Basic Aviation Risk Standard

Auditor Guide

 Version 3, January 2018

Copyright

This guide is Copyright ©2017 by Flight Safety Foundation Limited (ABN 41 135 771 345) (“FSF”),

Any copying or reproduction of this Guide is expressly prohibited without the permission of FSF.

Disclaimer

This guide is made available solely to assist persons to participate in the Program around the Basic Aviation
Risk Standard (“Standard”) as issued by FSF. The guide is for the purpose of assistance to BARS Auditors in
the conduct of a BARS Audit.

FSF and FSFI expressly disclaim any and all liability and responsibility to any person in respect of the
consequences of anything done or not done in reliance, whether wholly or in part on the guide. In no
circumstances will either FSF or FSFI be liable for any loss or damage, including incidental or consequential
damages, resulting from use of the Guide.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................................... 2
1. Introduction....................................................................................................................................... 4
1.1 Document Control .......................................................................................................................................................................... 4
1.2 Version Status ................................................................................................................................................................................ 5
1.3 Log of Changes ............................................................................................................................................................................... 6
1.4 Acronyms ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 7
1.5 Definitions ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
1.6 BARSoft ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 14

2. The BARS Audit ................................................................................................................................ 15

2.1 Overview ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 15
2.2 Audience ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 15
2.3 Scope ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 16
2.4 Sampling ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 16

3. Audit Preparation ............................................................................................................................ 18

3.1 Initial Preparation for the Audit ................................................................................................................................................... 18
3.2 Audit Information Pack ................................................................................................................................................................ 19
3.3 Pre-Audit Review.......................................................................................................................................................................... 19
3.4 QML/Audit Checklist revision process.......................................................................................................................................... 20
3.5 Document Hierarchy .................................................................................................................................................................... 22

4. Conduct of the Audit ........................................................................................................................ 23

4.1 Overview ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 23
4.2 Auditor Communication ............................................................................................................................................................... 23
4.3 Opening Meeting ......................................................................................................................................................................... 23
4.4 Gather Audit Data ........................................................................................................................................................................ 24
4.5 Audit Checklist Handling .............................................................................................................................................................. 24
4.6 Checklist Referencing ................................................................................................................................................................... 25
4.7 Checklist Assessments .................................................................................................................................................................. 25
4.8 Checklist Objective Evidence ........................................................................................................................................................ 26
4.9 Audit Findings............................................................................................................................................................................... 27
4.10 Onsite Inspection ......................................................................................................................................................................... 28
4.11 Closing Meeting ........................................................................................................................................................................... 29

5. SFIAR ............................................................................................................................................... 30
6. Audit Report Contents ..................................................................................................................... 35
6.1 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................................................... 35

7. Audit Follow-up Phase ..................................................................................................................... 37

7.1 Corrective Actions Overview ........................................................................................................................................................ 37

© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0

This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e |2
7.2 Root Cause Analysis ..................................................................................................................................................................... 37
7.3 The Corrective Action Plan (CAP) ................................................................................................................................................. 38
7.4 The Corrective Action Taken (CAT)............................................................................................................................................... 39
7.5 Auditor Comments/Closing Statement ........................................................................................................................................ 39
7.6 Special Circumstances .................................................................................................................................................................. 40
7.7 Inappropriate Corrective Action Data .......................................................................................................................................... 41

8. Quality Control ................................................................................................................................ 42

8.1 Overview ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 42
8.2 Quality Control – Onsite ............................................................................................................................................................... 42
8.3 Quality Control – Offsite .............................................................................................................................................................. 43
8.4 BPO QC ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 43

9. Appendix 1 ...................................................................................................................................... 45
9.1 BARS Audit Preparation Process Flow Chart ................................................................................................................................ 45
9.2 Sample Meeting Attendance Register .......................................................................................................................................... 46
9.3 P2 Variation Handling Flow Chart ................................................................................................................................................ 47
9.4 BARS Audit Codes ......................................................................................................................................................................... 48

10. Appendix 2 ...................................................................................................................................... 50

10.1 Writing BARS Audit Reports and Objective Evidence ................................................................................................................... 50

© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0

This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e |3
1. Introduction
1.1 Document Control
This BARS Auditor Guide is issued by the BARS Program Office (BPO) for the use of BARS
Accredited Auditors and Audit Company administration staff, in the course of preparing,
executing and closing a BARS Audit. It provides the guidance and standards for the execution
of a BARS Audit and the correct completion of the BARS Audit documentation.

The BARS Auditor Guide will be issued as a single whole document and any revisions or
amendments will result in a re-issuance of the whole document. Changes in the content of the
manual from one version to the next will be indicated by change bars at the side of the page
and a summary of changes in section 1. Obsolete versions of the BARS Auditor Guide should be
destroyed upon receipt of the new version. If, for any reason, the old version is retained it
should be clearly marked as obsolete.

The BARS Auditor Guide will be reviewed annually to ensure it is up to date and relevant for
the purpose designed. The BARS Program Operations Manager is responsible for the content
of the BARS Auditor Guide and changes are to be approved by the Flight Safety Foundation’s
BARS Managing Director. The document is only produced in English and hand written
amendments (manuscript amendments) are not endorsed to ensure the document remains
legible at all times.

Changes to policy or procedures on an interim basis will be advised by the BPO using the BARS
Notification (BN) document.

Suggestions for improvements are welcome and should be addressed to the BARS Audit
Manager.

© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0

This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e |4
1.2 Version Status
Version Version Date Effective Date

Ver 1.0 15 May 2012 01 Jun 2012

Ver 2.0 15 Aug 2013 09 Sep 2013

Ver 3.0 01 Nov 2017 01 Jan 2018

Distribution of the BARS Auditor Guide is in electronic form only and any hardcopy versions
shall be treated as uncontrolled. The Guide will be distributed via the BARSoft program –
Document Management tab and sent via email to each AC and ATO. Distribution within each
of these entities is the responsibility of the BARS contact person listed on BARSoft for that
company.

© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0

This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e |5
1.3 Log of Changes
The following is a list of the significant changes within the BARS Auditor Guide since the
previous Issue:

Section or Description of Change/Addition

Paragraph

1.5 Updated definitions.

1.6 Removed MS Explorer BARSoft compatibility statement.

2.1 Separated compliance and conformance.

3.1 Expanded advice in Lead Auditor checking Operational Categories.

3.4 Added clarity to table 3.1.

3.5 Added document hierarchy.

4.1 Expanded to include registration streams and different audit types.

4.5 Added further direction on checklist handling.

4.8 Aligned elements with the results of QC data.

4.9 Amended to reflect change in P1 timeline.

5 Updated to reflect new SFIAR.

6.1 Edited to include reuse prohibition.

9.4 Expansion of audit codes.

Appendix 2 Included examples of Objective Evidence.

© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0

This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e |6
1.4 Acronyms
Term Acronym/Label Short Forms

Aircraft Operator: AO

Air Operator Certificate: AOC

Approved Training Organization: ATO

Audit Company: AC Audit Company

Auditor Accreditation Course: AACC Auditor Course

Aviation Coordinator: AVCO

Basic Aviation Risk Standard: BAR Standard (noun) the Standard

BARS (adjective)

Basic Aviation Risk Standard Program: BARS Program

BARS Member Organization: BMO Member Organization

BARS Technical Advisory Committee: TAC Technical Advisory Committee

BARS Program Office: BPO Program Office

Flight Safety Foundation Incorporated: FSFI

Flight Safety Foundation Limited: FSFL

Short Form Initial Audit Report: SFIAR

Technical Review Team: TRT

© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0

This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e |7
1.5 Definitions
Commonly used acronyms are indicated with brackets [XX] where necessary.

Word or phrase Description and Acronym (where applicable).

A certificate of approval issued by a regulatory authority granting approval to an
Air Operator Certificate: entity for the conduct of commercial air operation.
[AOC]
Any aviation company, or owner of one or more aircraft, who holds an AOC,
Aircraft Operator: which provides or wishes to provide aviation services to a contracting company.
[AO]
An Approved Training Organization approved by the FSF to conduct and provide
Approved Training Organization: training to prospective Auditors.
[ATO]
Is the measurement that evaluates or estimates the nature, quality, ability,
extent, or significance of a method.
Assessment: During an Audit, the ‘assessment’ is the outcome of the Auditor’s evaluation of
evidence to determine the Operator’s Conformity/Non-Conformity or N/A for
the associated question.
A BPO-appointed person who can conduct an assessment of an Audit Company
Assessor: and/or on-site observations of Audit Teams on behalf of the BPO to ensure that
they conform with Program requirements.
The agreement signed between a person seeking to become an ATO, and FSF,
ATO Accreditation Agreement: required as a pre-condition to becoming an ATO, and required to be maintained
as a condition of remaining an ATO.
The agreement signed between an Aircraft Operator, Audit Company and FSF,
required as a pre-condition to an Audit. Such agreement will be available on
Audit Agreement:
BARSoft, as amended from time to time by FSF.
[AA]
A company that has been registered by FSF as a provider of auditing services
Audit Company: under the Program.
[AC]
The Audit manual issued by the FSF from time to time outlining all conduct,
Audit Manual:
requirements, activities and training required by the FSF in an Audit.
The report that is produced by the BARS Program Office detailing the results of
Audit Report: an Audit. This includes both the Initial and Final versions of the Audit Report.
[AR]
A regularly scheduled meeting involving the BPO and Accredited Audit
Audit Review Meeting: Companies to review the conduct, progress and future of the Audit Program.
[ARM]
The team assigned by an Audit Company to conduct an Audit, consisting of at
Audit Team:
least two Auditors, one of which must be a BARS Lead Auditor.
A structured and objective review conducted under the Program by an Audit
Audit: Team on an Aircraft Operator in order to establish the level of conformity with
the Standard by the Aircraft Operator on that particular day.
Auditing: The process of conducting an Audit by an Audit Team.
An experienced aviation lead auditor who meets the requirements for a
Program accredited auditor, who has completed the process of qualification and
Auditor:
has been accredited by the FSF as an Auditor.
[AU]
A file maintained by the BPO containing information relevant to the
Auditor File:
qualification, experience and activities of the Auditor.
The number of years spent by an individual actually flying, or performing
Aviation Industry Experience:
maintenance activities, on aeroplanes or helicopters.

© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0

This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e |8
 Word or phrase Description and Acronym (where applicable).
Formal method of communicating changes of policy or procedures within the
BARS Notification: BARS Program.
[BN]
The Office appointed by FSF to run and oversee the Program.
BARS Program Office:
[BPO]
An audit Stream available to a commercial aircraft operation by fixed or rotary
BARS Aerial Work Audit
wing aircraft where an Aircraft Operator is limited to Aerial Work (as defined in
(BARSAW):
ICAO Annex 6) and does not carry passengers.
The web-based software platform used to record all Program Audit information,
BARSoft: accessible only to Member Organizations, Audit Companies, Auditors,
Registered Aircraft Operators and the BPO.
The Standard adopted by the BMOs for the universal application of aviation
Basic Aviation Risk Standard: auditing.
[BARS]
(Plural) Any Standard developed and made available by the BARS Program
BAR Standards:
Office.
Biennial: An event that takes place every 24 months.
A certificate issued by a regulatory authority granting approval for an entity to
Certificate of Approval:
conduct aircraft, or aircraft component, maintenance.
Checklists issued by the BPO, and available through BARSoft, to be used when
Checklists:
undertaking an Audit.
In relation to an action item under a Corrective Action Plan: a required action
that has been completed to the satisfaction of the Lead Auditor. A finding that is
later re-opened cannot be said to have been closed.
Closed:
In relation to an Audit: all P1 and P2 findings have been closed by an
appropriate corrective action undertaken by the AO and accepted by a BARS
Auditor.
The meeting convened by the Lead Auditor at the conclusion of the on-site
Closing Meeting: phase of an Audit, sometimes referred to as Exit Meeting.
[CM]
Company: Refers to an individual company using the Standard to support their operations.
An assessment by an Auditor that the Operator has fully documented and
Compliant: implemented the relevant information to comply with a regulatory
requirement.
A conflict of interest is an action that can cause a serious disagreement or
incompatibility between any two parties within the BARS Program, or where the
Conflict of Interest: action may have the potential to unfairly advantage or disadvantage one of the
parties.
[CofI]
An assessment by an Auditor that the Operator has fully documented and
Conformity: implemented the relevant information to be in accordance with the
requirements of the question or Standard.
An AO that has undergone a renewal Audit prior to the registration expiry due
Continuous Registration: date and closed all P1 and P2 findings inside their applicable due dates and have
provided at least a Root Cause and CAP for all P3 findings.

© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0

This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e |9
 Word or phrase Description and Acronym (where applicable).
Each of the following documents: the Standard, the BARSoft User Guide, the
BARS Auditor Guide, the BARS Implementation Guidelines, the BARS Question
Master Lists, BARS Notifications, the BARS Program Manual and the Checklists.
Controlled Documents: Or:
Documents used by an Aircraft Operator to describe internal policies, processes,
procedures or systems, that are subject to positive control of the contents,
distribution, and revision.
A plan developed by an Aircraft Operator to address a Non-Conformity and
bring the AO into full Conformity with the requirements of the associated
Corrective Action Plan:
question or Standard.
[CAP]
Description of the completed Corrective Actions by the AO in order to correct
Corrective Action Taken: the identified Non-Conformity.
[CAT]
Instructor(s) that is appointed by an ATO, approved by the BPO, engaged in
Course Instructor:
delivering training to candidates.
The date on which the Current Registration expires.
Current Registration Expiry:
[CRE]
Provide evidence of implementation and successful intervention of a system
Demonstrate:
that is designed to uphold a BARS Control.
Dispute Resolution Procedure: The procedures set out in BARS Program Manual Section 3.
A team of personnel appointed for the purpose of resolving a dispute in
Dispute Resolution Team:
accordance with 3.11 ‘Dispute Resolution Procedure’.
Draft: Any of the various versions of the development of written work.
An adjective which can be used to describe systems that have demonstrable
Effective:
ability to defend against threats, especially those identified in BAR Standards.
Operations and activities directly affecting maintenance facility or procedure on
Engineering and Maintenance:
any aircraft user by an AO.
An experienced Lead Auditor within an Audit Company, who has been approved
by the BPO to evaluate Audit activities and Auditor performance and to
Evaluator:
recommend upgrading of Auditors to Lead Auditor status or a Lead Auditor to
Evaluator status.
Objective and factual data or information that is analyzed by the Auditor/s
Evidence:
during an Audit to verify fulfillment of a requirement.
A written summary of the Audit by the Lead Auditor describing the Operator,
Audit process and any unusual variances to the normal Audit process. The
Executive Summary:
Executive Summary forms part of the completed Audit Report.
[ES]
External Load Operations: Rotary-wing Operators conducting under slung load operations.
The final version of an Audit Report and showing that all P1 and P2 findings have
Final Audit Report:
been closed.
The result after the Auditor’s review of factual evidence that the Operator is not
Finding: in Conformity with a Checklist question.
Equal term: Non-Conformity
A generic term used when reference is made to the Flight Safety Foundation
Flight Safety Foundation:
website, providers or services.
Flight Safety Foundation Flight Safety Foundation, Inc. – the U.S. based parent organization of FSF.
Incorporated: [FSFI]
Flight Safety Foundation Limited, ABN 41 135 771 345.
Flight Safety Foundation Limited:
[FSFL]

© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0

This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e | 10
 Word or phrase Description and Acronym (where applicable).

Geophysical Survey: Fixed or rotary-wing operators who conduct geophysical survey operations.

Goods and Services Tax: Applicable only in Australia. [GST]

With respect to any entity, a Group Company means any other person
controlling, controlled by or under direct or indirect common control with such
entity. A person shall be deemed to control a corporation (or other entity) if
Group Company:
such person possesses, directly or indirectly, the power to direct or cause the
direction of the management and policies of such corporation (or other entity),
whether through the ownership of voting securities, by contract or otherwise.
Identity cards issued by the BPO and containing a photograph, the name, audit
ID Card: category classification, and reference number, issued to Auditors, Instructors
and relevant BPO personnel.
The first version of the Audit Report, and setting out any findings that must be
Initial Audit Report: satisfactorily addressed by an AO before such findings are deemed to be closed
and the Audit Report itself becoming the Final Audit Report.
International Civil Aviation Annex 13 of the Chicago Convention of the International Civil Aviation
Organization Annex 13: Organization.
An experienced Auditor who has demonstrated his/her competence to an
Lead Auditor: Evaluator to successfully lead an Audit team and has completed the process for
qualification as a Lead Auditor. [LA]
Line Flight: A flight carried out in the course of normal operations by an Aircraft Operator.
Any contract using dedicated aircraft for a planned duration of greater than six
Long Term Contract:
months.
The process of formal oversight of the internal quality processes and output to
ensure the organization is fulfilling its desired standards of management and
Management Review: quality. Normally conducted as a meeting with a formal agenda and subsequent
minutes.
[MR]
The BAR Standard Program Manual.
Manual:
[BPM]
Fixed or rotary-wing operators with the capability of conducting specific
Medevac:
purpose flights for retrieving a patient in medical distress due to illness or injury.
A subscribed and approved company participating in the Program.
Member Organization:
[BMO]
A national regulatory body of any country that has jurisdiction over the
National Aviation Authority: regulation of aviation activities within that country.
[NAA]
Rotary-wing operators with approval to conduct operations with night vision
Night Vision Goggles (NVG):
goggles.
An assessment by an Auditor supported by objective evidence gathered during
Non-complying:
an Audit that demonstrates a non-compliance with a specific regulation.
A Non-Conformance is a condition supported by objective evidence gathered
during an Audit that demonstrates a Non-Conformance with a BAR Standard or
Non-Conformity:
company requirements.
Equal term: finding. [N-C]
Not having any relevance to a particular subject or matter.
The assessment of the Auditor that a particular question or Standard is not
Not Applicable:
within the scope of the Audit or cannot be applied to the AO.
[N/A]
Off shore Operations: Flight operations to a floating rig, platform or vessel by a rotary wing aircraft.

© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0

This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e | 11
 Word or phrase Description and Acronym (where applicable).
In relation to an action item under a Corrective Action Plan, a required action
Open:
that has yet to be completed to the satisfaction of the Lead Auditor.
The meeting convened by the Lead Auditor prior to commencement of the on-
Opening Meeting: site phase of an Audit, sometimes referred to as the Entry Meeting.
[OM]
A section of the Audit Checklist used to examine specific operational services or
functions of the AO.
Operational Category:
The Operational Category could be used in part to describe the scope of the
Audit.
Operational activities directly affecting the preparation of, and the execution of
a flight by an Aircraft Operator. This includes flight operations, flight safety,
Operations:
airfield (ramp facilities and activities), loading of aircraft, check-in, fuel facilities
and procedures.
An organizational chart is a schematic diagram that shows the structure of an
Organizational Chart: organization and the relationships and reporting structure relative to
positions/jobs. (Organogram)
The performance review of an Auditor conducted during a practical Audit and
Performance Review: assessed by an Evaluator or Assessor.
[BPR]
This is a significant finding. A safety critical process or policy that has a direct
impact on the safety of flight, or a legal, contractual or regulatory requirement
Priority 1 Finding:
that, if not in Conformity, the Operator is in serious breach of their obligations
and/or incur significant loss.
A BARS Program requirement drawn from the BAR Standard as published or an
Priority 2 Finding: aviation best practice of significant importance where it should be examined as
part of the Audit.
A non-safety critical requirement that is optional. The requirement may be
drawn from the Standard or best practice, however, for various reasons it may
Priority 3 Finding:
not be achievable by all Aircraft Operators all of the time, or, the requirement
may be related to contractual obligations for long term contracts only.
The BAR Standard Program, including the processes, procedures, requirements
Program: and documents described in the BPM and/or set out in the related legal
agreements.
Is a set of activities that are carried out to set standards to monitor and improve
Quality Assurance: performance so that the service or product provided will satisfy stated or
implied needs.
A set of processes to ensure that the product meets the desired standards and is
Quality Control:
suitable for the purpose designed.
Means periodic Auditor training as set out in the requirements of the BARS
Recurrent Training:
Program Manual.
The collective lists of ATOs, Auditors, Audit Companies, Registered Aircraft
Operators and Member Organizations, maintained by the BPO and available on
Register:
BARSoft, that records the Registration or Accreditation currency and Audit
history of relevant parties.
An Aircraft Operator who has satisfied the requirements for Registration
Registered Aircraft Operator: specified in the BPM and is recorded as such in BARSoft.
[AO]
The BPO member responsible for maintaining and updating Registrations and
Registrar:
Accreditations.
The agreement signed between a person seeking to become an Audit Company,
Registration Agreement: an AO, a BMO, or an Auditor and FSF, required as a pre-condition to becoming
active within the Program.

© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0

This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e | 12
 Word or phrase Description and Acronym (where applicable).
The period of time commencing from the date of the Audit Closing Meeting or
Registration Period: Current Registration Expiry date for existing registered operators, that the AO is
registered as a BARS Aircraft Operator.
In respect of a person, means persons, siblings, children, spouse, grandparents
Relatives:
or grandchildren of that person.
A systematic analysis undertaken by the organization to identify the cause or
Root Cause Analysis: reason for the assessment of Non-Conformity during an Audit.
[RCA]
Selecting a valid subset of evidence, data or records to determine the
Sampling: effectiveness (or not) of implementation of the requirement throughout the
scope of the organization.
A brief summary of the completed Audit and posted on BARSoft pending the
completion and release of the full Audit Report by the Operator.
Short Form Interim Audit Report: The SFIAR gives visibility of the completed Audit to BMOs without providing any
details of Non-Conformity.
[SFIAR]
The Basic Aviation Risk Standard, being the summary of threats and risks
Standard: identified, together with controls and defenses to assist the risk based
management of aviation Aircraft Operators.
Selected BPO representatives to review the contents and management of the
Standards Review Team: BAR Standard and process revisions to the Standard.
[SRT]
A special committee, formed expressly for the purpose of studying a particular
Taskforce:
problem and recommending improvements.
A body established by FSF comprising Member Organizations and BPO
Technical Advisory Committee: representatives that provides input and direction of the entire Program.
[TAC]
An organization that uses multiple AOs to support their activities and/or
Tier 1: conducts activities across multiple sites or other activities, or as otherwise
determined by the BPO.
An organization that may use no more than three AOs to support their activities
Tier 2: and/or conducts activities from one site, or other facility, or as otherwise
determined by the BPO.
An Oil, Gas or petroleum organization that has an established risk management
Tier OGP: program in place and desires to use the BARS to supplement their existing
program, or as otherwise determined by the BPO.
A documented step-by-step building block progression of learning with
Training syllabus:
provisions for regular review and evaluation at prescribed stages of learning.
The concept of collecting information and attempting to identify any pattern, or
Trend Analysis:
trend, from gathered data and information.
The access to BARSoft by any of the registered parties is via the User Name
User Name and Password: developed by the BPO and the Password initially generated by BARSoft and
updated by the individual User. [UNP]
The fees that are agreed to between the Aircraft Operator and the Audit
Company prior to the Audit which are additional to the basic BARS Audit fee and
Variable Fees: is made up of expenses for airfares, accommodation, visas, per diem,
interpreter costs, Audit variations/extra time on site, extra time to manage
corrective actions or other miscellaneous costs.
A document issued by individual countries which allows a person with a valid
Visa:
passport to enter that country.
Selected and invited participants formed as an advisory group to provide
Working Group:
stakeholder input to the content and direction of the Program. [WG]

© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0

This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e | 13
1.6 BARSoft
BARSoft is a browser based application and is known to be compatible with Mozilla Firefox and
Google Chrome, along with Safari from Apple.

The BARSoft login page can be found at: https://barsoft.flightsafety.org or at the BARS web
pages at the FSF website: http://flightsafety.org/bars/login

The BARSoft application is for the use of authorized users in carrying out the various functions
within the BARS Program. These users have different roles and permissions as granted by the
BARS Program Office. For information on the use and features of BARSoft, consult the BARSoft
User Guide which is available on the BARSoft Documents tab.

© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0

This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e | 14
2. The BARS Audit
2.1 Overview
The BARS Audit objective is an independent assessment / evaluation of the Aircraft Operator’s
internal policies, processes and procedures for the purpose of gaining BARS Registration. The
Audit shall cover a representative sample of the operation within the scope of the Audit, using
a standardized audit checklist to ensure adequate controls of hazards effecting people,
property and in some cases environment. The main tasks of an Audit are:
 Compliance Verification – to establish whether relevant regulatory and legal
requirements are met;
 Conformance Verification – to establish whether relevant company and BARS
requirements/standards are adequately met;
 Validation - to determine whether the methods/activities in use comply and conform
with policies, procedures and instructions as planned, and whether they are
effectively implemented to sufficiently achieve objectives; and
 Provide the BARS Member Organizations with a clear and concise Audit Report with
which they can make a valid assessment of the Operator.

The information supplied in this Guide covers the preparation, onsite and follow-up activities
associated with an Audit.

It is critical that all Auditors are familiar with the contents of Program documentation including
the suite of Basic Aviation Risk Standards, current BARS Notifications, the BARSoft User Guide,
the BARS Implementation Guidelines, the BARS Question Master List and the BARS Procedures
Manual to gain further knowledge and a comprehensive understanding of the Audit criteria
and procedures.

2.2 Audience
When conducting the Audit and during the follow-up stages, the auditor must keep in mind
the purpose of the Audit is to convey an accurate assessment and description of the Operator
to a wider audience. Clear descriptions of the Conforming, Non-Conforming and Not
Applicable assessments must be provided. The final readership of a BARS Audit report are the
BARS Member Organizations who are making risk-based decisions on the information
contained in the report. Vague, inaccurate or incomplete text within the report will devalue
the audit process and cause unnecessary follow-up effort. It should also be noted that some of
the readers are not necessarily aviation professionals. For this reason industry acronyms not
detailed in the BARS Procedures Manual should be spelled out at the first instance of use
within a report. Avoid using local regulatory acronyms or references that would not be
relevant to a readership outside that particular country or region.

The official language of the BARS Program is US English. Where Operators have used local
language to complete information in the checklist, auditors are to ensure that the use of the
term is consistent throughout the report. This is only for the case of abbreviations and or
acronyms (e.g. anexo for the word annex) however, full sentences in non-English are not
acceptable.

© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0

This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e | 15
 For consistency all dates within the checklist and Executive Summary should follow the format
of dd Mmm YYYY, e.g. 13 Mar 2012.

2.3 Scope
The scope of the Audit can be considered as the extent and boundaries of the review and is to
be decided by the Aircraft Operator (AO) well before the onsite phase of the Audit. This should
be communicated to the AC well in advance so the AC can take this into account when
developing the Audit plan.

The scope can be described by:

 The fleet(s) available for use by BMO, or in some cases be limited to specific aircraft
within certain fleets;
 The operational categories to be audited; and/or
 Geographical location of the AO operations or base.
Note: it is not required to list the number of aircraft, BARSoft applies that information from
the AO profile to the report.

In all cases the Lead Auditor is to describe the scope of the Audit in both the Executive
Summary of the Audit in BARSoft and in the SFIAR document. Ensure that the information in
the description of the scope correlates with the fleet information and operational base
locations uploaded by the Operator in BARSoft.
Note: the disciplines of the sections within the checklist (ORG, FLT, MNT and GRH) are not
the scope of the Audit;

The BARS Program does not have exclusions as Operators can nominate the fleets and aircraft
they wish to have audited. For this reason Lead Auditors must be clear regarding what is, and
what is not within the scope of the Audit.

2.4 Sampling
The audit process by definition is a sampling process whereby the auditor will review a portion
of evidence to assist in the determination of Conformity. The sample size will vary from one
audit to the next however, the auditor(s) must satisfy themselves that the sample size used is
indicative for the general population of the reviewed record. The evidence/records sampled
must be within the scope of the audit. Aircraft not used in BMO operations, or staff who do
not have responsibilities for duties or roles within operations conducted on behalf of BMOs,
would not be valid evidence to support an assessment under a BARS Audit.

Sampling of aircraft and fleets should be determined by the Lead Auditor during the
preparation for the Audit. Only aircraft that are used for BMO operations are to be reviewed
as part of the audit. Questions within the Flight operations (FLT) and Maintenance and
engineering (MNT) sections that relate specifically to aircraft equipment fit should have a
representative sample quoted in the references column. Auditors should select a cross section
of the Operator’s fleet that give a good indication that the Operator’s policies and procedures
are applied consistently throughout the organization. For example: review a turbine engine
fleet and one reciprocating engine fleet, or one helicopter fleet and one fixed wing fleet. The

© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0

This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e | 16
 Executive Summary can be used to indicate the rationale for the selection of the fleet
sampling.

During the Audit preparation the Lead Auditor should note the aircraft inspected and/or the
fleets reviewed on previous Audits and where possible avoid inspecting/reviewing the same
aircraft on subsequent Audits.

© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0

This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e | 17
3. Audit Preparation
3.1 Initial Preparation for the Audit
A flow chart showing the process for the preparation leading up to the BARS Audit including
agreement, invoice and checklist handling, has been included as an Appendix in Section 9 of
this Guide.

At least 35 days prior the proposed Audit date, the AC delegate or Lead Auditor will establish
initial contact with the AO representative, to confirm that the proposed audit dates are
mutually acceptable.

The AC Administrator should assign the selected Auditors to the Audit in BARSoft. This will
allow the Auditors to view the Audit and AO Profile information for preparation.

The AC delegate or Lead Auditor should also:

 Confirm the availability of the auditee participants and access requirements;
 Establish and confirm date, time and details of the Opening Meeting;
 Confirm the Audit team members attending;
 Update confirmed Audit details with the BARSoft program system;
 Forward details of relevant Audit documentation to the other audit team member
and the AO if required;
 Review the previous Audit Report and any findings;
 Review AO Profile data entered to BARSoft; and
 Confirm the Operational Categories to be audited, the scope of the Audit and that
the BARSoft generated Audit checklist meets the agreed scope of the Audit.

Approximately 14 days before the Audit the Lead Auditor will establish contact with the AO
representative again to re-confirm the following:
 That all logistical arrangements are in place;
 Confirm the AO has the correct checklist from BARSoft and has completed all
references which are required;
 The Audit Agreement has been finalized;
 The details of the checklist review; and
 The final structure of the Audit team.

The completion of the checklist by the AO may flag issues with Operational Categories. These
need to be dealt with immediately. If the AO has selected an Operational Category in error, it
cannot be removed after the audit has begun. All questions in the checklist must be assessed,
and the errant category cannot be declared not applicable. Any change to scope must be made
in advance of the audit.

© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0

This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e | 18
3.2 Audit Information Pack
An Audit information pack should be created by the Lead Auditor to assist the Audit team
during the conduct of the Audit. This information should contain:
 An overview of the Audit process and relevant role and responsibilities;
 Audit criteria including the relevant (BAR) Standards against which the audit will be
conducted;
 A copy of the Audit checklist (AO referenced checklist through BARSoft system);
 Audit Opening/Closing meeting agendas;
 Audit Opening/Closing meeting attendance forms;
 A copy of the BAR Standard, BARS Procedures Manual, Auditor Guide, relevant BARS
Notifications; and
 Any other relevant documentation/information required.

3.3 Pre-Audit Review

The onsite Audit process is greatly enhanced if AO documentation and certain evidence is
provided to the AC/Auditor for review prior to the onsite phase of the Audit. The BARS Audit
checklist has been structured so that core documents (e.g. the AOC, insurance certificates and
operations manual) can be initially reviewed off site to save time. These questions can be
found in the ORG Section 1 of the checklist.

Some questions in the checklist require a large amount of analysis and it would be beneficial to
conduct a review of the AO published policy and procedures prior to the onsite phase. (e.g.
the AO fuel policy and examples of fuel loads).

The AC/Auditor should review the previous BARS Audit Report, (if conducted), and any listed
Non-Conformities for consideration prior to the Audit.

The AC Audit Planning process must address the scope of the Audit and what aircraft and
operations are to be reviewed as part of the Audit. It is imperative that this is discussed with
the AO prior to the onsite phase and compared to the Operational Categories selected by the
AO in the creation of the Audit checklist.

The AC/Auditor should review the AO effort in referencing the specific BARS Audit checklist
generated from BARSoft for that Audit. This should be completed at least 14 days before the
scheduled onsite phase of the Audit.

© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0

This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e | 19
3.4 QML/Audit Checklist revision process
The BARS Question Master List (QML) and Audit Checklist will be revised from time to time
based on amendments to the Standard, annual review and continual improvement of the
Audit Program. The BPO will announce revisions to the QML by means of a BARS Notification
(BN) with a transitional period for the introduction of the revised Audit Checklist noted in the
BN.

AOs with an existing Audit planned and scheduled within the transitional period can remain on
the previous version of the QML/Audit Checklist with no penalty. To move to the new version
of the QML/Audit Checklist, the Operator must create a fresh Audit in BARSoft and advise the
BPO to delete the redundant Audit from the system. In this case the AO and Audit team must
ensure that the correct Audit Checklist is used in the conduct of the Audit.

AOs with an existing Audit planned and scheduled for a date after the transitional period, or
AOs who reschedule an Audit for a date after the transitional period must create a fresh Audit
in BARSoft to use the newly effective QML/Audit Checklist. Once the new Audit has been
created the BPO will coordinate the deletion of the redundant Audit from the system. Both the
AO and the Audit Team must ensure the correct Audit Checklist is used in the conduct of the
Audit.

As a result of the QML/Audit Checklist revisions, questions may be either:

a) Deleted in entirety; or
b) Revised or reworded.
Table 3.1 below describes the 5 different cases for Audits at various stages when the new
version of the QML will come into effect and the actions the Auditor and BPO will take to deal
with questions assessed as Non-Conforming.

© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0

This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e | 20
 Table 3.1 Audit Checklist handling and question revision via QML Update.

Cases where the question has Cases where the question has
Audit Status
been deleted in entirety been re-worded/revised.

Case 1: All Audits will be based on the new QML. No impact.

New Audits created after the BN
announcing the new QML.

Case 2: Assessments of Non- Identified Non-Conformities

Audits created prior to the BN Conformities should be should be checked against the
and scheduled during the described as normal. The BPO new QML. If the revised
transitional period. will amend the question to P3 at question would be assessed as
(The Audit is conducted using the time of Audit Checklist Conforming, the Auditor should
the old version of the checklist). uploading to BARSoft. describe the evidence reviewed
RCA and CAP are required. in the OE and also note the
reason for the Conformity
The finding can remain Open assessment as per Example 1
and the CAP as No Further (next page).
Action.

Case 3: AO to create a fresh Audit in BARSoft and coordinate with the BPO
Audits created prior to the BN to have the redundant Audit deleted. Audit will be conducted on the
but scheduled for a date after new QML/Audit Checklist. – No impact.
the transition period.

Case 4: The BPO will coordinate the As directed by the BPO. In most
The Audit has been conducted question to be re-categorised as cases the assessment can be
but not yet uploaded to BARSoft, a P3 at the time of upload. amended to Conformity prior to
(undergoing AC or BPO QC RCA and CAP are required. upload.
review). Text as per Example 1 (next
The finding can remain Open page) should be added to the
and the CAP as No Further OE.
Action.

Contact the BPO who will The Auditor should describe the
Case 5: coordinate the question to be information that justifies the re-
Audit Checklist completed and re-categorized to a P3. The assessment to Conforming.
uploaded to BARSoft. Corrective Auditor should enter the Enter the standard text as per
Actions underway. standard text in the Auditor Example 3 (next page) in the
Comments field as per Example Auditor Comments field and
2 (next page) then leave the Close the corrective action.
corrective action Open at Cap
Accepted status.

Standard text responses from the Auditor in the corrective action page of BARSoft – Auditor
Comments on CAT field should be as follows:

Example 1:
Based on the revised BARS Question Master List Version X.X becoming effective on
ddMmmYYYY, this question has been assessed as Conforming. The Operator is in Conformity

© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0

This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e | 21
 with the requirements as described in Audit Checklist Version X.X.

Example 2:
This question has been deleted from the BARS Question Master List Version X.X effective from
ddMmmYYYY. This question has been re-categorized as a P3 and the Operator is under no
obligation to close the finding.

Example 3:
Based on the revised BARS Question Master List Version X.X effective ddMmmYYYY, the Auditor
has determined the Operator should be re-assessed as Conforming and no further corrective
action is required.

3.5 Document Hierarchy

For matters of interpretation the structure of the Program documents is described below. If
any subordinate document in the hierarchy is inconsistent with a senior document, the senior
document prevails.

Audit Documents:
1) BAR Standard;
2) BARS Implementation Guidelines; and
3) Question Master List.

Operational Documents:
1) BARS Audit Agreement;
2) BARS Notifications;
3) BARS Program Manual; and
4) BARS Auditor Guide.

© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0

This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e | 22
4. Conduct of the Audit
4.1 Overview
A typical Audit will take two (2) Auditors two (2) days and may require, under certain
circumstances, to be extended depending on the nature of the work, scope or auditee
commitments. Throughout the Audit the AO representative must be kept informed of the
progress of the Audit against the predetermined objectives and goals. Pre-audit preparation is
expected to take one full day and post audit consolidation is expected to take one full day.

Monitoring audits and core stream audits, and are expected to take two auditor days on site
with requisite preparation and post audit activity in addition.

4.2 Auditor Communication

The following are some guidelines to assist auditors when conducting interviews with auditee
personnel:-
 Put the auditee at ease;
 Show you want to listen;
 Ensure your body language confirms your interest in what the auditee has to say;
 Communicate clearly;
 Don’t do all the talking;
 Avoid the use of closed or leading questions which give “yes” or “no” responses;
 Ask open questions to encourage the auditee to do the majority of the talking. Some
examples are What, When, How, Who, Why, Show me;
 Listen to auditee’s point of view and consider their reply;
 Be aware of auditee’s who spend time trying to get around or away from a lack of
documentation/implementation;
 Assess the content of information received and do not judge its delivery; and
 React in a professional and rational manner and most of all, never argue with the
auditee.

The success of the Audit and the Auditor/s may depend on the manner in which the Auditor/s
communicate with the auditee personnel and how they will react in different conditions
arising from the audit.

4.3 Opening Meeting

The on-site assessment phase of an Audit shall commence with a formal Opening Meeting with
Aircraft Operator’s management representatives. The Lead Auditor shall be the spokesperson
for the Audit Team and attendance of all participants at the Opening Meeting shall be
recorded. The BARS Procedures Manual details the minimum requirements for the agenda of
the Opening Meeting. A sample meeting Attendance register is provided at the Annex in
Section 9 of this Guide.

© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0

This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e | 23
 Opening Meeting information may be presented as a PowerPoint Presentation. However, if
facilities for such a presentation do not exist, Opening Meeting hard-copy handouts should be
prepared and distributed.

4.4 Gather Audit Data

The audit data is collected by interviewing staff, verifying references, observing and verifying
processes, systems and practices, or examination of records. Interviews are an acceptable
form of Objective Evidence within the BARS Program. Observations should include both the
physical premises and employee behaviour, including the work methods and possible risk
taking. Verification includes examination of records and other relevant documentation.

4.5 Audit Checklist Handling

The BARS Audit checklist is presented in an Excel spreadsheet format. The Aircraft Operator
(AO) should download a copy of the checklist at least 35 days prior to the on-site phase and
complete the section titled Internal Reference. This referenced checklist should be provided to
the Audit team no later than 14 days prior to the onsite phase for review.

BARS Audit Checklist handling flowchart:

The Aircraft Operator when creating the Audit on BARSoft must select from the Operational
Category options, the functions that they desire to be audited. The options for the Operational
Category vary from time to time and are announced via the BARS Notifications (BNs). BARSoft
will create a tailored checklist for the particular Operator based on the date of the Audit and
the Operational Categories selected. Any changes to either the AC or Operational Categories
will require the AO to create a new Audit and delete the obsolete Audit. The checklist created
by the AO must be used in the conduct of the Audit and submitted to the BPO for uploading.
Use of non-tailored, generic or copied checklists may result in the checklist failing the upload
to BARSoft.

Do not allow the Audit checklist to be modified in any way during the course of the Audit. The
‘P’ categories, question text and hidden cells must not be amended after the checklist has
been generated from BARSoft.

Checklists are generated one of two ways:

© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0

This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e | 24
  Pressing of a standard checklist with any selected operational categories which is
defined only by the requirements of the BAR Standard and industry best practice (as
per 4.5.3); and

 Pressing of a bespoke checklist which is defined by the BAR Standard, industry best
practice, and risk based assessment of the Aircraft Operator’s operations and previous
audit performance.

The questions presented will therefore vary from audit to audit in both content and depth.

4.6 Checklist Referencing

The Internal Reference column should contain at least one reference for each question of
Conformity throughout the checklist. The Auditor must review and verify these references
during the course of the Audit or during the pre-audit preparation. The reference should show
the document title or acronym and a sub reference by chapter, paragraph or page number.
When acronyms are used for document references, the full title of the document should be
spelt out completely at the occasion of first use in either the Internal Ref column or the
Objective Evidence column. If the Auditor determines that the reference provided by the
Operator is not accurate or there are additional references that are relevant to the
determination of Conformity then the data in the Internal Reference column should be
corrected/updated by the Auditor. The final result of the Audit process should be a checklist
that contains accurate and detailed references to support each assessment of Conformity.

Certain questions in the BARS Audit checklist use the terms plan, policy, procedure, process or
system in describing the desired outcome of the question. In these cases the Auditor must
seek and verify a manual reference in a company controlled document in order to confirm the
‘documentation’ of the question. Implementation evidence should also be found to support an
assessment of Conformity.

Conditional Questions are those that commence with ‘If the Operator…’ In these cases the
Auditor must satisfy themselves that the question can be applied to the AO under the scope of
the Audit or the functions/services on offer by the AO.

There will be cases where, based on the conditionality of the question, an assessment of Not
Applicable would be appropriate; however the Operator does in fact satisfy the requirements
of the question. The Auditor should weigh up the value of the conforming assessment in order
to demonstrate the Operator meets the requirement even when not strictly necessary, for the
purpose of data analysis and transparency. (E.G. Flight Data monitoring is only required for
long term contracts with specified aircraft however if the Operator has FDM and no long term
contracts, the Audit outcome is benefited by the review and assessment of the FDM data
download process).

4.7 Checklist Assessments

Only one of the three columns for the assessment by the Auditor of Conform, Non-Conformity
or Not Applicable must be completed with an ‘X’ in the appropriate column. There is no
requirement for entry in the rows marked as Headers or ‘H’. Do not place any other marks or
text in the other two assessment columns after making the assessment response for the
question.

© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0

This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e | 25
4.8 Checklist Objective Evidence
The column for Objective Evidence shall be completed for each question in the checklist. For
questions assessed as Conforming, the Auditor shall describe the evidence used to
demonstrate that the Operator has effectively implemented the requirements of the question
or Standard. It must be within the scope of the Audit, appropriate for the question and where
existing, it should be a traceable form of evidence from the Operator. Descriptions of
evidence, both Conforming and Non-Conforming, along with supporting statements for Not
Applicable items should be grammatically correct sentences with appropriate punctuation.

