assessment of meteorological conditions,
traffic, and other operational conditions indicate that a safe landing can be made at the ETU. (GM)
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified operations to isolated airport that preclude selection/designation of destination alternate airports.
Identified/Assessed process/procedures for designation/use of PSR in the conduct of isolated airport flights
(focus: flight planning includes computing/designating PSR for each isolated airport flight; procedures for
monitoring/assessing conditions during flight to allow/disallow flight continuation past PSR to destination airport).

✈ IOSA Checklist
Examined selected flight records (focus: designation/use of PSR for isolated airport flights).
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: process for designation of PSR for isolated
airport flights; ensuring safe destination conditions for flight continuation past PSR).
Coordinated with FLT auditor (focus: complementary PSR procedures for isolated airport flights).
Guidance
Refer to the IRM for the definitions of Isolated Airport and Point of Safe Return (PSR).
The intent of this provision, in combination with the fuel carriage requirements specified in DSP 4.3.11, is the
mitigation of some risks associated with operations to those airports that preclude the selection of a destination
alternate and, in addition, the creation of awareness among operational control personnel and the PIC as to the
actual position of the PSR and the conditions necessary to continue beyond the PSR to the isolated airport.
For the purposes of this provision, an airport is considered isolated when there is no destination alternate
appropriate for a given aircraft type within a prescribed flight time from the destination. A destination airport is
typically considered isolated by the Authority when the fuel required to go-around from Decision Altitude/Height
(DA/H) or the Missed Approach Point (MAP) at the destination airport and then divert to the nearest alternate
exceeds, for a turbine engine aircraft, the fuel required to hold at the destination airport for two hours including final
reserve fuel.
In the context of isolated airport operations, a PSR is the point of last possible diversion to an en route alternate.
The specification in item i) requires that a PSR is to be determined for each flight to an isolated airport. While this
point can be calculated and specified on the OFP at the planning stage, such a calculation does not typically take
into account any discretionary fuel, or the real-time changes in fuel consumption that will occur after departure.
Therefore, since the PSR will typically be reached later in the flight than the point originally calculated in the OFP,
an operator would normally provide practical instructions so that operational control personnel and the flight crew
can calculate or determine the actual position of the PSR.
The Final Decision Point used in Decision Point Planning or the Pre-determined Point used in Pre-determined Point
planning may be used to meet the intent of this specification in lieu of a specific PSR.
Guidance for planning operations to isolated airports, including the determination of a PSR, may be found in the
ICAO Flight Planning and Fuel Management Manual (Doc 9976).
4.2 Minimum Flight Altitudes and En Route Performance

DSP 4.2.1
The Operator shall have guidance and procedures to ensure planned minimum flight altitudes are not less than
those established by the applicable authorities. (GM)
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed guidance/procedures for planning altitudes for all flights (focus: flight planning takes into
account and ensures flights meet minimum altitude limitations established by regulation).
Examined selected OFPs/flight records (focus: planned flight altitudes within minimum altitude limits).
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: flight planning; altitude selection).
Coordinated with FLT auditor (focus: process for selection of planned minimum altitudes that meet established
safe limits).
Guidance
Operational flight planning includes a review of the route of flight, in conjunction with published aeronautical
information, to ensure compliance with minimum flight altitudes. Such review could include:

✈ IOSA Checklist
 Minimum Safety Altitude (MSA);

 Minimum Descent Altitude/Height (MDA/H);
 Minimum En route Altitude (MEA);
 Minimum Obstruction Clearance Altitude (MOCA);
 Minimum Off-Route Altitude (MORA);
 Minimum Vectoring Altitude (MVA);
 Any other minimum altitudes prescribed by the Authority.
DSP 4.2.2
The Operator shall have guidance and procedures to ensure provision of an OFP such that, if the most critical
engine on an aircraft with two engines become inoperative at any point along the planned route of flight, the aircraft
can continue to an airport and land safely without flying below the minimum flight altitude(s) at any points along the
route. (GM)
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed guidance/procedures for consideration of en route critical engine failure for flights
conducted by two-engine aircraft (focus: flight planning takes into account critical engine failure/flight diversion at
any point on planned route without flying below minimum altitudes; designated en route alternates shown on OFP).
Examined selected OFPs (focus: planned route of flight/en route alternate airports).
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: process that ensures OFP route for two-engine
aircraft permits, in case of critical engine failure at any point, flight to proceed to an airport above minimum
altitudes).
Coordinated with FLT auditor (focus: complementary criteria for consideration of en route critical engine
failure/selection of en route alternate airports).
Guidance
Operational flight planning normally includes a review of the route of the flight in conjunction with published
aeronautical and terrain data to ensure compliance with the minimum flight altitudes defined by the operator and/or
applicable authorities. The specifications of this provision typically require a minimum amount of terrain clearance,
specified by the operator and/or applicable authorities along the route of flight to assure continued safe flight and
landing.
DSP 4.2.3
If the Operator uses aircraft with three or more engines, the Operator shall have guidance and procedures for
diversion planning and the provision of an OFP that ensures aircraft with three or more engines can either:
i. If a second engine becomes inoperative en route, continue from the point where two engines are assumed
to fail simultaneously to an en route alternate airport at which the landing distance specification for
alternate airports is complied with and where it is expected that a safe landing can be made, or
ii. If a single engine becomes inoperative en route, and for operations conducted in areas of the world with
limited diversion options, the flight is planned with a more distant alternate than specified in item i) in order

✈ IOSA Checklist
to provide for a diversion for any en route contingency that may limit the planned operation. Such diversion
planning shall be conducted in accordance with the specifications of a program approved or accepted by
the State that requires the Operator to actively manage the risk of subsequent engine failures or other
flight limiting occurrences and:
a. Contains special considerations for extended range flights conducted over remote areas designed
to prevent the need for a diversion and protect the diversion to an alternate airport when it cannot
be prevented;
b. Uses aircraft designed and manufactured for the intended operation and maintained to ensure
original reliability;
c. Requires the Operator to implement and maintain a problem reporting, tracking and resolution
system that contains a means for the prompt reporting, tracking and resolution of specific
problems, as designated by the Operator or State, that could affect the safety of the operation;
d. Requires a prescribed level of engine reliability, as measured by an in-flight shutdown rate (IFSD)
determined by the Operator or State, where the risk of independent failures leading to a loss of
thrust from two simultaneous engine failures ceases to limit the operation and other limiting
factors come into play;
e. Designates a maximum diversion distance in cases where a diversion is necessary for any
reason, including limiting airframe systems and reasons that do not have anything to do with
aircraft reliability, such as passenger illness;
f. Requires the Operator to demonstrate to the applicable authorities that, when considering the
impact of increasing diversion time, the operation can be conducted at a level of reliability which
maintains an acceptable level of risk. [PCO](GM)
Note:
Item ii) is a Parallel Conformity Option [PCO] for item i); in effect until 31 August 2024.
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed guidance/procedures for consideration of en route engine failure for flights conducted by
three/four-engine aircraft (focus: flight planning takes into account risks associated with single/dual engine
failure/flight diversion; planned route will allow for single/dual engine failure at any point and continuation to an en
route alternate/diversion airport for safe landing; designated en route alternates/diversion information shown on
OFP).
Examined selected OFPs (focus: planned route of flight; en route alternate airports; diversion information).
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: process that ensures OFP route for three/four-
engine aircraft permits, in case of one/two engine failure at any point, flight to proceed to an airport with safe
landing).
Coordinated with FLT auditor (focus: complementary criteria for consideration of en route single/dual engine
failure, diversion options).
Guidance
Operational flight planning normally includes a review of the route of flight along with published aeronautical
information to ensure the designation of appropriate en route alternates that meet all operational and regulatory
requirements.
Applicable authorities as specified in item f) includes those authorities that have jurisdiction over international
operations conducted by an operator over the high seas or the territory of a state that is other than the State of the
Operator.
4.3 Fuel Planning

