Development of an Airworthiness framework assessment tool; novel and visual

The research was established with the following research questions: There is no identified assessment metric for analysing disparate regulatory frameworks. Can a metric be developed that can assess regulatory frameworks? Can this framework be validated utilising airworthiness systems of Air and Space Interoperability Council (ASIC) Nations, providing measurement fidelity of their implementations? In validating the framework, is it possible to develop mutual recognition value-adding analysis that is capable of providing a platform for clarity in recognition efforts? Can this thesis develop methods for presenting this data in a way that gives immediacy to comprehension of the assessed airworthiness system? These research questions led to the development of a research aim: In the absence of any precedence, this research needs to provide a holistic technical regulatory framework assessment method developed without prejudice, which communicates regulatory framework differences in a manner that is easily understood. To address this research aim a detailed literature review was required to establish a foundation, since literature on military airworthiness frameworks was extremely limited.<br><br> This review focused on Western military airworthiness frameworks and led to investigation into the current forums and working groups that bind these militaries to the requirement for a globally applicable recognition platform. This provides a foundation for later assessment of the Air and Space Interoperability Council Nations. This motivation resulted in development of an adapted accident causality model focused on assessing a regulatory framework that was developed to preserve technical integrity and thus technical airworthiness. Titled the Product-Behaviour-Process (PBP) Bow-Tie, the model developed 57 test-points, which describe a series of questions that relate to the design, production and maintenance of an aircraft. With a metric based on independence, there is a level of fidelity applied to the assessment. Based on the seminal work by Reason and Rasmussen on organisational influence and safety drift, a scale based on the independence of the attestation made at each test point provided for a scoring system for regulatory frameworks. This assessment provided data capture, but no easy method of conveying information, particularly for comparison of regulatory frameworks. The real value of the test point and score is derived from the unique visualisation. The developed Iris charts provide, with knowledge of what is represented, instant understanding of the level of independence associated with each attestation focused on the preservation of technical integrity. This identifies the areas in which the regulatory framework requires independence to preserve safety. The Iris chart was tested, then applied to develop a comparison to be utilised as a platform for recognition. The two detailed case studies are for recognition activities between the Australian Defence Force (ADF) and the United States Army and New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF). The application of the PBP Bow-Tie assessment and Iris chart, which included several different methods for assessment and comparison, proves to be a powerful tool for establishing a platform for recognition. Finally, the PBP Bow-Tie assessment and Iris chart visualisation is utilised for some quantitative analysis. This analysis is two-fold; firstly, the military framework assessments are summated to identify where global military identifies the primacy for technical airworthiness. Next, the five military frameworks are compared to the two primary civil frameworks; EASA and FAA. <br><br>