Supplement

Quality Assurance
and Human Factors
This supplement covers topics that were not included in the
other texts in the program but which are equally important
to all AMEs. Due to the variety of the topics covered, the
same level of continuity found in your textbooks is absent.
Rather, the supplement is designed to provide a cohesive
component to the program’s curriculum.

Preface

iii
MORAL AND LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF
AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE ENGINEERS 1

QUALITY ASSURANCE 2

Contents
706.07 Elevation Programs 3
573.09 Quality Assurance Program 5

HUMAN FACTORS IN AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE 6

ERROR AND SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 11

MINIMUM EQUIPMENT LISTS 12

CONFIGURATION DEVIATION LISTS 21

BUILT-IN TEST EQUIPMENT 21

APPLICATION OF THE METRIC AND BRITISH

UNIFIED SYSTEMS AND UNIT CONVERSIONS 22
British System 22
Metric System 22
Practice Problems 26

SOLUTIONS TO PRACTICE PROBLEMS 27

v
Quality Assusrance and
Human Factors

MORAL AND LEGAL

RESPONSIBILITIES OF
AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE
ENGINEERS (AMES)
The AME licence grants an individual the authority to sign
a maintenance release for work performed on an aircraft or
on an aeronautical product. With this authority an AME
assumes the obligation to make sure that the work was
properly performed and the responsibility in case there is
a problem resulting from the maintenance work.
An AME must not make a certification unless the statements
in the certification are true. The authority to make a certi-
fication belongs solely to the AME to whom it was given: a
certification stamp or a licence number may not be loaned
to someone else or used by anyone else.
An AME must follow the Canadian Aviation Regulations
(CARs) and all other regulations issued under the author-
ity of the Aeronautics Act. It is an AME’s responsibility to
ensure that he or she is familiar with the current regulations.
Some ways that you can stay current are: by reading the
amendments to the Transport Canada publications, through
one of the AME associations, by attending seminars and
­symposiums, and/or by reading the Advisory Circulars (ACs)
and Civil Aviation Safety Alerts (CASAs).
Anyone who is granted the authority to certify could be subject
to penalties or lawsuits (litigations) as a result of certifica-
tions they make or as a result of not following regulations.
These penalties and/or litigation could also apply to someone

1
 who uses an authority given by Transport Canada through
a licence or to an Aircraft Maintenance Organization (AMO).
The penalties for noncompliance with the regulations are
listed in CAR Part I, Subpart 3. A penalty could include a fine
(and in some cases prison time). Certification authority can
also be taken away for a violation, or if Transport Canada
believes there is a threat to safety. An AME is required to
show their licence if it is requested by Transport Canada or by
the police.
An AME can appeal an imposed penalty. It is possible to be
aquitted of violating a regulation if an AME can prove that the
violation was unavoidable and/or that all measures had been
taken to avoid it. Also, an AME can violate a regulation if it
was necessary to do so in order to avoid a dangerous situation.
It is also possible for an AME to be the subject of a lawsuit
(litigation) as a result of their actions. An AME may perform
maintenance work according to any acceptable procedures/
instructions, but the manufacturer’s instructions will usu-
ally be the method that is most preferred by the courts. As a
rule, Transport Canada does not directly con-cern itself with
lawsuits brought against AMEs. Transport Canada does not
assume any liability for the designs they approve or for the
manufacturers’ maintenance instructions.The liability rests
with the people who prepared or certified the data/instruc-
tions. An AME could be sued for negligence, or for violating a
regulation, or for violating an agreement/contract.

QUALITY ASSURANCE
Every maintenance organization must have procedures in
place to ensure that maintenance tasks are completed prop-
erly. As aircraft systems and the processes for maintaining
them become more complicated, it becomes clear that inspect-
ing the completed work may not be enough. Some types of
repair errors are very difficult to identify by direct inspection.
So while the quality control of finished products is as import-
ant as ever, it has also become necessary to monitor the
maintenance processes to provide assurance that the work
was actually done correctly. Maintenance is no longer able to
just take a reactive approach to quality. Maintenance orga-
nizations must take on a more proactive approach and apply
the same strategies used by manufacturers.

2 Quality Assurance and Human Factors

A problem that is identified in the early stages of the pro-
cess is less costly to correct than one that is only discovered
at the quality control stage of the finished product. Quality
assurance is the sum of all the actions that are taken to pro-
vide a guarantee that the final desired goal is properly met.
Instead of concentrating only on the finished product qual-
ity assurance looks at all aspects of a job, from planning to
completion, and identifies weak points where errors could
occur. Quality assurance looks at the finished job only as one
means of confirming the satisfactory operation of the whole
system. It is not necessary to inspect all the work done. A
sampling of the jobs is enough to tell whether the processes
are working properly.
In Canada, Air Operators and Approved Maintenance
Organizations are not required to have a quality control
system. Every maintenance task is subject to its own main-
tenance release and the person signing it (usually an AME)
assumes full responsibility. Since quality assurance only
inspects a sample of the tasks it becomes more important for
AMEs to understand their responsibilities since they have
done the final inspection.
Air Operators and Approved Maintenance Organizations
are required to have a quality assurance system. For Air
Operators the system is required by CAR 706.07.

