Comparative analysis of aviation safety information feedback systems

In the aviation system, there are several feedback systems to prevent an accident. First of all, the accident and serious incident reporting and investigation system is established by the Chicago Convention. In general, once an accident or a serious incident occurs, it must be reported to the Investigation Authority in the state where the event occurred. The Investigation Authority which receives the report conducts the investigation of the event. Then, based on the probable causes identified, the Investigation Authority issues the recommendations to the Civil Aviation Authority. Next, the Civil Aviation Authority which receives the recommendations takes corrective actions, including rule-making, to prevent the recurrence of the event. This feedback system ensures that an accident with the same causes will not occur again. The feedback system described above can be considered a reactive approach. There are also proactive feedback systems to prevent an accident. In order to identify hazards that could potentially lead to an accident, the contracting states of the Convention have mandatory reporting systems for incidents. In addition, some contracting states even have voluntary reporting systems for safety-related occurrences not limited to formally defined incidents. If these feedback systems are utilized to the full extent. they could help in reducing the accident rate. This thesis, aiming at offering insights for responsible authorities in contracting states of the Chicago Convention to improve their aviation safety information feedback systems, conducted a comparative analysis of the feedback systems in four contracting states of the Chicago Convention: the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and Japan. This thesis examined both mandatory reporting systems and voluntary reporting systems in each state. Furthermore, this thesis examined the rule-making process in each Civil Aviation Authority as part of the feedback systems. This thesis identified several differences in the feedback systems in the four states. In particular, this thesis identified a relatively larger number of differences in voluntary reporting systems than in mandatory reporting systems. On the other hand, as regards the rulemaking process, this thesis showed that there are no substantial differences.

Department dc:contributor.department

Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Engineering Systems Division.

Grantor dc:publisher

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Year dc:date.issued

2010

Author dc:creator

• Funahashi, Yoshifuru

Advisor dc:contributor.advisor

• R. John Hansman, Jr.

• Engineering Systems Division.
• Technology and Policy Program.

Statement dc:rights

• M.I.T. theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission. See provided URL for inquiries about permission.

Licence dc:rights.uri

• http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582

Language dc:language.iso

eng

Handle dc:identifier.uri

http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/59672

OAI identifier oai:identifier

oai:dspace.mit.edu:1721.1/59672