address ORGANISATION REPRESENTATIVES DURING BRIEFING MEETING

Transcription

1 Name of Operator Physical address Name of Responsible Person Aircraft Section/division Flight Operations/Airworthiness Form Number: CA AUDIT & INSPECTION CHECKLIST FOR AOC ISSUANCE AND/OR RENEWAL Postal address Postal code Telephone number Cell phone number Base of Maintenance Class and type of licences Date application received Date of last audit Date of this audit Date AOC issued SACAA Audit team Fax number address AOC Number Postal code ACCOUNTABLE MANAGER ORGANISATION REPRESENTATIVES DURING BRIEFING MEETING QUALITY ASSURANCE MANAGER RESPONSIBLE PERSON AIRCRAFT OTHER CA MARCH 2017 Page 1 of 11

2 INSPECTION AND AUDIT FUNCTIONS SACAA inspection and audit functions confirm for SACAA that an Operator is operating and maintaining the aircraft in compliance with regulatory requirements. There will be times when it is not possible or necessary to review or examine 100% of a company s operation. This is when sampling principles apply. Inspection and audit checklists have been developed to provide a systematic approach to the inspection of an Operator s various specialty areas. The checklists are designed to identify specific items within each specialty area and to make reference to applicable regulatory requirements. Where an Operator fails to comply with these requirements, they will be considered to be in noncompliance and will be required to undertake corrective action. AUDIT PLANNING The following should be considered when scheduling an audit; 1. The feasibility of the audit dates and time-periods with consideration given to availability of inspectors and the Operator. 2. The allocation of time for pre-audit/inspection activities. 3. Team member travel requirements. 4. The compiling of the required documentation. 5. The contents of the Operator s ops manual and file should be studied for background knowledge and to detect any shortcomings/anomalies. PRE-AUDIT MEETING A pre-audit team meeting is important as it informs team members of the expectations of the Project Manager (team leader). It also provides an opportunity for team members to clear up any questions and gain clarity on their specific roles. Emphasis should be on the report consolidation and the steps to effect issuance recommendations upon receipt of the response from the Auditee. ENTRY MEETING An entry meeting must be held. It is important in that it establishes communications between the Operator s- and SACAA s audit teams. (See appendix for an agenda). AUDIT FINDINGS Audit findings are the foundation of the audit report so it is important that they be completed in accordance with the requirements. CLOSING MEETING The closing meeting is conducted to ensure that the Operator s senior management have been fully debriefed on the results of the audit. AUDIT REPORT The audit preliminary report with audit findings as indicated during audit debrief should be left with the Project Manager, who will thus consolidate all the reports from various Departments and send to the Auditee. NOTE: All required meetings stated in this form must be documented on the Operator s file for record purposes. CA MARCH 2017 Page 2 of 11

3 A. REQUIREMENTS YES NO N/A Note No. 1. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE 2. Nominated Post Holders: 3. Chief Executive Officer: 4. Responsible Person Safety: 5. Responsible Person Aircraft: 6. Responsible Person Ground Operations: 7. Responsible Person Quality: 8. Are their key personnel responsibilities and functions defined and formalised? 9. Are these key management personnel current and in line with the Operator s OPS Manual? B. MANAGEMENT YES NO N/A Note No. 1. Is there a description and Organogram Contained in the MCM? 2. Has senior management ensured that duties, responsibilities, and authorities are defined, documented, and communicated within the organisation? 3. Are there any changes that have been incorporated in the Operator s Post Holders, scope, size, aircraft, and type of service since the previous audit? 4. If any changes were done, were these changes submitted to ASLC and SACAA for acceptance or approval? 5. Are these changes reflected in the approved MCM; OPSPECS and OPS Manual? 6. Were these changes impacting negatively on safety? If yes please explain in detail how they are impacting negatively on operation safety. 7. In the case of Quality Assurance, is there a clear description of functional tasks and lines of reporting established and functioning? 8. Is effective succession, delegation, or deputation of these responsibilities and others, which are critical to the AOC Holder, made when the principle office holders are absent? C. QUALITY MONITORING SYSTEM YES NO N/A Note No. 1. Is the quality system documented? 2. Are the auditors suitably qualified? 3. Has the organisation designated a person responsible for quality? 4. Can the organisation show evidence of an internal audit plan and of internal audits conducted? 5. When last was an audit performed to ensure the contracted AMO ratings were still valid? 6. When last was an audit performed on the technical record keeping system utilized by the AMO? How often are these audits performed? 7. Are records available for the previous SACAA audits and the last audit carried out by the Operator on their maintenance provider? 8. Have corrective action been taken on previous SACAA audits and inspections conducted and are actions taken to prevent recurrence of such non-compliance? CA MARCH 2017 Page 3 of 11

