Argus Report Highlights Problems in SMS Audit Process

 - May 19, 2014, 3:15 PM

Aviation data provider Argus has highlighted deficiencies in safety management system audits in its latest Prism analysis of some SMS audit results from both private and commercial flight operations. Each audit looked for evidence of effective and efficient operations, as well as best SMS practices in line with ISBAO or FAA AC 120-92A standards. The report was created to highlight recurring deficiencies in those SMS audits.

Of the 75 audits reviewed last year, 71 percent indicated a deficiency with the internal company evaluation programs (IEP) themselves while another 61 percent showed weaknesses in safety training. Slightly more than half–52 percent–reported deficiencies in company SMS manuals, and hazard reporting weaknesses were found in 45 percent of the audits. Risk assessments showed deficiencies in 43 percent of audits, and company safety committees were written up in 40 percent of audits.

Among the report’s recommendations was that the process “should include the root cause of the non-conformity, as well as a record-keeping system for all evidence related to the audit, its findings and its corrective actions.”

More recommendations appeared under the safety policy umbrella than under any other category.


Argus and CAMTS appear to be "window dressings" that Medical Transport companies use in their ads to trick the public into thinking the Medical Transport company has been audited and found to be safe, in my personal opinion as an aviation insurance adjuster and former pilot for a CAMTS accredited air ambulance company that violated many FAA rules and fired pilots who objected to the FAA rules violations during medical flights while being accredited by CAMTS.

The CAMTS Policy and Procedures Manual which can be read online states in Number 00.06.00:

Subject: Indemnification of CAMTS

Policy: Any program that is accredited shall Indemnifiy CAMTS and Hold CAMTS harmless from any and all claims, demands, actions and causes of actions arising from the accrediation process.

So if a medical patient selects a CAMTS accredited Medical Transport company that advertises they are CAMTS Accredited, with the belief that CAMTS is so sure the Medical Transport Company passed a safety audit and is safe, why does CAMTS demand the Medical Transport Indemnify CAMTS and Hold CAMTS Harmless from all claims?



Show comments (1)