Page 371 - UK Continuing Airworthiness Regulations (Consolidated) 201121

Part CAMO - ANNEX Vc - Organisational Requirements for Continuing Airworthiness Management

team audits, or a long series of single inspector audits is most appropriate for the
particular situation.
(b) The audit may be structured so as to verify the organisation’s processes related to a
product line. For example, in the case of an organisation with Airbus A320 and Airbus
A310 ratings, the audit should concentrate on the continuing airworthiness management
processes of one type only for a full compliance check, and depending upon the result,
the second type may only require a sample check against those aspects that were seen
to be weak regarding compliance for the first type.
(c) In determining the scope of the audit and which activities of the organisation will be
assessed during the audit, the privileges of the approved organisation should be taken into
account, e.g. their approval to carry out airworthiness reviews.
(d) The CAA auditing inspector should always ensure that he or she is accompanied
throughout the audit by a senior member of the organisation, who is normally the
compliance monitoring manager. The reason for being accompanied is to ensure that the
organisation is fully aware of any findings raised during the audit.
(e) At the end of the audit, the auditing inspector should inform the senior member of the
organisation of all the findings that were raised during the audit.
CAMO.B.310(c) AMC1 Initial certification procedure
(a) There may be occasions when the CAA inspector is unsure about the compliance of
some aspects of the applicant's organisation. If this occurs, the inspector should inform
the organisation about the possible non-compliance at the time, and about the fact that
the situation will be reviewed within the CAA before a decision is made. If the review
concludes that there is no finding, then a verbal confirmation to the organisation should
suffice.
(b) Findings should be recorded on the audit report form, each with a provisional
categorisation as a level 1 or 2 finding. Subsequent to the on-site audit that identified the
particular findings, the CAA should review the provisional finding levels, adjusting them if
necessary, and should change the categorisation from ‘provisional’ to ‘confirmed’.
CAMO.B.310(c) AMC2 Initial certification procedure
(a) The audit should be recorded using the audit report CAA Form 13-CAMO (Appendix V to
AMC2 CAMO.B.310(c)).
(b) A review of the CAA Form 13-CAMO audit report should be carried out by a competent
independent person nominated by the CAA. The review should take into account the
relevant points of Part-CAMO, the categorisation of the finding levels and the closure
action that was taken. A satisfactory review of the audit report should be indicated by a
signature on CAA Form 13-CAMO.
(c) The audit reports should include the date when each finding was closed, together with a
reference to the CAA report or letter that confirmed the closure.
CAMO.B.310(d) AMC1 Initial certification procedure
All findings should be confirmed in writing to the applicant organisation within 2 weeks of the on-site
audit.
CAMO.B.310(e)(1);CAMO.B.330 Initial certification procedure and changes
G M 1 TERMS OF APPROVAL
The table shown for the terms of approval in CAA Form 14 includes a field designated as ‘Aircraft
type/series/group’.
The intention is to give maximum flexibility to the CAA to customise the approval to a particular
organisation.
Possible alternatives to be included in this field are the following:
- A specific type designation that is part of a type certificate, such as Airbus 340211 or
Cessna 172R.
- A type rating (or series) as listed in Part66 Appendix I to AMC, which may be further
subdivided, such as Boeing 737600/700/800, Boeing 737600, Cessna 172 Series.
- An aircraft group such as, for example, ‘all sailplanes and powered sailplanes’ or ‘Cessna
single piston engine aircraft’ or ‘Group 3 aircraft’ (as defined in 66.A.5) or ‘aircraft below 2
730 kg MTOM’.
Reference to the engine type installed in the aircraft may or may not be included, as necessary.
It is important to note that the terms of approval defined in CAA Form 14 is further limited to the scope
of work defined in the CAME. It is this scope of work in the CAME which ultimately defines the
approval of the organisation. As a consequence, it is possible for a CAA to endorse in CAA Form 14,
for example, a scope of work for Group 3 aircraft while the detailed scope of work defined in the
CAME does not include all Group 3 aircraft.
Nevertheless, in all cases, the CAA should be satisfied that the organisation has the capability of
managing the types/groups/series endorsed in CAA Form 14.
Since the activities linked to continuing airworthiness management are mainly process-oriented
rather than facility/tooling-oriented, changes to the detailed scope of work defined in the CAME (either
directly or through a capability list), within the limits already included in CAA Form 14, may be
considered as not affecting the approval and not subject to point CAMO.A.130(a). As a consequence,
for these changes, the CAA may allow the use by the CAMO of the procedure referred to in point
CAMO.A.130(c) for changes not requiring prior approval.
Since, as mentioned above, the CAA should make sure that the organisation is capable of managing
the requested category as a whole, it is not reasonable to grant a full Group 3 approval based on an
intended scope of work which is limited to, for example, a Cessna 172 aircraft. However, it may be
reasonable to grant such full Group 3 approval, after showing appropriate capability, for an intended
scope of work covering several aircraft types or series of different complexity and which are
20 November 2021 371 of 412