insight

Comparing the IATA

Operational Safety Audit standard
with the general industry quality
standard, ISO 9001, shows that the
airline standard is stricter.

BY SUSHANT DEB

Airline Safety Standard

© IPN Relay/Adobe Stock Photos
Exceeds ISO 9001
T
o maintain a safety standard, the first re- Process Approach is described as “the
quirement is to have a foundation of qual- application and management of activities
ity assurance. In assessing airlines’ most and related resources as processes and their
important quality assurance standard, it interactions.” Both ISO 90013 and the guidance
is helpful to review how that standard compares material for IOSA4 require identification of the
with another that has been widely accepted and processes. The management system of the air-
has been widely used by other industries. line operator must be designed with processes
This review will refer to eight quality and procedures to ensure an acceptable level
management principles (QMPs), derived in of operational risk or safety, and to ensure that
2000 from the International Organization for the system produces desired outcomes, such as
Standardization’s ISO 9001,1 by the International quality service. Having a functioning manage-
Air Transport Association (IATA) for the IATA ment system at the top level is a fundamental
operational safety audit (IOSA) standard.2 ISO requirement by both standards; however, the
The IOSA
9001 is an approach to continually improving IOSA standard goes beyond quality manage-
standard goes the quality of products and processes in business ment into pursuit of safety.
organizations. The IOSA standard is a system- System Approach to Management means “be-
beyond quality atic, explicit and comprehensive approach to ing aware of what interrelated processes are in
reducing embedded threats to safety in airlines. place as systems contributing to the effectiveness
management
We will look at how ISO 9001 QMPs have and efficiency of an organization.” The system
into pursuit
been modified and adopted into IOSA stan- approach mandates reviews conducted regularly
dards. In numerous important points, IOSA can by the top management. ISO 90015 and IOSA6
of safety. be shown to be more rigorous in quality assur- address this very similarly, in that the organiza-
ance than ISO 9001. tion must have a management review process to
The eight QMPs derived from ISO 9001 are ensure continued suitability, adequacy and effec-
listed in Table 1 with examples of their applica- tiveness. There is not much difference between
tion in IOSA. these two standards.

42 | flight safety foundation | AeroSafetyWorld | February 2007

© iStockphoto International
insight

Factual Approach to Decision Making is is aware of those; setting and enforcing per-
“analyzing data and information to improve formance tasks and goals; challenging groups
organizational performance.” For effective deci- regularly with fresh information that is relevant
sion making, organizations must collect data to safety issues; and exploiting the power of
and information and document these in some positive feedback. The IOSA standard is clearly
order for performing data analysis. ISO 9001 stronger.
details the documentation requirements and The Mutually Beneficial Supplier Relationship
data analysis for decision making.7 The IOSA QMP provides for “coordinating, communicating
standard is explicit and equally emphatic about and cooperating with suppliers to achieve orga-
document requirements in all eight sections.8 nizational objectives.” To be successful in today’s
Indeed, documentation and subsequent data business environment, the airline must establish
analysis can help an airline manage planning partnerships with both internal and external sup-
and implementation of its safety initiatives. pliers. A mutually beneficial relationship enhanc-
Leadership involves establishing “unity of es the ability of all three parties to create value in
purpose and direction of the organization.” ensuring safety, quality and customer service.
Leadership, commitment and active involve- For external suppliers, the organization
ment of the top management are essential for identifies key suppliers and establishes jointly
developing and maintaining an effective and a clear understanding of operational safety and
efficient safety program. The Organization quality requirements. The relationship becomes
and Management System section of the IOSA more critical when an airline outsources many
standard focuses on leadership, just as ISO 9001 processes such as maintenance, ground handling,
does. However, the IOSA standard takes this etc. For outsourced processes, ISO 9001 requires
more seriously, with the leadership theme man- identification of control over such processes.12
dated in seven of its eight sections.9 The IOSA standard is more stringent, requiring
Involvement of People entails “prepara- the operator to ensure effective safety and quality
tion and deployment of people at all levels of oversight over such processes.13 Furthermore, the
an organization.” The airline business, by its
nature, is a labor-intensive service industry. ISO 9001 Quality Management Principles Applied to IOSA
Thus, having employees with appropriate
QMP IOSA Example
“preparation” is one of the most important
Process approach Flight operations; dispatching; ground handling;
elements of airline safety program success. and processes and their interaction
And there are other reasons for an emphasis on System approach to Maximizing aviation safety; improving aviation
“preparation and deployment of people,” such management quality service
as mandated training program requirements Factual approach to Meeting aviation safety objectives and key aviation
decision making quality service indicators
by civil aviation authorities; the need for safety
Leadership Establishing aviation safety management objectives
personnel at all levels; the need for recurrent
airline safety training; and the need to mitigate Involvement of people Ongoing currency training; exams and certifications
for safety
situations created by turnover — for example,
Mutually beneficial Improving aviation operational safety products, food
turnover among young pilots and maintenance supplier relationship services, fuel services and quality services
personnel. This QMP is mandated by ISO 9001 Customer focus Safety assurance; minimum service expectations
in two clauses only,10 while the IOSA standard Continual improvement Flight operational quality assurance; internal audits;
aggressively mandates this requirement in SWOT analysis; customer satisfaction surveys
seven of eight sections.11 Some of the common IATA = International Air Transport Association  IOSA = IATA operational safety audit 
considerations among these IOSA clauses are QMP = quality management principle  SWOT = Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and
threats
establishing urgency; demanding performance
Source: Sushant Deb
standards and directions; setting and following
the rules of behavior and making sure everyone Table 1

