The Maintenance Control Center (MCC) acts as an integrator of multiple elements bringing together key mission-critical oversight activities
The MCC may be co-located with the Operations Control Centre (OCC) or developed as a separate unit
It is usually expected that the operation control centre (OCC) is supported by the Maintenance Control Center (MCC) which not only controls aircraft maintenance activities, also provides interface & guidance for the outstations.
ICAO Annex 19 defines safety as ‘the state in which risks associated with aviation activities, related to, or in direct support of the operation of aircraft, are reduced and controlled to an acceptable level’ and safety performance as ‘a service provider’s safety achievement as defined by its safety performance targets and safety performance indicators’.
Challenges to Establish Confidence in Safety Performance?
Whilst it is usual for safety metrics to focus on serious incidents and accidents it is also possible to gain a false impression regarding the overall level of safety due in part to a system with a low number of high consequence negative outcomes, means the low frequency of such outcomes may give the wrong impression that your system is safe.
Please consider that just because a product meets for example compliance with ISO 9001-2015 objectives does not automatically mean it is safe. (Just as not having an accident can be taken as meaning that we will not have an accident in the future.)
In reality the key aspect becomes our ability to measure risk and exposure. Quality systems audits consider gaps related to compliance with both external regulations and internal organisational process and procedures.
Quality Assurance and Risk Assessment
The first point to make is that the term “risk” subjective whereas the role of an EASA regulatory driven audit is to assess compliance with a standard not an opinion so this creates a challenge.
So when a discrepancy is identified it creates a number of questions
Who is best placed to answer this question? In fact the starting point should be – "What do we want our SMS to do for us?"
We often talk about the management of change and here we do not need to look any further than the implementation of an SMS as our first challenge.
As either a perfect opportunity to develop and optimize the organisation or alternatively as an organizational burden which requires specific actions to ensure compliance.
So in reality this question should be answered by the Accountable Manager and the Management Team. In fact once we answer the question then other decisions become easier and we can start to develop the structure of the SMS.
Please note it is a significant step backwards to jump into SMS implementation without really appreciating what your real goals are. So assume we have decided that we see the SMS as a real business opportunity to develop and optimize the organization.What should we do next?
There can be two reasons to implement a Quality Assurance System. The first is that it is a required mandatory process to ensure compliance with all regulatory and organisational requirements. The second is that we have an opportunity to use the QA process to support the companies objectives to effectively manage the business in the most efficient way.
A commitment to Quality can become intrinsic within the organization whereby Quality becomes the driver rather than allowing Compliance to become the driver – Compliance should be assumed as a given rather than a target.
If a regulatory audit throws up a non compliance then it is also an indication of a Quality Assurance system shortfall as this is where the non compliance should have been identified. To move to a higher level requires the company to develop effective and compliant business processes which are acceptable to the post holders and business area managers and can at the same time be supported by all employees.
