Docstoc

acaf-wg-final-report

Document Sample
acaf-wg-final-report Powered By Docstoc
					 Canadian Aviation Regulation Advisory Council
                   (CARAC)


Part V – Aircraft Certification Technical Committee




                 Working Group Report

                            On the

   Accountability Framework in Aircraft Certification




                   Final Report of April 17, 2007
          Prepared by: M. Thieringer, TCCA / J. Carr, AEA
          Working Group Report On the Account ability Framework in Aircraft Certification—of April 17, 2007

                                                        TABLE OF CONTENTS

EX ECUTIV E SUMMARY.......................................................................................................................3

1.0       INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................4
1.1       Mandate...................................................................................................................................4
1.2       Working Group Membership .....................................................................................................4
1.3       Working Group Meetings ...........................................................................................................4

2.0       REFERENCES AND DEFI NITIONS ...........................................................................................4
2.1       Referenc ed Documents.............................................................................................................4
2.2       Definitions ................................................................................................................................4

3.0       BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................5
3.1       Guiding Principles .....................................................................................................................5
3.2       Developmental Vers us Consequential Issues .............................................................................5

4.0       ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORK FUNDAMENTALS ..............................................................6

5.0       RECOMMENDATIONS —GENERAL .........................................................................................6

6.0       RECOMMENDATIONS —DESIGN APP ROVAL APPLICANTS ..................................................7

7.0       RECOMMENDATIONS —ADO RATI NG ....................................................................................7

8.0       RECOMMENDATIONS —DESIGN APP ROVAL HOLDERS ........................................................8

9.0       RECOMMENDATIONS —ACCREDITED DESIGN ORGANI ZATION ...........................................9

10.0      RECOMMENDATION—DESIGN ASS URANCE S YSTEM (DAS) ................................................10
10.1      WG Developed DAS Proposal ...................................................................................................10
10.2      Alternate DAS Proposal ............................................................................................................11

11.0      TRANSITION PLAN .................................................................................................................12

12.0      NATIONAL STANDARDI ZATION .............................................................................................12

13.0      WG RECOMMENDATION IMPACT ON NP A 2004-107 (CAR 521) .............................................12

14.0      GUIDANCE MATERI AL ............................................................................................................13

15.0      CONSEQUENTIAL ISSUES .....................................................................................................13
15.1      Level of Involvement (LOI).........................................................................................................13
15.2      Cont ractual Relationships/Arrangements ....................................................................................14
15.3      Transition Risks [TOR Section 4, Item 2(b)] ................................................................................14
15.4      Cost to Industry [TOR Section 4, It ems 4(a) to (c)] ......................................................................14
15.5      Effects on Commerce [ TOR Section 4, Items 5(d) and (e)]...........................................................14
15.6      Impact on TCCA Resources [ TOR Section 4, Item 7] .................................................................14
15.7      Retroactive Application of Enhanced Accountability [TOR Section 4, Item 15] ..............................14
15.8      Declarations of Compliance [ TOR Section 4, Item 16 (b)] ............................................................14
15.9      Authorized Persons (AP) [TOR Section 4, Item 18] .....................................................................14
15.10     Design Approval Issuance .........................................................................................................15

APPENDIX       A – WORKING GROUP MEMBERS, ALTERNATES AND OTH ERS .....................................16
APPENDIX       B – CONCORDANCE BETW EEN TOR ITEMS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................17
APPENDIX       C – ALTERNATE PROPOS AL FOR ADO TERMS OF ACCREDITATION .............................18
APPENDIX       D – TERMS OF REFERENCE .............................................................................................21




                                                                                                                                  Page 2 of 27
        Working Group Report On the Account ability Framework in Aircraft Certification—of April 17, 2007


EX ECUTIV E SUMMARY
In res pons e to industry observations and concerns with the Tr ansport Canada Civil A viation (TCCA)
Aircraft Certification Branch accountability framework discussion paper of 2005, the Account ability
Framework in Aircraft Certification Working Group (WG) was established in June of 2006. The goal of this
WG was to evaluate the concerns as identified in the Terms of Reference (TOR), and propose a model
that would address them.
The Canadian A viation Regulation Advisory Council (CARA C) P art V -Aircraft Certification Technical
Committee met to discuss and accept the TOR in June 2006. From that meeting the WG activities were
defined. Members were selected from across Canada and included representation from all types of
aircraft certification delegates. Organizations ranging in size from one-person single certificate operations
to multi-employee, multi-certificate organizations were represent ed.
The recommendations embodied in this report are intended to facilitate the transition of aircraft
certification regulations and processes to an accountability framework and to facilitate the adoption of
Safety Management Systems. The changes are c oncept ually significant but are really an evolution of
what already exists. The conclusions and recommendations preserve flexibility in handling certification
projects of various levels of complexity and risk, and are not intended to impose specific business models
or disadvantage any part of the existing industry. The changes t hat are being implemented also consider
compatibility with similar changes that are occurring in foreign jurisdictions (EASA, FAA) with which
Canada has significant regulatory interaction and trade. For Canada to not adopt an account ability
framework would ultimately lead to significant differences bet ween our certification regulations and
processes and those of EASA and the FAA.
WG deliberations suggest that an Accredited Design Organization (ADO) may offer some benefit to the
public, government and industry while increasing accountability of stakeholders. The WG concluded that
there is no need to create an Accredited Design Individual (A DI) because an ADO could be scaled to
accommodate a single pers on. The WG also recommended that an ADO terms of accreditation could
include t he ability to issue design approval documents in which case there would be no need to delegate
ministerial powers for design approval.
The WG further recognized that there are presently some Design Approval Representatives under
Chapter 505 of the Airworthiness Manual who perform the role of technical specialists, but who typically
do not issue design approvals. Thes e include, for example, software and flight test specialty delegates.
The WG recommends that TCCA and/or Canadian industry creat e standards for recognising such
expertise and propose a system of rec ognition for Compliance Specialists.
The WG developed one possible accountability framework model for the purposes of preliminary
evaluation of consequential issues. The WG recommends further study into consequential issues —in
particular, business contractual/agreement concerns, costs and other qua ntitative data (such as number
of qualified people) that should be identified.




                                                                                               Page 3 of 27
      Working Group Report On the Account ability Framework in Aircraft Certification—of April 17, 2007

1.0   INTRODUCTION
1.1   Mandate
      The Working Group (WG) was mandated to provide recommendations in response to the Terms
      of Reference (TOR), which are included in Appendix D.
1.2   Working Group Membership
      The members and alternates who compris ed the WG are identified in Appendix A.
1.3   Working Group Meetings
      The WG met five times:
      (a) September 12 to 14, 2006 in Ottawa for general discussions;
      (b) November 8 and 9, 2006 in Vancouver fo r general discussions;
      (c) December 4 to 6, 2006 in Ottawa for general discussions;
      (d) February 20 to 22, 2007 in Ottawa for general discussions; and
      (e) April 11 to 13, 2007 in Vancouver for final report review and acceptance.
      In addition, the WG made use of web-based collaboration software, called Microsoft Sharepoint,
      to allow the WG members and alternates to access all applicable documents outside of meetings
      and to continue discussing elements of the TOR. This allowed for virtual meetings between
      formally schedul ed WG meetings.
2.0   REFERENCES AND DEFI NITIONS
2.1   Referenced Documents
      The following documents should be used in conjunction with this report:
      (a)     Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) 2004 -107—Canadian A viation Regulations (CA R)
              521 - Approval of or Changes to the Type Design of an Aeronautical Product. Note, all
              CAR 521 references in this report are in respect of the text presented in the NPA.
      (b)     European Union Commission Regulation (E C) No. 1702/2003 of 24 S eptember 2003,
              laying down implementing rules for the airworthiness and environment al certification of
              aircraft and related products, parts and applianc es, as well as for the certification of
              design and production organisations.
2.2   Definitions
      The WG used the following definitions:
      (a)     Accountability: an obligation that if unfulfilled, leads to some form of legal or punitive
              action.
      (b)     Accreditation: the formal recognition that an organization has demonstrated capability to
              a specified standard and has been found to be competent to exercise prescribed powers.
      (c)     Compliance Specialist (CS ): an individual who meets specified minimum standards for
              knowledge and technical capability that are necessary to determine compliance with the
              regulations and standards in the specified area of expertise.
      (d)     Declaration of compliance: a statement made by an Accredited Design Organization
              (ADO) that all necessary determinations of compliance made by Complianc e Specialists,
              either within the ADO or subcontracted by the ADO, have been completed for the design
              approval being sought.
      (e)     Design Approval Applicant: any individual or organization that mak es an application for
              a design approval or a change to a design approval.
      (f)     Design Approval Holder: the individual or organization whose name is recorded on a
              design approval that has been issued under the provisions of Part V Subpart 21 of the
              CARs.




