Enhancing Safety Worldwide IFA Forum Paris 23 October 2006 Airworthiness in Outsourcing- is the balance maintained?

Airworthiness in Outsourcing Welcoming comments Introduction of Panel Members Object of the Forum Description of the outsourcing revolution in Airline Maintenance

Growth is evident

Where the money is spent

Let’s question some common conceptions Only airlines know how to manage airworthiness!

Let’s question some common conceptions Well if that’s right, does it apply to ALL airlines? How about start ups?

Let’s question some common conceptions If we don’t agree, what about MRO's. Do they know enough about airworthiness control?

IFA Forum Paris 2006 Continuing airworthiness is a necessity enshrined in ICAO, European and US legislation It is second nature to operators and MRO's alike? How is it dealt with though, day to day?

Both sides of the same coin Our first operator What consideration is given to airworthiness in our contract? Our first MRO How do we see our role in controlling airworthiness of the fleets we take care of?

The TC Holder’s involvement Do the main manufacturers have a role? How do they interrelate with MRO’s? How do they deal with their airline customers who contract work to MRO’s?

The regulator’s view How current regulation sees it ICAO Annex 6 EASA Parts 145 & M, JAR-OPS FAR’s 145 & 121

The contract How is a contract written? Does it meet the needs of airworthiness as well as it covers commercial terms? Does the responsibilities of the operator overlap the responsibility of the contractor/sub-contractor? Where does final responsibility lay?

The facets of outsourcing. Does commercial pressure ever intrude? Do operators feel they are in control? Do MRO's feel they are controlled by their customers? Who provided the work specifications? Who authors the actual task cards? Does the MRO have to use many versions of task cards (as many as it has customers)? Is there a difference if the MRO is also an operator?

Human aspects Are MRO staff trained by the operator in his procedures? Do operators see that their MRO's provide adequate resource or do they leave that to the regulator? Do MRO's suffer from feast and famine and what effect does this have on workforce stability?

Performance aspects Do MRO's perform as well as an operator’s own in house workforce? Is it possible that MRO's give greater operational efficiency? E.g. On time departures

The future Will we see increasing alliances or even acquisitions of airframe MRO's by the primes as we see in the Engine Overhaul field? Will we see even less heavy maintenance being done by operators?

What is the future of “engineering services”? Some larger MRO's offer contracts/interface arrangements which include:- Heavy and light maintenance Component support including lease packages Continuing airworthiness management support such as maintenance & reliability programs, AD & SB analysis and planning, record keeping, document systems and even design activity

How much can the airline buy in? Heavy checks ? OK Line maintenance? Maybe. Spares support? Quite likely. Engine overhaul? Racing certainty. Engineering and tech services? Good question. EASA rules appear to permit appropriately approved organisations to contract for such work

Summing up We know that there are differing approaches to outsourcing No one size fits all! Some airlines want only heavy checks Others want the full Monty! Regulation does not deter outsourcing. It does place an oversight burden on the operator. All parties must allow for this!

The four legged stool Years ago when Pontius was a pilot it was often expressed that airworthiness was a three legged stool. The airline, the manufacturer and the regulator each sharing the burden. Now it must be seen that while ultimate responsibility rests with the airline the stool has a fourth leg-the MRO

Thank you all. MANUFACTURER OPERATOR GOVERNMENT MRO AIR SAFETY SAFETY RESPONSIBILITIES ARE SHARED