Many States are moving away from a very active role in the supervision of aviation activities. The reasons for this include the large number of inspectors required to perform this function, confusion over safety responsibilities and the need for a large enforcement organization, factors are assumed to contradict the safety culture that is promoted as being an important factor in safety management. Instead of the active supervision of aviation activities, regulators require that aviation service providers such as aerodrome operators, air traffic service providers, aircraft operators and maintenance organisations, implement and maintain a safety management system. The performance of those safety management systems are then monitored by means of safety performance indicators. The development and measurement of proper safety performance indicators in an organisation is not straightforward however, and many important issues are still very much in the open. Which indicators represent the true safety performance of an organisation? What are the results if each organisation defines their own set of safety performance indicators, and how does this relate to indicators defined at other organisations? How can the reliability and quality of the data and data analysis be preserved? It is also vitally important to understand the interaction of safety management systems with other management systems for e.g. quality, occupational safety and environmental protection. And while safety culture is being regarded as essential for a safety management system, the constituents of a healthy safety culture are not entirely clear. This paper describes how a safety management system is related to a quality management system and how it is related to safety culture. Particular emphasis is placed on the difficulties for the development of safety performance indicators in an organisation as part of a successful safety management system. (Author/publisher)
Abstract