Use SHIFT+ENTER to open the menu (new window).
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Source
Count= 126
  
Accidents
YESGap between the 3-year global and regional accident rates or % of Accidents3-year gap from global accident rate or % of accidents3-year global accident rate or % of accidentsAccident Rate or % of Accidents//istarsapi.net/public/metrics/safety/states/2013/StateOfOccurrence/3yearofficialaccidentstats.json?api_key=icaotest&valuesonly=true&aggregate=trueaccidentstatsdialog-Acc
Accidents: ICAO;  
Traffic: Scheduled Commercial Departures on aircraft above 5 700kg from Official Airline Guide (OAG)
  
4.2
NOGap between the 3-year regional accident rate and the 3-year Global Accident Rate since 2012
  
Accidents
NO[Accident Rates] Gap between Global and Regional Accident Rates (3 years)
  
Accidents
0.5
NO[% of Accidents] Reduce runway-related (RS) accidents to be in line with global average (3 years)
  
Accidents
0.5
NO[% of Accidents] Reduce controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) accidents to be in line with global average (3 years)
  
Accidents
0.5
NO[% of Accidents] Reduce loss of control - inflight (LOC-I) accidents to be in line with global average (3 years)
  
Accidents-NACC
YESUsing 2010 as the baseline, reduce the accident rate for commercial air transport operations by 50% by the year 20203-year gap from global accident rate or % of accidents3-year global accident rate or % of accidentsAccident Rate or % of Accidents//istarsapi.net/public/metrics/safety/states/2013/StateOfOccurrence/3yearofficialaccidentstats.json?api_key=icaotest&valuesonly=true&aggregate=trueaccidentstatsdialog-Acc
Accidents: ICAO;  
Traffic: Scheduled Commercial Departures on aircraft above 5 700kg from Official Airline Guide (OAG)
  
Accidents-NACC
NO[Accident Rates] Gap between Global and Regional Accident Rates (3 years)Gap from 50% of 2010 Accident Rate50% of the 2010 Accident Rate
  
Accidents-NACC
0.5
NO[% of Accidents] Reduce runway-related (RS) accidents to be in line with global average (3 years)
  
Accidents-NACC
0.5
NO[% of Accidents] Reduce controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) accidents to be in line with global average (3 years)
  
Accidents-NACC
0.5
NO[% of Accidents] Reduce loss of control - inflight (LOC-I) accidents to be in line with global average (3 years)
  
Accidents-NACC2
YESReduce runway-related accidents (RS) by 20% relative to the 2008-2012 regional average by 2016Gap from the 2008-2012 regional accident rate5 Year Regional Accident Rate% of Accidents//istarsapi.net/public/metrics/safety/states/2008/StateOfOccurrence/5yearofficialaccidentstats.json?api_key=icaotest&valuesonly=true&aggregate=trueaccidentstats
Accidents: ICAO;  
Traffic: Scheduled Commercial Departures on aircraft above 5 700kg from Official Airline Guide (OAG)
  
Accidents-NACC2
1
NORunway-related accidents (RS)  relative to the 20% of the 2008-2012
  
Accidents-NACC2
1
NO[Global] Reduce controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) accidents to be in line with global average (3 years)
  
Accidents-NACC2
1
NO[Global] Reduce loss of control - inflight (LOC-I) accidents to be in line with global average (3 years)
  
Aerodrome Certification
YESPercentage of airports with international traffic for which the State has PQ 8.081 satisfactoryNot certifiedCertified (State satisfies with PQ 8.081)Number of international aerodromes//istarsapi.net/public/metrics/safety/states/airportcertificationstats.json?api_key=icaotest&aggregation=sumairportcertificationstatsdialog-AGACert
Protocol Question(s): ICAO USOAP CMA;
International Aerodromes: OAG for US, Transport Canada list for Canada; ICAO Regional Air Navigation Plans (AOP Table) for all else;
DISCLAIMER: This metric only provides an estimated level of implementation for aerodrome certification, and does not yet fully represent actual figures. Click on "More Information" above for further details
  
