MAA RN/05/11 - Military Aviation Authority

Regulatory Notice
12 May 11
MAA/RN/05/11 (DG) – AVIATION DUTY HOLDER RESPONSIBILITIES IN OPERATIONS
Issue
1. Boundaries of aviation DH and operational command chain responsibilities on operations.
Implementation
2. This guidance is effective immediately.
Scope
3. This guidance is supplementary to MAA/RI/DG/02/10 – Aviation Duty Holders dated 31 Aug
10.
Guidance
4. The boundary between aviation DHs’ responsibilities and the operational command chain’s in
managing risk to life should be underpinned by the following principles:
a. When appointed as an aviation DH, an air commander and delegated AOA is
personally and legally responsible for ensuring that any risks associated with his generation
and sustainment of FEs 1 are at least Tolerable and ALARP.
b. When air FEs are allocated to an operational commander 2 , the AOA/DH is responsible
to the operational commander for their operational readiness in accordance with their
declared role(s) and for the continuing management of all routine operating risks 3 to at least
Tolerable and ALARP.
c. An operational commander enjoys the authority and freedom to employ allocated FEs
in operational tasks at his discretion, bounded by the Laws of Armed Conflict, CDS’ Directive,
the accompanying ROE, superior command direction, the FEs’ capability envelopes 4 and
due regard to risk to life of the forces under his command.
d. Notwithstanding Para 4(c) above, pursuit of an operational commander’s objectives
may well require the employment of allocated FEs in a way that increases the risk to life to a
level that would not be regarded as Tolerable 5 and/or ALARP in routine activities.
1
Components of capability comprising, inter alia, personnel, training, platforms, their serviceability and sustainment.
2
A designated commander authorised under a CDS Directive to employ subordinate FEs in pursuit of operational objectives.
3
That is, other than survivability in a hostile environment, eg continuing airworthiness.
4
Which may be considered to be bounded by, inter alia: their declared role(s); readiness; competency of their defensive TTPs and aids;
and applicable regulations. Such ‘envelopes’ are inflexible, but adaptable, and may be expanded leading up to deployment on, or
during, an operation to accommodate capability increments, such as UORs, once the appropriate lines of development are in place eg
training, supervision etc.
5
> 1 in 1000 risk of death per annum for the population at risk - MAA RI/01/11(DG) – Air Safety: Risk Management dated 27 Jan 11.
1

e. Where employment 6 of air FEs in a manner that is likely to increase the risk to life
beyond that which would be deemed Tolerable and/or ALARP for routine activities is
premeditated 7 , the responsible operational commander must seek formally the advice of the
relevant aviation DH 8 , or his senior representative 9 in Theatre, on the level of risk, potential
mitigations and, if appropriate, alternative courses of action. Where this is not achieved, the
DH’s representative(s) in Theatre shall make the DH aware. When, following due
consideration and the application of any caveats or controls, an aviation DH actively
endorses such an excursion, which may be time limited, the aviation DH thereby accepts and
owns the associated risk. Notwithstanding, subject to Para 4(c) above, the freedom and
authority to employ the allocated FEs in a manner of his choosing is ultimately retained by
the operational commander 10 .
f. Where operational imperatives demand urgent employment of air FEs in a manner that
is likely to increase the risk to life beyond that which would be deemed Tolerable and/or
ALARP for routine activities and prior consultation with the relevant DH, or his senior
representative, is impractical, an operational commander retains the freedom and authority to
employ the allocated FEs in a manner of his choosing. Clearly, in doing so, he must be
prepared to justify his actions in retrospect, preferably via a context based and suitably
tailored auditable risk analysis and decision making process 11 .
5. Therefore, the limit of an aviation DH’s responsibility and accountability for managing
risk to life in the operational domain is defined as the point at which an operational
commander unilaterally directs any relevant activity 12 that transcends the Tolerable risk
boundary set for routine operations, or involves risk that is not ALARP, be undertaken.
6. To assist in developing and implementing the associated processes, aviation DHs are at
liberty, and may find it useful, to appoint deployed Senior Operators (SO) and Chief Air Engineers
(CAE) who are responsible respectively to their parent DHs for providing internal assurance of
deployed operating procedures, standards and Flight Safety, and Engineering standards and
practices. The responsibilities of a deployed SO or CAE are directly to the relevant aviation DH,
but need not necessarily be exclusive to their assuming roles in the operational command chain.
7. The implementation of the above principles will require exploitation of existing structures and
processes, some of which may need to be adapted, and probably development of additional
supporting mechanisms that will need to integrate and be coherent with extant arrangements. The
DH’s Aviation Risk Register, ASSG and ASSWG processes are likely to fall in the former category,
whilst the means by which operational commanders assess risk to life in the air domain and, when
required, consult with DHs would benefit from further development by CJO and stakeholders.
Acknowledging the constraints that might be imposed by the tempo of operations, the key to
success will be early consultation and an established working dialogue between the operational
command and DH chains.
6
Other than with regard to survivability in a hostile environment. Nevertheless, even in this regard, it might be considered prudent for
an operational commander to seek the advice of the AOA/DH, or his senior representative in Theatre.
7
For practical purposes, consideration of a course of action more than 24 hours in advance should be considered premeditated.
8
Or, where extant regulations are likely to be infringed, the Regulator.
9
Subject to the level of risk under consideration, the lowest level of representation should be a SQEP OF4 personally authorised by the
DH. Alternatively, for larger operations DHs may appoint a deployed SO and/or a CAE.
10
Where a substantive and significant difference of opinion between an aviation DH and an operational commander arises, the DH has
the option to elevate his concerns to CJO, the NCC, or his SDH, all of whom have the option to refer the issue to CDS.
11
It is acknowledged that the urgency of a particular situation may preclude some or all of such a process being carried out formally.
Nevertheless, the principles of such a process should inform operational commanders’ judgements and be seen to have done so.
12
Operating and/or support.
2

Sponsor
8. The sponsor of this Notice is DG MAA. Queries should be addressed through:
MA to DG MAA
Mil: 9621 82724
Tel: 020 72 182724
DIIF: MAA-DG MA
Email: maa-dgma@mod.uk
Reference Publications
9. Changes to the MARDS and aviation related Defence Standards may be affected by the
guidance in this Notice. Formal amendment to those documents is underway.
Superseded Instructions
10. No instructions are superseded.
Review
11. This notice will be reviewed on 01 Dec 11 unless explicitly rescinded or superseded prior to
that date.
3