DEVELOPING SAFETY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR IN THE AIRPORT

FOR AIRPORT SAFETY IMPROVEMENT

Original Article

Wibowo Imam Haryadi

Adanced Master in Aviation Safety Management, Ecole Nationale de l’ Aviation Civile, Toulouse, France

* Corresponding author, Email address: imamharyadi89@gmail.com

Abstract

In aviation industry, safety is a top priority for it is the main support of airport, Airport

business activities involving aircraft, runways, and terminals with millions of

passengers are business process with high natural safey risk involving high technology,

large capital, and high expectation from stakeholders

refer to the mandatory decision of the national regulation, Airport must have measuring

instrument in the form of a Safety Target and Performance Indicator. (SPI) is a set of

parameters that is easy to follow up and which gives a sufficiently clear picture of the

safety status of the operation, and which at an early stage will give the operation

management an indicator that some aspects of the operation is about to deteriorate so

that corrective action can be initiated before the situation creates an unacceptable risk.

This research was conducted by using several methods such as a list of suitable

(checklist) or Gap analysis by refering to national regulations.

Keywords: Safety Management System, Airport Safety, Performance Indicator,

Hazard, Risk, Safety, Aviation

1. Introduction

The main objective of this paper is about the process of develop safety performance

indicators at indonesian Airports. In this case Airport acts as one of the airport

operators where each airport operator is obliged to implement the Airport Safety

Management System (SMS) in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. This

is due to the fact that safety is one of the most important in the world flight, especially

in airport management

The growth of air traffic has the potential to cause danger during business processes at

airports. These dangers have the potential to cause incidents and accidents if they are

not immediately mitigated.

Therefore safety performance also affects the growth of air traffic; the level of safety

will influence how people or tourists choose their destination (airport) and the airline

used, thus creating reputation or image. Incidents, or even accidents, will directly

affect the number of aircraft movements to the destination and also affect the choice

of using a particular airline

while in accordance with ICAO fremework of SMS safety performance indicators

(SPI) are on the third pillar safety assurance, this means that it can be one of the

requirements for SMS implementation of a aviation service provider.

And the purpose of this research is to develop safety performance indicators at Airport

in accordance with national regulations where this will be applied and also the results

will be sent to the airport directorate every 3 (three) months.

In accordance with Decree of the Director General of Civil Aviation number: KP 222

of 2017 on safety performance indicators (SPI) for airport operators and flight

navigation service providers and procedures for calculating acceptable level of safety
performance (ALoSP) for the airline service provider, in accordance with Law No. 1

of 2009, Article 310 of aviation safety, in implementing SMS an organization must

have a target in the form of safety targets and also the safety indicators as tools to

measure the safety performance, so that the implementation can be measured and

monitoring.

In relation to the mandatory decision of the national regulation, Indonesian Airport

must have a measuring instrument in the form of a Safety Target and Safety

Performance Indicator. Safety Performance Indicator (SPI) is a set of parameters that

is easy to follow up and which gives a sufficiently clear picture of the safety status of

the operation, and which at an early stage will give the operation management an

indicator that some aspects of the operation is about to deteriorate so that corrective

action can be initiated before the situation creates an unacceptable risk.

The principles (Figure.1) are valid both from a regulator’s perspective and from the

perspective of an individual service provider; in all cases the dynamic nature of the

systemic, operational and external components of safety performance should be

considered.

According to ICAO doc. 9859[5], a Safety Performance Indicator (SPI) is a databased

safety parameter used for monitoring and addressing safety performance. Safety

Performance Indicators are a key tool for identifying safety risks and determining

trends. They help in defining measures to prevent or mitigate those risks. SPIs are

evaluated on an annual basis to determine their effectiveness and applicability.

Safety performance indicators (SPIs) can be ‘classified’ in accordance with specific

features; and different classifications are commonly used in different areas. The types of

indicators described in this document have been defined following a review of such
commonly used classifications and definitions to identify commonalities. An

explanation is provided where relevant on the use of each. service provider (airport)

may adopt any terms for specific safety performance indicators as service provider see

fit (Based on Decree of the Director General of Civil Aviation number: KP 222 of 2017)

; the information below is provided to complement the conceptual information required

for effective safety performance measurement.