Objective Evidence should not be a description of what the auditor did. e.g. “Reviewed pilot
files.” Rather it must describe the evidence at hand and provide traceability.

Where questions call for policy, process, procedure or systems, they must be verified as
implemented. Look for and record in OE markers of effective implementation.

OE must be original. Re-use of OE from other questions or checklists is a severe breach of

Program rules.

The text of the question should not be repeated in the OE.

The following points are possible sources for Objective Evidence in order to determine the
assessment of Conformity. This list is not complete, but is presented as a guide to Auditors in
options to review during the Audit:
 Personnel training records;
 AOC/Operational Specifications/Instruments of Approval;
 Weight and balance records;
 Operational flight plans;
 Passenger and cargo manifests;
 Safety or hazard report forms;
 Meeting minutes;
 Risk assessment/safety case reports;
 Internal audit reports and checklists;
 Interviews with management;
 Interviews with operational personnel;
 Inspection of facilities or aircraft; and
 Observation of operational practices.

Where interviews are conducted, they should not form the sole bases of determination.
Assessments based on interviews must be supported by traceable evidence of
implementation.

For assessments of Not Applicable, the Auditor should enter a statement in the Objective
Evidence column justifying the N/A. If possible, a supporting documentary reference could be
provided showing AO internal policies to support the N/A assessment. The N/A assessment
shall only be used when the requirements of the question or Standard cannot be applied to
the AO due to the scope of the Audit or the service/function is inactive.

© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0

This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e | 26
 Functions or services that have been outsourced by the AO are to be treated as applicable and
the Auditor may have to determine the method of oversight used by the AO in order to make
the assessment. The fact that the service/function is outsourced does not automatically mean
it will be N/A.

Auditors should use care when making Not Applicable assessments as invalid assessments will
mean an incomplete Audit and the possibility of raising findings post-audit.

For assessments of Non-Conformity the Auditor must make a complete and full description of
the Non-Conformity as it relates to the Operator, the scope of the Audit and the response to
the question. In certain cases it will be useful to describe the evidence for parts of the question
that is in Conformity first and then describe the Non-Conformity in cases where there is partial
Conformity.

Any description of Conformity or Non-Conformity should not contain the Auditor’s opinion nor
should it have any guidance or recommendations on how to correct a Non-Conformity. The
description of the Non-Conformity forms the basis of the effort the Operator will commence
for the corrective action. It is for this reason that the Auditor must carefully craft the
description of the Non-Conformity to ensure that the subsequent Root Cause Analysis,
planned action (CAP) and final Corrective Action Taken (CAT) are appropriate for the Non-
Conformity.

Generic statements, copy and paste of the question or poorly worded descriptions of the Non-
Conformity will lead to extra workload and even inappropriate activity in the corrective action
process. A description of Non-Conformity should not refer to any other question (either
Conforming or Non-Conforming) as the corrective action must be a self-contained description
of the Non-Conformity and the subsequent corrective action.

Specific questions within the QML/Audit Checklist have been designated by the BPO as having
a P2 Variation (P2V) available. Use of the P2V in the assessment of Conformity for the
designated question is not mandatory, but considered as an option. If the P2V is not used to
demonstrate Conformity, then it should not be mentioned in the Objective Evidence column
by the Auditor. However, if the P2V is used by the AO to demonstrate Conformity, the Auditor
must acknowledge it by using the following text at the beginning of the Objective Evidence
description:
The Operator conforms to this question by use of the P2V described in BNXX.
Section 9 Appendix contains a flow chart for the correct handling of P2V Questions.

4.9 Audit Findings

All Audit findings/Non-Conformities are to be based on factual and Objective Evidence that the
Operator is not in Conformity with the provisions or requirements of the question or Standard.
It is important that there is agreement between the Auditor and the Operator that there is a
Non-Conformity to be addressed and any ambiguities about the findings should be discussed,
clarified and agreed to by all parties. The Lead Auditor should leave the AO a draft list of the
Non-Conformities identified after the Closing Meeting

The BARS Program does not provide facility for Onsite Corrections for Non-Conformities. All
Non-Conformities identified shall be dealt with via the normal corrective action process so that
the root cause is identified, appropriate corrective actions are taken and there is a full review
of evidence by the Auditor in order to determine that the AO is in Conformity.

© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0

This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e | 27
 The priority level for each question is established by the BPO in the development of the Audit
checklist. The priority level of the question cannot be changed by the Auditor, AC or AO during
the Audit. Based upon the priority level assigned to the item in the checklists, one of the
corresponding priority levels will be assigned to the Non-Conformity, with the following
timelines:
 Priority 1 Non-Conformities: should have the corrective action completed within 30
days of the Audit Checklist upload or less, as agreed with the Lead Auditor;
 Priority 2 Non-Conformities: P2 findings have a default target date of 90 days for
closure after the Audit Checklist is uploaded to BARSoft. This can be reduced by
agreement with the Lead Auditor where necessary. If the due date is less than the
default 90 days, the Lead Auditor shall enter the revised due date in the Audit
Checklist under column D (Due Date) and expressed as dd Mmm YYYY;
 Priority 3 Non-Conformities: there is no obligation for the Aircraft Operator to
conform to the Priority 3 findings. The status of Priority 3 findings do not influence
the Aircraft Operator’s registration status however a Root Cause and CAP must be
provided, (refer to Section 7).

The priority level of the question does not reflect the severity of finding, nor map to a system
of major/minor/observation.

The Lead Auditor should consider the situation of the AO and the number, significance and
impact of the identified Non-Conformities and allocate a due date for the closure of each
finding respectively. The maximum time is 90 days after the Audit Checklist is uploaded and if
no date is annotated in the checklist the 90 day due date will apply. The 90 day Finding Due
Date (FDD) is displayed in the Audit Details page on BARSoft.

4.10 Onsite Inspection

Where time permits and subject to aircraft availability, the Auditor could conduct an
inspection of at least one of the AO’s aircraft that is within the scope of the Audit. The Aircraft
Operator populates BARSoft with aircraft information. The Auditor is to download that
information from BARSoft, validate that it is correct, and assess the Aircraft Operator’s ability
to manage the process. A sample checklist is available from the BARS Question Master List. In
addition Audit Companies are free to develop their own checklist for aircraft inspections.

When conducting the aircraft inspection, ensure the aircraft presented is part of the scope of
the Audit and where possible the aircraft should be selected by the auditor rather than the
Operator selecting the aircraft that they wish to be reviewed. Make note of the aircraft
inspection in the Executive Summary of the Audit Report and detail the type and model,
registration and an overview in cases where the inspection was completed. For cases where
there is no time or there are no suitable aircraft to inspect, note this in the Executive Summary
and the reasons why the inspection was not carried out. Refer to Section 6 for contents of the
Executive Summary.

Where available the Maintenance auditor should conduct an inspection of the maintenance
facility including any ground handling facilities.

© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0

This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e | 28
4.11 Closing Meeting
The purpose of the Closing Meeting is to present the AO representative with a brief and
objective review of the Audit to formally bring the onsite phase of the Audit to its conclusion.
The attendance of all participants at the Closing Meeting shall be recorded.

The BARS Procedures Manual (BPM) Chapter 8 details the minimum requirements that must
be addressed during the Closing Meeting. It is important that the AO clearly understands the
timelines established in the BARS Program for the completion of the corrective actions in order
to close the findings made during the Audit and that this is completed in a timely manner.

At the conclusion of the Closing Meeting, the Lead Auditor should issue the Aircraft Operator’s
nominated representative with copies of draft summary of Non-Conformities. These
documents should have the word “DRAFT” clearly displayed.

The Lead Auditor shall ensure the Aircraft Operator’s nominated representative understands
that findings presented on draft documents:
 May be revised or undergo editorial change through the AC and BPO QC process;
 Are to be used by the Aircraft Operator’s representatives to begin development of
the Corrective Action Plan(s); and
 May not represent the total number of findings; and that additional areas of Non-
Conformity could be identified if further assessment is required to resolve
discrepancies identified during the Audit Company’s and/or BPO’s quality control
review process.

The Lead Auditor shall ensure the Aircraft Operator’s nominated representative understands
that:
 The Aircraft Operator is to make every effort to provide and implement acceptable
corrective actions within the nominated Finding Due Date;
 In exceptional circumstances a later due date may be allocated but this is subject to
approval by the BPO; and
 Final Audit closure shall not be declared until corrective action in accordance with
the accepted corrective action has been implemented by the Aircraft Operator and
suitable Objective Evidence has been verified by the Lead Auditor.

Prior to leaving the Aircraft Operator’s premises, the Lead Auditor should ensure the Aircraft
Operator’s nominated representative understands and is competent with using the BARSoft
website to enter corrective actions and providing supporting Objective Evidence.

© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0

This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e | 29
5. SFIAR
The Short Form Interim Audit Report (SFIAR) is a tool to indicate the Audit has been conducted
and provides a description of the scope of the Audit with a table of the draft number of
findings as a result of the Audit.

The SFIAR document template is available from the BARSoft Document Management tab and
shall be completed by the Lead Auditor for submission to the BPO within four days of the
Closing Meeting. The BPO shall upload the SFIAR to provide visibility to BMOs that the Audit
has been conducted prior to the uploading of the full Audit Report.

A copy of the SFIAR template is provided in the Appendix to Section 5. The document is
provided in MS Word format and only the editable fields should be completed by the Lead
Auditor. The following information is to be completed:
 [field: a] Lead Auditors name;
 [field: b] Name of the AO followed by a trading name if used;
 [field: c] Date of the Opening Meeting and date of the Closing Meeting;
 [field: d] Date the SFIAR was drafted;
 [field: e] The Audit Code is for AC traceability of the Audit. (See Section 9 for
information on the Audit Codes):
 [field: f] Full name of the Audit Company;
 [field: g] Name of the AO as per the title page;
 [field: h] Dates of the Audit as per the cover page;
 [field: i] The Operational Categories selected by the AO and audited, (e.g. Standard
Questions, External Loads or Geophysical), this can be confirmed via BARSoft;
 [field: j] The registration stream which the AO has selected. This can be, Initial (for
first audit), core, advanced, or RPAS. This can be confirmed via BARSoft:
 [field: k] The Lead Auditor is to describe the scope of the Audit as it was conducted.
See Section 2.3 for information on describing the Audit Scope.
Note: the disciplines of the sections within the checklist (ORG, FLT, MNT and
GRH) are not the scope of the Audit;
 [field: l] Out of Scope refers to aircraft or operations not subject to use by BMO or
prospective BMO operations (e.g. a flying school function, aircraft that are not
suitable for BMO operations but on the AOC);
 [field: m] Provide a short summary (five lines maximum) on the execution of the
Audit and any relevant points; without mention of the outcome of previous audits or
color designation within the Program. Additional Auditors or Observers participating
in the onsite phase of the Audit should be mentioned. The full Executive Summary
should be reserved for the full Audit Report;
 [field: n] Enter the draft numbers of Non-Conformities identified during the course of
the onsite phase of the Audit. Insert a 0 (zero) for discipline/categories where there
were no Non-Conformities;
 [field: o] The Audit Company disclaimer tailored for the purpose of the SFIAR should
be added here; and
 [field: p] Enter the Lead Auditor and Auditors name along with the FSF BA number.

© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0

This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e | 30
© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0
This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e | 31
© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0
This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e | 32
© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0
This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e | 33
© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0
This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e | 34
6. Audit Report Contents
6.1 Executive Summary
The Executive Summary (ES) of the BARS Audit report is a critical element in the style, content and value of
the report for the purpose of providing information to the reader of the report. The Executive Summary
must only contain factual and objective statements. Information contained in the ES should not be
subjective or open to interpretation. Do not use superlatives to describe the functions or features of the
AO. The Audit Report template as generated from BARSoft has default text and information drawn from
the data held in the Audit profile (dates of Audit and location of the Operator etc.).

Each Executive Summary must be an original piece of work written specifically for the benefit of the BARS
Audit Report to which it belongs. It is unacceptable to use generic templates or to reuse previous audit
reports, and to do so is considered a severe breach of Program policy.

The contents of the Executive Summary should not duplicate this template text. As a minimum, each
Executive Summary shall include information on the following points:

Names of the Auditors and their roles: Note the names of the Auditors and which
sections/disciplines and categories of the checklist they completed. If different Auditors were
used in the Audit follow-up phase, (corrective action closing), then this should be described.
BARSoft will automatically enter each and every Auditor assigned to the Audit via BARSoft on
the cover page of the Audit report. The Executive Summary should be used to indicate what
role each auditor participated in for the Audit.

Scope: Provide a description of the scope of the Audit. Include the Operational Categories that
the Operator has requested to be audited. If certain fleets under the control of the Operator
and listed on the AOC were NOT audited then this must be explained. If the Operator has their
operations conducted under more than one AOC this should also be noted. In this section the
AC/Lead Auditor can describe the methodology for the sampling that was used in selecting
evidence and which aircraft were reviewed during the course of the Audit. Refer to para 2.3
for further information on the scope of the BARS Audit.

Company Overview: Provide a brief description of the company, its services, structure and
functions. This may include staffing areas, contracts, overall synopsis or overview of the
company. Differences in the trading name and AOC name or unusual ownership structure
should be explained. The state granting the AOC shall be noted in this section. If the Operator
has long term contracts with a BMO, it would be relevant to mention this here.

Organizational Structure and Management: This should be a summary based on the current
organization structure of the Aircraft Operator outlining any nominated post holder positions
that may be relevant to management or regulatory representation.

Quality and Safety Management: This section should describe the quality and safety systems
and their manuals in place within the AO. A brief summary on their scope and maturity should
be noted.

Department Overview: In this section provide a general overview of each department and the
relationship within the AO. Note if any of the services are outsourced.

© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0

This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e | 35
 Documentation: Provide a brief description of the documentation structure and system as
applicable to the Operator. As an option, the Auditor could note whether the local regulatory
authority approves or accepts operational documentation from the Operator. Any unique
circumstances for this approval/acceptance process could be described.

P2Variation (P2V) shall be listed for every Executive Summary regardless if the P2V was used
or not. This is for data gathering purposes.
P2Variation (P2V)
The following questions were assessed as conforming by use of the P2V as described in BNXX:
Flt 2.06.02 [BARS Control 5.6].
If the P2V was not used during the Audit enter – Nil.

Aircraft inspections carried out, or in situations where the inspection is not carried out, the
reasons for such.

Other Items: Unusual circumstances in the conduct of the Audit should be described.
Observers from regulatory bodies, Program Office observations, auditor trainees and
observers attending the Audit, audits that are conducted over multiple visits or rescheduling of
Audit dates should be described in this section. The Other Items paragraph can also include
information on repeat findings from previous Audits, and factors such as the local regulatory
authority’s methods/ability for the approval/acceptance of changes to operational
documentation.

This section should also carry a high level synopsis of questions declared NA and the reason for
doing so.

Summary of Audit: This section of the Executive Summary can be completed after all the
findings have been closed or at the end of the corrective action closing phase of the Audit. It
should describe any additional information relative to the closure of the findings with reasons
for delays or non-closure of any findings.

© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0

This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e | 36
7. Audit Follow-up Phase
7.1 Corrective Actions Overview
Closure of all the findings raised during the Audit should be completed within the nominated
Finding Due Date as noted in BARSoft. Extensions to the 90 day limit are available only in
exceptional circumstances and at the discretion of the BARS Program Office. Refer to BPM
Chapter 8 for further details.

The Corrective Action section of the report is the most important section of the report as it
must clearly show the method and effort applied by the Operator to address the finding. The
section of the corrective action completed by the AC must show the method of verification
applied by the AC to determine that the Operator is now in Conformity with the requirements
of the question and that the Operator has effectively addressed the Non-Conforming items
identified by the auditor.

The corrective action process tracks the following format:

7.2 Root Cause Analysis

The effective execution of the corrective action process by the AO starts with an accurate Root
Cause Analysis (RCA) for all the Non-Conformities raised during the Audit. The AO is
responsible for determining the root cause in consultation with the AC and also entering the
information into BARSoft in the Root Cause field. The RCA cannot repeat the description of
Non-Conformity nor can it contradict the Auditors description of Non-Conformity, or the
question. It should be a short clear description of why the AO was not in Conformity with the
question.

A Root Cause is required for P3 Non-Conformities even if there is no intention to correct the
Non-Conformity. This information is valuable in the BARS Program data analysis.

© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0

This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e | 37
 Valid root causes for Non-Conformities within the BARS Program could be:
 Lack of a documented policy;
 Lack of a documented procedure;
 Lack of specified training or education;
 Lack of adherence to published policy or procedures;
 Lack of adequate resources;
 Lack of oversight;
 Poorly defined documented process or procedure;
 BARS requirements exceed that of local regulatory requirements; or
 Existing evidence was not presented at the time of the Audit.

The AO can use any number of the above choices for the Root Cause or use their own
description if desired; however it must conform to the requirements outlined in 7.2.1.

7.3 The Corrective Action Plan (CAP)

Following from the Root Cause, the AO shall provide the AC with a proposed corrective action
or Corrective Action Plan (CAP). The CAP must demonstrate that the Operator will undertake
an appropriate activity to address the Non-Conformity as described by the Auditor and that it
will bring the Operator into conformity with the requirements of the question. The CAP should
describe documentary changes proposed and/or any implementation activity to be
undertaken. The CAP shall be written in the future tense as it is a plan of action. The CAP will
be reviewed by an Auditor and any changes required are to be agreed to between the AO and
AC before further corrective action is undertaken. BARSoft supports the ability of the Auditor
to provide a response of Accept/Reject to the CAP.

Operators who have a Non-Conformity against a question that has been designated by the
BPO as having a P2V available can use the information in the P2V BARS Notification as the
basis for the corrective action.

For P3 Non-Conformities where the AO does not intend to correct the Non-Conformity, the AO
should enter No further corrective action in the CAP field.

The Auditor shall review the CAP in BARSoft and reply with either an Accept or Reject
response. Any rejection should have a clear description as to why the proposed CAP is not
satisfactory. An Acceptance could indicate what evidence is to be provided by the AO for the
Auditor to review to close the finding. The Auditors comments for the CAP are not shown in
the Final Audit Report.

P3 CAPs indicated as No further corrective action should be marked as CAP Accepted and
there is no further activity required by the Auditor on this corrective action.

Each CAP should be independent of any other CAP or CAT and avoid terms of ‘see above’ or
‘see attached’ referring to other documents or other corrective actions.

© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0

This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e | 38
7.4 The Corrective Action Taken (CAT)
The Corrective Action Taken (CAT) section within BARSoft should be completed by the AO in
consultation with the AC. This is the area of interest to the third party readers where it
describes the Operator’s effort in correcting the Non-Conformity. The CAT must clearly
demonstrate any changes in documentation within the company manual structure to include
the document title or acronym, revision number and date of revision. Where the Non-
Conformity involves a lack of implementation, the Operator should describe what effort was
completed in order to demonstrate the implementation of the new/revised requirement. As
the CAT is a summary by the AO of actions taken it must be written in the past tense.

Where Operators have a regulatory approval process that may exceed the corrective action
closing time available, then an interim action that ensures the Non-Conformity is addressed is
acceptable. In this case the Operator should be able to demonstrate that the
revision/amendment to the company manuals that require regulatory approval have been
drafted and submitted to the authority and are awaiting approval.

Corrective Actions of a temporary or interim nature to be accepted by the Auditor must satisfy
the following points:
 Documentation changes must be of a controlled document format and distributed to
all relevant personnel/departments; and
 Implementation must be commenced or a plan of implementation showing verifiable
evidence that the plan will be carried out within the registration period.

7.5 Auditor Comments/Closing Statement

The Auditor Comments section within BARSoft corrective action module must contain a clear
description of the Auditor’s review of the evidence presented by the AO to demonstrate that
the Operator has now documented the requirements, and where applicable, they have
implemented the requirements. The information in the Auditor Comments should include the
full document title and revision status (if not noted in the CAT), a description of the amended
sections of the document and if there was any regulatory approval provided. The Auditor must
ensure that the documentary evidence reviewed is traceable. Where the Operator has carried
out any implementation then this must be clearly described using the same methods as per
the Objective Evidence.

© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0

This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e | 39
 P3 Non-Conformities that have the CAP indicated as No further corrective action do not need
any comment from the Auditor and the status of the corrective action must remain at CAP
Accepted status. Do NOT close a P3 corrective action that has not fully conformed to the
requirements of the question and listed description of Non-Conformity.

Unacceptable entries in the Auditor’s Finding Comments field are:

 Comments referring to other Non-Conformities such as ‘see above’;
 Generic statements such as “Satisfactory’, ‘Closed’ or ‘The AO now conforms to the
question’;
 Comments referring to attached documents are not appropriate as uploaded
documents do not form part of the Audit Report.

If the P2V methodology has been used by the AO in completing the corrective action, the
Auditor should note this in the Auditor Comments when closing the corrective action. The
relevant BN for the P2V should be quoted in the closing comments.

7.6 Special Circumstances

There will be circumstances where the AO is unable to fully close a finding by the due date, but
can make a thorough effort to have a robust plan of action that is effective to determine that
the corrective action will continue to completion. For example, the fitment of Upper Torso
Restraints needing manufacture and a modification program could be accepted with the
application for the approval of the modification along with evidence of the purchase order for
the UTRs from the manufacturer. In such a case the CAP should describe the plan of action in
the normal manner; the CAT describes the completed application for modification approval
and also the purchase request of the equipment. The Auditors closing comments should
describe the evidence reviewed supporting these items and then clearly state that the finding
has been closed and further review either by a contracting company or the next BARS Audit.

Unusual circumstances, delays in Corrective Action closing, extensions granted by the BPO,
and unanswered findings should all be described in the Summary of Audit paragraph within
the Executive Summary section of the Audit Report.