✈ IOSA Checklist
DSP 4.3.1
The Operator shall have a system, process and/or procedures to ensure an aircraft carries a sufficient amount of
usable fuel to complete each planned flight safely and allow for deviations from the planned operation. (GM)
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed system/process/procedures for fuel planning for all flights (focus: flight planning takes into
account possible deviations from planned operation in calculating usable fuel for safe completion of flight).
Examined selected OFPs (focus: fuel load meets/exceeds minimum required departure/dispatch fuel).
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: process or procedures that ensure sufficient
usable fuel for safe flight completion taking into account unplanned deviations).
Coordinated with FLT auditor (focus: complementary procedures for assessing minimum required fuel).
Guidance
The intent of this provision is to define the foundation necessary to support the practical implementation of an
operator's fuel policy. It also addresses the baseline criteria to be considered in any methodology used in the
determination of total usable fuel required to complete each planned flight safely. Simply put, it requires an operator
to use system, process and/or procedures alone or in any combination in order to fulfill operational requirements
related to the implementation of its fuel policy. In all cases the robustness of any such methodologies is
commensurate with the breadth and complexity of the operation and takes into account:
 The aircraft-specific data and operating conditions for the planned operation (see DSP 4.3.2);
 The following components of usable fuel required in accordance with the respective provisions of this sub-
section:
o Taxi fuel (see DSP 4.3.5);
o Trip fuel in (see DSP 4.3.6);
o Contingency fuel (see DSP 4.3.7);
 If required (as applicable to each flight):
o Destination alternate fuel (see DSP 4.3.8 or DSP 4.3.9), or
o No-alternate fuel (see DSP 4.3.10), or
o Isolated airport fuel (see DSP 4.3.11).
 Final reserve fuel (see DSP 4.3.12);
 If required, additional fuel (see DSP 4.3.13);
 If requested by the PIC, or the PIC and FOO in a shared system of operational control, discretionary fuel
(see DSP 4.3.14).
Some regulatory authorities or operators may classify destination alternate fuel, no alternate fuel and Isolated
airport fuel under the common heading of “Alternate Fuel” in regulations and/or flight planning systems.
It is important for operational control personnel and the flight crew to have a clear and common understanding of
the terms used in the operator's fuel policy, as such understanding is the key to successful flight planning and
completion. Equally important is the notion that differences in terminology may exist from operator to operator.
Regardless of the terms used, however, an operator can conform to the provisions of this sub-section if the pre-
flight computation of usable fuel is substantially equivalent, allocates fuel in a similar fashion, and has the
components that, when combined, result in an equivalent or greater amount of fuel.
Fuel calculations are typically made by a flight crew member, a Flight Operations Officer/Flight Dispatcher (FOO), or
both.
Guidance on the organizational and operational systems and processes related to the implementation of fuel policy
is contained in the ICAO Flight Planning and Fuel Management Manual (Doc 9976).

✈ IOSA Checklist
DSP 4.3.2
The Operator shall have a system, process and/or procedures to ensure the amount of usable fuel to be carried on
an aircraft in accordance with DSP 4.3.1 is, as a minimum, based on the following data and operating conditions for
each planned flight:
i. Current aircraft-specific data derived from a fuel consumption monitoring program, if available, or if current
aircraft-specific data is not available, data provided by the aircraft manufacturer;
ii. The anticipated aircraft mass;
iii. Notices to Airmen (NOTAM);
iv. Current meteorological reports, or a combination of current reports and forecasts;
v. Applicable air traffic services procedures, restrictions and anticipated delays;
vi. The effects of deferred maintenance items and/or configuration deviations;
vii. Any other conditions that might cause increased fuel consumption. (GM)
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed system/process/procedures for planning sufficient usable fuel for safe completion of all
flights (focus: flight planning takes into account operating data/conditions that might cause/lead to increased fuel
consumption; such operating data/conditions that are considered/assessed in usable fuel calculation process are
defined).
Examined fuel policy (focus: guidance for calculation of minimum required departure/dispatch fuel).
Examined selected OFPs (focus: operating factors considered as basis for required departure/dispatch fuel).
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: process or procedures that ensure planned flight
usable fuel is based on all relevant data/operating conditions).
Coordinated with FLT auditor (focus: complementary procedures for assessing minimum required fuel).
Guidance
Refer to the IRM for the definition of NOTAM (Notice to Airmen).
The intent of this provision is to define the aircraft-specific data, manufacturer data, operating conditions and other
factors that would be considered by an Operator during the pre-flight computation of the total usable fuel required
for a planned flight. When considered in combination with DSP 4.3.1, this provision helps to form the basic
foundation for the means to complete the pre-flight calculation of usable fuel.
The specification in item i) refers to the process for ensuring actual aircraft fuel use approximates planned fuel use
within an acceptable margin of error. This is practically accomplished by comparing the achieved in-flight
performance of an aircraft to its predicted performance. Variations between the achieved performance and the
predicted performance will result in a variation of the rate of fuel consumption which is typically accounted for by the
operator during flight planning and in flight.
An operator may use a system, process and/or procedures alone or in any combination in order to fulfill operational
requirements related to the implementation of fuel policy. In all cases, however, the robustness of any such
methodologies is commensurate with the breadth and complexity of the operation.
Guidance on fuel planning including guidance related to the creation and maintenance of fuel consumption
monitoring programs is contained in the ICAO Flight Planning and Fuel Management Manual (Doc 9976).
DSP 4.3.5
The Operator shall have a process and/or procedures to ensure the taxi fuel required in accordance with its fuel
policy is the amount of fuel estimated to be consumed before takeoff, taking into account local conditions at the
departure airport and auxiliary power unit (APU) fuel consumption. (GM)
Note:

✈ IOSA Checklist
variations to fuel planning criteria provided each variation is subjected to the Operator’s SRM processes and safety
performance monitoring to ensure an acceptable level of safety is maintained.
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed process/procedures for calculation of taxi fuel for all flights (focus: flight planning takes into
account operating data/conditions that might cause/lead to increased taxi fuel consumption; such operating
data/conditions that are considered/assessed in taxi fuel calculation process are defined).
Examined selected OFPs (focus: operating data/conditions used as basis for taxi fuel).
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: process or procedures for calculating planned
taxi fuel).
Coordinated with FLT auditor(s) (focus: complementary procedures for assessing taxi fuel in accordance with
fuel policy). If the Operator conforms through Operational Variation (see Note), the following additional
actions apply
Identified applicable variation(s) used for fuel planning (focus: differences from any basic requirements specified
in the provision).
Guidance
The intent of this provision is to ensure the accurate computation of taxi fuel in order, to the extent reasonably
practicable, protect the remaining elements in the useable fuel equation. To achieve this aim, the computation of
taxi fuel would take into account foreseeable taxi conditions and delays in order to result in an amount of fuel
generally equal to or greater than the actual taxi fuel consumed before takeoff.
It is important to note that every usable fuel calculation typically takes into account unforeseen as well as foreseen
deviations from the planned operation. Unforeseen taxi delays, for example, may be addressed by the use of
Statistical Taxi Fuel, the uplift of discretionary fuel when deemed necessary by the PIC, or the partial consumption
of contingency fuel. Consuming contingency fuel during taxi, however, would be carefully considered as its use on
the ground may leave the flight crew with fewer options, once airborne, to compensate for other unforeseen
factor(s).
Operators using a variation to determine taxi fuel would typically have the demonstrable capability, using historical
data collection and analysis tools, to adjust taxi times to ensure continuous improvement in preflight taxi fuel
calculations.
of this subsection.
Variations to fuel planning criteria are typically approved or accepted by the State.
i. Flight fuel calculations;
ii. Capabilities of the operator;
iii. Capabilities of the data-driven method used for determining usable fuel required;
iv. Capabilities of the fuel consumption monitoring program used for determining hull-specific fuel burn and/or
the advanced use of alternate airports, as applicable;
v. Specific mitigation measures.

✈ IOSA Checklist

Guidance on fuel planning, including pre-flight fuel calculation examples, is contained in the ICAO Flight Planning
and Fuel Management Manual (Doc 9976).
DSP 4.3.6
The Operator shall have a process and/or procedures to ensure the trip fuel required in accordance with its fuel
policy is the amount of fuel required to enable the aircraft to fly from takeoff, or from the point of in-flight re-planning,
until landing at the destination airport taking into account the operating conditions specified in DSP 4.3.2. (GM)
Note:
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed process/procedures for calculation of trip fuel for all flights (focus: flight planning takes into
account operating data/conditions that might cause/lead to increased trip fuel consumption; such operating
data/conditions that are considered/assessed in trip fuel calculation process are defined).
Examined selected OFPs (focus: operating data/conditions used as basis for trip fuel).
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: process or procedures for calculating planned trip
fuel).
Coordinated with FLT auditor(s) (focus: complementary procedures for assessing trip fuel in accordance with
fuel policy). If the Operator conforms through Operational Variation (see Note), the following additional
actions apply
Identified applicable variation(s) used for fuel planning (focus: deviation from basic ISARP requirements).
Guidance
The intent of this provision is to ensure the accurate computation of trip fuel in order, to the extent reasonably
practicable, ensure that the total planned trip fuel burn is greater than or equal to the actual trip fuel burn.
The specifications of this provision define trip fuel for preflight planning and in-flight re-planning purposes, as well as
to form the basis for the computation of other fuel amounts (e.g., contingency fuel, additional fuel). In this context,
trip fuel is typically computed from either the departure airport or the point of in-flight re-planning until landing at the
destination airport taking into account the operating conditions of DSP 4.3.2. In the case of in-flight re-planning
(planned or unplanned), the intent of this provision is for the operator to reconsider (re-compute) the trip fuel
required from the re-planning point to the commercial (actual) destination.
Operators using a variation to determine trip fuel would typically have the demonstrable capability, using historical
data collection and analysis tools, to adjust taxi times to ensure continuous improvement in trip fuel calculations.
of this subsection.
i. Flight fuel calculations;