- Activity or leading indicators are a measure of whether or not a control is actually in

place. They are proactive, usually measuring performance against a level of tolerance

for a particular event type. These indicators highlight the need for action when a

tolerance level is exceeded.

- Outcome or lagging indicators measure events after they have occurred. When

focusing on safety, the majority are undesirable events. These reactive indicators give

an idea about the effectiveness of the controls in place.

Safety performance measurement should ideally consider a combination of leading and

lagging indicators. The main focus should be to measure and to act upon the presence of

those systemic and operational attributes that enable effective safety management within

service provider and meanwhile, use lagging indicators to ensure that this safety

management is effective. Lagging indicators, particularly indicators for lower level

system failures, are useful to validate the effectiveness of specific safety actions and risk

barriers or to support the analysis of information derived from leading indicators

2. Materials and Methods

2.1 The Approach Used to Work on Subject

Process for defining and reviewing safety performance indicators

As with anything that relates to effective safety management, defining and using safety

performance indicators must be a dynamic process. A step-by-step process for service

provider developing of safety performance indicators for proposed, which follows the

‘Plan-Do-Check-Act’ logic for continual improvement. This should help us to involve

and get buy-in from all staff concerned.

Step 1. Designate responsibilities

It is critical to the success of the SPI project, as to the SMS journey in general, that

management (service provider) are fully committed to implementing SPIs as a

fundamental part of company’s safety management approach. Rather than just

supporting a system of SPIs, management must define aspects of organization that

require measurement and management and then must commit to a systematic approach

to managing those elements, in accordance with safety policy and defined safety

objectives.

The first step for establishing SPIs will be for management to designate personnel with

responsibilities for initiating the effective promotion and coordination of the

introduction of the SPIs. This will require responsibility for ensuring effective

communication and generally.

overseeing the implementation, with due consideration of existing organizational setup

in relation to safety management. These personnel (hereafter referred to as ‘SPI team’)

should ideally include, and certainly have access to, personnel with appropriate

experience and knowledge of safety and/or quality management principles and data

analysis They should also have experience applying this knowledge and these skills in

the context of policies, programs, operational procedures and practices.

Management should be kept informed of progress on a regular basis and should take an

active role in steering the process of implementing SPIs. For larger organizations it may

be useful to develop an analysis of the costs and benefits of the SPI development

project, with particular focus on the positive effects on company’s ‘management

information system’ that will lead to improved resource allocation.

Finally the SPI team should set a reasonable timetable, including how it will achieve the

aims, to ensure adequate progress in developing the SPIs.

Step 2. Safety Policy And Objectives – Identify Key Issues And Main Focus

At this step, the SPI team should identify the scope and focus of measurement

considering the results of the system analysis , paying particular attention to the

completeness and adequacy of SMS in company.

To define indicators for specific operational safety issues, some tools can be used to

determine the safety actions and risk barriers that would be most suitable for the

definition of operational SPIs. A thorough hazard identification will be required as part

of data, in this case the safety performance presented is based on safety performance

indicator (SPI) for potential hazards of runway excursion, runway incursion, FOD,

birdstrike and Ground Collisions referreing to Decree of the Director General of Civil

Aviation number: KP 222 of 2017 concerning Safety Performance indicator for the

airport operators and air navigation services providers as well as procedure for

calculating Acceptable Level of Safety Performance (ALoSP) for air service providers

and The Minister Decree KP No. 282 of 2017 concerning Safety Performance Indicator

and Acceptable Level of Safety Performance.

Step 3. Determine Data Needs

To be meaningful, measures of performance must be based on reliable and valid data,

both qualitative and quantitative. Therefore the SPI team should identify all pertinent

data and information that is available within company and determine what additional

information is needed. It should also consider information available through the internal

audit/compliance monitoring system.

In the area of hazard identification and risk management in operations (core processes),

availability of data will depend in part on the maturity of internal safety reporting

schemes. Aggregate data for Company segment may also be considered, particularly

when SMS in company has not yet generated sufficient data. Other information, such as

number of flights, fleet size, and financial turnover, may contribute to a better

understanding of the context of operations. Continuous availability of data should be

ensured to generate relevant and timely indicators. Delays in compiling data for the

generation of indicators are likely to delay any safety actions that may be required.