706.07 Elevation Programs

(1) An air operator shall, in order to ensure that its mainte-
nance control system and all of the included maintenance
schedules continue to be effective and to comply with these
Regulations, establish and maintain a quality assurance
­program that
(a) is under the sole control of the person responsible
for the maintenance control system appointed under
­paragraph 706.03(1)(a); and
( b) meets the requirements of section 726.07 of
Standard 726 - Air Operator Maintenance of the
Commercial Air Service Standards.

Quality Assurance and Human Factors 3

 (2) The person responsible for the maintenance control system
shall distribute the records relating to the findings resulting
from the quality assurance program to the appropriate man-
ager for corrective action and follow-up in accordance with the
policies and procedures specified in the maintenance control
manual (MCM).
(3) The person responsible for the maintenance control sys-
tem shall establish an audit system in respect of the quality
assurance program that consists of the following:
(a) an initial audit within 12 months after the date on
which the air operator certificate is issued;
( b) subsequent audits conducted at intervals set out in
the MCM;
(c) a record of each occurrence of compliance or non-­
compliance with the MCM found during an audit referred
to in paragraph (a) or (b);
(d) checklists of all activities controlled by the MCM and
the maintenance schedules;
(e) procedures for ensuring that each finding of an audit
is communicated to them and, if management functions
have been assigned to another person under subsection
705.03(3) or (4), to that person;
(f) follow-up procedures for ensuring that corrective
actions are effective; and
(g) a system for recording the findings of initial and
­periodic audits, corrective actions and follow-ups.
(4) The records required under paragraph (3)(g) shall be
retained for the greater of
(a) two audit cycles; and
(b) two years.
(5) The duties related to the quality assurance program that
involve specific tasks or activities within an air operator’s
activities shall be fulfilled by persons who are not responsible
for carrying out those tasks or activities.

4 Quality Assurance and Human Factors

573.09 Quality Assurance Program
Information Note: The Quality Assurance Program (hereinafter
the program) established under section 573.09 of the Canadian
Aviation Regulations (CARs) is not intended to be based solely
on a system of end product inspection, but rather upon periodic
verifications of all aspects of the systems and practices used in
the performance of maintenance. The program should provide
an unbiased picture of the AMO’s performance, to verify that
activities and results comply with the MPM and confirm that
the MPM and the systems and procedures described within it
remain effective.
(1) The program shall, as a minimum, cover all functions
defined within the MPM and include all elements necessary
to ensure effectiveness, quality and safety. It shall confirm
that the AMO is in compliance with the applicable regulations
and with the MPM by addressing operational and environ-
mental conditions, organizational structure, record keeping
systems, etc., and ensure that all referenced procedures
remain applicable and effective.
(2) The audits referred to in paragraphs 573.09(3)(a) and (b)
of the CARs may be conducted on a progressive or segmented
basis, provided that the entire organization is audited within
the applicable interval.
Information Note: A proportion of random audits should be
carried out while maintenance is in progress, including work
being performed at night time.
(3) Activities related to the program may be performed by
employees of the AMO or by external agents. Persons may be
assigned responsibility for other duties, in addition to those
related to the program, provided that the program responsi-
bilities take precedence over all other responsibilities.
The quality assurance program for an Approved Maintenance
Organization must be independent of all aspects of the main-
tenance processes including the recording or certifying of
inspected work. This is done to make sure that there is no
conflict of interest.

Quality Assurance and Human Factors 5

 The quality assurance staff is not to be responsible for the
items they inspect. The emphasis of quality assurance work
is the system as a whole, not just the final results. The
­quality assurance inspectors serve as critics of the organiza-
tion who bring existing or potential problems to the attention
of the responsible parties. The quality assurance inspectors
should not propose corrective actions since this would take
away from their objectiveness during future inspections. It is
important to remain entirely independent from the processes
being inspected so as to maintain their objectivity.
While quality assurance personnel do not get involved in cor-
rective action, they are supposed to analyze the problems
they find to identify the probable causes. Quality assurance
is supposed to identify the weaknesses in the system before
problems can result and report their findings to the person
responsible for maintenance, who will then be responsible for
taking corrective action.
Often a combination of solutions must be applied. All actions
must be documented and the quality assurance staff must be
notified. Future inspections can then track the results of the
corrective actions to verify their effectiveness. As well, the
quality assurance reports must also be made available to the
Approved Maintenance Organization’s certificate holder.

