Part V – Aircraft Certification Technical Committee
Accountability Framework in Aircraft Certification

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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

2.0 REFERENCES AND DEFINITIONS
2.1 Referenced Documents
2.2 Definitions

3.0 BACKGROUND
3.1 Guiding Principles
3.2 Developmental Versus Consequential Issues

4.0 ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORK FUNDAMENTALS

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS—GENERAL

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS—DESIGN APPROVAL APPLICANTS

7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS—ADO RATING

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS—DESIGN APPROVAL HOLDERS

9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS—ACCREDITED DESIGN ORGANIZATION

10.0 RECOMMENDATION—DESIGN ASSURANCE SYSTEM (DAS)
10.1 WG Developed DAS Proposal
10.2 Alternate DAS Proposal

11.0 TRANSITION PLAN

12.0 NATIONAL STANDARDIZATION

13.0 WG RECOMMENDATION IMPACT ON NPA 2004-107 (CAR 521)

14.0 GUIDANCE MATERIAL

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

APPENDIX A – WORKING GROUP MEMBERS, ALTERNATES AND OTHERS

APPENDIX B – CONCORDANCE BETWEEN TOR ITEMS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

APPENDIX C – ALTERNATE PROPOSAL FOR ADO TERMS OF ACCREDITATION

APPENDIX D – TERMS OF REFERENCE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In response to industry observations and concerns with the Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) Aircraft Certification Branch accountability framework discussion paper of 2005, the Accountability 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 Aviation Regulation Advisory Council (CARAC) Part 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 represented.

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 conceptually 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 that 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 accountability framework would ultimately lead to significant differences between 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 (ADI) because an ADO could be scaled to accommodate a single person. The WG also recommended that an ADO terms of accreditation could include the 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. These include, for example, software and flight test specialty delegates. The WG recommends that TCCA and/or Canadian industry create standards for recognising such expertise and propose a system of recognition 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 quantitative data (such as number of qualified people) that should be identified.

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 comprised the WG are identified in Appendix A.

1.3 Working Group Meetings

The WG met five times:

1. September 12 to 14, 2006 in Ottawa for general discussions;
2. November 8 and 9, 2006 in Vancouver for general discussions;
3. December 4 to 6, 2006 in Ottawa for general discussions;
4. February 20 to 22, 2007 in Ottawa for general discussions; and
5. 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 scheduled WG meetings.

2.0 REFERENCES AND DEFINITIONS

2.1 Referenced Documents

The following documents should be used in conjunction with this report:

1. Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) 2004-107—Canadian Aviation Regulations (CAR) 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.
   
   
2. European Union Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1702/2003 of 24 September 2003, laying down implementing rules for the airworthiness and environmental certification of aircraft and related products, parts and appliances, as well as for the certification of design and production organisations.

2.2 Definitions

The WG used the following definitions:

1. Accountability: an obligation that if unfulfilled, leads to some form of legal or punitive action.
   
   
2. 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.
   
   
3. 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.
   
   
4. Declaration of compliance: a statement made by an Accredited Design Organization (ADO) that all necessary determinations of compliance made by Compliance Specialists, either within the ADO or subcontracted by the ADO, have been completed for the design approval being sought.
   
   
5. Design Approval Applicant: any individual or organization that makes an application for a design approval or a change to a design approval.
   
   
6. 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.
   
   
7. 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 and corrected to the degree that the product, as implemented, satisfies applicable certification requirements.
   
   
8. Determination of compliance: confirmation by a Compliance Specialist that compliance has been substantiated within their area of specialization to a regulation contained within the basis of certification for the design approval being sought.
9. 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 CAR 521, particularly Divisions J and K in respect of the delegation system, the CARAC 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 CARAC Part V – Aircraft Certification Technical Committee meeting of December 2005. At that meeting comments and concerns lead to the formation of a CARAC 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 discussed and accepted. Two co-chairs were identified; Mr. Gilles Morin represented TCCA and Mr. Les Aalders represented industry. At the first meeting Gilles Morin presented a number of guiding principles to the WG members.

