Airline safety assessment mechanism - OGP

Airline safety assessment mechanism 

Report No. 418 

May 2009 

I n t e r n a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f O i l & G a s P r o d u c e r s

P ublications 

Global experience 

The International Association of Oil & Gas Producers has access to a wealth of technical 

knowledge and experience with its members operating around the world in many different 

terrains. We collate and distil this valuable knowledge for the industry to use as guidelines 

for good practice by individual members. 

Consistent high quality database and guidelines 

Our overall aim is to ensure a consistent approach to training, management and best practice 

throughout the world. 

The oil and gas exploration and production industry recognises the need to develop consistent 

databases and records in certain fields. The OGP’s members are encouraged to use the 

guidelines as a starting point for their operations or to supplement their own policies and 

regulations which may apply locally. 

Internationally recognised source of industry information 

Many of our guidelines have been recognised and used by international authorities and 

safety and environmental bodies. Requests come from governments and non-government 

organisations around the world as well as from non-member companies. 

Disclaimer 

Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this publication, 

neither the OGP nor any of its members past present or future warrants its accuracy or will, regardless 

of its or their negligence, assume liability for any foreseeable or unforeseeable use made thereof, which 

liability is hereby excluded. Consequently, such use is at the recipient’s own risk on the basis that any use 

by the recipient constitutes agreement to the terms of this disclaimer. The recipient is obliged to inform 

any subsequent recipient of such terms. 

Copyright notice 

The contents of these pages are © The International Association of Oil and Gas Producers. Permission 

is given to reproduce this report in whole or in part provided (i) that the copyright of OGP and (ii) the 

source are acknowledged. All other rights are reserved.î Any other use requires the prior written permission 

of the OGP. 

These Terms and Conditions shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England 

and Wales. Disputes arising here from shall be exclusively subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of England 

and Wales.


Report No: 418 

May 2009


Table of Contents 

1 Introduction 1 

1.1 Why an airline safety scoring system is needed....................................................................................................................1 

1.2 The need for formal risk assessment...................................................................................................................................... 2 

1.3 Origins of the OGP mechanism............................................................................................................................................ 2 

1.4 Application of the mechanism................................................................................................................................................ 2 

2 Summary 3 

2.1 Score components of the airline safety assessment mechanism........................................................................................3 

2.2 Illustrative results.......................................................................................................................................................................4 

3 Safety factors/multipliers (SF) 5 

3.1 Definition of accident rates (AR)...........................................................................................................................................6 

3.2 Accidents to be included in the analysis...............................................................................................................................6 

3.3 Accident severity weighting..................................................................................................................................................... 8 

3.4 The ‘additional’ accident.......................................................................................................................................................... 9 

3.5 Effective Accident Rate.......................................................................................................................................................... 10 

3.6 Measuring number of flights................................................................................................................................................. 10 

3.7 The ‘safety factor’ concept....................................................................................................................................................... 11 

4 Airline Factors (AF) 12 

4.1. Aircraft fleet age (AF1)............................................................................................................................................................12 

4.2 Airline Fleet Composition (AF2)......................................................................................................................................... 14 

4.3 Aircraft Equipment (AF3)..................................................................................................................................................... 16 

4.4 Conduct of operations (AF4)................................................................................................................................................ 17 

4.5 Partnerships and alliances (AF5)...........................................................................................................................................18 

4.6 Airline financial standing (AF6)...........................................................................................................................................18 

4.7 Airline maturity (AF7)............................................................................................................................................................19 

4.8 Airline security (AF8)..............................................................................................................................................................20 

5 Country factors (CF) 21 

5.1 Regulatory oversight (CF1).....................................................................................................................................................21 

5.2 National safety influences (CF2).......................................................................................................................................... 23 

5.3 Air traffic environment (CF3)............................................................................................................................................... 23 

5.4 Airfield environment (CF4)..................................................................................................................................................24 

5.5 Country security (CF5)...........................................................................................................................................................25 

6 Implementation of the mechanism 26 

6.1 Calculating airline safety scores...........................................................................................................................................26 

6.2 Safe travel policies.................................................................................................................................................................... 27 

6.3 Single sector journeys..............................................................................................................................................................29 

6.4 Multi-sector journeys..............................................................................................................................................................29 

© OGP 

i

International Association of Oil & Gas Producers 

Appendices, tables & figures 

Tables 

Table 1 Example airline safety scores..............................................................................................................................4 

Table 2 Examples of relationship between EAR & Safety Factor............................................................................ 11 

Table 3 Accident analysis by aircraft age in years........................................................................................................13 

Table 4 Aircraft fleet age factors..................................................................................................................................... 14 

Table 5 Example derivation of aircraft fleet age score (AF1).................................................................................... 14 

Table 6 Individual aircraft type factors..........................................................................................................................15 

Table 7 Example derivation of fleet composition score (AF2)................................................................................. 16 

Table 8 Aircraft equipment factors (AF3).................................................................................................................... 16 

Table 9 Conduct of operations factors (AF4)............................................................................................................. 17 

Table 10 Partnership and alliance factors (AF5)............................................................................................................18 

Table 11 Airline financial standing factors (AF6).........................................................................................................19 

Table 12 Airline maturity scores (AF7)..........................................................................................................................20 

Table 13 Airline security scores based on risk categories (AF8)................................................................................20 

Table 14 Regulatory scores based on IASA programme findings (CF1)..................................................................21 

Table 15 National safety influence scores (CF2) – default value............................................................................... 23 

Table 16 Air traffic environment scores (CF3)..............................................................................................................24 

Table 17 Airfield terrain scores (CF4a)...........................................................................................................................24 

Table 18 Airfield climate scores (CF4b)..........................................................................................................................25 

Table 19 Country security scores based on nominal categories (CF5)......................................................................25 

Table 20 Populating the mechanism – summary......................................................................................................... 28 

Figures 

Figure 1 Mechanism formula..............................................................................................................................................3 

Figure 2 Accident selection flow chart.............................................................................................................................7 

Figure 3 Accident rate versus aircraft age........................................................................................................................12 

Figure 4 Airline maturity model (AF7)..........................................................................................................................19 

Figure 5 Combined score formulae................................................................................................................................. 30 

Appendices 

Appendix A Glossary of terms and abbreviations................................................................................................................31 

Appendix B Airline safety assessment mechanism spreadsheet........................................................................................35 

Appendix C Data sources & bibliography............................................................................................................................ 38 

ii 

© OGP


1 Introduction 

1.1 Why an airline safety scoring system is needed 

These guidelines contain a mechanism for assessing the safety of scheduled commercial airlines. 

The mechanism is based on earlier work carried in this area by organisations represented on the 

working group. 

The often unspoken requisite for all travellers is safe arrival at his or her destination on each and 

every occasion a journey is undertaken. For personal travellers this is an individual concern but 

for business travellers it is also a matter for the businesses involved, whether the traveller is a full 

time employee or a contractor travelling for that business. 

Statistically the chance of being involved in an accident with a scheduled airline is small - less 

than one per 100,000 flights - and the chance of being fatally or seriously injured is an order less 

than this at around 1.3 per million flights. The best charter airlines, those operating in all but 

name on a scheduled basis, achieve similar levels of safety to the best-scheduled carriers. While 

specifically aimed at scheduled airlines engaged in regular public transport, the mechanism is 

also applicable to those non-scheduled carriers that operate to a recognisable schedule such as 

European inclusive tour-type operations. It is not applicable however, to ad-hoc charter operators, 

where the route system operated varies on a weekly or more frequent basis. Combination 

passenger/cargo flights may also be included, but not usually all-cargo flights. 

On a distance-flown basis air travel has become one of the safest forms of travel. However, 

because of the longer distances involved in air travel compared to most surface journeys, it is the 

accident rate per flight that is of most concern. This is especially so for frequent travellers whose 

journeys often involve multiple-sector flights around the world; in extreme cases accident rates 

for such flights can be more than 25 times the industry norm, reflecting unsafe operations and 

putting passengers and crew alike at risk. 

This geographic context is important since, although it continues to become safer overall, airline 

safety varies widely around the world by airline as well as by the aircraft types used. Generally, 

operations by well-established, developed-world, airlines are safer than those by less-established, 

developing-world operators. However, much of the evidence for this has remained un-analysed. 

Assessing the risks involved in using different airlines is based largely on reporting of a few wellpublicised 

accidents viewed in isolation from their proper statistical context. 

There is also the problem of the smaller operators. The fact that they may not have experienced 

an accident may not be statistically significant and over-reliance on this fact may conceal underlying 

problems with air safety, with, to use a popular phrase – “an accident waiting to happen”. 

Larger operators do not have this problem: the accident may indeed be waiting to happen, but 

its occurrence does not generally significantly affect the overall accident rate, although it may 

hit the headlines. 

Charter operators, where they are used on a regular basis, may be subject to safety audit before 

contracts are placed. This is standard practice in the oil & gas industry and OGP has in place its 

Aircraft Management Guidelines for charter services. In contrast scheduled airline users - even 

those with a large corporate travel budget - have no automatic right to audit the operations of the 

airlines which they use. They have to rely on regulatory oversight, limited company knowledge 

and often-imperfect public perceptions of airline safety. 


1


1.2 The need for formal risk assessment 

The selection of safe travel modes forms part of the duty of care companies owe to their employees 

and contractors when arranging business travel. Failure to attend to such concerns may have 

serious consequences. All businesses that require significant amounts of business travel should 

have in place a properly-constructed travel plan as part of its wider health and safety policy. 

Before developing such a plan for air travel by scheduled airlines, to be incorporated in a company 

safety management system, it is necessary to undertake a formal risk assessment. 

Many countries require formal risk assessment as part of health and safety legislation, but even if 

this is not a specific legislative requirement, the assessment process makes good sense in developing 

robust safety systems. It would also form part of a duty of care defence in any case of litigation. 

An important part of the overall hazard management involves undertaking a formal safety 

audit of an airline. This is mostly impossible to achieve however, primarily because most airlines 

would not permit such audits by customers, but also because of the prohibitive cost of primary 

and repeat audits. 

An alternative approach is to conduct a desk-top risk assessment using a safety grading mechanism; 

this approach seeks to assess the relative risk of flying on specific airlines by the adoption 

of a grading system using data from the airline and its operating environment. The ready availability 

of data on commercial airlines makes it both possible and practicable to carry out such 

an exercise. 

1.3 Origins of the OGP mechanism 

Under the auspices of the OGP Aviation Subcommittee, a working group brought together 

interested parties and specialists working in the field, to develop the airline safety assessment 

mechanism presented here. 

The safety assessment mechanism is derived from a number of different mechanisms which were 

available to members of the working group. 

