Auditing in the Continuing Airworthiness & Maintenance Environment
Pilots' Pal
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: USA
Age: 63
Posts: 1,158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Auditing in the Continuing Airworthiness & Maintenance Environment
Chaps & Chapesses,
Several auditing scenarios (I wear several hats).
Scenario 1:
In my capacity as Deputy Quality Manager for an AMO in the east, I often have to host customers' auditors. No probs but I'm surprised at how many audit us against the regulations rather than any contract in place. Fair enough to refer to in-house procedures as well as the contract reference for findings but many look amazed (or fazed) when I suggest we're already approved under the regulation so don't need an audit with a checklist copied from Part 145 (Form 6) or its equivalent(s).
Scenario 2:
I conduct various audits under Part M and Part 145. The former takes me to maintenance providers but often the CAMO's aircraft is not under maintenance or at the facility. Given that one is auditing to contract of which maintenance standards is part (and encompasses the AMO's procedures), I think it fair to sample any aircraft maintenance process and other MOE & procedures related to them (including facilities, tooling, records etc, etc). In fact, I've observed regulators' auditors doing the same when an aircraft under their jurisdiction is not available. During one recent audit, the auditee (politely) objected.
Any comments?
Several auditing scenarios (I wear several hats).
Scenario 1:
In my capacity as Deputy Quality Manager for an AMO in the east, I often have to host customers' auditors. No probs but I'm surprised at how many audit us against the regulations rather than any contract in place. Fair enough to refer to in-house procedures as well as the contract reference for findings but many look amazed (or fazed) when I suggest we're already approved under the regulation so don't need an audit with a checklist copied from Part 145 (Form 6) or its equivalent(s).
Scenario 2:
I conduct various audits under Part M and Part 145. The former takes me to maintenance providers but often the CAMO's aircraft is not under maintenance or at the facility. Given that one is auditing to contract of which maintenance standards is part (and encompasses the AMO's procedures), I think it fair to sample any aircraft maintenance process and other MOE & procedures related to them (including facilities, tooling, records etc, etc). In fact, I've observed regulators' auditors doing the same when an aircraft under their jurisdiction is not available. During one recent audit, the auditee (politely) objected.
Any comments?
"You have every right to audit any aspect of your maintenance organisation in their dealings with your aircraft but you have no right to intrude in their dealings with their other customers.
In my opinion. "
Absolutely correct - the contract is between two parties and your auditing remit is only within your contract - and for your aircraft alone.
You may audit any of your aircraft at the facility or the facility itself, but not other aircraft at the facility. Besides which, the other aircraft may have "special needs and considerations" that are not covered by your contract/specification and may cause YOU some confusion.
In my opinion. "
Absolutely correct - the contract is between two parties and your auditing remit is only within your contract - and for your aircraft alone.
You may audit any of your aircraft at the facility or the facility itself, but not other aircraft at the facility. Besides which, the other aircraft may have "special needs and considerations" that are not covered by your contract/specification and may cause YOU some confusion.
Pilots' Pal
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: USA
Age: 63
Posts: 1,158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you.
I stress I'm not suggesting one enters another customer's aircraft.
If your replies reflect correct protocol, an awful lot of auditors - including regulators - are doing it wrong. Are you suggesting we cannot audit facilities, stores, staff records & qualifications, shelf-life control, quarantine, tools, workshops and equipment that are common to maintenance activities on all aircraft?
I stress I'm not suggesting one enters another customer's aircraft.
If your replies reflect correct protocol, an awful lot of auditors - including regulators - are doing it wrong. Are you suggesting we cannot audit facilities, stores, staff records & qualifications, shelf-life control, quarantine, tools, workshops and equipment that are common to maintenance activities on all aircraft?
Last edited by Bus429; 26th Sep 2011 at 01:50.
Pilots' Pal
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: USA
Age: 63
Posts: 1,158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once again, thanks and your latest post, ASFKAP has many good points. I did an informal poll at the office and frankly opinion is divided.
Related to this, I was audited by a customer last week who saw an internal memo I'd put on my cork board relating to concessions for training that was due. The auditor said it was fair game since it was on my board (I disagreed). Have to say that this auditor was quite good at picking up problems but knew nothing about the regulation that related to his aircraft (GACA granted on basis of EASA approval) and lacked a personable style and approach to people.
Related to this, I was audited by a customer last week who saw an internal memo I'd put on my cork board relating to concessions for training that was due. The auditor said it was fair game since it was on my board (I disagreed). Have to say that this auditor was quite good at picking up problems but knew nothing about the regulation that related to his aircraft (GACA granted on basis of EASA approval) and lacked a personable style and approach to people.
