Aviation compliance monitoring software that finds problems between internal audits, with every finding cited and signed
Problems found between audits, months before the regulator, with every finding cited.
See one case, screen by screen ↓Aviation compliance monitoring software — also called aviation audit management software or airline quality assurance audit software — runs an airline's internal audit program against the rules: the audit plan, findings, corrective action plans and proof they worked. The FAA calls this the internal evaluation program (AC 120-59B); EASA calls it compliance monitoring, run by the compliance monitoring manager. Aviation Compliance Monitoring adds seven agents that sample operational records between audits, cite the rule, draft findings and plans, and propose moving audits by risk, while auditors and the compliance monitoring manager decide.
How to choose AI for airlines: a buyer's guide to agentic AI solutions →
Updated
Every Part 121 airline has to audit its own operation: the continuing analysis and surveillance system of 14 CFR 121.373, and the audits and evaluations of Part 5 SMS safety assurance (14 CFR 5.71). An airline that holds an EASA Part-145 approval runs compliance monitoring as well, and IOSA expects a quality assurance program. Today the compliance monitoring manager plans 40 to 100 audits a year in a spreadsheet, and each area is audited about once a year.
On audit day an auditor reads about 25 records out of thousands, so a one-in-400 fault is found by luck. Between two audits of an area nobody looks: a fault that starts the week after an audit runs for months. Findings are written fast with the root cause as a box filled at the end, corrective action plans close when their tasks are ticked, and whether a plan worked is seen only at the next audit — or at the FAA's, where a civil penalty reaches $75,000 per violation and each flight can count.
Estimated split for one internal audit of one area, from preparation to a proven corrective action, by hand and with the solution.
Seven agents sample evidence every night, draft findings and plans, and move audits by risk; auditors and the manager decide.
Corvane Airways is in month 7 of its FY2026–27 internal evaluation program: 48 audits in six areas, 1,284 requirements from the FAA, PHMSA, TSA, EASA and IOSA. Its maintenance-control audit is planned for February 8. On October 14 the agents find something that cannot wait that long. Here is what happens, screen by screen, in the working solution.
Dana's Today screen opens with what the agents found: 3,180 records sampled in the last 30 days from 11 evidence streams, 400 MEL deferrals read early on October 14, one that does not conform. Nine early warnings wait for an auditor, four corrective actions are overdue, and 96% of requirements are covered this cycle. Six decisions wait for her, each with the agent that prepared it.
“Waiting for you — 6 decisions · agents never act unseen.”
In the last 30 days the Evidence Sampling Agent raised 14 early warnings: 9 waiting for an auditor, 3 confirmed, 2 dismissed. Each names its stream, station and rule — four ORD de-icing records with no holdover start time against 14 CFR 121.629(c), two LAX NOTOCs without the UN number against 49 CFR 175.33(a), six former Halvard Air captains without the differences training sign-off. The Rule Checker re-checked every one before it reached a person.
“Nothing becomes a finding until an auditor confirms it.”
Sampling plan MEL-03 drew 400 of the 2,914 MEL deferrals closed since September 1: all 212 with a repair interval extension and 188 at random. 391 conform, 6 extensions were approved within 60 minutes of expiry, 2 lack the placard photo, and 1 does not conform. N809CV, an A321neo, deferred pack 2 under MEL 21-51-02, Category C, on September 28. The interval expired October 8 at 23:59; the extension was approved at 01:52 on October 9, 1 hour 53 minutes late, and the aircraft flew 4 revenue legs with 718 passengers before the valve was replaced.
The sample size, the population and how the sample was drawn are on the screen, so the auditor can trust it.
The Rule Checker works independently of the Sampling Agent. Its verdict: does not conform, confidence 0.96. It quotes the three passages it relied on — 14 CFR 121.628(a)(5), Corvane's MEL preamble §4 (Category C: ten consecutive calendar days, excluding the day of discovery) and GMM 5.4.6, which requires Maintenance Control to approve an extension before the interval expires. Each passage opens at its source.
No verdict without a cited passage; below 0.80 confidence it says “unsure” and sends the warning to an auditor.
The Root Cause Agent asks Technical Operations three questions in the thread. Grace Lindqvist answers at 08:05: since September 1 the overnight desk has 2 controllers, not 3, after the Halvard Air desk merged, and the expiring-interval list is printed at 18:00, so the 22:40 request was not on it. The agent proposes three contributing factors and links a second warning, SIG-0401: no safety risk assessment on file for that desk merger under 14 CFR 5.51.
“system causes, never a person” — the agent never names an individual as the cause.
CAP-26-047, “Repair interval extensions approved before expiry, every time”, has four actions, each tied to a factor: a live expiring-interval board on the Maintenance Control desk, a system block on approvals after expiry, a safety risk assessment of the desk merger, and a GMM 5.4.6 briefing for every controller. The owner is Ray Delgado, Director Maintenance Control. Plan due November 13, 2026; closure due January 13, 2027.
