The Group System Structure by the ICAO - Essay Example

AIR Safety Systems and Investigations Name: Institution: Air Systems Safety and Investigation Group System Structure by ICAO The group system structure by the ICAO is made up of various investigators as well as supporting specialists. According to IACO manual, any aircraft accident investigation should be directed and managed by participants in a group with defined areas of responsibility. The specialty cases have to include their expertise and reliance from the rest of the members as their application demands are of greater value into the process. There have to be defined aspects of organizational structure in the whole team, accountability of all the members and respective roles, policies that guide on the stages of development as well as procedures to be followed (Wood and Segwinis, 2006). ICAO defines the investigation process with systematic and explicit approach of dealing with the required roles and undertaken measures for the best achievable results. All the specific details within the group’s structure and system have to be availed beforehand and relied upon every progress. Composition of the group system structure by ICAO depends on the requirements of the process, size of the involved aircraft organization as well as the extent of the accident with ramifications spreading to the entire management. In a simple organization, the division can be enabled with two groups such as operations and engineering. The operations are concerned with the behavior and professionalism of the involved personnel in the aircraft. Engineering on the other hand ill ensure that the functionality of the involved aircraft is analyzed before and after the accident. Dekker (2007) notes that a complex investigation will require greater emphasis on the subdivision of the responsibilities within the group especially with the individualized aspects like engines, structures, human factors, interviews of the witnesses, services of the air traffic and the like. The understanding and teamwork should be the catalyst of the process. Components and Specialties The components of the group system are classified into the various operational units. In the first personnel basis, the chief investigator of accidents is top most officials, while other members encompass the groups. The investigator in charge, who may or not be the Chief Investigator, communications and control, accredited representative state of registry, senior police officer, and media liaison are all part of the group. In addition, airworthiness authority, accredited representative state of manufacture, participants from other state comprise the yielded team. The duty of the group and its personnel is to ensure that the investigative process is achieved with the highest standards of professionalism, accountability and jurisprudence is followed (Schubert, 2009). The personnel members involved in the respective groups are briefed on the set objectives and goals of achievement in the process, as the demand for speedy reports and finalization is needed. At the second level of group and personnel organization, operational groups form the decentralized system units for the structure’s formation. They might comprise part or whole of the set units by ICAO standards and requirements. The operations group focuses on the review of the conduct of the actual flight operation, company pilot, manufacturer and the state registry roles in the accidents. The witness group ensures that all records of what was seen or heard is relevant. The structure group takes charge of the investigator, manufacture’s representative, advisor to the manufacturers and to the rules required. According to Krause (2009), the ATC is concerned with the radar issues connected to the incidents of independent ATS officer while the weather group accounts for the operation demands in the lead up to any interference that might have caused the accident. The final group that can be included with personnel is the power plant it is concerned with the engineering mechanisms as conditioned by investigator, engine manufacturer’s representative, adviser to the state as well as the manufacturer. Investigator-in-Charge The investigator-in-charge is the overall manager of the investigation process as the overall responsibility rests with his or her mandate. All the proceeds, requirements and directives on the investigative process are determined by the ability of the investigator-in-charge. In order for the investigator-in-charge to succeed in their roles, various attributes and managerial issues, have to be addressed from the onset. He should be able to organize and control the people involved in the investigation. It includes enumerating their service on person-by-person basis and noting their abilities within the team. The above ensures that all the relevant information on the inclusion of the specialties and organized personnel are known and verified without imposing any liability to an external interference (Wood and Segwinis, 2006). He should carry out the initial basis of meeting, acclimatizing with the groups and use references for storage, and subsequent feedbacks with required standards. Coordination of the work is the top priority in the investigator-in-charge’s responsibility when dealing with the investigation process. Coordination requires ensuring that the involved members are on the same page of the investigation while follow up on the timeline and deadlines given according to the management are adhered to. It is a sensitive aspect as the involved members of the investigative team are of different personalities and backgrounds. The work of the investigator-in-charge is to ensure that there is a constant reminder of the code of conduct require amongst each of them. Dekker (2007) notes that Co-ordination requires the supervisory aspect based on delegation of the duties in order to obtain a systematic process from all the members. It is a deliberate procedure, which can be demanded of accountability at every stage in order to maintain the profile and expected outcomes. The third aspect of the investigator-in-charge’s role within the investigation is blending of all the results and procedures into a coherent report, which is final of the undertaken exercise. The individual inputs from the specialized units of the investigation process have distinct undertakings as well as analysis of the whole occurrence. Logic has to be guiding factor for the investigator-in-charge when making the final report. At the initial basis, dependence should be required of the various specialized units’ heads into explanation and articulation of the reports. Once the various units have presented their finalized reports, the investigator-in-charge is then tasked with merging them into the final findings (Schubert, 2009). Authenticity of the reports should be measure based on the already set out goals and objectives of the whole investigation process. Non-deviation and falsehoods should be eliminated with immediate effect. ICAO group structure and requirements demand that the investigator-in-charge be informed on the initial contents of the expert reports concerning the investigation mechanisms. The different specialized teams according to relevance of the investigation should derive the test establishments. It is the mandate of the investigator-in-charge to check on validity of the involvement of each member especially when authenticity, expertise, accountability and delivery of duties are needed for the investigation. The test establishment can be derived from research and development basis of earlier cases in the industry, as well as their mandate and outcomes. According to Krause (2009), it should be used by the investigator-in-charge as a confirmatory test for the suitability of the investigation. Quality of evidence provided and review sections of the investigation should be made available as well as the reporting needs. The investigator-in-charge should seek to instill the essence of confidentiality in the process of carrying