M Newman implies that a "final certificate of return to service" has been issued for a group of line maintenance tasks (Flight International, 25-31 March). This suggests that some airlines are expecting a single signatory certificate of release to service (CRS) to be issued for a package of work (similar to the C licence policy within base maintenance)
Is this right? I have not seen anything written in JARs to suggest so.
The appropriate procedure would be for individual defects raised in the tech log to be signed for against a separate CRS statement, which should not include any additional wording. It surprises me that the Civil Aviation Authority would approve the use of a CRS statement that implies anything different.
Company approvals should clearly state, down to the task level where necessary, what certification cover he/she holds: there should be no ambiguity. If the person is unsure of what he/she can or cannot sign for, guidance should be sought from their quality manager.
Organisations cannot absolve themselves of their corporate responsibility, any more than the engineer can who signs work off when he/she is unsure of whether they have the approval to do so. Airworthiness notice No 3 states: "When issuing a CRS for work performed by others the certifying engineer assumes responsibility." Who is accountable? We all are.
Trevor Champion Wimborne, UK
Source: Flight International