The BARS Audit checklist undergoes thorough quality checking by the Auditors, Audit Company
and the BPO prior to the checklist being uploaded to BARSoft and the initial Audit report
generation. For these reasons a Non-Conformity listed and subsequently found to have been
raised in error will remain in the Audit Report and cannot be deleted. Findings raised in error,
normally as a result of inability to demonstrate the documentation or records at the time of
the Audit, are to have the corrective action closed in the normal manner. The CAP should
describe the plan to present evidence that demonstrates that the AO was in Conformity at the
time of the Audit. The CAT should describe what evidence has been submitted. The Auditor
Comments should describe what evidence was reviewed by the Auditor in order to close the
Non-Conformity. Ensure the revision status of any controlled document is listed in the CAT.

There may be occasions of an open Non-Conformity becoming invalid as a result of a revision

to the Audit Checklist/QML where the new Audit Checklist is released between the time of the
Closing Meeting and the FDD. This could be due to the question being reworded or deleted in
its entirety. The Auditor should review the circumstances relating to the Non-Conformity and
determine if the AO is entitled to relief from completing the corrective action. Section 3.4 of

© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0

This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e | 40
 the BAG describes the handling of revised/deleted questions and the Auditor actions in each
case.

7.7 Inappropriate Corrective Action Data

Common errors which make the corrective action section of the Audit Report incomplete or
ambiguous are:
 Copy and paste of whole sections of the Operators manual text into the CAP or CAT
fields. Only a brief description of the changed text is required;
 Missing information in the description of the amended document. Confirm if the
document changed is traceable by name, revision number and/or date;
 Cross referring to other corrective actions or questions;
 Referring to attached documents. Documentary evidence is not visible to readers of
the Audit Report and does not form part of the Final Audit Report; and
 Remnant text from conversation with AO during the closure process.

© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0

This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e | 41
8. Quality Control
8.1 Overview
Success of the BARS Program relies in part on the clarity and detail of information contained in
the Audit Report and that an error free document is presented to the BMOs in a timely
manner.

The Quality Control (QC) of a report should be multilayered and starts from the work
completed during the onsite phase of the Audit. Individual checks, peer review and centralized
QC all have a place in the QC process in order to eliminate errors, ambiguity and discrepancies.

When the QC process is completed on the Audit Checklist and Executive Summary the Audit
Report will be uploaded to BARSoft. This Audit report will be visible to BMOs, the AC and
Auditors involved along with the AO audited.

The BPO QC process will be applied in three separate stages in the production of the BARS
Audit report:
 A review of the contents of the SFIAR prior to uploading to BARSoft;
 A review of the Audit Checklist, Executive Summary and BARSoft data prior to
uploading and production of the Initial Audit Report; and
 A review of the corrective actions information and BARSoft data prior to production
of the Final Audit report.

8.2 Quality Control – Onsite

Effective control on the quality of the Audit Checklist and subsequently the Audit Report starts
during the onsite phase of the Audit. Auditors should follow these basic steps to limit errors:
 Ensure the checklist is complete and all sections according to the Operational
Categories and Audit Scope have been reviewed;
 Carry out a spell check and grammar check of all text entered into the checklist;
 Cross check all Non-Conformities and assessments of Not Applicable with other
questions and assessments covering the same or similar subject matter to ensure
consistency in the responses;
 Ensure that every question has been answered and an ‘X’ marked in either the
Conformity, Non-Conformity or Not Applicable box for every question row;
 All Documentary References have been entered for each question and have been
verified by the Auditor;
 Every description of Non-Conformity is clear to a third party reader as to what was
reviewed and found to be Non-Conforming;
 Every assessment of Not Applicable has a clear and accurate justification for the N/A
assessment and this does not conflict with other assessments throughout the
checklist; and
 Every question has a valid form of Objective Evidence quoted and this is in a
grammatically correct sentence.

© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0

This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e | 42
8.3 Quality Control – Offsite
After the Audit team has completed the onsite phase of the Audit, the AC quality section
should conduct a further review and this is ideal as the first independent review of the
checklist and Audit Report. The Lead Auditor and/or the Audit Company Quality Control
person should ensure that all the areas are completed, they contain accurate and up to date
information and that the spelling and grammar are correct.

The AC Admin should ensure:

 That all the AO data fields in BARSoft have been completed;
 The Auditors have been allocated to the Audit;
 Spelling and grammar in the checklist and Executive Summary are correct;
 All elements of the checklist have been completed;
 BARSoft data mentioned in the report is accurate:
o Key personnel names;
o Operator details;
o Aircraft details (types listed and those reviewed during the Audit);
o Insurance details; and
o Accident and Incident details.

Once the last corrective action has been completed to the satisfaction of the (Lead) Auditor,
the AC Quality Control person or Lead Auditor shall ensure that quality control checks are
conducted on all parts of the Audit. This should include the following:
 Spelling and grammar of all corrective actions;
 Any additional Auditors assigned to the corrective action process have been
mentioned in the ES;
 All corrective actions have a correctly completed RCA, CAP; and
 All P1 and P2 Non-Conformities have a correctly completed CAT and Auditors
Comments.

8.4 BPO QC
The BARS Program Office will conduct a QC check of the elements making up the BARS Audit
Report (checklist, Executive Summary, corrective actions and BARSoft data) and any anomalies
identified will be recorded in the QC checklist for action by the AC.

The AC quality representative/Lead Auditor shall make any changes/corrections required and
return the QC checklist to the BPO with a description of the changes in the ‘Corrections’
column of the QC checklist.

The QC checklist should be actioned and returned to the BPO within 7 calendar days of receipt.
If there are delays, the BPO should be informed.

Errors with the Audit checklist and Executive Summary have been classified into the following
categories:

© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0

This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e | 43
  INT: Interpretation. Information gained from the auditors comments, other
assessments or other data within the report makes the assessment (Conformity,
Non-Conformity or Not Applicable) doubtful or inconsistent;
 Text?: The comments in the Objective Evidence section of the report or the Executive
Summary are unclear, vague or open to misunderstanding by a third party reader.
Clarification or amendment is necessary;
 PRO: A procedural error in the completion of a field, component or section of the
Audit Report or Audit Checklist. Data entered is inconsistent with the guidelines,
procedures or policy as distributed by the BPO;
 DOC: Error or inconsistency in the information provided with respect to the
Documentary reference provided. Documentary references provided by the Operator
must be confirmed by the Auditor and corrected/updated as required so the column
titled 'Internal Reference' is up to date. The final version of the checklist must contain
accurate and detailed references from a controlled document to support the
assessment of Conformity. This should be a traceable reference; and
 SP/GMR: Spelling or grammatical errors in the subject text.

Items that are unclear or may require further clarification or explanation will be classified
under the INQ or Inquiry category. In these cases, a change to the checklist or ES may not be
necessary and the AC should provide a clarification in the ‘Corrections’ column of the QC
checklist.

The QC classification of BPO Comment is applied for feedback or responses to Auditor

information in the Audit Checklist or report data. A correction is not necessarily required for a
BPO Comment unless specifically requested. The BPO Comment is used for recording purposes
in the BPO QC data analysis and provides a recording method for improvement in the BARS
Program.

The QC Checklist from the BPO forms a record of all the Non-Conforming aspects of the
Auditors and AC work in developing the Audit Report. Audit Companies shall regularly review
all the contents of the QC Checklists and the BPO bi-annual QC Report to identify trends and
areas for improvement in the production of the Audit Reports.

© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0

This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e | 44
9. Appendix 1
9.1 BARS Audit Preparation Process Flow Chart

© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0

This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e | 45
9.2 Sample Meeting Attendance Register

Meeting Attendance Register

Date:

Venue:

Type of Meeting:

Name Company Position Contact Details Signature

Lead Auditor

© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0

This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e | 46
9.3 P2 Variation Handling Flow Chart

On-site assessment
by BARS Auditor

Does the AO No Is there a P2V

conform to the option for this No
question question

Yes Yes

Non-Conformity
Assessment:
Does the AO Finding raised
Conformity
satisfy the P2V No against the basic
Assessment
option? text of the BARS
Audit Checklist
question
Yes

Corrective Action
Conformity work can use the
End assessment: P2V option to
(Note 1) achieve conformity
(Note 2)
Note 1:
Audit Checklist to note: Note 2:
The Operator conforms to the question by use of The Auditor should note the use of the P2V to
P2V as described in BN##. achieve conformity in the Auditor Comment
Record the Objective Evidence in the Audit when closing the finding.
Checklist.
Note the use of P2V in the Audit Report
Executive Summary.

© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0

This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e | 47
9.4 BARS Audit Codes
To easily identify each and every report that is conducted under BARS, the BARS Program
Office (BPO) has a code system to enable easy identification and cataloguing of the reports.
The system will also support the data mining of information to assist in the global safety
programs offered by ICAO and others organisations. The Audit Code can be presented in three
(3) different formats: Long Form, Normal and Short form.

The Long form Audit Code will be made up by seven (7) elements: Region/Country/AO
Code/Audit Year/Audit Company/Audit Sequence/Operational Categories. The long form code
will be used for the purpose of data analysis.

The Normal Audit Code does not require the Region and Country identifier. The Normal Audit
Code will be made of five (5) elements and displayed in BARSoft on the Audit Details page: AO
Code/Audit Year/Audit Company/Audit Sequence/Operational Categories.

In most circumstances a short form of the code will be adequate to identify the particular
Audit in work. The Short Form Audit Code comprises just two (2) elements: AO Code and the
Audit Year.

Audit Code Elements:

 Region: The world has been divided into 9 regions broadly based on the ICAO
geographic regions. This is determined by the BPO at the time of the AO joining the
Program;
o North America and the Caribbean [NAC];
o South America [SAM];
o Europe [EUR];
o Russia and the CIS [RUS];
o Middle East [MEA];
o West and Central Africa [WCA];
o South and East Africa [SEA];
o Australia and the South Pacific and [ASP];
o Asia. [ASI]
 Country: The listed country where the AO is registered. Drawn from the ISO 3166-1
list.
 Size of Organisation: (s) Small (employees ≤20), (m) Medium (21≤employees≤100),
(l) Large (100<employees).
 AO Code: Code developed by the BPO at the time of the AO joining the program. It is
based on the ICAO three letter identifier where available or developed by the BPO.
The numeral within the AO Code identifies the Operator to be undergoing a standard
BARS Audit.
 Audit Year: The Audit year based on the year the BARS Registration will commence.

© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0

This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e | 48
  Audit Company: The Audit Company selected to undertake this Audit;
o Argus International PROS PRO
o AvLaw AVL
o Hart Aviation Services HAA
o Litson and Associates LAA
o Morten Bayer & Agnew MBA
 Sequence: How many BARS Audits this Operator has undergone; and
 Audit type and Operational Categories: Single letter identifier for each of the Audit
types and Operational Categories selected for the Audit.

