Post on 19-Mar-2020
Applicazione della Metodologia RAMCOP – ORAT – Runway Incursion
Italo OddoneCarlo Cacciabue
22
Risk management
Risk assessment
Qualitative Analyses
Quantitative Analyses
Bow tie
RAMCOP ORAT
ET FT……TESEO HEART THERP …….
33
ADREP taxonomy
Occurrence classOccurrence categories
Events
Event phase
Descriptive factors Explanatory factors
Modifier
Organization and persons
4
Cacciabue, P. C., Cassani, M., Licata, V., Oddone, I., and Ottomaniello, A. (2015). Int. Journal of Cognition Technology and Work (CTW), 17 (2), pp. 249–267.
Risk Assessment Methodologyfor Company Operational Processes
4
RAMCOPRAMCOPQuantitative Analysis
5
RAMCOPRAMCOP
6
2. Available methods and reference Risk Matrix
Reliability assessment (probabilities evaluation)
Deterministic assessment Risk Matrix
Quantify severity and valuesIf Severityocc = Negligible then disregard occur. from RA
Define reference probabilitiesif pocc.≤ pmin then disregard occurrence from RA
2A
7
2B Systems , processes and procedures involved
Identify: Existing Causal Barriers Consequential Barriers Initiating Events (IE)
Select methods to calculate probabilities of
success/failure
Identify existing data, information etc for fail. of
componetns/tech. the selected methods
Identify existing data, information etc for HRA
selected methods
8
RA
MC
OP –
OR
AT O
vera
ll R
isk
Ass
essm
ent
Tab
le
RA
MC
OP –
OR
AT O
vera
ll R
isk
Ass
essm
ent
Tab
le1. Selection of Hazards to be assessed2. Definition of Initiating Events & Threats 3. Evaluation of data, probabilities & uncertainties4. Identification potential Consequences
PHASE 1
List of Hazards & Consequences to assess
Hazards to be further contained
For each Hazard:1. Definition of all incident sequences2. Identification of existing control measures & barriers3. Evaluation of Consequences & associated Severities 4. Assessment of Risk and acceptabilty vs Risk Matrix
PHASE 2
For each Hazard to be further contained:1. Consider additional safeguards & barriers2. Evaluation of data, probabilities & uncertainties 3. Re-evaluation of Consequences 4. Re-assessment of Risk acceptability post mitigation
PHASE 3
All hazards contained
Case Study
Risk Assessment of Airport Runway Change
10
Mov/Y: 200.000 - Primary Runway 8R/26L
Risk Assessment of Airport Runway Change
Mov Day Mov Week Mov Month Mov Year
RISK MATRIX 5.479E+02 3.846E+03 1.667E+04 2.000E+05
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5
Negligeable Minor Major Hazerdous Catastrophic
p > 2.600E-04
6.000E-05 < p ≤ 2.600E-04
5.000E-06 < p ≤ 6.000E-05
5.000E-08 < p ≤ 5.000E-06
p < 5.000E-08
min≈1/1000 y;
max=1/100 yExtremely Improbable
P1
4 4 4 3 2
min=1 /100 y;
max= 1/y Extremely Remote
P2
4 3 3 2 1
min= 1/y; max=
1/monthRemote
P3
4 3 2 2 1
1min= 1/month;
max=1/week
Frequent
P4
3 2 2 1Reasonably probable
1min1/week;
max= always
Severity Level
Probability
Level
P5
3 2 1 1
Hazard 1. Runway Incursion A/C;Hazard 2. Veer-off;Hazard 3. Runway Incursion ground means/vehicles;Hazard 4. FOD.
11
Hazard 3. Runway Incursion ground means/vehicles
Bow - Tie
Human Error
runway incursion non aer. means
Bad weather
ATC comm.
Aircraft collision with object/obstacle on ground - ADREP Event 2050400
Crew ability
Near collision with object on groundADREP Event 2180400
Inadequate managemnt of ground means
Inadequate funct.
of ground
technology
Workload
High
High
Guided routes
Inadeq. knowl. of
procedures
High
Training Airport staff
High
High
Follow me check and intervention
High
Training workers & engineers
Check by airport staff
High
S
S
SP
S
SP
Legenda
Escalation
Factor
CONSEQUENCETHREAT
HAZARD
Undesired
Operational State
HighMedLow
Barriers:P: Physical;
F: Functional
S: Symboblic;
I: Immaterial
P F I
12
RAMCOP – ORAT HEART for HF World data ….
Hazard
UOS
Actions &
owners
Monitoring &
Review req.
Description Prob.Description and
probabilityConsequences
Prob. without
controlBarriers
Prob.
reductionSeverity Probab. Risk
Type of
Barriers
Type of barr.
ReductionSeverity Probab. Risk
ATC comm. 0.3
2.57E-03
Pilot
teamwork
0.3
Ground
marking
0.1
Checks of
Airport staff
0.01
Training of
workers and
engineers 0.05
The Safety Manager of
the Airport is the
person responsible for
monitoring the proper
implementation of
procedures and specific
safety measures.
Catast.
“Runway incursion” 08R/26L non-aeronautical means
Aircraft collision
with
object/obstacle on
ground
ADREP Event
2050400
The current level of
barriers and safeguards
for ...... airport does
not strictly requires the
implementation of
extra barriers.
However, the overall
risk evaluated for the
consequences of a
possible runway
incursion is very close
to the limit of
acceptability.
Consequently it is
strongly advised to
implement a further
barrier based on the use
of Follow-me to guide
and support the
movement on the
ground of means and
technologies.
