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.
In this paper we present a review of existing aviation safety metrics and we lay the foundation for our four-years research project entitled “Measuring Safety in Aviation – Developing Metrics for Safety Management Systems”. We reviewed state-of-the-art literature, relevant standards and regulations, and industry practice. We identified that the long-established view on safety as absence of losses has limited the measurement of safety performance to indicators of adverse events (e.g., accident and incident rates). However, taking into account the sparsity of incidents and accidents compared to the amount of aviation operations, and the recent shift from compliance to performance based approach to safety management, the exclusive use of outcomes metrics does not suffice to further improve safety and establish a proactive monitoring of safety performance. Although the academia and aviation industry have recognized the need to use activity indicators for evaluating how safety management processes perform, and various process metrics have been developed, those have not yet become part of safety performance assessment. This is partly attributed to the lack of empirical evidence about the relation between safety proxies and safety outcomes, and the diversity of safety models used to depict safety management processes (i.e. root-cause, epidemiological or systemic models). This, in turn, has resulted to the development of many safety process metrics, which, however, have not been thoroughly tested against the quality criteria referred in literature, such as validity, reliability and practicality.
The rapidly evolving aviation environment, driven by the Fourth Industrial Revolution, encompasses smart operations, communication technology, and automation. Airports are increasingly developing new autonomous innovation strategies to meet sustainability goals and address future challenges, such as shifting labor markets, working conditions, and digitalization (ACI World, 2019). This paper explores high-level governance strategies, a benchmarking study, that facilitates this transition. It aims to identify the key characteristics and features of the benchmarking study applicable to the development of autonomous airside operations. It also examines areas for improvement in operations, focusing on Key Performance Areas (KPAs) and strategic objectives related to airside automation. The findings highlight several essential performance areas and formulate it to a tailored benchmarking study that airports or aviation stakeholders can adopt to develop automation in airside operations. These criteria and features are summarized into a benchmarking framework that reflects strategy objectives. This paper contributes a valuable benchmarking methodology, supporting the growing global aviation demand for improvements toward more sustainable and smart autonomous airside operations. This outcome motivates aviation stakeholders to innovate to meet environmental and social sustainability goals.
Ons voorstel ‘Biobased Sustainable Aviation Fuel’, richt zich op het ontwikkelen van een nieuwe productieroute voor sustainable aviation fuels (SAFs). Hiermee wordt invulling gegeven aan de behoefte van de luchtvaartindustrie om alternatieve productieroutes voor SAF te ontwikkelen. Deze behoefte komt voort uit het verplicht bijmengen van SAF in conventionele kerosine. Ook hebben bestaande routes voor SAFs te maken met oplopende tekorten in grondstoffen. De productieroute in dit project maakt gebruik van vetzuren, waarmee een veelheid van afvalstromen kan worden verwerkt naar brandstoffen. De vetzuren uit dit project worden geproduceerd door ChainCraft uit organische reststromen via fermentatie. ChainCraft is begonnen als startup vanuit Wageningen Universiteit en heeft bewezen per jaar ongeveer 2000 ton vetzuren te kunnen produceren. Met een chemische reactie worden deze vetzuren omgezet naar ketonen. Dit wordt ketonisatie genoemd. Deze ketonen kunnen opgewerkt worden naar SAF, maar kunnen ook andere chemische toepassingen hebben, zoals het vervangen van palmolie. Het keton dat ontstaat is dus een tussenproduct waarmee verschillende markten bedient kunnen worden. Dit is van belang voor ChainCraft dat nieuwe markten voor haar vetzuren wil ontsluiten. De belangrijkste te ontwikkelen stap in deze productieroute is de verbetering en optimalisatie van de ketonisatiereactie. Dit wordt gedaan door de Hogeschool Rotterdam bij het CoE HRTech, binnen het cluster Verduurzaming Industrie en de opleiding Chemische Technologie. Bij de ketonisatiereactie ontstaat calciumhydroxide als bijproduct. Door dit terug te voeren naar het fermentatieproces kunnen de integrale proceskosten verlaagd worden en de milieu impact gereduceerd. Deze verbeterde fermentatie wordt door ChainCraft geanalyseerd. De te verwachten milieubesparing is 67% minder broeikasgasemissies ten opzichte van petrochemische kerosine. De te verwachten productiekosten zijn vergelijkbaar met gangbare SAFs. Naast ChainCraft en de Hogeschool Rotterdam wordt het voorstel gesteund door SkyNRG. SkyNRG is sinds 2010 de wereldwijde leider op het gebied van SAFs.