The overall project was formulated through a series of workshops. Participants included OGP 

Aviation Subcommittee members plus invited members from other organisations representing 

airlines, independent consultants, the telecommunication industry, the broadcast media and an 

international funding agency. 

1.4 Application of the mechanism 

This report and its associated spreadsheet provide a framework for carrying out a rationale and 

structured safety assessment of a scheduled commercial airline. 

In order to carry out the assessment, a range of information is required which is specific to the 

airline and flight to be assessed. This information may be available within the company carrying 

out the assessment or via recognised data sources (many of which are listed in this report), or 

may be obtained through a contracting organisation that specialises in compiling the relevant 

information. 

On occasion, members of the OGP safety assessment mechanism working group may be able to 

offer advice on the use of the mechanism. 

2 



2 Summary 

2.1 Score components of the airline safety assessment mechanism 

The mechanism adopted uses a score derived from various operating and other parameters that 

may either be calculated from detailed information on the airline and its circumstances or set to 

various conservative default values based on known industry standards and practices. 

Details of the various score components are set out in the following sections but, in brief, the 

airline safety assessment scores (AS) are derived from the following three main elements: 

• An airline safety factor (SF) or multiplier, calculated between zero and one, based on the 

reported accident rate over a maximum ten-year period of scheduled airlines operations, 

also taking into account the severity of accidents in terms of loss of life and injury and 

damage to aircraft. 

• An airline factor (AF) ranging from zero to 10 made up of various specific-to-the-airline 

management factors, operating parameters and operational environment components. 

• A country factor (CF) ranging from zero to five that takes into account national factors of 

regulation, security and safety culture of the airline’s home country. 

The factors in the airline and country scores have made provision for a number of default values 

to be used where information is not currently available. The purpose of the default values is 

to achieve a reasonably conservative approximation of the 

appropriate score, without unduly penalising the airline 

concerned. 

The safety factor is multiplied by the sum of the airline and 

country scores divided by 1.5 to provide an overall airline 

score between zero and ten. Ten represents an airline with 

a perfect safety record and other favourable attributes; zero 

represents a high-risk airline where the overall risk of an 

accident approximates to less than one per 4,000 flights. 

While it is quite possible to achieve a zero score (and 

some airlines do), it is not possible to achieve a perfect ten 

because of the principle of an additional accident built into 

the system. Whatever the actual airline accident score, the 

number is increased by 1.0, representing a further seriousinjury 

accident. This means that airlines’ safety records 

and their resulting safety scores can be considered in the 

light of what becomes hindsight in the unfortunate (and it 

should be emphasised, statistically unlikely) event that they 

do have an accident in the immediate future. In effect, this 

introduces a sensitivity element into the mechanism. 

Figure 1 

Mechanism formula 

Airline overall score (AS) is given by the 

formula: 

AS = SF × (AF + CF) 

1.5 

Where 

SF = safety factor 

AF = sum of weighted scores AF1 to 

AF8 

CF = sum of weighted scores CF1 to 

CF5 

A glossary of terms and abbreviations is provided in Appendix 

A. 


3


2.2 Illustrative results 

At any time there are over 1,000 airlines engaged in scheduled operations currently flying about 

30 million flights each year. 

Appendix B to this report presents the airline safety assessment mechanism in the form of a 

spreadsheet, and illustrates the calculation of example scores for ten fictitious airlines. There is 

no significance in the location of these airlines, other than ensuring a wide geographic spread 

and illustrating the range and diversity of the scores that it is possible to achieve using the scoring 

system. The safety assessment scores shown in Appendix B are derived from the Microsoft® 

Excel spreadsheet model on the enclosed CD-ROM (OGPAirSf.xls) which may be used as an 

aid to compiling such scores. Further guidance on the use of the mechanism spreadsheet is contained 

in Section 6. 

Table 1 below contains a summary of the airline safety scores derived from Appendix B. 

Table 1: Example airline safety scores 

Name Country World region 

safety factor 

(SF) 

airline factor † 

(AF) 

country factor † 

(CF) 

overall score 

(AS) 

Airline 1 Country A Asia/Pacific 0.829 6.55 3.33 8.19 

Airline 2 Country B Latin America 0.787 5.14 1.10 4.19 

Airline 3 Country C Western Europe 0.883 5.80 3.33 8.06 

Airline 4 Country D Middle East 0.866 5.49 2.28 6.74 

Airline 5 Country E Eastern Europe 0.428 4.87 2.62 3.21 

Airline 6 Country F Eastern Europe 0.901 3.87 2.53 5.77 

Airline 7 Country G Africa 0.892 4.52 1.62 5.48 

Airline 8 Country H Asia/Pacific 0.933 4.55 2.23 6.33 

Airline 9 Country I North America 0.727 4.77 3.17 5.77 

Airline 10 Country J Former Soviet Union 0.701 2.35 1.52 2.71 

† AF and CF are presented as shown in the accompanying spreadsheet. Both have been divided by 1.5. 

The above, and all similarly calculated scores, are arrived at only for the purposes of indicating 

relative risk based on the identified and quantified factors described in this report. They do not 

constitute advice to use, or not use, particular airlines. Decisions on airline use are for individual 

travel organisers to take based on their corporate safe-travel policies. The guidelines have been 

developed simply to aid that process. 

4 



3 Safety factors/multipliers (SF) 

Airline safety is typically measured either by the accident rate per the number of flights or hours 

flown, or by the rate per passenger-kilometres flown. Since a high proportion of accidents are 

associated with the take-off and landing phases of flight, and relatively few such events with the 

en-route phase, it is considered most appropriate to base the mechanism on the accident rate per 

100,000 landings and this measure is used throughout this report. 

Only operational accidents – those that involve an intended or actual flight - are counted in 

the analysis. Non-operational accidents that occur on the ground before flights are initiated or 

after flights are completed, such as when aircraft are parked, or during maintenance or towing 

are therefore excluded from consideration. Injuries or deaths to stowaways outside the pressure 

bulkheads, particularly those entering wheel-wells as the aircraft waits at the runway hold, are 

not included in the analysis. 

Accidents are a relatively rare event in scheduled airline operations and, fortunately, fatal and 

serious injury accidents are even rarer. The scheduled airline industry average rate currently 

stands at around 0.45 to 0.50 per 100,000 flights. The majority, about two-thirds of reported 

accidents, involve no injury or only minor injuries to occupants and only around 28% result in 

fatalities. Most serious injury accidents also involve fatalities, with about 6% resulting in serious 

injuries to occupants without causing deaths. 

The safety mechanism presented in this report considers five classes of accidents: 

• Accidents involving more than 20 fatalities from the aircraft’s occupants are given a weighting 

of 3.0; 

• Accidents involving between 11 & 20 fatalities from the aircraft’s occupants are given a 

weighting of 2.5; 

• Accidents involving 10 or less fatalities from the aircraft’s occupants are given a weighting 

of 2.0; 

• Accidents involving serious injury are weighted 1.0; and 

• Minor or no-injury accidents are weighted with a factor of 0.25. 

A very small minority of accidents, less than 1%, involve death or injury to non-occupants but 

these are not relevant for the purpose of determining air travel safety or grading accidents for 

severity. 

Primary sources for accident information include the World Aircraft Accident Summary 

– CAP 479 or “WAAS”, maintained for the UK CAA by AirClaims Ltd, and the Aircraft 

Loss Record, published by the same company as part of its CASE database (See Appendix C). 

These two sources cover all significant events involving fatalities and injury, and aircraft hull 

loss respectively. Much of the information contained in them is common to both, but WAAS 

also contains details of accidents to some smaller aircraft types excluded from the Loss Record, 

while the Loss Record also contains many more reports of non-operational accidents resulting 

in aircraft damage. 

Further information on lesser accidents and incidents is also available from national aviation 

authorities. While data on incidents - events where safety is compromised but that do not result 

in accidents – ought to provide a better statistical basis for measuring actual air safety, incident 

data collection and dissemination is much less consistent than actual accident reporting. Most 

accidents are now fairly well reported although there are still problems with under-reporting 

in some areas (for example, this was in the past a problem in China and the Former Soviet 

Union). 


5


3.1 Definition of accident rates (AR) 

It was determined by the working group that the accident rates per 100,000 landings should be 

used for the mechanism based on reported operational accidents involving fatalities to passengers 

or crew, serious injuries to either group, and minor or nil injury accidents. 

3.2 Accidents to be included in the analysis 

It is necessary to precisely define which operations and accidents are to be included in this analysis 

and it is important that the accident data and number of flights are consistent and relate 

to the same operating periods. For example, if the analysis is for scheduled passenger operation, 

then only scheduled passenger aircraft flights and scheduled passenger accidents should be 

included. 

The mechanism uses the most recent 10-year period of airline operations as the basis for calculations. 

Where an airline has operated for less than 10 years, accident and flight data for the 

maximum available period of operation should be considered. Where an airline has operated for 

a longer period, accident and flight data for the period prior to the most recent 10 years operations 

should be excluded 

Following further review of the available data and definitions contained in the AirClaims Loss 

Record in the CASE database, for scheduled passenger airlines the following types of operations 

and events were included and, by definition, all others excluded. The selection process is also 

shown in the form of a flow chart (Figure 2). 

Types of operation included 

Commercial scheduled passenger operations, including combination passenger/cargo services 

and military passenger operations conducted on a commercial basis. 

Types of operation excluded 

therefore are all non-scheduled operations, except where cycle data is also included in the CASE 

database, any all-cargo operations, and all non-commercial flights by private business and government 

operators - the latter group including purely military operations. 

Types of events included 

occurrences during the most recent 10 year operational period of operational accidents, including 

those involving unlawful action against aircraft, pilot training accidents due to technical 

malfunction or poor flight management, and ferry flight accidents. 

Types of events excluded 

are non-operational accidents, (unmanned accidents on the ramp or in maintenance where there 

is no intention to fly the aircraft) and test flights. In addition, accidents caused by outside agencies 

out with the control of the airline should also be excluded. 

6 



Figure 2 

Accident selection flowchart 

All accidents 

was the flight on which 

the accident occurred: 

Commercial or 

military/commercial? 

yes 

Passenger or 

passenger/combi? 

yes 

Scheduled or nonscheduled 

with cycle data? 

yes 

Operational? 

yes 

Ferry flying? 

yes 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

Excluded 

accidents 

non-commercial, 

purely military 

all cargo 

non-scheduled 

(no cycle data) 

non-operational (parked, 

towing or in maintenance) 

non-revenue (except 

ferry flights, test flying) 

Unlawful action? 

yes 

Technical malfunction or poor 

flight management on training flights? 

yes 

Included accidents 

no 

Training (excluding technical malfunction 

or poor flight management) 

Note: 

In the event that the mechanism user wishes to include other types of 

operation, such as non-scheduled revenue passenger or cargo 

flights, then they may do so. However, they should always ensure 

that the aircraft flight data and accident data are fully consistent. 


