21.B.125 Findings and corrective actions; observations

EXAMPLES OF LEVEL 1 FINDINGS Examples of level 1 findings are non-compliance with any of the following points, which may affect the safety of the aircraft: point 21.A.126; point 21.A.127; point 21.A.128; and point 21.A.129. It should be anticipated that non-compliance with those points is only considered a level 1 finding if there is objective evidence that that finding is uncontrolled non-compliance that could affect the safety of the aircraft.

SIGNIFICANT NON-COMPLIANCE Significant non-compliance includes uncontrolled non-compliance with applicable design data, which is non-compliance that:

(a)cannot be discovered through systematic analysis; or

(b)prevents the identification of the affected products, parts, appliances, or material.

EVIDENCE A finding can only be raised on the basis of evidence. Evidence is a fact that is, or can be, documented based on observations, measurements, or tests that can be verified. Evidence generally comes from the following:

(a)documents or manuals;

(b)examination of equipment/products; and

(c)information from interview questions and from observations of an organisation’s activities, as applicable.

NOTIFICATION OF FINDINGS In the case of a level 1 finding, confirmation should be obtained in a timely manner that the accountable manager has taken note of the finding and its details. A finding requires effective oversight by the competent authority to monitor the timely completion of the corrective action. That oversight may include intermediate communication, such as letters, as necessary, to remind the approval holder to verify that the corrective action plan is followed.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A ‘LEVEL 2 FINDING’ AND AN ‘OBSERVATION’

(a)‘Findings’ are issued for non-compliance with the regulation, with the organisation’s procedures and manuals, or with the certificate including the terms of approval, whereas ‘observations’ may be issued to an organisation that remains compliant with the regulation, while additional input to the organisation may be considered for continuous improvement (see points (1), (2), and (3) of point 21.B.125(e)). The competent authority may decide to issue a ‘level 2 finding’ when the ‘observations’ process is not managed correctly or is overlooked (see points 21.A.125B(c) and 21.A.158(c)).

(b)Examples to help differentiate between a ‘level 2 finding’ and an ‘observation’ are provided below, based on the requirements for the control and calibration of tools in accordance with point 21.A.139(b)(1)(vii). Example of a ‘level 2 finding’: The organisation could not demonstrate compliance with some elements of point 21.A.145(a) regarding the control register of the tools and equipment, as evidenced by the fact that:

(a)some sampled tools that are physically available in the tool store were missing in the tool control register that is managed by the organisation; or

(b)one tool was not correctly identified (e.g. incorrect part number or serial number) in the tool control register. Examples of ‘observations’:

(a)Accumulation of tools in the tool store, which have not been yet sent for calibration. This situation may have some consequences regarding the availability of tools and the operational capabilities during a peak of activities (ineffectiveness of the process).

(b)The process for managing the tool control register through the dedicated software is not detailed enough (potential to cause a ‘level 2 finding’).

(c)The colour of the ‘unserviceable’ tag of the tools may generate some confusion. The organisation should consider changing the colour of that unserviceable tag to better alert its staff to the particular status of the unserviceable tools (potential improvement).

SIGNIFICANT NON-COMPLIANCE Significant non-compliance includes uncontrolled non-compliance with applicable design data, which is non-compliance that:

(a)cannot be discovered through systematic analysis; or

(b)prevents the identification of the affected products, parts, appliances, or material.

EVIDENCE A finding can only be raised on the basis of evidence. Evidence is a fact that is, or can be, documented based on observations, measurements, or tests that can be verified. Evidence generally comes from the following:

(a)documents or manuals;

(b)examination of equipment/products; and

(c)information from interview questions and from observations of an organisation’s activities, as applicable.

NOTIFICATION OF FINDINGS In the case of a level 1 finding, confirmation should be obtained in a timely manner that the accountable manager has taken note of the finding and its details. A finding requires effective oversight by the competent authority to monitor the timely completion of the corrective action. That oversight may include intermediate communication, such as letters, as necessary, to remind the approval holder to verify that the corrective action plan is followed.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A ‘LEVEL 2 FINDING’ AND AN ‘OBSERVATION’

(a)‘Findings’ are issued for non-compliance with the regulation, with the organisation’s procedures and manuals, or with the certificate including the terms of approval, whereas ‘observations’ may be issued to an organisation that remains compliant with the regulation, while additional input to the organisation may be considered for continuous improvement (see points (1), (2), and (3) of point 21.B.125(e)). The competent authority may decide to issue a ‘level 2 finding’ when the ‘observations’ process is not managed correctly or is overlooked (see points 21.A.125B(c) and 21.A.158(c)).

(b)Examples to help differentiate between a ‘level 2 finding’ and an ‘observation’ are provided below, based on the requirements for the control and calibration of tools in accordance with point 21.A.139(b)(1)(vii). Example of a ‘level 2 finding’: The organisation could not demonstrate compliance with some elements of point 21.A.145(a) regarding the control register of the tools and equipment, as evidenced by the fact that:

(a)some sampled tools that are physically available in the tool store were missing in the tool control register that is managed by the organisation; or

(b)one tool was not correctly identified (e.g. incorrect part number or serial number) in the tool control register. Examples of ‘observations’:

(a)Accumulation of tools in the tool store, which have not been yet sent for calibration. This situation may have some consequences regarding the availability of tools and the operational capabilities during a peak of activities (ineffectiveness of the process).

(b)The process for managing the tool control register through the dedicated software is not detailed enough (potential to cause a ‘level 2 finding’).

(c)The colour of the ‘unserviceable’ tag of the tools may generate some confusion. The organisation should consider changing the colour of that unserviceable tag to better alert its staff to the particular status of the unserviceable tools (potential improvement).