1. An accountability framework is a structure where each stakeholder’s role and obligations, responsibilities and accountability are clearly established;,
   
   
2. Unfulfilled obligations and responsibilities lead to some form of legal or punitive action.
   
   
3. Design Approval Applicants are accountable to:
   
   
   1. develop a safe and compliant design;
   2. show the design is safe and compliant; and
   3. carry out test programs safely.
   
   
   
4. Design Approval Holders are accountable for maintaining a safe and compliant design in compliance with the standards of airworthiness, and for the continuing airworthiness of their products.
   
   
5. The Minister remains accountable for:
   
   
   1. making regulations;
   2. specifying the certification basis;
   3. specifying acceptable means of compliance;
   4. issuing certificates and approvals;
   5. accrediting design approval organisations;
   6. overseeing compliance;
   7. taking enforcement actions as necessary; and
   8. mandating corrective action as required.
   
   
   

3.2 Developmental Versus Consequential Issues

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:

1. Developmental meant that the item directly influenced the considerations to develop the concept. Such issues are discussed in sections 4.0 through 14.0.
   
   
2. Consequential issues are identified in Appendix B and are discussed in section 15.0.
   
   

Issues identified as consequential will require consideration during development of a subsequent 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 accountability to an organization or process was discussed. The WG identified one means, which would include mandating obligations, responsibilities as well as minimum knowledge and technical capability for the design approval applicant/holder. Demonstrated knowledge and technical capability of design approval organisation could 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 between 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 the 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 ADO is an individual or an organization that has demonstrated the necessary systems and expertise to execute certification tasks and/or support continuing airworthiness tasks on behalf of an applicant/holder. The ADO would be authorized to exercise certain 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 inspections 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 appropriate to the rating sought, and the category of product.

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS—GENERAL

The following general recommendations have been made:

1. TCCA shall consider the harmonization of titles, acronyms and forms to reduce the risk of misunderstanding by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the European Aviation 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.
   
   
2. 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 compatible such that the systems of each country may be mutually recognized.
   
   
3. Only those individuals or organizations accredited as an ADO should be entitled to issue a declaration of compliance in support of the issuance of a design approval.
   
   
4. 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.
   
   
5. Under the ADO system those design approval holders who do not have an ADO will be auditable through the agreement that they have between themselves, the ADO, and the Minister.
   
   
6. 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 accreditation. Subcontractors need not have an ordinary place of business in Canada. A decision on whether or not to use subcontractors with an industry-recognized accreditation is a business decision.
   
   
7. 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.
   
   
8. The ADO must have a documented and auditable DAS that tracks compliance to the certification basis. This may or may not include independent checking, depending on the requirements specified in the DAS.
   
   
9. 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.
   
   
10. 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 subsequent NPAs, and maintained.
    
    

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS—DESIGN APPROVAL APPLICANTS

The following recommendations in respect of applicants for a design approval have been made:

1. The design approval applicant eligibility requirements currently in the CAR 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.
   
   
2. 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.
   
   
3. 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 receive accreditation with a minimum scope of work, which would increase as their capability is demonstrated.
   
   
4. Where the design approval applicant does not have an ADO 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.
   
   
5. 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 RATING

The following recommendation in respect of an ADO rating has been made. Accreditation as an ADO should include specific ratings required for each class of application and aeronautical product category. Rating may consist of a class and a group, such as A3, where:

1. 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.
   
   
2. Group is the particular aeronautical product grouping for which application 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.
   
   

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.

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS—DESIGN APPROVAL HOLDERS

The following recommendations in respect of design approval holders have been made. Design approval holders shall:

1. continue to meet and maintain the eligibility requirements, which is one of the holder obligations currently presented in NPA 2004-107, and any changes to the holder obligations as presented in this report.
   
   
2. satisfy the knowledge and technical capability requirements of the eligibility requirement in (a) above by having, or having access to, an ADO with a rating appropriate to the design approval held to execute certification tasks and/or support continuing airworthiness tasks on behalf of a holder.
   