Aerodrome Certification
NOAerodromes with less than 5000 scheduled departures per yearNot certifiedCertified (State satisfies with PQ 8.081)Number of international aerodromes
  
Aerodrome Certification
NOAerodromes with scheduled departures between 5000 and 15000 per year
  
Aerodrome Certification
NOAerodromes with over 15000 scheduled departures per year
  
Aerodrome Certification-MID
YESPercentage of airports with international traffic for which the State has PQ 8.081 satisfactoryNot certifiedCertified (State satisfies with PQ 8.081)Number of international aerodromes//istarsapi.net/public/metrics/safety/states/airportcertificationstats.json?api_key=icaotest&aggregation=sumairportcertificationstatsdialog-AGACert
Protocol Question(s): ICAO USOAP CMA;
International Aerodromes: OAG for US, Transport Canada list for Canada; ICAO Regional Air Navigation Plans (AOP Table) for all else;
DISCLAIMER: This metric only provides an estimated level of implementation for aerodrome certification, and does not yet fully represent actual figures. Click on "More Information" above for further details
  
Aerodrome Certification-MID
0.5
NO50% of International Aerodromes certified by end of 2015
  
Aerodrome Certification-MID
0.8
NO80% of International Aerodromes certified by end of 2016
  
Aerodrome Certification-MID
NO[INFO] 100% of International Aerodromes certified
  
Aerodrome Certification-MID
NO[INFO] Aerodromes with less than 5000 scheduled departures per year
  
Aerodrome Certification-MID
NO[INFO] Aerodromes with scheduled departures between 5000 and 15000 per year
  
Aerodrome Certification-MID
NO[INFO] Aerodromes with over 15000 scheduled departures per year
  
Aerodrome Certification-SAM
YESPercentage of airports with international traffic for which the State has PQ 8.081 satisfactoryNot certifiedCertified (State satisfies with PQ 8.081)Number of international aerodromes//istarsapi.net/public/metrics/safety/states/airportcertificationstats.json?api_key=icaotest&aggregation=sumdialog-AGACert
Protocol Question(s): ICAO USOAP CMA;
International Aerodromes: OAG for US, Transport Canada list for Canada; ICAO Regional Air Navigation Plans (AOP Table) for all else;
DISCLAIMER: This metric only provides an estimated level of implementation for aerodrome certification, and does not yet fully represent actual figures. Click on "More Information" above for further details
  
Aerodrome Certification-SAM
0.2
NO20% of International Aerodromes certified by end of 2016
  
Aerodrome Certification-SAM
1
NO[INFO] 100% of International Aerodromes certified
  
Aerodrome Certification-SAM
NO[INFO] Aerodromes with less than 5000 scheduled departures per yearNot certifiedCertified (State satisfies with PQ 8.081)Number of international aerodromes
  
Aerodrome Certification-SAM
NO[INFO] Aerodromes with scheduled departures between 5000 and 15000 per year
  
Aerodrome Certification-SAM
NO[INFO] Aerodromes with over 15000 scheduled departures per year
  
AIM
YESStatus of Implementation of selective stepsNot fully compliantCompliantNumber of States//istarsapi.net/public/metrics/safety/states/ansstats.json?api_key=icaotest&aggregation=sumhttp://www.icao.int/safety/information-management/Documents/ROADMAP%20First%20Edition.pdf
Regional Office Data
  
AIM
NOFully compliant with step P-03: AIRAC Adherence Monitoring
  
AIM
NOFully compliant with step P-05: WGS84 Implementation
  
AIM
NOPartially compliant with step P-05: WGS84 Implementation
  
AIM
NOFully compliant with step P-17: Quality
  
AIM-REVISED
YESStatus of Implementation of selective stepsNot compliantCompliantNumber of States//istarsapi.net/public/metrics/safety/states/ansstats.json?api_key=icaotest&aggregation=sumhttp://www.icao.int/safety/information-management/Documents/ROADMAP%20First%20Edition.pdf
Regional Office Data
  