                                                                                           Page 4 of 27
      Working Group Report On the Account ability Framework in Aircraft Certification—of April 17, 2007

      (g)     Design Assurance System (DAS): a set of processes involving specific planned and
              systematic actions that together provide confidence that errors or omissions in
              requirements or design have been identified a nd corrected to the degree that the product,
              as implemented, satisfies applicable certification requirements.
      (h)     Determination of compliance: confirmation by a Compliance S pecialist that compliance
              has been substantiat ed within their area of specialization to a regulation contained within
              the basis of certification for the design approval being sought.
      (i)     Subcontractor: an individual or an organization that provides services to an ADO.
3.0   BACKGROUND
3.1   Guiding Principles
      During discussion of NPA 2004-107 for the proposed CA R 521, particularly Divisions J and K in
      respect of the delegation system, the CARA C Part V – Aircraft Certification Technical Committee
      raised the question of recognizing a design organisation’s capability without necessarily granting
      an organizational delegation. TCCA committed to further investigate this concept.
      A concept paper was prepared by TCCA during 2005 and presented to TCCA staff, Industry, and
      the CARA C Part V – Aircraft Certification Technical Committee meeting of December 2005. At
      that meeting comments and conc erns lead to the formation of a CA RAC WG. A special CARAC
      meeting was held in June 2006 at which time a draft TOR was presented to the technical
      committee for discussion and agreement. Nominations for membership were discus sed and
      accepted. Two co-c hairs were identified; Mr. Gilles Morin represent ed TCCA and Mr. Les Aalders
      represented industry. At the first meeting Gilles Morin presented a number of guiding principles to
      the WG members.
      (a)     An accountability framework is a structure where each stakeholder’s role and obligations,
              responsibilities and accountability are clearly established;
      (b)     Unfulfilled obligations and responsibilities lead to some form of legal or punitive action.
      (c)     Design Approval Applicants are accountable to:
              (i)      develop a safe and compliant design;
              (ii)     show the design is safe and compliant; and
              (iii)    carry out test programs safely.
      (d)     Design Approval Holders are accountable for maintaining a safe and compliant design in
              compliance with the standards of airworthiness, and for t he continuing airwort hiness of
              their products.
      (e)     The Minister remains accountable for:
              (i)      making regulations;
              (ii)     specifying the certification basis;
              (iii)    specifying acceptable means of compliance;
              (iv)     issuing certificates and approvals;
              (v)      accrediting design approval organisations;
              (vi)     overseeing compliance;
              (vii)    taking enforcement actions as necessary; and
              (viii)   mandating corrective action as required.
3.2   Developmental Versus Consequential Issue s
      Early in the WG process, there were a number of issues developed from the TOR that needed to
      be addressed. However, during discussions it became clear that these were not issues relevant
      to the development of a model, but that were consequential to it having been developed:
      (a)     Developmental meant that the item directly influenced the considerations t o develop the
              concept. Such issues are discussed in sections 4.0 through 14.0.


                                                                                               Page 5 of 27
      Working Group Report On the Account ability Framework in Aircraft Certification—of April 17, 2007

      (b)     Cons equential issues are identified in Appendix B and are discussed in section 15.0.
      Issues identified as consequential will require consideration during development of a subseq uent
      NPA or as part of the regulatory impact assessment statement (RIAS) prepared prior to the
      Canada Gazette process.
4.0   ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORK FUNDAMENTALS
      The means of bringing account ability to an organization or process was discussed. The WG
      identified one means, which would include mandating obligations, res ponsibilities as well as
      minimum knowledge and technical capability for the design approval applicant/holder.
      Demonstrated knowledge and technical capability of design approval organisation coul d be
      accredited through Section 4.9 of the Aeronautics Act. It should be noted that contrary to the
      present delegation system under Section 4.3(1) design approval organisation accreditation under
      Section 4.9 of the Act would be an entitlement, not a privilege.
      WG discussions of design approval organisation focused on accreditation, the declaration of
      compliance and the terms of accreditation. This led to the development of a statement that was
      viewed as fundamental to determining where the accountability framework WG activities should
      start. The statement was that ―A design approval organization should be accredited; it should be
      authorized to sign a declaration of compliance within the scope [terms] of its accreditation
      recognizing that the scope [terms] may vary bet ween organizations.‖
      Accountability may have a positive impact on the TCCA/industry partnership by clearly showing
      roles, obligations and responsibilities. Accountability would be enhanced over the present system
      in Parts 511 and 513 of t he CARs in that the Minister would audit all design approval holders. By
      shifting the emphasis from project surveillance to system oversight the ADO model could facilitate
      more efficient safety oversight.
      The WG discussions led to the position that an A DO is an individual or an organization that has
      demonstrated the necessary systems and expertise to execute certification tasks and/or support
      continuing airwort hiness tasks on behalf of an applicant/holder. The A DO would be aut horized to
      exercise cert ain powers under the oversight of the Minister. Certification tasks, which are defined
      in part through the terms of accreditation, means all or part of the engineering ins pections and
      assessments, and flight and ground tests necessary for the issuing of design approvals for, and
      changes to, products, parts, and appliances, as specified under Part V Subpart 21 of the CARs.
      An ADO terms of accreditation would be contingent on its demonstrated knowledge and technical
      capability as appropriat e to the rating sought, and the c ategory of product.
5.0   RECOMMENDATIONS —GENERAL
      The following general recommendations have been made:
      (a)     TCCA shall consider the harmonization of titles, acronyms and forms to reduce the risk of
              misunderstanding by the Federal A viation Administration (FAA), t he European A viation
              Safety Agency (EASA) and other bilateral partners. At the time of NPA preparation the
              drafters should research and review the terminology in use by TCCA’s bilateral partners
              and then select the terminology as appropriate to reduce risk of misunderstanding.
      (b)     Cross-participation by the FAA and by TCCA in each other’s WG (e.g. FAA CDO ARC)
              would be a positive step towards ensuring that the international competitiveness of
              Canadian industry is maintained by developing models that are compati ble s uch that the
              systems of each country may be mutually recognized.
      (c)     Only those individuals or organizations accredited as an A DO should be entitled to issue
              a declaration of compliance in support of the issuance of a design approval.
      (d)     It is acceptable for a design approval applicant/holder to meet the requirements for
              knowledge and technical capability by simply having access to an ADO with a rating
              appropriate to their intended application.
      (e)     Under the ADO system those design approval holders who do not ha ve an ADO will be
              auditable through the agreement that they have between themselves, the ADO, and the
              Minister.




                                                                                            Page 6 of 27
      Working Group Report On the Account ability Framework in Aircraft Certification—of April 17, 2007