(based on Decree of the Director General of Civil Aviation number: KP 222 of 2017

concerning Safety Performance indicator for the airport operators and air navigation

services providers)

Step. 4 Define Indicator Specification

Once the scope and focus of SPIs have been determined and available data/information

reviewed, the specifics need to be defined. Each SPI should be accompanied by

sufficient information (or metadata) which enables any user to determine both the

source and quality of the information, and place this indicator in the context necessary

to interpret and manage it effectively.

Whenever possible, indicators should be quantitative, as this facilitates comparison and

detecting trends. Quantitative metrics should be precise enough to allow highlighting

trends in safety performance over time or deviations from expected safety outcomes or

targets.

Aspects of good SPIs include The indicator is :

valid and reliable, sensitive to changes in what it is measuring, and not susceptible to

bias in calculating or interpretation.

Step 5. Collect data and report result

Once the author have defined SPIs, the author must decide how will collect the data and

report the results. Data collection approaches (i.e., data sources, how data will be

compiled, and what the reports will look like), as well as roles and responsibilities for

collection and reporting, should be specified and documented. Data collection

procedures should also consider the frequency with which data should be collected and

the results reported for each SPI.

Step 6: Analyze results and act on findings from SPI monitoring

This is the most relevant step in terms of safety management, as the ultimate goal of

implementing SPIs is to maintain and improve the company’s safety performance over

time. There is no point in collecting information if the results are not used. Remember

that SPIs are indicators of safety performance, not direct measures of safety. The

information collected through different SPIs needs to be carefully analyzed, and SPIs

collected for different issues need to be put in perspective and the results interpreted, so

as to gain an overall picture of the organization’s safety performance. The results

obtained through an individual indicator may be insignificant if taken in isolation, but

may be important when considered in combination with other indicators.

Inconsistencies between SPIs may be an indication of an inaccurate system description

or problems with the SPIs themselves.

Indicators should not be simply seen as a metric, with actions being taken to get a good

score rather than to improve safety performance. It is important that results obtained

through the collection, analysis and interpretation of SPIs are conveyed to management

for decision and action. Ideally, these results should be presented at regular meetings

(e.g., management reviews, safety review board meetings) to determine what actions are

required to address deficiencies or to further improve the system. It is important that

such actions do not focus on certain indicators in isolation, but on optimizing the

organization’s overall safety performance.

As part of the safety communication and promotion, all staff should be informed of the

results obtained through the collection, analysis, and interpretation of SPIs

Step 7: Evaluate SPIs and make changes as appropriate

The systems analysis of the organization, along with the set of SPIs and their

specifications, including the metrics and any defined targets, should be periodically

reviewed and evaluated to consider the value of experience gained, new safety issues

identified, changes in the nature of risk, changes in the safety policy, objectives; and

priorities identified, changes in applicable regulations, and organizational changes, etc.

The frequency of the review cycle should be defined. Periodic reviews will help to

ensure that the indicators are well defined and that they provide the information needed

to drive and monitor safety performance. Periodic reviews will also help identify when

specific ‘drive’ indicators are no longer needed (e.g., if the intended positive changes

have been achieved) and allow adjustment of SPIs so that they always focus on the most

important issues in terms of safety. Nevertheless, too frequent reviews should be

avoided, as they may not allow establishing a stable system.

2.2 Data Analysis

ICAO Annex 19 defines safety as' the state in which risks are associated with aviation

activities, related to, or in direct support of the operation of aircraft, is reduced and

controlled to acceptable levels' and safety performance as a service provider 's safety

achievement as defined by its safety performance targets and safety performance

indicators'. These definitions provide a good indication of complexity related to

measuring safety performance. In many areas safety metrics tend to focus on serious

incidents and accidents, as these are easy to measure and often receive more attention.

In terms of safety management, we should consider with some caution, because:

- in such systems as aviation with a low number of high consequence negative

outcomes, the low frequency may give the wrong impression that your system is safe;

- the information is available too late to act on it;

- counting final outcomes will not reveal any of the systemic factors, hazards or latent

conditions that have a potential to result in high negative outcomes, under the same

conditions; and

- where the resilience of the system has been undermined, such outcomes are more

likely to occur by chance and therefore the outcomes may draw attention to and use

scarce resources when they are not predictive of later events

And then annex 19 Safety management, it declares that all service providers must have

safety performance monitoring and measurement to achieve and maintain for safety

performance.