✈ IOSA Checklist
ii. Capabilities of the operator;

iii. Capabilities of the data-driven method used for determining usable fuel required;
iv. Capabilities of the fuel consumption monitoring program used for determining hull-specific fuel burn and/or
v. Specific mitigation measures.
Guidance on fuel planning, including pre-flight fuel calculation examples, is contained in the ICAO Flight Planning
and Fuel Management Manual (Doc 9976).
DSP 4.3.7
The Operator shall have a process and/or procedures to ensure the contingency fuel required in accordance with its
fuel policy is the amount of fuel required to compensate for unforeseen factors that could have an influence on the
fuel consumption to the destination airport. Contingency fuel shall not be lower than any one or more of the
following (as approved or accepted by the Authority based on the operations of the Operator):
i. Five (5) percent of the planned trip fuel or of the fuel required from the point of in-flight re-planning based
on the consumption rate used to plan the trip fuel, but never lower than the amount required to fly for five
(5) minutes at holding speed at 450 m (1,500 ft) above the destination airport in standard conditions.
ii. If approved or accepted by the Authority for domestic operations; an amount of fuel to fly for 45 minutes at
normal cruising fuel consumption, including 30 minutes final reserve.
iii. If approved or accepted by the Authority for international operations, an amount of fuel to fly for 10 percent
of the total time required to fly from the airport of departure or the point of in-flight re-planning to, and then
land at, the airport to which it was released or re-released.
iv. If approved or accepted by the Authority for the purpose of reducing contingency fuel, not less than three
(3) percent of the planned trip fuel or, in the event of in-flight re-planning, three (3) percent of the trip fuel
for the remainder of the flight, provided that an en route alternate airport is available in accordance with the
requirements of the Authority.
v. If approved or accepted by the Authority based on actual fuel consumption data, an amount of fuel
sufficient for 20 minutes flying time based upon the planned trip fuel consumption provided that the
operator has established a fuel consumption monitoring program for individual aircraft and uses valid data
determined by means of such a program for fuel calculation.
vi. If approved or accepted by the Authority, an amount of fuel based on a statistical method that ensures an
appropriate statistical coverage of the deviation from the planned to the actual trip fuel. This method is
used to monitor the fuel consumption on each city pair/aircraft combination and the Operator uses this data
for a statistical analysis to calculate contingency fuel for the applicable city pair/aircraft combination. (GM)
Note:
. Contingency fuel in accordance with item (iv), (v) and (vi) can never be lower than the amount of fuel required to
fly for five (5) minutes at holding speed at 450 m (1,500 ft) above the destination airport in standard conditions.
Note:
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed process/procedures for calculation of contingency fuel for all flights (focus: flight planning
takes into account unforeseen operating factors that might cause/lead to increased fuel consumption to the
destination airport; such operating factors that are considered/assessed in contingency fuel calculation process are
defined; minimum contingency fuel amount in accordance with regulatory requirements is defined).

✈ IOSA Checklist
Examined selected OFPs (focus: operating factors used as basis for contingency fuel).
contingency fuel).
Coordinated with FLT auditor(s) (focus: complementary procedures for assessing contingency fuel in
accordance with fuel policy). If the Operator conforms through Operational Variation (see Note), the following
additional actions apply
Identified variation(s) used for fuel planning (focus: differences from any basic requirements specified in the
provision).
Guidance
The intent of this provision is to ensure fuel is allocated to compensate for unforeseen factors that could influence
fuel burn to the destination airport. Such factors include, for example, deviations of an individual aircraft from
expected fuel consumption data, forecast meteorological conditions expected taxi times before takeoff or planned
routings and cruising altitudes/levels.
From a safety risk management perspective, contingency fuel is used to mitigate the risks associated with
operational factors or hazards that cannot be planned, anticipated, or controlled. The risk associated with the
improper calculation or complete consumption of contingency fuel is that of creating a low fuel state or a diversion
that could subsequently affect Air Traffic Management (ATM) and other aircraft.
It is important to note that differences in fuel computation terminology may exist from operator to operator. For
example, required contingency fuel may be a component of other fuel reserves mandated by the Authority.
Regardless of the terms used, however, an operator can conform to the provision if the pre-flight computation of
usable fuel allocates an equivalent or greater amount of fuel as specified in items i) through vi) and as applicable to
the operator in order to compensate for unforeseen factors that could influence fuel burn to the destination airport.
An operator may conform to a minimum of one of the numbered specifications of the provision and be in overall
conformity with the intent of the entire provision. Individual conformity with items i) through vi), however, is “as
approved or accepted by the Authority based on the operations of the Operator” and dependent on many factors
including the regulatory environment and the type of operations conducted.
The specification in item ii) protects 15 minutes of contingency fuel plus 30 minutes of final reserve fuel for a
combined domestic reserve of 45 minutes.
Operators using variations to determine isolated airport fuel would typically have the demonstrable capability, using
historical data collection and analysis tools, to adjust their fuel policy to ensure continuous improvement in the
accuracy and adequacy of isolated airport fuel calculations.
of this subsection.
 Flight fuel calculations;
 Capabilities of the data-driven method used for determining usable fuel required;
 Capabilities of the fuel consumption monitoring program used for determining hull-specific fuel burn and/or
Examples related to the computation of contingency fuel are contained in the ICAO Flight Planning and Fuel
Management Manual (Doc 9976).
DSP 4.3.8

✈ IOSA Checklist
The Operator shall have a process and/or procedures to ensure, for flights that require a single destination alternate
airport, the destination alternate fuel required in accordance with its fuel policy is not lower than amount of fuel that
will enable the aircraft to complete all of the following:
i. Perform a missed approach at the destination airport;
ii. Climb to the expected cruising altitude;
iii. Fly the expected routing to the destination alternate airport;
iv. Descend to the point where the expected approach is initiated;
v. Conduct the approach and landing at the destination alternate airport. (GM)
Note:
Note:
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed process/procedures for calculation of destination alternate fuel for flights that require a
single destination alternate airport (focus: flight planning takes into account fuel consumption required to divert from
destination airport and proceed to/hold/land at alternate airport; diversion flight phases that are
considered/assessed in single destination alternate fuel calculation process are defined).
Examined selected OFPs (focus: factors used as basis for single destination alternate fuel).
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: process or procedures for calculating destination
alternate fuel for flights that require a single destination alternate airport).
Coordinated with FLT auditor(s) (focus: complementary procedures for assessing single destination alternate
fuel in accordance with fuel policy). If the Operator conforms through Operational Variation (see Note), the
in the provision).
Guidance
The intent of this provision is to ensure the accurate computation of destination alternate fuel when one destination
alternate airport is required. Such computation ensures, to the extent reasonably practicable, that the planned fuel
burn will be greater than or equal to the actual fuel burn.
From a safety risk management perspective, “destination alternate fuel” is used to mitigate the risks associated with
the unavailability of the destination airport. The risk associated with the improper calculation or complete
consumption of such fuel is that of creating a low fuel state or a diversion that could subsequently affect Air Traffic
Management (ATM) and other aircraft.
Operators using variations to determine additional fuel would typically have the demonstrable capability, using
accuracy and adequacy of additional fuel calculations.
of this subsection.