www.flightsafety.org | AeroSafetyWorld | February 2007 | 43

 insight

© iStockphoto International
responsibility for the competent control the QMPs envelop operational safety <www.iso.org/iso/en/iso9000-14000/in-
of these functions must remain with the and quality in the continuing improve- dex.html>. For a list and description of the
operating organization. And here is the ment process. eight quality management principles, see
real “punch” in the IOSA standard that Another example of the IOSA <www.iso.org/iso/en/iso9000-14000/un-
ISO 9001 fails to mandate: standard exceeding ISO 9001 is seen in derstand/qmp.html>. The latest version of
how the importance of documentation the ISO standards is officially titled ISO
• It is unacceptable for operators is treated by these two standards. Both 9001:2000, which for concision will be
to rely entirely upon the internal IOSA and ISO 9001 use the term “shall” referred to here as ISO 9001.
controls of a subcontracted organi- to emphasize the mandatory nature of 2. International Air Transport Association
zation to meet this requirement of documentation. However, there is a (IATA). IOSA Standards Manual, 1st edi-
controlling outsourced processes. significant difference between the ISO tion, April 2003. Montreal and Geneva:
“shall” and the IOSA “shall”: IATA.
• Compliance with regulatory re-
3. Clause 4.1.
quirements or certification from • The ISO “shall” means a require-
an external body such as ISO ment to “document” a process. 4. Organization and Management section
(ORG).
9001 does not lessen or alleviate
the burden of responsibility for • The IOSA “shall” is a broader 5. Clause 5.6.
safety and quality, which always requirement to “document and
6. ORG 1.7.1.
remains with the airline. implement” a process.
7. Clauses 4.1, 4.2 and 8.4.
Customer Focus is concerned with The ISO does not specify the imple-
8. ORG 2.0, Flight Operations (FLT) 1.4,
“understanding and meeting customer mentation as mandatory, as the IOSA Operational Control and Dispatch
needs to enhance their satisfaction does. (DSP) 2.0, Aircraft Engineering and
levels.” In the airline industry, with so Airlines should be happy to note Maintenance (MNT) 2.0, Cabin
much human contact between person- that IOSA’s adoption of ISO QMPs, Operations (CAB) 3.0, Aircraft Ground
nel and customers, the IOSA standard with their embedded quality concepts, Handling (GRH) 2.0, Cargo Operations
(CGO) 2.0 and Operational Security
adopts this principle by focusing on makes IOSA the best safety assurance
(SEC) 2.0.
employee skill levels in contact — e.g., standard. IOSA can be an important
cabin crew — and non-contact — e.g., resource in the never-ending drive for 9. ORG 1.0, FLT 1.0, DSP 1.0, MNT 1.0,

maintenance and dispatching — cat- operational safety.  • GRH 1.0, CGO 1.0 and SEC 1.0 reinforce
this repeatedly.
egories.14 On all counts, the IOSA Dr. Sushant Deb is a quality management spe-
standard is much more comprehensive 10. Clauses 6.2.1 and 6.2.2.
cialist who has provided ISO 9001 & AS 9100
than the ISO 9001.15 auditing, consulting and training services since 11. FLT 3.0, DSP 4.0, MNT 6.0, CAB 2.0,
Continual Improvement follows 1995, after a 20-year career in academia. He GRH 4.0, CGO 4.0 and SEC 4.0.
this guideline: “By being continually also provides IOSA gap analysis and internal
auditing services to the aviation industry. He 12. Clause 4.1.
introspective of strengths and weakness
has logged over 1,400 audit days. Dr. Deb has 13. ORG 1.2.1.
of the existing situation, an organiza- conducted seminars and workshops in many
tion can identify ways to improve countries during the past 30 years and published 14. The customer-contact category is addressed
processes on an ongoing basis.” ISO more than 120 articles and research papers. in CAB 2.3, 3.4, 3.7 and 3.8 and GRH
He is an independent member of Flight Safety 1.1 and 10.1. The customer-noncontact
9001 addresses this,16 as does the IOSA
Foundation and American Society for Quality. category is addressed in GRH 8.0 and 13.0,
standard, which introduces a common
He can be reached at <iosa4flightsafety@yahoo. CAB 4.0 and 5.0, MNT 6.0, DSP 4.0 and
theme called “quality assurance.”17 6.0, FLT 3.0, and ORG 3.0 and 5.0.
com>.
The objective is to institute an internal
15. Clauses 5.2, 7.2 and 8.2.1.
evaluation program to address all safety Notes
(and quality) critical issues. 16. Clauses 7.2.3, 8.2.1, 8.2.2, 8.4, 8.5.2 and
Both ISO 9001 and IOSA, then, are 1. For an overview of the International 8.5.3.

based on the eight QMPs. But IOSA Organization for Standardization (ISO) 17. ORG 4.0, DSP 3.0, MNT 5.0, GRH 3.0,
scores higher than ISO 9001 in having standards and certification, see CGO 3.0 and SEC 3.0.

44 | flight safety foundation | AeroSafetyWorld | February 2007