Part 145 - Consultation

Note: This statement does not form part of the rules contained in Part 145. It provides details of the consultation undertaken in making the rules.

Background to the Rules

In April 1988 the Swedavia - McGregor Report on Civil Aviation Regulation in New Zealand was completed. As a result, the Government enacted the Civil Aviation Act 1990 to implement the first stage of the report's recommendations. To implement the remaining recommendations of the report the Air Transport Division of the Ministry of Transport is undertaking a complete review of all existing civil aviation legislation.

Considerable research was carried out to determine the format for the new legislation. The Authority decided that the most suitable legislative framework should incorporate the advantages from the system being developed by the European Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) and from the existing United States of America Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) system. The European Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR) are being structured in a manner similar to the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) of the FAA and aim to achieve maximum harmonisation whilst allowing for national variations.

New Zealand's revised requirements will be published, in several Parts, as Civil Aviation Rules (CAR). Each Part will set out a series of individual rules which relate to a particular aviation activity.

Accompanying each Part of the CAR will be at least one associated Advisory Circular (AC). These will expand, in an informative way, specific requirements of the CAR Part and show an acceptable means of compliance. For example, an AC will contain the minimum acceptable practice or practices which will be necessary to meet the rules.

The CAR numbering system is based on the FAR Part numbering system. As a general principle the subject matter of a CAR Part will harmonise with the FAR, although the title may differ to suit New Zealand terminology. Where a proposed CAR Part does not readily equate with a FAR number code, a number has been selected that does not conflict with any existing FAR Part.

The FAR has been used as the start point for the development of many of the CAR, but there are likely to be significant differences in the content of each Part of the Rules. The structure and content of Part 145 follows closely the content and arrangement of the latest draft of the JAA JAR-145 currently being produced by the Europeans. Changes have been made to conform to New Zealand legal practices and terminology.

The Swedavia - McGregor Report concluded that the objective of the new rules system must be to strike a balance of responsibility between the state authority and those who provide services and who exercise privileges in the civil aviation system. This balance must enable the state authority to maintain continuing regulatory control and supervision whilst providing the maximum flexibility for participants to develop their own means of compliance.

Section 7 of the Civil Aviation Act 1990 (the Act) provides for the requirement to hold an aviation document to carry out particular civil aviation activities. Section 12 of the Act requires the holders of such documents to carry out their activities safely and in accordance with the relevant prescribed safety standards and practices.

Notice of Proposed Rule Making

In order to provide public notice of, and opportunity for comment on, the proposed new rules, the Authority, on July 10 1991, issued Notice of Proposed Rule Making 91-5 under Docket Number 1001 NR. This Notice proposed the introduction of Civil Aviation Rules Part 145 to provide a regulatory boundary for the certification of organisations wishing to maintain aircraft used on air transport operations. The notice also asked for comment on whether it was appropriate to make the proposed rules applicable to all air transport operations, or to allow those aircraft of 5700 kg Maximum Certificated Take Off Weight and below to operate under a less onerous regime.

Supplementary information

All comments made on the Notice of Proposed Rule Making are available in the rules docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarising each substantive contact with the Air Transport Division contact person concerning this rulemaking has been filed in the docket.

Availability of the Document

Any person may view a copy of these rules at the Civil Aviation Authority, Level 15 Asteron Centre, 55 Featherston St, Wellington 6011. Copies may be obtained from the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand, PO Box 3555, Wellington 6140.

Summary of comments to Docket Number 1001 NPRM

Fifteen written submissions and four oral or telephone comments were received. Thirty individual issues were raised by the commenters although some issues were raised by more than one commenter.

Only one commenter felt unable to support the proposed new rules in their entirety. This was on the grounds that they were an idealistic document, and their implementation would be likely to impose a significant additional cost on the organisations involved. This is contrary to the views of the Authority and most other commenters. Most of the requirements of the proposal already exist in the current regulations and New Zealand Civil Airworthiness Requirements. The main change is a philosophical one, requiring organisations to take a Quality approach to the management of their activities. Where this approach has been introduced into industries, including the aviation industry, considerable efficiency gains have been made with consequent cost savings. This is in addition to the improved quality of product, which in the aviation industry means improved safety.

Some of the organisations which are affected by Part 145 have indicated that they accept the direction it gives and several are pursuing accreditation under International Standards Organisation ISO 9000 as a logical extension of this acceptance. They believe that this will give them additional credibility in the eyes of their customers, particularly overseas, and so enhance their commercial prospects.