7


3.3 Accident severity weighting 

The early scoring systems weighted all included accidents equally (included accidents are those 

selected in accordance with Figure 2 and which occurred during the most recent 10 year period 

of airline operations or the maximum available operations period if less than 10 years). In view 

of the greater concern over accidents involving death and serious injury to occupants, it was 

decided to weight accidents on the basis of their severity. Two alternative weighting schemes 

were considered, and the following scheme adopted because of its simpler and more transparent 

method of calculation: 

Fatal accidents (OF1) with >20 fatalities, weighted by a factor of 3.0 

An accident involving fatalities of greater than 20 of the aircraft’s occupants, regardless of the 

extent of damage to the aircraft. 

Fatal accidents (OF2) with >10 & ≤20 fatalities, weighted by a factor of 2.5 

An accident involving fatalities of more than 10 but less than 21 of the aircraft’s occupants, 

regardless of the extent of damage to the aircraft. 

Fatal accidents (OF3) with ≤10 fatalities, weighted by a factor of 2 0 

An accident involving fatalities of 10 or less of the aircraft’s occupants, regardless of the extent 

of damage to the aircraft. 

Serious accidents (OF4), weighted by a factor of 1.0 

Any non-fatal accident involving serious injuries to passengers or crew and any accident involving 

major loss to the aircraft. 

Minor accidents (OF5), weighted by a factor of 0.25 

Accidents resulting only in minor injuries or no injuries at all to the occupants and only minor 

damage to the aircraft. 

Definitions of severity 

Fatal accident 

Any accident involving fatalities to passenger or crew, regardless of the 


Serious accident 

Any non-fatal accident involving serious injuries to passengers or crew and 

any accident involving major loss to the aircraft. 

Minor accident 

Accidents resulting only in minor injuries or no injuries at all to the occupants 

and only minor damage to the aircraft. 

The definitions of major and minor aircraft loss are those provided by Airclaims, which are: 

• Major aircraft loss: repair costs of $1.0 million or more, or 10% or more of the value of the 

aircraft. 

• Minor aircraft loss: repair costs less than $1.0 million or less than 10% of the value of the 

aircraft. 

8 



The Weighted Number of Accidents (WNA) is thus given by the formula: 

Weighted Number of Accidents = the sum of the included accidents’ individual severity weightings. 

WNA = (OF1 x 3.0) + (OF2 x 2.5) + (OF3 x 2.0) + (OF4 x 1.0) + (OF5 x 0.25) 

Examples: 

Airline ‘A’ has experienced 12 operational accidents: two of them ‘fatal’ 

(OF3), ten of them ‘minor’ and no ‘serious’ accidents. Its unweighted 

number of accidents is simply 12. It’s weighted accident score however, is: 

WNA = (0 x 3.0) + (0 x 2.5) + (2 x 2.0) + (0 x 1.0) + (10 x 0.25) = 6.5 

Airline ‘B’ has also experienced 12 accidents but in its case three of them 

fatal (OF1), three of them fatal (OF2), three are serious and three of them 

are minor accidents. Its weighted number of accidents is therefore: 

WNA = (3 x 3.0) + (3 x 2.5) + (0 x 2.0) + (3 x 1.0) + (3 x 0.25) = 20.25 

The WNA of airline ‘B’ therefore reflects the greater severity of its 

accidents, and this will be reflected in its overall safety evaluation score. 

3.4 The ‘additional’ accident 

Most large airlines have experienced a number of accidents which, depending on their severity, 

produces a valid and statistically significant accident rate. Only 10% of the 120 or so largest 

airlines currently operating over 1,000 flights per week have reported no accidents over the past 

10 years. 

Many medium-sized airlines, and most small ones, have never reported an accident. Especially 

in the case of the smaller airlines, this fact is not statistically significant as the expected number 

of accidents for their scale of operations based on average accident rates and their sectors flown 

is most likely to be zero. A notional additional accident for all airlines is therefore included to 

highlight the sensitivity of their score to such events. 

The additional accident is assumed to be a serious one, weighted 1.0, striking a balance between 

the relatively small impact of minor accident scoring 0.5, and the more significant effect of a fatal 

accident scoring 2.0 or 3.0. 


9


3.5 Effective Accident Rate 

The Effective Accident Rate (EAR) is taken over the most recent 10 years of airline operation 

and is defined by the formula: 

EAR= {Weighted Number of Accidents + 1} per 100,000 landings 

Thus, Effective Accident Rate = 

• 3.0 times the number of included fatal accidents (OF1), plus 



• 1.0 times the number of included serious accidents (OF4), plus 

• 0.25 times the number of included minor accidents (OF5), plus 

• 1.0 (for one additional serious accident), all divided by: 

• the total number of airline landings over the most recent 10 year period of operations, 

divided by 100,000 

where all accidents occurring prior to the 10 year period are excluded. 

The effect of any new accidents may be mitigated by the extent to which any accidents that 

occurred in the first year of the 10-year period drop out as the 10-year rolling operations period 

advances. However, at very small scales of operation, the effect of just one single accident on the 

airline-concerned’s safety score can be quite dramatic, which weights the conclusions somewhat 

against smaller airlines. Startup airlines will be similarly affected. Intuitively this is correct, as 

smaller and newer airlines will have significantly less operating experience than larger ones, and 

may be at higher risk during their earlier years of operation. 

Effective Accident Rate 

(per 100,000 landings) 

is defined by the formula 

EAR = (WNA+1)/total landings over past 10 years/100,000 

Where 

WNA=Weighted Number of Accidents 

All accidents prior to the most recent 10 year period of operations are 

excluded 

3.6 Measuring number of flights 

Calculation of Effective Accident rate requires the measurement or estimation of the airlines 

operations over the preceding 10-year period. 

Where an airline has operated for less than 10 years, then the maximum available period of 

operation should be considered. Care needs to be taken in aligning the operating period with 

the accident data so that the true accident rate is always calculated. 

10 



A number of sources exist for this data (see Appendix C), including: 

• The airline’s own annual report statistics, which may be available via the Internet directly 

or via an on-line information service such as Reed Business Information’s ATI and trade 

journals. 

• Figures reported to regulatory authorities and contained in the relevant country’s civil aviation 

statistics. 

• Industry statistics collated by the IATA (WATS) or regional airline trade association such 

as the AEA or ATA. 

• National statistics collated by ICAO or regional inter-governmental bodies such as 

ECAC. 

• Jet Operating Statistics issued by Airclaims gives take-offs and landings for the last 10 

years. 

As a last resort, the numbers of flights/landings may be estimated based on the number of flights 

reported in the published Official Airline Guide (OAG). 

3.7 The ‘safety factor’ concept 

A number of ways of taking account of accident rates in the scoring system were considered. 

These included having a separate, additive, score-element forming part of the total score, and the 

use of a multiplier applied to the other score elements. After discussion in the working group, 

it was determined that in view of the overwhelming importance of past safety performance as 

a guide to future safety levels, the use of a safety factor was preferable to a single score element. 

This was so because the multiplier approach had the effect of returning very low or even zero 

scores if the airline safety record is very bad. Depending to some extent on the relative weightings 

of the score elements, the additive approach still leaves the accident-prone airline with a 

substantial score. 

The factor chosen takes the form of a parabolic sliding- scale factor that reduces in value as accident 

rate increases, eventually reaching zero at unacceptably high accident rates. 

Expressed mathematically the curve is given by the formula: 

Safety factor (SF) = {1.0 - 0.2 x the square root of the Effective Accident Rate per 100,000 landings} 

The safety factors to be applied for a range of Effective Accident Rates, using the scale formula, 

are illustrated in Table 2: 

Table 2: Examples of relationship between EAR and Safety Factor 

Effective Accident Rate (EAR) 

Safety factor (SF) 

Zero 1.000* 

1 0.800 

4 0.600 

8 0.400 

16 0.200 

25 or more 0.000+ 

† A maximum score is not possible in practice because of the effect 

of the additional accident 

‡ Negative scores are mathematically possible but these are cut off 

at zero score. 


11


4 Airline Factors (AF) 

The airline factor component of the overall safety score is intended to reflect those items which 

are specific to the particular airline under consideration. 

Each airline’s score is based upon a total of nine different components each of which are weighted 

to reflect their relative importance. This gives an overall score for airline factors that can vary 

between zero and ten depending on the precise mix of values involved. The resulting airline 

factor score is subsequently divided by a factor of 1.5 in order to provide two-thirds of the total 

score. Country factors provide the remaining one-third of the overall score. 

The nine airline score factors are described in the following paragraphs. 

4.1. Aircraft fleet age (AF1) 

Potential score Weighting factor Default value 

0 to 1.0 2.0 None 

Older aircraft have poorer levels of safety than those more recently built. The early assessment 

models used a straight-line relationship between brand-new aircraft and those aged 30 years or 

more. The respective score components for these two extremes were thus 1.0 and zero. However, 

it was felt that the actual relationships should be examined more closely. 

The accompanying chart (Figure 3) was constructed to show the results of this examination. It 

is based on a sample of some 876 accidents. The chart shows the relationship between accident 

rates and the age of the individual aircraft involved divided in five-year age bands calculated at 

the time of each accident. The data used was for reported operational accidents, including both 

to passenger and cargo aircraft, but excluding small air taxi aircraft, over the ten years from 1989 

to 1998. 

Figure 3 

Accident rate versus aircraft age 

7.0 

6.0 

Age score 

0.0 

Accident rate (%) 

5.0 

4.0 

3.0 

Selected model 

0.5 

1.0 

2.0 

1.0 

0.0 

10 

20 30 

Aircraft age (years) 

12 



From Figure 3, it can be seen that there is a significant degree of correlation between aircraft 

age and accident rates following a curve that is basically ‘S’-shaped, ie a logistic curve or similar 

shape. However, to avoid the need to use a complex mathematical formula, this has been 

approximated to a series of straight lines as shown. The correlation is, of course, imperfect, but 

is considered sufficiently good for the present purpose. 

Ignoring the youngest aircraft group (zero to five years old), the curve appears to be going 

through 0% at age zero, and flattening out at about 6% above about 20 years. However, there 

clearly are a significant number of accidents occurring to the youngest age group. This may be a 

random variation from the underlying curve, or it may reflect a tendency for high rates amongst 

some newer designs, not-withstanding their greater inherent safety standards. 

