SMS Implementation

[ttflyer]

It is an ICAO rule, we per the FAR's are required to comply with the ICAO regulations when operating in international airspace. I have been told the Bermuda will enforce the SMS requirement starting Nov 18 and the Cayman Islands and Turks & Caicos will start enforcement in December.
YMMV

http://www.nbaa.org/admin/sms/faq/

The requirement for SMS was not my question. My question is where does it state that operators are required to go through the IS-BAO process to comply. If true, ICAO is requiring all N-registered operators to significantly alter the way they operate, whether they already have a SMS program or not, and undergo expensive audits. Why does the FAA even bother to exist any more?

 

[ttflyer]

This article says yes:

http://proairman.com/understanding-the-sms-part-4/

Commercial operators are already required to have an SMS; and
By November 2010 private operators will be required to have an SMS.

Sorry, but that is not a link to an EU or ICAO regulation. The specific regulation which requires SMS does not, to the best of my knowledge, mention IS-BAO.

 

[stupidpilot]

The requirement for SMS was not my question. My question is where does it state that operators are required to go through the IS-BAO process to comply. If true, ICAO is requiring all N-registered operators to significantly alter the way they operate, whether they already have a SMS program or not, and undergo expensive audits. Why does the FAA even bother to exist any more?

No, you do not have to go through IS-BAO that is true. However, If your SMS is IS-BAO certified then you automatically are approved for EU ops. If it is not IS-BAO type certified SMS, then you must go through an alternative certification process to prove it conforms to ICAO standards for an SMS. I would guess that process would be a lot more difficult and probably end up being more expensive.

 

[ttflyer]

No, you do not have to go through IS-BAO that is true. However, If your SMS is IS-BAO certified then you automatically are approved for EU ops. If it is not IS-BAO type certified SMS, then you must go through an alternative certification process to prove it conforms to ICAO standards for an SMS. I would guess that process would be a lot more difficult and probably end up being more expensive.

That is a fair answer. I guess the question will be whether or not the non IS-BAO acceptance process is a lot more difficult and expensive. For operators who travel to EU regularly, this is a no-brainer. Do IS-BAO. But like the ETS, the EU and ICAO seem to completely disregard those operators who may only operate in EU airspace once every year or two. For those operators, when you add up the costs of IS-BAO certification, ETS compliance and whatever else, the per-trip cost and hassle gets prohibitively high...

 

[SabreFlyR]

The requirement for SMS was not my question. My question is where does it state that operators are required to go through the IS-BAO process to comply. If true, ICAO is requiring all N-registered operators to significantly alter the way they operate, whether they already have a SMS program or not, and undergo expensive audits. Why does the FAA even bother to exist any more?

Sorry, I see what your saying now.

 

[Gulfstream 200]

AFS-900*****N*****8900.133 *****8/30/10
*****

FAA Response to ICAO SMS Requirements.*****The FAA filed a “difference” with ICAO detailing that it is not currently in full compliance with the ICAO requirement, but is considering SMS rulemaking. The FAA’s difference was neither a deviation nor an exemption, but a notification to ICAO member states of the inability to meet the January 1, 2009 deadline. In our statement of difference, we explained that our rulemaking process requires thorough analysis and stakeholder input and therefore requires more time to complete regulatory action.
*****
*****
(1) After considering a nation’s difference, ICAO member states decide whether to honor a difference on the part of an international operator who enters and operates within their airspace. The AFS SMS Program Office is working with numerous foreign aviation agencies—both individually and as part of the Safety Management International Collaboration Group—to mitigate instances where carriers are denied entry or operation in a foreign state’s airspace.

(2) The FAA was assured that, currently, Transport Canada and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), or any of their member States, do not intend to restrict operations within their airspace due to noncompliance with ICAO SMS requirements.

 

[ttflyer]

(2) The FAA was assured that, currently, Transport Canada and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), or any of their member States, do not intend to restrict operations within their airspace due to noncompliance with ICAO SMS requirements.

And that statement, if it turns out to be true, means that not only will a SAFA inspector not ask for an IS-BAO approved SMS program, they won't ask for a SMS program from a Part 91 operator at all. Which goes back to my original statement - This whole thing is clear as mud.

You've got some operators who state IS-BAO is only game in town while other say nothing is required. These are not idiots saying these things, they are intelligent, professional, well-reasoned people who are attempting to meet whatever requirements exist.

The fact of the matter is that ICAO, the FAA, and EU is are so collectively screwed up about this (and ETS) that no one knows if they are coming or going. And you can bet this is a moving target - It's going to change six times in the next two years. I'm not yet ready to commit to IS-BAO if I don't have to. Time will tell whether or not I have to...

 

[Bleeds On]

So theoretically a guy could develop his own, screw the audit, roll the dice on getting ramped, and say oopsy daisy if they don't like it. Granted I'm talking about those of us that cross this great country's border but a few times a year. Heck, Canada has never once cared to come take a look anyhow.
This whole thing seems to be nothing more than leaving a paper trail of what we do before every flight anyhow; think about being safe and the risks associated. ADM comes to mind...

 

[stupidpilot]

That is a fair answer. I guess the question will be whether or not the non IS-BAO acceptance process is a lot more difficult and expensive. For operators who travel to EU regularly, this is a no-brainer. Do IS-BAO. But like the ETS, the EU and ICAO seem to completely disregard those operators who may only operate in EU airspace once every year or two. For those operators, when you add up the costs of IS-BAO certification, ETS compliance and whatever else, the per-trip cost and hassle gets prohibitively high...

As far as I can tell it's really not all that costly if you do it in house. If you buy the IBAC IS-BAO generic GOM and adapt yours to it then all that is $950 plus all your time adapting it to your GOM.This is the part that took me a really long time. You have to ensure the IS-BAO standard is at least as restrictive as FAA requirements. Then an audit, which is good for either 24 or 36 months is only a couple, three thousand if you get the right auditor. Compare that to ARG/US or WYVERN and that's pretty cheap in the world of aviation.

 

[wildbill]

During all of the conversation on the SMS we have overlooked training on using it. I might suggest that FlightSafety has an online course for SMS. The course outline says 5 hours, but I found it to be more like 10. It will not let you cut the corner and move on. I'm not sure of the cost of the course, but upon completetion you receive a certificate which you can show the auditors for credit towards your training. You do have to have it.