HUMAN FACTORS IN AIRCRAFT

MAINTENANCE
Recently, the importance of the human factor in aircraft
maintenance has become more widely acknowledged. A major
cause of aviation maintenance related incidents and acci-
dents is due to human error. The general causes of human
error and the means for preventing errors originate from basic
human capabilities and limitations.
The following are possible factors that can influence the effi-
ciency and efficacy of aviation maintenance workers; or, for
that matter, anyone with technical responsibilities.
n Fatigue

n Stress

n Assertiveness

6 Quality Assurance and Human Factors

 n Awareness

n Resources

n Knowledge

n Teamwork

n Commonly accepted standards and procedures

n Complacency

n Pressure

n Distraction

n Communication

In aircraft maintenance there is a small margin for error for

a set of tasks that are performed day-in and day-out. A set of
tasks that could potentially determine the outcome of a flight
for hundreds of passengers. All causes of human error are
therefore very serious and require suitable attention.

Fatigue
Mental and physical weariness from overexertion, boredom,
caffeine abuse, improper diet, illness, or lack of sleep (or
any other reason) can cause a serious reduction in work
performance. The exact results of fatigue can differ between
individuals but could result in impaired judgment, an inability
to concentrate on tasks, and overall poor work performance.
In highly technical work like aircraft maintenance fatigue
can severely affect work and can easily result in errors. It
is important that aviation maintenance workers monitor
their level of fatigue and act accordingly to reduce the causes.
Chronic fatigue could be a symptom of a serious health prob-
lem and should be brought to the attention of a doctor.

Stress
Stress is an unpleasant state of emotional and physiological
arousal that people experience in situations that they feel are
dangerous or threatening. The causes of stress could include
major catastrophes, life changes, or everyday problems.
Different people respond differently to stressful situations.

Quality Assurance and Human Factors 7

 Possible responses to stress include physiological changes—
such as increased heart rate and muscle tension—as well as
emotional and behavioral changes. Stress can be a big dis-
traction away from the work at hand and must therefore be
monitored and reduced so as to maximize work effectiveness.

Assertiveness
Not all people are naturally inclined to assert themselves
and take control of a situation. Because of the seriousness
of the work it is important that aircraft maintenance workers
develop an ability to assert themselves and speak up or act
when a situation arises. Inaction due to a lack of assertive-
ness can mean that potential problems do not get resolved
and that ultimately you could be held responsible for the
results. If you think that there is a problem it is better to
speak up and turn out to be wrong, than to not act and turn
out to be right.
Having confidence in your abilities goes a long way towards
being able to take control and be assertive. It is also
important for employers to foster a work atmosphere that
encourages initiative and assertiveness in proper situations.

Awareness
Another important source of problems stems from a lack of
general awareness of the situation around you. In aircraft
maintenance you must understand your assigned tasks and
you must be alert enough to recognize potential problems. An
unidentified problem is a problem that will not get resolved.

Resources
Nobody can perform their job effectively without the proper
tools and information. The resources that are made avail-
able to an aircraft maintenance worker will directly affect
work effectiveness, the time it takes to perform tasks, and
sometimes whether a task can be done at all. It is extremely
important that you and/or your employer make sure that
you have what you need to complete your work properly.

8 Quality Assurance and Human Factors

The correct tools should be used and they must be in good
working shape. Information resources must be kept complete
and current.

Knowledge
To be truly effective in any technical field complete and cur-
rent job knowledge is an essential. In aircraft maintenance,
training (whether it is formal or informal) never stops. There
are all sorts of type training programs, technical journals, and
reports, because there is always something new that a person
working in the aircraft maintenance industry should be con-
cerned with.

Teamwork
Few people are capable of doing everything well by them-
selves all the time. In an aircraft maintenance organization
many jobs are performed by teams. Tasks are assigned to
team members and the other people on the team may ver-
ify your work. You can get help from other team members
and you may be called upon to help someone else. If a team
­cooperates and works properly it should be able to perform
better than an equal number of workers each doing their own
thing.
Problems arise when the team does not work properly.
Sometimes personalities may clash. Sometimes a team may
have an ineffective member(s). A team may be too large or
too small. Some people are just not well suited to working
on a team. To ensure that work is being done effectively and
efficiently attention has to be paid to how well a team works
together and make changes or address members’ problems.

Commonly Accepted Standards and Procedures

Many aircraft maintenance tasks have commonly accepted
standards and procedures that should be adhered to in order
to help ensure that they are completed properly. It is usually
best to follow the manufacturer’s maintenance and repair
­procedures when performing any task: the manufacturer
should know how best to service their product. Make sure
that you follow the most current procedures.

Quality Assurance and Human Factors 9

 Complacency
Being overly familiar with procedures and duties can some-
times result in over-confidence and an unwarranted sense
of security that nothing can go wrong. For the aircraft main-
tenance engineers (AMEs), tasks can sometimes become
routine, causing them to inadvertently skip steps in a main-
tenance procedure. Manufacturers have produced volumes
of technical manuals to detail the maintenance procedures
in order to prevent these types of problems. Consequently,
they have created a time consuming hurdle for AMEs. This
hurdle can further tempt some AMEs to become complacent
and perform various tasks without the aid of a technical
manual.
Complacency can develop into a habit and must be avoided.
It is important to understand the significance of all mainte-
nance work and the potential for disastrous repercussions
for work done incorrectly. A sense of discipline must be
developed so that all tasks great and small—including those
tasks that are not commonly performed—as well as the
­routine tasks, are all treated with the proper seriousness
and attention.

