The Roles of Software Providers in Aircraft Management

Aircraft Management may mean different things to different people.

A Pilot may interpret “Aircraft Management” in a very practical way such as flying the machine, managing the different procedures during various phases of flight and all the data and input coming from the aircraft, the controller, etc.

An Aircraft Maintenance Engineer's perception of “Aircraft Management” may lean more towards planning or production, such as making sure that all the tasks in a work package are planned and accomplished, in time, with the right tools, space, materials and by the people with the right authorization and skills.

For a CAMO/Airworthiness Engineer (for those of you who work in the EASA landscape) or for a person responsible for the continuing airworthiness of an aircraft (for the rest of the world) “Aircraft Management” means a completely different thing. For these professionals “Aircraft Management” means:

1. Making sure the aircraft meets the regulatory requirements;

2. Updating the Aircraft Status and utilization;

3. Creating, amending and controlling the Maintenance Program for the specific MSN;

4. Planning maintenance tasks and researching appropriate Maintenance Organizations with the required approval and finding a slot;

5. Monitoring defects and reliability data;

6. Interfacing with the Authority for the issuance or renewal of approvals.

These are just some aspects. We could go on an on.

All this information needs to be managed somehow, somewhere.

This is accomplished by using software, from an excel spreadsheet to a more complex and sophisticated software, like AMOS, CAMP, etc. Lots and lots of aircraft are enrolled in  programs that make “Aircraft Management” clear, easy, intuitive and effective…. Depending on the quality of the information you put into the system, somebody might say, and… I’m one of these people.

I've had the opportunity to work for different companies and use different software solutions; and the quality of the data input is KEY! But this is a topic for another time.

Today I’d like to propose a few thoughts on the roles of these software providers, because it has been my experience that some “Aircraft Management” personnel rely too much on them, forgetting that ultimately, THEY ARE the ones in charge and that THEY are responsible for the AIRWORTHINESS of the aircraft, NOT the software provider.

Software providers typically assign an analyst; somebody that YOU (as the CAMO engineer or person responsible for the aircraft) interface with. The role of the analyst is to interface with the client to manage the data input in the system. For example, when a task is expired the analyst will reach out to you, making sure you’re aware the task is expired, and if the task has been accomplished and you provide the analyst with the proper information, he/she will reset the task in the system for you.

However, always remind yourself that:

• The Owner / Operator remains solely responsible for the airworthiness of the aircraft.

• Analysts and software providers are not Aircraft Management Companies, nor Continued Airworthiness companies, nor are they part of the Operator’s or CAMO’s structure. That would make them liable with Civil Aviation Authorities and, in court, in case of litigations.

• Analysts are not responsible for verifying compliance with your company manuals or with the aviation requirements applicable to your case based on the aircraft registration. If you manage an aircraft subject to the San Marino Civil Aviation Regulation or the OTARs, compliance with those requirements is on you.

• The Operator is responsible for the correctness and accuracy of the data from enrollment onwards and as long as the aircraft is managed through that specific software. This is valid for any data placed in the software at any time.

Practical Example #1

If an Airworthiness Directive is issued, the analyst may add that AD in the system and may also perform an evaluation based on which the AD gets set as “not applicable”. However, YOU and only YOU, as a CAMO or Aircraft Manager are the one responsible to verify that the AD is applicable, determine the actions required, the timeframe to implement the AD and make sure the AD is listed and set appropriately in the system. If you get audited and it turns out the analyst made a mistake by setting the AD as “not applicable”, you’re the one responsible for it. Telling the auditor or the Authority that it’s the software provider’s fault that you missed the AD and now the aircraft is grounded is not going to work…

Practical Example #2

Your aircraft has a particular STC embodied; which comes with additional Instructions for Continued Airworthiness. These ICAs will end up in the Aircraft Maintenance Program and you, as the CAMO or Aircraft Manager, have to notify your analyst/software provider. You have to provide them with the tasks that need to be added in the maintenance schedule and verify that they’re set correctly. If you don’t tell the analyst that these ICAs need to be added, they’ll never know… because they don’t control and they’re not responsible for the aircraft configuration.

I hope this article and the examples provided help you in your Aircraft Management journey.

Annalisa -

Aircraft Management Specialist & Co-Author of "Introduction to Aircraft Management"