According to ICAO doc. 9859[5], a Safety Performance Indicator (SPI) is a databased

safety parameter used for monitoring and addressing safety performance. Safety

Performance Indicators are a key tool for identifying safety risks and determining
trends. They help in defining measures to prevent or mitigate those risks and referreing

to The Minister Decree KP No. 222 of 2017 (national regulation) Safety performance

indicator is a data-based safety parameter that is used to monitor and assess safety

performance Therefore, safety performance indicator is a set of parameters that are easy

to follow up and which gives a sufficiently clear picture of the safety status of the

operation.

safety performance indicator, should be:

- Safety performance is safety achievement should be defined by the safety performance

targets and safety performance indicators

- Safety performance indicator is data-based parameter should be used for monitoring

and assessing safety performance

- Periodic monitoring of the safety indicators for any undesirable trends, alert level

breaches and target achievement should be performed

Based on Doc 9859 3rd Edition and Directorate general decree KP ; 622 of 2015 in

component 3 – Safety Assurance Element 3.1 – Safety Performance Indicator

The author have done with Gap Analysis Of Safety Performance Indicator that the

sample of can see in (table 1)

From the results of the gap analysis it can be seen that the airport does not yet have SPI

to measure the safety level that exists in the organization (refer to Decree of the Director

General of Civil Aviation number: KP 222 of 2017).

2.3 Safety Performance Indicator

2.3.1 Safety Target

To decide aviation safety performance targets is decided by taking into account

historical trends in safety indicator data of at least 1 (one) previous year and also to set
safety performance targets to be achieved by service providers (Soekarno-Hatta Intl

Airport) at least equal or better than national safety performance targets and then service

provider reviews the alert (alert) and target level every 1 (one) year.(figure 2)

a. Acceptable Level of Safety Performance/ ALosp

An Acceptable level of safety performance (ALoSP) is the combination of several

performance targets, that are measured using safety indicators, and the action plans

needed to achieve the set targets. An ALoSP is part of both an SSP and a service

provider’s.

The acceptable level of safety performance to be achieved shall be established by the

State, Based on The Minister Decree KP No. 282 of 2017 had established target level of

improvement its ALoSP at 5% average improvement in the current year compared to

the previous year's average on each indicator that has been decided.

a. Rate Denominator

To decide the denominator rate occurrence according to the characteristics and

kind of the data in service provider the airport service provider sector can use

10,000 movement ground or departure movement.(based on The Minister

Decree KP No. 222 of 2017)

The formula to measure safety indicator rate value is :

Jumlah Kejadian Indikator

Jumlah pergerakan

b. Alert Level

Besides serving as one of the two data trending performance quantifiers, an alert

level is fundamentally the caution light or alarm bell of a Safety Performance

Indicator (SPI). Its common safety metrics terminology is called “Out of Control
Criteria (OCC)5”. Breaching an Alert level implies that a data set has trended into

an abnormal/undesirable region (in relation to its historical performance). In the case

of a safety (occurrences) indicator it would mean an abnormal escalation of the

occurrence type being tracked, implying a high risk situation of subsequent “out of

control” occurrence rates. The determination of such an Alert boundary or level is

associated with the recent historical data trending behaviour of the same indicator.

The rationale for this is to ensure that a safety indicator’s current Alert setting has

taken into consideration its own recent historical performance or behaviour.

The historical data performance is specifically measured by means of two

characteristics of the historical data set:

a) Average value, and

b) Standard Deviation (SD) value

From these two values (Average and SD), the Alert level for the current (or next)

monitoring period of the safety indicator chart is derived and plotted as follows:

1) Average + 1 SD,

2) Average + 2 SD, and

3) Average + 3 SD

The formula for calculating standard deviation value (STDEVP) for manual

calculation purpose based on safety indicator number data (Safety Indicator rate),

the sd formula is:

where “x” is the value of rate data, “N” is the number of rate data, “σσ 𝜎” is the

standard deviation and “μ” is the average value of all the rate data.

