Once the evaluators have developed a good understanding of how the
system operates, the next step is to identify the critical elements which
ensure that the organisation remains in compliance with the maintenance
organisation's manual.

Step 3: Evaluation Controls
An evaluation of whether the maintenance organisation works in
accordance with the maintenance organisation 's manual should be
conducted using following techniques:

.
review of records, documentation, discrepancies reports, etc.

.
sample check of products maintained; 

.
sample check of actual practices; 

.
interview of personnel involved;

Step 4: Reporting of results.
A standardised form should be developed for an organisational review
report. The report should include at least the following.

(i)
Scope of the evaluation. This should include the areas evaluated,
personnel interviewed (to be done in general terms to provide
management an indication as to the scope and depth of the review
without violating any confidentiality), records examined, sampling
plans, etc.

(ii)
Results. Descriptions of each finding presented in such a manner as to indicate the relative importance of each. This will allow responsible personnel to set priorities for developing responses. A classification as provided in the M.B.605 could be followed. 

(iii) Agreed corrective actions.
Rev 0, dated 2nd March, 2010 198
 Section 2 CAR M
(iv) Positive results. (Some might be shared between different units within the maintenance organisation.) 
Step 5: Developing corrective action plans.
Corrective action plans should be developed principally by the person responsible for implementing the corrective action; however, if the evaluator has properly conducted its evaluation, it will have a detailed understanding of the systems and procedures underlying the problems and should be able to assist with the analysis of alternatives. The evaluator should ensure that a corrective action plan is developed in a timely manner and includes all the key elements, particularly when the corrective action is to be implemented and who is responsible for implementation.
Step 6: Follow-up Evaluations.
To be effective, the organizational review program should have follow-up re views any time a significant corrective action is planned. The purpose is two-fold: to confirm that the action has taken place as planned and to verify that the corrective action has been effective. If a properly implemented corrective action does not work, new alternatives should be developed as soon as possible. Keeping management aware of the results of follow-up reviews is an essential part of the program.
Rev 0, dated 2nd March, 2010
199
 Section 2 CAR M
Appendix IX to AMC M.A. 602 and M.A. 702.-CA Form 2F
DGCA  Application for  Initial grant* 
CAR.-M  Subpart F Approval*  Change*
Subpart G Approval* 
1. Registered name of applicant: 2. Trading name (if different): 3. Address requiring approval: 4. Tel………………………………………. Fax………………………………………… E-mail …………………………………….. 5. Scope of approval relevant to this application: see page 2 for possibilities in the case of a Subpart F Approval: 6. Position and name of the (proposed*) Accountable Manager:………………………………………………….. 7. Signature of the (proposed*) Accountable Manager:………………………………………………….. 8. Place:……………………………………………….. 9. Date:…………………………………………………….. Note(1): A note giving the address(es) to which the forms should be sent Note(2): An optional note to give information onany fees payable *delete as applicable 
　
中國航空網 m.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：CONTINUING AIRWORTHINESS REQUIREMENTS CAR -M(104)