{"id":1205,"date":"2013-02-01T12:13:41","date_gmt":"2013-02-01T20:13:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/amumagazine.com\/?p=1205"},"modified":"2013-03-06T12:24:58","modified_gmt":"2013-03-06T20:24:58","slug":"the-regs-acronyms-initialisms","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/amumagazine.com\/?p=1205","title":{"rendered":"The Regs: Acronyms & Initialisms"},"content":{"rendered":"

Occasionally<\/strong>, I discuss the lack of interest that Aircraft Maintenance Engineers (AME) have outside their own little world of work. This general lack of interest has led to the cancellation of the Pacific AME Association 2013 Symposium and has the potential of leading to the demise of the association. This may be a telltale of the future for other professional aviation maintenance associations, many of which are experiencing dwindling memberships.<\/p>\n

\u201cAMU\u201d is an initialism. You will see, in each column, I clarify what each initialism and acronym means before I go on. This is because some readers are new to AMU and some others may be new to aviation.<\/p>\n

In each issue of this column I depend on the readers\u2019 background knowledge. Some readers do not have the familiarity with my topics necessary to totally understand what I have written. Here I will try to clarify some of the basics before I get involved in the topic at hand. My problem is that I can\u2019t repeat all of this background information in every issue. I depend on you to either have read my previous columns or go to helpful back issues that I will refer to regularly when applicable. In each article I tackle specific issues but also provide some basic regulatory interpretations. If you find that there are gaps, errors or contradictions in this column, please contact me here at Air Maintenance Update (AMU) Magazine. At the same time, I encourage you to discuss my column with your co-workers to improve everybody\u2019s understanding of the subjects and pool your knowledge.<\/p>\n

Most of us have used the acronym \u201cCARs\u201d to refer to a variety of Transport Canada (TC) aviation requirements. These range from the Aeronautics Act down through the Aviation Regulations and Standards to various advisory documents that TC produces. That usage is technically wrong. For the purposes of this column, I use \u201cCAR\u201d to signify the regulatory sub-part, which is the actual regulation. I use \u201cstandard\u201d for the tag-along requirement that the CAR often refers to. On TC\u2019s website you will see that some of these documents are termed \u201cChapter\u201d such as Chapter 566. That is an enduring name that refers to the chapters of the Airworthiness Manual that was first conceived in the 1980s. As you see on that website, the standards and chapters are all listed under the heading \u201cstandards\u201d, and that\u2019s what I call them.<\/p>\n

Within the 500 series, I specify \u201cCAR\u201d and \u201cStandard\u201d because they share the same numbering system. I state CAR 571 and Standard 571. In the other series I often just use the number because the numbering system differentiates between them. The Standard for \u201cCAR 706\u201d is \u201cStandard 726\u201d.<\/p>\n

With that all clear, we move on to my rant. This month I look to the Vancouver Island community of Courtney for inspiration. I thank David Nilson, the cogitative and inventive proprietor of International Aeroproducts Inc., for his perceptive analysis. David has verbally elucidated some commonly held opinions regarding the directions taken by TC in the last couple of decades. Below we reproduce David\u2019s letter in italics with my comments inserted in plain text.<\/p>\n

\u201cBureaucracies contain two types of people, according to author Jerry Pournelle, who penned the \u201cIron Law of Bureaucracy\u201d. To summarize: Organizations have two groups of people within them. Group One is devoted to the goals of an organization and Group Two is devoted to the organization, while the organization is always controlled by Group Two. Applying this Iron Law to TCCA, it seems that Group Two controls TCCA while the Group One people are now a species at risk.<\/p>\n

The actual numbers of personnel in Transport Canada doing the actual job of safety inspection is difficult to determine since TC \u201creorganized\u201d itself and mutilated its website. The number of airworthiness inspectors on the ground in Pacific Region is about 30. Extrapolate that to the rest of Canada, with five regions, and we get a total of about a 150 airworthiness inspectors. If we take that number and triple it to include the other specialized inspectors, we get 450.<\/p>\n

