Interpretation problems
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: North
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interpretation problems
i give up! 
Could you please help with interpretation of following IOSA requirement?
FLT 1.11.3 The Operator should have a process to ensure data or products acquired from external suppliers (other than electronic navigation data products, as specified in FLT 1.11.4), which directly affect the safety of flight operations, meet required technical specifications prior to being utilised in the conduct of operations.
What can be considered as data or products from external suppliers? To me it seems it can be basically everything not produced in house - NOTAM, Meteo info, Flight plan data (waypoints etc.), takeoff performance calculation data and some more I guess...
and how detailed it should be described or it might be enough with few statements in OM ? how did you solve this? (I hope somebody did! )
Could you please help with interpretation of following IOSA requirement?FLT 1.11.3 The Operator should have a process to ensure data or products acquired from external suppliers (other than electronic navigation data products, as specified in FLT 1.11.4), which directly affect the safety of flight operations, meet required technical specifications prior to being utilised in the conduct of operations.
What can be considered as data or products from external suppliers? To me it seems it can be basically everything not produced in house - NOTAM, Meteo info, Flight plan data (waypoints etc.), takeoff performance calculation data and some more I guess...
and how detailed it should be described or it might be enough with few statements in OM ? how did you solve this? (I hope somebody did! )
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DA-10mm, I wonder what does IOSA have to do with JAR or the JAA?
IOSA stands for IATA Operational Safety Audit ...
Sorry I can't help with the original question.
IOSA stands for IATA Operational Safety Audit ...
Sorry I can't help with the original question.
IOSA Interpretation
I have only ever been involved with the maintenance aspects of an IOSA audit, but I would consider the following:
From the IOSA Standards Manual (Introduction)
Outsourced Functions
Where an operator has chosen to outsource operational functions specified in IOSA provisions to external service providers, conformity with those provisions will be based on evidence provided by the operator that demonstrates acceptable processes are in place (i.e., documented and implemented) for monitoring such external service providers to ensure fulfilment of all requirements affecting the safety and security of operations. Auditing is recommended as an effective method for such monitoring of external service providers.
From Guidance Material
Guidance FLT 1.11.3
The purpose of such monitoring and control is to ensure databases and other internal and external sources of operational data provided for the support of flight operations are current, accurate and complete.
Based on the above, provided you ensure your suppliers have acceptable quality control systems in place and you periodically audit them, I would consider that you were compliant; although you would obviously need to document that.
Also note: this is a Recommended Practice, not a Standard; so even if you are non-compliant it will only generate an Observation, that you may chose to respond to or not, rather than a ‘Finding’ - see IOSA Standards Manual introduction.
From the IOSA Standards Manual (Introduction)
Outsourced Functions
Where an operator has chosen to outsource operational functions specified in IOSA provisions to external service providers, conformity with those provisions will be based on evidence provided by the operator that demonstrates acceptable processes are in place (i.e., documented and implemented) for monitoring such external service providers to ensure fulfilment of all requirements affecting the safety and security of operations. Auditing is recommended as an effective method for such monitoring of external service providers.
From Guidance Material
Guidance FLT 1.11.3
The purpose of such monitoring and control is to ensure databases and other internal and external sources of operational data provided for the support of flight operations are current, accurate and complete.
Based on the above, provided you ensure your suppliers have acceptable quality control systems in place and you periodically audit them, I would consider that you were compliant; although you would obviously need to document that.
Also note: this is a Recommended Practice, not a Standard; so even if you are non-compliant it will only generate an Observation, that you may chose to respond to or not, rather than a ‘Finding’ - see IOSA Standards Manual introduction.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: North
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you QA1!
Is it enough to describe Auditing as a process to control data or products from external suppliers or should there be regular monitoring/control of data/products from suppliers? like, when updated database (obstacle db for performance calc. or navigation data for flight planning system etc.) is received, it is somehow ensured that the db are current, accurate and complete?
Is it enough to describe Auditing as a process to control data or products from external suppliers or should there be regular monitoring/control of data/products from suppliers? like, when updated database (obstacle db for performance calc. or navigation data for flight planning system etc.) is received, it is somehow ensured that the db are current, accurate and complete?
Last edited by Icar; 9th Nov 2009 at 14:39.
Nav Data Certification
If you are compliant with EU-OPS, your procedures should already cover this - OPS 1.873 refer.
As there is no official guidance material for EU-OPS the CAA recommend using TGL 44, which includes ACJ OPS 1.873.
You should also read EASA decision: 01/2005 which includes two documents:
LETTERS OF ACCEPTANCE FOR NAVIGATION DATABASE SUPPLIERS and
NAVIGATION DATABASE SUPPLIERS COMPLIANCE CHECK LIST
The above documents should give you a good understanding of what is expected.
I now know more about Nav Database supplier’s certification than I ever wanted to know – I must get out more.
As there is no official guidance material for EU-OPS the CAA recommend using TGL 44, which includes ACJ OPS 1.873.
You should also read EASA decision: 01/2005 which includes two documents:
LETTERS OF ACCEPTANCE FOR NAVIGATION DATABASE SUPPLIERS and
NAVIGATION DATABASE SUPPLIERS COMPLIANCE CHECK LIST
The above documents should give you a good understanding of what is expected.
I now know more about Nav Database supplier’s certification than I ever wanted to know – I must get out more.