A SD is the average deviation of the data set’s collective individual deviations from

their Mean. Hence, if a data set is highly volatile (large deviations), its SD value will

be greater than if the data set was less volatile (smaller deviations). This SD value is

the key to our Alert setting criteria, as it is a volatility measure of the preceding data

set. This SD value will automatically adjust the value and spacing of the 3 Alert

lines based on the preceding data’s behavior

The formula to measure Alert Setting is :

where “x” is the alert level, “μ” is the average data rate and “σσ 𝜎” is the average

value of all the rate data.

c. Alert Trigger

An Alert (abnormal/ unacceptable trend) is indicated if ANY of the conditions

below are met for the current monitoring period:

a) Any single point is above [Average + 3 SD] line

b) 2 (or more) consecutive points are above [Average + 2 SD] line

c) 3 (or more) consecutive points are above Average + 1 SD] line

These three separate Alert lines establish an equitable criteria to ensure that only a

valid Alert situation is captured as such.

2.3.2 Safety Indicator

Based on The Minister Decree KP No. 222 and 282 of 2017 on the calculation of safety

performance indicator & Acceptable Level of Safety Performance, there are 5 (five)

indicators to measure safety performance in airport, The five safety indicators consist of

; Runway Excursion (Without ATC involved), Runway Incursion (Withaout ATC

involved), FOD, Ground Collisions, Bird strikes.

a. Runway Excursion (Without ATC involved)

Runway excursions are defined by ICAO as a veer off or over run off the runway

surface.

A runway excursion occurs when an aircraft departs the runway in use during the

take-off or landing run. The excursion may be intentional or unintentional.

Types of Runway Excursion

- A departing aircraft fails to become airborne or fails to successfully reject the

take-off before reaching the end of the designated runway (Overrun on Take Off).

- A landing aircraft is unable to stop before the end of the designated runway is

reached (Over run on Landing).

- An aircraft taking off, rejecting take-off or landing departs the side of the

designated runway (Directional Control).

b. Runway Incursion (Without ATC involved)

A runway incursion (RI) is any situation where an aircraft, vehicle or person is

present on the runway or its protected area, without clearance or otherwise

incorrectly. This includes low approaches executed without clearance or otherwise

incorrectly.
“Any occurrence at an aerodrome involving the incorrect presence of an aircraft,

vehicle or person on the protected area of a surface designated for the landing and

take-off of aircraft.” (ICAO DOC 4444)

Possible causes for runway incursions include: Deviation from ATC clearance,

communication problems, weather, airport design, human error, flight preparation,

traffic violations by ground handling companies, fatigue, workload

c. FOD

All event related to Foreign Object Debris (FOD) at the aerodrome.

FOD can be the result of airport/ground handling staff or passengers not disposing of

their garbage in waste bins, not regularly emptied (overloaded) waste bins, parts

coming of aircraft or equipment (maintenance issue), weather – especially heavy

wind – blowing debris and even equipment onto apron, taxiway or runway.

The presence of FOD may attract birds and/or wildlife, increasing the risk of a

wildlife strike. FOD may be ingested by an aircraft engine leading to (possibly

substantial) damage, aborted, take-off, aircraft return, runway excursion.

d. Ground Collisions

Collisions on the ground related to aircraft operation and occur between aircraft with

aircraft, aircraft with vehicle or vehicle with vehicle.

Possible causes for collisions on ground include: deviation from ATC clearance,

communication problems, weather, airport design, flight preparation, ground traffic

violations, fatigue, workload.

e. Bird strikes

Wildlife strikes (Bird strikes) include collisions with or engine ingestion of one or

several birds on a runway or on a helipad/helideck in use.

 Possible causes for bird strikes include: Wildlife control issues, migrating routes

(seasonal), presence of FOD attracting wildlife, airport design and/or location (e.g.

near natural preserves).

Bird strikes may lead to: unstabilized/missed approach, rejected landing, go-around,

runway excursion, Loss of Control on Ground (LOC-G) or Inflight (LOC-I), damage

to Aircraft, flight delay (e.g. due to A/C or RWY inspection), aircraft return.

Includes:

- encounters with wildlife or birds on a runway in use or on any other movement

area of the aerodrome.

- Includes engine ingestion of one or several birds/wildlife.

- Bird/wildlife encounters may occur at controlled or uncontrolled airports, or on

unprepared/natural landing sites.