According to the Auditor General\u2019s (AG) 2012 report, \u201cTransport Canada has about 1,400 employees working in civil aviation\u201d. That gives us 450 people in David\u2019s group one and 950 in group two. Each TC inspector that you meet at work has more than two people managing what she or he does. As indicated in the AG\u2019s audit of TC, inspectors are going to be replaced by \u201csystems evaluators\u201d whatever they are. Now do you feel any better about your job? For more on that, go to the internet and search \u201cTransport Canada admits to shortage\u201d. Observe the TC obfuscation regarding staffing. Are those vacancies in group one or group two. I ask, \u201cWhere are the job advertisements?\u201d<\/p>\n

SMS, a Group Two style of concept, is a beautiful and almost elegant thought that by definition adds an extra layer of bureaucracy that is intended to create a more comprehensive, robust and demanding regulatory framework. Some would say it adds an extra layer of safety, but that language would be one of sales and marketing, and would need to be backed up with data and proof to be used accurately in a title.<\/p>\n

Those \u201csome\u201d that David refers to as spouting the \u201cadditional layer\u201d party line include the TC management at the39th Parliament, 2nd Session Standing Committee on Public Accounts.<\/p>\n

For the longest time, SMS had been lingering around the corner, inspectors warning us of the impending regulation. We attended informative sessions and training seminars in preparation. Of course, no additional regulations would purport to add risk, complexity, inefficiency or cost but it is certain that it will increase the bureaucratic burden, for which I have seen no risk analysis. Someday soon we will completely self-audit our management of safety and quality systems. TC representatives will be nothing more than people ensuring that we have completed audits. Soon they will not need to visit and may subcontract audits to private organizations in time, or we may email TC our audit results and the culture that we know will have been completely dismantled. When the SMS proves to be successful, I propose we create an ethics management system for government through which they can self-audit their ethical conduct and that closed loop EMS will ensure efficiency and good behaviour in perpetuity. The RCMP investigates its own transgressions, albeit poorly, and I am not surprised that this methodology is spreading. It has huge upside for the organization.<\/p>\n

The federal government and TC already have an \u201cEthics Management System\u201d, but it has been found dysfunctional, as seen in the news out of Ottawa last year.<\/p>\n

Poor Group One at TC does not appear very enthusiastic about the SMS, and seems more worried, and rightly so, about their job security. While we witness this evolution of Transport Canada from a hands-on culture of knowledge-sharing to a culture wherein they promote methods designed to avoid connections to industry and litigation, it is our responsibility to try to maintain our industry to the best of our abilities without falling victim to cynicism and general malaise.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The evidence supports this with TC\u2019s gradual withdrawal from their audit and inspection activities. In the past, people have successfully sued TC for allowing errant aviation companies to continue in business until family members were killed in crashes. In the future, that will be less likely. See my note below about the TC inspectors becoming \u201csystems evaluators\u201d.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Maybe this is the best direction. Maybe it is time we minimized government influence and simply had them provide auditors and regulations while industry did all the rest. This is certainly the beginning of the end of an era that has witnessed consistently improved safety trends over the decades.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cImproved safety trends\u201d is the regularly stated assertion of TC. That is seldom stated in the proper context. Each time I hear TC senior management say that safety in Canada continues to improve due to SMS, to this claim I point out that most of the world has the same improved safety trend without SMS.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Let\u2019s hope this change affects safety positively because without adequate risk analysis we only have data and trends representing human lives to reference.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u2014 David Nilson AME<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Data and trends get public attention and motivate politicians. It will be many years before those SMS \u201cdata and trends\u201d show themselves. \u201cSafety\u201d is gradually being purged from the TC minister\u2019s vocabulary. Like it or not, the public citizenry have put aviation safety near the bottom of the priority list.
\nAs an addendum to this, the AG\u2019s report states that those 1,400 employees \u201crepresent one-quarter of the department\u2019s workforce, giving 5,600 employees total.\u201d It goes on to state \u201cIn 2010\u201311, Transport Canada spent approximately $148 million on civil aviation.\u201d The simple calculation $148 million divided by 5,600 employees shows spending of about $26,500 per year per employee. Does that include rent and pencils? Show me the line up for those jobs. The report goes on to describe the roles of inspectors as \u201cauditors\u201d and ignores the multitude of other regulatory tasks they do. In my view, these AG audits have not been thorough or accurate examinations of TC aviation oversight operations.<\/p>\n

