CAMO Staff Competence Assessment and Manpower Planning

Start with the work the person will do

A training certificate is useful evidence. The staffing decision also needs to explain what the person can do, how much of their time is available and which duties they are authorised to perform. Start with the intended role and actual work, using the CAMO, CAO and Part-145 roles guide to keep the organisational boundaries clear.

Use the three Avioverse library forms in sequence:

The assessment supports a judgement; the manpower record supports a resource decision; the authorisation records the permission actually granted. Keeping these decisions separate makes a gap easier to see.

Assess competence for the intended duties

Under CAMO.A.305(g), competence includes job expertise and an understanding of safety management and human factors appropriate to the person's responsibilities. AMC1 describes how the assessment reaches the work itself:

AMC1 CAMO.A.305(g)(d) recommends job descriptions with enough criteria to support assessment. Its paragraph (e) distinguishes managers, maintenance programme engineers, engineering staff, planners, compliance monitoring staff and people with safety management responsibilities. A planner's evidence of timely maintenance coordination differs from a programme engineer's evidence of interpreting source data for the aircraft maintenance programme (AMP).

AMC2 CAMO.A.305(g)(a) describes a procedure covering assessors, timing, credit for previous assessments, validation of qualification records, initial methods, continuous assessment, unsatisfactory results and recording. Use the form within that procedure. Previous records can inform the assessment; record what was checked and why it is relevant to the intended duties.

The conclusion should state whether unsupervised work can be permitted, what supervision remains necessary and what further training is needed, as described in AMC1. A practical development action identifies the gap, the person responsible and the evidence to be reviewed next. Record an unsuccessful assessment plainly: submitting the form does not require a positive outcome.

Compare qualified capacity with the workload

A headcount alone does not answer CAMO.A.305(d). Compare available qualified people with the work to be planned, performed, supervised, inspected and monitored. The accountable manager's responsibility to ensure the necessary resources are available comes from CAMO.A.305(a)(1).

For a useful comparison, estimate both sides over the same period. Explain leave, training and other commitments when estimating usable hours. Include supervision and monitoring effort, and check that a total surplus does not conceal a shortage in a particular skill or location. The form's totals are entered manually; review their arithmetic and assumptions.

Fictional example: ExampleAir's continuing airworthiness manager records 420 usable hours against 450 hours of planned work for a month. One planner also needs supervision for a new assignment. The resource decision therefore addresses both the 30-hour gap and the time of the qualified supervisor. The flight operations post holder provides the expected flying pattern; ExampleMRO provides proposed maintenance dates. These are planning inputs, not evidence that a resource gap has disappeared.

For maintenance readers, 145.A.30(d) separately requires a maintenance man-hour plan and a procedure to reassess intended work when actual staff availability falls below the planned level for a shift or period. This CAMO manpower form is not a complete Part-145 shift plan.

Record the authority actually granted

These are distinct personnel provisions. CAMO.A.305(e) points to qualification and authorisation under CAMO.A.310 for airworthiness review staff; paragraph (f) addresses nominated persons authorised to extend an airworthiness review certificate (ARC). A competence assessment alone grants neither privilege. The ARC guide covers the certificate workflow.

The staff authorisation form records the organisational decision under the applicable procedure. Selecting a category does not establish eligibility. For Part-145 certification authorisations, the issue and continued-validity conditions are explicit:

145.A.35(h) also requires a clear scope and a readily available translation when codes define it. Use the Part-145 certifying and support staff guide for its separate eligibility and assessment requirements. Do not apply those certification provisions automatically to every other permission shown in the form.

Why the forms ask what they ask

Staff competence assessment

Identity, role and assessment context tie the evidence to a person, their duties and the occasion for assessment. AMC1 CAMO.A.305(g) covers employed and contracted personnel and continued control of competence. A job title alone does not describe the work being assessed.

Training, experience and assessment activities show the basis for the conclusion. AMC1 and AMC2 allow evidence from work performance, knowledge testing and relevant records. Select the applicable evidence, identify it in the comments and explain gaps. The form's training choices are prompts, not a requirement for every role to complete every listed course.

Technical criteria help test the duties actually assigned: for example, interpreting data, planning work or controlling records. The role objectives in AMC1 CAMO.A.305(g)(e) guide that selection. Communication, information handling, judgement and teamwork help explain how the person performs those duties; the detailed ratings are practical assessment aids.

Safety, compliance and human factors criteria connect technical work with the wider responsibilities in CAMO.A.305(g). Evidence might show how a person recognises an unsafe condition, reports it or checks the limits of their authority. Assess the language needed for the work. AMC1 CAMO.A.305(g)(e)(8) addresses an agreed common language specifically for the stated single air carrier business grouping arrangement; it is not a universal English-language requirement.

Ratings, conclusion and actions make strengths and gaps visible. The 1–4 scale and optional manually entered average are form design choices. An average cannot cancel an individual gap. Record the supervision or training decision described by AMC1, and actions following an unsatisfactory assessment as covered by AMC2 CAMO.A.305(g)(a)(8). The person's acknowledgement records discussion; it is not another competence decision.

Manpower assessment

Period, change, fleet and locations explain the planning scenario. Fleet size, type variety and locations help the reader understand the workload assumptions. Yearly use is a scheduling choice in this form; CAMO.A.305(d) does not prescribe that calendar or a single calculation formula.

Staff availability and the workload breakdown expose what is behind the totals. Qualifications and coverage address the rule's requirement for appropriately qualified staff. Task groups help reveal omitted or overlapping work; adapt the estimates to the assignment rather than treating every group as a duty for every CAMO. Use the same period and enter the totals manually.

Result and actions identify gaps in hours, competence or coverage. Connect proposed resources, owners and dates to the accountable manager's decision under CAMO.A.305(a)(1). Accepting an assessment and action plan does not make an unresolved shortfall adequate.

Staff authorisation

Identity, category and reference link the permission to its holder and intended function. The distinction between review staff and ARC-extension personnel follows CAMO.A.305(e)–(f); other internal permissions follow their applicable procedures.

Duties, scope and limitations make clear what the holder may do and where the boundaries lie. For certification authorisations, 145.A.35(g)–(h) explicitly address scope, limits and understandable wording or codes. Clear descriptions serve the same practical purpose for other organisational permissions without importing the Part-145 eligibility rules into them.

Issue and validity dates support version control and review planning. Enter an expiry where the applicable procedure sets one, and record ongoing conditions in the limitations. The form does not impose a universal expiry: 145.A.35(g), for example, links continued validity to continuing satisfaction of its stated conditions.

Assign follow-up and keep the working list useful

In Avioverse, follow-up steps are written sections assigned to workspace members. Each assignee records Approve or Request changes with a comment, or Not required with a reason. These labels record the response to that section; the organisation's procedure determines the underlying decision.

For the competence assessment, an appropriately qualified assessor or line manager prepares the record. The person assessed can record their comments if they are a workspace member; otherwise, an internal manager records the externally obtained comments and evidence reference. For the manpower assessment, the continuing airworthiness manager prepares the comparison and a workspace member acting as accountable manager records the resource decision. For the authorisation, the relevant internal issuer prepares the record; the holder or internal issuer records delivery and acknowledgement, with an evidence reference where obtained outside the workspace.

A working authorisations register can point to the individual records, show scope and limits, and carry review dates. Avioverse registers keep row history, file attachments and reminders before a due date. Such a list helps locate the current record; a reminder or row entry does not grant authority.

Where external support is part of the staffing plan, continue with CAMO contracting and subcontracting to assess the assignment, people and oversight together.