2.3.3 Measurement of the achievement of safety

Airport as service provider based on The Minister Decree KP No. 282 of 2017 had

established target level of improvement its ALoSP at 5% average improvement in the

current year compared to the previous year's average on each indicator that has been

decided.

a. measure current year safety performance targets

preparing performance data in the current year including the number of flight

movements, individual service unit offices and number of indicators of service unit

office indicators. and decide the denominator rate occurrence according to the

characteristics and kind of the data in service provider the airport service provider

sector can use 10,000 movement ground or departure movement.

 The formula to measure safety indicator rate value is :

b. Target Setting

Target setting is a less structured process than Alert setting. It is essentially a desired

or planned percentage improvement over the preceding period’s Average occurrence

rate. The Target level is represented by the dotted line in Figure 5.2 . In this case it

is five percentage points below (better) than the preceding data period. This Target

level is meant to be compared with the current monitoring period’s Average value

(which is to be calculated at the end of the current monitoring period). If the current

period’s Average value should be below (better) than this Target line (preceding

year’s Average) then the Target performance has been achieved. If the current

period’s Average is above (worse) than the Target line, then the Target has not been

achieved.

The formula to measure target setting of safety performance value is :

Target setting = average Indicator rate preceding year - ( target percentage x

average Indicator rate

preceding year)
 There should be an objective rationale for determining the Target quantum of a

given SPI, whether it should be 1%, 5% or 10%. Primarily, it should be correlated to

the nature, scope and aggressiveness of actions taken or planned with regard to the

purpose of improving the safety and reliability performance of the operational

process underlying that SPI.(figure 3)

3. Results and Discussion

Based on Decree of the Director General of Civil Aviation number: KP 222 of 2017 and

KP 282 of 2017 on safety performance indicators (SPI) for airport operators and flight

navigation service providers and procedures for calculating acceptable level of safety

performance (ALoSP) for the airline service provider and airport as the operator will

implement the system and also monitoring , the flight service provider presents an

overview of the acceptable level of safety performance (acceptable level of safety

performance / ALoSP).and then report the results of monitoring the safety performance

indicators to the Director General every 3 (three) months during each monitoring

period.

During monitoring in March until August at the airport the safety team initiate to

collecting data related with SPI, both in the preceding year and in the current year with

5 indicator of safety performance.

Such an Excel data sheet is to be annotated with all the necessary data pertaining to

the SPI concerned, namely its preceding and current period’s occurrence numbers, flight

hours/ cycles/ movements as applicable. The required formulae for Average, standard

deviation (STDEVP), Alert and Target settings are built-in as indicated. The completed

table can then generate the required SPI chart automatically, with the Excel charting

function.
- Safety Performance indicator for Bird Strike
a. Preceding Year Matrix Safety Performance Indicator

Current
Year
2017 Current Year Alert Levels Target
(line)
Preceding
All Preceding Preceding
All Operators Incident Year Ave
Mth Operators Year Ave Year Ave
Incidents Rate* +3SD
Total FH +1SD (line) +2SD (line)
(line)
dec 37,634 - 0.00
jan 36268 1.00 0.28 1.02 1.55 2.08 0.47
feb 31880 0.00 1.02 1.55 2.08 0.47
mar 36,101 4.00 1.11 1.02 1.55 2.08 0.47
apr 35,990 3.00 0.83 1.02 1.55 2.08 0.47
may 37,447 2.00 0.53 1.02 1.55 2.08 0.47
jun 38,153 4.00 1.05 1.02 1.55 2.08 0.47
jul 39,932 0.00 1.02 1.55 2.08 0.47
aug 38,452 3.00 0.78 1.02 1.55 2.08 0.47
sep 37,413 0.00 1.02 1.55 2.08 0.47
oct 38,337 0.00 1.02 1.55 2.08 0.47
nov 37,067 2.00 0.54 1.02 1.55 2.08 0.47
dec 40,350 0.00 1.02 1.55 2.08 0.47
Ave 0.43
SD 0.42

