Deep Inside CAR 573

Someone in your shop definitely needs to know “the regs” if the plan is to sub-contract work this year.  Yes, there are TC rules for that, and yes, they can be confusing. But Norm Chalmers is here with translations.

I am writing this in late December, but by the time you get this, the Christmas and New Year holiday period will be a distant memory. I hope that you, our treasured readers, have had a safe holiday and are reading this in good health.

Speaking of the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs), here we go again. Let’s talk about subbing out work by Approved Maintenance Organizations (AMOs). CAR 573, which governs the operation of AMOs, allows the AMO to consign work to other AMOs.  This consignment of work is often referred to as “contracting out” or “sub-contracting” even though there is no written contract other than a purchase order and often a quote approval record. The CAR also allows consignment of work to be performed by non-AMO organizations, and therein lays the problem we explore here. As an AMO subbing out work, you will need to consider many kinds of requirements. To begin, we look at the CAR 573 and Transport Canada Approved Standard (STD) 573 requirements.

Regarding your AMO’s TC approved manual, STD 573.10-(1), paragraph (v) requires that your Maintenance Control Manual/Maintenance Policy Manual (MCM/MPM) contain this:

Details of the procedures used to approve maintenance arrangements entered into pursuant to section 573.11 of the CARs, and a list of all such arrangements. Where such maintenance arrangements are made, the information provided in the MPM shall include details concerning the assignment of responsibilities for the certification of the work performed, and for the extension of the AMO quality system to address work performed under the arrangement. Where no such arrangements exist no approval procedures are required.

You must specify how you deal with the certification of the work. I usually recommend that companies require a Form One. It also requires you to specify how you extend your quality system to include your non-AMO suppliers. TC has largely ignored this topic in the past, providing little guidance material.

Regarding who you may send work to, CAR 573.11 (1) states: Except as provided in subsection (2), no approved maintenance organization (AMO) certificate holder shall permit an external agent to perform maintenance on its behalf unless . . .

This goes on to establish that paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) are complied with. Those three paragraphs relate to “approved” companies and don’t relate to this issue.

Regarding the sending of work to the non-AMO, CAR 573.11(2) states: Subject to subsection (4), an AMO certificate holder may permit work to be performed by an external agent other than an agent described in subsection (1) where the work is performed in accordance with an arrangement that provides for it, under the direct supervision of the person appointed pursuant to Section 573.03 or 573.04 and certified by persons authorized to do so in accordance with the approved procedures set out in the AMO’s Maintenance Policy Manual (MPM).

This is for work done by non-AMOs and requires that your PRM directly supervise the work. It then goes on to require that your Aircraft Certification Authority (ACA) or Shop Certification Authority (SCA) personnel certify the work.

Regarding how you manage usage of non-AMOs we go to CAR 573.11(3) which states: Arrangements respecting work to be performed by external agents pursuant to subsection (2) shall be made in accordance with procedures governing maintenance arrangements set out in the MPM or, if no such procedures are set out in the MPM, shall be approved by the Minister as ensuring conformity with the requirements of this Subpart.

This is the regulation that mandates compliance with the STD 573 and with your MPM (or MCM). Regarding how you manage each job sent out to the non-AMO we go to CAR 573.11(4) that states: An AMO certificate holder that requests an external agent to perform work shall:
(a) where the work is to be performed pursuant to subsection (1) or (2), be responsible for specifying the tasks to be performed by the agent and ensuring completion of the work; and
(b) where the work is to be performed pursuant to subsection (2), be responsible for ensuring the conformity of that work with the requirements of Subpart 71.

Paragraph (a) above requires your certificate holder to record the work requested, regardless of where or to whom you send the product to get the work done. Paragraph (b) above requires that your certificate holder ensure compliance with all of CAR 571, which is a lot of stuff, including calibration of measuring devices, i.e., gauges.

We read in STD 573.11 (2) Where an AMO certificate holder requests that an external agent perform work, the AMO is responsible for specifying the tasks to be performed, and, in addition, when that external agent is not the holder of an AMO certificate, or a foreign equivalent, the AMO is also responsible for the completion and certification of the work under Subpart 571 of the CARs.

This standard reiterates CAR 573.11(4), emphasizing the responsibility for certification of the work.
Continuing on in STD 573.11 paragraph (3): For the purposes of this section where an AMO has a maintenance arrangement for the performance of work with an organization other than an AMO, “direct supervision” means that the person from the AMO tasked with certifying the work personally ensures compliance with section 571.11 of the CARs.

In conjunction with STD 573.11(3), we must read the regulation as follows: CAR 571.11 Persons Who May Sign a Maintenance Release
(6) If a maintenance release is signed by a person in respect of work performed by another person, the person signing the maintenance release must personally observe the work to the extent necessary to ensure that it is performed in accordance with the requirements of any applicable standards of airworthiness and, specifically, the requirements of sections  571.02 and  571.10.