The actual curve therefore corresponds closely to the age score line superimposed on the accident 

rate. Using this approximation it can be seen that an aircraft averaging more than 20-years 

old scores zero, and one up to ten years old scores 1.0. Between ten and 20 years the score is 

reduced linearly from 1.0 to zero. 

The data used to derive Figure 3 are shown in Table 3. The age score line for individual aircraft 

has been converted into Table 4. Values may be interpolated between integer years for greater 

precision if desired. 

Table 3 

Accident analysis by aircraft age in years 

Age range Average fleet Total accidents Average age Accident rate 

0-5 years 4,366 135 2.28 3.09% 

5-10 years 4,384 107 6.89 2.44% 

10-15 years 3,504 161 12.44 4.59% 

15-20 years 3,287 178 16.43 5.42% 

20-25 years 2,917 172 21.51 5.90% 

25-30 years 2,086 123 26.35 5.90% 

Total/average 21,288 876 13.12 4.26% 

The relevant fleet is the current in-service scheduled passenger fleet. Aircraft known to be outof-service 

or used for other purposes should be excluded from the fleet calculation. 

Table 4 (overleaf) may be used to calculate the Aircraft Fleet Age Factor, AF1, as illustrated in 

the following example. 


13


Table 4 – AF1 lookup table 

Aircraft fleet age factors 

AF1 lookup table 

Aircraft age (years) 

Age factor 

0-10 1.00 

11 0.90 

12 0.80 

13 0.70 

14 0.60 

15 0.50 

16 0.40 

17 0.30 

18 0.20 

19 0.10 

20 plus 0.00 

Example: calculation of Aircraft 

Fleet Age score (AF1) 

The age factors for the individual aircraft 

given in Table 4 are combined to 

give an average fleet age score (AF1) 

for the airline in question shown in 

the following example: 

Airline ‘A’ has an in-service passenger 

fleet comprised of 30 aircraft of 0 

to 10 years, with an average age of 6 

years, 20 aircraft between 10 and 20 

years old averaging 14 years old and 10 

aircraft over 20 years of age with an 

average age of 26 years. 

The fleet age factor score is derived as shown in the following Table 5: 

Table 5 

Example derivation of aircraft fleet age score (AF1) 

Type Number of aircraft Average age Age score Age band group score 

757-200/Type A 30 6.0 1.00 30.00 

A310-300/Type B 20 14.0 0.60 12.00 

DC-9-50/Type C 10 26.0 0.00 0.00 

Total/average 60 12.0 0.70 42.00 

4.2 Airline Fleet Composition (AF2) 


0 to 1.0 1.0 None 

An important distinction needs to be made between the average age of a fleet and its relative 

design age in terms of the design certification standard. The previous age factor, AF1, reflects the 

average age of the individual aircraft. AF2, however, takes account of the fleet design age, and 

equipment fit as follows: 

Aircraft types are categorised into one of several score groups based on the modernity of the 

design. The oldest aircraft types, those first certificated before about 1970 are given a type score 

of zero, while the most modern types, those in current production score 1.00. Other intermediate-technology 

types are scored at 0.25 intervals based on their relative modernity. 

Fleet composition values are calculated based on the numbers of air-craft in each type score 

category. As with fleet age (section 4.1), the relevant fleet is the current in-service scheduled 

passenger fleet. Air-craft known to be out-of-service or used for other purposes should again be 

excluded from the fleet calculation. 

14 



Table 6 gives a list of current aircraft types categorised by score groups. The table will need to be 

modified by mechanism users as new aircraft types in scheduled service are identified and classified, 

and existing types gradually become outdated and receive lower scores than at present. 

Table 6 

Individual aircraft type factors 

1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 

Jets 

737-600/700/800 

737-900/900ER 

747-8 

777-200LR/300ER 

787 (ALL) 

A318/319/320/321 

A330 (all) 

A340 (all) 

A350 (all) 

A380-100 

717-200 

717-400 (all) 

757-200/300 

767-300/400ER 

777-200/200ER/300 

Avro RJ 

IL-96M 

MD-11 

MD-90 

TU-204 

737-300/400/500 

747-300 

767-200/200ER 

A300-600/600R 

A310-200/300 

BAE 146 

Fokker 70/100 

IL-86 

IL-96 300-400 

MD-80 (all) 

727-200A 

737-200A 

747-200 

A300 B2/B4 

DC10-15/30/40 

Fokker F28-4000 

L1011-200/500 

TU-154M 

Yak-42/42D 

707 (all) 

727-100/200 

737-200 

747-100/SP/SR 

BAC 111 (all) 

DC8 (all) 

D9 (all) 

DC10-10/20 

Fokker F28-1/3000 

IL-62/62M 

L1011-1/150 

TU-134 (all) 

TU-154A/B 

Yak-40 

Regional types 

ATR 42-600 

ATR 72-600 

AVIC ARJ21 

Bombardier C 

CRJ-700 

CRJ-900 

CRJ-1000 

DHC Dash 8-400 

EMB 170/175 

EMB 190/195 

Mitsubishi RJ 

Sukhoi Superjet 

AN-140 

ATR 42-500 

ATR 72-500 

CRJ-200/440 

Domier 328 Jet 

Saab 2000 

ERJ-135/140/145 

TU-334 

An-38 

ATP 

ATR 42-300 

ATR 72-200 

BAE Jetstream 41 

CN-235 

Dash 8-100/200/300 

Dornier 328-100 

EMB-120 Brasilia 

Fokker 50 

IL-114 

Saab 340A/B 

Let 420 

An 72/74 



Beech 1900 

DH Dash 7 

Domier 228 

Fokker F27 

HS 748 

MA 60/600 

Metro III/23 

Short 360 

Yun 12 

All piston types 

All single-engine types 

An 24/26 

An 28/30/32 

Beech 99 

Casa/IPTN 212 

Convair 580/600 

DH Twin Otter 

Electra 

EMB-110 

Fairchild F27/FH227 

IL-18 

Let 410 

Metro II 

Shorts 330 

Skyvan/Skyliner 

Small twin turboprops 

Yun 7 

Note: Types not included above will need to be assessed by mechanism users based on their knowledge and 

experience. These might typically include new types currently in development and old, mainly freighter, 

types that might occasionally appear in passenger service. 

Certain types in the ‘zero’ column may have been extended in service by the local regulatory authority. 

OGP members may wish to exclude such types from use. 


15


Example: calculation of airline fleet composition score 

The factors for the individual aircraft types given above are combined to give an average 

fleet composition score for the airline in question per the following example: 

Airline “A’s” fleet consists of twenty MD-90 aircraft, fifteen 737-300 series, ten 757-200s, 

ten 737-200 Advanced and five 737-200 non-advanced aircraft. The total fleet (TF) is thus 

60 aircraft. 

The fleet composition factor is derived in Table 7: 

Table 7 – Example Derivation of fleet composition score (AF2) 

Aircraft type Number of aircraft Type factor Cumulative type score 

MD-90 20 0.75 15.00 

737-300 15 0.50 7.50 

757-200 10 0.75 7.50 

737-200A 10 0.25 2.50 

737-200 5 0.00 0.00 

Total/average 60 AF2 = 0.54 32.50 

4.3 Aircraft Equipment (AF3) 


0 to 1.0 1.5 50% of fleet 

composition score AF2 

Scores are applied based on the equipment fit of the airline’s aircraft fleet. Specific items of 

equipment are given component scores in accordance with Table 8, which are added together to 

provide a single score factor for the airline. 

The minimum level of equipment to be carried is a function of national regulatory requirements 

for the class of aircraft and its operational capability, as well as the standards for foreign airspace 

that the aircraft operate in. This fact provides a further guide to the type of equipment carried. 

Where standards differ amongst the various 

aircraft types, for example between long and 

short-haul (or domestic versus internationalroute 

aircraft), an average figure needs to be 

taken across the fleet. 

In the absence of adequate information on an 

airline’s equipment standards suitable default 

values for the above are taken to be 50% of 

the relevant fleet composition factor (see 4.2 

above), as there is a close correlation between 

the age of a design and the level of equipment 

carried. 

The equipment list will undoubtedly develop, 

in which case changes will need to be made to 

the individual equipment factors. For example, 

an emerging equipment is Head-up Guidance 

System (HGS). 


Aircraft equipment factors (AF3) 

Equipment type 

Equipment factor 

CVR 0.05 

FDR 0.05 

FMS 0.10 

FOQA 0.20 

EGPWS 0.35 

GPWS 0.20 

TCAS 0.10 

TCAS2 0.25 

Maximum possible score 1.00 

Note that GPWS and EGPWS are alternative 

systems, as are TCAS and TCAS 2. See Appendix 

B for an explanation of the abbreviations 

and other terms used. 

16 



4.4 Conduct of operations (AF4) 


0 to 1.0 3.0 0.5 

The score should be assessed based on a number of operations factors. These include the airline’s 

underlying safety culture and the safety management systems in use. They extend to the standard 

of the pilot flight and simulator training being conducted, the latter including the application 

of crew resource management (CRM) and line-oriented flight training (LOFT), and the 

quality assurance systems in use. 

The maximum possible score elements are as recommended in Table 9: 


Conduct of operations factors (AF4) 

Safety function 

Maximum operations factor 

Crew training procedures 0.25 

Maintenance procedures 0.20 

Quality assurance in operations and engineering 0.25 

Safety culture and management 0.30 


While, ideally, such an assessment should be based on a full operational, technical and safety 

audit, in practice this is often not possible, requiring the use of less formal or anecdotal information. 

If no such information is available, other than by conjecture, then the default value of 0.5 

should be applied, giving the subject airline a weighted score of 1.5. 

One element becoming more and more important is the IATA IOSA programme. This audit 

is seen as an additional assurance factor for all airlines and adds value to the OGP Mechanism 

by virtue of the fact that a site visit has been made by a team of accredited auditors. The IATA 

Operational Safety Audit (IOSA) Programme is an internationally recognised and accepted 

evaluation system designed to assess the operational management and control systems of an 

airline. IOSA uses internationally recognised quality audit principles, and is designed so that 

audits are conducted in a standardised and consistent manner. 

Inherent in the IOSA Programme is a degree of quality, integrity and security such that mutually 

interested airlines and regulators can all comfortably accept IOSA audit reports. As a result, 

the industry will be in a position to achieve the benefits of cost-efficiency through a significant 

reduction in audit redundancy. 

