European Action Plan for the Prevention of Runway Incursions(47)

3.6 Responsibility and authority
Guidance, Questions! Has Top Management delegated responsibility and at the same time given authority to decide? Is there a specific delegation order in place?
Responsibility and authority are clearly defined and delegation of authority has been stated.

3.7 Monitoring procedures
Guidance, The monitoring procedures can be if preferred described centrally in the aerodrome Manual.
Systematic production monitoring in relation to performance and deviations is in place.

4. SAFETY ASSESSMENT
4.1 List of Non-compliances
Guidance
To accomplish an abbreviated but comprehensive list of non-compliances, list all deviations, variations and identified hazards having in mind that the safety assessment is made later under the safety assessment paragraph.
1.

2.

3.

4.

Analysis and severity of risk of the non-compliances
Guidance on risk analysis 1
Each deviation from, variation to standard or identified hazard must be risk assessed for its risk contribution to aircraft. Assess the
seriousness of the consequences of the hazard occurring.

The consequence of each identified hazard occurring should be assessed for its effect on aircraft safety. The table below provides
the safety criticality classification scheme (JAR 25) that systems on aerodromes shall be assessed against.
Consider the chances of it happening

The probability of occurrence can be defined in both qualitative and quantitative terms.
Numerical (quantitative) methods may be required to further support the analysis of systems, which have the potential to
produce catastrophic or hazardous results. For lower levels of classification of risk, qualitative methods will often produce valid
and acceptable results.

It will be noted that many of the hazards identified are acceptably mitigated by the application of existing Standards, regulations,
procedures or practices.

The figure below illustrates the relationship between qualitative and quantitative probability of occurrence.

Determine whether the consequent risk is acceptable and within the organisation's acceptable safety performance criteria?

Once the severity of a hazard has been assessed and the probability of it arising has been estimated, a judgement can be made on
whether the consequent risk is acceptable or not and whether it can be further reduced at reasonable cost. Common sense dictates
that a major consequence of an undesired event with a high probability of occurrence is unacceptable, however it may be tolerable
if the probability of occurrence is very low although it may be undesirable.

The process of judging tolerability of risks and the results can be presented in tabular form as illustrated below.
Actions to reduce the severity of the hazard or the probability of it arising to reduce the risk to a tolerable level (managing risks)
　
中国航空网 www.aero.cn
航空翻译 www.aviation.cn
本文链接地址：European Action Plan for the Prevention of Runway Incursions(47)