One commenter stated that the rules would impose significant extra cost on small maintenance organisations, such as those servicing aero clubs and small commuter or charter operators. This issue was addressed in the NPRM, and comments were requested on the proposal to limit the applicability of the proposed rules to aircraft with a Maximum Certificated Take Off Weight of more than 5700 kg or with ten or more passenger seats.

No specific written response was received on this issue however informal consultation and the views of Authority staff responsible for implementation of the proposed Part 145 supported the argument that a cut off point is needed. Some concern was felt that the proposed weight break of 5700 kg would leave a relatively large number of aircraft in the 5 to 10 seat capacity outside of Part 145. These aircraft are mainly involved in regular public transport, charter, and scenic flight activities in the tourist sector.

In considering the consequences of any safety incident in this area of activity, the Authority formed the view that it was appropriate to apply the highest level of safety to these aircraft. It is also noted that several commuter airline operators indicated that the proposed weight break of 5700 kg would seriously disadvantage them. It would allow smaller transport aircraft, those with a passenger seating capacity of between five and ten persons, to compete directly against them but with a lower cost structure by virtue of not being required to comply with Part 145.

In order to meet these concerns, other options for defining applicability were explored. The next lower established weight break was determined to be that used by the FAA to define FAR Part 23 which is 2730 kg. This weight is also used by the United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority to define applicability of their Light Aircraft Maintenance Scheme which covers the maintenance of aircraft below this weight.

The Authority has concluded from the above that by adopting the weight of 2730 kg as the lower limit of applicability for Part 145, the highest level of safety can be assured in regular public transport activities. This will at the same time allow some relaxation in the level of the organisational structure demanded of smaller organisations such as aero clubs and charter operators.

The Authority has therefore determined that Part 145 will apply to organisations intending to maintain aircraft used on Air Transport operations which have a Maximum Certificated Take Off Weight of more than 2730 kg. It will also apply to organisations carrying out the major maintenance of any aircraft component.

Of the remaining issues raised by commenters, nine are identified as general issues and relate to arrangement, terminology and definitions. These are discussed as follows:

1.  One commenter expressed the view that the Authority should directly adopt either the US FAR or the European JAR documents. The reasoning being that the Authority is not inventing anything new and that cost savings could be made in this manner.

This option has been considered by the Authority in the rules writing process. However, in the case of FAR Part 145 the terminology used is not in general use in New Zealand and the legal system on which it is based is very different.

In the case of JAR 145 the document does not contain the detailed compliance information found in most regulatory codes. The JAA have agreed that in order to obtain agreement between the national authorities and to publish the document without delay it should be left in this form, applied in practice, and amended in the light of experience gained. The JAA is committed to early amendment of their rule.

The Authority in New Zealand was not faced with the conflicting viewpoints of other Sovereign bodies and thus the detail of FAR Part 145 was able to be incorporated as appropriate into our rules. In drafting our Civil Aviation Rules Part 145 the Authority has retained the intent of the JAR which in turn has been founded on the FAR. The Rules have been arranged in a way which meet the recommendations of the Swedavia McGregor Report and at the same time we have used the language and terminology which reflects New Zealand aviation and legal usage.

2.  Several commenters stated that the wording or terminology of the rules was authoritarian or legalistic or difficult to understand.

This is a legislative document which lays down boundaries for the control of entry into and exit from the aviation system. The rules are made under and supported by the Civil Aviation Act 1990. Failure to comply with a provision may constitute an offence or an infringement offence against the Act. The nature of, and the penalty for, each offence will be prescribed in regulations made under section 100 of the Act. Because of this the language and wording must be clear in the legal sense.

A considerable amount of consultation and drafting time has been spent ensuring that the rules meet these legal needs and at the same time provide a clear and understandable working document. The Authority believes that the language and terminology compare more than favourably with similar overseas codes.

3.  Two commenters stated that the use of the term exposition was confusing and perhaps inappropriate.

With the adoption of the Quality Management approach in the writing of the new rules it was necessary to ensure that there was a clear distinction between the old and the new documentation. The term "exposition" is used in the European JAR's as meaning a manual or suite of manuals providing the necessary documentation and procedures for a Certificated organisation. The Authority considers that this term is appropriate and will achieve the objective of emphasising the new approach.