With the implementation and international acceptance of IOSA, airlines and regulators will 

achieve the following benefits: 

• The establishment of the first internationally recognised operational audit standards 

• A reduction of costs and audit resource requirements for airlines and regulators 

• Continuous updating of standards to reflect regulatory revisions and the evolution of best 

practices within the industry 

• A quality audit programme under the continuing stewardship of IATA 

• Accredited audit organisations with formally trained and qualified auditors 

• Accredited training organisations with structured auditor training courses 


17


• A structured audit methodology, including standardised checklists 

• Elimination of audit redundancy through mutual acceptance of audit reports 

• Development of auditor training courses for the airline industry 

Where the airline has passed a full IATA/IOSA audit then it should score 1.0 (unweighted), 

except where IOSA audit reports are qualified by excluding parts of the operation (eg domestic 

flights) and particular types of aircraft from their scope (mainly FSU and older Western types 

as well as some business aircraft). Where this is the case, the AF4 score should be reduced to 0.75 

(unweighted). 

4.5 Partnerships and alliances (AF5) 


0 to 1.0 1.0 None 

Airlines can benefit commercially and 

technically from their associations 

with other airlines, particularly where 

these are established major players in 

the industry. 

Three levels of commercial and/or 

technical co-operation have been 

established. Each of them contributes 

one-third of the overall partnerships’ 

score, as follows. 

• The existence of one or more relevant 

and worthwhile code-share 

arrangement, such as with a major 

international established airline. 


Partnership and alliance factors (AF5) 


Maximum operations factor 

Significant code-shares 0.333 

Technical co-operation 0.333 

Strategic alliance 0.333 


None of the above 0 

• The particular airline’s involvement and closer co-operation in technical alliances aimed at 

improving standards and performance. 

• The airline’s membership of a wider international strategic alliance such as Star Alliance, 

the SAir ‘Qualiflyer’ group or Oneworld. 

4.6 Airline financial standing (AF6) 


0 to 1.0 0.5 Total 0.5 

The financial and management score is to be assessed on a range of financial standing and general 

management factors including the degree to which the airline is commercially aware, the 

past record of its key managers, the insurance underwriters view in terms of risk and its financial 

health. 

Where the above information is not available, whether wholly or in part, the appropriate default 

value should be applied. 

Within each category, the score should be assessed as good (0.25), average (0.125) or poor (0.00). 

18 




Airline financial standing factors (AF6) 


Maximum financial 

score (good) 

Default score 

(average) 

Minimum financial 

score (poor) 

Credit rating 0.25 0.125 0 

Financial strength 0.25 0.125 0 

Insurers assessment 0.25 0.125 0 

Management quality 0.25 0.125 0 

Total possible score 1.00 0.500 0 

4.7 Airline maturity (AF7) 


0 to 1.0 0.5 None 

Established airlines exhibit greater maturity as a result of their greater corporate knowledge and 

the on-going learning process of management and operational personnel. They should be safer as 

a result. The learning process is essentially logarithmic, with the greatest gains in the early years 

of operation, flattening-out after a while, although the possibility of the process being reversed 

is not excluded. This might occur in times of change such as during mergers and retrenchments, 

when some of the imparted knowledge may be lost to the airline. 

Various maturity periods have 

been considered. Some models 

used a relatively short, straightline, 

learning period of five years Figure 4 

and other linear and logarithmic 

timescales running out as long as Airline maturity model (AF7) 

30 years were considered. Since use 

1.0 

of the logarithmic curves is arithmetically 

complex, after further 

consideration, a linear scale was 

Learning curve 

adopted reaching full maturity 

after ten years. This provides a reasonable 

representation of a longterm 

exponential learning curve 

0.5 

as shown in the accompanying 

Figure 4. 

The resulting airline maturity 

scores are as shown in Table 

12. Values may be interpolated 

between integer years for greater 

precision if so desired. 

Maturity score 

Selected line 

0.0 

0 10 20 30 

Airline age (years) 


19



Airline maturity scores (AF7) 

Airline age (years) Airline maturity score 

less than 1 0.00 

1 0.10 

2 0.20 

3 0.30 

4 0.40 

5 0.50 

6 0.60 

7 0.70 

8 0.80 

9 0.90 

10 plus 1.00 

4.8 Airline security (AF8) 


0 to 1.0 0.5 100% of CF5 

A number of organisations provide information and advice on airline security issues. Some of 

these are listed in Appendix C. 

The assessment mechanism provides five categories of airline risk ranging from high to low. 

These are aligned with appropriate airline score factors ranging from zero to 1.0 as shown in the 

Table 13. 

Alternatively default values may be used based on country risk factors (see 5.5 below). 


Airline security scores based on risk categories (AF8) 

Airline risk category Airline security score 

Extreme risk 0.00 

High risk 0.25 

Medium risk 0.50 

Low risk 0.75 

Insignificant risk 1.00 

20 



5 Country factors (CF) 

The country component of the overall safety score is intended to reflect those items that are 

specific to the country where the particular airline under consideration is based. 

Each country’s score is based upon a total of five different factors each weighted in accordance 

with their relative importance. This gives an overall score for country factors that can vary 

between zero and five depending on the precise mix of values involved. The resulting country 

factor score is divided by the value 1.5, in order to provide one-third of the total score. The airline 

factors described earlier provide the remaining two-thirds. 

The five airline score factors are described in the following paragraphs: 

5.1 Regulatory oversight (CF1) 


0 to 1.0 1.5 0.50 

The original systems from which this mechanism is derived relied on general judgement on the 

likely standard and effectiveness of safety regulation based largely on historic powers and the 

involvement of the relevant country’s regulator in setting its own aircraft certification standards. 

Since then, the number of industry safety assessment programmes has increased significantly, 

with programmes in place at the FAA, ICAO, IATA, and across Europe. 

Of these, the FAA’s IASA programme appears at present to be the most comprehensive. The 

IASA programme focuses on a country’s ability, not the individual air carrier, to adhere to 

international standards and recommended practices for aircraft operations and maintenance 

established by the United Nation’s technical agency for aviation, the International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO). These audits are limited to civil aviation authorities of countries 

with existing air carrier service to the U.S., or authorities of foreign air carriers wanting to start 

services to the U.S 

The working group reviewed the IASA assessments, which at the time of publication of this 

report cover some 100 countries (about one half of the relevant total of countries with their own 

regulatory authorities). 

The FAA currently provides two categories as follows: 

• Category 1 indicates that the national regulator complies with ICAO safety standards. 

• Category 2 indicates that the national regulator does not comply with ICAO safety standards. 

IASA findings for those countries assessed to-date can be obtained from the FAA website at 

http://www.faa.gov/safety/programs_initiatives/oversight/iasa/?CFID=8272019&CFTOKEN=6fd6da8e428ea0f 

b-905AE5CD-1372-4132-EDF3375410A3232F&jsessionid=4a307fdaa59078411591 and Table 14 shows how 

these categories are converted into scores for regulatory oversight for the purposes of the OGP 

system. 

Table 14 – CF1 lookup table 

Regulatory scores based on IASA programme findings (CF1) 

IASA category 

Regulatory oversight factors 

1 1.00 

2 0.00 

Default value 0.50 


21


Overall this appears to provide a sound basis for grading country’s regulatory oversight, at least 

for those countries with airlines serving the US. 

In a reciprocal assessment conducted by ICAO and published in July 1999, the United States’ 

own regulatory system has been found to be in compliance with ICAO standards, effectively 

putting the US in category 1 according to its own system. 

At the time of writing there is an evolving situation as far as regulatory oversight is concerned. 

Not all countries have been assessed under IASA and as an alternative to the shown default 

value, it is also acceptable to rely on the individual user’s judgement or by analogy with neighbouring 

countries’ scores, or the scores of other directly comparable countries. 

The European Commission (EC) and various other bodies have recently started to publish 

‘banned lists’ of airlines prohibited from entering their airspace. This might include banning 

every airline from a particular country even though they never operate to the EC because the 

national authority has been assessed by the EC or ICAO as below the required standard. However, 

this may not always relate to safety issues and advice or audit by aviation specialists might 

well permit restricted use. Other lists ban an individual airline or particular aircraft types operated 

by an airline due to safety concerns during ramp checks. This ‘banning’ puts OGP member 

companies in the position that they need to assess the risk where there is the potential to fly on a 

‘banned’ airline overseas, when that airline might be going about its normal business in its own 

country or region despite the EC blacklist. 

Pragmatically, all EASA countries could automatically score 1.00 unless there is a contradictory 

IASA Category 2, or EASA itself makes public its reservations. In such cases, scores could be 

reduced to 0.50. New EASA entrants from Eastern Europe may also have similar limitations 

applied. However, all countries with a blanket EU ban should score 0.00. 

This leaves a number of other countries whose record indicates they are deficient but have not yet 

been officially identified as such. There are also others that are know to be better than average. 

Discretion in scoring may be necessary for such groups (eg scores of 0.25 to 0.75 for the respective 

groups). 

There are also countries that do not have their own regulators and/or IASA categories and defer 

to other authorities, eg: 

• French territories – treat as France (Antilles, Polynesia, Reunion, St Pierre & Miquelon) 

• US ‘territories’ – treat as USA (American Samoa, US Virgin Islands, Guam & Micronesia 

generally) 

• Dutch & British territories are already covered in IASA 

Where airlines have multiple regulators, they should attract the lowest scoring regulator’s score. 

Each OGP company should devise a strategy to minimise the risk from ‘banned’ airlines abroad 

by either electing not to use the airline completely despite the final score derived from this 

mechanism, or minimise the risk through selective travel policies limiting passengers to particular 

aircraft types or routes. If significant limitations on operations is likely, for example with 

a country where all airlines are banned, a request to audit by the OGP member remains the final 

option, although a ‘right of audit’ does not exist the airline might see the sense in permitting 

access to establish faith in it’s safety management. A country detailed on the current ‘banned’ 

list published by the EC should certainly score 0 in CF1 unless evidence to justify increasing the 

score is revealed by the adviser. 

The current EU list can be found at: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air-ban/pdf/list_en.pdf 

22 



5.2 National safety influences (CF2) 


0 to 1.0 0.5 Regional default values 

This proved to be the most difficult item to assess. The working group discussed wide-ranging 

possible national approaches to safety at length without satisfactorily resolving the issue. Some 

of the topics raised were as diverse as crime rates, road traffic accidents, building site safety, taxi 

drivers, the wearing of seat belts, vehicle driver behaviour generally, and national queuing habits. 

The Flight Safety Foundation (FSF) is an international not-for-profit organisation dedicated 

to improving all aspects of flight safety. Based on an assessment of the FSF’s recent findings on 

regional accident rates, the working group has generated a series of safety influence scores based 

on regional differences, individual regions and certain sub-regions, as follows. In the absence of 

deeper knowledge, these may be used as default scores. 