4 9. Are there any outstanding audit findings? If yes; check if they have been attended to. Obtain a copy of the corrective action plan from the AMO. 10. Was there an audit follow-up required? Check if the follow-up was completed. 11. Is there a corrective and preventive action procedure? 12. Is there a procedure for management review and overview? 13. Are appropriate actions decided at management reviews documented and implemented to maintain an adequate level of conformance to airworthiness requirements? D. DOCUMENTATIONS YES NO N/A Note No. 1. Are the following documentation available and current: 2. Civil Aviation Regulations 2011, as amended 3. Maintenance Control Manual (MCM) 4. Approved Maintenance Program (AMS), check the last revision of AMS if it is in line with the source document eg MRBR, MPD, Maintenance Manual Chapter 5 and other Components Maintenance Manual 5. Maintenance arrangements/agreements (contracts) with the contracted Approved Maintenance Organisation; check if these contracts are valid. 6. Approved MEL, is the currently used MEL in line with the latest revision of the MMEL? 7. Technical Log or Defer defect log, are the defects being rectified within the Repair category stipulated on the MEL? 8. Reliability Programme (If applicable, the Reliability program is mandatory for a maintenance program that was derived from the MRB process and whereby some significant items do not have overhaul limit) 9. Certificate of Airworthiness and Certificate of Registration (Check all aircraft operated by the AOC Holder) 10. Mass and Balance manual, check if the Operator s manual has been accepted by SACAA and if it is current and in line with the aircraft manufacturer s Mass and Balance loading manual. 11. Ground servicing manual, check if the Operator s manual has been accepted by the SACAA, and that the revision is current with the manufacturer s manual or the source document (if applicable). E. MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS YES NO N/A Note No. 1. Does the Operator have an in-house maintenance facility? 2. If not, who is the Manager responsible for overall Maintenance, and if the RPA is also the AMO, look at the interface between the two organisations. 3. Name of this organisation: 3.1 Name of organisations responsible for contracted aircraft maintenance: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) 4. Are current copies of the contracted AMO s license and Operations Specifications held? 5. Are the AMO/AMO s ratings valid? CA MARCH 2017 Page 4 of 11

5 6. Does the AMO have sufficient personnel for supporting maintenance required by the Operator? Check for personnel ratings required for the type/types of aircraft maintained. 7. Are personnel involved in taxiing of aircraft and Starting of Engines adequately trained to carry out this function? 8. Who is authorized to release the Operator's aircraft when maintenance has been carried out away from the main base? 9. Is the Operator s maintenance and inspection functions accomplished in accordance with the Operator s MCM? 10. Does the Operator or contracted AMO have a system in place to track all life limited items and continued airworthiness data such as recurrent ADs and SBs? 11. Is this system or method effective? 12. Does the Operator or contracted AMO have access to the manufacturer s airworthiness data such as AMM, WD, SRM, CMM, OHM etc? Check if subscription is current with the manufacturer. 13. Is the Maintenance Organisation maintaining the Operator s aircraft in accordance with the approved maintenance schedule or Approved Phase programme? Review two major check and three to four minor check work packs. 14. Does the AMO contain the latest scope of work, and does the organisation limit itself to the approved scope of work? 15. Does the Organisation comply with all the procedures for the completion of records? (CAR (b)) 16. Can all work performed be traced to the person doing the work? 17. Does the system allow for an Inspector to counter sign upon completion of the work performed? 18. Is reference to the manuals used entered on all maintenance work sheets? 19. Are the inspection checklists used in compliance with requirements? 20. Review some of the aircraft log books available in the AMO. Are log books filled in completely and correctly? 21. Review some of the CRMAs issued during the past year. 22. Do these meet the requirements of CAR Part 43? 23. Does the Operator or contracted AMO comply with the service information reporting requirements to the aircraft manufacturer and to the DCA? 24. Does the Operator comply with the requirements for record completion and retention of the maintenance records? 25. Does the Operator or maintenance provider have the latest incidences/accidences reports? Has the Operator reported all incidents and accidents? 26. Does the AMO have all the special tools required for the scope of work SACAA CARs ? 27. Does the organisation have tools that are properly calibrated, easily identifiable and safely kept for future use? 28. Does the organisation have storage facilities to store the components and spares removed during maintenance? 29. Does the organisation have adequate spare parts to support the complexity of the operation? F. PARTS POOL AGREEMENT AUTHORIZATIONS YES NO N/A Note No. 1. Is there an approved system for parts pooling? 2. Does the organisation have the list of all the agreement participants? 3. Is there a system of monitoring and recording the movement of the spares from user to user, and the routing of the spares back to stores? CA MARCH 2017 Page 5 of 11