Client: Foundation Innovation Alliance (SIA - Stichting Innovatie Alliantie) with funding from the ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OCW) Funder: RAAK (Regional Attention and Action for Knowledge circulation) The RAAK scheme is managed by the Foundation Innovation Alliance (SIA - Stichting Innovatie Alliantie) with funding from the ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OCW). Early 2013 the Centre for Sustainable Tourism and Transport started work on the RAAK-MKB project ‘Carbon management for tour operators’ (CARMATOP). Besides NHTV, eleven Dutch SME tour operators, ANVR, HZ University of Applied Sciences, Climate Neutral Group and ECEAT initially joined this 2-year project. The consortium was later extended with IT-partner iBuildings and five more tour operators. The project goal of CARMATOP was to develop and test new knowledge about the measurement of tour package carbon footprints and translate this into a simple application which allows tour operators to integrate carbon management into their daily operations. By doing this Dutch tour operators are international frontrunners.Why address the carbon footprint of tour packages?Global tourism contribution to man-made CO2 emissions is around 5%, and all scenarios point towards rapid growth of tourism emissions, whereas a reverse development is required in order to prevent climate change exceeding ‘acceptable’ boundaries. Tour packages have a high long-haul and aviation content, and the increase of this type of travel is a major factor in tourism emission growth. Dutch tour operators recognise their responsibility, and feel the need to engage in carbon management.What is Carbon management?Carbon management is the strategic management of emissions in one’s business. This is becoming more important for businesses, also in tourism, because of several economical, societal and political developments. For tour operators some of the most important factors asking for action are increasing energy costs, international aviation policy, pressure from society to become greener, increasing demand for green trips, and the wish to obtain a green image and become a frontrunner among consumers and colleagues in doing so.NetworkProject management was in the hands of the Centre for Sustainable Tourism and Transport (CSTT) of NHTV Breda University of Applied Sciences. CSTT has 10 years’ experience in measuring tourism emissions and developing strategies to mitigate emissions, and enjoys an international reputation in this field. The ICT Associate Professorship of HZ University of Applied Sciences has longstanding expertise in linking varying databases of different organisations. Its key role in CARMATOP was to create the semantic wiki for the carbon calculator, which links touroperator input with all necessary databases on carbon emissions. Web developer ibuildings created the Graphical User Interface; the front end of the semantic wiki. ANVR, the Dutch Association of Travel Agents and Tour operators, represents 180 tour operators and 1500 retail agencies in the Netherlands, and requires all its members to meet a minimum of sustainable practices through a number of criteria. ANVR’s role was in dissemination, networking and ensuring CARMATOP products will last. Climate Neutral Group’s experience with sustainable entrepreneurship and knowledge about carbon footprint (mitigation), and ECEAT’s broad sustainable tourism network, provided further essential inputs for CARMATOP. Finally, most of the eleven tour operators are sustainable tourism frontrunners in the Netherlands, and are the driving forces behind this project.
Since March 2013, Paul Peeters is a member of the ICAO/CAEP Working Group 3, which is responsible for setting a new fuel efficiency standard for of civil aviation. He does so for the International Coalition for Sustainable Aviation (ICSA). ICSA was established in 1998 by a group of national and international environmental NGOs as official observers. Since its inception, ICSA has contributed to CAEP’s work on technical means to reduce emissions and noise, the role of market-based measures, supporting economic and environmental analysis, modelling and forecasting, and ICAO’s carbon calculator. It has also been invited to present its views at ICAO workshops on carbon markets and bio-fuels, and has presented to the high-level Group on Internation Aviation and Climate Change (GIACC). ICSA uses the expertise within its NGO membership to formulate its co-ordinated positions. To gain the broadest level of understanding and input from environmental NGOs, ICSA communicates with, and invites comment from, other NGO networks and bodies working in related areas. ICSA’s participation in ICAO and CAEP meetings is currently provided by the Aviation Environment Federation (AEF), the International Council for Clean Transportation (ICCT) and Transport and Environment (T&E). See http://www.icsa-aviation.org