National safety influence scores (CF2) – default value 

Regions affected Regional accident rate Safety influence score 

EASA regulated countries, North America and Australasia 0.0 1.0 

Eastern Europe (non EASA), Russia, Middle East and South Africa 0.1 0.8 

Asia and the Indian Ocean 0.2 0.6 

Central Asia, Caucasus, Latin America and the Caribbean 0.3 0.4 

Africa, excluding South Africa 0.5 0.0 

Note: Individual countries within the above regions may warrant higher or lower values than the above, 

which may be applied at the individual user’s discretion. 

5.3 Air traffic environment (CF3) 


0 to 1.0 1.25 None 

The working group examined the effect of various types of air traffic service on accident risk. 

This was based on a comprehensive analysis by the Flight Safety Foundation of landing and 

terminal area accidents. 

From the FSF analysis, the working group was able to isolate and then combine the increased 

risk factors due to the absence of various types of services. These risk factors were then weighted 

according to the affected number of movements in each region to establish an overall risk factor 

for each main geographic region. 

The effect of four types of approach aid or procedure were considered, as follows: 

• The absence of STARs (Standard terminal arrival routes), 

• the absence of a visual approach guidance system such as VASIS or PAPIS, 

• the absence of precision approach radar (PAR), and, 

• the use of non-precision approaches. 

Western Europe and Asia/Pacific proved to be the least risky regions from an air traffic perspective 

and Latin America and Africa the riskiest. North America and Eastern Europe were about 

average. Table 17 shows the risk factors and associated ATC scores for the identified regions. 


23



Air traffic environment scores (CF3) 

The analysis did not cover all the 

main geographic regions, and it was 

not possible to distinguish between 

particular sub-regions that might 

have particular equipment or procedural 

differences. It may therefore 

prove necessary to adjust the figures 

within certain regions to allow 

for such differences when they are 

known to occur. 

World region 

Relative risk from lack 

of air traffic services 

ATC score 

Asia-Pacific 30% 1.00 

Western Europe 31% 1.00 

North America 94% 0.80 

Eastern Europe 104% 0.80 

Middle East 165% 0.60 

Latin America 401% 0.00 

Africa 424% 0.00 

Average 100% 0.80 

5.4 Airfield environment (CF4) 


0 to 1.0 1.25 None 

The airfield environment score was divided into two elements: the first related to terrain or 

topography, the second due to climate. The two elements should be added to give a maximum 

possible airfield environment score of 1.0. 

a) Terrain (CF4a) 

The FSF study referenced in Section 5.3 also identified the effect of terrain in the region of airports 

on relative risk and the working group was able to apply the same process to arrive at the 

regional risk factors due to terrain. 

Table 17 – CF4a lookup table 

Airfield terrain scores (CF4a) 

World region Relative risk from lack of air traffic services Airfield terrain scores 

Eastern Europe 14% 0.50 

North America 74% 0.40 

Western Europe 82% 0.40 

Middle East 90% 0.40 

Africa 156% 0.20 

Asia-Pacific 225% 0.10 

Latin America 282% 0.00 

Average 100% 0.250 

b) Climate (CF4b) 

The Flight Safety Foundation analysis did not cover the effects of climate. However, following 

discussion within the working group, it was decided to rationalise the various types of climate 

and their associated weather conditions into just three categories. 

Individual corporate users should base their weather categories on the freely available sources 

of climatalogical information, for example Microsoft Encarta¿ World Atlas. Regions with rapidly 

changing weather associated with unstable air masses and/or the inter-tropical convergence 

zones (ITCZs), are scored lower than regions with moderate ranges of temperature and low 

precipitation rates. 

24 



Table 18 – CF4b lookup table 

Airfield climate scores (CF4b) 

Type of climate 

Airfield climate scores 

Moderate ranges of temperature and precipitation 0.50 

Year-round desert or arctic, but clear weather conditions 0.25 

Seasonal extremes of temperature and precipitation 0.00 

5.5 Country security (CF5) 


0 to 1.0 0.5 None 

A number of political risk consultants provide information on country security risk factors. 

Some of these are listed in Appendix C. It is also considered acceptable for users to utilise their 

own, in-house, country risk assessments where these are available. 

The working group examined various country risk scores, which ranged from a few countries 

graded extreme risk or similar, to a larger number categorised as having minimal or insignificant 

risk. Scores between zero and 1.0 were allocated to the various risk categories as shown in Table 

19. 


Country security scores based on nominal categories (CF5) 

Country risk category 

Country security score 

Extreme risk 0.00 

High risk 0.25 

Medium risk 0.50 

Low risk 0.75 

Insignificant risk 1.00 


25


6 Implementation of the mechanism 

6.1 Calculating airline safety scores 

The airline safety assessment mechanism described in this report is intended for use by OGP 

members. OGP is not providing a populated database, so it will be necessary for users of the 

system to have the system populated for a selection of airlines appropriate to their operational 

business requirements. This can be undertaken either in-house or by consultants acting for the 

member. 

The type of information required to evaluate safety scores is avail-able from a wide range of 

potential sources relating to airline operations and accidents, airline fleets and other relevant 

data. Several of these sources are listed in Appendix C. Some of this information is proprietary 

and involves costs for data access. 

A specimen spreadsheet model for evaluating safety scores is provided with the mechanism on 

the enclosed CD-ROM. Alternatively, users of the system may prepare their own analyses based 

on other spread-sheets or databases as appropriate. 

The model consists of a single Microsoft Excel file divided into individual worksheets plus 

a graphic chart for visualising the results. Example assessments are provided in Appendix B, 

which shows the overall form of the spreadsheet model. The example assessments are presently 

populated with fictitious data that may be replaced with real data as necessary, remembering to 

keep a master copy of the original spreadsheet for backup purposes. 

The following six worksheets are provided. 

• A ‘Results’ chart containing a series of 10 bar charts each showing the overall scores for 

10 airlines. These are generated automatically, and are set-up to be printed, one chart to a 

landscape A4 page. 

• A ‘Summary’ work sheet that brings together the safety factors and the overall airline and 

country scores to calculate overall airline scores. In this sheet it is only necessary for the 

user to insert the required airlines’ names in the boxes colour-coded blue together with the 

appropriate country in the boxes colour-coded blue. Care needs to be taken that the country 

names are correctly spelt as per the ‘Country scores’ worksheet, and that the red-coded 

values are left unaltered. 

• The ‘Country scores’ sheet is used for calculating and totalling the weighted individual 

country score elements CF1 to CF5. Appropriate country scores should be inserted in the 

blue columns. If a new country is to be added, it must be inserted into the list in strict 

alphabetical order (for the lookup table to function) and the spreadsheet formula needs to 

be copied to give the addition to CF. 

• A ‘Safety factors’ sheet for collating accident and aircraft operations data and calculating 

each airline’s safety factor. In this sheet it is only necessary for the user to insert the required 

airlines’ accident occurrences, the year the airline commenced scheduled passenger service 

and the average annual number of flights in the boxes colour-coded blue. Care again needs 

to be taken that the red-coded values are left unaltered. Note that if an airline commenced 

scheduled passenger service more than 10 years previously, the spreadsheet will cut-off the 

‘number of years of operation’ to the maximum 10 years. Care must be taken that accident 

occurrences are entered for the same period as the ‘number of years of operation’ and any 

accidents occurring more than 10 years previously are excluded. 

• The ‘Airline scores’ sheet is for calculating and totalling the weighted individual airline 

score elements AF 1 to AF8. Airline factors AF3 to AF6 and AF8 need to be inserted. 

26 



• The final ‘Fleet calculations’ work sheet is used to provide inputs for the average fleet ages 

and numbers of aircraft in the fleet with each type score in the appropriate blue boxes. A 

check total for the fleet size is also provided which, if it is incorrect will return zero as the 

fleet score. 

All the worksheets are colour-coded to indicate what happens in each box: 

• Dark blue is used for headings on light grey background cells. 

• Blue text on light blue background is used throughout for data to be input by the user. 

• Green on a light green background is used for the various weighting factors. 

• Red on an orange background denotes pre-set or calculated values. 

• Purple on a mauve background denotes default values. 

Default values for the individual score elements are also included for use where appropriate. 

Additional rows of data may be added representing additional airlines and/or countries. However, 

in modifying the work sheets it is important to maintain the row and column structure 

of the original spread-sheet, so that the additional rows may simply be copied down each worksheet 

for the appropriate number of airlines. 

There are a number of key points to bear in mind when populating the mechanism. These have 

been highlighted at relevant points in the main text, but are repeated below in Table 20 for ease 

of reference. 

The importance is stressed of maintaining consistency between the aircraft accident data and 

aircraft flight cycle data used. As far as practicable, these must be for the same class of operations 

and same time period. 

6.2 Safe travel policies 

The OGP Airline Safety Assessment Mechanism provides a means for companies to assess the 

relative risk factors associated with particular airlines. The results on their own do not constitute 

advice to travel on or to avoid travelling on particular airlines. 

The mechanism is intended for use as part of a wider system of establishing safe air travel policies, 

and it remains the responsibility of individual companies to establish such policies, having 

regard to over-all travel risks and to the specific air travel risks associated with its business operations. 

Normally this would require a graduated approach to the use, or otherwise, of particular airlines 

based on their safety scores and other relevant information available to the company. 

A number of decisions are possible based on the safety mechanism results. These might 

include: 

• Preferential and/or unrestricted use of potentially safer, higher scoring, airlines, possibly 

incorporating IATA/IOSA registration. 

• More restricted use of moderately scoring airlines, for example where an unrestricted category 

airline is not available. 

• Limited use of low scoring airlines, such as only where required by operational necessity. 

• Outright bans on the use of the high risk, lowest scoring, air-lines. 


27


Table 20: Populating the mechanism – Summary 

Item Description Score range Weighting factor Default values Possible data sources Scoring basis 

AF1 Aircraft fleet age 0 to 1.0 2.00 None †CASE, ACAS, JP Airline Fleets Linear 10 to 20 years old (Table 4) 

AF2 Fleet composition 0 to 1.0 1.00 None †CASE, ACAS, JP Airline Fleets Based on type numbers and scores (Table 6) 

AF3 Aircraft equipment 0 to 1.0 1.5 50% of AF2 Airlines, plus published operating 

rules 

Basic values need to be based on in-depth industry 

knowledge (Table 8) 

AF4 Conduct of operations 0 to 1.0 3.00 0.5 Ideally based on audit. Per Table 9 + 10SA audit 

AF5 Partnerships and alliances 0 to 1.0 1.00 None †Air Transport Intelligence, CASE or 

trade journals. 

Three equal elements, per Table 10 

AF6 Financial standing and quality 

of management 

0 to 1.0 0.50 0.50 †Various sources Per Table 11 

AF7 Airline maturity 0 to 1.0 0.50 None Year of commencing service: †CASE, 

ACAS and JP Fleets 

Increases linearly from 0 to 12 years old per Table 12 

AF8 Airline security 0 to 1.0 0.50 Same as CF5 †Security specialists and consultants Based on degree of airline risk (Table 13) 

CF1 Regulatory oversight 0 to 1.0 1.50 0.5 †US FAA IASA programme Based on extrapolated FAA IASA gradings per Table 14. 

CF2 National safety influences 0 to 1.0 0.50 By region (see 

section 5.2) 

N/A Use FSF safety study values per Table 15 

CF3 ATC Environment 0 to 1.0 1.25 None N/A See Table 16 

CF4 Airfield environment 0 to 1.0 1.25 None See Tables 17 and 18 

CF5 Country security 0 to 1.0 0.50 None †Security specialists and consultants Per Table 19 

OF1 Fatal accidents 

> 20 fatalities 

Number of occurrences 

in previous 10 years 

3.00 None †CASE and/or WAAS See definition section 3.3 


>10≤20 fatalities 

Number of occurences 




≤10 fatalities 

Number of occurrences 



OF4 Serious accidents Number of occurences 



OF5 Minor accidents Number of occurences 



Note † See Appendix C for contact details. 

28 



It is for the individual user to choose from these and any other policy guidelines that it might 

formulate and set the appropriate score levels. 

Other factors the user may wish to consider include: 

• Restrictions in the amount of travel. 

• Restriction on the use of some parts of an airline operation, for example certain types of 

aircraft, certain routes. 

• The alternative of chartering an aircraft. 

• The possibility of conducting a safety audit of the airline concerned. 

• The surface transport alternatives, and their associated risks. 

• Alternatives to travel such as video-conferencing or changing meeting locations. 

• The numbers of sectors to be flown per trip or in total over a given period. 

6.3 Single sector journeys 

In assessing the scores for airlines operating internationally, the country factors for both departure 

and arrival countries should be calculated, and the average of the two computed for calculating 

the airline safety score. 

6.4 Multi-sector journeys 

The mechanism outlined is specifically for comparing the relative risk on single sectors on each 

of the airlines being considered. However, it should be borne in mind that the risk from scheduled 

air travel is principally related to the take-off and landing phases of flight and therefore can 

be approximated based on the number of flights flown by an individual. 

When considering a particular scheduled airline trip, it is necessary to consider both the choice 

of airlines and the number of flight segments involved. 

The basic scores relate to the relative risk of a single flight, and cannot simply be combined to 

assess the overall risk of a multi-sector trip. However, it is possible to combine scores by the following 

process: 

• Appropriate accident rates and safety multipliers can be calculated by aggregating the accident 

occurrences and flight operations of the carriers involved. These should be weighted in 

proportion to the numbers of sectors to be flown on each airline. 

• The sum of the relevant airline and country factors are also taken as the weighted averages 

for the airlines and countries concerned. These are denoted respectively as Combined Airline 

factor (CAF) and Combined Country factor (CCF). 

• A new combined safety factor (CSF) can then be derived by adding the Equivalent Accident 

Rates (EAR) for the sectors. These are based on the weighted number of accidents but 

modified for all but the final sector to exclude the additional accident (see paragraph 3.4). 

The standard formula for converting accident rates to safety factors is applied (see figure 5). 

Although this is not strictly accurate, since it ignores second order effects and includes the 

additional accident for the last sector only, it is an acceptable approximation. 

• The combined safety factor is multiplied by the combined airline and country factor (CAF 

plus CCF) divided by 1.5 to obtain a combined airline score (CAS) for the relevant number 

of flights. This score may then be compared directly with other single sector or multiple 

sector journey scores. 


29


The above process is shown as a series of formulae in Figure 5. 

Each journey may also be judged according to company policy for single journey airline scores. 

For example if the minimum score for a single flight is to be taken as 5.0, then any combination 

of flights scoring less than 5.0 should also be rejected. 

Figure 5 

Combined score formulae 

Combined Airline Score (CAS) is given by the formula: 

(CAF + CCF) 

CAS = CSF x 

1.5 

Where for any number of sectors, 

1, 2, 3…N: 

Combined Safety Factor (CSF): 

WNA 

CSF = 1 - 0.2√( 

1 

∑lndgs 1 

/100,000 + WNA 2 

∑lndgs 2 

/100,000 + … + WNA n 

+1 

∑lndgs n 

/100,000) 

Combined Airline Factor (CAF): 

Combined Country Factor (CCF): 

CAF = AF 1 + AF 2 + … + AF N 

N 

CCF = CF 1 + CF 2 + … + CF N 

N 

30 



Appendix A 

Glossary of terms & abbreviations 

Glossary 

Aircraft equipment factor (AF3) 

the airline factor based on the equipment standard of the 

airline’s in-service passenger fleet. 

Airfield environment factor (CF4) 

the country score element relating to the relative regional 

risk of airports based on equally-weighted terrain and climate 

factors (CF4a and CF4b). 

Airline factor (AF) 

the total of the weighted airline score elements AF1 to 

AF8 for an airline 

Airline fleet age factor (AF1) 

Airline factor based on the average age of the airline’s inservice 

passenger fleet. 

Airline fleet composition factor (AF2) 

Airline factor based on the aircraft types in the airline’s 

in-service passenger fleet. 

Airline financial standing factor (AF6) 

the airline score element relating to the financial standing 

and quality of management of an airline. 

Airline maturity factor (AF7) 

the airline score element relating to the longevity of airline 

operations from zero to a maximum of 10 years. 

Airline safety score (AS) 

the overall safety score of an airline derived from its safety 

factor, airline score and country score. 

Airline security factor (AF8) 

the airline score element relating to the level of security 

afforded by the airline ranging from insignificant to 

extreme risk. 

Air traffic environment factor (CF3) 

the country score element relating to the quality of the air 

traffic services provided in the particular country where 

an airline is based. 

Combined airline factor (CAF) 

the average airline factor (AF) for a series of flights 

Combined airline score (CAS) 

the overall combined score for a series of flights 

Combined country factor (CCF) 

the average country factor (CF) for a series of flights 

Combined safety factor (CSF) 

the combined safety factor applied to a series of flights 

Conduct of operations factor (AF4) 

Airline factor based on an assessment of the airline’s 

underlying safety culture and the safety management 

system in use, with particular focus on training and quality 

assurance. 

Country security factor (CF5) 

the country score element relating to the level of security 

in a particular country ranging from insignificant to 

extreme risk. 

Country factor (CF) 

the total of country score elements CF1 to CF5 for airlines 

based in that country 

Effective accident rate (EAR) 

the weighted qualifying accident rate per 100,000 landings 

or flight cycles measured over a maximum 10-year 

period, allowing for one additional serious accident. 

Fatal Accidents 

aircraft accident occurrences involving fatalities to the 

occupants (passengers or crew) 

Fleet Age (FA) 

Average aircraft fleet age since new in years. 

Minor Accidents 

non-fatal aircraft accident occurrences involving no serious 

injuries to the occupants (passengers or crew) and 

only minor damage to the aircraft. 


31


Minor injury 

an injury sustained by a person in an accident or incident 

and which: 

• requires hospitalisation for less than 48 hours; or 

• results in painful injury or strain; or 

• results in simple fracture of finger, toes or nose; or 

• results in minor burns. 

National safety influences factor (CF2) 

the country score element relating to specific national 

safety influences. 

Occurrence factors (OF1, OF2, OF3, OF4 & OF5) 

the respective numbers of fatal, serious and minor qualifying 

operational accidents experienced by an airline. 

Occurrence score (OF) 

the sum of occurrence factors OF1 to OF4 - the total of 

qualifying accidents for an airline over the most recent 

10-year period. 

Partnership and alliances factors (AF5) 

the airline score element relating to the airlines commercial 

partnerships such as code-shares and its involvement 

in wider airline alliances. 

Qualifying accident 

an accident occurrence that meets the criteria discussed 

in Section 3.2 for inclusion as part of an airline’s accident 

score. 

Regulatory oversight factor (CF1) 

the score element relating to the quality of the national 

regulatory oversight of an airline. 

Safety Factor/Multiplier (SF) 

the safety score multiplier based on the 10-year average 

weighted accident-rate. 

Serious Accident 

a non-fatal aircraft accident occurrences involving serious 

injuries to the occupants (passengers or crew) or major 


Serious injury 

an injury sustained by a person in an accident and which: 

• requires hospitalisation for more than 48 hours, 

commencing within seven days from the date the 

injury was received; or 

• results in a fracture of any bone (except simple fracture 

of fingers, toes or nose); or 

• involves lacerations which cause severe haemmorrhage, 

nerve, muscle or tendon damage; or 

• involves injury to any internal organ, or loss of sight 

in one eye, or loss of hearing; or 

• involves second or third degree burns, or any burns 

affecting more than 5% of the body surface; or 

• involves verified exposure to infectious substances or 

harmful radiation 

Total fleet (TF) 

Total airline passenger fleet (aircraft numbers) 

Weighted Number of Accidents (WNA) 

the weighted number of qualifying accidents measured 

over a maximum 10-year operations period. 

32 



List of abbreviations 

AEA 

ATA 

ATC 

ATI 

ATM 

ATC 

BCAR 

CAA 

CASE 

CAT 

CRM 

CVR 

ECAC 

Association of European Airlines 

Air Transport Association (of America) 

Air Traffic Control 

Air Transport Intelligence 

Air transport movement (an aircraft arrival or 

departure) 

Air traffic services 

British Civil Aviation Requirements 

Civil Aviation Authority (UK) 

Client Aviation System Enquiry from Airclaims 

Ltd 

Clear air turbulence 

Crew resource management 

Cockpit voice recorder 

European Conference on Civil Aviation 

EGPWS Second generation, enhanced ground proximity 

warning system 

FAA 

FAR 

FDR 

FMS 

FOQA 

FSF 

GPWS 

ICAO 

Federal Aviation Administration (USA) 

Federal Aviation Regulations 

Flight data recorder 

Flight management system 

Flight operations quality assurance 

Flight Safety Foundation 

First generation ground proximity warning 

system 

International Civil Aviation Organisation 

IASA 

IATA 

ITCZ 

JAA 

JAR 

LOFT 

NAO 

NTSB 

OAG 

OGP 

PAPIS 

PAR 

SID 

STAR 

TCAS 

International Air Safety Assessment programme 

(by FAA) 

International Air Transport Association 

Inter-tropical Convergence Zone 

Joint Aviation Authority 

Joint Aviation Regulations 

Line oriented flight training 

National airworthiness organisation (generic) 

National Transportation Safety Board (USA) 

Official Airline Guide (published by Reed 

Travel Group) 


Precision approach path indicators 

Precision approach radar 

Standard instrument departure 

Standard terminal arrival route 

First generation traffic alert and collision avoidance 

system 

TCAS 2 Second generation traffic alert and collision 

avoidance system 

VASIS 

Visual approach slope indicators 

WAAS World Aircraft Accident Summary CAP 479 

(published by Air Claims Ltd on behalf of the 

UK CAA) 

WATS 

World Air Transport Statistics (by IATA) 


33


34 



Appendix B 

Airline safety assessment mechanism spreadsheet 

Results chart 

Results Chart 1 

10.00 

9.00 

8.00 

7.00 

6.00 

5.00 

4.00 

3.00 

2.00 

1.00 

0.00 

Airline 1 







Overall score 




Summary sheet 

Airline Airline World Safety Airline Country Overall 

Name Country Region factor factors factors score 

(SF) (AF) (CF) AS 

Insert airline names below Insert airline 

country names 

below 

These are all calculated values, do not change them. 