Effectiveness check: “Re-sample every extension, Jan 14 – Mar 14, 2027; effective if 0 approved after expiry.”
The Finding Drafter proposed F-26-062 at Level 2 against 14 CFR 121.628(a)(5) and GMM 5.4.6, with five pieces of evidence. Dana confirms it with reason C1, Non-compliance confirmed, and signs. With the box ticked, a hazard is also opened in the safety risk register, so quality and the SMS see the same thing. The plan clock starts.
“I, Dana Whitcombe, sign this decision. It is recorded with the time, the reason and the sources.”
The year's program is one circle: twelve months around the edge, six areas as lanes, every audit a node, the early warnings as dots. At the center the Program Planner proposes moving MX-04, Maintenance control and MEL, from February 8, 2027 to November 16, 2026, with four cited reasons: the N809CV overrun, six more late extensions (five on former Halvard Air aircraft), the overnight desk going from 3 controllers to 2, and the manual allowing an audit to move when risk rises.
“Theo Marchetti is free Nov 16–19. Coverage stays 1,231 of 1,284.”
Dana approves the move with reason R2, Risk increased, and signs. The audit lands on November 16 with Theo Marchetti as lead; Grace Lindqvist and Ray Delgado are notified, all 62 of its requirements stay covered, and the 400 sampled deferrals are attached to it. She can also ask why not December — Theo is booked on the EASA Part-145 station audit November 30 to December 4.
The Program Planner proposes and never moves, adds or drops an audit itself. Proposing to move an audit later is off: only a person can delay an audit.
The Program Planner drafts the October compliance review and Dana checks it. Six lines answer Malcolm Ashby's questions: are we compliant, what the agents found, why it happened, what we changed, the program, and what needs him — support a third overnight controller in Maintenance Control until the risk assessment is done, about 4 FTE-months. He signs the review or returns it with a comment.
“N809CV flew 4 revenue legs past its MEL repair interval on Oct 9 — found 5 days later, not at the February audit.”
The same internal evaluation program, seen by four of the people who carry it — what their month looked like, and what it looks like now.
Seven agents sample evidence every night, draft findings and plans, and move audits by risk; auditors and the manager decide.
Keeps the risk-based audit program: scores each area's risk every night from early warnings, findings, operational change and history, proposes moving, adding or deepening audits when risk rises, proves coverage before and after, and drafts the monthly review.
Draws risk-weighted samples from 11 operational record streams — MEL deferrals and extensions, crew training records, dispatch releases, load sheets and NOTOCs, de-icing and ramp checklists, tool calibration, cabin equipment checks — and flags records that do not conform.
Checks each flag on its own against the regulation text and the airline's manuals, quotes the passage and gives a verdict — conforms, does not conform or unsure — with a confidence.
Drafts the finding — statement, proposed level, rule and manual references, evidence — and compares it with the last 24 months of findings to say whether it repeats.
Asks the owning department up to three specific questions in the thread, links related early warnings and proposes system-level contributing factors with citations.
Drafts one corrective action per accepted factor with an owner and a date inside the level's clock, reminds owners at 14, 7 and 1 days and escalates overdue plans.
When every action of a plan is done, re-samples the finding's evidence stream over the plan's window and proposes close or reopen with the numbers.
Confirm findings, approve changes and plans, sign the review. The agents propose; a named person decides.
Ask about any audit, early warning, finding, rule or aircraft — or tell the agents what to do. Every answer points to its source, and any change waits for your approval.
Why move MX-04 earlier?
Four reasons to move MX-04 Maintenance control and MEL from Feb 8 to Nov 16: N809CV flew a Category C item 11 days against 10; 6 more extensions were approved within 60 minutes of expiry, 5 on former Halvard Air aircraft; the overnight desk went from 3 controllers to 2 on Sep 1; and our manual allows an audit to move when risk rises. Coverage stays 1,231 of 1,284.
Why Level 2, not Level 1?
Level 2 for F-26-062: a non-compliance with 14 CFR 121.628(a)(5) that could lower safety, but contained — the item was a redundant pack and the aircraft was repaired the same night. Level 1 would fit if the item had been a no-go or the practice were systemic; the 6 late approvals are why the move of MX-04 was proposed.
Are we ready for IOSA?
IOSA renewal on-site Apr 5–9, 2027: 421 of 483 standards evidenced (87%). EASA Part-145 visit Jan 19–21, 2027: 108 of 118 (92%). The largest gap is the 14 Part-145 management-system items with no audit; the coverage proposal puts them in MX-07 on Dec 1.