      (f)     An ADO may use subcontractors in support of performing its activities. Those
              subcontractors may include another ADO, a Compliance Specialist or others with no
              specific recognition or accredit ation. Subc ontractors need not have an ordinary place of
              business in Canada. A decision on whether or not to us e subcont ractors with an industry -
              recognized accreditation is a business decision.
      (g)     The design approval applicant’s ADO is responsible for all activities and must identify in
              its manual how it will account for all subcontractors and the integration between
              subcontractors and itself. This means that the determinations of compliance from multiple
              subcontractor specialists, whether ADOs or Compliance Specialists, are based on
              consistent design, operational and performance requirements and that resultant design
              solutions are compatible.
      (h)     The A DO must have a documented and auditable DAS that tracks complianc e to the
              certification basis. This may or may not include independent checking, depending on the
              requirements specified in the DAS.
      (i)     The Minister may have a level of involvement on a design approval project, which shall
              be defined as part of the development of the certification basis and the certification plan
              by the applicant/ADO.
      (j)     An ADO should be entitled to issue design approvals as part of its terms of accreditation.
              The international recognition of Canadian design approvals is to be considered during
              development of subs equent NPAs, and maintained.
6.0   RECOMMENDATIONS —DESIGN APP ROVAL APPLICANTS
      The following recommendations in respect of applicants for a design approval have been made:
      (a)     The design approval applicant eligibility requirements currently in the CA R 521 NPA
              2004-107 should be modified by a subsequent NPA such that any person satisfying the
              eligibility requirements may make application for a design approval and subsequently
              shall become the design approval holder.
      (b)     To satisfy the knowledge and technical capability requirements, the applicant for a design
              approval shall have access to an ADO with a rating (class, group and product category)
              appropriate to the application.
      (c)     Where the applicant for a design approval does not have an ADO at time of application,
              but intends to become an ADO, they shall make concurrent application for the ADO and
              the design approval. Initially the applicant may rec eive accreditation with a minimum
              scope of work, which would inc reas e as their capability is demonstrated.
      (d)     Where the design approval applicant does not have an A DO the applicant shall have a
              contractual agreement identifying how the applicant’s obligations will be supported by the
              ADO. The applicant and TCCA must each agree on a plan as to how the applicant’s
              obligations will be fulfilled. This plan will be auditable by the Minister.
      (e)     The design approval applicant is responsible for providing a statement to the Minister
              prior to issuance of a design approval that they shall meet their continuing airworthiness
              obligations as a design approval holder. It is the applicant’s responsibility to define how
              they will meet these obligations and to document this as part of the plan. This will be
              auditable by the Minister.
7.0   RECOMMENDATIONS —ADO RATI NG
      The following recommendation in respect of an A DO rating has been made. Accreditation as an
      ADO should include specific ratings required for eac h class of application and aeronautical
      product category. Rating may consist of a class and a group, such as A3, where:
      (a)     Class identifies the specific design approval for which application may be made. For our
              example of A3, the A means the class is for a type certificate.
      (b)     Group is the particular aeronautical product grouping for which applic ation may be made.
              For our example of A3, the 3 means the group includes aeronautical products in the
              Subpart 522, 523-VLA, 531 and 541 categories.



                                                                                            Page 7 of 27
      Working Group Report On the Account ability Framework in Aircraft Certification—of April 17, 2007

      An example of how a Class and a Group may be defined is presented in the following table. An
      alternative approach for defining a rating system has been proposed and is presented in
      Appendix C as part of the alternate proposal for terms of accreditation. Both proposals should be
      considered during development of subsequent NPAs.

              CLASS          A       Type Certificate
                             B       TSO Design Approval
                             C       Supplement al Ty pe Certi ficate
                             D       Part Design Approval
                             E       Repair Design Approval
              GROUP          1       523 Commuter
                                     525
                                     529
                             2       523
                                     527
                                     VLJ
                             3       522
                                     523-VLA
                                     531
                                     541
                             4       533 (reciprocating, turbine)
                                     535 (fixed pitch, variable pitch, reversible)
                             5       537 (A uxiliary Power)
                             6       537 for:
                                     Auto flight
                                     Batteries
                                     Cargo load devic es
                                     Collision and weather avoidance
                                     Communication equipment
                                     Electrical power
                                     Equipment furnis hings
                                     E vacuation and survival equipment
                                     Fire protection
                                     Fuel/oil/hydraulic
                                     Heat ers
                                     Hose assemblies
                                     Instruments
                                     Landing gear
                                     Lights
                                     Navigation
                                     Oxygen equipment
                                     Parts
                                     Recorders

8.0   RECOMMENDATIONS —DESIGN APP ROVAL HOLDERS
      The following recommendations in respect of design approval holders have been made. Design
      approval holders shall:
      (a)     continue to meet and maintain the eligibility requirements, which is one of t he holder
              obligations currently presented in NPA 2004-107, and any changes to the holder
              obligations as presented in this report.


                                                                                          Page 8 of 27
      Working Group Report On the Account ability Framework in Aircraft Certification—of April 17, 2007

      (b)     satisfy the knowledge and technical capability requirements of the eligibility requirement
              in (a) above by having, or having access to, an A DO wit h a rating appropriate to the
              design approval held to execute certification tasks and/or support continuing
              airworthiness tasks on behalf of a holder.
      (c)     implement and meet the commitment made prior to the issuance o f the design approval
              that they would meet their responsibilities and be accountable for complying with all
              obligations of a holder, including continuing airworthiness obligations as a holder.
9.0   RECOMMENDATIONS —ACCREDITED DESIGN ORGANI ZATION
      The following recommendations in respect of ADO have been made:
      (a)     The A DO model should be scalable from an organisation comprised of one to many
              individuals. Scalability is introduc ed by varying the DAS and SMS requirements such that
              they are appropriate to the size, nature and complexity of the operations, activities,
              hazards and risks associated with the operations of the ADO and its desired rating.
              Under the European A viation Safety Agency (EASA) DOA model, there is no similar
              scalability to address the small organizations. This has been raised in Europe as a
              concern. To address this concern the ADO model was developed to be scalable by
              introducing a rating system and through use of the complexity continuum concept as
              developed by TCCA’s small operator SMS WG.
      (b)     Given the manner in which the ADO system has been defined, the WG has determined
              that implementation of an ADI system would be redundant.
      (c)     Given the WG rec ommendation that ADO be authorized to issue design approvals or
              through systems that the ADO may use such as the current NDWL (National Aeronautical
              Product Approval Information System (NAPA) delegate web link) interface there would be
              no need for a ―new delegate‖ to be created whose responsibilities would be limited to
              largely administrative tasks leading to the issuance of a design approval.
      (d)     Only those individuals or organizations that will be capable of making a declaration of
              compliance in support of the issuance of a design approval should be entitled to be
              accredited as an ADO.
      (e)     Applicants for A DO c ertification should identify the desired rating and product categories
              they wish to hold and the scope of work they request. An applicant should also specify
              the means they int end t o use to support the scope of work, which may include but not be
              limited to facilities, personnel, equipment, tools and materials, documentation of tasks,
              responsibilities and proc edures, access to relevant data and a record keeping system.
      (f)     An ADO applicant should be required to demonstrate its capability to establish a DAS
              and an SMS consistent with the highest (most comprehensive) rating that they desire.
      (g)     The demonstration of product knowledge that is required of an ADO applicant depends
              on the rating class:
              (i)     For type certificate and TSODA class ADO, the knowledge will be of its own
                      products, thus limiting their privileges to their products only because of their
                      product knowledge.
              (ii)    For S TC, RDA and P DA class ADO, the applicant need not know all design
                      aspects of aircraft, engines, etc. However, their product knowledge should
                      encompass the type of projects that are included in their terms of accreditation.
                      In other words if they were an avionics installation ADO for small aircraft they
                      would require a broad knowledge of small airc raft electrical, navigation, and
                      communication systems.
      (h)     ADOs should be required t o implement and maintain a DAS, as described in section 10.0
              of this report, to ensure compliance with the regulations under Part V of the CA Rs , and
              to develop and maintain a manual describing the DAS, and its organization.
      (i)     The requirement for an SMS will be invoked through S ubparts 106 and 107 of the CA Rs
              by identifying that the ADO certificate is an operating certificate. Subpart 521 of the




                                                                                            Page 9 of 27
       Working Group Report On the Account ability Framework in Aircraft Certification—of April 17, 2007

               CARs, when in forc e, will introduce SMS regulations that the holder of an operating
               certificate (A DO) will be required to implement.
       (j)     ADOs will not be required t o hold a manufacturing certificate or to be an approved
               maintenance organization or an airc raft maintenance engineer. However, nothing should
               prevent the holder of one of these certificates from making application to be an A DO.
       (k)     The WG reviewed the SMS complexity continuum tool and recommends that it be
               considered for use in developing a range of DAS and SMS levels to allow for scalability of
               the      ADO.      Discussion        of   this    tool      can    be      found       at:
               http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilA viation/SMS/SmallOperator/Final/Menu.htm#Summary .
       (l)     The A DO certificat e should specify t he entitlements of the ADO, similar in concept t o the
               letter of authorization used under Chapter 505 of the AWM. A possible term that may be
               used is the terms of accreditation, which is similar to the terms of approval used by the
               EASA under IR P art 21. Therefore, the WG rec ommends defining the terms and
               conditions of an A DO using similar elements to that of the EASA. Our definition of terms
               of accreditation includes, as a minimum, the elements defined below. An alternate
               proposal for the terms of accreditation has been proposed and is attached as Appendix
               C, which may be considered during drafting of a subsequent NPA.
               (i)      General conditions (records, obligations, etc.);
               (ii)     Rating (class and group);
               (iii)    Product Category;
               (iv)     Scope of Work; and
               (v)      Duration.
       (m)     Scope of work is intended to identify the range of work (functions or privileges) that an
               ADO may be entitled to perform. The WG has identified that the scope of work may
               include but not necessarily be restricted to the following items:
               (i)      Make determinations of compliance.
               (ii)     Be an applicant and/or a holder of a design approval.
               (iii)    Provide a declaration of compliance that will be accepted without further
                        verification or review of compliance documents.
               (iv)     Classify changes to type designs as major and minor.
               (v)      Issue a design approval.
               (vi)     Approve minor type design changes.
               (vii)    Approve edit orial changes to Aircraft Flight Manuals and issue such information
                        or instructions containing statement ―Technical content of this document is
                        approved under the ADO authority‖.
               (viii)   Classify and approve changes to the ADO manual and supporting documents,
                        where appropriat e.
       (n)     The ADO shall:
               (i)      Make declarations of compliance only after they have satisfied themselves that
                        compliance has been shown.
               (ii)     Maintain an effective DAS and SMS.
               (iv)     Operate in accordance with the manual.
10.0   RECOMMENDATION—DESIGN ASS URANCE S YSTEM (DAS)
10.1   WG Developed DAS Proposal
       To help determine t he elements of a DAS, the WG reviewed the text of both the NPA for CAR
       521 Division J and IR 21A.239 to extract from each those elements that they believed described a