   
3. implement and meet the commitment made prior to the issuance of 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 ORGANIZATION

The following recommendations in respect of ADO have been made:

1. The ADO model should be scalable from an organisation comprised of one to many individuals. Scalability is introduced 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 Aviation 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.
   
   
2. Given the manner in which the ADO system has been defined, the WG has determined that implementation of an ADI system would be redundant.
   
   
3. Given the WG recommendation 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.
   
   
4. 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.
   
   
5. Applicants for ADO certification 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 intend to 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 procedures, access to relevant data and a record keeping system.
   
   
6. 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.
   
   
7. The demonstration of product knowledge that is required of an ADO applicant depends on the rating class:
   
   
   1. 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.
      
      
   2. For STC, RDA and PDA 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 aircraft electrical, navigation, and communication systems.
      
      
8. ADOs should be required to 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 CARs , and to develop and maintain a manual describing the DAS, and its organization.
   
   
9. The requirement for an SMS will be invoked through Subparts 106 and 107 of the CARs by identifying that the ADO certificate is an operating certificate. Subpart 521 of the CARs, when in force, will introduce SMS regulations that the holder of an operating certificate (ADO) will be required to implement.
   
   
10. ADOs will not be required to hold a manufacturing certificate or to be an approved maintenance organization or an aircraft maintenance engineer. However, nothing should prevent the holder of one of these certificates from making application to be an ADO.
    
    
11. 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/CivilAviation/SMS/SmallOperator/Final/Menu.htm#Summary.
    
    
12. The ADO certificate should specify the entitlements of the ADO, similar in concept to 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 Part 21. Therefore, the WG recommends defining the terms and conditions of an ADO 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.
    
    
    1. General conditions (records, obligations, etc.);
    2. Rating (class and group);
    3. Product Category;
    4. Scope of Work; and
    5. Duration.
    
    
    
13. 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:
    
    
    1. Make determinations of compliance.
    2. Be an applicant and/or a holder of a design approval.
    3. Provide a declaration of compliance that will be accepted without further verification or review of compliance documents.
    4. Classify changes to type designs as major and minor.
    5. Issue a design approval.
    6. Approve minor type design changes.
    7. Approve editorial changes to Aircraft Flight Manuals and issue such information or instructions containing statement « Technical content of this document is approved under the ADO authority ».
    8. Classify and approve changes to the ADO manual and supporting documents, where appropriate.
    
    
    
14. The ADO shall:
    
    
    1. Make declarations of compliance only after they have satisfied themselves that compliance has been shown.
    2. Maintain an effective DAS and SMS.
    3. Operate in accordance with the manual.

10.0 RECOMMENDATION—DESIGN ASSURANCE SYSTEM (DAS)

10.1 WG Developed DAS Proposal

To help determine the 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 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:

1. 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 ADO;
   
   
2. The DAS should be sufficient to enable the organization to ensure that the design of the products, parts and appliances or the design change thereof, complies with the applicable type certification basis, with proven technical competence, capability and mechanisms to:
   
   
   1. produce compliant designs;
   2. generate credible certification data;
   3. make determinations of compliance;
   4. make a Declaration of Compliance;
   5. be accountable for the design; and
   6. ensure that its responsibilities are properly discharged in accordance with the appropriate provisions of the Regulations and their terms of accreditation.
   
   
   
3. Be responsible for:
   
   
   1. recognizing limitations associated with scope;
   2. communicating with TCCA; and
   3. disseminating new regulations, standards and guidance.
   
   
   
4. Have procedures and processes for self-audit that:
   
   
   1. independently monitor the compliance with, 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;
   2. have a technical dispute resolution system;
   3. have a process for record keeping to document the self-audit results and to demonstrate that all necessary corrective actions were taken.
   
   
   
5. Have a means to account for the acceptability of the parts or appliances designed or the tasks performed by partners or subcontractors according to methods that are the subject of written procedures.
   
