European Air Traffic Control is extremely safe. The drawback to this safety record is that it is very difficult to estimate what the ‘underlying’ accident rate for mid-air collisions is now, or to detect any changes over time. The aim is to see if it possible to construct simple ATC safety indicators that correlate with this underlying accident rate. A perfect indicator would be simple to comprehend and capable of being calculated by a checklist process. An important concept is that of ‘system control’: the ability to determine the outcome against reasonably foreseen changes and variations of system parameters. A promising indicator is ‘Incident Not Resolved by ATC’, INRA, incidents in which the ground ATC defences have been ‘used up’. The key question is: if someone says he or she knows how to make a good estimate of the underlying accident rate, then how could this claim be tested? If it correlates very well with INRA, then what would be the argument for saying that it is a better indicator?
[1]
W R Corcoran.
DEFINING AND ANALYZING PRECURSORS. IN: ACCIDENT PRECURSOR ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT: REDUCING TECHNOLOGICAL RISK THROUGH DILIGENCE
,
2004
.
[2]
Peter Brooker,et al.
Air Traffic Management accident risk. Part 1: The limits of realistic modelling
,
2006
.
[3]
Shayne Loft,et al.
Prospective memory in air traffic control
,
2003
.
[4]
Peter Brooker,et al.
STCA, TCAS, airproxes and collision risk
,
2005
.
[5]
Peter Brooker.
Are There Good Air Traffic Management Safety Indicators For Very Safe Systems
,
2007
.
[6]
Peter Brooker,et al.
Consistent and up-to-date aviation safety targets
,
2004,
The Aeronautical Journal (1968).