                                                                                             Page 10 of 27
       Working Group Report On the Account ability Framework in Aircraft Certification—of April 17, 2007

       DAS. This was then compared to what the WG had defined as mandatory elements of an ADO.
       The following are suggested elements in respect of the systems:
       (a)     The DAS should be documented and auditable as appropriate to the size, nature and
               complexity of the operations, activities, hazards and risks associated with the operations
               of the A DO;
       (b)     The DAS should be s ufficient to enable the organization to ensure that the design of the
               products, parts and appliances or the design c hange thereof, c omplies with the
               applicable type certification basis, with proven technical competence, capability and
               mechanisms to:
               (i)     produce compliant designs;
               (ii)    generate credible certification data;
               (iii)   make determinations of compliance;
               (iv)    make a Declaration of Compliance;
               (v)     be accountable for the design; and
               (vi)    ensure that its responsibilities are properly discharged in accordanc e with the
                       appropriate provisions of the Regulations and their terms of accreditation.
       (c)     Be responsible for:
               (i)     recognizing limitations associated with scope;
               (ii)    communicating with TCCA; and
               (iii)   disseminating new regulations, standards and guidanc e.
       (d)     Have procedures and processes for self-audit that:
               (i)     independently monitor the compliance wit h, and adequacy of, the documented
                       procedures of the system. This monitoring shall include a feedback system to a
                       person or a group of persons having the responsibility to ensure corrective
                       actions are implemented and effective;
               (ii)    have a technical dispute resolution system;
               (iii)   have a process for record keeping to document the self-audit results and to
                       demonstrate that all necessary corrective actions were taken.
       (e)     Have a means to account for the accept ability of the parts or appliances designed or the
               tasks performed by partners or subcontractors according to methods that are the subject
               of written procedures.
       (f)     The DAS should result in a degree of assuranc e that the compliance determinations are
               correct, consistent with what would result from an independent skilled review.
10.2   Alternate DAS Proposal
       An alternate description of a DAS has been proposed, which could be described by the following
       process elements. These elements should be considered during the preparation of any NPA
       subsequent to this report. It should be noted t hat the need for these process elements should be
       predicated on the severity of the hazards inherent in the product for which design approval is
       sought as well as the size, nature and complexity of the operations, activities, hazards and risks
       associated with the operations of the ADO and its desired rating:
       (a)     Requirements determination and management process;
       (b)     Safety Assessment process;
       (c)     Requirements validation process;
       (d)     Implementation verification process;
       (e)     Configuration Management process;
       (f)     Process Assurance process;


                                                                                           Page 11 of 27
       Working Group Report On the Account ability Framework in Aircraft Certification—of April 17, 2007

       (g)     Certification Assurance and Communication proc ess;
       (h)     Subcontractor/Supplier management process; and
       (i)     Tool/test facility qualification process.
11.0   TRANSITION PLAN
       The WG recommends that a transition plan be prepared by TCCA such that existing:
       (a)     AEOs and DAOs that apply for or hold design approvals shall be transitioned to become
               ADOs over a specified time period. Specific ratings should be determined for existing
               AEOs and DAOs, as well as the corresponding DAS and SMS level that will be required
               so that a gap analysis can be completed in support of the transition plan.
       (b)     DARs that apply for or hold design approvals, and that desire to ret ain the ability to issue
               design approvals, shall have the opportunity to transition to become an ADO over a
               specified time period. These individuals are entitled to make a declaration of compliance
               and to issue design approvals. Specific ratings should be determined for existing DA Rs
               as well as the corres ponding DAS and SMS level that will be required so that a gap
               analysis can be completed in support of the transition plan.
       (c)     DARs that provide a service as technic al specialists (flight test, software, etc.), and that
               do not desire to issue design approvals, shall have the opportunity to transition to
               Compliance Specialists under a system of industry recognition, or where required, by
               TCCA. These individuals would be Compliance Specialists who do not have the ability to
               issue a design approval.
12.0   NATIONAL STANDARDI ZATION
       The TOR required that the impact of the enhanced accountability framework on national
       standardization of program delivery should be considered. It is the WG’s opinion that national
       standardization of program delivery should be enhanced given that all applications in the future
       will be made t hrough an ADO. Further, every ADO will have a manual documenting the
       procedures that they use to meet the regulatory requirements of CA R 521. This is auditable to
       ensure compliance with the requirements. Given that each design approval applicant will have
       access to an ADO wit h a manual, the development of guidance material should be simplified and
       only identify essential process elements. TCCA offic es will be auditable to these procedures and
       the agreements in place with applicants.
13.0   WG RECOMMENDATION IMPACT ON NP A 2004-107 (CAR 521)
       The WG was tasked to identify appropriat e regulations and standards required in support of the
       improved accountability framework. The WG has determined that it is possible to adapt by NPA
       the delegation system as presented in Division J of NPA 2004 -107 to incorporate the
       recommendations of this report in the form of an accreditation system. It was evident from the
       WG discussions that Division J of NPA 2004-107 already identifies some of the essential
       elements of a DAS, which would need to be enhanced to introduce of the elements of an A DO
       that are not pres ently in Division J.
       The WG has noted that NPA 2004-107 will require amendment through a new NPA to introduce
       changes to the following divisions and sections:
       (a)     Subsection 521. 07(1), Undertak ing By A Person Other Than The Design Approval
               Applicant Or The Design A pproval Holder, may be deleted in tot al as it could be replaced
               by definitions proposed in the report.
       (b)     Section 521.27 Eligibility, subsection (1) m ay be deleted in total, as it does not reflect the
               recommendations of this report. Subsection (2) should be amended to reflect the position
               that the design approval applicant must have access to the technical knowledge and
               capability and that this would be through an ADO. This amended text should also
               introduce the rating system.
       (c)     Section 521.45 Compliance with the Certification B asis should be reviewed to determine
               if the requirement for provision of the declaration of compliance needs revision to reflect
               that this is done by an ADO.



                                                                                               Page 12 of 27
       Working Group Report On the Account ability Framework in Aircraft Certification—of April 17, 2007