That report goes on to state that under the SMS approach, \u201cInspectors are system evaluators. As necessary, they may conduct traditional audits.\u201d TC does Program Validations and Program Validation Inspections (PVI). There are no more in-depth audits to be wary of. The inspectors may spend four days in your company doing a PVI and two weeks in the TC office doing the paperwork.<\/p>\n

Now for something completely different. The following is to help clarify the implications of aircraft \u201cpossession\u201d.<\/p>\n

As an AMO or AME, you might think that the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CAR) that apply to you are limited to Part V (that\u2019s Part 5 for us non-Romans), Subpart 571 Aircraft Maintenance Requirements and Subpart 573 Approved Maintenance Organizations. That is not entirely correct. My topic relates to aircraft ownership and who is responsible for what.<\/p>\n

To begin, we examine CAR 101. As I stated in AMU February\/March Volume 10 Issue 5, this is one of the all-encompassing regulations. It sets down interpretations that are applicable in all the other CARs unless specifically stated in a particular regulation. Here are some definitions in CAR 101 that you need to know about:
\n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u201cowner\u201d \u2013 in respect of an aircraft, means the person who has legal custody and control of the aircraft; (propri\u00e9taire).
\n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u201coperator\u201d \u2013 in respect of an aircraft, means the person who has possession of the aircraft as owner, lessee or otherwise; (utilisateur).<\/p>\n

Aeronautics Act defines the \u201cregistered owner\u201d as \u201cin respect of an aircraft, means the person to whom a certificate of registration for the aircraft has been issued by the minister under Part I or in respect of whom the aircraft has been registered by the minister under that Part I\u201d. The act further refers to the owner and the operator separately in other sections. Thus,\u00a0 we seem to have levels of aircraft possession:
\n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0OWNER – has \u201clegal custody and control of the aircraft\u201d, with emphasis on the word \u201clegal\u201d
\n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0OPERATOR \u2013 has possession of the aircraft as owner, lessee or otherwise (note the \u201cor otherwise\u201d) has custody and control\u201d.
\n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0REGISTERED OWNER \u2013 has name on the Certificate of Registration
\n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0LEGAL TITLE HOLDER \u2013 the lessor in a lease arrangement or the person who has the money in it.
\n605.06(a) states: \u201cNo person shall conduct a take-off in an aircraft or permit another person to conduct a take-off in an aircraft in their custody and control unless the aircraft equipment required by these regulations . . . etc.\u201d It does not refer to the owner. It specifies \u201ccustody and control\u201d as opposed to \u201clegal custody and control\u201d.<\/p>\n

Normally, an owner gives a maintainer physical custody and control of an aircraft in order for the maintainer to perform all required maintenance and, if the need arises, test flights. In that case, the maintainer will be the operator. This information is part of the base of a general understanding of the CARs.<\/p>\n

Next issue, we will examine the \u201cBasis of Certification\u201d and the \u201cType Certificate Data Sheet\u201d. Until then, remember \u201cDuty of Care.\u201d<\/p>\n

On that uplifting thought, I leave you with my final and inevitable but important paragraph.<\/p>\n

Please be aware that I am not a lawyer. My column is neither legal advice nor legal opinion. If you face a legal issue, you must get specific advice from a lawyer \u2013 one with experience in the aviation matters in your own country.<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Occasionally, I discuss the lack of interest that Aircraft Maintenance Engineers (AME) have outside their own little world of work. This general lack of interest has led to the cancellation of the Pacific AME Association 2013 Symposium and has the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":1563,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1,103,6,13,7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1205","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-articles","category-11-05","category-issues","category-the-regs","category-volume-11"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/amumagazine.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1205","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/amumagazine.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/amumagazine.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amumagazine.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amumagazine.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1205"}],"version-history":[{"count":11,"href":"https:\/\/amumagazine.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1205\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1564,"href":"https:\/\/amumagazine.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1205\/revisions\/1564"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amumagazine.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/1563"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/amumagazine.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1205"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amumagazine.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1205"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amumagazine.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1205"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}