Recent blog posts

Introduction

The Continuous Airworthiness Management Organization “CAMO” is essentially responsible for 4 primary functions - Planning, Technical Records, Engineering, and Reliability. These groups work together to ensure that the Aircraft remain fully compliant with all requirements concerning the aircraft maintenance management and associated oversight.

Within the CAMO the Maintenance Planning, Technical Records, Engineering & Reliability groups work together to ensure that the aircraft remain fully compliant with all requirements concerning the aircraft maintenance management and associated oversight.

Within the CAMO department the Maintenance Planning Group has a range of responsibilities including:

Last modified on

Introduction

With modern aircraft the basic aircraft provides CAT II/CAT III as inherent functions of the basic design standard of the aircraft.

Therefore, typical related “Autoland” tasks are covered by the respective AMM Task driven from the maintenance program.

Typically, it is not necessary for the introduction of additional or special recommendations for scheduled maintenance tasks.

Never the less, operators are expected to demonstrate compliance with supplemental national requirements whenever applicable.

Last modified on

Considering the relationship between Aviation Quality and Aviation Safety, together with the relationship between Quality Assurance Auditing and Safety Assurance Auditing in Aviation

Often it is apparent there is some confusion between the specific functions of the two different undertakings namely a quality assurance management system and that of a safety assurance management system.

So consider that Quality is essentially looking at compliance, and Safety is looking at Risk.
In essence Quality Assurance is determining gaps based on non compliance with either the regulatory requirements or organisational requirements.

Last modified on

SofemaOnline - www.sofemaonline.com takes a look at the rules

Operator Obligations

An Operator must establish procedures and instructions to be used for Low Visibility Take-Off and Category II and III operations.

These procedures must be included in the Operations Manual with approval by the Authority.

The procedures shall contain the duties of flight crew members during taxiing, take-off, approach, flare, landing, roll-out and missed approach as appropriate.

Last modified on
Background
 
Regulatory approval for Autoland was first given in 1968 with the first CAT III landing taking place in Jan 1969 (Sud Aviation Caravelle).
 
Early adopters of Category III technology include The Hawker Siddeley HS Trident, Boeing B747-200 and Concorde. In 1974, the Airbus A300 was certified for Category III A and in 1983 the Airbus A310 achieved certification followed by the Airbus A300-600 in 1984 which achieved CAT III B.
 
Fail-operational automatic landing was first used for these types of operations, but it was found useful to develop fail-passive capability in order to comply with operational requirements.
Last modified on

Steve Bentley MD of Sofema Aviation Services www.sassofia.com explains

It is very healthy within the organisation to ensure that the Post Holder is able to deliver Compliance Independently of the QM (CM) - Explain

Consider the Role of the Aviation Quality System within the European Aviation Safety Agency “EASA”

Consider the following role definitions and responsibilities:

- First, that the Accountable Manager is responsible for the Quality System which includes both elements of Quality Control and Quality Assurance;

Last modified on

Introduction

Aviation Maintenance Error is not only insidious but it also has the potential to lead to incidents and accidents.

Senior Management including the Executive Leadership Team as well as Line Managers should understand the key principles of error management. To ensure a positive learning culture together with the ability to drive change which will minimise exposure and prevent reoccurrence.

Last modified on

Considering the role of Maintenance Error Decision Aid (MEDA) within the context of an effective Maintenance Error Management System Process.

An Effective MEMS system not only provides a mechanism for conducting thorough and consistent investigations, the outcome of which identifies both the root cause and the contributing causes, related to a specific maintenance event.

Over the last decades we have come to understand that a significant number of very serious flight safety events have been caused by Maintenance Error.

Last modified on

The Focus of this blog is to consider the inter-relationship between Maintenance Error Management Systems (MEMS) – (typically using the Boeing Maintenance Error Decision Aid as a primary tool) and Safety Management through Human Factor Learning within the context of a viable Safety Management System.

What is the Purpose of MEMS?

The rationale behind a MEMS System is to identify any situations which may “promote” the potential for error. In addition to facilitate (using the organisational framework) the risk based decision making process which will lead to stronger defences.

Tagged in: HF MEMS Safety SMS
Last modified on

Driving Safety Management System (SMS) Value from your Aviation Maintenance Error Management System (MEMS).
Throughout our Industry we know that Maintenance Errors cost millions of Euros every year through the need for rework, delays and lost revenue. (To consider also the potential to introduce safety related exposures.)

What is MEDA?

Boeing developed the MEDA process to assist maintenance organisations identify why events occur and how to prevent them in the future.

MEDA provides a process for conducting thorough and consistent investigations, determining the factors that lead to an event and making improvements to reduce the likelihood of future incidents.

Tagged in: Error HF MEDA MEMS SMS
Last modified on

Sofema Aviation Services (www.sassofia.com) considers the challenges to be found during the implementation & delivery of an effective Maintenance Error Management System (MEMS) within an EASA Part 145 Aircraft Maintenance Organisation (AMO)

Tensions between the desire to ensure safety behaviours and the organisations economic objectives (Production versus Protection) deliver real challenges which have a direct bearing on safety culture.

What is an Aviation Maintenance Safety Culture?