   
6. The DAS should result in a degree of assurance 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 that 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:

1. Requirements determination and management process;
   
   
2. Safety Assessment process;
   
   
3. Requirements validation process;
   
   
4. Implementation verification process;
   
   
5. Configuration Management process;
   
   
6. Process Assurance process;
   
   
7. Certification Assurance and Communication process;
   
   
8. Subcontractor/Supplier management process; and
   
   
9. Tool/test facility qualification process.

11.0 TRANSITION PLAN

The WG recommends that a transition plan be prepared by TCCA such that existing:

1. 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.
   
   
2. DARs that apply for or hold design approvals, and that desire to retain 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 DARs 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.
   
   
3. DARs that provide a service as technical 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 STANDARDIZATION

13.0 WG RECOMMENDATION IMPACT ON NPA 2004-107 (CAR 521)

The WG was tasked to identify appropriate 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 ADO that are not presently 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:

1. Subsection 521.07(1), Undertaking By A Person Other Than The Design Approval Applicant Or The Design Approval Holder, may be deleted in total as it could be replaced by definitions proposed in the report.
   
   
2. Section 521.27 Eligibility, subsection (1) may 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.
   
   
3. Section 521.45 Compliance with the Certification Basis 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.
   
   
4. 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.
   
   
5. Section 521.55 Issuance Of A Type Certificate In The Restricted Category 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.
   
   
6. Division J Delegation of Authority to an Organizational Delegate should be amended to reflect the recommendations of this WG.
   
   
7. Division K Delegation of Authority to a Design Approval Representative should be deleted in total. There is no replacement text for this division.
   
   
8. Division N in respect of foreign applications needs review to determine if the 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 Subpart 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 MATERIAL

The WG was tasked to identify appropriate guidance material that should be developed in support of the improved accountability framework. It is the WG recommendation that the following material be considered:

1. advisory 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 applicant for an ADO may use to comply with the requirements as part of their application.
   
   
2. advisory and guidance material in respect of the evaluation of a DAS and a means of compliance with the requirements for a DAS.
   
   
3. advisory and guidance material 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 that the item directly influenced the considerations to develop the concept. A number of issues were identified as important and requiring addressing. However, it became clear that these issues were not relevant to the development 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.

Consequential issues are identified in the table of Appendix B and are discussed in the 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 between TCCA and an ADO was identified. This situation may occur when, through LOI on a program, TCCA decides that a product is not compliant and the ADO may disagree. Through its entitlement, the ADO could continue to issue a declaration of compliance 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.

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 creates a new level of responsibility and oversight beyond « aircraft certification &r;

15.3 Transition Risks [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 unintended and adverse effects that could be introduced with 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 considered in the development of the Accountability 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 these 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, Items 5(d) and (e)]

The WG agreed that these items deal with international competitiveness, innovation, 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 Resources [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 to 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 harmonization with similar such forms of bilateral partners should be considered.

15.9 Authorized Persons (AP) [TOR Section 4, Item 18]

15.10 Design Approval Issuance

The WG identified a potential concern on design approval issuance by an ADO. It was questioned whether a design approval issued by an ADO 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 ADO »:

1. TCCA could lose all ability to control the issuance of a design approval; and
   
   
2. 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.

APPENDIX A – WORKING GROUP MEMBERS, ALTERNATES AND OTHERS

APPENDIX B – CONCORDANCE BETWEEN TOR ITEMS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

APPENDIX C – ALTERNATE PROPOSAL FOR ADO TERMS OF ACCREDITATION

C.1 Terms of Accreditation

The ADO terms of accreditation should identify the types of 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. STC, LSTC and RDA) and ADOs that cover TSO DA or Parts Design Approvals (PDA) a scope of work should also be provided that clearly identifies the ADOs 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 ADOs that cover Type, TSO or Parts 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 ADO manual.

The ADO terms of accreditation will then consist of the following elements

1. Rating
2. Scope of Work
3. List of Products

The Rating and Scope of Work elements of the terms of accreditation are detailed below.

C.2 ADO RATING

The ADO rating is intended to facilitate the determination and subsequent bounding of the scope of work that an ADO may perform based on the demonstrated capability of the ADO applicant.

