Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T05:50:28.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The PBP Bow-Tie framework for the systematic representation and comparison of military aviation regulatory frameworks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

L. Purton ,
R. Clothier ,
K. Kourousis  and
K. Massey
L. Purton
Affiliation:
Sir Lawrence Wackett Aerospace Research Centre, School of Aerospace, Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia
R. Clothier
Affiliation:
Sir Lawrence Wackett Aerospace Research Centre, School of Aerospace, Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia
K. Kourousis*
Affiliation:
Sir Lawrence Wackett Aerospace Research Centre, School of Aerospace, Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia
K. Massey
Affiliation:
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Arlington, USA
*
*kyriakos.kourousis@rmit.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents a novel framework, based on traditional system safety modelling approaches, for the representation and comparison of airworthiness aviation frameworks. A disparate array of military airworthiness frameworks have emerged due to a lack of standardisation and the absence of a recognised organisation needed for the harmonisation of military regulatory frameworks.. The complexity and subsequent cost in inter-agency recognition of existing certification programs has led to the establishment of a European forum of military airworthiness authorities. The forum is working towards establishing a common regulatory framework across its European member states. The common framework provides the systematic basis for a certification of military aircraft that can be readily recognised by all of the member states. This will have many cost and efficiency benefits for the EU. The framework and recognition process have recently been accepted as a method for establishing recognition outside of Europe, with some identified shortfalls. This paper establishes a method for overcoming these shortfalls for nations outside of europe. The Product-Behaviour-Process (PBP) Bow-Tie, which is a novel application of the traditional bowtie risk modelling tool, derives test points that capture the airworthiness attestations for the high-level engineering lifecycle processes of design, production and maintenance. The proposed framework is used to provide a comparison between the Australian Defence Force and United States Army regulatory frameworks. The comparative case-study clearly demonstrates the benefit of the PBP Bow-Tie model in its ability to systematically represent the disparate regulatory frameworks. A novel representation of the output is also described, which facilitates a visual comparison of the results. The application of the PBP Bow-Tie framework to the case-study of regulatory frameworks reveals significant differences that need to be addressed in order for inter-agency recognition.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 118 , Issue 1210 , December 2014 , pp. 1433 - 1452
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), DOC 7300/9 – International Convention for Civil Aviation – more commonly known as The Chicago Convention: International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), 2006.Google Scholar
2. International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), DOC 9734 – Safety Oversight Manual: International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), 2006.Google Scholar
3. International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). (2013). Webpage: Safety Audit Information: Level of implementation of the eight core elements of the USOAP – Continuos Monitoring Approach. Available: http://www.icao.int/safety/Pages/USOAP-Results.aspx Google Scholar
4. International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), DOC 9859 – Safety Management Manual: International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), 2013.Google Scholar
5. European Defence Agency, European Military Airworthiness Document – Recognition (EMAD-R), ed, 2013.Google Scholar
6. Military Airworthiness Authority (MAWA). (12 March 13). Military Airworthiness Authourity Forum Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ). Available: http://www.eda.europa.eu/docs/documents/mawa-frequently-asked-questions-(faq)-v0-06.pdf Google Scholar
7. United States Department of Defense. (2013, 24 May 14). DODD 5030.61: US DoD Airworthiness Policy. Available: http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/503061p.pdf Google Scholar
8. Toy, M. (2013). External Recogntion – MAA (UK) and AMRDEC (US Army), presentation to MAC 2013. Available: http://www.eda.europa.eu/docs/default-source/documents/amrdec-external-recognition-mac-13-malcolm-toy-u.pdf Google Scholar
9. European Defence Agency. (2012, 30 May 13). European Military Airworthiness Project Available: http://eda.europa.eu/projects/projects-search/european-military-airworthiness Google Scholar
10. European Defence Agency, Annex D to the European Military Airworthiness Document – Recognition (EMAD-R), ed, 2013.Google Scholar
11. Internation Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), DOC 9760 – Airworthiness Manual, 3rd ed, 2013.Google Scholar
12. Purton, L. and kourousis, L. Military airworthiness management frameworks: a critical review, Procedia Engineering, 80, pp 545–564, 2014.Google Scholar
13. Duriez, R. and Toy, M. (2013). FR DSAE and UK MAA Mutual Recognition. Available: http://www.eda.europa.eu/docs/default-source/documents/uk-fr-mutual-recognition-experience-ricahrd-duriex-and-malcolm-toy.pdf Google Scholar
14. Duriez, R. (2013). State Aviation Safety Authority (DSAE): The French Military Airworthiness System – presentation 18 Sep 13. Available: http://www.ssm.gov.tr/anasayfa/hizli/duyurular/etkinlikler/konfer-anslar/Documents/20130918_HSUESBB/DSAE TR mil aw seminar FR mili aw system 2013 09 18 Richard Duriez.ppt Google Scholar
15. Woodside, Techical Integrity /Process Safety; what is it? Presentation to NOPSEMA forum by Woodside (Mary Hackett), February, 2008.Google Scholar
16. Bale, E.A. and Edwards, D.W. Technical Integrity–An Engineer’s View, Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 78, pp 355–361, 9/2000.Google Scholar
17. Purton, L. Clothier, R. and Kourousis, K. Assessment of Technical Airworthiness in Military Aviation: Implementation and Further advancement of the Bow-Tie Model, Procedia Engineering, 80, pp 529–544, 2014.Google Scholar
18. Bento, J.P. Review from an MTO-perspective of fve investigation reports from BP (Draft), Norway: Stavanger, 2003.Google Scholar
19. Australian National Audit Offce (ANAO). (2007). Administering Regulation: Better Practice Guide. Available: http://www.anao.gov.au/uploads/documents/Administering_Regulation_.pdf Google Scholar
20. Reason, J. Education and debate: Human error: Models and management, BMJ, 18 March 2000, 320, pp 768–70.Google Scholar
21. Reason, J. Human Error, Cambridge University Press, 1990 (frst published).Google Scholar
22. Reason, J. Managing the risks of organizational accidents, Aldershot: Ashgate, 1997.Google Scholar
23. Rasmussen, J. and Svedung, I. Proactive Risk Management in a Dynamic Society, 1st ed, Risk & Environmental Department, Swedish Rescue Services Agency, Karlstad, 2000.Google Scholar
24. Rasmussen, J. Risk management in a dynamic society: A modelling problem, Safety Science, 1997, 27, pp 183–213.Google Scholar
25. Krzywinski, M.I., Schein, J.E., Birol, I., Connors, J., Gascoyne, R. and Horsman, D. et al Circos: An information aesthetic for comparative genomics, Genome Research, 18 June 2009.Google Scholar
26. Defence Aviation Authority. (2012, 20 February 13). AAP 7001.053(AM1): Technical Airworthiness Management Manual. Available: http://www.defence.gov.au/DGTA/Documents/Publications/7001053/eTAMMweb/index.htm Google Scholar
27. E. United States Code, Supplement 5, Title 49 – TRANSPORTATION, 10 U.S.C. – ARMED FORCES, United States Code, 2006 Edition, Supplement 5, Title 10 – ARMED FORCES, ed, 2011.Google Scholar
28. Department of the United States Army. (21 June 2007, 10 April 13). Army Regulation 70–62: Airworthiness Qualifcation of Aircraft Systems Available: http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffles/r70_62.pd Google Scholar