Each finding resulting from an inspection shall be categorised by reference to a KRE and the applicable regulatory requirements. Part M and Part ML shall require the Authority that the non-compliances identified with the ACAM inspection shall be analysed in terms of safety significance and, if any, the ultimate cause and the necessary actions to remove them. Therefore, the ACAM Inspector shall communicate in writing (on the basis of the existing models provided by ENAC) any non- compliances, with the relevant classification (level 1 or 2), to the subject concerned by the inspection, in order to initiate in a reasonable time frame the Root Cause Analysis and the appropriate corrective actions, the adequacy and effectiveness of which in removing the final cause identified in the previous analysis and thus avoiding the recurrence of non-compliance, must have been ascertained, as applicable, with appropriate follow-up VERIFICATIONS. In case of significant non-compliance for safety : see “What happens in case of significant non-compliance for safety?”. The communication identifies for each finding, in a manner appropriate to the nature, scope, severity and extent of the same, the deadline for identifying the root causes, the need to receive appropriate corrective/preventive/proactive actions and the verification of their effectiveness and adequacy in the terms described above. In relation to the importance and classification of the survey, the actions required may also include in the most serious cases measures in relation to the validity of the ARC of the aircraft or the approvals of the undertakings involved (e.g. M.B.705 and its AMC M.B.705(a)(1). The same ACAM inspector, in relation to a survey or a group of findings, will carry out an analysis of the safety significance and in case of significant non-compliance for safety will proceed to the identification of the causes and the actions necessary to eliminate them. In the event such actions also affect entities or organisations other than the specific Directorate responsible for the oversight of the aircraft, the latter, through the Central Technical Supervision Directorate, will transmit the information on the non-compliances identified to the ENAC Directorates or competent authorities abroad, in order to ensure appropriate enforcement actions. Replies from the inspected entity must be formally sent to ENAC, at protocollo@pec.ENAC.gov.it,while ensuring that the ACAM Inspector is included in a copy. If the subject does not have a PEC, he or she may send as necessary by email to the contact details that the inspector will communicate to the data subject. The team will ensure that the Submitted material is recorded in the ENAC protocol. If, in conducting the root cause analysis, the person responsible for airworthiness Identifies or assumes among the possible causes of non-compliance against other entities, such as e.g. I love 145 or CAMO, it is desirable that those who carry out the RCA involve them in advance in the analysis. If the ultimate cause of a finding, as agreed with ENAC, identifies a non-compliance with any chapter of Part M/ML or other part of EASA legislation, ENAC, to the extent of the various internal competences, will take the actions envisaged in relation to this situation (e.g. M.B.705 and related AMC, M.B.605 and related AMC, etc.).
In the event that aircraft registered in other EU States or undertakings approved by other EU authorities are involved, ENAC shall also forward appropriate communications (ref. M.B.1 05 and M.B.303(i)) to the competent authority of the Member State concerned in such a way as to make it possible to take the relevant measures and conduct appropriate analyses in accordance with the legislation in force. If deficiencies are detected during inspections requiring one or more corrective actions to be taken on the aircraft before the next flight, the inspector in charge of the inspection shall immediately notify the owner/operator and/or the CAMO/CAO undertaking which contractually manages its continuing airworthiness in accordance with Part M/ML (or their formally delegated representative) with the most effective instrument for the purpose (hand delivered report, annotation in the technical logbook or aircraft booklet, etc.). Particularly critical situations (e.g. in the case of Level 1 findings contested by the owner/operator/company) are immediately brought to the attention, including through the short routes, of the ENAC Director responsible for the subsequent actions. Pursuant to Article 10 of Regulation 2018/1139 et seq., the ENAC Office shall take, directly or through the airport or public security authorities, any measure, including the detainment of an aircraft, capable of preventing the continuation of an infringement. In other cases, the inspector in charge shall, at the end of the inspection, carry out an appropriate de-briefing with the owner/operator and/or the CAMO undertaking which contractually manages its continuing airworthiness in accordance with Part M (or their formally delegated representative) on the results of the inspection pending the formalisation of the inspection by the Directorate/Operations Office. In the event that aircraft registered in other EU States or undertakings approved by other EU authorities are involved, the Directorate/Operations Office shall subsequently forward appropriate communications (ref. M.B.105 and M.B.303(g) or as applicable ML.B.105 and ML.B.303(g)) also to the competent authority of the Member State concerned so as to make it possible to take the relevant measures and conduct appropriate analyses in accordance with the legislation in force.
Ultimo aggiornamento: 08/05/2024