Audit Type
o BARS Aerial Work A;
o Off-Shore Operations O;
o Initial Questions I;
o Core Questions; C;
o Comprehensive Questions; S; and
o Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems R.

Operational Categories
o Airdrop D;
o External Loads E;
o Aerial Firefighting F;
o Geophysical Survey G;
o Humanitarian (UN AvStads) H (previously U);
o Medevac M;
o Night Vision Goggles [NVG] N; and
o Transport Hoist/Search and Rescue T.

Example:
An Audit completed by Litson & Associates on Hennerberry Airlines in 2018 as their fifth BARS
Audit with Comprehensive Questions and Geophysical Survey and Humanitarian as the
Operational Categories would be coded as;
ASP-AUlHB3A-2018-LAA05-SGH
For the Short Form version of the Hennerberry 2018 Audit code it would be: HB3A-2018.

© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0

This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e | 49
10. Appendix 2
10.1 Writing BARS Audit Reports and Objective Evidence
BARS Audit Reports are read by a global group of senior safety and operations people. Not all
have an aviation background, and not all have English as a first language. Auditors must use
clear and concise language. Summarizing technical detail while avoiding industry jargon, and
ensuring precision and readability.

Objective Evidence (OE), in the case of Non-Conformances, is of particular importance to

Aircraft Operators. The OE guides and defines their response to a finding, and affects the
outcome. An OE of “requirement not documented” will result in the documentation of a
requirement. Such corrective action can miss the implementation required to verify the AO’s
ability to ensure ongoing conformance.

A good description of Non-Conformity is understandable to a reader even if they do not read

the actual audit question. The Auditor applies the questions to an Auditee in the context of
the scope of operations and the situation on the day of the Audit. Auditors should not rely on
the question to set the context of the OE.

Following are examples of Objective Evidence. There are six types of question. Each has
acceptable and unacceptable versions of OE. The examples address findings of conformance
and Non-Conformance. For appropriate questions a determination of not applicable is also
presented.

For the sake of saving space, the document reference and assessment columns have been
removed, and C / NC /NA is used instead. Colour coding reflects acceptability of OE, not
assessment of conformance.

© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0

This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e | 50
 Assessment
Priority

Q ref Question Objective Evidence Comments

This is a description of what

the auditor did. Reader is
unable to discern anything
C Sighted Safety Audit Plan. else.
BAG 4.8.1
BAG 4.8.2

The 2017 Safety Audit Schedule

addresses all safety critical parts of
This provides traceable
the business. The schedule is
evidence and provides
currently on track. Safety audits of
essential information on
C the CAMO (SA17/04) and Head
markers of a healthy system.
Office (SA17/07) were found to be
The Operator's BAG 4.8.1
complete with appropriate finding
annual safety audit BAG 4.8.6
closure.
plan should
encompass safety
audits of head
office, all
This will simply result in the
permanent bases
addition of a maintenance
of operation and all
ORG provider to the schedule. It
P2 departments and
3.07.03 will not necessarily prompt
sections of the Safety audit plan does not
NC full inclusion of the supplier.
Operator that have document airworthiness.
BAG 4.8.10
the potential to
affect the safety of
the Operator’s
aircraft or cause
harm to personnel.
[CC1.11]
This describes the extent to
The safety audit plan for 2017 which the AO conforms, and
provides for oversight of all safety explains the non-
critical areas of the Operator with conformance.
the exception of the maintenance With the first part adding
provider. context it is clear that the
Safety Audits of two remote bases corrective action must include
NC
(SA17:02 and SA17/05) were full integration of the CAMO
completed as per the schedule. No into the safety audit system.
evidence of a planned or BAG 4.8.1
conducted safety audit of the BAG 4.8.10
CAMO was available. BAG 4.8.6

© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0

This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e | 51
 Assessment
Priority

Q ref Question Objective Evidence Comments

This is what the auditor did. It

does not sufficiently address
C FDAP manual verified. the question or intent of the
Standard.
BAG 4.8.2
Though conditionality of long
Though the Aircraft Operator does
term contract has not been
not have a long-term contract, a
met, output of the program
Flight Data Analysis Program
has been inspected and
(FDAP) is in place. The Chief Pilot
C traceable evidence provided.
demonstrated FDAP outputs in
A determination of conforming
assessment of approaches into a
is appropriately supported.
new destination ZZZZ from June
BAG 4.8.1
2017.
BAG 4.8.6
This is scant information which
If the Operator has provides no context for the AO
long-term BMO to begin corrective action.
contracts utilizing NC FDM data is not analysed. Neither does it address the
aircraft with Flight conditionality of the question.
Data Monitoring BAG 4.8.10
FLT equipment, the BAG 4.8.12
P2
1.02.15 Operator should A long term contract is in place.
have a process for The aircraft has FDM equipment, This explains that expected
the download and and the Operator has a elements of the FDAP are in
analysis of the comprehensive FDAP Manual. Data place, and goes on to describe
data. is downloaded via a quick access what isn’t.
[BC6.4] recorder, de-identified and stored. The reader can estimate what
NC
W-C4N’s data was shown. level of effort is required and
There are no arrangements in place what level of support may be
for analysis of the data, and no needed in order to close the
evidence of development of finding.
parameters or review mechanisms BAG 4.8.10
for the analyses.
This does not address the
conditionality of the question.
NA FDM data not used.
BAG 4.8.7
BAG 4.8.12
The Aircraft Operator has a long
This explains clearly and
term contract in excess of two
applies knowledge of appendix
NA years, however, aircraft are single
2 of the BAR Standard.
engine and not fitted with FDM
BAG 4.8.7
equipment.

© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0

This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e | 52
 Assessment
Priority

Q ref Question Objective Evidence Comments

C Points to the existence

of an SOP though
doesn’t give any
indication of its
Documented as referenced. appropriateness of
understanding
amongst crew.
BAG 4.8.1
BAG 4.8.12
C This OE satisfies the
reader that the SOP
If the Operator Jungle SOP is appropriate and
has been appraised
conducts VFR pilot (Capt. BBT) confirmed
and knowledge of it
operations in hostile understanding and use in
exists within the pilot
areas or interview.
body.
mountainous jungle BAG 4.8.1
terrain, the Operator NC This will result only in
should have Standard drafting of an SOP.
Operating Does not have SOP.
P2 FLT 1.03.05 BAG 4.8.12
Procedures as a BAG 4.8.10
defence against NC Head of Training and Checking
rapidly changing
affirmed that pilot training This should see
weather conditions
does include an element of drafting of the SOP
impacting on the
defence against rapidly and further inclusion
conduct of VFR
changing weather. However, of it in the Training
operations.
no theory is taught, and no and Checking system.
[BC11.5]
further support is available to BAG 4.8.10
the pilots in the form of SOPs.
NA This does not form
Operator does not operate in part of the
areas of rapidly changing conditionality of the
weather. question.
BAG 4.8.7
NA This directly addresses
Operations are not conducted
the conditionality of
in mountainous or hostile
the question.
areas.
BAG 4.8.7

© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0

This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e | 53
 Assessment
Priority

Q ref Question Objective Evidence Comments

This description of
what the auditor
did doesn’t relate
Maintenance fatigue policy any useful
C
sighted. information about
the system.
BAG 4.8.1
BAG 4.8.10

This shows the

Fatigue management reader a further
manual includes limits on level of
duty time and references sophistication in
situations where risk the system and
C
The appointed analysis is required. provides traceable
Maintenance Engineer rosters for May evidence in
Organization(s), should and June 17 match limits support.
have a duty-time policy in manual. BAG 4.8.1
for maintenance BAG 4.8.4
P2 MNT 1.07.02
personnel which includes
maximum working hours
Does not provide
and minimum rest
any context for
periods. Policy has working hours
NC development of
[CC1.10] but was exceeded.
corrective action.
BAG 4.8.8

Duty time limits and Describes the

extensions where risk extent of
analysis is required are conformance and
documented. Engineer identifies, with
rosters for May and June traceable evidence,
NC
17 match limits in manual, were breach of the
apart from one event. Job control has
no: ATR2537 exceeded occurred.
duty limits without BAG 4.8.4
support of risk analysis. BAG 4.8.8

© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0

This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e | 54
 Assessment
Priority

Q ref Question Objective Evidence Comments

This does not

Checked pilot record (Capt.
C address the system.
KGL). Recency OK.
BAG 4.8.1

Operations manager
demonstrated use of a
commercially available crew Provide traceable
management system which evidence and
populates crew flight and confirmation of a
C duty, and recency data working system
upon lodgement of flight being in place.
returns. The system BAG 4.8.1
prevents allocation of pilots BAG 4.8.4
The Operator shall have who do not meet recency
a system which ensures requirements.
that prior to flight, all Demonstrates
flight crew members failure of the
P1 FLT 1.05.03
assigned to flights meet system, though
operational recency doesn’t address the
Two recent hires had been
requirements. system itself. Will
NC allocated without meeting
[CC1.2] have uncertain
requirements.
effect on carrying
out of appropriate
corrective action.
BAG 4.8.8
The Operator’s excel
Addresses the
spreadsheet was configured
system directly, and
to calculate night recency
identifies failings in
from the last night landing,
the development of
not 90 days from the third
NC it. Corrective action
last night landing. No
will result in a more
system requirements
robust system.
document or evidence of
BAG 4.8.8
verification of the excel
BAG 4.8.9
system was available.

© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0

This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e | 55
 Assessment
Priority

Q ref Question Objective Evidence Comments

This confirms
existence of a
Inspected workshop, sighted shadow board, but
C
shadow board. does not show
suitability.
BAG 4.8.1
Demonstration of the sign This describes a
in/sign out process, and working system and
completed end of task provides traceable
C
checklists (jobs: S825, and evidence.
S276) confirmed BAG 4.8.1
implementation. BAG 4.8.4
This will result in
either removal of
The Maintenance tools to another
facility should have location or more
P2 MNT 1.03.04
suitable tool control shadows drawn on
Shadow board had tools
facilities. NC the board.
without shadows on pegs.
Underlying issues
may go
unaddressed.
BAG 4.8.8
BAG 4.8.9
This explains level
Shadow boards, cut outs, of conformance,
itineraries, and audits are in and goes on to
use for company tools. describe point of
NC Personal tools found mixed failure. Underlying
with company controlled issues will be
tools. Personal tools are addressed in this
allowed and uncontrolled. instance.
BAG 4.8.8

© 2017 FSF Ltd | BARS Auditor Guide Version 3.0

This document is Uncontrolled once printed. | Current version is available on BARSoft P a g e | 56
 Contact:
BARS Program Office
Flight Safety Foundation
Regional Office
GPO Box 3026
Melbourne, Victoria 3001, Australia

Telephone: +61 1300 557 162

Email: [email protected]
Web: www.flightsafety.org/bars

Flight Safety Foundation

Head Office
701 N. Fairfax Street, Suite 250
Alexandria, Virginia US 22314-2058

Telephone: +1 703 739 6700

Fax: +1 703 739 6708

 Version 3, January 2018