Default values None None None None None 

Airline 1 Country A Asia/Pacific 0.842 7.53 3.33 9.14 

Airline 2 Country B Latin America 0.790 5.66 1.10 5.34 

Airline 3 Country C Western Europe 0.895 6.68 3.33 8.97 

Airline 4 Country D Middle East 0.866 6.59 2.28 7.68 

Airline 5 Country E Eastern Europe 0.420 5.19 2.62 3.28 

Airline 6 Country F Eastern Europe 0.910 4.45 2.53 6.35 

Airline 7 Country G Africa 0.901 4.63 1.62 5.63 

Airline 8 Country H Asia/Pacific 0.939 5.34 2.23 7.11 

Airline 9 Country I North America 0.727 6.19 3.17 6.80 

Airline 10 Country J Eastern Europe 0.714 2.33 1.52 2.75 


35


Country Factor (CF) 

Country World Country Regulatory Safety ATC Airfield 

Region score oversight influences score score 

CF CF1 CF2 CF3 CF4 

Weightings (do not change) 5.00 1.00 1.00 1.25 1.25 

Default values 0.50 Varies None None 

These are all pre-calculated values, do not change them. 

Insert country scores below 

Argentina Latin America 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Aruba Latin America 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Australia Asia/Pacific 5.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Austria Western Europe 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Bahamas Latin America 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Bangladesh Asia/Pacific 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Belgium Western Europe 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Belize Latin America 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Bermuda North America 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Bolivia Latin America 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Brazil Latin America 1.65 1.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 

Brunei Darusalam Asia/Pacific 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Bulgaria Eastern Europe 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Canada North America 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Cayman Islands Latin America 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Chile Latin America 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

China Asia/Pacific 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Colombia Latin America 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Costa Rica Latin America 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Cote D'Ivoire Africa 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Country A Asia/Pacific 5.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Country B Latin America 1.65 1.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 

Country C Western Europe 5.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Country D Middle East 3.43 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 

Country E Eastern Europe 3.93 1.00 0.80 0.80 0.50 

Country F Eastern Europe 3.80 1.00 0.80 0.80 0.50 

Country G Africa 2.43 1.00 0.80 0.00 0.20 

Country H Asia/Pacific 3.35 1.00 0.60 1.00 0.10 

36 



Safety Factor (SF) 

Airline Fatal Fatal Fatal Serious Minor Total Weighted Year Number of Average Total Weighted Safety 

name Accidents Accidents Accidents Accidents Accidents Accidents number of commenced years of annual flights accident multiplier 

OF1 OF2 OF3 OF4 OF5 accidents service operation flights rate 

(>20) (>10


Appendix C 

Data sources and bibliography 

1 Accident data and analysis 

• World Aviation Accident Statistics (WAAS) published 

by Airclaims Ltd for the UK Civil Aviation 

Authority, Cardinal Point, Heathrow TW6 2AS, 

UK, http://www.airclaims.co.uk. 

• Aircraft Loss Record published by Airclaims Limited 

as part of its “CASE” aviation database (see contacts 

above). 

• Flight Safety Digest published by the Flight 

Safety Foundation, ISSN 1057 - 5588, 601, 

Madison Street, Alexandria, VA 22314, USA, 

http://www.flightsafety.org. 

Alternative sources of airline accident data 

include: 

• Aviation Disasters (third edition) by David 

Gero, Published by Haynes Publishing, 

ISBN 1 85260 602 9, Sparkford, Yeovil BA22 7JJ, 

UK, http://www.haynes.co.uk 

• World Directory of Airlines Crashes, by Terry 

Denham, Published by Patrick Stephens, 

ISBN, 1 85260 554 5, Sparkford, Yeovil BA22 7JJ, 

UK, http://www.haynes.co.uk 

2 Airline schedules 

• The OAG Worldwide Flight Guide published 

monthly by Reed Business Press, ISSN 1466 

8718, Church Street Dunstable LU5 4HB, UK, 

http://www.oag.com. 

3 Airline fleet data 

• Contained in the CASE database system published 

by Airclaims Ltd (see above). 

• The Fleet iNET & Fleet CF by BACK Aviation 

Solutions. http://www.backaviation.com/information_services/Products/fleetpc.htm 

Alternative sources of airline fleet data include: 

• The ACAS database published by Avsoft Ltd. 

http://www.flightglobal.com 

• JP airline-fleets international, ISBN 978 385 758 1410, 

published annually. Specific analysis of fleets is also 

available on request. PO Box 44 CH-8058 Zurich- 

Airport, Switzerland, http://www.buchairnet.com. 

4 Airline statistical data (including airline flight statistics) 

• International Civil Aviation Organisation 

(ICAO) Digest of Statistics, Series T – Traffic 

– Commercial Air Carriers, Montreal, Canada, 

http://www.icao.org. 

• International Air Transport Organisation (IATA), 

World Air Transport Statistics (WATS) BP. 

33, Aeroport, Geneva, CH- 1215, Switzerland. 

http://www.iata.org/ps/intelligence_statistics. 

38 



5 Regulatory information 

• UK Civil Aviation Authority, Safety Regulation 

Group, Aviation House, Gatwick Airport, West 

Sussex RH6, UK, http://www.caa.co.uk 

• US Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue, Washington DC 20591, USA, 

http://www.faa.gov. 

• International Airline Safety Assessments (IASA), 

http://www.faa.gov/safety/programs%5Finitiatives/ 

oversight/iasa/. 

6 Security data 

• Own company security department 

• Ackerman Group, Inc, Risks Forecast Service, 

1666 Kennedy Causeway, Suite 506, Miami Beach 

FL33141, USA. Tel +1 305 865 0072, email info@ackermangroup.com, 

http://www.ackermangroup.com. 

• Air Data Research. 9865 Tower View, Helotes 

TX 78023, USA. Tel +1 210 695 2204, fax 

+1 210 695 2301, email info@airsafety.com, 

http://www.airsafety.com. 

• The Anvil Group, Vicarage House, 58-60 Kensington 

Church Street, London W8 4DB. Tel +44 (0)20 

7938 4221. http://www.anvilgroup.com. 

• ASI Group – Global Risk Management Services, 

2925 Briar Park Drive, Suite 1100, Houston TX 

77042, USA. Tel +1 713 430 7300, fax +1 713 430 

7318, http://www.airsecurity.com/aviation.asp. 

• Control Risks Group, Cottons Centre, Cottons 

Lane, London SE1 2QG, UK. Tel +44 20 7970 2100, 

fax +44 20 7970 2222, email crlondon@controlrisks.com, 

http://www.crg.com. 

• Kroll Associates, 900 Third Avenue, 8 th 

Floor, New York, Ney York 10022, USA. 

Tel +1 212 593 1000, fax +1 212 593 2631, 

http://www.kroll.com/services/security 

7 General airline data 

• Flight International & Airline Business magazines, 

both published by Reed Business Information. Much 

of the information they contain is also available as 

an on-line service provided by Air Transport Intelligence 

(ATI) at http://www.rati.com. 


39


8 Travel advice and information 

• UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office, London, 

http://www.fco.gov.uk. 

• Central Intelligence Agency, Washington, USA, 

http://www.cia.gov. 

• Travel Document Systems, 925 15 th Street 

NW, Washington DC 20005, USA. 

Tel: +1 202 638 3800, fax +1 202 638 4674, 

http://www.traveldocs.com/resources.htm 

• US Department of State Travel List subscription 

service, Washington, USA. Bulletin board system 

http://www.state.gov/misc/echannels/66822.htm 

9 Best practice 

• Aircraft Management Guidelines, published by 

OGP, 209-215 Blackfriars Road, London SE1 8NL, 

UK. Tel: +44 20 7633 0272, fax +44 20 7633 2350 

http://www.ogp.org.uk. 

40 


What is OGP? 

The International Association of Oil & Gas Producers encompasses the world’s 

leading private and state-owned oil & gas companies, their national and regional 

associations, and major upstream contractors and suppliers. 

Vision 

• To work on behalf of all the world’s upstream companies to promote responsible 

and profitable operations. 

Mission 

• To represent the interests of the upstream industry to international regulatory 

and legislative bodies. 

• To achieve continuous improvement in safety, health and environmental performance 

and in the engineering and operation of upstream ventures. 

• To promote awareness of Corporate Social Responsibility issues within the 

industry and among stakeholders. 

Objectives 

• To improve understanding of the upstream oil and gas industry, its achievements 

and challenges and its views on pertinent issues. 

• To encourage international regulators and other parties to take account of the 

industry’s views in developing proposals that are effective and workable. 

• To become a more visible, accessible and effective source of information about 

the global industry - both externally and within member organisations. 

• To develop and disseminate best practices in safety, health and environmental 

performance and the engineering and operation of upstream ventures. 

• To improve the collection, analysis and dissemination of safety, health and 

environmental performance data. 

• To provide a forum for sharing experience and debating emerging issues. 

• To enhance the industry’s ability to influence by increasing the size and diversity 

of the membership. 

• To liaise with other industry associations to ensure consistent and effective 

approaches to common issues.

209-215 Blackfriars Road 

London SE1 8NL 

United Kingdom 

Telephone: +44 (0)20 7633 0272 

Fax: +44 (0)20 7633 2350 

165 Bd du Souverain 

4th Floor 

B-1160 Brussels, Belgium 

Telephone: +32 (0)2 566 9150 

Fax: +32 (0)2 566 9159 

Internet site: www.ogp.org.uk 

e-mail: reception@ogp.org.uk

Airline safety assessment mechanism - OGP

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?