✈ IOSA Checklist
Examples of the computation of destination alternate fuel are contained in the ICAO Flight Planning and Fuel
DSP 4.3.9
The Operator shall have a process and/or procedures to ensure, for flights that require a second destination
alternate, the destination alternate fuel required in accordance with its fuel policy is not lower than the amount of
fuel, as calculated in accordance with DSP 4.3.8, that enables the aircraft to proceed to the destination alternate
airport requiring the greater amount of fuel (GM).
Note:
Note:
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed process/procedures for calculation of destination alternate fuel for flights that require a
second destination alternate airport (focus: planned isolated airport fuel is the calculated amount that enables flight
to proceed from destination and hold/approach/land at the alternate airport requiring the most fuel; diversion flight
phases that are considered/assessed in second destination alternate fuel calculation process are defined).
Examined selected OFPs (focus: factors used as basis for second destination alternate fuel).
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: process or procedures for calculating destination
alternate fuel for flights that require a second destination alternate airport).
Coordinated with FLT auditor(s) (focus: complementary procedures for assessing second destination alternate
in the provision).
Guidance

✈ IOSA Checklist
The intent of this provision is to ensure the accurate computation of destination alternate fuel when a second
destination alternate airport is required. Such computation ensures, to the extent reasonably practicable, that the
planned fuel burn will be greater than or equal to the actual fuel burn.
From a safety risk management perspective, “destination alternate fuel” as described in this provision is used to
mitigate the risks associated with the unavailability of the destination or first alternate airport. The risk associated
with the improper calculation or complete consumption of such fuel is that of creating a diversion or low fuel state
that subsequently impacts Air Traffic Management (ATM) and other aircraft.
Operators using variations to determine alternate fuel would typically have the demonstrable capability, using
accuracy and adequacy of alternate fuel calculations.
of this subsection.
Examples of the computation of alternate fuel are contained in the ICAO Flight Planning and Fuel Management
Manual (Doc 9976).
DSP 4.3.10
If the Operator conducts flights that do not require a destination alternate airport, the Operator shall have a process
and/or procedures to ensure a supplemental amount of fuel is carried on such flights to provide for increased fuel
consumption during the flight to the destination airport due to unforeseen operational occurrences. (GM)
Note:
. The specifications of this provision are not applicable if the contingency fuel calculated in accordance with DSP
4.3.7 is sufficient to enable the aircraft to hold at an altitude of 450 m (1,500 ft) above the destination airport for 15
minutes at the holding speed based on standard conditions.
Note:
specified in DSP 4.1.7 and DSP 4.3.11.
Note:
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed process/procedures for addition of supplemental fuel to provide for potential increased fuel
consumption for flights that do not require a destination alternate airport (focus: planned supplemental fuel required
when contingency fuel is not sufficient to fly at holding speed for 15 minutes at 450 m/1500 ft above destination
airport).

✈ IOSA Checklist
Examined selected OFPs (focus: basis for addition of supplemental fuel).

supplemental fuel for flights that require no destination alternate airport).
Coordinated with FLT auditor(s) (focus: complementary procedures for assessing second destination alternate
Guidance
From a safety risk management perspective “no-alternate” fuel is intended to mitigate the safety risks associated
with the occurrence of unforeseen operational contingencies associated with no-alternate operations. The risk
associated with the improper calculation or complete consumption of such fuel is that of creating a low fuel state.
Operators using variations to determine isolated airport fuel would typically have the demonstrable capability, using
accuracy and adequacy of isolated airport fuel calculations.
of this subsection.
Examples of the computation of alternate and contingency fuel are contained in the ICAO Flight Planning and Fuel
DSP 4.3.11
If the Operator conducts isolated airport operations, the Operator shall have a process and/or procedures to ensure
the isolated airport fuel calculated in accordance with its fuel policy is not less than the amount of fuel required to fly
for two (2) hours at normal cruise consumption above the isolated destination airport, including the final reserve fuel
calculated in accordance with DSP 4.3.12. (GM)
Note:
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions

✈ IOSA Checklist
Identified conduct of isolated airport operations that preclude selection/designation of destination alternate
airports.
Identified/Assessed process/procedures for calculation of isolated airport fuel for flights to isolated airports
(focus: planned isolated airport fuel is the amount of fuel sufficient to fly for two hours at normal cruise consumption
above destination isolated airport, but not less than the greater of final reserve fuel).
Examined selected OFPs (focus: factors used as basis for isolated airport fuel).
isolated airport fuel).
Coordinated with FLT auditor(s) (focus: complementary procedures for assessing isolated airport fuel in
accordance with fuel policy). If the Operator conforms through Operational Variation (see Note), the following
additional actions apply
Guidance
The intent of this provision is to ensure sufficient fuel is uplifted to mitigate the safety risks associated with isolated
airport operations conducted in accordance with DSP 4.1.7, and to protect final reserve fuel. As such, final reserve
fuel must be computed and protected in accordance with DSP 4.3.12 regardless of the method used to compute
“isolated airport fuel”
As a practical matter destination airports are typically considered isolated by an authority when the fuel required to
go-around from Decision Altitude/Height (DA/H) or the Missed Approach Point (MAP) at the destination airport and
then divert to the nearest alternate exceeds, for a turbine engine aircraft, the fuel required to hold at the destination
airport for two hours including final reserve fuel (e.g. 90 minutes hold + 30 minutes Final Reserve).
Operators using variations to determine additional fuel would typically have the demonstrable capability, using
accuracy and adequacy of additional fuel calculations.
of this subsection.
Examples of the computation of isolated airport fuel are contained in the ICAO Flight Planning and Fuel
DSP 4.3.12
The Operator shall have a process and/or procedures to ensure the final reserve fuel calculated in accordance with
its fuel policy is not less than the amount of fuel required to fly for 30 minutes under speed and altitude conditions
specified by the Operator and as approved or accepted by the Authority. (GM)

✈ IOSA Checklist

N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed process/procedures for calculation of final reserve fuel for all flights (focus: planned final
reserve fuel is an amount that is not less than fuel to fly for 30 minutes at holding speed at 450 m/1500 ft or fuel to
fly 30 minutes under speed/altitude conditions approved/accepted by authority).
Examined selected OFPs (focus: factors used as basis for final reserve fuel).
final reserve fuel).
Coordinated with FLT auditor (focus: complementary procedures for assessing final reserve fuel in accordance
with fuel policy).
Guidance
The intent of this provision is to ensure the allocation of an amount of fuel to be protected in flight and preserved
upon landing at any airport. As such, it represents the last line of defense in a multi-layered strategy to ensure safe
flight completion. It also serves as the demarcation line between normal and emergency fuel states for the purposes
of the fuel state declarations in accordance with FLT 3.14.17.
An operator may define the 30-minute final fuel reserve requirements using speed, altitude and/or other conditions
that are in accordance with requirements of the Authority (e.g. 30 minutes at holding speed at 450m/1,500 ft above
airport elevation in standard conditions).
DSP 4.3.13
The Operator shall have a process and/or procedures to ensure the additional fuel calculated in accordance with its
fuel policy is a supplementary amount of fuel required to be carried when the sum of the trip fuel, contingency fuel,
alternate fuel and final reserve fuel is insufficient to meet any one of the following conditions (as applicable to the
Operator):
i. Allow the aircraft engaged in ETOPS/EDTO to comply with critical fuel scenario as established defined by
the State.
ii. Allow the aircraft, as defined by the State, flying greater than 90 minutes from an alternate airport to:
a. Descend as necessary and proceed to an alternate airport in the event of engine failure or loss of
pressurization, whichever requires the greater amount of fuel based on the assumption that such
a failure occurs at the most critical point along the route;
b. Fly for 15 minutes at holding speed at 450 m (1,500 ft) above the alternate airport elevation in
standard conditions;
c. Make an approach and landing at the alternate airport.
iii. Allow for any additional operational requirements, as defined by the State or the Operator, not covered by
items i) and ii). (GM)
Note:
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed process/procedures for calculation of additional fuel for all flights (focus: planned additional
fuel is required when the calculated sum of trip fuel/contingency fuel/alternate fuel/final reserve fuel is insufficient to

✈ IOSA Checklist
meet defined operational conditions or, if applicable, when calculated using a variation; operational conditions that
are considered/assessed to determine requirement for additional fuel are defined).
Examined selected OFPs (focus: factors used as basis for additional fuel).
additional fuel when required). If the Operator conforms through Operational Variation (see Note), the
Guidance
Basic fuel planning, represented by the sum of the trip fuel, contingency fuel, alternate fuel and final reserve is
predicated on the termination of a flight at the destination or destination alternate. As such, it only takes into account
foreseen and unforeseen factors (excluding system failures) that could influence fuel consumption to the planned
destination or destination alternate. The intent of this provision is to define the “additional fuel” required to protect
against the very unlikely event of an engine failure or de-pressurization at the most critical point in the flight and
presumes that the majority of the fuel used in basic fuel planning will still be available for use in proceeding to an en
route alternate in the event of such an occurrence.
The specification in item i) applies to aircraft engaged in ETOPS/EDTO. It addresses the fuel necessary to comply
with the ETOPS/EDTO critical fuel scenario as established by the State of the Operator. Such scenarios typically
include additional controls to ensure sufficient fuel is uplifted for conditions that would contribute to increased fuel
burn (e.g. to account for icing, errors in wind forecasting, deterioration in cruise fuel burn performance, and APU
use).
Operators using variations to determine no-alternate fuel would typically have the demonstrable capability, using
accuracy and adequacy of no-alternate fuel calculations.
of this subsection.
Examples of additional fuel calculations and critical fuel scenarios are contained in the ICAO Flight Planning and
DSP 4.3.14
The Operator shall have a process and/or procedures to provide for the uplift of discretionary fuel in accordance
with its fuel policy, which is the extra amount of fuel to be carried at the discretion of the PIC, or the PIC and FOO in
a shared system of operational control. (GM)