       (d)     Section 521. 53 Issuance Of A Type Certificate should be reviewed to determine if the
               requirement for provision of the declaration of compliance needs revision to reflect that
               this is done by an ADO.
       (e)     Section 521.55 Issuance Of A Type Certificate In The Restricted Category should be
               reviewed to determine if the requirement for provision of t he declaration of compliance
               needs revision to reflect that this is done by an A DO.
       (f)     Division J Delegation of Authority to an Organizational Delegate should be amended to
               reflect the recommendations of this WG.
       (g)     Division K Delegation of Authority to a Design Approval Representative should be deleted
               in total. There is no replacement text for this division.
       (h)     Division N in respect of foreign applicati ons needs review to determine if t he requirement
               for an ADO could or should be applied against a foreign applicant where there is no
               bilateral or similar agreement in place.
       Similar changes will be required to each Division of S ubpart 521 in respect of the issuance of a
       design approval. Other required changes may be made to incorporate the intent of ADO into
       regulation.
14.0   GUIDANCE MATERI AL
       The WG was tasked to identify appropriate guidance material that should be developed in support
       of the improved accountability framework. It is the WG rec ommendation that the following
       material be considered:
       (a)     advis ory and guidance material in respect of TCCA evaluation and accreditation of an
               ADO, what a declaration of compliance should contain, and a means that an appl icant for
               an ADO may use to comply with the requirements as part of their application.
       (b)     advis ory and guidance material in respect of the evaluation of a DAS and a means of
               compliance with the requirements for a DAS.
       (c)     advis ory and guidance mat erial in respect of the evaluation of an SMS and a means of
               compliance with the requirement for an SMS.
15.0   CONSEQUENTIAL ISSUES
       One of the exercises that the WG completed was to review all TOR elements to determine which
       issues were developmental and which were consequential. Developmental meant t hat the item
       directly influenced the considerations to develop the c oncept. A number of issues were identified
       as import ant and requiring addressing. However, it became clear that these issues were not
       relevant to the developm ent of a model. It was agreed that it was necessary to identify these
       consequential issues, as well as to identify how and when they should be addressed.
       Cons equential issues are identified in the table of Appendix B and are discussed in t he following
       sections. Issues identified as consequential will require consideration during development of
       subsequent NPAs or as part of the regulatory impact assessment statement (RIAS) prepared
       prior to the Canada Gazette process.
15.1   Level of Involvement (LOI)
       The subject of LOI was raised in respect of the impact of the accountability framework on LOI. It
       was perceived that TCCA’s LOI would decrease and hence would potentially have an impact on
       the ―safety‖ role of TCCA.
       Further, in respect of LOI, a scenario for potential conflict bet ween TCCA and an A DO was
       identified. This situation may occur when, through LOI on a program, TCCA decides that a
       product is not compliant and the A DO may disagree. Through its entitlement, the A DO could
       continue to issue a declaration o f c ompliance based on its position. Upon receipt of the
       declaration of compliance, the Minister may be required to issue a design approval.
       Under this scenario there may be nothing that TCCA can do to prevent the issuance of the design
       approval. One consequence of this could be the loss of confidence in the Canadian ―aircraft
       certification‖ system by foreign airworthiness authorities.



                                                                                            Page 13 of 27
       Working Group Report On the Account ability Framework in Aircraft Certification—of April 17, 2007

       The WG discussed whether the LOI concept impacted the WG activities and concluded that the
       intent of LOI will not change but its implementation will need to be tailored to the new systemic
       approach to oversight. Therefore, the WG recommends that TCCA and industry work together to
       define the changes to the implementation of LOI needed to support the accountability framework.
15.2   Contractual Relationships/ Arrangements
       The model presented in this report implies that TCCA will be auditing contractual relationships
       between businesses. This creat es a new level of responsibility and oversight beyond ―aircraft
       certification‖. The WG does not possess the legal and technical expertise to address this issue.
       This issue requires further study.
15.3   Transition Ri sks [TOR Section 4, Item 2(b)]
       The WG agreed that item 2(b) required the accountability framework to be defined so that these
       elements could be addressed.
       Determination of whether industry has sufficient qualified people available and identification of
       potential unint ended and advers e effects that could be introduced wit h the enhanced
       accountability framework require the end model to be known. Ways to mitigate negative effects
       should be done during preparation of related NPAs. This should be addressed as part of the
       RIAS process.
15.4   Cost to Industry [TOR Section 4, Items 4(a) to (c)]
       Costs to industry have been inherently consider ed in the development of the Account ability
       Model. Determination of the detailed costs of transition, additional resource needs and financial
       and resource costs to the holder are all elements that should be considered as part of the RIAS
       process.
       The WG agreed that thes e items required the end model to be known, as they did not lend
       themselves to a generic discussion.
15.5   Effects on Commerce [TOR Section 4, Item s 5(d) and (e)]
       The WG agreed that these items deal with int ernational competitiveness, innovati on, investment
       and impact on industry that require the end model to be known to identify and explain the impact
       on the industry. Further, these are elements that should be considered as part of the RIAS
       process.
15.6   Impact on TCCA Re source s [TOR Section 4, Item 7]
       Determination of the impact on TCCA levels of service as a result of implementing the
       accountability framework and means of mitigation are elements that should be considered as part
       of the RIAS process.
       The WG agreed that this item required the end model to be known, as it does not lend itself t o a
       generic discussion.
15.7   Retroactive Application of Enhanced Accountability [TOR Section 4, Item 15]
       The WG agreed that identification of negative impacts related to retroactively applying the new
       eligibility and design approval holder requirements to existing holders requires the end model to
       be known, as it does not lend itself to a generic discussion.
       This is an element that would be considered as part of the RIAS process.
15.8   Declarations of Compliance [TOR Section 4, Item 16 (b)]
       The WG agreed that the format for a Declaration of Compliance should be defined in guidance
       material and where possible harmoniz ation with similar s uch forms of bilateral partners should be
       considered.
15.9   Authorized Persons (AP) [TOR Section 4, Item 18]
       The WG agreed that to determine if t he elimination of Authorized P ersons would have negative
       motivating influence for industry personnel requires that the end model be known, as it does not
       lend itself to a generic discussion.
       This is an element that would be considered as part of the RIAS process.


                                                                                            Page 14 of 27
        Working Group Report On the Account ability Framework in Aircraft Certification—of April 17, 2007

15.10   Design Approval Issuance
        The WG identified a pot ential concern on design approval issuance by an A DO. It was questioned
        whet her a design approval issued by an A DO would be considered to be issued by the Minister or
        by the ADO. It is believed that there may be two particular problems with the design approval
        being ―issued by the A DO‖:
        (a)     TCCA could lose all ability to control the issuance of a design approval; and
        (b)     Foreign airworthiness authorities may not accept the design approval.
        The WG does not possess the legal expertise to address this issue. This issue requires further
        study to determine if in fact a problem does exist.




                                                                                                Page 15 of 27
         Working Group Report On the Account ability Framework in Aircraft Certification—of April 17, 2007

             APPENDIX A – WORKING GROUP MEMBERS, ALTERNATES A ND OTHERS


Member                                                Alternate
Les Aalders, ATAC (Co-chair)                          Robert Mather, AIA C
Gilles Morin, TCCA (Co-chair)                         Martin Thieringer, TCCA (AARDH)
Peter Boyd, P&WC                                      Peter Turyk, P&WC
John Carr, Aircraft Electronics Association
Mike Deer, Bell Helicopter
Roop Dhaliwal, TC (AA RDD)
Scott Geddie, FAA                                     Karen Lucke, FAA
Kevin Horton, TCCA (AARDC)
Dick Hovey, AIDA C                                    Mike Poma, Field A viation East Ltd.
Brian Jenner, HAC                                     Ken Geoffrey, VIH Helicopt ers
Alex Markov, Amtech & Viking                          Mike Schade, Amtech & Viking
Robert Mather, AIA C                                  Jodi Diamant Boustead, P&WC
Robert Meath, Air Canada Technical Services           Scott Brooks, Air Canada
Bill Miller, TC AARDG
William Morton, VANDAR                                John Roberts, VANDAR
Kandanchatha Narayanan, TC AARDL
John Nehera, TC TA I                                  John Ereaux, TC MA I
Bob Neis, NA TA
Doug Peters, Aero Consulting S ervices                Ian Stewart, ACS
Perry Stamatiou, Bombardier Aerospace                 Keith Barnett, Bombardier A erospace
Franc ois Tanguay, L-3 MAS                            Germain Girard, L-3 MAS
Martin Thieringer, TC AARDH
Michael Vaut our, CFAMEA
Brian Whitehead, TC AARPC                             Mike Whissel, TC AARPC


Others
Jay Dunn, TC AARDB (S harepoint Site)
Crystal Thieringer, TC AA RDH (Management/Coordination)




                                                                                             Page 16 of 27
Working Group Report On the Account ability Framework in Aircraft Certification—of April 17, 2007

APPENDIX B – CONCORDANCE BETW EEN TOR ITEMS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