Pressure
Job pressures caused by overwork, too much responsibility,
or timetables and deadlines can lead to detrimental levels of
stress. Pressure from responsibilities outside the workplace
can add to that stress. These pressures can act to lower job
performance and can distract a worker away from tasks that
require his or her full attention. Proper workload management
can help to reduce job pressures to a reasonable level. Outside
pressures must also be monitored, controlled, and regulated to
reduce stress and distractions.

Distraction
Distractions can come from stress and pressure on the job,
from activities and sounds occurring around the work area
and from co-workers. These distractions can cause you to
miss a step in a procedure or prevent you from properly
­documenting the work you have done. Aircraft maintenance
workers must understand the importance and seriousness

10 Quality Assurance and Human Factors

of every task. Attempts must be made to remain focused on
work and to develop a sense of discipline so that distractions
do not prevent work from being done properly. If you have
to stop work before a task is complete, you must properly
­document what work was done so that work can properly
­proceed from that point.

Communication
Proper workplace communication (both written and verbal) is a
must for almost any type of job. Information has to be relayed
clearly and effectively if work is to be done properly and if
teams are to function effectively. Improperly communi­cating
information about maintenance tasks can be disastrous, so
any unclear communications should be confirmed.
Many of these “human” factors have overlapping features. All
of them should be of prime concern to everyone who works
in the aircraft maintenance industry because of the extreme
dangers that could result from improperly performed main-
tenance work and/or improperly performed administrative
tasks.

ERROR AND SAFETY

MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
With an ultimate goal in mind to improving aviation safety,
all maintenance errors must be reduced (or eliminated). The
regulations require that approved maintenance organiza-
tions (AMOs) must have management systems in place that
will reduce maintenance errors and raise the level of aviation
safety. These management systems must have established
policies that work towards preventing and containing errors.
There must be a set of measurable goals for improving aviation
safety included in this system.
There is no single system that all AMOs must use. Since no
two organizations are identical, the safety and error man-
agement systems can vary greatly. An AMO must be able to
detect errors and identify potential aviation safety problems
in a way that best suits that organization. The system for

Quality Assurance and Human Factors 11

 detecting maintenance errors and aviation safety incidents
must correspond to the size, type of work performed and
complexity of the operations at that maintenance facility.
Maintenance errors and any other potential aviation safety
risks must be contained and evaluated. The causes for any
incidents must be determined so that future incidents can
be avoided.
Of primary importance is the need to ensure that the AMO’s
personnel are properly trained and that they are competent
to perform their duties. All personnel must be aware of the
potential for human errors in the operation and of ways to
avoid errors and detect aviation safety concerns. The error
and aviation safety management system’s policies must be
clearly explained, and everyone must be efficiently and quickly
informed of any changes to the system’s policies. Staff should
be periodically re-trained on the human factors that cause
errors and on the management systems being used.
All maintenance error incidents and all accidents must be
reported (logged) according to each AMO’s internal reporting
procedures. Each incident must be analyzed so that corrective
action can be taken to prevent the problem from occurring
again.
A program must be developed and put in place for reviewing
the management system. The management system must be
audited or reviewed periodically to ensure that it is effective.

MINIMUM EQUIPMENT LISTS

A Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL) is an approved
­document created to regulate the authority to fly an aircraft
type where some equipment and systems are inoperative. It
establishes which aircraft equipment is allowed to be inopera-
tive under certain conditions for a specific type of aircraft. The
MMEL forms the basis for a Minimum Equipment List (MEL). A
MEL must at least comply with the minimum standards set
out in that aircraft type’s MMEL.

12 Quality Assurance and Human Factors

The MEL is a detailed list that provides directions on how-to-
fly and maintain a specific aircraft, if for some special reason
some of the aircraft’s equipment is not functioning properly.
It is definitely not the purpose of the MEL to encourage the
operation of aircraft with inoperative equipment. It is never
desirable for aircraft to be dispatched with inoperative equip-
ment and such operations are permitted only as a result of
careful analysis of each item to ensure that the required level
of safety is maintained. A fundamental consideration in per-
mitting the dispatch of aircraft with inoperative equipment is
that the continued operation of an aircraft in this condition
should be minimized.
Most large transport aircraft are designed and certified with
a significant amount of redundancy in their systems, such
that the minimum standards of airworthiness are satisfied
by a substantial margin. Many of these aircraft also have
installed instruments and equipment that are not required
for safe operation under all operating conditions. Other equip-
ment, such as entertainment systems or galley equipment,
may be installed for operator convenience only.
The MMEL lists those items of equipment that may be inop-
erative for the dispatch of a flight. Optional equipment may
also be included in the MMEL. The MMEL does not include
such items as wings, engines and landing gear that are
always required. There is not always a specific reference made
to passenger convenience and entertainment items which,
when inoperative, obviously do not affect airworthiness. It is
important to note that any item related to the airworthiness
of the aircraft, and not included in the MMEL, must be oper-
ative prior to flight. Also, items required by Air Navigation
Orders and which are not listed in the MMEL, are required to
be operative for dispatch. Although the airworthiness stan-
dards require that aircraft be designed with certain systems
and components, the MMEL will permit the operation, for
short periods, with these items of equipment inoperative if the
required level of safety can be maintained. When an MMEL is
being created, various factors are considered relating to the
safe operation when each piece of equipment is inoperative.
These considerations include the consequences to the aircraft
and its occupants of further failures, change in crew workload
and/or degradation in crew efficiency and degradation in crew
capability to cope with adverse environmental conditions.

