CONTINUING AIRWORTHINESS REQUIREMENTS – PART M 2(44)

曝光台 注意防骗 网曝天猫店富美金盛家居专营店坑蒙拐骗欺诈消费者

·  When alert levels are used, a single event may have the figures reach the alert level. Engineering judgement is necessary so as to discriminate an artefact from an actual need for a corrective action.
·  In making his engineering judgement, an M.A.Subpart G organisation is encouraged to establish contact and make comparisons with other M.A.Subpart G organisations of the same aircraft, where possible and relevant. Making compari-son with data provided by the manufacturer may also be pos-sible.
6.2.6  In order to obtain accurate reliability data, it should be recommended to pool data and analysis with one or more other M.A.Subpart G organisation(s). Paragraph 6.6 of this paragraph specifies under which conditions it is acceptable that M.A.Subpart G organisations share reli-ability data.
6.2.7  Notwithstanding the above there are cases where the M.A.Subpart G organisation will be unable to pool data with other M.A.Subpart G organi-sation, e.g. at the introduction to service of a new type. In that case the competent authority should impose additional restrictions on the MRB/ MPD tasks intervals (e.g. no variations or only minor evolution are pos-sible, and with the competent authority approval).

6.3 Engineering judgement
6.3.1  Engineering judgement is itself inherent to reliability programmes as no interpretation of data is possible without judgement. In approving the M.A.Subpart G organisation’s maintenance and reliability programmes, the competent authority is expected to ensure that the organisation which runs the programme (it may be the M.A.Subpart G organisation, or an Part-145 organisation under contract) hires sufficiently qualified personnel with appropriate engineering experience and understanding of reliability concept (see AMC M.A.706)
6.3.2  It follows that failure to provide appropriately qualified personnel for the reliability programme may lead the competent authority to reject the approval of the reliability programme and therefore the aircraft mainte-nance programme.
6.4 Contracted maintenance
6.4.1  Whereas M.A.302 specifies that, the aircraft maintenance programme -which includes the associated reliability programme-, should be man-aged and presented by the M.A.Subpart G organisation to the competent authority, it is understood that the M.A.Subpart G organisation may delegate certain functions to the Part-145 organisation under contract, provided this organisation proves to have the appropriate expertise.
6.4.2  These functions are:
(a)
Developing the aircraft maintenance and reliability programmes,

(b)
Performing the collection and analysis of the reliability data,

(c)
Providing reliability reports, and

(d)
Proposing corrective actions to the M.A.Subpart G organisation.

6.4.3  Notwithstanding the above decision to implement a corrective action (or the decision to request from the competent authority the approval to implement a corrective action) remains the M.A.Subpart G organisation’s prerogative and responsibility. In relation to paragraph 6.4.2(d) above, a decision not to implement a corrective action should be justified and documented.
6.4.4  The arrangement between the M.A.Subpart G organisation and the Part-145 organisation should be specified in the maintenance contract (see appendix 11) and the relevant CAME, and MOE procedures.
6.5 Reliability programme
In preparing the programme details, account should be taken of this paragraph. All associated procedures should be clearly defined.
6.5.1  Objectives
6.5.1.1  A statement should be included summarising as precisely as pos-sible the prime objectives of the programme. To the minimum it should include the following:
(a)
to recognise the need for corrective action,

(b)
to establish what corrective action is needed and,

(c)
to determine the effectiveness of that action
　
中国航空网 www.aero.cn
航空翻译 www.aviation.cn
本文链接地址：CONTINUING AIRWORTHINESS REQUIREMENTS – PART M 2(44)