   TOR Approach (Sec. 4.0) Item                                     Di scussed in Section
   1 Rationale for Change                                           13.0
   2 Transition Risks
   (a)                                                              15.2
   (b)                                                              15.3 (Consequential item)
   3 Accountability
   (a)                                                              4.0
   (b)                                                              6.0
   4 Cost to Industry
   (a)                                                              15.4 (Consequential item)
   (b)                                                              15.4 (Consequential item)
   (c)                                                              15.4 (Consequential item)
   (d)                                                              9.0(a)
   5 Effects on Commerce
   (a)                                                              9.0(a)
   (b)                                                              11.0
   (c)                                                              6.0
   (d)                                                              15.5 (Consequential item)
   (e)                                                              15.5 (Consequential item)
   6 Harmonization wit h the USA (and ot her Bilat eral Partners)
   (a)                                                              5.0(b)
   (b)                                                              5.0(a)
   7 Impact on TCCA Res ourc es                                     15.6 (Consequential item)
   8 TCCA’s Implementing Challenges                                 12.0
   9 ADO/ADI Requirements
   (a)                                                              9.0
   (b)                                                              9.0
   (c)                                                              9.0
   (d)                                                              9.0
   (e)                                                              9.0
   (f)                                                              10.0
   10 Independent Checking of Compliance Function and the
   Compliance Verification Engineers (CVE)
   (a)                                                              5.0
   (b)                                                              2.2
   (c)                                                              5.0
   11 Use of Agents (undert akings by other persons) by
   Applicant and Holders of Certificates and Approvals
   (a)                                                              2.2
   (b)                                                              8.0
   12 Scope of Authority (also referred to as the level of



                                                                                    Page 17 of 27
Working Group Report On the Account ability Framework in Aircraft Certification—of April 17, 2007

   delegation, scope, or privileges)
   (a)                                                            11.0
   (b)                                                            4.0
                                                                  9.0(l)
   (c)                                                            4.0
                                                                  9.0(l)
   13 ―Catch-22‖ for Design Approval Applicants who are not       6.0(c)
   yet a Holder of Any Other Design Approval
   14 Use of Subcontractors by ADO/ADI
   (a)                                                            5.0(f)
   (b)                                                            5.0(f)
   (c)                                                            5.0(f)
   15 Retroactive Application of Enhanced Accountability          15.7 (Consequential item)
   Requirements on Existing (i.e. Legacy) Design Approval
   Holders
   16 Declarations of Compliance
   (a)                                                            2.2
                                                                  5.0(c)
   (b)                                                            15.8 (Consequential item)
   (c)                                                            2.2
                                                                  5.0(c)
   17 The ―New‖ Delegate
   (a)                                                            9.0(c)
   (b)                                                            9.0(c)
   (c)                                                            9.0(c)
   (d)                                                            9.0(c)
   (e)                                                            9.0(c)
   18 Authorized Persons (AP)                                     15.9 (Consequential item)




                                                                                   Page 18 of 27
        Working Group Report On the Account ability Framework in Aircraft Certification—of April 17, 2007

          APPENDIX C – ALTERNATE PROPOS AL FOR ADO TERMS OF ACCREDITATION
C.1     Terms of Accreditation
        The A DO terms of accreditation should identify t he types o f design approvals and the categories
        of aeronautical products, parts and appliances for which the design organization holds an
        accreditation, and the functions and duties that the organization is accredited to perform in regard
        to the approval of those products.
        For ADOs that cover supplemental modifications or repairs to previously approved type designs
        for which they do not hold a type design approval accreditation (i.e. S TC, LS TC and RDA) and
        ADOs that cover TSO DA or P arts Design A pprovals (P DA) a scope of work should also be
        provided that clearly identifies the A DOs demonstrated capability. In the case of an ADO that is
        accredited for type design approvals their scope of work should include the entire standard
        applicable to the product for which approval is sought.
        For A DOs that cover Type, TSO or P arts design approvals the terms of accreditation should also
        contain the list of products (i.e. model number) for which the ADO has demonstrated knowledge.
        This list of products should be documented in the AD O manual.
        The ADO terms of accreditation will then consist of the following elements
        (a)         Rating
        (b)         Scope of Work
        (c)         List of Products
        The Rating and Scope of Work elements of the terms of accreditation are detailed below.
C.2     ADO RATING
        The A DO rating is intended to facilitate the det ermination and subsequent bounding of the scope
        of work that an A DO may perform based on the demonstrated capability of the ADO applicant.
        The A DO rating should be consistent with the types of design approvals and the airwort hiness
        standards applicable to the aeronautical products for which approval is sought. As such the A DO
        rating will consist of an Approval Category and Product Category and should be in a format that is
        easily understood.
        The following is a proposed composition and format for an ADO rating.
C.2.1   Approval Category
        The approval category is indicative of the design approvals that will be sought by the ADO. A
        proposed list of Approval Categories is shown below:

                    Approval Category        Approval
                             TD              Type Design Certific ate
                             TS              TSO Design Approval
                             ST              Supplement al Ty pe Certificate (S TC)
                                             Limited Supplemental Type Certificate (LS TC)
                             PD              Part Design Approval
                             RD              Repair Design Approval

C.2.2   Product Category
        The product category represents the airworthiness standards that an ADO will have to
        demonstrate and determine compliance to. A proposed list of Product Categories is shown below:

              Product Category         Product
              522                      Gliders and Powered Gliders
              523V                     VLA - Very Light Aeroplanes
              523                      Normal, Utility, Aerobatic and Commuter Cat egory Aeroplanes



                                                                                               Page 19 of 27
      Working Group Report On the Account ability Framework in Aircraft Certification—of April 17, 2007


            Product Category      Product
            525                   Trans port Category Aeroplanes
            527                   Normal Category Rotorcraft
            529                   Trans port Category Rotorcraft
            531                   Manned Free Balloons
            533                   Aircraft Engines
            535                   Propellers
            537                   Appliances
            541                   Airships

C.3   ADO SCOP E OF WORK
      The scope of work is bounded by the approval category identified in the ADO rating and is
      intended to identify the A DOs demonstrated capability. A partial list of examples of Scope of Work
      is shown below:

      Approval Category         Scope of Work

      TD                        All

      TS                        Auto flight, Batteries, Cargo load devices, Collision and weather
                                avoidance, Communication equipment, Electrical power, E quipment
                                furnishings, E vacuation and survival equipment, Fire protection,
                                Fuel/oil/hydraulic, Heaters, Hose assemblies, Instruments, Landing gear,
                                Lights, Navigation, Oxygen equipment, Parts, Recorders…etc.

      ST                        Structures, Engines, Doors, Landing Gear, Int eriors – Cockpit, Interiors –
                                Cabin, A vionics…etc.

      PD                        TB D

      RD                        Structure, Interiors – Cockpit, Int eriors – Cabin, Environment Cont rol
                                Systems…etc.

      Examples of A DO ratings are provide below:
      (a)         An ADO supporting an application for Type Design Certificates of Trans port Category
                  Aeroplanes would be designated a rating of: TD525
      (b)         An ADO supporting Repair Design Approvals for structures of Normal Category
                  Rotorcraft would be designated a rating of: RD527 with a scope of work of: Structures




                                                                                            Page 20 of 27
     Working Group Report On the Account ability Framework in Aircraft Certification—of April 17, 2007

                             APPENDIX D – TERMS OF REFERENCE


                         Canadian Aviation Regulation Advisory Council
                                              (CARAC)
                               Part V – AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATION


                                      TERMS OF REFERENCE


                                         WORKI NG GROUP
                                                  ON
               ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORK IN AI RCRAFT CERTIFICATION


1.   Background
     Over the years, the Aircraft Certification Branc h has built a strong partnership with the Canadian
     aviation industry to effectively make use of Ministerial Delegation of Authority as specified in the
     Aeronautics Act. The development of our delegation framework originated in 1968 with ―Notice to
     Aircraft Maintenance Engineers and Aircraft Owners N-AME -AO 45/68‖, which introduced the
     Design Approval Represent ative (DA R) system. Based on recommendations of the Dubin
     Commission in 1980’s, the Aeronautics Act was amended in 1985 to provide for Aut horization, by
     the Minister, of pers ons engaged in the field of Airworthiness. Airworthiness standards were then
     developed in Airworthiness Manual Chapt er 505, and the DA R system was expanded to include
     two new categories of corporate delegate: the Airwort hiness Engineering Organization (AEO);
     and the Design Approval Organization (DAO).
     In light of the strategic direction of Transport Canada Civil A viation (TCCA ) as specified in Flight
     2005 and Flight 2010, the need to review and enhance the delegation system currently in place in
     Subchapters B, C and E of Chapter 505 of the Airworthiness Manual (AWM) was identified. The
     current framework identified in Chapter 505 of the AWM confuses the roles and obligations, and
     weak ens the accountabilities of applicants and holders of design approvals, the Minister, and
     delegates in the design approval process. The confusion in roles leads to the Minister often
     assuming certain obligations that should be assumed by the applicant or the holder.
     The Aircraft Certification Branch has taken steps to improve this through development of Part V
     Subpart 21 of the Canadian A viation Regulations (CA Rs). This had been presented and accepted
     by the CARA C Part V(AC) Technical Committee as Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA ) 2004-
     107 (known as CA R 521), which more clearly delineates the roles and obligations of the
     applicant, the holder and the delegate. Clarification of the accountability framework is needed to
     help TCCA further improve CA R 521 which still places much emphasis on the obligations of the
     delegate and not enough on that of the applicant and the holder.
     During the CARA C Technical Committee meetings where the NPA for CAR 521 was presented,
     industry supported the concept of recognizing a design organisation’s capability without
     necessarily granting an organizational delegation. Transport Canada took on the commitment to
     further investigate this concept and to continue the discussion, which led to the need for an
     enhanced accountability framework. In 2005, this preliminary concept was shared with TCCA
     staff and industry to receive feedback in the form of concerns and questions.
2.   Purpose
     Accountability implies an obligation that if unfulfilled, leads to some form of legal or punitive
     action. All stakeholders within aviation industry have obligations including Canada having
     obligations as an ICAO contracting State, the Minister of Transport having obligations under the
     Aeronautics Act and the Canadian A viatio n Regulations and, applicants and holders of design
     approvals having obligations under the Aeronautics Act and the Canadian A viation Regulations.
     Applicants have obligations to develop a safe and compliant design, show that their design is safe