6 4. Was there surveillance carried out on foreign Operators involved in the parts pool agreement, to establish full compliance to SACAA CATS ? 5. Do these organisations hold meetings to discuss any arising issues? 6. Is there a system of tracing the life history of components in the pool holding? G. DE-ICING AND ANTI-ICING (Checklist CA to be used) YES NO N/A Note No. 1. Does the Operator have an accepted procedure and policy for de-icing and anti-icing or an inspection program that ensures that aircraft are free of any accumulation of frost/ice/snow before takeoff? 2. Does the Operator have an in-house de-icing and Anti Icing capability? 3. Check if there is training conducted by Personnel responsible for De-icing and Anti-Icing. 4. Does the Operator have access to or know the ATC plan for winter and other relevant times whereby operations are conducted within adverse weather conditions? 5. Does the program indicate communication lines between air and ground crew? 6. Aerodrome facilities: Contractual agreements in place with the Operator? 7. Check for serviceability of De-Icing dispensing equipment and the storage of de-icing chemicals if applicable. 8. Type of chemicals used and are these aviation accepted? 9. Review previous de-icing and anti-icing records indicating deicing and anti-icing carried out by or on behalf of the Operator and are these records satisfactory? 10. Do the records identify the individual who carried out the deicing or anti-icing? 11. Was there an inspection on the aircraft prior the application of fluids? 12. Was there an inspection on the aircraft after the application of fluids? Checks required before dispatch? 13. How and when are special checks conducted to detect clear ice, which is difficult to detect? H. MASS AND BALANCE YES NO N/A Note No. 1. Has the Operator appointed a responsible person for the monitoring of the mass and balance compliance, especially if delegated to a separate maintenance provider? 2. Are employees involved in cargo loading trained, authorized, and qualified? 3. Are scales used to weigh passengers, aircraft and cargo calibrated and traceable to a National Standard or any equivalent standard acceptable to the SACAA? 4. Review documentation and record retention. Are these acceptable? 5. Are the Operators Unit Load Devices (ULD certified to a Technical Standard Order (TSO), STC, production certificate or military standard? 6. Does the Operator have a program to maintain ULDs? Is the program in line with the ULD manufacturer s recommendations or procedures developed by the Operator and acceptable to the SACAA? I. MINIMUN EQUIPMENT LIST YES NO N/A Note No. 1. Does the Operator hold an approved Minimum Equipment List? CA MARCH 2017 Page 6 of 11

