Over the years it has taken to introduce JAR-OPS in Europe, aviation authorities have focused intensively on the big charter and scheduled airlines in a determined drive to ensure adaptation of their structures to the new regulations.

The compliance of smaller operators with the laws and standards were not, initially, monitored in the same intensive way. But now that JAR-OPS and EASA Part M is in place within the JAA states, the authorities have turned their attention to smaller operators, in particular the commercial business jet operators.

There are complications. Not all JAA member states apply the same standards to evaluate compliance. Some countries require considerably higher standards of implementation than others, and this has had inevitable effects on the marketplace.

For example, the JAR-OPS "acceptable to the authority" requirement for postholders and quality managers is interpreted differently within the EU member states. Candidates in Switzerland have to take a four hour examination at the FOCA, while in Luxembourg the presentation of the corresponding professional qualifications is sufficient. Similar key differences are to be found in other areas. Nevertheless, all countries increasingly put the emphasis on a formalised quality system which guarantees transparency in the processes and the quality assurance.

The most important sets of rules are the JAR-OPS 1, JAR-FCL and EASA Part M. The introduction of the EASA Part M was the last big challenge when the Main-tenance Management Exposition (MME) had to be replaced by an all new manual for the management

of aircraft maintenance (Continuing Airworthiness Management Exposition - CAME). This involved the acceptance of operators as CAMO (Continuing Airworthiness Management Organisation), and required authorisation as a separate unit.

Based on the Commission Regulation No. 2042/2003, the CAMO requirement will also apply to those aircraft within the EU that are solely for private use. Previously these had been exempted from the restrictions applicable for commercially operated aircraft.

The increased focus of the authorities on compliance systems and documentation at smaller companies, particularly those employed by business aircraft operators, is resulting in much more paperwork to document internal processes and detail quality management.

Many accountable managers and their teams feel overburdened. They claim that the time and effort is disproportionate to the size of the company and to the possible revenues. They are searching for ways that will enable them to meet the increasing compliance burden efficiently so their businesses do not suffer any more than is absolutely necessary.

One solution is to dedicate more time and staff to compliance. This might involve appointing a

full-time quality manager to take responsibility for the compliance documentation and manage the quality system. But such qualified staff are rare and therefore expensive. If an applicant without adequate experience is employed, the operator has to provide professional training to

a standard that meets the authority's requirements.

An alternative is to outsource the quality assurance. The processes are then controlled and documented by external specialists. One option is to delegate entirely the duties of the quality manager to an external freelancer. Another approach is to appoint an internal manager who monitors the processes carried out by the external controllers.

Whichever approach is adopted, it is advisable to collect, control and administer all processes concerning compliance by means of an EDP system. The processes have to be transparent and easily accessed as necessary by the regulator as well as the company. JAR-OPS 1.035 demands detailed documentation of all performed activities, including those which have been closed without findings (detected non-compliances).

Outsourcing quality assurance invariably pays off for small operators. But even larger operators can benefit, especially where available and adequately qualified staff are fully occupied with daily management and cannot devote the time to act as QM or auditor as well.

The authorities monitor operator compliance by performing audits on all departments and the quality system. If deficiencies are detected the operator will be requested take appropriate corrective action within a set time limit. Often, due to the lack of resources for the update of manuals and the redefinition of procedures, these due dates cannot be complied with. Repetitive due date infraction can lead to suspension of the AOC if safety is affected.

Nevertheless, some business aircraft operators do not prepare to meet the legal requirements, such as detailed documentation, until the authority explicitly requires proof of compliance. The tight timeframe then often causes problems.

It is advisable to proactively adapt to the regulations and anticipate legal requirements. If

an operator can ensure full compliance before the authority audit, then there should be no need to devote time and money spent to coping with reviews and follow-up audits. It is vital to maintain EDP supported documentation of all activities relating to compliance. This increases transparency, ensures the monitoring of pending items and improves relations to the authorities.

The amount of time and effort needed to maintain a quality system depends on the extent to which the operator already complies, how efficiently the company's processes are organised and how the administration and documentation is dealt with. Exact criteria for this are not set in concrete. However, the factors that influence the requirements include the number of employees, the organisation of aircraft maintenance, the diversity of aircraft types, the experience of the postholders and the funds available. A well organised operator of four short and mid-range business jets, for example, should be able to meet compliance requirements with a part-time quality manager assisted by adequate EDP. A company operating ten long and mid range jets and stations at different airports would need a full-time quality manager and adequate administration. Operators should obtain expert advice when a reorganisation is scheduled.

Anticipation is the key. Operators need to prepare in advance and have the systems and documentation ready for when it is demanded. Unprepared operators will find there is a heavy price to pay if they are not prepared when the authority wishes to check compliance.

Capt. Grauer is attorney and md with aviation law specialist AVEX based in Zuerich, Switzerland.