                                                                                            Page 21 of 27
          Working Group Report On the Account ability Framework in Aircraft Certification—of April 17, 2007

          and compliant and carry out their test programs safely. Holders have an obligation to m aintain a
          safe and compliant design. Finally the Minister of Transport has an obligation to promote A viation
          Safety. An Accountability Framework is effective and efficient when stakeholders have clear
          understanding of their roles and obligations and no confusion exists on WHO is accountable for
          WHAT.
          The purpose of this Working Group (WG) is to make recommendations for an enhanced
          accountability framework that addresses the roles, responsibilities and account ability of
          applicants, holders, delegates and the Minister in the aeronautical product and appliance design
          approval and post-approval process.
          The enhanced accountability framework must be developed in support of the main objec tives of
          the TCCA Flight 2010 strategic plan aimed at building strength on:
                  Commitment from the aviation community to sustain a strong safety culture;

                  Trust and Confidenc e of stakeholders in the civil A viation Program;

                  Alignment of expectations for Civil A viation and stakeholders; and,

                  Compliance with regulatory requirements.
          Given the implementation of Safety Management System (SMS) is the foundation to Flight 2010,
          the enhanced accountability framework needs to align the TCCA Aircraft Certification B ranch
          regulatory structure with ot her disciplines of TCCA by developing a means to recognize design
          organizations capabilities based on similar existing ―operating‖ certificates such as an Air
          Operator Certificate (AOC), and an Approved Maintenance Organizat ion (AMO). Ultimately, all
          these ―operating‖ certific ates will fully integrat ed for SMS to provide an effective safety oversight
3.        Scope
          The scope of the WG is to:
     1.   examine issues identified with the proposed enhanced Accountability Framework for Aeronau tical
          Product Certification proposal as presented to industry in 2005, including the development of a
          new Canadian A viation Document (CAD) recognizing design organis ation’s knowledge of the
          certification proc ess and technical capability to design products that comply with the applicable
          airworthiness and environmental standards, in support of the eligibility requirements currently
          identified in CAR 521.;
     2.   make recommendations for the development of a regulatory framework that is compatible with
          SMS and supports implementation of the enhanced accountability framework proposal within
          CAR 521; and
     3.   Identify appropriate regulations, standards and guidance material required in support of the
          improved accountability framework (Note the WG is not tasked to generate but only to identify
          such material)
          The WG shall adhere to the following guiding principles set out for the accountability framework
          initiative:
     1.   All proposals should be consistent with the strategic direction outlined in Flight 2010 as Aircraft
          Certification has an obligation to stay aligned with the strategic direction of the TCCA.
     2.   All proposals should be consistent with the principles of the accountability framework for the
          applicant, holder, delegate and Minister—as presented at the Part V – Aircraft Certification
                                                         nd
          CARA C Technic al Committee meeting on 22 June 2006—as clear accountabilities are the
          foundation of the strategic direction of the TCCA.
          The scope of the WG is not to develop a Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS ), but to
          review and analyse identified issues and propose solutions to optimize the proposal before
          developing the regulatory amendment. However, the output of this WG could serve as a
          reference in the preparation of the RIAS, which is part of the normal rulemaking process.
4.        Approach



                                                                                                   Page 22 of 27
Working Group Report On the Account ability Framework in Aircraft Certification—of April 17, 2007

The WG will provide their recommendations to the CA RAC Part V (AC) Technical Committee in
preparation for the development of Notices of Proposed Amendment (NPAs).
The recommendations should be presented in a common format addressing eac h area of st udy
separately, including as a minimum a description of the issue, background, discussion and
proposed recommendations.
The WG shall consider the following aspects in order to complete its tasks:
1.      Rationale for Change
        Determine whether the delegation system introduced in Divisions J and K of CA R 521
        can be modified to improve accountability and if so, what changes to the existing system
        would be required.
2.      Transition Ri sks
        (a)     Identify potential unintended and adverse effects that could be introduced wit h
                the enhanced accountability framework and ways to mitigate negative effects;
        (b)     Determine whether industry has sufficient qualified people available to meet the
                new requirements under the existing system or the enhanced Accountability
                Framework and if not, make recommendations to minimize the impact.
3.      Accountability
        (a)     Identify whether and how an increased emphasis on account ability has the
                potential to negatively impact on the TCCA/Industry partnership and propose
                ways to mitigate the impacts.
        (b)     Identify the accountability relationship for the scenario of an Approved Design
                Organization (ADO)/Approved Design Individual (A DI) contracting another
                ADO/ADI for services and determine whether such subcontracting is problematic
                to industry.
4.      Cost to industry
        (a)     Identify the elements that would influence the costs of transition and make
                proposals as to how these costs could be minimized.
        (b)     Identify whether additional resources would be required to fulfill applicant and
                holder obligations and what the nature and function of those resources would be.
        (c)     Determine what elements of the enhanced framework would impact the financial
                and resource costs of fulfilling holder obligations.
        (d)     Identify lessons learned, including advantages and disadvantages, from the
                implementation of the DOA system by the European A viation Safety Agency
                (EASA) that must be considered in the proposed Canadian regulations to
                minimize negative impacts.
5.      Effects on Commerce
        (a)     Identify and explain the elements of the enhanced framework that would impact
                on small operat ors and make recommendations to minimize any negative impact.
        (b)     Identify and explain the elements of the enhanced framework that would impact
                on Design Approval Repres entatives (DA Rs) and make recommendation to
                minimize any negative impact.
        (c)     Identify the elements of the enhanced framework that would impact on those with
                investment money, ideas and markets but without certific ation capabilities and
                make recommendations to minimize any negative impact
        (d)     Identify and explain the elements of the enhanced framework that would impact
                on competitiveness with other count ries and make rec ommendations to minimize
                any such negative impacts.




                                                                                     Page 23 of 27
Working Group Report On the Account ability Framework in Aircraft Certification—of April 17, 2007

        (e)     Determine whether new eligibility requirements for applicants and holders are
                likely to stifle innovation and if so, make recomm endations to minimize any
                negative impact.
6.      Harmonization with the USA (and other Bilateral Partners)
        (a)     Determine whether the enhanced framework would affect the international
                competitiveness of Canadian industry and make recommendations to minimize
                any negative impact.
        (b)     Identify whether it is necessary to harmonize titles and ac ronyms (e. g. ADO) of
                the enhanced accountability framework with those used by the FAA and other
                major bilateral partners in their delegation system.
7.      Impact on TCCA Re source s
        Determine any effect on the levels of service provided by TCCA as a result of
        implementing the enhanced accountability framework and make recommendations to
        minimize any negative impact.
8.      TCCA’ s implementing challenges
        Determine if and how the enhanced accountability framework could affect national
        standardization of program delivery and make recommendations to minimize any
        negative impact.
9.      ADO/ADI Requirements
        (a)     Determine the advantages and disadvantages of requiring an ADO to have an
                ordinary place of business in Canada, and an ADI to be a Canadian citizen or a
                permanent resident as defined in the Immigration Act and have an ordinary plac e
                of business in Canada.
        (b)     Determine the advantages and disadvantages of requiring an ADO/ADI to also
                be a CA R Standard 561 manufacturing certific ate approval holder.
        (c)     Determine if anything should preclude an A pproval Maint enance Organization
                (AMO) from becoming an ADO, and whether an AMO would find this beneficial.
        (d)     Determine the minimum number of persons required of an organization to
                become an ADO.
        (e)     Propose the minimum knowledge and technical capability required of an ADO or
                ADI and how this could be assessed.
        (f)     Identify what requirements need to be considered in the determination of what
                constitutes an acceptable design assurance system.
10.      Independent Checking of Compliance Function and the Compliance Verification
         Engineers (CV E)
        (a)     Determine level of independence required for an independent check and propose
                conditions that could be specified to ensure this independence.
        (b)     Determine the eligibility criteria that must be met before a person can be eligible
                to be a CVE.
        (c)     Determine if anything should preclude a CVE from being someone who is not an
                employee of the ADO.
11.      Use of Agents (Undertakings by other persons) by applicant and hol ders of
         certificates and approval s
        (a)     Determine whether TCCA should permit the use of agents. If so, identify what
                controls and requirements TCCA should place on these arrangements.
        (b)     Identify what substantiating dat a a design approval holder should be required to
                retain and what their agents may retain as proprietary.




