How does HFI fit with MAA requirements for Continuing Airworthiness?
How do those of us in industry who are applying HFI (as defined by Def-Stan 00-251) work with the Military Aviation Authority (MAA) to comply with Part 145 for continuing airworthiness (specifically, those requirements associated with aviation maintenance human factors training)?
What we will cover:
We want to hear about whether the same teams who manage and deliver Def-Stan 00-251 also cover Part 145, or is that done by Safety for example, What involvement does MoD HF have with those applying or providing training on Part 145?
Part of the context of the discussion is that MAA Part 145 scope relates only to HF in maintenance operations in Defence Aviation. Meanwhile, Def-Stan 00-251 describes a process to follow (with associated Technical Guides) and relates to all air, sea, land and space equipment, facilities and systems. Part 145 refers to “good human factors principles” throughout, but lacks a clear standard for what that looks like, making it potentially highly subjective.
We invite you to join us for an open conversation, share your experiences, insights, and perspectives on how these frameworks interact in practice.
About our speakers
- Kim Redman: Senior HF specialist at Boeing Defence UK. Her experience in principally in defence, business development and organisational psychology. Kim is a member of the CIEHF and her interests include fatigue management, safety and organisational culture, event investigation, complex sociotechnical systems, cyber security, crewed and un-crewed systems
- Calum Smith: Principal HF specialist at Boeing Defence UK. His industry background is principally in defence, oil & gas, and expert witness. Calum’s interests include human reliability assessment, musculoskeletal disorders, workplace facilities design and integration. He is a Fellow of the CIEHF.
