U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular Subject: Airworthiness Directives Management Process Date: 12/13/11 Initiated by: AFS-300 AC No: 39-9 Change: 1
1. PURPOSE. This advisory circular (AC) provides all aircraft operators with information and guidance for assistance in compliance to Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 39, Airworthiness Directives. The recommendations contained in this AC are one means, but not the only means, of complying with part 39 requirements pertaining to Airworthiness Directives (AD).
2. PRINCIPAL CHANGES. This change incorporates new information into AC 39-9, Airworthiness Directives Management Process.
PAGE CONTROL CHART Remove Pages Dated Insert Pages Dated 2 thru 4 6/1/11 2 thru 4 12/13/11 6 and 7 6/1/11 6 and 7 12/13/11 Appendix 1, p.1 6/1/11 Appendix 1, p.1 12/13/11 Appendix 4, p.1 and 2 6/1/11 Appendix 4, p.1 and 2 12/13/11 Appendix 5, p.1 6/1/11 Appendix 5, p.1 12/13/11
ORIGINAL SIGNED by /s/ John S. Duncan for
John M. Allen Director, Flight Standards Service
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular Subject: Airworthiness Directives Management Process Date: 6/1/11 Initiated by: AFS-330 AC No: 39-9 Change:
1. PURPOSE. This advisory circular (AC) provides all aircraft operators with information and guidance for assistance in compliance to Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 39, Airworthiness Directives. The recommendations contained in this AC are one means, but not the only means, of complying with part 39 requirements pertaining to Airworthiness Directives (AD). However, individual operations and needs should determine an operator’s AD management process. When developing an AD management process, operators should consider its size, capabilities, resources, and equipment.
2. RELATED 14 CFR PARTS.
• Part 39.
• Part 91.
• Part 121.
• Part 135.
3. BACKGROUND.
a. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Authority. The FAA authority regarding civil aircraft may be found generally in Title 49 of the United State Code (49 U.S.C.) § 44701 et seq.
(formerly Title VI of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (FA Act) and related statutes). One of the ways the FAA implements its authority is through part 39. ADs authorized under part 39 are issued in accordance with the public rulemaking procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
b. AD Issuance. The FAA issues ADs when an unsafe condition is found to exist in a product and the condition is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
ADs are used to notify aircraft owners and operators of unsafe conditions and the actions required to resolve those conditions.
NOTE: To ensure continued airworthiness, concerns regarding ADs should be addressed in a logical and comprehensive manner. This can be accomplished by developing a robust AD management process, which should encapsulate all six elements discussed in detail below.
4. RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES FOR DEVELOPING AN AD MANAGEMENT PROCESS. There are many distinct internal processes, controls, and actions necessary for AD compliance planning, implementation, and auditing. The following paragraphs describe common processes and practices for managing ADs. The AD management process can be categorized into six elements:
• Planning;
• Support;
• Provisioning;
• Implementing;
• Recording; and
• Auditing.
5. PLANNING. The planning element ensures awareness and assigns responsibility for AD requirements. The planning element may include a review of:
• The AD;
• Referenced documents;
• Engineering;
• Materials;
• Scheduling;
• Recordkeeping;
• Maintenance execution
• Quality control (QC); and
• Quality assurance (QA).
a. AD Configuration Control Board (CCB). An operator’s planning element may include an AD CCB that has regular meetings (or equivalent) where action plans are reviewed, coordinated, and assigned. The CCB’s action plan encompasses a complete overview of the AD management process. The plan should identify the details (i.e., who, what, when, where, and how) regarding effective AD compliance. These meetings may help ensure all affected departments of the operator are aware of their responsibilities and where acknowledgement of those responsibilities is recorded.
NOTE: Some operators may have fewer resources than others; thus, a single individual or department may conduct AD planning functions.
b. AD Planning Meetings. The operator may request/invite FAA aviation safety inspectors (ASI) to the AD planning meeting. Thus, the operator may develop a process for notifying and inviting its certificate-holding district office (CHDO)/principal inspector (PI) or local Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) prior to AD planning meetings. When the operator brings forth issues, concerns, or clarification requests, the ASI serves as an observer and a coordinator, and ensures that the appropriate FAA discipline (e.g., Aircraft Evaluation Group (AEG), Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), and/or Engine Certification Office (ECO)) is consulted and their recommendations/guidance is provided as feedback to the operator.