                                                                                      Page 24 of 27
     Working Group Report On the Account ability Framework in Aircraft Certification—of April 17, 2007

     12.      Scope of Authority (al so referred to as Level of Delegation, Scope, or Privileges)
             (a)     Review the impact on existing delegates scope of authorization and propose
                     solutions to limit the reductions.
             (b)     Propose how the Scope of Aut hority should be defined.
             (c)     Determine if and how TCCA should differentiat e eligible scopes for ADO from
                     ADI.
     13.      ―Catch-22‖ for de sign approval applicants who are not yet a holder of any other
              design approval.
             Determine methods for alleviating the ―catch-22‖ situation where new design approval
             applicants may not meet the eligibility requirements because they have not yet
             demonstrated knowledge, technical capability and design assurance as a result of never
             having been through the process before.
     14.     Use of Subcontractors by ADO/ADI.
             (a)     Determine the benefits and the potential negative impact of allowing foreign
                     subcontractors to work for and A DO/ADI.
             (b)     Determine if and how credit should be given for subcontractors who are Industry
                     Standards Organization (ISO) accredit ed (for example).
             (c)     Determine if subcontractors also need to be an ADO/ADI.
     15.      Retroactive Application of Enhanced Accountability Requirements on Existing (i.e.
              Legacy) De sign Approval Holders
             Identify the negative impacts if TCCA were to ret roactively apply the new eligibility and
             holder requirements to existing holders and make recommendations to minimize these
             impacts.
     16.     Declarations of Compliance
             (a)     Determine who should be required to make the declaration of compliance.
             (b)     Propose suggested format(s) for the declaration of complianc e.
             (c)     Determine who should make a declaration of compliance when an A DO/ADI
                     subcontracts to another A DO/ADI.
     17.     The ―New‖ Delegate
             (a)     Confirm need for delegates in the enhanced framework.
             (b)     Propose criteria that will be used for selecting delegates.
             (c)     Specify what activities delegates will perform.
             (d)     Determine the authorization that delegates will be eligible to receive.
             (e)     Determine if an A DI could also be a ―New‖ Delegate.
     18.     Authorized Persons (AP)
             Determine if the elimination of Aut horiz ed Pers ons would have negative motivating
             influence for industry personnel and if so, make recommendations to minimize these
             impacts.
5.   Working Group
     Working Group Title: ―Accountability Framework in Aircraft Certificatio n‖
     Working Group Leader

     Les Aalders              Air Trans port Association of Canada - A TA C (co-chair)
     Gilles Morin             Trans port Canada, Aircraft Certification, Regulatory Standards (co-c hair)




                                                                                           Page 25 of 27
     Working Group Report On the Account ability Framework in Aircraft Certification—of April 17, 2007

     Working Group Members:
     Mike Deer                Bell Helicopt er Textron Canada Limited - BHTC
     John Carr                Aircraft Electronics Association - AEA
     Brian Jenner             Helicopt er Association of Canada - HA C
     Bob Neis                 Nort hern Air Transport Association - NA TA
     Doug Peters              Aero Consulting Services - ACS
     Franc ois Tanguay        L-3 Communications MAS (Canada) Inc.
     William W. Morton        VanDA R (DAR)
     Perry Stamatiou          Bombardier
     Peter Boyd               Pratt & Whitney
     Bob Mather               Aerospace Industries Association of Canada - AIAC
     Rob Meath                Air Canada
     Alex Markov              Amtech
     Micheal Vaut our         Canadian Federation AME association
     Dick Hovey               Association of Independent Delegates for Aircraft Certification -A IDA C
                              (DA R)
     Roop Dhaliwal            Trans port Canada, Aircraft Certification - Engineering
     Derek Ferguson           Trans port Canada, Aircraft Certification - Delegations & Quality
     Kevin Bruce              Trans port Canada, Aircraft Certification – Regional Representative
     Martin Thieringer        Trans port Canada, Aircraft Certification, Regulatory standards, Manager,
                              Policies and Procedures Regulatory Standards
     TB D                     Trans port Canada, Aircraft Certification, Continuing Airworthiness
     Brian Whitehead          Trans port Canada, Maintenance and Manufacturing
     Scott Geddie             Federal A viation Administration- FAA
     Working Group Technical Advi sors: These are persons whose role is to support the WG
     members in their role within the WG.
     In accordance with the CARA C Management Charter and Procedures, members of the Part V
     (Aircraft Certification) Technical Committee have selected the Working Group membership
     including representation from both Transport Canada and industry. Every effort has been made to
     balance the Working Group membership between Transport Canada and industry participation.
     The Working Group will strive to achieve consens us. However, if consensus is not achievable,
     the dissenting opinions will be recorded by the WG for review by the Tec hnical Committee. The
     conduct of the Working Group meetings, the keeping of minutes and the tracking for disposition of
     the individual issues will be in accordance with the CARA C Management Charter and
     Procedures.
6.   Reporting
     The Working Group members are responsible to report all agreements reached unresolved
     issues and planned actions to their respective organizations. The Part V (Aircraft Certification)
     Technical Committee will be the forum where the Working Group leader will provide status
     updates on the activities of the Working Group and where the final recommendations of the
     Working Group will be reviewed.
     The Working Group leader is responsible to report to the Part V (Aircraft Certification) Technic al
     Committee and is responsible for submitting reports to the Technical Committee Chair regarding
     progress made, decisions reached, updates on schedules and issues that remain unres olved.
     The Working Group will report specific recommendations, the rationale upon which those
     recommendations are based and details of any dissenting points of view.
     The Working Group leader is responsible to keep the CARA C Secretariat apprised of the
     progress of the Working Group so that it may publish relevant information to the CARA C
     members as required.
7.   Technical Committee
     The Part V (AC) Technical Committee has the authority to accept, reject or send issues back to
     the Working Group for further study. Upon reviewing the Final Report of the Working Group, the
     Technical Committee may decide to provide additional rec ommendations to the Civil A viation
     Regulatory Committee (CA RC). To do so, the Technical Committee may append its own



                                                                                           Page 26 of 27
      Working Group Report On the Account ability Framework in Aircraft Certification—of April 17, 2007

      comments to the working group recommendations, ensuring not to revise the WG
      recommendations since they are the product of expertise that only resides among the working
      group membership.
8.    Timing
      It is expected that the Working Group activities will span over a maximum of six months. The
      Working Group members will define their work schedule accordingly, with the objective of
      submitting a fi nal report to the CA RAC Part V (AC) technical committee by the end of January
      2007.
9.    Budget
      Costs incurred for the Working Group members travel, accommodations, meals and incidental
      expenses shall be borne by their respective organizations.
10.   Admini strative support
      The Aircraft Certification branc h will be responsible for providing meeting facilities and secretarial
      functions in addition to all necessary administrative support.


      Approved by:


      Original signed by                                                   August 29, 2006
      _________________________                                   ________________
      Martin J. Eley                                                       Date
      Executive Director & Co-Chair
      Aircraft Certification Technical Committee (Part V)


      Original signed by                                                   August 25, 2006
      _________________________                                   ________________
      D. Burns                                                             Date
      Industry Co-Chair (Bombardier Aerospace)
      Aircraft Certification Technical Committee (Part V)




                                                                                               Page 27 of 27

				
DOCUMENT INFO