AIM-REVISED
NOCompliance with step P-03: AIRAC Adherence Monitoring
  
AIM-REVISED
NOCompliance with step P-05: WGS84 Implementation
  
AIM-REVISED
NOCompliance with step P-17: Quality
  
Aircraft Operator Certification
YESPercentage of regular passenger airlines which are IOSA certifiedNot IOSA certifiedIOSA CertifiedNumber of airlines//istarsapi.net/public/metrics/safety/states/iosaairlinesstats.json?api_key=icaotest&aggregation=sumiosaairlinesstatshttp://www.iata.org/whatwedo/safety/audit/iosa/Pages/registry.aspx?Query=all
IATA IOSA
  
Aircraft Operator Certification
NOSmall airlines (3 aircraft or less)Not IOSA certifiedIOSA CertifiedNumber of airlines
  
Aircraft Operator Certification
NOMedium airlines (between 4 and 15 aircraft)
  
Aircraft Operator Certification
NOLarge airlines (16 aircraft or more)
  
Aircraft Operator Certification-MID
YESPercentage of regular passenger airlines which are IOSA certifiedNot IOSA certifiedIOSA CertifiedNumber of airlines//istarsapi.net/public/metrics/safety/states/iosaairlinesstats.json?api_key=icaotest&aggregation=sumiosaairlinesstats
IATA IOSA
  
Aircraft Operator Certification-MID
NOAt least 60% of MID Airlines to be certified by IATA-IOSA by end of 2015
  
Aircraft Operator Certification-MID
NOAll MID States to accept IOSA as an acceptable means of compliance by 2015 to complement their safety oversight activities
  
Aircraft Operator Certification-MID
NO[INFO] Small airlines (3 aircraft or less)Not IOSA certifiedIOSA CertifiedNumber of airlines
  
Aircraft Operator Certification-MID
NO[INFO] Medium airlines (between 4 and 15 aircraft)
  
Aircraft Operator Certification-MID
NO[INFO] Large airlines (16 aircraft or more)
  
ATFM
YESPercentage of States where ATFM existsNot utilizing ATFM systemsUtilizing ATFM systemsStates//istarsapi.net/public/metrics/safety/states/ansstats.json?api_key=icaotest&aggregation=sum
Regional Office Data
  
ATFM
NONumber States where ATFM exists
  
Stronger CAAs
YESPercentage of satisfactory protocol questions in considered listNot SatisfactorySatisfactoryNumber of States//istarsapi.net/public/metrics/safety/states/2.009,2.011,2.012,2.051,2.053,2.101,2.103,2.203,2.205,1.013,1.015,1.051/pqstats.json?api_key=icaotest&aggregation=avg
ICAO USOAP CMA
  
Stronger CAAs
NOA legal basis for the establishment of their civil aviation safety oversight system (PQ 2.009)Not SatisfactorySatisfactoryNumber of States
  
Stronger CAAs
NOClearly defined functions and responsibilities of all entities (PQ 2.011)
  
Stronger CAAs
NOA distinct separation of responsibilities between the regulators and ANSPs (PQ 2.012)
  
Stronger CAAs
NOSufficient financial resources (PQ 2.051)
  
Stronger CAAs
NOSufficient human resources (PQ 2.053)
  
Stronger CAAs
NOAn active role for the CAA(s) in the selection and recruitment of technical staff (PQ 2.101)
  
Stronger CAAs
NOThe ability for the CAA(s) to attract, recruit and retain appropriately qualified and experienced technical staff (PQ 2.103)
  
Stronger CAAs
NOAll the necessary tools and equipment as needed by the CAA(s) technical staff (PQ 2.203)
  
Stronger CAAs
NOAppropriate facilities (PQ 2.205)
  
Stronger CAAs
NOProvisions for the establishment of the CAA(s) and for the appointment of a Chief Executive Officer(s) (CEOs) (PQ 1.013)
  