Quality Assurance and Human Factors 13

 The assessment of an acceptable level of safety for a MMEL
item often involves more than one of the following methods
of justification:
n Equipment may be considered optional

n Equipment may be considered redundant

n A quantitative safety analysis

n A qualitative analysis

When an aircraft is approved with optional equipment on

board which is over and above the required equipment, there
is no necessity for such equipment to be operative if it is in
excess of that required for safe operations for a particular
flight condition or route of flight. Inclusion in the MMEL can
be accepted on this basis.
For a Canadian manufactured aircraft, a MMEL will consist
of a single document. For a foreign manufactured aircraft,
it will normally consist of the original MMEL, approved by
the foreign airworthiness authority, with the addition of a
TC Supplement. The Supplement is an overriding document
that modifies items in the foreign MMEL to conform to the
Canadian requirements.
Each MMEL will also contain a List of Effective Pages, a Table
of Contents, an explanation of the symbols used in the MMEL
and a definition of any terms having special meaning in the
context of the MMEL. Each item of equipment listed in the
MMEL shall be described and identified in accordance with
the Air Transport Association (ATA) specification 100-code
system. The number of each item of equipment installed and
the number required to be operative for dispatch shall be
stated in the appropriate columns. Any conditions associated
with inoperative equipment, required to maintain a level of
safety, shall be included in the remark column. Appropriate
symbols in the “Remarks or Exceptions” column of the MEL
will normally be “O” for an operational procedure and “M”
for a maintenance procedure, or (O) (M) for both operational
and maintenance procedures required. Where applicable, the
­limitations, procedures and remarks for individual MMEL
items should cover at least day, night, VMC, IMC, ETOPS,
icing, rain, and Category II/III.

14 Quality Assurance and Human Factors

(O) Items
1. Aircraft with inoperative equipment requiring an opera-
tional procedure (O) may be returned to service following
completion of the required MEL procedure for deferral.
2. Operational procedures are normally carried out by
aqualified flight crew, but may be accomplished by other
qualified, approved personnel.
(M) Items
1. Aircraft with inoperative equipment requiring a mainte-
nance procedure (M) may be returned to service following
completion of the required MEL procedure for deferral.
2. Maintenance personnel normally accomplish mainte-
nance procedures, but some elementary maintenance
tasks may be carried out by crewmembers or other
­qualified, approved personnel (see Section 3.14.2).
3. Flight crews may not perform maintenance procedures
if the defect involves an item designated in the MEL
with a (M#)–Maintenance Personnel Required. In this
­circumstance, the aircraft may not proceed until
authorized maintenance personnel carry out the
­specified procedure.
When practical, the switch, lever, gauge or indicator of a
particular item of equipment should be identified. Foreign
MMELs may indicate a requirement to placard inoperative
equipment by use of an asterisk (*) to inform the crew mem-
bers of its condition. For domestic MMELs, a definition has
been added which states that each inoperative item must be
placarded to inform and remind the crewmembers and main-
tenance personnel of the equipment condition.
The MMEL shall not include any item of equipment which
if inoperative will significantly affect the take-off, landing
or climb performance of the aircraft or associated landing
speeds presented in the approved Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM)
unless the AFM specifies the effect and the MMEL draws
attention to this fact. No item shall be included in the MMEL
that conflicts with the limitations or invalidates the emergency
procedures of the AFM or of an Airworthiness Directive unless
the AFM or directive provides otherwise. The MMEL shall not
include any part or structural component of the aircraft that
is the subject of the Configuration Deviation List (CDL).

Quality Assurance and Human Factors 15

 When an item of equipment is required to be installed and
operative under particular circumstances by an Air Navigation
Order or a regulation, such equipment may be defined in
the remark column of the MMEL by the words “As required
by Regulations.”
The maximum time an aircraft may be operated between the
deferral of an inoperative item and its repair will be specified
in the MMEL. Passenger convenience items such as reading
lights may have no specified repair interval. The category of
all other inoperative items will be determined according to the
time intervals specified below.
Category A: Items in this category shall be repaired within
the flight day interval specified in the remarks column of the
MMEL, excluding the day of discovery.
Category B: Items in this category shall be repaired within
3 consecutive calendar days, excluding the day of discovery.
Category C: Items in this category shall be repaired within
10 consecutive calendar days, excluding the day of discovery.
Category D: Items in this category shall be repaired within
120 consecutive calendar days, excluding the day of discovery.
To be considered for placement in Category D, the item must
be of an optional nature, or excess equipment that an opera-
tor may, at his or her discretion, deactivate, remove from, or
install on an aircraft.
To be approved for Category D, the item must meet the
­following criteria:
1. The absence of the item does not affect crew workload.
2. The pilots do not rely on the function of that item on a
routine or continuous basis.
3. The pilot’s training, subsequent habit patterns and
­procedures do not rely on the use of that item.
While the MMEL is for an aircraft type, the MEL is tailored to
the operator’s specific aircraft and operating environment
and may be dependent upon the route structure, geographic
location, and number of airports where spares and mainte-
nance capabilities are available. The MMEL cannot address
these individual variables. It is for these reasons that a

16 Quality Assurance and Human Factors

MMEL cannot be approved for use as a MEL. It falls on the
operator to develop Operations “O” and Maintenance “M”
procedures. Another option that may be available is the TC
generated MELs which include these procedures. Except
as authorized by the Minister, operation of an aircraft with
aircraft equipment inoperative is prohibited unless an oper-
ator does so in compliance with an approved MEL. With the
exception of Global Changes, the content of an operator’s
approved MEL cannot be less restrictive than the content of
the approved MMEL for that aircraft type.
Dispatch with inoperative items is often acceptable only with
the creation of special operational or maintenance proce-
dures. Where the MMEL indicates that this is the case, the
operator must establish, publish and obtain approval for
appropriate procedures. Procedures recommended by the
aircraft manufacturer in most cases can be adopted for this
purpose, but the ultimate responsibility for providing accept-
able procedures to be approved in the MEL rests with the
operator. These procedures will ensure that a satisfactory
level of safety will be maintained. The operator, when compar-
ing the MEL against the MMEL must insure that where the
(O) or (M) symbols appear, an operating or maintenance pro-
cedure has been developed that provides clear direction to the
air crew and maintenance personnel of the action to be taken.
This procedure must be included in the MEL. The only excep-
tion is when the procedure is contained in another document
that is available to the flight crew on the flight deck (such as
an Aircraft Flight Manual, Aircraft Operating Manual, or the
Company Operations Manual) or to the maintenance crew
(such as an Aircraft Maintenance Manual or Maintenance
Control Manual [MCM], etc.).
Manufacturers may choose to produce operating and main-
tenance procedures such as Dispatch Deviation Procedure
Guides (DDPG), for use by operators. These procedures may be
inserted into the appropriate MEL pages, and submitted by the
operator, to form part of the MEL. DDPGs, DDGs, and other
similar documents do not get approved by Transport Canada
and they do not replace the MEL. If the aircraft manufacturer
has not published operating or maintenance procedures, the
operator must develop appropriate procedures and submit
them to Transport Canada for approval.

Quality Assurance and Human Factors 17

 Procedures for the deferral of MEL items will be included as
part of the operator’s Maintenance Control Manual (MCM). The
operator must ensure that the Operations Manual and the
MEL references the aforementioned procedures in the MCM,
or duplicates the same. These procedures comprise a method
for deferral and/or rectification of inoperative equipment;
placarding; dispatching of aircraft with deferred MEL item(s);
a remote deferral system; controlling categorized times; and
the training of company personnel who are responsible for
MEL compliance procedures.
A carrier must establish procedures whereby the Maintenance
and Flight Departments periodically review the deferred items
in order to ensure that any accumulation of deferred items
neither conflict with each other nor present an unacceptable
increase in crew workload. Notwithstanding the categoriza-
tion of item repair intervals, it should be the aim of each MEL
document holder to ensure that inoperative items are repaired
as quickly as possible. It is Transport Canada’s policy that
optional inoperative equipment should be repaired or removed
from an aircraft.
The listed item of equipment, if inoperative, must be plac-
arded to inform crewmembers of equipment condition. While
the MEL for some items may require specific wording, the
majority of items leave the placard wording and location to
be determined by the operator. The operator shall provide the
capability and instructions to the flight crew to ensure that
the placard is in place prior to the aircraft being dispatched.
The exclusion of an asterisk in a MMEL does not preclude
the requirement for placarding. Placarding will be carried out
in accordance with the placarding procedures established
and set out in the operator’s approved MCM. The method
of placarding control must ensure that all inoperative items
are placarded and placards are removed and accounted for
when the defect is cleared. The equipment/system shall be
placarded so as to inform the crewmembers of the inoperative
condition(s) of the item. To the extent that it’s practicable,
placards must be located as indicated in the MEL, or adjacent
to the control or indicator affected.

18 Quality Assurance and Human Factors

Placards should be self-adhesive. The placard may be in two
parts. Part One should list a description of the defect and the
defect control number and should be attached to the logbook
for crew reference. Part Two should list the system affected
and the defect control number and be fixed in the appropri-
ate location. A MEL control sheet attached to the logbook
could serve the same purpose as Part One above. If more
than one placard is required for a MEL item, provision must
be made to ensure that all placards are removed when the
defect is cleared. If a defect occurs at a base where mainte-
nance personnel are not available, the flight crew may install
a temporary placard as required by the MEL. The aircraft
may continue on a planned itinerary to a base where mainte-
nance will rectify or re-defer in accordance with the approved
system.
“Dispatch” for the purpose of the MEL/MMEL refers to the
moment the airplane starts its takeoff roll. In the case of a
helicopter, it refers to the moment the helicopter commences
air or ground taxi. The MEL is approved on the basis that
equipment will be operative for takeoff unless the appropri-
ate MEL procedures have been carried out. The operator’s
MEL shall include procedures to deal with any failures that
occur between the start of taxi or pushback and takeoff brake
release. Any failure that occurs after takeoff commences
shall be dealt with as an inflight failure, by reference to the
appropriate section of the aircraft flight manual, if necessary.
After takeoff commences, no MEL action is required, until the
­completion of the next landing.
Some elementary maintenance procedures called for in the
MEL may be accomplished by flight crewmembers, or others,
who have been trained and approved to do so according to the
standards and CARs.
Operators will develop a MEL training program for ground
personnel, to be included in the MCM or operations manual,
as appropriate, which must be approved prior to a car-
rier receiving approval to operate with a MEL. The training
should include those sections of the MCM operations manual
procedures dealing with the use of the MEL, placarding of
inoperative equipment, deferral procedures, dispatching, and
any other MEL related procedures.

Quality Assurance and Human Factors 19

 The following form is for the authority to operate an aircraft
with an inoperative MEL item for a time interval that exceeds
the limit for its category. A fully completed copy of the exten-
sion form must accompany the journey logbook entry as
follows: “This aircraft is operating on a MEL item repair interval
extension.” This documentation must be completed prior to
flight and retained in company files for a period of twelve
months from the date of the extension. Copies go to the
Director of Quality Assurance, Transport Canada PMI/POI
(Principal Maintenance Inspector/Principal Operations
Inspector), and Aircraft Journey LogBook.

MEL EXTENSION AU THORITY FORM

Schedule 1 DATE

1. Ai rcraft type/regi strati on

2. ATA MEL Number/Item

3. Repai r Interval (Category)

4. Reason for Extension

5. D ate/locati on i tem became unserviceable

6. Ori gi nal date/locati on i tem scheduled for repai r

7. Name of i tem requi red

8. Part Number

9. D ate part ordered/vendor

10. 1st confi rmed deli very date

11. New date repair scheduled

12. TC Representati ves noti fied: (Names, ti tles)

13. Company Di rector, Quali ty Assurance (si gned)

14. Ti me li mi t vali d to: ___ : ___(z) ___(d) ___(m) ___(y)

15. Transport Canada approved: date:

20 Quality Assurance and Human Factors

CONFIGURATION DEVIATION LISTS
A Configuration Deviation List (CDL) is a document similar to
a MEL developed by the manufacturer to specify what small
items from the airframe structure may be missing from an
­aircraft while still maintaining the airworthiness of the air-
craft. The items included on the CDL could include small
access and inspection panels, or static wicks, etc. Items that
appear on the CDL do not normally appear on a MEL because
the CDL items are not pieces of equipment or systems needed
for airworthiness; the CDL items are part of the airframe.
Like a MEL, the CDL does not concern itself with the condition
of the items, only whether the item is present. Unlike a MEL,
some items listed on the CDL are permitted to be missing, and
the aircraft can continue to fly, until the next inspection.

BUILT-IN TEST EQUIPMENT (BITE)

Many aircraft and aeronautical products are design to include
built-in test equipment (BITE) that can detect faults and fail-
ures in the aircraft systems. This BITE capability is designed
to detect and announce as many faults as possible associated
with the systems being monitored. A system or piece of equip-
ment on an aircraft should provide a means to verify its own
operation and to announce the following conditions:
n That it is operating normally and not in a failed condition

n If applicable, that there is a maintenance action required

on the equipment

The remote control and display for the equipment being BITE
monitored should provide a display indicating whether the
equipment is functioning properly. In case of fault detection,
an inoperative condition should be displayed on the flight deck.
The manufacturer shall provide instructions concerning the
interpretation of BITE test results and on the limitations of the
monitoring being performed on the systems and equipment.
BITE devices shall maintain their accuracy under all operating
conditions required by their specifications. BITE devices should
be provided with connections or access for their operational
checkout or calibration.

Quality Assurance and Human Factors 21

 APPLICATION OF THE METRIC
AND BRITISH UNIFIED SYSTEMS
AND UNIT CONVERSIONS
Most Canadians are familiar with the units of measurement
such as the inch, the foot, the yard, and the mile. These
measurements are all part of the British Unified System
of measure, otherwise known as the Imperial, English, or
British system. The United States is the only country that
still officially uses this system.
Canada, along with most other countries, has now adopted
the SI Metric system where the units of length are measured
in millimeters, centimeters, meters, and kilometers.
Although Canada officially uses the metric system, in practice,
aircraft parts may have either British or metric designations.

British System
12 inches 5 1 foot
3 feet 5 1 yard
5280 feet 5 1760 yards 5 1 mile
Component specifications measured using British units are
usually in feet and/or inches and/or fractions of an inch.
The fractional component of the measurement can be in
­multiples of: 1⁄2, 1⁄4, 1⁄8, 1⁄16, 1⁄32, 1⁄64, or hundredths (1⁄100 or 0.01),
thousandths (1/1000 or 0.001), or ten-thousandths (1⁄10000
or 0.0001).

Metric System
10 millimeters 5 1 centimeter (cm)
10 centimeters 5 1 decimeter (dm)
10 decimeters 5 1 meter (m)
10 meters 5 1 decameter (Dm)
10 decameters 5 1 hectometer (Hm)
10 hectometer 5 1 kilometer (Km)
1 meter 5 100 centimeters 5 1000 millimeters
1 kilometer 5 1000 meters

22 Quality Assurance and Human Factors

Component sizes expressed in metric measurements are
­usually multiples of meters, centimeters, or millimeters.
Converting from metric to British units (and vice versa)
requires that you simply multiply by a conversion coefficient.
In Table 1 you will find a list of common conversion factors.

Quality Assurance and Human Factors 23

 Table 1
CONVERSION FACTORS
TO CONVERT INTO MULTIPLY BY
centimeters inches 0.394
cubic inches litres 0.01639
ceet meters 0.305
foot-pounds joules 1.356
horsepower watts 746.27
imperial gallons U.S. gallons 1.201
imperial gallons litres 4.546
inches centimeters 2.540
inches of mercury pounds per square inch 0.490
joules foot-pounds 0.7377
kilograms pounds 2.205
kilograms per litre pounds per imperial gallon 10.023
kilograms per litre pounds per U.S. gallon 8.333
kilometers nautical miles 0.540
kilometers statute miles 0.621
litres imperial gallons 0.220
litres U.S. gallons 0.264
litres cubic inches 61.01
megapascals pounds per square inch 145.14
meters feet 3.281
nautical miles kilometers 1.852
nautical miles statute miles 1.152
newton pounds 0.2248
pounds kilograms 0.454
pounds newtons 4.448
pounds per imperial gallon kilograms per litre 0.0998
pounds per square inch inches of mercury 2.040
pounds per square inch megapascals 0.00689
pounds per U.S. gallon kilograms per litre 0.120
statute miles kilometers 1.609
statute miles nautical miles 0.868
U.S. gallons imperial gallons 0.833
U.S. gallons lites 3.785
watts horsepower 0.00134

24 Quality Assurance and Human Factors

The following are some examples of unit conversions.
Example 1:
2.54 centimeters converted to inches.
2.54 cm 3 0.394 5 1.00 inches
Example 2:
1.25 meters converted to feet.
1.25 m 3 3.281 5 4.10 feet
Example 3:
How many kilometers are in 3.6 miles?
3.6 miles 3 1.609 5 5.79 kilometers
Example 4:
How many millimeters is a 5⁄16 inch drill bit?
5
⁄16 3 2.540 5 0.794 cm
0.794 cm 3 10 5 7.94 mm
Example 5:
What is the equivalent Imperial (British) thickness for sheet
metal 2 mm thick?
2 mm 4 10 5 0.2 cm
0.2 cm 3 0.394 5 0.0788 inches
Other types of units that were previously discussed in the
A&P Technician General text can also easily be converted from
British to metric, or metric to British.
Example 6:
How many litres are in 2.41 gallons?
2.41 gallons 3 4.546 5 10.956 litres
Example 7:
How many Newtons (N) are the equivalent of an applied force
of 88 pounds (lbs)?
88 lbs 3 4.448 5 391.424 N
Example 8:
A pressure of 14 pounds per square inch is equal to how
many kilopascals?
14 lbs/in² 3 0.00689 5 0.09646 megapascals
0.09646 megapascals 3 1000 5 96.46 kilopascals
Example 9:
How many gallons are in 500 millilitres of water?
500 millilitres 4 1000 5 0.5 litres
5 litres 3 0.220 5 0.11 gallons

Quality Assurance and Human Factors 25

 Example 10:
87 horsepower is equal to how many kilowatts?
87 horsepower 3 746.27 5 64925.49 watts
64925.49 watts 4 1000 5 64.925 kilowatts

Practice Problems
1. Convert 18.27 feet to meters.
2. Convert 8 liters to cubic inches.
3. Convert 110 yards to kilometers.
4. Convert 18 megapascals to pounds/square inch.

26 Quality Assurance and Human Factors

SOLUTIONS TO
PRACTICE PROBLEMS
1. 18.27 feet to meters

Answers
18.27 feet 3 0.305 5 5.57 meters
2. 8 litres to cubic inches
8 litres 3 61.01 5 488.08 cubic inches
3. 110 yards to kilometers
1760 yards 5 1 mile
110 yards 4 1760 5 0.0625 miles
0.0625 miles 3 1.609 5 0.100 kilometers
(110 yards is about 100 meters)
4. 10 megapascals to pounds/square inch
10 MPa 3 145.14 5 1451.4 pounds/square inch

27