7 2. Is the approved MEL at the latest revision status as per the MMEL and DDPM? 3. Is there a system in place to get the latest revisions of the MMEL? 4. Has the Operator appointed a responsible person for monitoring and updating the Minimum Equipment List to be in line with the latest Master Minimum Equipment List and Dispatch Deviation Procedure Manual? 5. Does the Operator s training program incorporate cockpit crew members and maintenance personnel to continuously attend courses so as to keep updated on the MELs latest development? 6. Is the MEL Management Program effective? 7. Does the Operator ensure that unserviceable items affecting the airworthiness of an aircraft are recorded and rectified or deferred in accordance with the approved MEL? 8. What system is in place to ensure that defects recorded are rectified? If there were defects, was the aircraft dispatched in support of the approved data, such as MEL or Exemption? J. RELIABILITY PROGRAM YES NO N/A Note No. 1. Does the Operator have an approved reliability program? 2. Does the program indicate the responsibility of all the relevant functions? 3. Does the program have a documented DATA collection system, and is the verification of the data collected ensured to be of highest quality? 4. Does the data collection system cover all the different operational conditions?: unscheduled removals, confirmed failures, pilot s reports, sampling inspections, shop findings, and service difficulty reports? 5. Does the system have an analysis of the collected data, which can be used timely on possible failure? 6. Does the program have a performance standard, a point of measure for maximum tolerable unreliability? 7. Can the program support control for adjusting time limitations, justification of extensions and vice versa? REDUCED VERTICAL SEPARATION MINIMA (RVSM) AND K. MINIMUM NAVIGATION PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION (MNSP) 1. Does the Operator hold an approval for each aircraft operated in RVSM airspace as per the regulations? 2. Has the Operator appointed a responsible person for the monitoring of the RVSM and MNPS compliance? 3. Can the Operator show proof of compliance with the height monitoring requirements and is there a height monitoring schedule in place? Is the airframe hours and calendar time recorded and tracked since the last successful height monitoring? Check that operator height monitoring records match those of the ARMA. 4. Are personnel involved in maintenance adequately trained on the systems maintenance? 5. Does the Organisation / Maintenance provider have the latest incident and accident reports which could have been attributed to the failure of the above mentioned systems? 6. Has the Operator carried out all the necessary maintenance checks to verify that the the aircraft and certain critical items are still within RVSM limits? YES NO N/A Note No. L. ETOPS YES NO N/A Note No. CA MARCH 2017 Page 7 of 11

8 1. Does the Operator have ETOPS approval for each aircraft operated on ETOPS flights? 2. Does the Operator have an approved ETOPS Manual? 3. Do the approved AMS contain the standards, guidance, and direction necessary to support ETOPS? 4. What provisions are made to ensure that the knowledge, skills and ability of personnel to accomplish the ETOPS maintenance requirements are met? 5. Does the Operator have a developed ETOPS service check to verify that the status of an aircraft and certain critical items are acceptable? 6. Does the Operator ensure that parts fitted to ETOPS aircraft; either in terms of parts borrowing or pooling arrangements or during repair or overhaul, maintain the necessary ETOPS configuration for that aircraft? M. FLIGHT RECORDERS YES NO N/A Note No. 1. Are all aircraft involved in commercial operations equipped with appropriate Flight Recorders as per CAR Part , , and ? 2. Has the Operator carried out FDR downloads as prescribed by the regulations? 3. Does the Operator maintain up-to-date and sufficient documentation concerning FDR parameter allocation, conversion equations, periodic calibration and other records such as FDR downloads? CA MARCH 2017 Page 8 of 11

9 A/C Registration Number AMO Responsible for Maintenance C of A CRS Radio License Engine emission Noise Certificate FDR download AFM Revision status Mass & Balance Data Flight folio RVSM Height monitoring CA SEPTEMBER 2015 Page 9 of 11

10 DEBRIEF ATTENDANCE REGISTER AUDIT DEBRIEF REGISTER Note: The audit debriefing is based on the outcome of the audit that will be detailed on the preliminary audit report issued at the conclusion of this audit. The final audit report will follow. Aircraft Maintenance Organization Representatives Operator Representatives SACAA Audit Team SIGNATURE OF OPERATOR NAME IN BLOCK LETTERS DATE REPRESENTATIVE I was de-briefed on the inspection/audit, have read and accept*/do not accept* the findings and observations of the Airworthiness Inspector/s and have received a copy of the report.*delete which is not applicable SIGNATURE OF AIRWORTHINESS INSPECTOR NAME IN BLOCK LETTERS AUDITOR S FEED-BACK DATE 1. Were the audit arrangements acceptable? YES NO Suggestions: 2. Was adequate time allowed for the audit? YES NO Suggestions CA MARCH 2017 Page 10 of 11

11 3. Has any information been gathered that should be shared with your colleagues? YES NO 4. Has any action item been identified for follow up by the Auditor? YES NO 5. Notes for next year s Audit Team: CA MARCH 2017 Page 11 of 11