✈ IOSA Checklist
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified use of FOO in shared operational control system (focus: applicable to FOO/Flight Dispatcher function
as defined in Table 3.1).
Identified/Assessed process/procedures for addition of discretionary fuel for all flights (focus: planned
discretionary fuel is designated when requested by PIC or requested by PIC/FOO in shared system of operational
control).
Examined selected OFPs (focus: basis for addition of discretionary fuel).
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: process or procedures for uplift of discretionary
fuel when requested by PIC or PIC/FOO).
Coordinated with FLT auditor (focus: procedures for calculating/requesting discretionary fuel in accordance with
fuel policy).
Guidance
In a shared system of operational control, the PIC and the Flight Dispatcher/Flight Operations Officer (FOO) share
the responsibility to ensure operating limitations are not exceeded and sufficient fuel is on board the aircraft to
complete the planned flight safely.
DSP 4.3.16
If the Operator uses FOO personnel, the Operator should have guidance for the purpose of increasing fuel state
awareness. Such guidance should include one or more of the following:
i. One approximate final reserve fuel value applicable to each aircraft type and variant in the Operator's fleet.
ii. A value for the final reserve fuel for each flight presented on the OFP.
iii. A display in the Flight Planning System or Flight Monitoring System of the planned or actual final reserve
fuel for each flight. (GM)
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified use of FOO in shared operational control system (focus: applicable to FOO/Flight Dispatcher function
as defined in Table 3.1).
Identified/Assessed guidance for use by flight crew/FOO personnel for purpose of increasing fuel state
awareness (focus: guidance provides means for PIC/FOO to easily determine an approximate final reserve fuel
value for each aircraft type/variant).
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: guidance to increase PIC/FOO fuel awareness;
means for PIC/FOO to easily approximate final reserve fuel).
Guidance
The intent of this provision is for an operator to provide the means for operational control personnel to quickly
determine an approximate final reserve fuel value for each aircraft type and variant in its fleet. Fuel values
determined in accordance with this provision are not intended to be substitutes for the exact values calculated in
accordance with DSP 4.3.12, but rather as a quick reference used to heighten the awareness of operational control
personnel during fuel planning and in-flight fuel management activities.
The specifications of this provision may be satisfied for all personnel involved in fuel planning through the use of

✈ IOSA Checklist
tables or charts that represent fuel in the unit of measure appropriate for the operation and based on data derived
from the Approved Flight Manuals (AFM) for all types and variants used in operations.
Alternatively, the specifications of this provision may be satisfied by a final reserve value presented on the OFP
and/or by Flight Planning or Flight Monitoring Systems that can display the planned or actual final reserve fuel
figure.
Examples of final reserve fuel tables or charts are contained in the ICAO Flight Planning and Fuel Management
Manual (Doc 9976).
4.4 Oxygen
DSP 4.4.1
If an FOO is used in a full shared system of operational control, the Operator shall have guidance and procedures
for such personnel to ensure a flight is not commenced unless the aircraft has a sufficient amount of oxygen to
supply crew members and passengers in accordance with FLT 4.3.5. (GM)
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified/Assessed guidance/procedures that specify consideration of aircraft oxygen systems in flight planning
process (focus: flight planning takes into account sufficient aircraft stored breathing oxygen to supply
crew/passengers).
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: guidance/procedures to ensure sufficient stored
breathing oxygen for planned flight in pressurized aircraft).
Coordinated with maintenance operations (focus: verification that aircraft certified/equipped to meet oxygen
requirements).
Guidance
The intent of this provision is to ensure operational control personnel with responsibilities related to flight planning or
aircraft scheduling are provided with the necessary information regarding oxygen carriage requirements in order to
appropriately match an aircraft to a planned route. This includes information regarding the supplemental oxygen
requirements and escape routes necessary in case of a decompression in an area of high terrain.
If operational control personnel do not have responsibilities related to the carriage of supplemental oxygen, the
pilot-in-command is responsible for carriage of supplemental oxygen as required.
Refer to Guidance associated with FLT 4.3.5 located in ISM Section 2.
4.5 Operations Beyond 60 Minutes from an En Route Alternate Airport and

ETOPS/EDTO
DSP 4.5.1
If the Operator conducts flight operations beyond 60 minutes from a point on a route to an en route alternate airport,
including ETOPS/EDTO, the Operator shall have a system, process and/or procedures to ensure such operations
are planned and conducted in accordance with operational requirements and applicable regulations. (GM)
N/A
Auditor Comments:

✈ IOSA Checklist
Auditor Actions
Identified conduct of flight operations, including ETOPS/EDTO, over routes beyond 60 minutes from alternate
airport.
Identified/Assessed system/process/procedures for planning flights conducted over routes beyond 60 minutes
to an alternate airport (focus: flight planning for ETOPS/EDTO takes into account all applicable
regulations/requirements).
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: process or procedures to ensure flights operated
beyond 60 minutes from an alternate airport are conducted in accordance with applicable requirements).
Guidance
An operator may use a system, process or procedures alone or in combination in order to fulfill operational
requirements related to the conduct of operations beyond 60 minutes. In all cases, however, the robustness of any
methodologies is commensurate with the breadth and complexity of the operation.
An operator, in accordance with the requirements of the Authority, typically uses technical guidance for the conduct
of operations beyond 60 minutes, from a point on a route to an en route alternate airport. Such guidance might be
derived from one or more of the following source references, as applicable:
 ICAO Annex 6, Part 1, Attachment C: Guidance for Operations by Turbine Engine Aeroplanes Beyond 60
minutes to an En route Alternate Aerodrome Including Extended Diversion Time Operations (EDTO).
 ICAO Flight Planning and Fuel Management Manual (Doc 9976).
 ICAO Extended Diversion Time Operations (EDTO) Manual (Doc 10085).
 FAA Advisory Circular - AC No: 120-42B: Extended Operations (ETOPS and Polar Operations).
 EASA Air OPS (regulation 965/2012) ANNEX V (Part-SPA) Subpart F: Extended Range Operations with
Two-Engine Aeroplanes (ETOPS).
 EASA AMC 20-6, Rev 2 to Air OPS (regulation 965/2012): Extended Range Operation with Two-Engine
Aeroplanes ETOPS Certification and Operation.
 Commission Regulation EC No. 965/2012 Annex V SPA.ETOPS.
 Any equivalent reference document approved or accepted by the Authority for the purpose of providing
guidance for the conduct of flight operations by turbine engine aircraft beyond 60 minutes to an en route
alternate airport.
DSP 4.5.2
If the Operator conducts flight operations beyond 60 minutes from a point on a route to an en route alternate airport,
including ETOPS/EDTO, the Operator shall have guidance and procedures to ensure (as applicable to the
Operator):
i. For all aircraft, en route alternate airports are identified and the most up-to-date information relative to such
airports is available to the flight crew, including airport status and meteorological conditions;
ii. For aircraft with two engines engaged in ETOPS/EDTO, the most up-to-date information available to the
flight crew indicates that conditions at identified en route alternate airports will be at or above the
Operator's established airport operating minima for the operation at the ETU. (GM)
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified conduct of flight operations, including ETOPS/EDTO, over routes beyond 60 minutes from alternate
airport.
Identified/Assessed guidance/procedures for planning flights conducted over routes beyond 60 minutes from
alternate airport (focus: flight planning includes provision of information for flight crew that identifies en route