Stronger CAAs
NOClear delegated authority to the head of the CAA(s) (PQ 1.015)
  
Stronger CAAs
NOLegal provisions for the enforcement of the applicable legislation and regulations (PQ 1.051)
  
Stronger CAA Resources
1
YESPercentage of satisfactory protocol questions in considered listNot SatisfactorySatisfactoryNumber of States//istarsapi.net/public/metrics/safety/states/2.023,2.051,2.053,2.103/pqstats.json?api_key=icaotest&aggregation=avg
ICAO USOAP CMA
  
Stronger CAA Resources
NOMechanisms to avoid perceived or potential conflict of interest of inspectorate staff (PQ2.023)
  
Stronger CAA Resources
NOSufficient financial resources (PQ 2.051)
  
Stronger CAA Resources
NOSufficient human resources (PQ 2.053)
  
Stronger CAA Resources
NOThe ability for the CAA(s) to attract, recruit and retain appropriately qualified and experienced technical staff (PQ 2.103)
  
Fuel Savings/C02 Emmissions Reduction
YESGap between the maximum potential fuel burn reduction from the implementation of ASBU modules and the global reduction target of 2%% reduction from the global targetMaximum potential for fuel reductionNumber of Stateshttp://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/
Environment Branch
  
Fuel Savings/C02 Emmissions Reduction
NOMaximum % of fuel burn reduction from the implementation of ASBU modules against the global target of 2%
  
Ground-Ground Digital Coordination/Transfer
YESPercentage of FIRs within which all applicable ACCs have implemented at least one interface to use AIDC/OLDI with neighboring ACCsNo interface using AIDC/OLDI with neighboring ACCsAt least one interface using AIDC/OLDI with neighboring ACCsNumber of FIRs
Regional Office Data
  
Ground-Ground Digital Coordination/Transfer
NONumber of FIRs within which all applicable ACCs have implemented at least one interface to use AIDC/OLDI with neighboring ACCs
  
PBN
YESPercentage of instrument runways used for approaches at international aerodromes with APV or LNAV-only proceduresConventional RunwaysPBN RunwaysNumber of Runways//istarsapi.net/public/metrics/safety/states/internationalairportpbnstats.json?api_key=icaotesthttp://www.icao.int/safety/pbn
PBN Types and Runway Ends: Jepessen combined with ICAO data;
*International Aerodromes: OAG for US, Transport Canada list for Canada; ICAO Regional Air Navigation Plans (AOP Table) for all else;
  
PBN
NONumber of instrument runways used for approaches at international aerodromes with APV or LNAV-only procedures
  
PBN
NO[INFO] Number of PBN runways at international aerodromes with Lateral Navigation (LNAV)
  
PBN
NO[INFO] Number of PBN runways at international aerodromes with Lateral and Vertical Navigation (LNAV/VNAV)
  
PBN
NO[INFO] Number of PBN runways at international aerodromes with Localizer Performance with Vertical Guidance (LPV)
  
PBN
NO[INFO] Number of PBN runways at international aerodromes with Required Navigation Performance Authorization Required (RNP AR)
  
PBN-States
YESPercentage of instrument runways used for approaches at international aerodromes with APV or LNAV-only proceduresStates leftStatesNumber of States//istarsapi.net/public/metrics/safety/states/pbnstats.json?api_key=icaotesthttp://www.icao.int/safety/pbn
PBN Types and Runway Ends: Jepessen combined with ICAO data;
*International Aerodromes: OAG for US, Transport Canada list for Canada; ICAO Regional Air Navigation Plans (AOP Table) for all else;
  
NOAverage PBN implementation rate
  
PBN-States
NOPBN Implementation of at least 30% by 2010
  
PBN-States
NOPBN Implementation of at least 70% by 2014
  
PBN-States
NOFull PBN Implementation by 2016
  
PBN-All
YESPercentage of instrument runways used for approaches at international aerodromes with APV or LNAV-only proceduresConventional RunwaysPBN RunwaysNumber of Runways//istarsapi.net/public/metrics/safety/states/pbnstats.json?api_key=icaotesthttp://www.icao.int/safety/pbn
PBN Types and Runway Ends: Jepessen combined with ICAO data;
*International Aerodromes: OAG for US, Transport Canada list for Canada; ICAO Regional Air Navigation Plans (AOP Table) for all else;
  