out the investigation. Confidentiality is required for the process when evidence, its treatment, materials, procedure and roles are all important for the survival of the investigation process. The involvement of various people in the groups of team tasked with the investigation requires allegiance, loyalty and confidentiality in order to achieve the objectives. The investigator-in-charge should ensure that it is adhered to as the premature release, knowledge, and access and tampering of the findings risks undermining of the whole process. He can create a buffer system between the investigators and participants of the process by signing of the non-disclosure agreements for reliance and objectivity (Wood and Segwinis, 2006). Liaising with the relevant bodies in the laws and jurisdictions should be top priority in order for speculations to be minimized and chances of jeopardy. Due to the pressures involved in the processes of the investigation, the investigator-in-charge should ensure that constant communication and control is maintained at all costs. Communication and control allows for the effective management of the investigation process while minimizing chances of any errors and unpreventable leaks to the unwanted information outlets and sources like the public, before official release. Communication and control is dependent on the development of the code of conduct, ethics and requirements of the individual specialized teams. Dekker (2007) notes that In order for the process to be effective constant and routine reports should be made through formal meetings chaired by investigator-in-charge on the status of the investigations. It should be followed by the derivative concerns faced when the needs of accreditation, media reports, airworthiness authorities and participants from independent organizations demand the development of the investigation. In addition, effective control ensures that there is reliance in the whole process. Control on the form of reporting to the relevant management bodies, chairpersons and external inquirers is the most challenging aspect of the investigator-in-charge’s roles. The findings of the systematic process of the investigation have to be put in writing in finalized reports according to the progress made. The individual specialized units’ reports have to be consistent with the demanded objectives and goals of the investigation for achievement of success. Since the investigator-in-charge is the overall manager of the investigation, he should take charge of the proceeds and authenticate the reports made on a regular basis. Accountability of the reports filed by the various structural heads in the investigation process should be made a top priority, with relevance on the need for facing any consequences that arise from them (Schubert, 2009). In addition, the investigator-in-charge should ensure that there is completion with motivated environment for the process of investigation. All members should have ownership of the process. One of the ideal measurers of the investigative process is the abidance by the law and regulations of aviation authority. With the responsibility placed on the investigator-in-charge concerning any accidents and subsequent investigation of the occurrences, the chairperson ought to be in perspective of the different laws that govern air safety, professional standards and expectations of the involved crewmembers as well as roles of the involved companies. Qualification based on the role is important in ensuring that the standard requirements are followed at all intervals in terms of professionalism, conduct, delivery and effective control within the stipulations of the aviation industry. According to Krause (2009), the investigator-in-charge will have to be critical in ensuring that there is no wrongful mandate in the procedures used in the investigation process. Incorporating certified attorneys in the process of investigation is important for the parties concerned in order for maintenance on the legal framework of operation and completion of duties. Influence of National Legal Systems The influence of national legal systems places a great influence on the conduct and investigative measures on incidents affecting aircraft accidents. The ICAO has standardized the effects based on the aftermath of aircraft incidents. On one hand of the requirements, the placement of judicial authorities is necessary for the process and legality. However, certain national legal systems can enforce changes to the procedure. For example, the MH17 crash incident did not place the full responsibility of the crash report and investigation on the state (Stenderen, 2014). Instead, apportion of the legal requirement had to be met by the foreign bodies responsible for facilitating the cause of incidents. In the latter case, liability was entrusted onto the Dutch authorities in order to provide useful information during and after the incident. Judicial requirements were transferred to the new investigative team. The issues and concerns of litigation are divergent on the national legal systems. According to the ICOA, institution of civil justice is responsible for setting the terms of litigation as well as victim compensation after the findings. The difficulty of the cases is dealt with according to the manner in which the defense case is presented to those concerned. The influence of national legal systems is witnessed when non-determination of the fault is not clear. For example, when the very nature of inherent systems is not determined, the state adjudicates on behalf of the two parties. The ICOA standards and expedience of justice have been limited in a number of past flight accident and investigative cases. Dekker (2007) notes that in most cases, the victims are either under-compensated or face lengthy delays in the allocation basis. When determining the probable cause and safety recommendations the struggle versus the blame and liability on a national scale is different from international standards. The amount of risk to respective event of the accident occurrence hinges on the expedience of the investigation. External influence alters the mode of adjudication. The doctrine of strict liability in the case of MH17 crash has not been applied according to the international relations in the involved countries (Stenderen, 2014). This is because the determination from national legal system has not been efficient in ensuring that the guilty country has been brought to justice. Thus, the liability and blame cannot be dealt with at the fastest time and minimal costs. The trends involving different national legal system do not appear to improve. National legal systems have influence the changing face of litigation when aircraft accidents are being investigated. The correlation is attributed to the national legal system shortcomings of the desirable compliance. The failure of unification in the notifying standards does not offer the legal protection to both victims and the defendants. Stenderen (2014) argues that the investigations in this case have to get permission to proceed from the unified jurisdiction without inclusion of the independent findings on the case. Aircraft accident investigation is a growing concern and therefore requires increased efficiency in the jurisprudence of judicial handling of the cases for speedy liability and compensation settlements. National legal systems are responsible for the delays and hurdles faced along the process of investigation and determination of the accidents and their causes. References: Dekker, S. (2007). Just Culture – Balancing Safety and Accountability. London: Ashgate Burlington 21. Krause, S. S. (2009). Aircraft safety: Accident investigations, analyses, and applications. New York: McGraw-Hill. Schubert, F. (2009) Resolving the Just Culture Deadlock. The Aviation & Maritime Journal 1, 6, 11-27. Stenderen, V. (2014). Investigation of aircraft accidents. JRSPDA 2, (3). pp 1-7. Wood, R. H., & Sweginnis, R. W. (2006). Aircraft Accident Investigation. Casper: Endeavir Books.  Read More