✈ IOSA Checklist
alternate airports, indicates conditions at en route alternate airports will be at/above established airport operating
minima for operation at the ETU).
Examined selected ETOPS/EDTO OFPs (focus: identification of en route alternate airports; information indicates
conditions at/above operating minima).
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: guidance/procedures that ensure flight crew has
up-to-date information relative to planned en route alternate airports for flight operations beyond 60 minutes from an
en route alternate airport).
Guidance
The intent of item i) of this provision is to ensure operational control personnel and the flight crew are
knowledgeable about diversion airport options and prevailing weather conditions appropriate for the type of
operation conducted.
The intent of item ii) is to ensure a larger strategy exists for two-engine aircraft engaged in ETOPS/EDTO to protect
a diversion regardless of the reason for the diversion (i.e. technical or non-technical reasons).
Guidance related to the identification and/or protection of en route alternate airports is contained in ICAO Annex 6,
Part 1, Attachment C and the ICAO Extended Diversion Time Operations (EDTO) Manual (Doc 10085).
DSP 4.5.3
If the Operator uses aircraft with two engines in ETOPS/EDTO, the Operator shall have guidance and procedures to
select en route alternate airports for such operations, and ensure en route alternate airports are specified on:
i. The OFP or other equivalent operational document available to the PIC in flight;
ii. The ATS flight plan where required by the State or the ATS system in use. (GM)
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified the conduct of ETOPS/EDTO using aircraft with two engines.
Identified/Assessed guidance/procedures for en route alternate selection/designation for ETOPS/EDTO
conducted with two-engine aircraft (focus: flight planning includes selection/designation of en route alternate
airports; en route alternate airports shown on OFP; shown on ATS flight plan in accordance with applicable
regulatory requirements).
Examined selected ETOPS/EDTO OFPs (focus: designation of en route alternate airports).
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: guidance/procedures for selecting en route
alternate airports and specifying on OFP and ATS flight plan for two-engine aircraft ETOPS/EDTO).
Guidance
The intent of the specification in item i) is to ensure en route alternates, when required, are selected and
subsequently specified on the OFP or other equivalent operational document available to the PIC in flight.
The intent of the specification in item ii) is to ensure en route alternates, when required for ETOPS/EDTO, are
specified on the ATS flight when required by the State or other applicable authority.
DSP 4.5.4
If the Operator conducts ETOPS/EDTO, the Operator shall have guidance and procedures to ensure, for aircraft
engaged in such operations:
i. A flight will not proceed beyond the threshold time unless the identified en route alternate airports are re-

✈ IOSA Checklist
evaluated for availability and the most up-to-date information indicates that, during the ETU, conditions at
those airports will be at or above the Operator's established airport operating minima for the operation;
ii. If any conditions are identified that would preclude a safe approach and landing at an identified en route
alternate airport during the ETU, an alternative course of action has been determined;
iii. The most limiting EDTO-significant system time limitation (except for the most limiting fire suppression
system), if any, indicated in the aircraft flight manual (directly or by reference) and relevant to a particular
operation is not exceeded. (GM)
Note:
. The Operator may conform with item (iii) of this provision through Operational Variations approved by the Authority
or other variations to EDTO significant system time limitation criteria provided each variation is subjected to the
Operator’s SRM processes and safety performance monitoring to ensure an acceptable level of safety is
maintained.
Note:
. Refer to ORG 3.4.1 and DSP 4.5.5 for cargo compartment fire suppression limitation exceedances.
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified that ETOPS/EDTO is in use.
Identified/Assessed guidance/procedures for the monitoring/assessment of en route alternate airport conditions
during the conduct of ETOPS/EDTO (focus: designated en route alternate airports monitored/assessed during
ETOPS/EDTO to verify continuation of planned flight; when conditions make designated en route alternate
unusable, planned flight evaluated for change).
Examined selected ETOPS/EDTO OFPs (focus: designation of en route alternate airports).
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: guidance/procedures for monitoring/assessing en
route alternate airports during ETOPS/EDTO).
Coordinated with FLT auditor (focus: complementary procedures for monitoring/assessing conditions at en route
alternates; coordination to re-evaluate planned flight in event en route alternate becomes unavailable). If the
Operator conforms through Operational Variation (see Note), the following additional actions apply
Identified applicable variation(s) used for EDTO flight planning (focus: deviation from basic ISARP
requirements).
Guidance
Refer to the IRM for the definition of Threshold Time.
The intent of this provision is to ensure a larger strategy exists to preclude a diversion and to protect a diversion
should one occur regardless of whether the diversion is for technical (aircraft system or engine) or non-technical
reasons.
of this subsection.
Variations to EDTO significant system time limitation exceedance criteria are typically approved or accepted by the
State.
 Overall reliability of the aircraft;

✈ IOSA Checklist
 Reliability of each time limited system;

 Relevant information from the aircraft manufacturer;
DSP 4.5.5
If the Operator conducts flights beyond 60 minutes from a point on a route to an en route alternate airport, including
EDTO, with aircraft that have a published cargo compartment fire suppression time limit, the Operator should have
a system, process, and/or procedures to ensure the diversion time to an airport where a safe landing could be made
does not exceed the cargo compartment fire suppression time capability reduced by an operational safety margin
specified by the State. (GM)
Note:
variations to EDTO significant system time limitation criteria provided each variation is subjected to the Operator’s
SRM processes and safety performance monitoring to ensure an acceptable level of safety is maintained.
Note:
. Effective 1 September 2024, this recommended practice will be upgraded to a standard; IOSA registration will
require conformance by the Operator.
N/A
Auditor Comments:
Auditor Actions
Identified operator procedures for designating destination alternate airports on the OFP.
Identified/Assessed system/process/procedures for selection/designation of takeoff, en route and destination
alternate airports located a specified distance in flying time from the planned route to ensure that the diversion time
is within the specified cargo suppression time limit.
Examined selected OFPs (focus: designation of alternate airports is in accordance with relevant factors to
ensure time to specified alternate airport is within the cargo fire suppression time limit).
Observed operational control/flight dispatch operations (focus: process for selection/designation of alternate
airports).
Coordinated with FLT auditor(s) (focus: complementary distance criteria for selection/designation of alternate
airports). If the Operator conforms through Operational Variation (see Note), the following additional actions
apply
Identified applicable variation(s) used for flight planning including EDTO (focus: deviation from basic ISARP
requirements).
Guidance
The principal intent of this provision is that an operator's alternate airport selection system, process, and/or
procedures ensure aircraft are operated within the specified cargo fire suppression time limit.
Cargo compartment fire suppression time capabilities will be identified in the relevant aircraft documentation when
they are to be considered for the operation.
Fifteen minutes is an operational safety margin commonly specified by the State.
An operator may use a system, process, and/or procedures alone or in any combination to fulfill operational

✈ IOSA Checklist
methodologies used for alternate airport selection is commensurate with the breadth and complexity of the
operation.
of this subsection.
Variations to EDTO significant system time limitation exceedance criteria are typically approved or accepted by the
State.
 Overall reliability of the aircraft;
 Reliability of each time limited system;
 Relevant information from the aircraft manufacturer;
Table 3.1–Operational Control Personnel

This table categorizes operational control personnel, defines the scope of their authority, identifies their
responsibilities and illustrates the relationship of such responsibilities to the operation as a whole. It shall be used
for the purposes of applying relevant Section 3 provisions and is provided to ensure suitably qualified persons are
designated, where applicable, to support, brief and/or assist the pilot-in-command (PIC) or FOO or designated
member of management in the safe conduct of each flight. The terms used in the table to identify operational
control personnel are generic and might vary. Personnel, however, employed in operational control functions that
are delegated the authority and/or assigned the responsibility to carry out functions, duties or tasks, as outlined in
the table, are subject to the training and qualification requirements commensurate with their position.
Authority Responsibilities, Training and
(DSP 1.3.4) Including the Qualification
Operational Control
Assignment of Operator shall designate
Functions, Duties or responsibilities and ensure
Tasks. personnel are competent
(DSP 1.3.5 and 1.3.6) to perform the job
function.
Administrative Support Personnel1 None Provide, collect or Not subject to initial and
(e.g. gate agent) Do not make assemble operational recurrent training in the
recommendations or documents or data competencies of
decisions regarding only. operational control in
the operational Table 3.5 and are qualified
control of a flight. via On the Job Training
(OJT), job descriptions,
task cards, guidelines,
checklists, training
materials or other written
means to establish
competence.
Flight Operations Assistant None or limited to Support, brief and/or For each area of
(FOA)4 area(s) of assist the PIC or expertise or
(e.g. Weather Analysts, Navigation expertise FOO. specialization.3
Analysts/Flight Planning Specialists, May be authorized Specializes in one or Subject to initial and
Operations Coordinators/Planners, to make decisions more of the elements continuing qualification in
Maintenance controllers, Air Traffic or recommendations of operational control.3 accordance with DSP
Specialists), and Load in area(s) of Collects, provides 2.2.2 and specific
Agents/Planners/Controllers unless expertise.5 filters, evaluates and competencies of Table 3.5
qualified in accordance with GRH) (e.g., maintenance applies operational relevant to the job function