The ADO rating should be consistent with the types of design approvals and the airworthiness standards applicable to the aeronautical products for which approval is sought. As such the ADO 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:

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:

C.3 ADO SCOPE OF WORK

The scope of work is bounded by the approval category identified in the ADO rating and is intended to identify the ADOs demonstrated capability. A partial list of examples of Scope of Work is shown below:

Examples of ADO ratings are provide below:

1. An ADO supporting an application for Type Design Certificates of Transport Category Aeroplanes would be designated a rating of: TD525
   
   
2. 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
   
   

APPENDIX D – TERMS OF REFERENCE

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

TERMS OF REFERENCE

WORKING GROUP ON
ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORK IN AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATION

1. Background

Over the years, the Aircraft Certification Branch 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 Representative (DAR) system. Based on recommendations of the Dubin Commission in 1980’s, the Aeronautics Act was amended in 1985 to provide for Authorization, by the Minister, of persons engaged in the field of Airworthiness. Airworthiness standards were then developed in Airworthiness Manual Chapter 505, and the DAR system was expanded to include two new categories of corporate delegate: the Airworthiness Engineering Organization (AEO); and the Design Approval Organization (DAO).

In light of the strategic direction of Transport Canada Civil Aviation (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 weakens 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 Aviation Regulations (CARs). This had been presented and accepted by the CARAC Part V(AC) Technical Committee as Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) 2004-107 (known as CAR 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 CAR 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 CARAC 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 Aviation Regulations and, applicants and holders of design approvals having obligations under the Aeronautics Act and the Canadian Aviation Regulations. Applicants have obligations to develop a safe and compliant design, show that their design is safe and compliant and carry out their test programs safely. Holders have an obligation to maintain a safe and compliant design. Finally the Minister of Transport has an obligation to promote Aviation 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 accountability 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 objectives 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 Confidence of stakeholders in the civil Aviation Program;
  
  
• Alignment of expectations for Civil Aviation 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 Branch regulatory structure with other 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 Organization (AMO). Ultimately, all these “operating” certificates will fully integrated 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 Aeronautical Product Certification proposal as presented to industry in 2005, including the development of a new Canadian Aviation Document (CAD) recognizing design organisation’s knowledge of the certification process 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 CARAC Technical Committee meeting on 22nd 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

The WG will provide their recommendations to the CARAC 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 each area of study 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 CAR 521 can be modified to improve accountability and if so, what changes to the existing system would be required.

2. Transition Risks
   
   
   1. Identify potential unintended and adverse effects that could be introduced with the enhanced accountability framework and ways to mitigate negative effects;
      
      
   2. 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
   
   
   1. Identify whether and how an increased emphasis on accountability has the potential to negatively impact on the TCCA/Industry partnership and propose ways to mitigate the impacts.
      
      
   2. Identify the accountability relationship for the scenario of an Approved Design Organization (ADO)/Approved Design Individual (ADI) contracting another ADO/ADI for services and determine whether such subcontracting is problematic to industry.
      
      
4. Cost to industry
   
   
   1. Identify the elements that would influence the costs of transition and make proposals as to how these costs could be minimized.
      
      
   2. Identify whether additional resources would be required to fulfill applicant and holder obligations and what the nature and function of those resources would be.
      
      
   3. Determine what elements of the enhanced framework would impact the financial and resource costs of fulfilling holder obligations.
      
      
   4. Identify lessons learned, including advantages and disadvantages, from the implementation of the DOA system by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) that must be considered in the proposed Canadian regulations to minimize negative impacts.
      
      
5. Effects on Commerce
   
   
   1. Identify and explain the elements of the enhanced framework that would impact on small operators and make recommendations to minimize any negative impact.
      
      
   2. Identify and explain the elements of the enhanced framework that would impact on Design Approval Representatives (DARs) and make recommendation to minimize any negative impact.
      
      
   3. Identify the elements of the enhanced framework that would impact on those with investment money, ideas and markets but without certification capabilities and make recommendations to minimize any negative impact
      
      
   4. Identify and explain the elements of the enhanced framework that would impact on competitiveness with other countries and make recommendations to minimize any such negative impacts.
      