Ave+1SD Ave+2SD Ave+3SD

0.84 1.26 1.68

Current Year Target is say 5% Ave rate

improvement over the Ave rate for the 0.47
preceding year, which is:

b. Current Year Matrix Safety Performance Indicator

Current
Year
2018 Current Year Alert Levels
Target
(line)
All All Preceding Preceding Preceding
Incident
Mth Operators Operators Year Ave Year Ave Year Ave
Rate*
Total FH Incidents +1SD (line) +2SD (line) +3SD (line)
dec 40,350
jan 39,000 0.00 0.00 0.84 1.26 1.68 0.41
feb 34,859 0.00 0.00 0.84 1.26 1.68 0.41
mar 38,533 1.00 0.26 0.84 1.26 1.68 0.41
apr 39,066 0.00 0.00 0.84 1.26 1.68 0.41
may 37,252 1.00 0.27 0.84 1.26 1.68 0.41
jun 40,392 0.00 0.00 0.84 1.26 1.68 0.41
jul 0.84 1.26 1.68 0.41
aug 0.84 1.26 1.68 0.41
sep 0.84 1.26 1.68 0.41
oct 0.84 1.26 1.68 0.41
nov 0.84 1.26 1.68 0.41
dec 0.84 1.26 1.68 0.41
Ave 0.09
SD 0.12

Ave+1SD Ave+2SD Ave+3SD

0.21 0.34 0.46

Current Year Target is say 5% Ave rate

improvement over the Ave rate for the 0.41
preceding year, which is:
 Safety Indicator
2.50 1.11 Bird Strike Tahun 2017
1.05
2.08
2.00
0.83
0.78 1.55
1.50
0.53 0.54
1.02 c. G
1.00 r
0.28 a
0.47
0.50 p
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 h
0.00
dec jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

of Airport safety performance indicators with alerts and targets Setting criteria
(Preciding year)

d. Graph of Airport safety performance indicators with alerts and targets Setting
criteria (Current year)
 Safety Indicator
Bird Strike Tahun 2018
1.80 1.68
0.27
1.60 0.26

1.40
1.26
1.20

1.00
0.84
0.80

0.60
0.41
0.40

0.20
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00
dec jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

- Safety Performance indicator for FOD

a. Preceding Year Matrix Safety Performance Indicator

Current
Year
2017 Current Year Alert Levels Target
(line)
All Preceding Preceding Preceding
All Operators Incident
Mth Operators Year Ave Year Ave Year Ave
Incidents Rate*
Total FH +1SD (line) +2SD (line) +3SD (line)
dec 37,634 1.00 0.27
jan 36,268 0.00 0.43 0.64 0.85 0.21
feb 31,880 2.00 0.63 0.43 0.64 0.85 0.21
mar 36,101 1.00 0.28 0.43 0.64 0.85 0.21
apr 35,990 0.00 0.43 0.64 0.85 0.21
may 37,447 1.00 0.27 0.43 0.64 0.85 0.21
jun 38,153 0.00 0.43 0.64 0.85 0.21
jul 39,932 0.00 0.43 0.64 0.85 0.21
aug 38,452 0.00 0.43 0.64 0.85 0.21
sep 37,413 0.00 0.43 0.64 0.85 0.21
oct 38,337 0.00 0.43 0.64 0.85 0.21
nov 37,067 0.00 0.43 0.64 0.85 0.21
dec 40,350 0.00 0.43 0.64 0.85 0.21
Ave 0.10
SD 0.19

Ave+1SD Ave+2SD Ave+3SD

0.29 0.48 0.66

Current Year Target is say 5% Ave rate

improvement over the Ave rate for the preceding 0.21
year, which is:

b. Current Year Matrix Safety Performance Indicator

Current
Year
2018 Current Year Alert Levels
Target
(line)
All All Preceding Preceding Preceding
Incident
Mth Operators Operators Year Ave Year Ave Year Ave
Rate*
Total FH Incidents +1SD (line) +2SD (line) +3SD (line)
dec 40,350 0.00
jan 39,000 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.48 0.66 0.09
feb 34,859 2.00 0.57 0.29 0.48 0.66 0.09
mar 38,553 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.48 0.66 0.09
apr 39,066 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.48 0.66 0.09
may 37,252 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.48 0.66 0.09
jun 40,392 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.48 0.66 0.09
jul 0.29 0.48 0.66 0.09
aug 0.29 0.48 0.66 0.09
sep 0.29 0.48 0.66 0.09
oct 0.29 0.48 0.66 0.09
nov 0.29 0.48 0.66 0.09
dec 0.29 0.48 0.66 0.09
Ave 0.10
SD 0.22