Re-sample the Halvard tails weekly
Planned: from tonight, once a week, every repair interval extension on the 54 former Halvard Air aircraft is sampled — all of them, not a random share — and any approval within 2 hours of expiry is flagged. It adds about 30 records a week. It needs your approval because it changes sampling plan MEL-03.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
The program rules, finding levels, clocks, sampling plans and escalations are settings, saved with a reason and on the audit trail.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Every area audited at least | Once a year | Once a year · Every 24 months |
| Program Planner may propose moving an audit earlier | On, when an area's risk score rises by 0.20 or more | On · Off |
| Program Planner may propose moving an audit later | Off — only a person can delay an audit | On · Off |
| Level 1 finding clocks | Containment 24 hours · plan 7 days · closure 30 days | Containment 24 or 48 hours · plan 7 or 14 days · closure 30 or 60 days |
| Level 2 finding clocks | Plan 30 days · closure 90 days | Plan 30 or 14 days · closure 60, 90 or 120 days |
| MEL deferrals sampling plan | Weekly · 100% with an extension, 188 at random | Nightly · Weekly · Monthly, per stream |
| Reminders before a due date | 14, 7 and 1 days | On · Off |
| Overdue escalation | Department VP after 1 day; a Level 1 action to the Accountable Executive at once | On · Off |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
“demo” = seen in the working solution, on its sample data · “target” = the design goal, measured in the live solution · “estimated” = our estimate · “typical” = published figures (89 FR 106282 — FAA civil penalty of up to $75,000 per violation for a carrier; IATA on risk-based IOSA audits — about twice the non-conformities in 2025; 14 CFR 121.373, 121.628 and 5.71, EASA 145.A.200 and FAA AC 120-59B, as context). Corvane Airways, Halvard Air and the people named on this page are fictional — characters and sample data in the working solution.
Aviation compliance monitoring software — also called aviation audit management software or airline quality assurance audit software — runs an airline's internal audit program against the rules: the audit plan, findings, corrective action plans and proof they worked. The FAA calls this the internal evaluation program (AC 120-59B); EASA calls it compliance monitoring, run by the compliance monitoring manager. Aviation Compliance Monitoring adds seven agents that sample operational records between audits, cite the rule, draft findings and plans, and propose moving audits by risk, while auditors and the compliance monitoring manager decide.
The Evidence Sampling Agent draws risk-weighted samples from 11 record streams — MEL deferrals, training records, dispatch releases, NOTOCs, station and de-icing checklists and more — on each stream's own cadence. A Rule Checker confirms every flag against the regulation and the manual before an auditor sees it. In the working solution an MEL overrun was found 5 days after the flights, with the area's audit planned for February.
The working solution's requirement library holds 1,284 requirements: 14 CFR Parts 121, 5 and 120, 49 CFR 171–175, the TSA security program, EASA Part-145 and Part-TCO, and the IOSA standards, mapped to the airline's own manuals. Each finding cites the passage it relies on, such as 14 CFR 121.628(a)(5) for an MEL repair interval.
In the working solution's program manual, a Level 1 finding is a non-compliance that lowers safety or risks a regulator action, with containment in 24 hours and closure in 30 days; a Level 2 is a non-compliance that could lower safety, with a plan in 30 days and closure in 90. An observation is a weakness to fix, not a non-compliance. The definitions and clocks are settings that follow your manual.
When every action in a plan is done, the Effectiveness Check Agent re-samples the same evidence stream over the plan's window and proposes close or reopen with the numbers. In the working solution a cabin equipment plan was proposed for reopening after 3 of 90 re-sampled checks failed again — with the caution that the Rule Checker doubts those three records, so the station's paper cards decide. The manager decides.
Yes. For IOSA audit readiness and an EASA Part-145 visit, the readiness screen shows the share of standards already evidenced from the same records the agents sample — 421 of 483 IOSA standards and 108 of 118 Part-145 requirements in the working solution — with the largest gaps, and rehearses the auditor's questions. An evidence pack for the FAA principal inspector, the EASA or the IOSA auditor exports from the findings and the audit trail.
Yes. The agents read records, draft and propose, and never act unseen. An auditor confirms or dismisses every finding, the compliance monitoring manager approves every program change and corrective action plan, and the Accountable Executive signs the monthly review, each with a reason code and a signature, on an audit trail that cannot be edited.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements and documents — your program manual, last year's audit program and findings, and the systems your records live in — and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on a sample of your own records first.
Every disability complaint answered within 30 days, with the facts rebuilt and cited.
1-min demoMishandled Wheelchair ReportingEvery damaged chair traced to where it happened, remedied the same day, and counted right.
1-min demoTarmac Delay ComplianceEvery return to the gate started in time, and every DOT report ready the same day.
1-min demoWe'll run Aviation Compliance Monitoring on a sample of your own records, findings and audit program.