✈ IOSA Checklist
controller grounds documents or data and operations of the

aircraft.) relevant to specific Operator.
elements of
Makes
recommendations or
decisions in area(s) of
expertise.
Flight Dispatcher or Flight None or limited or May share operational Subject to initial and
Operations Officer (FOO)4 or shared2 control responsibility continuing qualification in
Designated Member of May share with the PIC.2 accordance with DSP
Management (e.g. Director of operational control Support, brief, and/or 2.2.2andall competencies
Operations or other post holder) authority with the assist the PIC. of Table 3.5 relevant to
PIC.2 Collects, provides, the operations of the
May be authorized filters, evaluates and Operator.
to make applies operational
recommendations or documents or data
decisions. relevant to all
elements of
operational control.3
Makes
recommendations or
decisions.
Pilot in Command (PIC) Full/shared2 Full/shared2 Subject to training and
Has final authority to Responsible for safe qualification requirements
ensure the safe conduct of the flight. specified in ISM Section 2.
operation of the Collect, provide, filter,
aircraft. evaluate and applies
May share authority operational
and responsibility documents or data
for operational relevant to all
control. competencies of
operational control.3
Legend 1 - Personnel lacking any authority or responsibility for operational control
are identified in the table for the purposes of excluding them from the initial
and continuing qualification provisions of this section.
2 - FOO personnel used in conjunction with a shared system of operational
share authority and responsibility with the PIC.
3 - The competencies of operational control are contained in Table 3.5.
FOA personnel that specialize in one competency of operation control may
be referred to as Weather Analysts, Navigation Analysts/Flight Planners,
Operations Coordinators/Planners, Maintenance controllers, Air Traffic
Specialists and Load Agents/Planners/Controllers unless qualified in
accordance with GRH.
4 - The terms used in this table to identify operational personnel are
generic and may vary. Personnel used in operational control functions and
assigned the responsibilities delineated in the table are subject to the
relevant qualification and training provisions in this section.
5 - Authority limited in scope to decision making in area of expertise.
Table 3.2–Operations Manual (OM) Content Specifications
This table contains the fundamental OM content specifications required to achieve conformity with DSP 1.7.1. It
also specifies Section 2 (FLT) provisions that must be addressed in the sections of the OM relevant to personnel
with responsibilities related to the operational control of flights.
Note: Specific policies, guidance, data and/or procedures that must be addressed in the sections of the OM
relevant to operational control personnel can be found in individual Section 3 provisions and are not duplicated in
the table.
General Information FLT ISARP

✈ IOSA Checklist
(i) General information, to include: None

(a Non-aircraft type related and/or standard operating procedures for each phase of None
) flight, policies, procedures, checklists, descriptions, guidelines, emergency
procedures and other relevant information;
(b Authorities, duties and responsibilities associated with the operational control of None
) flights;
(c) The requirement for commercial flights to be conducted under an IFR flight plan and in FLT 3.10.1
accordance with an IFR flight plan.
Aircraft Operating Information FLT ISARP
(ii) Aircraft Operating Manual (AOM), to include: None
(a Normal, abnormal/non-normal and emergency procedures, instructions and None
) checklists;
(b Aircraft systems descriptions, limitations and performance data. None
)
(iii) MEL and CDL, to include applicability and a description of the relationship between the None
Minimum Equipment List (MEL) and the Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL);
(iv) Aircraft specific weight and balance instructions/data; None
(v) Instructions for the conduct and control of ground de/anti-icing operations. FLT 3.9.6,
3.9.7
Areas, Routes and Airport Information FLT ISARP
(vi) Route and airport instructions and information (departure, destination, en route and None
destination alternates, to include:
(a Airway manuals and charts, including information regarding communication facilities, None
) navigation aids and minimum flight altitudes;
(b Airport charts, including the method for determining airport operating minima, None
) operating minima values for destination and alternate airports and the increase of
airport operating minima in case of degradation of approach or airport facilities;
(c) Airport and runway analysis manual or documents: None
(d If applicable, flight monitoring requirements and instructions to ensure the PIC notifies None
) the operator of en route flight movement or deviations from the OFP including
procedures for loss of communication between the aircraft and the FOO;
(e Instructions for the conduct of precision and non-precision approaches, including FLT 3.11.65,
) approach minima; 3.11.67
(f) If applicable, procedures for the conduct of long-range navigation; FLT 3.11.8,
3.11.9,
3.11.11
(g Supplemental oxygen requirements and escape routes in case of decompression in 4.3.5
) an area of high terrain, if applicable;
(h Regional guidance necessary to comply with local regulations. None
)
Training Information FLT ISARP
(vii) Training Manual, to include: None
(a Details of all relevant training programs, policies, directives and requirements, None
) including curricula and syllabi, as applicable, for initial qualification, continuing
qualification and other specialized training;
(b Curricula for ground training, evaluation and certification; None
)
(c) Comprehensive syllabi to include lesson plans, procedures for training and conduct of None
evaluations;
(d The training program for the development of knowledge and skills related to human None
) performance (Crew Resource Management/Dispatch Resource Management,
CRM/DRM).
Other Information FLT ISARP
(viii Cabin safety and emergency procedures relevant to operational control personnel. None
)
(ix) Dangerous Goods manual or parts relevant to operational control personnel, to include None

✈ IOSA Checklist
information and instructions on the carriage of dangerous goods and action to be taken in
the event of an emergency.
(x) Security Manual or parts relevant to operational control personnel, including bomb search None
procedures.
Table 3.3–Operational Flight Plan (OFP) Specifications
The OM contains a description and specifications for the content and use of the OFP or equivalent document. The
content of the OFP shall consist of, as a minimum, the following elements:
i. Aircraft registration;
ii. Aircraft type and variant;
iii. Date of flight and flight identification;
iv. Departure airport, STD, STA, destination airport;
v. Route and route segments with check points/waypoints, distances and time;
vi. Assigned oceanic track and associated information, as applicable;
vii. Types of operation (e.g. ETOPS/EDTO, IFR, ferry-flight);
viii. Planned cruising speed and flight times between waypoints/check points;
ix. Planned altitude and flight levels;
x. Fuel calculations;
xi. Fuel on board when starting engines;
xii. Alternate(s) for destination and, when applicable, takeoff and en route;
xiii. Relevant meteorological information.
Table 3.4–Flight Information
The Operator shall record and retain the following information for each flight:
i. Aircraft registration;
ii. Date;
iii. Flight number;
iv. Flight crew names and duty assignment;
v. Fuel on board at departure, en route and arrival;
vi. Departure and arrival point;
vii. Actual time of departure;
viii. Actual time of arrival;
ix. Flight time;
x. Incidents and observations, if any;
xi. Flight weather briefings;
xii. Dispatch or flight releases;
xiii. Load Sheet;
xiv. NOTOC;
xv. OFP;
xvi. ATS flight plan;
xvii. Communications records;
xviii. Fuel and oil records (obtained in accordance with MNT 3.1.1);
xix. Aircraft tracking data to assist SAR in determining the last known position of the aircraft.
Note:
After an aircraft has landed safely, an operator may discard tracking data.
Table 3.5–Competencies of Operational Control
The Operator shall ensure FOO or FOA personnel demonstrate knowledge and/or proficiency in the competencies
of operational control appropriate to the assignment of responsibility to carry out operational control functions,
duties, or tasks, to include, as applicable:
Competencies FOA Relevancy Examples
(i) Air law  Air Traffic Specialists
(ii) Flight performance  As relevant to function
(iii) Navigation  Navigation Analysts
 Flight Planning Specialists
(iv) Aircraft General knowledge and instrumentation  As relevant to function
(v) Meteorology  Weather Analysts
 Meteorologists