Page 2 Par 4
NOTE: Participation of an ASI is at the request of the operator. The ASI does not provide concurrence/approval of an operator’s compliance decisions.
c. Identify Risks. The planning element is an appropriate venue to determine what verification process may be needed to identify risk, which would ensure continued compliance with ADs. An effective planning element should determine if an AD is applicable to the operator. The planning element may also include a risk analysis that considers the conditions that could arise through implementation or configuration changes. These conditions, which could affect the probability of errors, may include:
• Operator’s dynamics;
• ADs with a high risk of change;
• AD complexity (complex or workload-intensive ADs may create greater error rates and higher risks);
• Accessibility/location; and
• ADs with repetitive inspections.
d. AD Verification Process.
(1) Once these risks are analyzed, a possible AD verification process may be developed to include:
• Physical verification;
• Verification of records;
• Meeting criteria for inclusion into a sampling program; and
• A required one-time verification (i.e., no future verifications are required).
(2) An effective planning element should identify ADs that have the highest risk for potential alteration during normal maintenance. Once a risk assessment is accomplished, prioritized ADs should continually be verified through an operator-developed verification program.
e. ACO/ECO Consultation. The planning element should include consultation with the ACO/ECO responsible for managing the AD if clarification is needed. This is also an opportune time to determine if the contemplated actions will comply with the AD.
f. Alternative Method of Compliance (AMOC) Policy. The extent and nature of appropriate AD compliance documentation, and determining if an AMOC is required, should be considered during the planning element. The operator’s AMOC policy should:
• Identify the specific requirements needed to obtain approval;
• When proposing an AMOC, consider making the proposal for global distribution;
• When requesting design approval holder (DAH) assistance in obtaining an AMOC, provide permission to allow the DAH to pursue a global AMOC if appropriate;
• Identify personnel and their role in the process;
Par 5 Page 3
• Have a concise process to ensure deviations from AD requirements do not occur, unless the deviations have been approved (i.e., an approved AMOC); and
• Ensure AD compliance is recorded only after an approved AMOC has been accomplished.
NOTE: AMOC proposals, which can be submitted at any time during the AD management process, must be processed through the cognizant ACO/ECO/designee and/or local FSDO/PI. The AD identifies the responsible ACO/ECO that approves/disapproves AMOC proposals (refer to 14 CFR part 39, § 39.19 and the current edition of FAA Order 8110.103, Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC), for more information).
g. Communication. As part of an AD management process, it is recommended that operators/air carriers develop a process to coordinate AD compliance matters with their local FAA office. This process may reference a conflict resolution process for circumstances that need an immediate resolution. Before agreeing to such a process, the FAA local office will ensure that the FAA’s role, as defined in the process, is consistent with FAA policy.
h. Additional Areas of Consideration. Some of the areas that an operator should consider during the planning element include the following:
(1) Careful review of the AD with particular focus on any unique aspects of the AD.
Does it require specific parts or articles that require long lead times? Does it impact future inspection schedules?
(2) Determining any unique product or appliance aspects. Does the AD apply to the entire fleet or only particular products or appliances? Are there repairs or alterations on the product or appliance that might require an AMOC?
(3) Evaluating the method of compliance as annotated in the maintenance records
(e.g., task cards, engineering orders, engineering authorizations, etc.) to ensure AD requirements will be met.
(4) Determining whether to use physical markings to identify areas where an AD is in effect.
(5) Determining whether AD-referenced service instructions have already been accomplished. Also, determine if any deviations occurred from the service instructions, which would require an AMOC.
(6) Determining whether there should be changes to the Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM), an Illustrated Parts Catalog (IPC), or a Wiring Diagram Manual (WDM) to ensure continued compliance.
(7) Ensuring rotable spares and work performed in the shop are AD compliant and that noncompliant spares are not installed on compliant aircraft.
Page 4 Par 5
(8) Determining the need for training and specific labor skills (e.g., avionics, Nondestructive Testing (NDT), structures, etc.).
(9) Determining the restriction of AD accomplishment to site-specific locations.
(10) Determining the need for an enhanced perspective (i.e., a second set of eyes) at the point of implementation.
(11) Determining when and how audit plans will be impacted for ADs that call for segmented actions.
(12) Determining whether prototyping is needed and, if so, the persons or departments that will accomplish that process.
6. SUPPORT. The support element may consist of engineering, provisioning material, configuration control, etc. Not all operators will have in-house engineering capabilities; however, they will have personnel responsible for coordinating and auditing technical documentation.
Staff responsible for technical documentation may also be responsible for reviewing and evaluating information associated with an AD. The operators may also employ or use outside engineering staff.
NOTE: The term “engineering” is used as a generic reference to a department or individual that performs this function.
a. Establish the Method of Compliance. The operator’s process should ensure that the AD method of compliance is concisely tracked and is included in maintenance records. Thus, the operator should use the support element to establish the method of compliance with each AD requirement.
b. Schedule Coordination. The support element regarding configuration control may involve confirmation of forecasts and schedules to accomplish the work of AD implementation.
The schedule coordination should preclude changes to the direction that was determined
(e.g., omissions or changes to task cards).
c. Organizational Structure. Depending on the operator’s organizational structure, materials and scheduling/planning departments are responsible for ensuring the materials specified in the AD and engineering document are provided. Those departments should plan for adequate capacity and time to accomplish the AD requirement in appropriate work environments with the required maintenance personnel.
d. Deviations. During accomplishment of AD-mandated actions, it is sometimes necessary to use an AMOC to deviate from the provided work instructions. Deviations may be due to issues such as configuration differences, damage findings, oversize fastener requirements, material substitutions, or service instruction discrepancies. The operator should have a process in place, preferably during the planning phase of AD implementation, to support these alternative processes/procedures. This process often involves an engineering department capable of collecting and addressing the necessary changes and then coordinating those changes with the DAH, FSDO/certificate management office (CMO), and ACO/ECO, as required. In addition, Par 5 Page 5
having an engineering department as part of this process may identify potential fleet-wide compliance or safety concerns and allow industry-wide resolution.
e. Engineering Review. The operator’s engineering review should include a side-by-side, paragraph-by-paragraph comparison of all AD requirements against any compliance actions developed by the operator. The engineering review should:
• Ensure that the operator’s method of compliance conforms to each element of an AD;
or
• Identify if an AMOC is needed (refer to FAA Order 8110.103).
NOTE: Obtaining direct input from the maintenance organization during the support element review of engineering-authorized documents can help operators eliminate a single-point failure risk.
f. Prototyping. If prototyping is needed, the AD management process should provide instructions to perform prototyping assistance and monitoring. Silent prototyping
(i.e., witnessing a technician accomplish the instructions) is recommended.
7. PROVISIONING.
a. Capabilities, Time, and Materials. The operator’s materials and scheduling/planning departments should ensure that the materials specified in the AD and/or AMOC are procurable and available at the scheduled time for AD accomplishment. A provisioning element should also ensure adequate time and capabilities are sufficient to accomplish the AD in an appropriate work environment with the required maintenance personnel, tooling, and equipment.
b. Kitting. An operator may develop, or purchase from the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM)/DAH, a kit that consists of all the AD-required parts and materials. This process is referred to as kitting. The accuracy of the kit contents should be verified. Special attention should be made to ensure that part or material substitutions are only made with written approval from the appropriate ACO/ECO/designee (refer to the AMOC process in FAA Order 8110.103).
c. AMOC Proposal. If AMOCs are required for parts or material substitutions, the AMOC proposal should be coordinated in a timely manner so that all provisions of the AD are in compliance by the due dates.
8. IMPLEMENTING. The implementation element is the result of finalized actions involved in the planning, support, and provisioning elements. Operators are responsible for accomplishing AD work instructions in accordance with their procedures. This is the sole responsibility of the operator regardless with whom they make arrangements for performing AD work instructions.
9. RECORDING. The recording element should include the option of archiving all planning, supporting, provisioning, and implementing element documentation, as well as validation audits.
a. Maintenance Records. Maintenance records establishing AD compliance must be maintained in accordance with regulatory requirements. Once a maintenance record is made Page 6 Par 6
showing AD compliance, the product must meet and continue to show compliance with required AD actions. The documents should include the compliance requirements listed below:
(1) Identification of the particular aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, and appliance to which the AD is applicable.
(2) The AD number and effective date.
(3) The date and time (which may be expressed in hours, cycles, calendar time, etc.)
when the required action was accomplished.
(4) If the requirement is recurring, record the specific action to be accomplished and when that specific action is due. This time may be expressed in hours, cycles, calendar date, etc.
(5) Regarding records for an AD, the “method of compliance” means a concise description of the action taken to comply with the requirements of the AD. If the AD, or its service instructions, permits the use of more than one method of compliance, the record must include a reference to the specific method of compliance used. When following service instructions, place emphasis on the embedded notes. If the operator uses an AMOC to comply with an AD, the method of compliance means a description of the AMOC and a copy of the FAA approval of the AMOC.
b. AD Record of Accomplishment. Listing the current status of an AD or method of compliance should not be confused with an AD record of accomplishment. The AD record of accomplishment is a description of the work and the person who performed it on the product.
10. AUDITING. The main objective of an operator’s auditing element is to provide a comprehensive method for continued verification and validation of AD compliance.
a. Compliance Validation. An effective auditing element of the operator should have a concise method of auditing ADs for continued compliance. This method may range from periodic compliance validation to a sampling program. The auditing element should also have a written process and procedure with specific intervals identified.
b. Validation Checks. Validation checks are considered when there is a risk of altering mandated AD actions or when there are highly complicated requirements that cross many maintenance areas. Validation checks may include random sampling or physical validation (refer to Appendix 5, Sampling Program and Physical Verification).
c. Auditing Sub-elements. A comprehensive auditing element should include the following sub-elements:
(1) Audit Processing. A documented activity that assesses the effectiveness and efficiency of a series of related or sequential work activities.
(2) Audit Scheduling. A program that establishes a schedule of events to be performed during a set calendar period.
Par 9 Page 7
Page 8 Par 10
(3) Audit Preparation. A plan that considers the resources needed to perform an audit
(e.g., source documents, personnel, facilities, and access of equipment).
(4) Audit Performance. A documented activity that determines whether the objective evidence of applicable AD management process elements are implemented and documented.
(5) Audit Results Process. A process that includes:
(a) A method to identify noncompliance and/or unsafe conditions that should result in immediate reporting and corrective measures to resolve noncompliance.
(b) Describing audit findings and how they were discovered. Results may be presented in terms of findings, concerns, observations, and recommendations.
(c) Analyzing evidence to determine the root cause(s) of the finding.
(d) Identifying planned corrective actions to take in response to the finding.
(e) Establishing a timeframe for putting corrective actions in place.
d. Documentation. Documenting all decisions made during the AD management process is encouraged so that appropriate measures can be taken and processes can be improved in case any issues arise.
11. APPENDICES. The following appendices are specific recommendations for air carriers.
Individual operations and needs should determine an air carrier’s AD management process.
When developing an AD management process, all air carriers should consider their size, capabilities, resources, and equipment. The recommendations contained in the following appendices are one mean, but not the only means, of complying with part 39 requirements pertaining to ADs.
• Appendix 1, Air Carrier Compliance Planning.
• Appendix 2, Air Carrier Reporting/Recordkeeping and Tracking Future Airworthiness Directive Compliance Requirements.
• Appendix 3, Air Carrier Training.
• Appendix 4, Air Carrier Prototyping.
• Appendix 5, Sampling Program and Physical Verification.
Appendix 1 APPENDIX 1. AIR CARRIER COMPLIANCE PLANNING
1. COMPLIANCE PLANNING. Air carriers are tasked with planning the implementation of Airworthiness Directive (AD)-mandated tasks. This requires translating the AD requirements into the air carrier’s method of compliance (e.g., work cards, engineering paperwork, etc). This process includes coordinating with the various departments responsible for maintenance personnel, maintenance planning, materials management, technical writing, technical publications, quality assurance (QA), training, and aircraft maintenance records. Compliance planning is all of the activities that may be required before accomplishing AD-mandated work instructions on the airframe, engine, or component. This appendix lists focus areas that need to be considered during the compliance planning process.
NOTE: The air carrier may request/invite their FAA principal inspector (PI), or his or her representative, to the AD planning meeting. When the air carrier brings forth issues, concerns, or clarification requests, the aviation safety inspector (ASI) serves as a coordinator and ensures that the appropriate FAA discipline (Aircraft Evaluation Group (AEG) and/or Aircraft Certification Office (ACO)/Engine Certification Office (ECO)) is consulted and its recommendations/guidance are provided as feedback to the air carrier.
2. ACTIONS ACCOMPLISHED BEFORE RELEASE OF AN AD. Air carriers often address safety related issues when the FAA releases a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), or when they receive All Operator Telex (AOT), alert Service Bulletins (SB), etc. Air carriers should accomplish the following actions before the AD compliance due date.
a. Review for Deviations/Variations. Air carriers should review previous documentation to capture any deviations/variations that occurred to support possible alternative method of compliance (AMOC) proposals. Any deviations/variations should be brought to the AD planning meeting for disposition.
b. Determine Compliance. If the air carrier has accomplished a modification or inspection that is now subject to an AD, it should perform a thorough review of the documentation, records, and compliance plan to ensure that the work accomplished meets AD requirements. In some cases, reviewing compliance paperwork can determine compliance. However, it may be necessary to physically verify an aircraft to ensure the work was done in accordance with the AD requirements. In this case, it is important to identify the physical attributes that would indicate noncompliance, such as part installation, wire routing, and any possible deviations. This task is complex due to the use of 14 CFR part 43, § 43.13 practices while complying with the service instructions. Previous substitutions/deviations and configurations should be identified before AD issuance for consideration and application of AMOCs.