Hazard 3. “Runway
incursion” 08R/26L non-
aeronautical means
pUOS = 2.57E-3
Outcome
(Post-Mitigation)
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
Threats Incident sequence
description
Existing control Outcome
(Pre-Mitigation)
2.57E-03
Th1 =
• Exces. workers workload
HF Method adopted: HEART
GTU Error 1 = 9E-2 (0.06 - 0.13)
EPC : 13, 15, 20, 21
Effect: 0.05, 0.3, 0.3, 0.05
HEP - 1: 2.17 E-01 (0.145 - 0.314)
GTU Error 2 = 3E-3 (0.0008 - 0.007)
EPC : 4, 15, 21, 31
Effect: 0.2, 0.05, 0.3, 0.3
HEP - 2: 1.18 E-02 (3.15E-3 - 2.76E-2)
21.16E-08 Follow-me 0.01 Catast. 1.16E-102
Add. Mitigation
required
Hazard
UOS
Description Prob.Description and
probabilityConsequences
Prob. without
control
2.57E-03
2.57E-03
Th1 =
• Exces. workers workload
HF Method adopted: HEART
GTU Error 1 = 9E-2 (0.06 - 0.13)
EPC : 13, 15, 20, 21
Effect: 0.05, 0.3, 0.3, 0.05
HEP - 1: 2.17 E-01 (0.145 - 0.314)
GTU Error 2 = 3E-3 (0.0008 - 0.007)
EPC : 4, 15, 21, 31
Effect: 0.2, 0.05, 0.3, 0.3
HEP - 2: 1.18 E-02 (3.15E-3 - 2.76E-2)
Aircraft collision
with
object/obstacle on
ground
ADREP Event
2050400
Hazard 3. “Runway
incursion” 08R/26L non-
aeronautical means
pUOS = 2.57E-3
Threats Incident sequence
descriptionBarriersProb.
reductionSeverity Probab. Risk
ATC comm. 0.3
Pilot
teamwork
0.3
Ground
marking
0.1
Checks of
Airport staff
0.01
Training of
workers and
engineers 0.05
Outcome
(Pre-Mitigation)
1.16E-08 2Catast.
Existing control
Actions &
owners
Monitoring &
Review req.Type of
Barriers
Type of barr.
ReductionSeverity Probab. Risk
2 Follow-me 0.01 Catast. 1.16E-10
Add. Mitigation
required
The Safety Manager of
the Airport is the
person responsible for
monitoring the proper
implementation of
procedures and specific
safety measures.
The current level of
barriers and safeguards
for Venice airport does
not strictly requires the
implementation of
extra barriers.
However, the overall
risk evaluated for the
consequences of a
possible runway
incursion is very close
to the limit of
acceptability.
Consequently it is
strongly advised to
implement a further
barrier based on the use
of Follow-me to guide
and support the
movement on the
ground of means and
technologies.
Outcome
(Post-Mitigation)
Phase 3
13
GTU EPC MultiplierAssessed prop.
of Effect
Assessed
EffectHEP GTU EPC Multiplier
Assessed
prop. of
Effect
Assessed
EffectHEP
9.00E-02 13 4 0.05 1.15 2.17E-01 3.00E-03 15 3 0.05 1.1 1.18E-02
0.06 - 0.13 15 3 0.3 1.6 0.0008 - 0.007 31 1.2 0.3 1.06
0.06 20 2 0.3 1.3 1.45E-01 0.0008 21 2 0.3 1.3 3.15E-03
0.13 31 1.2 0.05 1.01 3.14E-01 0.007 4 9 0.2 2.6 2.76E-02
PHE = p1 * p25th perc.
boundary
95th perc.
boundary
PHE = 2.57E-03 4.57E-04 8.66E-03
p 1 = Probability of positioning non-aeronautical
material / technologies on sensible areas
p 2 = Probability of failing to detect non-aeronautical
material / technologies on sensible areas
HEART HE Probability of runway incursion
1414
Risk Informed Decision Making - RIDM
Hazard Severity Barrier Like. Risk level Barrier Severity Lakelihood Risk levelCost
K$
H1 High - 4/5 Existing Barriers pH1 RED B2 High pH1,B2 RED 10
B3 High pH1,B3 YELLOW 30
B2, B3 High pH1,B2,B3 YELLOW 40
B4 High pH1,B4 YELLOW 50
B2, B3, B4 High pH1,B2,B3,B4 GREEN 90
B3, B4 High pH1,B3,B4 YELLOW 80
…. ….. ….. …. …
H2 Catastr. - 5/5 Existing Barriers pH2 RED B5 Catastr. pH2,B6 YELLOW 100
B6 Catastr. pH2,B6 YELLOW 70
B4 Catastr. pH2,B4 YELLOW 50
B6, B4 Very High pH2,B4,B6 GREEN 120
…. ….. ….. …. …..
H3 Major Existing Barriers pH3 YELLOW B5 Major pH3,B5 GREEN 100
B3, B2 Major pH3,B3 YELLOW 40
B6, B4 Major pH3,B4,B6 GREEN 120
…. ….. ….. ….
Pre-mitigation Post-mitigation
Barrires Cost Barrier N. of app. CostCost/
Benefit
B2, B3, B4 90 YELLOW YELLOW YELLOW B2 4 10 2.50
B2, B3, B6 110 YELLOW YELLOW YELLOW B3 5 30 6.00
B5, B3 130 YELLOW YELLOW GREEN B4 6 50 8.33
B4, B6 150 YELLOW GREEN GREEN B5 2 100 50.00
B2, B3, B4, B6 160 GREEN GREEN GREEN B6 3 70 23.33
ϕ of barriers K$Means to reduce all Hazards
H1 H2 H3
Barriers efficiency for RIDM
Generic format of RIDM table
Thank you for your attention
15