4.  One commenter stated that the Authority should not involve itself in the extent and structure of the client organisation.

Section 15 of the Civil Aviation Act 1990 details the functions of the Secretary. These include:"(a) To establish procedures relating to entry into the New Zealand civil aviation system, and to exercise control over entry through the granting of aviation documents".

Section 12(3) states: "Every participant shall ensure that the activities or functions for which the aviation document has been granted are carried out by the participant, and by all persons for whom the participant is responsible, safely and in accordance with the relevant prescribed safety standards and practices". Further to this section 12(4) of the Act requires that every participant shall: "if so required by the rules establish and follow a management system"; "shall provide training and supervision" and "shall provide sufficient resources".

Part 145 requires, and provides the framework for, the establishment of a management system. In order for the client organisation to meet its responsibilities it is necessary for it to document its proposed activities and subsequently to comply with the documented procedures.

In order for the Authority to meet its obligations it is necessary for it to ensure that an intending participant has adequately documented how it will meet these standards and then to ensure that there is ongoing compliance with those standards and documents.

The Swedavia McGregor Report recommends that the Authority should limit its day-to-day involvement in an organisation holding an Aviation Document. This has been achieved by requiring the organisation to submit an exposition which reflects the individual way in which it will comply with the rules. The exposition forms the basis for the issue of the approval certificate and initial approval is conditional on acceptance of the exposition by the Authority. All certifications on behalf of the organisation are given on the basis of the organisation's authorisations, and only specified changes to the exposition need prior acceptance by the Authority. This represents a major "stepping back" by the Authority, once certification has been achieved, compared with present practice.

In considering the fact that it is necessary for each person having control of the privileges granted by an aviation document to meet the Fit and Proper Person requirements of the Act the Authority is, of necessity, involved, at least on initial entry, in accepting most aspects of an organisations make-up or structure.

The Authority considers that the proposed Part 145 provides the minimum level of Authority involvement which is necessary to meet its obligations under the Act.

5.  The Society of Licensed Aircraft Engineers and Technologists (NZ) stated that although the rule referred to " good" or "satisfactory" conditions or practices no clearly defined standards are published.

There are many standard practices in the area of aircraft maintenance which are already published by other authorities or by organisations such as the Aviation Safety Foundation. Where the rule requires a standard to be defined in the organisation's exposition then this can be done by reference to such a published standard. For instance, the exposition could state that the organisation's instrument workshop would comply with the standards defined in the UK Civil Aviation Authority Civil Aircraft Inspection Procedures BL/1-12 or that it would comply with the requirements of US Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular 43-15, either of which would provide an acceptable standard.

It is intended that some of the more commonly used standards will be published, as Advisory Circulars, with CAR Part 43 General Maintenance Rules, which is currently being drafted. These will probably include such items as Weight and Balance procedures, Propeller and Engine overhaul and testing procedures, and NDT procedures. Also included will be the New Zealand Civil Airworthiness Requirements Leaflet F6 Appendices.

A decision has not yet been reached on the exact number and content of these Advisory Circulars. Comment on whether these documents should be rewritten or incorporated by reference, and the subjects which should be addressed will be solicited when the NPRM for the proposed Part 43 is published.

6.  The Society also suggested that the proposed Part 43 should be published before Part 145. The Authority does not disagree with this but there was seen to be an advantage in proceeding with Part 145 first, as there was a suitable pattern to follow in the JAR 145 document being developed by the European Authorities. The draft of the proposed Part 43 is well advanced and it is hoped that an informal document will be circulated to industry soon.

7.  Two commenters raised a number of concerns about the way in which definitions have been dealt with in the rules. One suggestion was that defining words occuring within the text of the rule should be highlighted.

The Authority considers that this can tend to detract from the language of the rules by placing undue emphasis on the definition when in fact it may not be the subject of the particular rule text.

Another concern was with the definition in 145.3 of "aircraft component" which was considered to be too restrictive. It should be remembered that Part 145 applies only to the approval of Maintenance Organisation's and, as such, the definitions in the rules are relevant to this area of activity. It is true that "aircraft component" is included in the Act definition of "aeronautical product". However, this definition would also include products such as fuels, oils, and greases which do not need to be included in the definition for the purposes of Part 145. For this reason the sub-definition of "aircraft component" has been used.