The STD 573.11 and the CAR 573.11 together require the ACA or SCA from your AMO to (and I repeat the quotation for emphasis) “personally observe the work to the extent necessary…” The term “to the extent necessary” has been a conundrum of long standing without a satisfactory resolution. This does require that some level of personal observation of the work be accomplished. TC has not provided any guidance regarding the extent of that personal observation. It could be interpreted as meaning whatever personal observation has been required to detect or prevent errors that are otherwise undetectable. They might be discovered through the failure of the part, engine or aircraft in service. In the event of an in-service failure, you will know that the extent of the personal observation of the work was not sufficient. Until then, it seems to have been OK.

To summarize this, the regulations and standards support the supposition that you are managing these non-AMOs as extensions of your own AMO. All the measuring equipment involved in your work is calibrated. All the personnel doing work for you have been trained as per your MPM/MCM, including human factors training.

Now for something completely different. Last issue, I gave you an update on a TC legal action against Mr. B. who was fined. He appealed the fine against him in the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada (TATC). That decision has now been posted on the TATC internet site at: www.tatc.gc.ca/decision/decision.php?&lang=eng

TC lists their administrative enforcement actions for both private and commercial people and companies at this URL: www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/standards/standards-enforcement-publications-menu-2963.htm

If you are, or have been, on the receiving end of a TC enforcement action, I encourage you to visit these sites. The list of corporate offenders shows the names of the companies and one sentence statement of the allegation. These statements give almost no information. One such statement goes like this: “The Company failed to comply with the policies and procedures contained in its Maintenance Control Manual.” This one showed a fine of $3,500.  If you believe that you have been unfairly charged and punished, appeal to the TATC — a member may agree with you. The TATC often agrees with the appellant to some degree and eliminates or reduces the penalty.

The cryptic statements of allegation given by TC on its website normally give no detailed or useful information regarding what the company did, which may have been something minor. Examples of totally unnecessary stuff that I usually see included in MPMs and MCMs are the job descriptions. If some clerical function is specified in your manual and it is not done, or has been done by another person, then you are open to being charged and fined. Another example is the inclusion of form numbers for the procedural forms being used.

Whatever the actual offence, if you are charged, you ought to consider exercising your right to appeal as stated on the TC Notification form. You do not need a lawyer. Most of the information you need is on the Notice form that TC gives you and on the TATC web site given above.

The above quoted charge against the company includes the words “failed to comply with the policies and procedures.”  Referring to CAR 573.10 (2)(a), the CARs allow you to reduce your MPM and/or MCM contents to include only your policies on what actions you take to comply with the CAR and STD 573.10. Having a separate procedures manual does not relieve you of compliance when those procedures and other documents are referred to in your MPM/MCM.

If you do receive one of these TC enforcement actions and do decide to appeal it, TC often does not fully comply with your request for disclosure of information. You can get this information by applying to the federal government Access to Information and Privacy Office. Visit the following Department Of Justice site to find and submit both applications (the Access to Information Request Form and the Personal Information Request Form):
http://justice.gc.ca/eng/trans/atip-aiprp/

You may be surprised by what you read. After scanning the TATC files, I note that there are few, if any, appeals of TC enforcement actions for non-compliance with MPM/MCM requirements. The minister has little or no useful guidance material available to airworthiness inspectors in either the approval of MPM/MCM documents or in the area of making value decisions regarding enforcements. The philosophy governing TC is that Civil Aviation Safety Inspector (CASI) will learn through on-the-job training.  Note that the trainers also have had no training. That is another example of the disconnect between the Tower and the reality of life.

With the tunnel vision displayed by the Tower, SMS is creeping along, but the rest of the TC infrastructure is stagnating and is gradually being turned over to professional bureaucrats who are usually amateurs in all aviation matters except fastening their seat belts as instructed.

Speaking of stagnating, at the time of writing this column, the minister advises us about CARs amendments at this site: www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/regserv/cars/menu.htm, “There was no scheduled amendment for December 2012 (2012-2). The next amendment is planned for the end of 2013 (2013-1).”

I might take pleasure in advising the minister that time marches on. However, I realize that the minister does not read, understand or care about this stuff. Transportation regulations seldom or never get onto the political agenda and are being managed by the abecedarian bureaucrats dropped into TC from unrelated fields. As in The Tower on the Thames, many of our civil servants aspire to the position of Royal Executioner (just joking).

Now that we are clear on everything, I think that’s enough for this issue. Take care and be good.

Please be aware that I am not a lawyer or legal expert. What I write in my column is not legal advice or legal opinion. If you face a legal issue, you must get specific legal advice from a lawyer and preferably one with experience in the aviation matters in your own country.