PBN-MID
YESPercentage of instrument runways used for approaches at international aerodromes with APV or LNAV-only proceduresConventional RunwaysPBN RunwaysNumber of Runways//istarsapi.net/public/metrics/safety/states/internationalairportpbnstats.json?api_key=icaotesthttp://www.icao.int/safety/pbn
PBN Types and Runway Ends: Jepessen combined with ICAO data;
*International Aerodromes: OAG for US, Transport Canada list for Canada; ICAO Regional Air Navigation Plans (AOP Table) for all else;
  
PBN-All
NONumber of instrument runways used for approaches at international aerodromes with APV or LNAV-only procedures
  
PBN-MID
NONumber of instrument runways used for approaches at international aerodromes with APV or LNAV-only procedures
  
PBN-All
NO[INFO] Number of PBN runways at aerodromes with Lateral Navigation (LNAV)
  
PBN-MID
NONumber of PBN runways at international aerodromes with Lateral Navigation (LNAV)
  
PBN-All
NO[INFO] Number of PBN runways at aerodromes with Lateral and Vertical Navigation (LNAV/VNAV)
  
PBN-MID
NONumber of PBN runways at international aerodromes with Lateral and Vertical Navigation (LNAV/VNAV)
  
PBN-All
NO[INFO] Number of PBN runways at aerodromes with Localizer Performance with Vertical Guidance (LPV)
  
PBN-All
NO[INFO] Number of PBN runways at aerodromes with Required Navigation Performance Authorization Required (RNP AR)
  
ICAO Plans of Action
YESPercentage of States with Accepted Plans of Action, limited to States with EI<20% or SSCLeftAction PlansNumber of ICAO/State Plans of Action//istarsapi.net/public/metrics/safety/states/poastats.json?api_key=icaotest&aggregation=sumpoastatshttp://www.icao.int/safety/scan/Pages/Plans-of-Action.aspx
ICAO SCAN Website
  
ICAO Plans of Action
NOPercentage of States with Accepted Plans of Action, limited to States with EI<20% or SSCLeftAction PlansNumber of ICAO/State Plans of Action
  
ICAO Plans of Action
NOPercentage of States with Presented Plans of Action, limited to States with EI<20% or SSC
  
Significant Safety Concerns
YESPercentage of resolved SSCsUnresolvedResolvedNumber of Significant Safety Concerns//istarsapi.net/public/metrics/safety/states/sscstats.json?api_key=icaotest&aggregation=sumsschttp://www.icao.int/safety/Pages/USOAP-Results.aspx
ICAO USOAP CMA
  
Significant Safety Concerns
NOOPSUnresolvedResolvedNumber of Significant Safety Concerns
  
Significant Safety Concerns
NOAGA
  
Significant Safety Concerns
NOAIR
  
Significant Safety Concerns
NOANS
  
State Safety Oversight System
YESPercentage of States with EI above 60%Below 60% EIAbove 60% EINumber of States//istarsapi.net/public/metrics/safety/states/usoapeistats.json?api_key=icaotestusoapeistatshttp://www.icao.int/safety/Pages/USOAP-Results.aspx
ICAO USOAP CMA;
*For more information on safety audit results (i.e. audit dates), please visit: http://www.icao.int/safety/Pages/USOAP-Results.aspx
  
State Safety Oversight System
0.35
NOObjective by End of 2013 (35% of States)Below 60% EIAbove 60% EINumber of States
  
State Safety Oversight System
0.7
NOObjective by End of 2015 (70% of States)Below 60%Above 60%Number of States
  
State Safety Oversight System
1
NOObjective by end of 2017 (All States)Below 60%Above 60%Number of States
  