Ave+1SD Ave+2SD Ave+3SD

0.31 0.53 0.75

Current Year Target is say 5% Ave rate

improvement over the Ave rate for the 0.09
preceding year, which is:
 Safety
Safety Indicator
Indicator
Foreign
Foreign Object
Object Demage
Demage (FOD)
(FOD) Tahun
Tahun 2018
2017
0.90
0.70 0.850.66
0.80
0.60 0.57
0.70 0.64
0.63
0.50 0.48
0.60

0.50
0.40 0.43
0.40 0.29
0.30
0.27
0.30 0.28 0.27
0.21
0.20
0.20

0.10
0.09
0.10
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00
dec jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec
dec jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

c. Graph of Airport safety performance indicators with alerts and targets Setting
criteria (Preciding year)

d. Graph of Airport safety performance indicators with alerts and targets Setting
criteria (Current year)
4. Conclusions

From the results of the research and data analysis done by safety team, then it can be

concluded as follow In accordance with the procedures and existing literature that in

the developing of SPI begins with determining the Acceptable level of safety

performance (ALoSP) within the organization. ALoSP itself can be determined from

preceding year data, which can then be used as a current year target.

In accordance with the Decree of the Director General of Civil Aviation number:

KP 222 of 2017 on safety performance indicators (SPI) for airport operators and flight

navigation service providers and procedures for calculating acceptable level of safety

performance (ALoSP) for the airline service provider, to find out whether the target /

Alosp within the organization has been well implemented or achieved, it can be seen
after a cycle period (1 year). due to the limited time of internship, the end result of

organizational achievement has not been stated in this paper.

Condcuct with Chart of safety performance indicator shows that special attention

is required to anticipate any incident due to runway excursion, runway incursion, and

ground collisions. Safety performance for runway incursion, birdstrike and FOD

management needs to be maintained and even improved in order to stay alert to the

possibility of incident due to runway incursion, birdstrike and FOD, Employing basic

safety metrics principles to monitor and measure safety performance is an objective and

reasonable way to go. Without an underlying SPIs quantification mechanism, an

organisation’s safety performance report may just consist of subjective accounts,

interpretations and promises.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their gratitude and thanks to École nationale

de l'aviation civile, Angkasa Pura II and STPI, for supporting this research.

References

Energy, U. D. (2012). Implementation Guide Aviation Program Performance

Indicators (METRICS) for use with DOE ORDER 440.2B, Aviation

Management and Safety.

ICAO. ( 2013). Doc 9859 - Safety Management Manual 3rd edition. CANADA: ICAO.

ICAO. (2016). Annex 19 Safety Management System.

Law of the Republic of Indonesia (2009) No. 1 Concerning Aviation

The Minister Decree (2017) KP No. 222 concerning Safety Performance Indicators for

the airport operators and air navigation services providers as well as

procedures for calculating Acceptable Level of Safety Performance (ALoSP) for

air services providers.

The Minister Decree (2017) KP No. 282 concerning Safety Performance Indicator an

Acceptable Level of Safety Performance

The Minister Decree (2015) KP No. 622 Concerning Acceptance Safety Management

System of Airport

https:// www.icao.int/safety/Pages/USOAP-Result.aspx.

Figure 1 Component Of Safety Performance

 Figure 2 Flow Diagram Matrix Preceding Year

Figure 3 Flow Diagram Matrix Current Year

N Indicators of Fulfillment Operating Effective
Present/ Suitable/ Remark
O and Performance / /

Safety objectives
1 √ √ √ √ N/A
have been
established

Safety performance Refer to doc

indicators have 9859,
been defined, Refering to
2 √ − − −
promulgated and are KP 222 year
being monitored and 2017 & KP
analysed for trends 282 year 2017

Refering to
3 Safety objectives and √ √ √ − KP 222 year
performance 2017
indicators are
reviewed and
updated periodically.

When establishing
Refering to
and reviewing
4 √ √ √ − KP 222 year
objectives and
2017
performance
indicators,
the organisation
considers:- hazards
and risks; financial,
operational and
business
requirements; view of
interested parties.

Refering to
5 Safety objectives and √ √ √ − KP 222 year
performance 2017
indicators
encompass all areas
of the organisation.

Personnel at all
levels are aware of Refering to
Table 1 GAP Analysis Of Safety Performance Indicator