[Title/Action Area]
Executive Summarydd/mm/yyyy
For more detailed information, please refer to the PIA user guide.
1What is the issue/rationale?
For safety driver: What (safety) issue is being assessed in this PIA. For safety issues: refer to the safety risk portfolio.
For other drivers (efficiency/proportionality, level playing field, environment): what are the problems you want to address
This is the format for your text…
2What do we want to achieve?
This is the format for your text…
3How do we monitor improvement?
This is the format for your text…
4What is the justification for the candidate actions?
Action 1 – [provide name]Owner [EASA Department]Issue [Add reference to the (safety) issue identified in section 1, in case there were a number]
[provide a justification within 10 lines maximum]
This is the format for your text…
EXAMPLE:
PIA indicators for prioritisation on Action 1
Driver / PIA score / Benefits (ImprovementLevel based on a scale from 0 –low to 10 – very high) / Costs
(Implementation Cost
Level based on a scale from 0 –low to 10 – very high) / Cost-
Effectiveness / Start and Implementation time (years)[1] / Third countries / Priority
Type
(Strategic A,Standard B, Regular Update C) / Action
Type
(Rule, SP, Res, Focussed oversight)
Safetyor Efficiency or Level playing field / A1.3 / 4 / 3 / 1.3
Negative (<1)
Low (1+) to Medium (1.5+)
High (2+) / 2018
3 yrs / Yes / A / RMT
Action 2 – [provide name]Repeat the structure from Action 1
…
5Proposedranking
Note: regular update are not mentioned in this table. They have to be mentioned later in the report.
EXAMPLE:
An indicative priority order based upon the cost effectiveness can be found below:
PIAscore[2] / Action / Title / Driver / Benefit Level / Cost Effectiveness / Strategic priority[3] / Action type
A5 / Action 5 / Rotorcraft Equipment, Systems and Installations Safety Requirements / Efficiency / 5 / 5 / Yes
A2-3 / Action 3 / Rotorcraft Occupant Protection / Safety / 2 to 3 / 2 to 3 / Yes
A2 / Action 6 / Human Factors assessment of Helicopter Cockpits / Safety / 2 / 2 / Yes
A1.5 / Action 2 / Rotorcraft Hoists Safety risk / Safety / 3 / 1.5 / Yes
A1.5 / Action 4 / Rotorcraft VHM / Safety / 3 / 1.5 / Yes
B1.5 / Action 1 / Terrain Awareness Warning System for Helicopters / Safety / 1.5 to 3 / 0.5 to 1.5 / No
B1.2 / Action 7 / Rotorcraft Fly by Wire requirements / Efficiency / 6 / 1.2 / No
The prioritisation for other factors such as safety improvement or ease of implementation may result in a different order and will need to be considered when scheduling the rulemaking programme.
6What are the actions discarded?
[Indicate the discarded actions or if some actions have been limited to a specific type of operations and explain shortly the reason].
…
7Next steps
The indicators presented above will support the prioritisation of the RMP and EPAS 2017-2021. The information will also be shared and discussed with stakeholders in order to achieve robust assessments.
PIA Report
[Action area]
Authorisation :Name / Signature / Date
PIA Lead Expert
IA coordinator
Safety Analyst
Safety Promotion
Contributor 1
Contributor 2
Reviewed 1
Reviewed 2
Authorised / (Optional)
Report Distribution List:
1
2
3
4
5
TE.RPRO.00091-001© European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.
Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASAintranet/internet.Page 1 of 19
An agency of the European Union
Contributors (internal)For internal use / Name / Version No / Date
Prepared by: / PIA Lead Expert: / 0.1
IA team:
Safety Promotion Team:
SM1 safety analyst:
Contributor 1:
…
Peer-reviewed by: / Name
IA team:
Approved by: / Section Manager/HoD
Internal coordination
[Specify if this PIA needs to be discussed at ESC level]
Resource estimate (at the time of drafting; may be subject to change)
In order to deliver this rulemaking task, the following resource estimate has been conducted:
Resource / RequirementPIA Lead Expert / [Please specify in terms of hrs/project]
IA team / [Please specify in terms of hrs/project]
Safety Promotion Team / [Please specify in terms of hrs/project]
SM1 safety analyst / [Please specify in terms of hrs/project]
Contributor 1 / [Please specify in terms of hrs/project]
… / [Please specify in terms of hrs/project]
Table of contents
1What is the issue/rationale?
2What do we want to achieve?
3How do we monitor improvement?
4What is the justification for the candidate actions?
Action 1 – [provide name] Owner [EASA Department] Issue [Add reference to the (safety) issue identified in section 1, in case there were a number]
Action 2 – [provide name] Repeat the structure from Action 1
5Proposed ranking
6What are the actions discarded?
7Next steps
1Issue analysis
1.1General description
1.1.1What is/are the driver/s in this PIA?
1.1.2[Safety/Environment/Efficiency/Level playing field] issue – General description
1.1.3Who is affected?
1.1.4Current actions
1.1.5Safety Issue and Actions Matrix – Current situation (SIAM-C) [section only valid for safety issue: for other drivers, this is optional for the time-being]
1.2How important are the current issues?
1.3Baseline scenario
2Objectives
3Organisation aspects
4Methodology aspects
5Actions assessed in the PIA
6Action 1 – [Title]
6.1What is the problem?
6.2Purpose of the action: what will the action prevent/mitigate? and how ?
6.2.1What will the action prevent/mitigate?
6.2.2What is the technical content of the action?
6.2.3What are the relevant types of support for this action?
6.2.4Interfaces to be considered
6.3Impact analysis
6.3.1Benefit level
6.3.1Time implementation
6.3.2Implementation cost level
6.4Summary of decision-criteria per type of support of the action
7Action 2 – [Title]
8Conclusions
8.1Safety Issue and Actions Matrix – Future situation (SIAM-F)
8.2Comparison of actions
8.3Selected actions
8.4Discarded actions
8.5Overall impact of the selected actions to meet the objective [optional]
8.6Monitoring and ex post evaluation
9Appendices
9.1Appendix 1 – List of available documents
1Issue analysis
[Check if a Pre-RIA is available for this issue. If it exists, you can copy-paste the text from the corresponding section ‘Issue analysis’ and amend it as required.]
[Explain the issue which the proposal is intended to address. Describe its nature and its extent. If the main issue is safety, refer to section ‘Safety risk assessment’.]
[What are the underlying root causes/drivers of the issue? Possible causes/drivers: safety, environmental, economic, social or regulatory harmonisation issues.]
[Are there any implementation problems identified? Is there uneven implementation across EASA Member States?]
[To ensure consistency and completeness, the questions from the baseline assessment in the Pre-RIA template can be considered.]
This is the format for your text…
1.1General description
1.1.1What is/are the driver/s in this PIA?
[Provide the rational to define the driver(s) for this PIA. For the main driver: complement/amend the generic text for different drivers:
-Safety: the need to maintain or reduce current safety risk level
-Environment: the need to maintain or reduce current environmental protection level risk level
-Efficiency: The need to reduce overregulation and move towards performance-based rules
-Level playing field: The need to ensure that stakeholders are treated equally]
[Current legal framework]
[Describe how the other drivers are also in the scope of this action area]
This is the format for your text…
1.1.2[Safety/Environment/Efficiency/Level playing field]issue – General description
[Describe sufficiently to understand the issues to be tacled. However if the justifications are loo long, use the related section related to each action to describe in more detailed the issues]
[For safety issues, use the safety risk portfolio to describe precisely the safety issue(s). This section should consists in a summary of the safety issue analysis which preceeds the PIA in the process]
[For other drivers provide detailed justification to explain the size of the issue]
[Check if a Pre-RIA is available for this issue. If it exists, you can copy-paste the text from the corresponding section ‘Issue analysis’ and amend it as required.]
This is the format for your text…
1.1.3Who is affected?
[Check if a Pre-RIA is available for this issue. If it exists, you can copy-paste the text from the corresponding section ‘Issue analysis’ and amend it as required.]
