曝光台 注意防骗
网曝天猫店富美金盛家居专营店坑蒙拐骗欺诈消费者
Figure 6-7 Distribution by the first event – ECR
Consequential events 1 %
Any other event 1 %
Aerodrome & ground aids 3 %
Air Navigation Services 7 %
Aircraft/system/component 11 %
Aircraft operation general 26 %
Not reported 51 %
SEC
RI-VAP
CABIN
SCF-PP
BIRD
ADRM
RAMP
MAC
SCF-NP
OTHR
ATM
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000
Figure 6-6 Accident categories for fatal and non-fatal accidents – EASA MS operated
helicopters (2000 – 2009)
Figure 6-5 depicts the distribution of occurrences by the severity of the occurrence. Most of
occurrences where the severity was reported, have been classified as incidents. In 30 % of the
reports, the severity of the occurrence was not reported.
Figure 6-6 presents the top 10 accident categories according to the ECR data. The majority
of occurrences were categorised as ‘ATM/CNS’, ‘Other’, and ‘System/component failure’ or
‘malfunction [non-powerplant]’. The occurrence category was reported in 55 % of all records in
the repository.
Critical events during the occurrence are coded based on the event type. Events are reported
in chronological order. Distribution by the first event is shown in Figure 6-7. In most cases,
the first event types are ‘Aircraft operation general’, ‘Aircraft/system/component’, and
‘Air Navigation services’. There are 51 % of records, where event information was not reported.
Your safety is our mission. 41
Figure 6-8 represents the top 5 accident categories divided by aircraft mass group. The white
bars indicate the records with mass group information not reported. It would appear that
there is a systematic problem related to the reporting of the aircraft mass group in conjunction
with occurrences classified as ‘ATM/CNS’ .
6.2 Conclusions
This is the first time that data from Europe on occurrences could be reviewed. Thus, the efforts
to set up the system to collect data on a wide scale start to show results. Nevertheless,
challenges remain. The ECR can be compared to a large mosaic made from small pieces
(occurrences) supplied by the reporters. If a significant number of pieces are left blank or are
wrong there can be no clear indication of the overall status of safety.
For instance the event type is not reported for 51 % of the ECR records, the aircraft category
is not mentioned 65 % of records, the mass group of aircraft is not listed in 71 % of records,
and the type of operation is not reported for 57 % of records.
Efforts will have to be made at all levels to enhance the data quality.
The effective use of the data is hindered by restrictions to access them: narratives and notes
are not available, preventing the verification of the accident categories and event types
assigned. Registrations of aircraft are missing preventing a verification of the aircraft types
and characteristics reported.
the european central repository
RAMP
MAC
SCF-NP
OTHR
ATM
Unknown
2 251 to 5 700 kg
> 272 000 kg
0 to 2 250 kg
5 701 to 27 000 kg
27 001 to 272 000 kg
Not reported
0 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 12,500 15,000 17,500 20,000 47,586
Figure 6-8 Distribution by mass group per accident category – ECR
42
Your safety is our mission. 43
7.0 Agency’s safety actions
7.1 Approvals and Standardisation
The Agency’s standardisation inspections performed during 2009 further confirmed the maturity
of the standardisation process for the areas of Initial and Continuing Airworthiness where
Commission Regulation (EC) No 736/2006 provides a robust framework for the monitoring of
Member States’ implementation of the EASA Basic Regulation (EEC) No 216/2008 and related
Implementing Rules (Regulations 2042/2003 and 1702/2003). However, the experience
gathered during recent years indicates a need for a revision of the Commission Regulation (EC)
No 736/2006 not only to streamline the process but also to cover the introduction of the second
and third extension of the Agency’s remit.
In the areas of Flight Crew Licensing, Air Operations and Flight Synthetic Training Devices where
Implementing Rules have not yet been issued, EASA continued JAA’s standardisation activities
in accordance with the FUJA II report. After disbandment of JAA on 30th June 2009, in the
case of the EASA States (EU Member States, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein),
standardisation inspections were performed by the Agency, based on a signed agreement
between the European Commission and EASA. This agreement suggests the use of some
中国航空网 www.aero.cn
航空翻译 www.aviation.cn
本文链接地址：
Annual Safety review 2009(12)