State Safety Oversight System-MID
1
YESPercentage of States with EI above 60%Below 60% EIAbove 60% EINumber of States//istarsapi.net/public/metrics/safety/states/usoapeistats.json?api_key=icaotestusoapeistatshttp://www.icao.int/safety/Pages/USOAP-Results.aspx
ICAO USOAP CMA;
*For more information on safety audit results (i.e. audit dates), please visit: http://www.icao.int/safety/Pages/USOAP-Results.aspx
  
State Safety Oversight System-MID
1
NOObjective by end of 2016Number of States
  
State Safety Oversight System-MID
1
NO6 out of 8 areas (LEG, ORG, PEL, OPS, AIR, AIG, ANS, AGA) are above 60%Number of States
  
State Safety Oversight System-SAM
0.8
YESRegional effective implementation above 80%States with Effective Implementation below target percentageStates with Effective Implementation above target percentageNumber of States//istarsapi.net/public/metrics/safety/states/usoapeistats.json?api_key=icaotestusoapeistatshttp://www.icao.int/safety/Pages/USOAP-Results.aspx
ICAO USOAP CMA;
*For more information on safety audit results (i.e. audit dates), please visit: http://www.icao.int/safety/Pages/USOAP-Results.aspx
  
State Safety Oversight System-SAM
0.6
NO[GLOBAL] Number of States above 60%
  
State Safety Oversight System-SAM
0.8
NONumber of States above 80%Number of States
  
State Safety Oversight System-NACC
1
YESProgressive increase of the USOAP EI score to 80%, with no State with CE3 (CAA Staff) and CE4 (Inspector Competency) below 70% by December 2016Below target percentage of EIAbove target percentage of EINumber of States//istarsapi.net/public/metrics/safety/states/2.010,2.051,2.053,2.103,2.101,2.105/pqstats.json?api_key=icaotestusoapeistatshttp://www.icao.int/safety/Pages/USOAP-Results.aspx
ICAO USOAP CMA;
*For more information on safety audit results (i.e. audit dates), please visit: http://www.icao.int/safety/Pages/USOAP-Results.aspx
  
State Safety Oversight System-NACC
1
NO80% Effective Implementation (EI) regional average
  
State Safety Oversight System-NACC
1
NONo State to have EI in Critical Element 3 (CAA Staff) and Critical Element 4 (Inspector Competency) below 70%
  
State Safety Oversight System-NACC
1
NO[INFO] Organizational structure depicting the civil aviation safety oversight entities and their reporting lines (PQ 2.010)
  
State Safety Oversight System-NACC
1
NO[INFO] Sufficient financial resources to meet its respective national and international obligations (PQ 2.051)
  
State Safety Oversight System-NACC
1
NO[INFO] Sufficient personnel to meet its respective national and international obligations (PQ 2.053)
  
State Safety Oversight System-NACC
1
NO[INFO] Able to attract, recruit and retain sufficiently qualified/experienced technical personnel (PQ 2.103)
  
State Safety Oversight System-NACC
1
NO[INFO] Active role in the selection and recruitment of sufficiently qualified/experienced technical personnel (PQ 2.101)
  
State Safety Oversight System-NACC
1
NO[INFO] Established a training policy for the technical personnel (PQ 2.105)
  
State Safety Programme
YESPercentage of States wtih EI > 60% using the SSP Gap analysis in iSTARSNot yet achievedAchievedNumber of States//istarsapi.net/public/metrics/safety/states/maturestatesspstats.json?api_key=icaotest&valuesonly=true&aggregate=true
iSTARS SSP Gap Analysis Application
  
State Safety Programme
NONumber of States that started the SSP Gap analysis in iSTARSNumber of States
  
State Safety Programme
NONumber of States that completed the SSP Gap analysis in iSTARS
  
State Safety Programme
NONumber of States that have defined an implementation plan
  
State Safety Programme
NONumber of States that have implemented an SSP
  
YESPercentage of implemented SSP conceptsNot implementedImplementedNumber of States