Documented procedure Evidence Sighted By Auditor: Possible Evidence Driver Manual Audit Result (Code): A single procedure covering the different circumstances in criteria 2.2 to 2.4 is acceptable. Standard 3: System for identifying faults, assessing severity and remedying them Criterion 3.1 Method to identify and assess fault and place a priority on its repair. Scope There is a system for identifying faults and prioritising their repair according to severity. This system How Does Operator’s System Meet /Not Meet the needs to include faults identified both during regular vehicle inspections (Standard 1), and whilst the Criterion Auditor to complete. – vehicle is in operation (Standard 2). The operator’s documentation must include a method (e.g. list of critical faults) for determining vehicle faults that require immediate repair. This system should give reporting and repair priority to “safety critical elements” such as problems with brakes, steering and suspension. Possible Evidence Procedures and policies Evidence Sighted By Auditor: Documented instructions Staff Manuals Notes An operator’s decision to defer a repair cannot apply to critical faults” such as braking, Audit Result (Code): “safety steering and suspension. Criterion 3.2 Where the repair is deferred, the person making the decision must be identified on the record. Scope The deferral of repairs should be based on a clear process (e.g. risk assessment) and should not be applied How Does Operator’s System Meet /Not Meet the to critical elements” (except where the vehicle is being temporarily removed from service). Criterion Auditor to complete. “safety – This criterion requires the operator to have a defined process for classifying vehicle faults based on an assessed risk level/rating (e.g. high, medium or low), or a numerically based risk score (e.g. 1 to 5). The defined response to the fault (e.g. deferral/immediate repair) must be based on the assessed risk (e.g. tolerable risk or high risk). There must also be a clearly identified person/position responsible for making this decision (e.g. workshop manager) whose name /signature must appear on the record. That person should be competent to make the decision and the decision and reasons to must be recorded. The reasons for repair deferral, The person making the decision Possible Evidence Repair risk assessment documentation Evidence Sighted By Auditor: Workshop manual/procedures Position Descriptions
Possible Evidence Documented procedure Driver Manual Evidence Sighted By Auditor: A single procedure covering the different circumstances in criteria 2.2 to 2.4 is acceptable. Audit Result (Code): Standard 3: System for identifying faults, assessing severity and remedying them Criterion 3.1 Method to identify and assess fault and place a priority on its repair. Scope There is a system for identifying faults and prioritising their repair according to severity. This system needs to include faults identified both during regular vehicle inspections (Standard 1), and whilst the vehicle is in operation (Standard 2). The operator’s documentation must include a method (e.g. list of critical faults) for determining vehicle faults that require immediate repair. This system should give reporting and repair priority to “safety critical elements” such as problems with brakes, steering and suspension. How Does Operator’s System Meet /Not Meet the Criterion – Auditor to complete. Possible Evidence Procedures and policies Documented instructions Staff Manuals Evidence Sighted By Auditor: Notes An operator’s decision to defer a repair cannot apply to “safety critical faults” such as braking, steering and suspension. Audit Result (Code): Criterion 3.2 Where the repair is deferred, the person making the decision must be identified on the record. Scope The deferral of repairs should be based on a clear process (e.g. risk assessment) and should not be applied to “safety critical elements” (except where the vehicle is being temporarily removed from service). This criterion requires the operator to have a defined process for classifying vehicle faults based on an assessed risk level/rating (e.g. high, medium or low), or a numerically based risk score (e.g. 1 to 5). The defined response to the fault (e.g. deferral/immediate repair) must be based on the assessed risk (e.g. tolerable risk or high risk). There must also be a clearly identified person/position responsible for making this decision (e.g. workshop manager) whose name /signature must appear on the record. That person should be competent to make the decision and the decision and reasons to must be recorded. The reasons for repair deferral, The person making the decision How Does Operator’s System Meet /Not Meet the Criterion – Auditor to complete. Possible Evidence Repair risk assessment documentation Workshop manual/procedures Position Descriptions Evidence Sighted By Auditor: