Aviation Maintenance: Back Shop: Industry Insights

ATOS It Out

ATOS (Air Transportation Oversight System) is a system designed to integrate the airlines’ QA with the FAA oversight function. This highly integrated program would minimize FAA personnel requirements for the participating airlines, and would beef up each airline’s QA department. Theoretically, it was supposed to eliminate safety problems due to the internal quality programs at the participating airlines. By using the carrot of allowing the air carrier to detect and correct defects in its maintenance and operations programs, without the threat of punitive action and/or excessive fines from the FAA, it was thought that air safety would be enhanced. The accident record for the participating airlines since implementation of this system at the turn of the century speaks volumes of the system’s effectiveness.

Southwest (SWA) was at the forefront of participating airlines in ATOS. They fully embraced the goals of the program and communicated regularly with their Certificate Holding Office (CHO) as was prescribed by the system. Their Principal Maintenance Inspector (PMI) was, for all practical purposes, assigned as an "in-house" representative to ensure smooth program integration.

As any local beat cop will tell you, to be effective, one has to gain the respect and trust of the community. The only way an FAA inspector can do that is to work with those he or she would regulate. How do you accomplish that? Give dispensation on minor and inadvertent infractions in exchange for access to the data, which might disclose serious defects in the system. In other words, use your own sound judgment.

Unfortunately, SWA was assigned an inspector who insisted on litigating every apparent minor violation. With no quid-pro-quo exchange being evident to them, SWA requested replacement of that individual. The individual protested that FAA was "in bed" with SWA and the rest is history. I don’t pretend to point any fingers of blame here, just to observe that this inspector provided a valuable service to the aviation community in pointing out the fatal flaw in ATOS; the inherent conflict between the FAA’s functions of encouraging safety compliance, while simultaneously enforcing the regulations.

The recent imbroglio with Southwest Airlines vs. FAA was not just a speed bump incident. It represented the start of a sea change in the way FAA does business.

Every FSDO manager has taken note of the fallout of the SWA fiasco and has told the Air Carrier Safety Inspectors to notify their respective air carriers that enforcement is now the flavor of the week. As a direct result, we have been seeing inspections being accomplished in panic mode, with entire fleets being grounded at UAL and AA for "emergency" AD inspections. There were no emergency ADs issued recently that prompted this, just an emergency not to be caught with their pants down, like SWA. What you are observing here is the swing of the pendulum from the FAA’s "Customer Service" culture to a still-evolving "Big Brother."

Congress called hearings, which historically have been more about posturing for C-SPAN than about reason and logic. They excoriated FAA for being too close to those they regulated and called for enhanced enforcement efforts. FAA listens to Congress because Congress controls FAA’s budget. Are you getting nervous yet?

As an A&P mechanic or avionics technician, you are at ground zero in this explosion of enforcement. The FAA safety inspector who was your best buddy last month will be on alert for any possible violations, minor or major, on the part of you or anyone else to whom he or she is assigned. To do otherwise would expose that inspector to accusations of being "too close" to their charges. It may help to think of your PMI as a parole officer. To the FAA, you’re just a criminal, waiting impatiently to be caught in the act. Please document your indiscretions so we can start enforcement proceedings, and we’re not, by the way, required to issue you a Miranda warning.

What’s the bottom line? The storm is coming and you ought to have an umbrella. PAMA’s legal defense plan is looking more and more like a bargain, so check it out, if you haven’t yet. The good news, however, is that if you’ve built a solid personal relationship with your PMI, you may be able to talk through the problems inherent in the new policies and maintain good relations with your FSDO. If you are with an FAR 135 or 121 operator, however, you have increased scrutiny in store. Double-check every maintenance item you perform, sign off or inspect. Document every sign-off with chapter and paragraph references for what you did. When the work order doesn’t reflect the AD that prompted it, look up the actual AD online to verify your compliance. In other words, don’t accept 1-1/4 inches for tie spacing when the AD specifies one inch.

If you don’t proactively protect your license and livelihood against overzealous FAA enforcement, your union representative won’t either. Don’t find your license being ATOSsed out with the bath water.