Tagged in: AMO EASA MEMS Part 145 Safety
Last modified on

Introduction

It is considered that errors and violations together form the unreliable part of our human performance. Moreover, that 70-90 percent of current aviation incidents & accidents are due to in some part to “human factors”.

Errors and violations contribute to accidents both directly and by making the consequences of other problems more serious. An accident typically involves several contributing factors, some usually being quite visible and others possibly latent in nature.

Last modified on

The Role of Maintenance Error Management Systems (MEMS)

The ability of the organisation to investigate Maintenance Error is a valuable tool to understand causal, contributory and root elements and to develop and provide appropriate mitigation's to reduce ongoing exposure.

If we wish to minimize re-occurrence we should address not only the root cause (or causes) of a given outcome, but to also consider all the contributing causes (and there could be many!) as this will have a significant positive impact on the lowering of the threat level (reduction in exposure).

Tagged in: 145 EASA MEMS
Last modified on

Posted by on in Regulatory

Introduction

The Key to a successful delivery of “CAMO” Continuing Airworthiness is without doubt “Core Competency” across the key business elements of Continuing Airworthiness Manager (CAM), Maintenance Planning (MP), Engineering (Eng), Reliability (REL) and Tech Records (T/L).

Remember that the goal of EASA compliance is a step on the journey and not the destination – the focus of any effective Continuing Airworthiness Management Organisation (CAMO) should be to maximize the availability, reliability and safety of the fleet as well as focusing on a reduction in maintenance costs.

EASA Focus is shifting to a Performance Based Approach to Regulation

A “Performance Based Approach” brings to the fore two challenges:

Last modified on

Posted by on in Regulatory

Review the Following

Details of ageing aircraft system requirements with any specified sampling programmes (if applicable).

Details of specific structural maintenance programmes (if applicable), including but not limited to:

a. Damage Tolerance and Supplemental Structural Inspection Programmes (SSID)

SUPPLEMENTAL STRUCTURAL INSPECTION PROGRAMME (SSIP)

Increased utilisation, longer operational lives, and the high safety demands imposed on the current fleet of transport aeroplanes indicate the need for a programme to ensure a high level of structural integrity for all aeroplanes in the transport fleet.

Tagged in: Compliance Part M Review
Last modified on

Introduction

The Current Portfolio of SAS “TTT” - training courses currently on offer include Ramp Safety / HF TTT - Maintenance Instructor TTT, Human Factors TTT, Internal Auditor TTT, Safety Management System TTT, Fuel Tank Safety (FTS) & Electrical Wiring Interconnect System (EWIS) TTT and Maintenance Error Decision Aid (MEDA) TTT.

Correct Understanding is Important

Let's have a clear understanding here because it is important to understand that a 3 or 4 day training does not “Deliver” a trainer and clearly we would be “not correct”  if we were to believe this to be so.☺

The reality is that this course as well as other activities is part of a systematic process of building soft skills and competence across a range of topics which support the organization.

Tagged in: Ramp RSHF Safety Trainer TTT
Last modified on

It is not possible to separate the Safety Management System from the need to manage Ramp HF in the most effective way. In fact the more integration the better in terms of understanding and managing the exposure.

All the elements which are considered as part of our Aviation Ramp Safety & Human Factors Exposure may typically be accommodated and addressed as part of the delivery of the SMS system.

If we are able to study and take appropriate action in respect of the human factors issues, we will be able to better prepare to deal with human factors issues and behaviours in our daily routine.

Driven by ICAO obligations European Countries (as well as the rest of the world) are required to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of ICAO Annex 19.

Airports are specifically mentioned within the requirements related to the need for a State Safety Program as well as the need to demonstrate compliance with the SMS obligations.

Tagged in: HF MHF Ramp Safety SMS
Last modified on

What are we Trying to Verify?

An Audit will typically generate a number of findings, and whilst the first step is usually to take an immediate “short term” action, the important business is ensuring the fundamental cause or “root cause” is addressed – the challenge is that this is far from easy!

Essentially, we are seeking evidence that the cause or “causes” of the problem have either been removed or mitigated in an acceptable way. (It is not always possible to completely fix the issue and sometimes the best outcome we can hope for is a reduction of the causes.)

Essential Evidence for Verification

Last modified on

Steven Bentley MD of Sofema Aviation Services believes it is time to recognise QAS as a component of our organisations' SMS.

Where Should an EASA Compliant Quality Assurance System “Sit” in relation to the Organisations SMS?

Introduction

Historically (and growing up in the workplace through the 1970’s I can attest to the fact) there was no formal Quality Assurance within European Aviation Operations.

Of course we had Quality Control and the Role of Flight Operations Director and within Maintenance the Role of “Chief Inspector”.

As the Joint Airworthiness Authority’s influence grew the concept of an independent assessment of conformity became the acceptable way of demonstrating compliance.

Tagged in: QA QC Quality Safety SMS
Last modified on

To deliver effective EASA compliance audits it is necessary to pay attention to a number of key areas which are identified below for discussion purposes.

a) Maintaining Objectivity
b) Sample Size
c) Value of Finding Raised
d) Operator’s Authority on Area of Audit

Maintaining Objectivity

Objectivity requires both perspective and balance on the part of the auditor. We should also pay attention to the fundamental reason we are carrying out the audit.

Last modified on