3. SINGLE POINT OF CONTACT (POC) FOR AN AD IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.
a. AD Implementation Plan. Most air carriers have a single POC responsible for AD status, planning, and compliance. Large carriers normally employ an engineering department to perform this task. The engineering department is typically responsible for developing the air Page 1
Appendix 1 carrier’s AD implementation plan. Regardless of the air carrier’s departmental organization, there should be a well-defined department responsible for coordinating the AD implementation plan.
NOTE: When the term “engineering” is used in these appendices, it is used as a generic reference to a department or individual that performs this function.
b. AD Applicability. The engineering department is responsible for defining an AD’s applicability to the air carrier’s fleet or components, as well as developing the overall compliance plan, which may include instructions for continued airworthiness (ICA) and any other additional guidance that an air carrier deems appropriate for its organization. This plan should include all requirements of AD-mandated actions.
c. Engineering Review. An engineering review should include the requirement for a side-by-side, paragraph-by-paragraph listing of all AD requirements and the associated air carrier engineering documents.
d. Emergency ADs. The department responsible for ADs should be responsible for receiving and addressing any immediate adopted rules for the air carrier per operations specification (OpSpec) paragraph A447, Emergency Airworthiness Directives (AD) Notification Information.
4. AD COMPLIANCE COORDINATION.
a. Process Participants. The AD management process ensures cross-functional awareness and responsibility to satisfy AD requirements. Participants may include individuals responsible for engineering, materials, scheduling, recordkeeping, maintenance, inspection, maintenance programs, publications, and QA/quality control (QC). Other operational departments, such as flight operations, may need to be included so they may understand the impact on their responsibilities.
b. AD Requirements Review. It is considered a best practice to hold an AD planning meeting or equivalent where predefined tasks are reviewed for action. This meeting helps ensure all affected departments are aware of their responsibilities, and action items are recorded.
Specific AD requirements are reviewed at this meeting, with particular focus on any unique aspects of the AD. It is also during this meeting that the risk of compromising the continued compliance with the AD requirements should be discussed and appropriate mitigating action determined. This action may include physically marking the AD area or creating a process for AD verification. Other considerations might include:
• Previous accomplishment of service instructions issued before an AD’s release.
• Existence of previous modifications that may prevent accomplishment (e.g., repairs or Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) modifications in the AD-affected area may affect compliance).
• Changes to manuals, e.g. (Illustrated Parts Catalog (IPC), Wiring Diagram Manual (WMD), minimum equipment listing (MEL)), or other affected documents.
Appendix 1
• Determining the need for specific labor classification/skills (e.g., avionics, structures, etc).
• Possible restriction of AD accomplishment to site-specific locations based on the need for specialized skills.
• Existence of delivered configurations not addressed in AD service instructions.
c. Prototyping the Documentation. Once air carriers have produced their internal documentation to comply with AD requirements, they should consider prototyping the documentation with the first airframe, engine, or component to be accomplished. The air carrier should consider performing silent prototyping. Determining whether prototyping the documentation is needed should happen during the planning process. This determination involves reviewing the paperwork, materials, and processes used to comply with the air carrier’s AD work document at the time of execution on the first aircraft, engine, or appliance to which the AD applies.
d. Reviewing Documentation and Action Items.
(1) Once the air carrier finalized its compliance plan, it is considered a best practice to meet again to review the final documentation and ensure all action items are addressed. The meeting’s purpose is to review:
• The compliance documents,
• Associated work cards,
• Tracking system set-up,
• Affected manual revisions,
• Required AMOCs,
• Planning schedule,
• Materials, and
• Continued compliance plan.
(2) On a regular basis the air carrier should perform validation checks; which may range from sample validation required, as with structural repairs with low risk of altering AD requirements, to physical validation at lower level maintenance visits for ADs with a higher risk of not continuing to meet AD requirements. Any action items should be addressed prior to accomplishment on the first aircraft, engine, or component.
(3) It is considered a best practice to invite the FAA certificate management office (CMO) or Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) to participate in the review meeting. This would help identify any regulatory issues that the air carrier may have missed, as well as inform the FAA of the air carrier’s overall compliance plan. FAA participation in this or any other air carrier meeting does not remove the air carrier from the sole responsibility for compliance with the AD requirements and any applicable AMOCs.
NOTE: Participation of an ASI is at the request of the air carrier. The ASI does not provide concurrence/approval of an air carrier’s compliance decisions.