SAFA Ramp Inspections - Code7700

SAFA Ramp InspectionsGuidance materialinspection. In that case the inspector should wait with reporting the defects identifieduntil the operator has completed the pre-flight inspection.c) The inspector should subsequently check if the operator detected the significant defectsfound by the inspector. Examples of significant defects are, but not limited to, multiplescrews missing in the corner area or in the leading edge of panels, running/droppingleaks, dents in pressurised areas of the fuselage. A single screw missing in the middleof a fairing, traces of old leaks and non-structural damages to e.g. fairings can, in manycases, considered to be “minor defects”. Such defects should be brought to theattention of the operator as general remarks (cat. G).d) If the operator detected the significant defect, but did not properly report and/or assessit, the operator should assess the defect. If the defect appears to be within limits, afinding should be raised under A23 (Defect notification and rectification) mentioning“Known defect not reported/assessed”. The inspector should however, when collectingthe evidence for this finding, take into account the reporting system used by theoperator. For instance, if the operator uses a Technical Logbook and/or a damage chart,a finding could be raised if the defect was not entered. Additionally, a category “G”(general) remark should be created for the defect. If the defect is outside limits, acategory 3 finding should be raised under the respective inspection item. In order notto penalise the operator twice, no supplementary finding, related to this defect, shouldbe raised in that case under A23.e) If the operator did not detect the significant defect, the inspector should inform thecrew on the non-identified defects. Subsequently, the operator should assess the defectin order to determine if the defect is within or outside dispatch limits. If the defect iswithin limits, a category 2 finding mentioning “Pre-flight inspection performed butwithout noticing significant defects” should be raised under A24 (pre-flight inspection)addressing the deficiency that the defect was not detected. Additionally, a category “G”(general) remark should be created for the defect. If the defect is outside limits, acategory 3 finding should be raised under the respective inspection item. In order notto penalise the operator twice, no supplementary finding, related to this defect, shouldbe raised in that case under A24.f) Multiple (Cat 2) findings on the same system 8 (e.g. hydraulic leakage, fuel leakage,dents) and “root cause” (not identified, not reported or not assessed) raised under A23or A24 should be grouped. E.g. dents on the LH wing and the #2 engine intake whichwere not identified should be grouped, as well as hydraulic leakages which wereidentified but not assessed. On the other hand, a fuel leakage on the left wing whichwas not identified and a fuel leak on Engine #2 which was reported but not assessedshould be noted as two findings. As described in chapter 4.1.g) An unnecessary delay of the aircraft should be avoided. However, if the aircraft suffersa delay caused by the assessment of not properly assessed/not identified findings, sucha delay is justified according to paragraph 1.4 of the Annex to the Commission Directive2008/49/EC where it is mentioned that possible causes for delay could be “(…) doubtsregarding the (…) airworthiness of the aircraft (…)”.Even when operators are carrying out their pre-flight inspection (aircraft acceptance)procedures only briefly before the departure of the aircraft, the inspector should wait untilthese procedures have been completed before reporting to the operator the identifieddefects. Although an investigation, which may trigger delays, might subsequently berequired once the inspector has informed the airline of the missed technical defect, theairline procedure would have resulted in the same delays if the flight crew would haveidentified the same defect requiring the associated investigation. Therefore, it is theoperator which takes the risk to perform the pre-flight inspection close to departure; as8 Inspectors should use the ATA system taxonomy (e.g. Chapter 28 Fuel, Chapter 32 Landing gear) todetermine if findings are related to the same system.SAFA Coordination Section Page 18 of 217© European Aviation Safety Agency, 2012 V 2.0