This second commenter was also concerned that the definition failed to recognise the Type Certification status of propellers.

With regard to the inclusion or otherwise of propellers in the definition of "aircraft component", the same principle is applied as in the previous paragraph. The definition given includes propellers and the issue of Type Certification does not arise in this part. It is possible that a different definition will be required for Part 21 where Type Certification is addressed.

This commenter also stated that the "aircraft component" definition was deficient in that, unlike the definition in the 1953 Regulations, it did not include "airframes".

It is agreed that the definition of "aircraft component" should make specific reference to "airframes", and the definition has been amended accordingly.

The title of 145.9 has been changed to 'Certificate Ratings' to be more consistent with the content, and the wording of the rule amended to include the term "engines" in the definition of "aircraft component".

8.  One commenter suggested that the wording used in the proposed AC 145.63(a) was inappropriate in requiring "compliance" with the exposition and the rules.

It should be clear that while the exposition is for "the use and guidance" of the organisation's staff it is also for the use of the Authority in establishing how the organisation will conduct its business. In order for the certificate to be issued the exposition must address the rule, and for the continuance of approval the organisation must comply with the exposition.

9.  One commenter noted that 145.53(a)(2) requires that all of the nominated senior persons of the organisation be "directly responsible to the Chief Executive". The commenter considered that this removed the specific requirement for the Quality Manager, or Chief Inspector, to have access on airworthiness matters directly to an independent authoritative person within the company.

It is generally accepted that the senior persons or heads of departments within the organisation are ultimately responsible to the Chief Executive. It is also accepted that the Quality Manager must have direct access to the Chief Executive on matters affecting airworthiness, without the barrier of commercial considerations. The rules were intended to achieve this objective and it was spelt out in the Advisory Circular.

In order to make this intent clearer 145.53(a)(2) has been amended to state that the senior persons are ultimately responsible to the Chief Executive rather than reporting directly to him. An additional paragraph has been added to 145.61 to require a direct line of reporting from the Quality Manager to the Chief Executive.

Three issues were raised relating to the personnel requirements of the proposed rules.

1.   Some larger organisations expressed concern regarding the requirements for Chief Executives and how this would be achieved in their organisations.

Further consideration has been given to this matter in relation to what the Authority seeks to achieve. It has been decided to make changes to the rules to more properly reflect the intent, therefore 145.53(a)(1) has been amended to read:

"A senior person, acceptable to the Authority and identified as the Chief Executive who has the authority within the organisation to ensure that all activities undertaken by the organisation can be financed and carried out to the standard required by the Authority."

The Advisory Circular has also been amended to reflect this change in the rules.

The Advisory Circular has been further revised to allow for the structuring of some large organisations into a group of individual business units. Where this situation exists then the organisation has the option to nominate a person from the business unit as Chief Executive provided that person meets the prescription of 145.53(a)(1).

In conjunction with this change 145.53(a)(2) has been amended to read, "A senior person or group of senior persons, acceptable to the Authority, responsible...."

2.  Air New Zealand and Pacific Aerospace Corporation expressed concern that they saw some diminution of the privileges presently granted under the existing NZCAR G5.

This is not the intention of Part 145. It is intended that the organisation will in fact have more discretion in terms of issuing authorisations to its staff. All required certifications given within the organisation will be on behalf of the organisation rather than on the basis of individual responsibility. All persons exercising this authority will need to be authorised by the organisation. Part 145 requires the organisation to have procedures to control the issue of these authorisations.

The Authority agrees that the provisions of NZCAR G5 had not been adequately addressed by Part 145 as published in the NPRM. It is also now considered that the requirements of 145.53(c) would be more appropriately located in Subpart C, the operating section of Part 145.

The requirement has, therefore, been relocated to become 145.103(c). The wording has been changed to allow the discretion of NZCAR G5 and the paragraph has been extended to cover the provisions of the existing NZCAR G5 which were not addressed previously.

Where the organisation wishes to use these provisions to authorise certification in a limited work area, such as in overhaul workshops or component areas, procedures will be required in the exposition similar to those which were required under NZCAR G5.

It is not intended that these provisions in any way replace the requirement for Aircraft Maintenance Engineer licences. They merely allow the organisation some discretion where the scope of work requiring certification is limited and it would be unreasonable to require a fully licensed person to make the required certification.

3.  One commenter stated that the procedure required by 145.53(b) in assessing the competency of staff is not an appropriate matter for inclusion in the exposition.

The Authority agrees that the employment of staff is the company's responsibility. However, the Authority has the responsibility to ensure that the company has all the facilities it needs to safely carry out the function for which it holds an aviation document. This would necessarily include sufficient and suitably skilled personnel. The quality of the product, in this case a safe aircraft or aircraft component, is largely dependent on the individuals who carry out the required tasks.

The Authority does not wish to dictate who the organisation may employ, but it has a responsibility to ensure that procedures are in place to assure the quality of these persons. By accepting these procedures in the exposition the need for the Authority to become involved in the day to day running of this aspect of the organisation's business is greatly reduced. The Authority will generally only become involved should an audit or incident indicate nonconformity with the documented procedure or noncompliance with the rules.

Two issues were raised regarding the issue and renewal of documents as follows:

1.  One commenter stated that the Authority should institute a system of issuing renewal notices for Certificates which are due to expire, similar to those used for vehicle registration.

The whole thrust of the new rules process which is currently being undertaken, is to shift the onus of responsibility for maintaining safety from the Authority to the participants in the aviation system. This proposal would seem to be at variance with the principle of encouraging participants to take responsibility for their own actions and there is no intention to institute such a system.

2.  Two commenters and several informal respondents have stated that it would seem unnecessary to have terminating certificates when the Authority would be carrying out continuous audits during the period of validity. The commenters were also concerned that this requirement would be an additional cost and in fact could be viewed merely as a revenue gathering exercise.

The decision that all aviation documents should be terminating was taken as a result of the recommendations of the Swedavia - McGregor Report paragraph 13.3. Their recommendation was that no document should be valid for more than five years. This was based on the premise that there will have been sufficient change in that period of time, both in the industry and the organisation, to justify a reassessment in the form of a re-entry audit or inspection.

Under the current charges regulations there are no fixed charges for the issue or renewal of documents. All activities are charged on an hourly basis according to the required work input.

When a document falls due for renewal, a review of all the information on the client file will be carried out. If an audit has recently been carried out, this may show that the organisation is in compliance and that no further action is required to complete the renewal process.

It could be that the Authority planning system will note that the renewal is due and programme an audit visit to coincide with the renewal. Or, alternatively, that the review by the Authority indicates that only specific areas of the organisation need to be audited to verify compliance.

So it can be seen that the renewal is merely a "check point" in the audit process where the Authority will take stock of the organisation. It will ensure that any regulatory changes or policy changes have been considered by the organisation and provide an overall review of the organisation's documentation. It will not be used as a revenue gathering exercise.

Ten issues were identified as relating to the procedures section of the rule and the exposition content.

1.  One commenter stated that the references to working conditions, such as temperature and noise considerations, were unnecessary as they were covered by other legislation.

These references were not intended to cover the personal safety aspects of those conditions but merely to highlight the fact that the conditions may impinge on the ability of personnel to adequately carry out a task and thus affect safety.

2.  One commenter asked for clarification of the intent of 145.53(b) in respect of ongoing training.

This provision is intended to ensure that the organisation has a procedure to assess the ongoing training needs of its staff. It is essential that technical staff are aware of changes to techniques and procedures relating to existing equipment, and that they are are fully trained prior to the introduction of new aircraft or equipment.

3.  Two commenters disagreed with the requirement of 145.55(a) that there should be a procedure for the approval of alternative means of meeting the manufacturer's tooling specification. One stated that this was unreasonable, the other that the exposition was the wrong place for such information.

It is currently required that organisations follow the procedures and practices of the aircraft or equipment manufacturer including the use of such special tooling as may be specified. Where there is a need or a desire to deviate from these recommendations then it is normal practice to request approval from the Authority either in the form of a concession or an amendment to the documented procedures.

Part 145 does not require that these matters be referred to the Authority. Procedures are required to be put in place so that the Authority can be sure that any deviation is properly assessed, documented and approved by someone with the necessary level of authority within the organisation. The only appropriate place for these procedures is in the exposition.

4.  Several commenters made reference to the arrangement and content of Appendix 2 to the Advisory Circular which was compiled to show an acceptable means of compliance with the requirement to have an exposition.

Appendix 2 intends to show one means of compliance and there may be different formats which would satisfactorily meet the rules. However it is intended to revise Appendix 2 taking account of the comments received.

5.  Several commenters made reference to the arrangement of ratings in Appendix 1 of the Advisory Circular. The Appendix will be revised prior to publishing the Advisory Circular and the comments will be taken into consideration at that time.

6.  One commenter stated that 145.51(c), which requires procedures to be in place to cover the eventuality of work being carried out outside or away from the normal work environment, was unreasonable. The commenter stated that, in any case, this is an individual responsibility of the certifying engineer.

Section 12(3) of the Act states that, "Every participant shall ensure that the activities or functions for which the aviation document has been granted are carried out by the participant, and by all persons for whom the participant is responsible, safely and in accordance with the relevant prescribed safety standards and practices".

The Authority considers, on this basis, that all activities within an approved organisation are the responsibility of the organisation. It is the organisation which authorises the certifying engineers to certify. If the organisation fails to provide its staff with an environment conducive to safety, or to provide the procedures to achieve the required quality of work, then it is not meeting its responsibilities.

In a quality management system it is a basic criterion that all activities are authorised and conveyed by documented procedures. In the situation such as that addressed by 145.51(c) the procedures provide the framework on which the certifying engineers can make their decisions.

7.  One commenter stated that it was unnecessary to have specified more than one type of "Design Data" in 145.57(a).

The Authority considers that it is essential to emphasise that the required data is not only that which is produced by the aircraft manufacturer. Data is also required for any equipment fitted which is not specified by the aircraft manufacturer. This could include normal customer specified equipment, modifications or repairs where the data relating to maintenance or repair of the item is not available in the aircraft manufacturer's documents.

8.  The same commenter stated that the requirement of 145.115(d)(3), to seek the prior approval of the Authority in respect of the locations where the activities of the organisation would be carried out, is unnecessarily restrictive. The commenter also considered that this would require approval by the Authority for each item of sub-contract work carried out.

The Authority considers it essential that, in order to ensure the quality of the aviation product or service, the conditions under which it is produced are controlled. It is intended that 145.115(d)(1)(iii) will control the situation where an organisation is extending its operation or moving to new premises. In this case prior Authority acceptance of the new situation is essential for continuation of approval. Where the organisation is involved in using sub-contractors to provide some part of its product then the procedures for acceptance of the conditions under which the sub-contract work is to be done should be included in the exposition. In this case there is no need for Authority involvement once the procedures are in place to provide the assurance that the required standards will be met.

9.  One commenter was unable to understand the relationship between 145.113 and the explanatory material in the Advisory Circular.

What 145.113 seeks to do is acknowledge the fact that at times it is likely that an organisation may not hold all the tools and equipment for all of the aircraft or components it is certificated to maintain.

Where equipment or tooling was part of the basis for granting a certificate, and in most cases specified in the exposition, then the organisation would no longer comply with the terms of its document if it is disposed of.

By making the statement of 145.113 provision is made by the Authority for the organisation to continue to operate, and the need to amend the certificate and exposition is avoided under such circumstances.

10.  One commenter stated that the proposed numbering of forms such as applications for certification, or forms for the presentation of credentials for senior persons could be more appropriately numbered to reflect the rule sections to which they apply.

It is intended to use common forms, and thus form numbers, for all of the rule parts. This will allow standardisation and computerisation of the documents. All Aviation legislation is being rewritten and, for example, an application form for issue of an aviation document will apply right across the spectrum of aviation activities. It is expected that the Civil Aviation Authority will be a stand alone organisation by the time the final rules are issued, consequently the prefix CAA will be used for the forms and documents.

One commenter suggested that there could be some difficulties with implementation of the proposed new rules.

Part 145 will not be implemented in full immediately on becoming a final rule Part. Rather, the Authority expects new applicants to comply with the rules from that time but organisations currently engaged in activities covered by Part 145 will be given a specific time by which to apply for a certificate and show compliance with the new rule. Implementation and transitional arrangements are addressed at the end of this summary.

Most existing organisations will not experience great difficulty in meeting the new Part 145 where they already comply with the existing Civil Aviation Regulation 176 and New Zealand Civil Airworthiness Requirements Leaflets D1 and D4. In fact many affected organisations have already moved, on an informal and elective basis, to bring their organisation and documentation into line with the proposals of Part 145.

Ansett New Zealand expressed concern that the introduction of a certificate of release to service as heralded by the wording of 145.103 did not address "the wider corporate responsibility of the air transport operator".

They pointed out that where a certificate of release to service is used, as in the United Kingdom system, there also exists a certificate of maintenance review. This document provides an assurance that the whole maintenance programme of the aircraft undergoes a periodic review.

Under JAR 145 the use of the certificate of maintenance review is discontinued. This action is also being adopted by the UK Civil Aviation Authority. JAR Part 145 only covers the approval of maintenance organisations. The responsibility for providing an ongoing review of maintenance rests with the aircraft operator and will be addressed in its approval document as part of its Quality Assurance system. For air transport operators in New Zealand this will also be the case. These provisions will be included in the maintenance section of the new Part 121 Operator Certification.

The proposed CAR Part 43 currently being drafted contains the provisions for the certificate of release to service. The need for a review of the overall maintenance status of privately operated aircraft will be achieved by means of the annual inspection. Until Part 43 comes into force the present arrangements for the certificate of compliance and maintenance release will remain for both air transport and private operators.

Two commenters suggested that the classification of ratings in Advisory Circular 145 Appendix 1 were inappropriate and at variance with definitions in the rule.

The Authority agrees and the ratings have been changed to be more in accord with the rules text.

Several commenters made suggestions to improve the content of Appendix 3 to Advisory Circular 145. Some of the technical requirements were not thought to be appropriate or not to reflect the current "state of the art" in computer technology. Clearer definition of security and storage provisions was considered to be necessary. The need to have a specific testing period was considered unnecessary as it would be evident that the system was performing satisfactorily. It was suggested that a manager or senior person needed to have clear responsibility for the running of any such system and that this should be included in the Duties and Responsibilities section of the exposition.

The Appendix has been redrafted taking account of these comments.

Conclusion

The Authority concludes that in the light of comments received the majority of industry participants are in favour of the direction and general content of the new rules. Specific issues which have been identified in the comments have been addressed and, where appropriate, changes have been made to meet the concerns raised. The comments and all background material used in formulating the rules are held on the docket file and are available for public scrutiny. Persons wishing to view the docket file should call at the Civil Aviation Authority, Level 15 Asteron Centre, 55 Featherston St, Wellington 6011, and ask for docket file 1001.

Implementation

The rules will come into force 28 days after their notification in the New Zealand Gazette. Applications for maintenance organisation certificates received after that date will be processed under Part 145 unless the applicant indicates that approval is requested under the existing legislation. Any approval issued under Regulation 176 will be for a limited period of validity and will expire concurrent with the date of amendment of Regulation 176 indicated below.

Transitional Arrangements

Existing holders of certificates of approval for maintenance issued under Regulation 176 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1953 and New Zealand Civil Airworthiness Requirements Leaflet D1 and Leaflet D4 will be asked to indicate their intent to apply for certification under Part 145 within three months of the effective date of the rules.

This notification of intent will be the completion of application form CAA 2400 indicating when the organisation expects to be in a position to meet the rules in full. No further documentation will be required at that stage. Prior to the date indicated on the application form the organisation will be requested to submit all the documentation needed to show compliance. An assessment will be made of the organisation's documentation including the exposition required by this Part. If the documentation is found to be in compliance with the rules, arrangements will then be made to schedule a meeting and an entry control inspection to assess the organisation's facilities against the submission.

If the inspection is satisfactory then a maintenance organisation certificate will be issued, initially for a period not exceeding six months. An audit programme will be agreed between the organisation and the Authority at this time, and subject to satisfactory performance, the document will be renewed for a further period not exceeding five years.

Maintenance organisations to which Part 145 applies will be required to be operating under a Part 145 certificate within fifteen months of the date it comes into force. After that date all existing certificates of approval for maintenance issued under the present legislation will lapse. Any company authorisations issued under existing provisions will be void and will need to be replaced by authorisations issued under Part 145.

It is intended that Civil Aviation Rules Part 43 will be effective prior to the withdrawal of the legislation detailed below. Part 43 will make provision for the maintenance of all aircraft not covered by Part 145, including those of MCTOW of 2730kg and below used on air transport operations. In the interim those organisations not electing to apply for certification under Part 145 will continue under the existing conditions of their approval until Part 43 is effective.

Regulatory Evaluation

Legislation will be introduced at the date determined for full compliance with Part 145, to amend Civil Aviation Regulation 176 and to cancel New Zealand Civil Airworthiness Requirements D4.