A literature review conducted as part of a research project named “Measuring Safety in Aviation – Developing Metrics for Safety Management Systems” revealed several challenges regarding the safety metrics used in aviation. One of the conclusions was that there is limited empirical evidence about the relationship between Safety Management System (SMS) processes and safety outcomes. In order to explore such a relationship, respective data from 7 European airlines was analyzed to explore whether there is a monotonic relation between safety outcome metrics and SMS processes, operational activity and demographic data widely used by the industry. Few, diverse, and occasionally contradictory associations were found, indicating that (1) there is a limited value of linear thinking followed by the industry, i.e., “the more you do with an SMS the higher the safety performance”, (2) the diversity in SMS implementation across companies renders the sole use of output metrics not sufficient for assessing the impact of SMS processes on safety levels, and (3) only flight hours seem as a valid denominator in safety performance indicators. At the next phase of the research project, we are going to explore what alternative metrics can reflect SMS/safety processes and safety performance in a more valid manner
As part of their SMS, aviation service providers are required to develop and maintain the means to verify the safety performance of their organisation and to validate the effectiveness of safety risk controls. Furthermore, service providers must verify the safety performance of their organisation with reference to the safety performance indicators and safety performance targets of the SMS in support of their organisation’s safety objectives. However, SMEs lack sufficient data to set appropriate safety alerts and targets, or to monitor their performance, and no other objective criteria currently exist to measure the safety of their operations. The Aviation Academy of the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences therefore took the initiative to develop alternative safety performance metrics. Based on a review of the scientific literature and a survey of existing safety metrics, we proposed several alternative safety metrics. After a review by industry and academia, we developed two alternative metrics into tools to help aviation organisations verify the safety performance of their organisations.The AVAV-SMS tool measures three areas within an organisation’s Safety Management System:• Institutionalisation (design and implementation along with time and internal/external process dependencies).• Capability (the extent to which managers have the capability to implement the SMS).• Effectiveness (the extent to which the SMS deliverables add value to the daily tasks of employees).The tool is scalable to the size and complexity of the organisation, which also makes it useful for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The AVAS-SCP tool also measures three areas in the organisation’s safety culture prerequisites to foster a positive safety culture:• Organisational plans (whether the company has designed/documented each of the safety cultureprerequisites).• Implementation (the extent to which the prerequisites are realised by the managers/supervisors acrossvarious organisational levels).• Perception (the degree to which frontline employees perceive the effects of managers’ actions relatedto safety culture).We field-tested these tools, demonstrating that they have adequate sensitivity to capture gaps between Work-as-Imagined (WaI) and Work-as-Done (WaD) across organisations. Both tools are therefore useful to organisations that want to self-assess their SMS and safety culture prerequisite levels and proceed to comparisons among various functions and levels and/or over time. Our field testing and observations during the turn-around processes of a regional airline confirm that significant differences exist between WaI and WaD. Although these differences may not automatically be detrimental to safety, gaining insight into them is clearly necessary to manage safety. We conceptually developed safety metrics based on the effectiveness of risk controls. However, these could not be fully field-tested within the scope of this research project. We recommend a continuation of research in this direction. We also explored safety metrics based on the scarcity of resources and system complexity. Again, more research is required here to determine whether these provide viable solutions.
The continuous increase of accident and incident reports has indicated the potential of drones to threaten public safety. The published regulatory framework for small drones is not visibly based on a comprehensive hazard analysis. Also, a variety in the constraints imposed by different regulatory frameworks across the globe might impede market growth and render small-drone operations even more complicated since light drones might be easily transferred and operated in various regions with diverse restrictions. In our study we applied the Systems-Theoretic Process Analysis (STPA) method to small-drone operations and we generated a first set of Safety Requirements (SR) for the authority, manufacturer, end-user and automation levels. Under the scope of this paper, we reviewed 56 drone regulations published by different authorities, and performed (1) a gap analysis against the 57 SRs derived by STPA for the authority level, and (2) Intra-Class Correlations in order to examine the extent of their harmonization. The results suggest that the regulations studied satisfy 5.3% to 66.7% of the SRs, and they are moderately similar. The harmonization is even lower when considering the range of values of various SRs addressed by the authorities. The findings from the drones’ case show that regulators might not similarly and completely address hazards introduced by new technology; such a condition might affect safety and impede the distribution and use of products in the international market. A timely and harmonized standardization based on a systematic hazard analysis seems crucial for tackling the challenges stemmed from technological advancements, especially the ones available to the public.
Logistics represents around 10-11% of global CO2 emissions, around 75% of which come from road freight transport. ‘The European Green Deal’ is calling for drastic CO2 reduction in this sector. This requires advanced and very expensive technological innovations; i.e. re-design of vehicle units, hybridization of powertrains and automatic vehicle technology. Another promising way to reach these environmental ambitions, without excessive technological investments, is the deployment of SUPER ECO COMBI’s (SEC). SEC is the umbrella name for multiple permutations of 32 meter, 70 tons, road-train combinations that can carry the payload-equivalent of 2 normal tractor-semitrailer combinations and even 3 rigid trucks. To fully deploy a SEC into the transport system the compliance with the existing infrastructure network and safety needs to be guaranteed; i.e. to deploy a specific SEC we should be able to determine which SEC-permutation is most optimal on specific routes with respect to regulations (a.o. damage to the pavement/bridges), the dimensions of specific infrastructures (roundabouts, slopes) and safety. The complexity of a SEC compared to a regular truck (double articulation, length) means that traditional optimisation methods are not applicable. The aim of this project is therefore to develop a first methodology enabling the deployment of the optimal SEC permutation. This will help transport companies (KIEM: Ewals) and trailer manufactures (KIEM: Emons) to invest in the most suitable designs for future SEC use. Additionally the methodology will help governments to be able to admit specific SEC’s to specific routes. The knowledge gained in this project will be combined with the knowledge of the broader project ENVELOPE (NWA-IDG). This will be the start of broader research into an overall methodology of deploying optimal vehicle combinations and a new regulatory framework. The knowledge will be used in master courses on vehicle dynamics.
To meet the European Green Deal, new CO2 emission standards for Heavy-Duty-Vehicles (HDV) have been set. The amended Regulation EU-2019/1242 has a wider scope, covering not only lorries but also trailers. From 2030 on (semi-)trailers must reduce their emissions by 10%, even though trailers generally do not emit any CO2-emissions. But how can a trailer save CO2? To calculate emissions, the European Commission has developed VECTO, the Vehicle Energy Consumption Calculation TOol. It is a standardized framework designed to determine fuel consumption and CO2-emissions of HDVs. Analysis show that the two main focus points for CO2 reduction, based on VECTO, are weight reduction and improved aerodynamics. However, equipping trailers with aerodynamic devices or making them lighter isn’t straightforward. Trailers lead a rough life and the industry is adapted to the current trailer designs. Lightweight constructions might harm the lifetime of a trailer and trailers with protruding aerodynamic parts won’t fit on a train anymore. Besides, both solutions have a major influence on the vehicle (roll-over) stability and therefore safety. It is not that evident for a trailer manufacturer to design a (new) trailer that 1) fulfills the CO2 regulations, 2) complies with the constructional requirements and 3) remains safe and stable. This 3-step-approach is really missing for trailer manufacturers, and this is endorsed by Burgers Carrosserie: “How can we validate (upfront) that the trailer is still as “strong” and “safe” if we apply the weight reduction that shows sufficient CO2 saving in VECTO?”. The answer was simple, it isn’t. It is the aim of Trenergy to develop this 3-step approach with complementary simulation tools, where trailer manufacturers can validate their design(s) for CO2 Savings, Construction and Safety. It is intended to make the developed models/tools open source for the Logistic Industry.