[Which sectors, groups and stakeholders are affected by the issue? Give additional information on the cover sheet. Do the current situation and regulatory conditions raise public concern or stir controversy among the general public? Do the current situation and regulatory conditions raise stakeholders’ concern or stir controversy among stakeholders?]
[Types of aircraft, systems, constituents or equipment affected. Give additional information on the cover sheet, e.g. more detailed breakdown, number of products affected, etc.]
This is the format for your text…
1.1.4Current actions
[Draft ICAO rules, ICAO State Letters, RMTs, Safety Promotion activities, actions from EASA oversight programme, ...]
[Sort the action in this order: RMT, SPT (Safety Promotion), Oversight, RS (Research), MS (Member States), specific color for ICAO rules not yet transposed in EU framework?]
[Color code: use Blue for RMT, Yellow for SPT, Grey for MS, [?] for Oversight, [?] for RS]
[Indicate how third countries rules influence the need of acting]
This is the format for your text…
Table 1 – List of current actions
Action number / Type.Code / Owner / Objective – Intended impacts
(source: PROMA)
1.1.5Safety Issue and Actions Matrix – Current situation (SIAM-C)[section only valid for safety issue: for other drivers, this is optional for the time-being]
With the safety issues addressed in section 1.1.2 and the current actions indicated in section 1.1.4, it is now possible:
to display the links between the safety issues and the current actions;
Example of table:
to assess the potential safety impacts of these existing actions.
Example of table:
Insert the table with links between the safety issues and the current actions
This is the format for your text…
1.2How important are the current issues?
Table 2 – Current level of issues according PIA decision-making criteria
Driver / Score for baseline scenario / SignificanceSafety / [indicate a score or “not relevant”]
Environment / [indicate a score or “not relevant”]
Level playing field / [indicate a score or “not relevant”]
Efficient / proportionality / [indicate a score or “not relevant”]
[The table above should be sufficient and further information shoud be added in the following sub-section. However in case you need it add here other information:]
This is the format for your text…
1.3Baseline scenario
[How will the situation develop in the future if there are no additional actions? For example, no action may be required right now because there are only few operations, but if the rules are not changed, there will be problems in the future due to an increase in operations.]
This is the format for your text…
2Objectives
[Possible source: PROMA field for objectives].
This is the format for your text…
3Organisation aspects
EXAMPLE:
In order to ensure that all Agency stakeholders were given the opportunity to contribute to this PIA for Rotorcraft, key members of the different sections and departments within the Agency that are involved with rotorcraft were brought together to establish a PIA working group under the guidance of the Agency’s Strategy & Programmes Department. A PIA focal point was also nominated within the CT directorate in the Regulation and Certification Policy Section to provide overall coordination.
4Methodology aspects
EXAMPLE:
In order to establish a basis for the PIA Rotorcraft input all Agency rotorcraft stakeholders were requested to provide candidate safety and efficiency actions that could improve safety, address perceived shortfalls in the Agency’s regulations or certification specifications and also improve the efficiency. The candidate safety and efficiency actions were subsequently gathered and documented by the PIA rotorcraft working group. Existing actions from on-going rulemaking tasks and safety promotion activities were also documented. In order to ensure that the list of safety actions was complete the PIA rotorcraft working group also reviewed the safety recommendations for rotorcraft that had been addressed to the Agency.
A key input to the PIA Rotorcraft process was the provision of the Safety Risk Portfolio for Rotorcraft which provides a list of the main safety issues based on accident and occurrence data from the last 10-15 years and inputs from the industry in a format that can be quickly assimilated. The Safety Risk Portfolio for Rotorcraft directly links the Key Risk Areas (i.e aircraft upset, terrain/obstacle conflict) to the underlying safety issues that could cause them (i.e Flight Crew Perception and Awareness, Decision Making and Planning, Operation in Adverse Weather Conditions). This enables the reviewer to visually see the potential safety benefit and subsequent effect that could be gained by addressing a safety issue.
PIA rotorcraft working group created a matrix where it was possible to link the existing and candidate actions to the rotorcraft safety risk portfolio and in particular the safety issues. The PIA rotorcraft working group then reviewed each safety action to establish which safety issue(s) could be addressed or mitigated in the safety risk portfolio. This enabled the PIA rotorcraft working group to establish the direct correlation between the action and the safety issues.
The next step was to determine the potential effect that the safety actions would have on the related safety issues. In order to achieve this the matrix was updated to include the number of; accidents, occurrences, serious incidents, fatalities and hull losses for each safety issue. In addition, a separate table was produced that provided a link between the safety issues in the matrix and the accidents and the accident reports. This enabled the PIA rotorcraft working group to review the safety issues that would benefit from the safety action and then also review the accident reports that are associated with the safety issues.
The PIA rotorcraft working group reviewed each of the accident reports that were associated with the safety issues to determine what safety benefit could be gained by each safety action. Due to constraints on time and resources for this activity it was decided that this review should be limited to the accidents that occurred during offshore and commercial air transport operations. During this review an estimation of the reduced probability of occurrence due to the safety action was made and was based on expert judgement and peer review with the working group.
The outcome of the review of safety actions and safety issues was used as the basis for taking forward the safety actions that could improve safety and mitigate the safety issues in the rotorcraft Safety Risk Portfolio.
5Actions assessed in the PIA
[Use the list of the current actions in the section above and add new potential actions. Make a list of final actions by grouping some of them if this facilitates their assessment. Indicate if there are some actions which can be discarded at this stage with justifications].
Example of table with the PIA “erroneous take-off parameters”
List of actions presented to ESC Meeting 2015#06 / Relevant for PIA? / PIA action number / DriverWG-88 to prepare the Minimum Operational Performance Specifications (MOPS) for the On Board Weight and Balance System (OBWBS). The MOPS will probably be delayed beyond Q4/2015. / Yes / Action 2 / Safety
Reactivation of the WG-94 or a new activity may be launched to re-evaluate the feasibility of developing standards for a Take-off Performance Monitoring System. / No, see section 8.1.2 / No action
Results from NLR on ‘Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) - Aircraft performance calculations and mass & balance, - Best practices for evaluation and use of EFB’, by the end of Summer 2015. / Yes, however no assessment in this PIA (study outcome not yet analysed) / Action 1
The actions 3 and 4 are grouped in the PIA analysis for consistency reasons / Safety
Commission Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 to be amended due to transposition of provisions on Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) from ICAO Annex 6 (ref.: RMT.0601 and RMT.0602). / Yes, however no assessment in this PIA due to start of the RMT in January 2016
This is the format for your text…
6Action 1 – [Title]
6.1What is the problem?
[When the section 1 is not enough detailed to understand the issues addressed by this action, develop in that case proper justification to explain the problem]
This is the format for your text…
6.2Purpose of the action: what will the action prevent/mitigate? and how ?
6.2.1What will the action prevent/mitigate?
[e.g. the pilot errors when performing the task xxx can be prevented]
This is the format for your text…
6.2.2What is the technical content of the action?
[e.g. to prevent the pilot error, the action intends to reinforce training skills/add a new equipment/…]
This is the format for your text…
6.2.3What are the relevant types of support for this action?
[Indicate which supports for this action are relevant]
Industry standard
This is the format for your text…
Safety Promotion
This is the format for your text…
Oversight
This is the format for your text…
Rulemaking
This is the format for your text…
Research
This is the format for your text…
6.2.4Interfaces to be considered
This is the format for your text…
6.3Impact analysis
6.3.1Benefit level
[Describe the estimated level of benefit that this action may achieve. i.e. by how much the action will improve the baseline. E.g. assess the decrease insafety risks and what are the most efficient supports for an action (safety promotion, rulemaking, …). Quantifiy this safety benefit in terms of risk reduction]
This is the format for your text…
Conclusion for benefit level
Safety risks are estimated to be reduced by a maximum of XX%, equivalent to an improvement level of YYwith a scale from 0 to 10.
Table 3 – Benefit per type of support of the action
Type of support / Benefit level (SIL)Action 1 - Title / YYY
6.3.1Time implementation
[Estimate the number of years to develop the action and the number of years to get the achievement of the benefits]