✈ IOSA Checklist
(vi) Mass and balance  Load Agents

 Load Planners
 Load Controllers
(vii) Operational procedures  As relevant to function
(viii) Flight planning and monitoring  Flight Planning Specialists
 Flight Followers
Notes
FOO personnel that are assigned overall operational control responsibility for specific flights, assigned
responsibilities in all competencies of operational control or used in shared systems of operational control
demonstrate knowledge and/or proficiency in all applicable competencies in this table.
 FOO or FOA personnel assigned the individual responsibility to carry out specific operational control
functions, duties or tasks demonstrate knowledge and/or proficiency in competencies relevant to area of
expertise or function as determined by the operator or State.
 It is important to note that some operators might choose to assign the responsibility for specific
operational control functions to fully qualified FOO personnel. In such cases an FOO is acting in a limited
capacity and although qualified in all competencies of operational control, would be functionally acting as
an FOA.
 Sub-topics for each competency course subject are developed in accordance with reference documents,
approved or accepted by the state of the operator. Refer to Table 3.6 for guidance material related to the
development of syllabi outlines for each competency course subject.
Table 3.6–Guidance for Development of Operational Control Competency Course Syllabi
The Operator typically develops a competency course curriculum and related syllabi for each competency in Table
3.5. Curriculum and associated syllabi development can be based on one or more source references or their
equivalent:
 ICAO Doc 10106
 ICAO Doc 7192
 14 CFR § 121.415 and 14 CFR § 121.422
 EASA ORO.GEN.110 and related AMC and GM
Competency Course Examples of Syllabus Outlines (ICAO Doc 10106)
Subjects
(i) Air law To enable operational control personnel to identify the basic requirements for
authorization to operate a commercial air transportation service, air law may include
topics such as:
 Conventions and agreements
 National organizations and rulemaking process
 Rules of the air, general
 Air services and airspace
 ATC separation and clearances
 Search and rescue (SAR)
 Security
 ATS flight plan (FPL)
 Flight safety, accident and incident
(ii) Flight performance To enable the operational control personnel to identify the basic elements of aircraft
performance, flight performance may include topics such as:
 Certification standards
 Influencing variables on performance
 Takeoff performance
 Accelerate-stop distance
 Balanced field length
 Takeoff climb
 Obstacle limits

✈ IOSA Checklist
 Reduced/de-rated thrust
 Cruise
 Cost index
 Driftdown
 Landing performance
 Quick turnaround limits
(iii) Navigation To enable the operational control personnel to identify the fundamentals of navigation
and equipment used in navigation, navigation may include topics such as:
 Basics of general navigation
 Latitude, longitude
 Time and time conversions
 Determining sunrise, sunset, civil twilight
 Directions
 Distance
 Charts
 Basics of radio navigation
 NDB
 VOR
 DME
 ILS
 Radar
 GPS/GNSS
 RNAV
 FMS
 RNP
 Satellite augmentation systems
(iv) Aircraft General To enable the operational control personnel to identify the main components and
knowledge and systems of an aircraft and their basic functions, aircraft general knowledge and
instrumentation instrumentation may include topics such as:
 Units and basic definitions
 Lift
 Drag
 Thrust
 Weight
 Flight mechanics
 System design, loads, stresses, maintenance
 Hydraulics
 Landing gear
 Primary and secondary flight controls
 Pneumatics
 Air conditioning systems
 Ice and rain protection
 Fuel
 Electrics
 Engines and APU
 Flight management and navigation
 Automatic flight
 Communications
 Fire protection

✈ IOSA Checklist
 Equipment and furnishings

 Indicating and recording systems
(v) Meteorology To enable the operational control personnel to interpret meteorological information,
reports, forecasts and warnings correctly and efficiently, meteorology may include
topics such as:
 Atmosphere, composition, extent, vertical division
 Air temperature, definition and units
 Atmospheric pressure and density
 International standard atmosphere (ISA)
 Altimetry
 Wind
 Clouds and fog
 Precipitation
 Air masses and fronts
 Pressure systems
 Climatology
 Icing conditions
 Turbulence
 Wind shear
 Thunderstorms
 Flight hazards
 Meteorological information
(vi) Mass and balance To enable the operational control personnel to identify the basic requirements for
load planning, calculation of payload, loadsheet preparation, and aircraft balance,
mass and balance may include topics such as:
 Importance of structural limitations
 Mass terms
 Mass limits, structural limitations
 Cargo compartment limitations
 Mass calculations
 Definition of center of gravity (CG)
 Load and trim sheet, general considerations
(vii) Operational To enable the operational control personnel to policies, procedures, guidance, and
procedures instructions developed to perform their respective functions, operating procedures
may include topics such as:
 Operational control responsibilities
 SMS
 AOC
 Operating manuals
 Aircraft airworthiness
 Operational limitations and minima
 Duty time limitations and rest requirements
 Operational flight plan contents
 Anti-icing, de-icing
 Security (unlawful events)
 Abnormal and emergency procedures
 Communication systems and procedures
(viii Flight planning and To enable the operational control personnel to complete an operational flight plan in
) monitoring accordance with laid-down rules and standards and to apply the skills acquired to
effectively maintain a flight watch, and monitor fuel consumption, en route weather

✈ IOSA Checklist
including winds, aircraft performance including the limitations imposed by MEL

restrictions, in-flight equipment failures, security problems, and the effects of and on
hazardous materials, restricted articles, and perishable cargo, flight planning and
monitoring may include topics such as:
 Weather analysis
 AIP/NOTAM analysis
 Track selection [amp;] flight level
 Equipment requirements
 Airport suitability
 Fuel requirements
 Payload planning
 ETOPS/EDTO
 MEL/CDL
 ATC/ATM
 Security (unlawful events)
 Abnormal and emergency procedures


DSP Session - Ed.16-1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DSP Session - Ed.16-1

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

DSP Session - Ed.16-1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

✈ IOSA Checklist

ISM Edition 16 Rev 1 – effective September 2023

Reference: DOC.F14 1 of 102 Issue Date: 10-MAY-2023

Section 3 — Operational Control and Flight Dispatch (DSP)

Reference: DOC.F14 2 of 102 Issue Date: 10-MAY-2023

Reference: DOC.F14 3 of 102 Issue Date: 10-MAY-2023

Reference: DOC.F14 4 of 102 Issue Date: 10-MAY-2023

Not Documented not Implemented (Finding)

1.3 Accountability, Authorities and Responsibilities

Reference: DOC.F14 5 of 102 Issue Date: 10-MAY-2023

accountability, authority and responsibility as applicable to management and non-management personnel.

Reference: DOC.F14 6 of 102 Issue Date: 10-MAY-2023

Implemented not Documented (Finding)

Reference: DOC.F14 7 of 102 Issue Date: 10-MAY-2023

Reference: DOC.F14 8 of 102 Issue Date: 10-MAY-2023

Reference: DOC.F14 9 of 102 Issue Date: 10-MAY-2023

Reference: DOC.F14 10 of 102 Issue Date: 10-MAY-2023

Reference: DOC.F14 11 of 102 Issue Date: 10-MAY-2023

Reference: DOC.F14 12 of 102 Issue Date: 10-MAY-2023

duties or tasks related to all applicable competencies specified in Table 3.5.

1.4 Communication and Coordination

Reference: DOC.F14 13 of 102 Issue Date: 10-MAY-2023

Reference: DOC.F14 14 of 102 Issue Date: 10-MAY-2023

1.5 Provision of Resources

Reference: DOC.F14 15 of 102 Issue Date: 10-MAY-2023

Reference: DOC.F14 16 of 102 Issue Date: 10-MAY-2023

perform FOO duties).

Reference: DOC.F14 17 of 102 Issue Date: 10-MAY-2023

personnel, prior to being assigned duties in an operational control function:

1.6 Documentation System

Reference: DOC.F14 18 of 102 Issue Date: 10-MAY-2023

Internal documents are subject to management and control by the operator.

Reference: DOC.F14 19 of 102 Issue Date: 10-MAY-2023

1.7 Operations Manual

Reference: DOC.F14 20 of 102 Issue Date: 10-MAY-2023

Reference: DOC.F14 21 of 102 Issue Date: 10-MAY-2023

1.8 Records System

Reference: DOC.F14 22 of 102 Issue Date: 10-MAY-2023

Click here to enter text.

Reference: DOC.F14 23 of 102 Issue Date: 10-MAY-2023

Reference: DOC.F14 24 of 102 Issue Date: 10-MAY-2023

Implemented not Documented (Observation)

1.10 Quality Assurance Program

Reference: DOC.F14 25 of 102 Issue Date: 10-MAY-2023

Documented not Implemented (Finding)

Reference: DOC.F14 26 of 102 Issue Date: 10-MAY-2023

1.11 Quality Control of Outsourced Operations and Products

Reference: DOC.F14 27 of 102 Issue Date: 10-MAY-2023

Documented and Implemented (Conformity)

Reference: DOC.F14 28 of 102 Issue Date: 10-MAY-2023

Reference: DOC.F14 29 of 102 Issue Date: 10-MAY-2023

Reference: DOC.F14 30 of 102 Issue Date: 10-MAY-2023

Click here to enter text.

1.12 Safety Management

Reference: DOC.F14 31 of 102 Issue Date: 10-MAY-2023

Click here to enter text.

Reference: DOC.F14 32 of 102 Issue Date: 10-MAY-2023

 Operational considerations (e.g. area of operations, diversion time);

Reference: DOC.F14 33 of 102 Issue Date: 10-MAY-2023