PLANE TALK The evolution of civil aviation
authorities seems to have taken a similar path in most countries. This is not surprising, as international norms had already been set out for ocean navigation and certification and many aviation terms and ideas flowed from that.
Although some international
agreements already existed, a major push began in the 1980s to formalize many more in order to facilitate aviation business and safety. It was apparent that different countries adding on local design and maintenance requirements was hindering trade and could affect safety. Thus all aviation authorities began to review other countries’ systems. In Canada’s case, it began with a lot of work between the FAA and Transport Canada and followed by working with major European Agencies and the JAA. This pattern continued over to Asia where North American manufacturers began to subcontract substantial portions of new aircraft offshore. The NAFTA treaty added Mexico to our list. The fact that aircraft, especially larger ones, can be flown to Hong Kong for maintenance was one example of why new maintenance agreements were needed. The process was as follows. A Canadian company might enter into a new contract in a country.
We, the regulator, would then meet with the other country’s authority. If we believed enough work would take place over future years to justify the effort, we then began high- level discussions on an agreement’s content. Then after the high-level review, our technical specialists in licensing, training and maintenance operations would review the laws and regulations and do on-site reviews of typical facilities. If this showed the other nation’s regulatory body was incompatible with our own, then we then could use our own inspectors to monitor the work, with the primary responsibility being vested in the company who let the contracts. In the major aviation countries this work usually led to a technical agreement which, in some cases, then lead to a formal state-to-state agreement. Personal licensing was one area that was carefully reviewed. As the years went by it turned out that a large part of the world follows the FAA model, supported by foreign FAA offices.
The other model was the offshoot of the British Empire model which was followed by Canada, Australia, New Zealand and so on. Over the years the Canadian regulatory model became closely harmonized with U.S. FAA model with exception of the AME system. The Canadian AME system and the U.S. IA/AP systems
are structurally and philosophically very different, yet they meet similar standards and produce the same outcome. In Europe, the European Union created a unified aviation safety oversight system based on each country’s independent authority. This made individual country’s reviews and negotiations rather difficult but most interesting.
HOW THIS AFFECTS DOMS DOMs today work in an international environment more than ever before. Parts and components can be manufactured all over the world. A DOM needs to have a reasonable understanding of the agreements that he or she must deal with, including the documentation requirements. The major aviation authorities have tried to standardize aviation forms and certification requirements, but subtle differences remain. Our ability to rely on the quality
and workmanship of aviation parts and aircraft rests on the agreements and the work done by our national authority. This allows us to conduct business worldwide and forms a baseline. It would be naïve to think all
countries have the same level of commitment to all the requirements. You still need to establish that “trust” factor by checking references and watching other people’s experiences.
Visit us at AP&M Europe
June 01 – 02, 2016 London, UK
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68