ARSA CORNER
BY SARAH MACLEOD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AERONAUTICAL REPAIR STATION ASSOCIATION
MEET ME HALFWAY
A MEMBER RECENTLY RELAYED A CONVERSATION WITH A FSDO MANAGER THAT HAD HIM BAFFLED AND, FOR OBVIOUS REASONS, CONCERNED. Constant misunderstandings
between the assigned aviation safety inspector and the member’s quality department necessitated a meeting with the FSDO manager to discuss outstanding issues and develop an understanding of the best way to move forward. During a discussion of one issue, the accountable manager was told very clearly that if the regulations did not require action… then no action was required. Immediately after accepting that
as fact and stating the matter was therefore closed as far as the company was concerned, the FSDO Manager accused the accountable manager of not “meeting the agency halfway.” The member was baffl ed by that conclusion—so he called ARSA and asked how can the agency “demand” the company meet something that is not required by the regulations? After being assured the government cannot enforce something not demanded by its laws or rules, we got down to how to salvage the relationship between the company and the agency. The FAA and the industry have been doing a good job of “talking” about “culture change” for years with little change or success. The reason? Nobody demands regulatory compliance FIRST and “good business practices” or “better ways” second, third and fourth. The guidance material provided to the industry is years out of date and the “new” guidance is rarely based upon the plain language of the regulation.
38
DOMmagazine.com | oct 2019
Heck, often guidance material is developed during the rulemaking process and never updated to refl ect the fi nal rule language! The “risk- based” oversight system was created from principles of the nuclear industry for cripes sake—an industry with maybe half-dozen viable designs. How that ever became the basis for the Air Transportation Oversight System (ATOS), the forerunner to the Safety Assurance System (SAS), has always been a mystery to me. The industry works hard to “get along” with the agency’s representatives rather than clearly and succinctly stating how the applicant or certifi cate holder complies and asking the agency to tell it where compliance (as stated in the RULE) is lacking. All “going along to get along” does is enhance the “culture” to the point where we all have sour milk instead of yogurt or at least kefi r! We feed the “what the hell can I do” attitude of industry and the arrogance of the FSDO manager that had the gall, yes, gall, to accuse a certifi cate holder of not “meeting the agency” halfway on something it could not require! I (and therefore ARSA) take a
diff erent approach; rather than go to the agency with my hat in my hand asking for its “help” – I tell the agency how my people are or can comply with a particular section or paragraph of the regulations. I remind the agency of two very signifi cant facts:
(1) It is not responsible for compliance, the applicant or certifi cate holder is. (2) I did not write the regulations
– we all did or should have – I am just showing compliance or providing a method of establishing compliance. When asked why I (or the member or client) doesn’t want to do something that is not required by the rule, the question usually takes the form of: “Why are you against safety?” I answer that I (or my member or client) IS complying with the regulation. I can be sucked into senseless arguments, but I am rarely caught off -guard by questions that I have not thought about and/ or to which I don’t have the legal or practical answer. I am not intimidated by the agency’s “threats” because I don’t hold a certifi cate; I started my relationship with the agency and the industry on the basis that I would not come to it with a problem and no solution. I do my research and use my “critical thinking” to develop facts and analyze those data against the plain language of the regulation – without embellishment or expectation except for the goal of regulatory compliance. So, I am not humble or subservient to the agency and a certifi cate holder should not take that approach either; it just feeds the arrogant and ignorant culture that has prevailed for so many years and resulted in the comment from the FSDO manager that jumpstarted this editorial.
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 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92
