General aviation News

ICARUS Quiz – 5. Aviation Safety Quiz review

Our final aviation safety quiz was held last week starting from 28 June 2020 and it has brought compelling end on our first series of such quizzes in the aviation Safety.

Our team with Ing. Victor Manuel del Castillo and Daniel Bustamente, both from Mexican company “Safety Management System México” created a final set of 20 questions based on ICAO Document 9859 and Annex 19 that describes Safety Management System in aviation.

More details about the fifth quiz:

  • 20 questions from ICAO Annex 19 and Doc 9859 SMS document with multiple choices and only one correct answer
  • time limit to 45 minutes
  • 1 bonus question where participants were able to make their own remarks
  • 26 registered participants from all over the world successfully completed the quiz

Our final quiz has been different from type of the questions. Our team focused more on use-cases questions to make a bigger difference in results. However, our participants did quite well with an average score of 67.1%. There were 117 registered participants and 26 successfully solved the quiz. We have noticed that the average time to resolve the quiz was around the average being 16 min 58 sec even though we have increased the time limit to 45 minutes just in case other participants needed more time for use-case questions.

From the ones who successfully solved the quiz we bring to you the following statistics:

In the graph above its clear that two groups stood out – the ones between 60-70% and 80-90% that caused such a good average score in compare to previous quizzes.  The best result this time was by the participant “akyriaf” who managed a score of 90%. Congratulations to him and also to all participants who solved the quiz.

An interesting statistic has shown the relation between correct and incorrect answers. We have made a screenshot of the statistics for both parts and have made a highlight of each.

The easiest questions by statistics were:

  • 15. The activities on the risk management must have traceability, therefore, not to forget the previous risk management activities. In your opinion, what is the best option that supports traceability? (25/26 correct)
  • 4. Is it important that the results of internal quality and safety and hygiene audits be evaluated under the risk management perspective? (24/26 correct)
  • 2. In addition to the official recommendations, experience advises risk management with a team of people: the Control Board (or SMS team or those responsible for the SMS system), that is, a team jointly responsible for managing safety, the question is why is it more functional to do so? (23/26 correct)

On the other hand, we have a statistic of incorrect answers. This gives us and our participants better insight which area of their knowledge needs more focus.

The hardest questions by statistics were:

  • 19. Continuing to the previous question; who is responsible for the event? (4/26 correct)
  • 18. The image shows an event that occurred on June 14, 2020 between two A320 aircraft at Pulkovo Airport in Saint Petersburg, the left winglet of an Airbus A320neo (reg. VP-BWC) from S7 Airlines collided with the APU of an Ural Airlines A320 (reg. VP-BDL) during taxiing of both aircraft. Determine from the SMS perspective: What type of event is in accordance with ICAO Annex 13?  (5/26 correct)
  • 14. Does the concept of risk equate to the concept of uncertainty? (8/26 correct)

The most difficult question was actually a series of one question made up of 3 questions. The question was The image shows an event that occurred on June 14, 2020 between two A320 aircraft at Pulkovo Airport in Saint Petersburg, the left winglet of an Airbus A320neo (reg. VP-BWC) from S7 Airlines collided with the APU of an Ural Airlines A320 (reg. VP-BDL) during taxiing of both aircraft. Determine from the SMS perspective: What type of event is in accordance with ICAO Annex 13? 

Serious aviation incident of A320 aircraft at Pulkovo Airport in Saint Petersburg

The questions asked the participants of our quizzes to determine the type of the event, who is responsible and if you were an SMS manager would you activate the ERP. The correct answers from our team were: serious aviation incident, the organization is responsible and ERP would have been activated.


For the last quiz the bonus question was “What are the benefits and challenges of having SMS/QMS software in your organization?” and we received a lot of interesting comments in both English and Spanish.

We are bringing to you some of those we found very interesting:

Improve investigation response, improve tools for hazard identification, improve advocacy. The challenge would be to optimize the system and make it more efficient.

The benefits are that there is an update and order of the incidents that in the future can be used to investigate accidents if any; and at the same time it also serves to study the behavior of the human factor. Regarding challenges, technology advances, and therefore people must be trained in this type of software.
(Psicólogo Clínico Aeronáutico)

An SMS/QMS software is primarily a tool for the involved management teams to organize and effectively execute SMS and QMS activities. In addition, such software, if based on the web, is an excellent way to communicate the company’s SMS and QMS outcomes and performance to all employees, to receive feedback, to promote safety, and ultimately, cultivate a safety culture.

benefits: safeguard of data, systematic and systemic approcach to SMS, ensures confidentiality if required
challenges: training, getting to know and use the system in its intended use

First of all it is important to determine whether SMS and QMS are integrated in the organization and it DEFINITELY should be, though not common enough in some parts of the world. These organization with separate QMS/SMS show deficiencies in their SMS implementations and think Quality is only a compliance-based system…. a tick in the box. Safety, Security, Compliance and HStE should be integrated.
Benefits – 1 sole system for data collection; hazard identification and analysis/evaluation/mitigation would provide information and data sharing for continuous improvement (a feeder into the QMS); reduction in cost in the long term in managing two separate systems (seeing it as an investment and not a COST); integration in auditing effectiveness (not only for SMS but for compliance monitoring or others ISO (doc control) or IOSA. It does permit an event categorization and could use common root causes (based of HFACS taxonomy for example) to determine what should be addressed in priority (the TOP 10).
Challenges – have both systems talking to each other – that SMS could be a feeder into QMS and vice versa to avoid redundant data management; having financial support from the top management for such software; if migrating to a new combined software – time and personnel to migrate pre-existing information.

Stay tuned for the next article where we will bring together all statistics of all five quizzes and announce the winner(s) of our first series of Aviation Safety Quizzes.

About the author

Inxelo Technologies

Inxelo Technologies Ltd. is a company that core-business is software development in aviation industry.
Our mission is to provide quality software solutions to any air operator and improve their operations.
The software solutions we create for our customers are in various fields in aviation such as safety management system and compliance management system.