Airworthiness & Safety Post Haddon-Cave
I decided to post a new thread in reply to one that disappeared
QuoteA and C
More paper, less inspection
I would take a guess that the end result of the MAA will be much more paperwork (& cost) and less real inspection of aircraft.
The result of EASA part M on the civil GA sector is that I have to spend much more time in the office pushing paper and so am only on the hangar floor when required rather than being able to have the time to take more of an overview of the work being carried out.
IMO this is a backward step as about 50% of the paper I deal with is not aircraft safety related , it is about people covering their six.
I would take an educated guess that if you talked to the guys who are fixing aircraft on a day to day basis you would get the same answer about the introduction of the MAA.
Isn't the role of a Part M organisation (CAMO) the monitoring, auditing and approvals of what the 145s do, so I would expect nothing less than what you say is causing you problems. As a CAMO you have access to numerous Quality monitoring processes, releasing you to make the paperwork intensive, but vital airworthiness decisions.
As tucumseh has pointed out the training and ability of those people in the PTs responsible for airworthiness decisions are the areas that need to be addressed asap.
Others have pointed out how its very scary making airworthiness decisions, but Accountable Managers in the civil sector make them daily, so what makes it so traumatic for those responsible in the PTs (as long as they have the appropriate training).
Communication between 145 organisations and 1st line (RAF / forward organisations) is where there is major potential for, or real problems, both in cultural approaches and normalisation (thats the way we have always done it)