(b)
The time scales for the production of reports together with their distribution.
(c)
The format and content of reports supporting request for increases in periods between maintenance (escalation) and for amendments to the approved maintenance programme. These reports should contain sufficient detailed information to enable the competent authority to make its own evaluation where necessary.
6.5.10 Evaluation and review.
Each programme should describe the procedures and individual respon-sibilities in respect of continuous monitoring of the effectiveness of the programme as a whole. The time periods and the procedures for both rou-tine and non-routine reviews of maintenance control should be detailed (progressive, monthly, quarterly, or annual reviews, procedures following reliability “standards” or “alert levels” being exceeded, etc.).
6.5.10.1 Each Programme should contain procedures for monitoring and, as necessary, revising the reliability “standards” or “alert levels”. The organisational responsibilities for monitoring and revising the “standards” should be specified together with associated time scales.
6.5.10.2 Although not exclusive, the following list gives guidance on the criteria to be taken into account during the review.
(a)
Utilisation (high/low/seasonal).
(b)
Fleet commonality.
(c)
Alert Level adjustment criteria.
(d)
Adequacy of data.
(e)
Reliability procedure audit.
(f)
Staff training.
(g)
Operational and maintenance procedures.
6.5.11 Approval of maintenance programme amendment
The competent authority may authorise the M.A.Subpart G organisation to implement in the maintenance programme changes arising from the reliability programme results prior to their formal approval by the author-ity when satisfied that;
(a)
the Reliability Programme monitors the content of the Maintenance Programme in a comprehensive manner, and
(b)
the procedures associated with the functioning of the “Reliability Group” provide the assurance that appropriate control is exercised by the Owner/operator over the internal validation of such changes.
6.6 Pooling Arrangements.
6.6.1 In some cases, in order that sufficient data may be analysed it may be desirable to ‘pool’ data: i.e. collate data from a number of M.A. Subpart G organisations of the same type of aircraft. For the analysis to be valid, the aircraft concerned, mode of operation, and maintenance procedures applied should be substantially the same: variations in utilisation between two M.A. Subpart G organisations may, more than anything, fundamen-tally corrupt the analysis. Although not exhaustive, the following list gives guidance on the primary factors which need to be taken into account.
(a)
Certification factors, such as: aircraft TCDS compliance (variant)/ modification status, including SB compliance.
(b)
Operational Factors, such as: operational environment/utilisation,
e.g. low/high/seasonal, etc./respective fleet size operating rules applicable (e.g. ETOPS/RVSM/All Weather etc.)/operating proce-dures/MEL and MEL utilisation.
(c)
Maintenance factors, such as: aircraft age maintenance procedures; maintenance standards applicable; lubrication procedures and pro-gramme; MPD revision or escalation applied or maintenance pro-gramme applicable.
6.6.2 Although it may not be necessary for all of the foregoing to be completely common, it is necessary for a substantial amount of commonality to pre-vail. Decision should be taken by the competent authority on a case by case basis.
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(47)