      
   5. Determine whether new eligibility requirements for applicants and holders are likely to stifle innovation and if so, make recommendations to minimize any negative impact.
      
      
6. Harmonization with the USA (and other Bilateral Partners)
   
   
   1. Determine whether the enhanced framework would affect the international competitiveness of Canadian industry and make recommendations to minimize any negative impact.
      
      
   2. Identify whether it is necessary to harmonize titles and acronyms (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 Resources

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
   
   
   1. 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 place of business in Canada.
      
      
   2. Determine the advantages and disadvantages of requiring an ADO/ADI to also be a CAR Standard 561 manufacturing certificate approval holder.
      
      
   3. Determine if anything should preclude an Approval Maintenance Organization (AMO) from becoming an ADO, and whether an AMO would find this beneficial.
      
      
   4. Determine the minimum number of persons required of an organization to become an ADO.
      
      
   5. Propose the minimum knowledge and technical capability required of an ADO or ADI and how this could be assessed.
      
      
   6. 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 (CVE)
    
    
    1. Determine level of independence required for an independent check and propose conditions that could be specified to ensure this independence.
       
       
    2. Determine the eligibility criteria that must be met before a person can be eligible to be a CVE.
       
       
    3. 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 holders of certificates and approvals
    
    
    1. Determine whether TCCA should permit the use of agents. If so, identify what controls and requirements TCCA should place on these arrangements.br>
       
    2. Identify what substantiating data a design approval holder should be required to retain and what their agents may retain as proprietary.
       
       
12. Scope of Authority (also referred to as Level of Delegation, Scope, or Privileges)
    
    
    1. Review the impact on existing delegates scope of authorization and propose solutions to limit the reductions.
       
       
    2. Propose how the Scope of Authority should be defined.
       
       
    3. Determine if and how TCCA should differentiate eligible scopes for ADO from ADI.
       
       
13. « Catch-22 » for design 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.
    
    
    1. Determine the benefits and the potential negative impact of allowing foreign subcontractors to work for and ADO/ADI.
       
       
    2. Determine if and how credit should be given for subcontractors who are Industry Standards Organization (ISO) accredited (for example).
       
       
    3. Determine if subcontractors also need to be an ADO/ADI.
       
       
15. Retroactive Application of Enhanced Accountability Requirements on Existing (i.e. Legacy) Design Approval Holders
    
    

Identify the negative impacts if TCCA were to retroactively apply the new eligibility and holder requirements to existing holders and make recommendations to minimize these impacts.

16. Declarations of Compliance
    
    
    1. Determine who should be required to make the declaration of compliance.
       
       
    2. Propose suggested format(s) for the declaration of compliance.
       
       
    3. Determine who should make a declaration of compliance when an ADO/ADI subcontracts to another ADO/ADI.
       
       
17. The « New » Delegate
    
    
    1. Confirm need for delegates in the enhanced framework.
       
       
    2. Propose criteria that will be used for selecting delegates.
       
       
    3. Specify what activities delegates will perform.
       
       
    4. Determine the authorization that delegates will be eligible to receive.
       
       
    5. Determine if an ADI could also be a « New » Delegate.
       
       
18. 18. Authorized Persons (AP)
    
    

Determine if the elimination of Authorized Persons would have negative motivating influence for industry personnel and if so, make recommendations to minimize these impacts.

5. Working Group

Working Group Technical Advisors: These are persons whose role is to support the WG members in their role within the WG.

In accordance with the CARAC 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 consensus. However, if consensus is not achievable, the dissenting opinions will be recorded by the WG for review by the Technical 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 CARAC 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) Technical Committee and is responsible for submitting reports to the Technical Committee Chair regarding progress made, decisions reached, updates on schedules and issues that remain unresolved. 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 CARAC Secretariat apprised of the progress of the Working Group so that it may publish relevant information to the CARAC 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 recommendations to the Civil Aviation Regulatory Committee (CARC). To do so, the Technical Committee may append its own 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 final report to the CARAC 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. Administrative support

The Aircraft Certification branch will be responsible for providing meeting facilities and secretarial functions in addition to all necessary administrative support.

Approved by: