Reconciling Organizational Privileges and Aviation Authority Responsibilities

1
Reconciling Organizational Privileges and
Aviation Authority Responsibilities

• Practical Challenges in Global SMS Implementation

2
Topics

• Formation of the Joint Cooperation Team on
  Approved Design Organizations
• Authority Updates on Approved Design Organization
  Programs
• EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA)
• TCCA Accredited Design Organization (ADO)
• FAA Certified Design Organization (CDO)
• Similarities and Differences
• Sample Joint Cooperation Team Issues
• SMS and Design Organizations
• Accountability Framework
• Authority Involvement
• Suppliers and Specialty Service Suppliers

3
Joint Cooperation Team on Approved Design
Organizations

• Chartered by the FAA/EASA/TCCA Certification
  Management Team (CMT) in November 2007
• Purpose To create a forum for sharing ideas and
  plans regarding development and expansion of each
  authorities approved design organization programs.

4
Scope

• Knowledge Sharing
• Understanding of each authoritys approach in
  developing and recognizing approved design
  organizations
• Identify similarities and differences
• Lessons learned
• Areas of Collaboration
• Areas where programs can be harmonized
• Areas where common terminology, guidance and
  regulatory language can be used

5
Scope (cont.)

• Global implications
• Impact of each authoritys approach on partner
  authorities
• Areas that will require international acceptance
  by partner authorities
• Share timelines and schedules

6
Authority Updates on Design Organization Programs
7
EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA) Program
8
The EASA DOA

• " qualified framework " for
• Aviation design
• Compliance demonstration with applicable
  requirements
• Discharge of responsibilities
• set the basis for
• EASA acceptance of statements
• Approvals, for certain cases

9
The EASA DOA

• In other terms
• Means to recognise the capability of a design
  organisation
• AND
• Foundation for the exercise of privileges

10
The EASA DOA
Qualified framework

• Organisation,
• with the necessary management
• allocation of responsibilities
• procedures
• and resources
• necessary for the accomplishment of the
  activities defined in the scope of DOA

11
The EASA DOA
Qualified framework

• AND...
• A system that monitors the performance of the
  organisation and ensures that the need for
  effective corrective action is identified and
  carried out.

12
The EASA DOA
13
The EASA DOA
PART
PART
PART
14
The EASA DOA

• EASA investigation to verify
• Compliance with all applicable Part 21
  requirements
• Adherence to approved system

15
The EASA DOA

• Implementation started before EASA (first DOA
  issued in 1996)
• Currently 235 organisations approved, including
• All TC Holders (exceptions for balloons, airships
  and sailplanes)
• STC Holders
• Companies with scope limited to minor changes or
  repairs
• Discussions for further development on-going

16
TCCA Accredited Design Organization (ADO) Program
17
TCCA Accredited Design Organization (ADO)

• Holders of Transport Canada issued operation
  certificates are required to implement a safety
  management system (SMS).
• SMS will be applicable to design organizations
  (year 2010).
• However, existing TCCA delegation system does not
  provide for
• integration of SMS into design activities
• the accreditation of design organization and
• clear aircraft certification accountability
  framework.

18
TCCA ADO ? operating certificate for design
organizations

• A distinct vehicle is needed to recognize design
  organizations knowledge and technical
  capabilities.
• Best approach is to build on existing expertise
  gained by 20 years of delegation principles
  while clarifying the roles and responsibilities
  of all stakeholders.
• Accreditation is believed to be the best tool
  to enable the introduction of a operating
  certificate for design organizations.

19
TCCA ADO What it means

• TCCA is building a system that will recognize the
  knowledge and technical capabilities of design
  organizations Accredited Design Organization
  (ADO).
• Fundamentally, any person may apply for a design
  approval provided the applicant meets knowledge
  and technical capability requirements which are
  function of design approval sought, category of
  aeronautical product and criticality or risk
  severity.

20
TCCA ADO the ABCs

• A ADO will
• make determinations of compliance for every
  applicable airworthiness requirements and
• issue a single declaration of compliance for the
  design approval sought.
• B TCCA will
• make a single finding of compliance
• conduct Project Surveillance through its Level of
  Involvement (LOI)
• conduct System Oversight through SMS
  implementation.
• C A design approval will be issued.

21
TCCA ADO some features

• ADO may use subcontractor(s) AND is 100
  responsible for all compliance determinations for
  the design approval sought.
• ADO must have a design assurance system.
• ADO will be scalable to fit an individual to
  small, medium, large design organizations.
• Intent is aligned with EASAs DOA and FAAs CDO.

22
TCCA ADO (the benefits)

• TCCAs level of confidence in design
  organizations holding an ADO certificate would
  provide for their declarations of compliance to
  be accepted by the Minister without further
  verification subject to appropriate TCCA
  surveillance.
• Project surveillance (LOI) and System Oversight
  (SMS)

23
FAA Certified Design Organization (CDO) Program
24
CDO Authorizing Statute

• U.S. Congress created the program in 2003 --
  Vision 100-Century of Aviation Reauthorization
  Act
• Allows FAA Administrator to rely on
  certifications of compliance by a CDO when making
  a finding to issue a type certificate
• FAA has proposed changes to extend implementation
  date from 2010 to 2013, and to encompass
  production

25
CDO Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC)

• Chartered in May 2005 for two year period
• Membership
• 15 from industry and industry associations
• 5 from FAA
• 1 from TCCA
• ARC was free to make any recommendations
  including those that might require additional
  statutory changes
• ARC report submitted to FAA last week
• Recommends CDO for TC, STC, PMA and TSOA holders
• Includes a proposed NPRM

26
Principles and Attributes

• Not a delegation certificate-based privileges
• Must be a design approval holder
• US must be State of Design
• CDO makes all determinations of compliance

27
Principles and Attributes (cont.)

• A CDO can extend its system into its suppliers
  allowing them to make compliance determinations
• CDO intended to encompass continued airworthiness
  of legacy products
• FAA relies on CDO statement of compliance when
  issuing a certificate or design approval

28
Principles and Attributes (cont.)

• Compliance by process rather than by the action
  of a few individuals at the end of a program
• CDO requires
• Compliance Assurance System
• Quality Management System
• Safety Management System
• Culture of Compliance
• FAA approved procedures manual required

• CAS

• QMS

• SMS

29
FAA Level of Involvement

• Establish cert basis, approve alternate means of
  compliance, issue exemptions
• After that, FAA involvement in any program will
  consist of oversight and audit of the CDO
  operation
• FAA may, at any time, and for any reason conduct
  any certificate oversight it deems appropriate
• Delegation retained to issue certificates

30
CDO Concept Model
SMS (FAA)
SMS/QMS (Company)
Repair
Production
Design
Air Agency
PC
CDO
Other
TC
Design Finding
STC
FAA Administrator
Approved Parts
Production Finding
AW
Approved Data
31
Benefits

• Recognizes a design organizations system,
  processes, and capabilities
• Safety Management System (SMS) in place
• A catalyst to promote further maturity of the
  safety cultures within FAA and industry
• Allows FAA to re-focus its resources on
• areas of highest safety risk
• developing clear policy and guidance for industry
• enhanced role as compliance educator, coach

32
Benefits (cont.)

• The creation of eligible data
• Reinforces industrys responsibility for
  compliance
• Industry has greater control over its project
  costs and schedules
• Suppliers can be integrated into the process
• CDO procedures manual replaces FAA Type
  Certification Order

33
Similarities and Differences Between DOA, ADO and
CDO
34
Similarities

• Greater focus on process management and system
  oversight
• Design Organizations responsible for all
  compliance determinations
• Authority performs project and system oversight
• Routine projects require little authority
  involvement
• Suppliers can be incorporated with proper
  oversight

Moving to
Product Compliance
Applicants System
Agency
35
Differences
36
Sample Issues Being Addressed by the Joint
Cooperation Team
37
SMS and Design Organizations

• TCCA
• SMS is overarching (mandated by regulation)
• Design Assurance elements will complement the SMS
  requirements
• FAA
• SMS is overarching
• Single seamless system likely, but SMS, QMS and
  Design Assurance requirements are separate
• EASA
• New requirement for Management Systems will be
  the new basis for organisation approvals to which
  DOA requirements will be added
• Introduces risk based approach to DOA activities
  and manner in which agency conducts oversight

38
SMS and Design Organizations

• Things to consider going forward
• ICAO requirements
• The relationship between Safety Management,
  Quality Management, and Design Assurance
• Scalability
• SMS regulations and oversight
• Interface points between the authority and the
  SMS of an approved design organization
• Alignment of design organization SMS requirements
  with other SMS facets of the company

39
Accountability Framework

• Applicants have a regulatory obligation to
• Use means of compliance acceptable to the
  Authority
• Show that their designs are compliant
• Design Approval Holders have an obligation to
• Maintain compliant designs with no unsafe
  features
• Authorities promote Aviation Safety by
• Issuing regulations
• Specifying the certification basis
• Providing guidance regarding acceptable means of
  compliance
• Overseeing compliance
• Taking enforcement actions as necessary
• Issuing certificates and approvals and
• Mandating corrective action as necessary

40
Accountability Framework

• TCCA
• Framework originated with TCCA
• Provides the foundation of stakeholder
  responsibilities
• Serves as the basis for any program undertaken
• FAA
• Slight deviation from TCCA version
• CDO ARC included it in proposed NPRM
• EASA
• Will evaluate TCCA version, taking into account
  responsibilities allocated by community laws

41
Accountability Framework

• Things to consider going forward
• Working toward a common definition
• Impact of individual country laws, regulations,
  or agency polices, in defining our views of the
  Accountability Framework
• Significant implications, if any, resulting from
  our differences

42
Authority Involvement

• Determine cert basis
• Special conditions
• Exemptions
• Project shadowing/oversight

• Issue Certificate

• Post-project reviews

Project

• COS

• Ongoing system oversight based on risk
  management indicators

System

• Trend monitoring

43
Authority Involvement

• Topic
• To what extend the Authority is involved in
  product certification?
• Two main domains
• Obligations (e.g., development of cert basis,
  means of compliance, issue certificates)
• Involvement in compliance determination
  (witnessing of tests, verification activities)
• Discussion on impact of CDO/ADO/DOA on
  involvement in compliance determination

44
Authority Involvement

• Things to consider going forward
• Impact of individual country laws, regulations,
  or agency polices, on our view of LOI
• Significant implications, if any, resulting from
  our differences

45
Suppliers

• EASA
• Integration of suppliers in DOA already defined
• Chartered working group to investigate granting
  sub-tier DOA to suppliers
• Limited scope of privileges
• Concept exists under production system for POA
• Prime has ultimate responsibility for continued
  airworthiness
• TCCA/FAA
• ADO/CDO can extend its system into suppliers
  allowing them to make compliance determinations
• No plan to introduce sub-ADO/CDO for suppliers

46
Specialty Service Suppliers

• Consideration of authority recognition of
  suppliers of specialized services to the aviation
  industry
• Have unique expertise and testing capability
• Supply to multiple applicants
• Examples
• Flammability labs
• Materials labs
• Environmental and HIRF/Lightning test facilities

47
Specialty Service Suppliers

• EASA
• Open to possibility of recognizing suppliers of
  specialty services
• Sub-tier DOA would be applicable, if specialty
  service supplier has the capability to make
  compliance determinations
• TCCA/FAA
• Open to possibility of recognizing suppliers of
  specialty services (e.g. test laboratories)
• No plan to introduce sub-ADO/CDO for any suppliers

48
Suppliers

• Things to consider going forward
• International implications
• Competition driving need to ensure a level
  playing field
• Impact on safety
• Alignment with Accountability Framework
• Establishing a basis in regulation
• Authorities/Industry role in Oversight
• Responsibility for compliance
• What is the resulting product compliance
  determination, recognized data or something
  else?
• Establishing standards and requirements

49
Questions?