Anyone in the aircraft industry using electronic signatures on certifications? Looking for some guidance on the general direction to pursue. We’d like to avoid printing out certs, signing, and re-scanning back in.
Thanks,
Jeff
Adobe sign?
Were you able to integrate Adobe Sign with E10?
Not at the moment, it is a manual process, the person who received back the signature will do the processing.
However, when I have more time, I will use service connect to automate using email processing.
Jeff -
My company has had its share of discussions concerning the topic of electronic signatures as they relate to FAA oversight and/or regulations (understood that your company may have its own standards for electronic signatures that you’re hoping to maintain, as well).
My understanding from all of our internal communication and research on this topic, the FAA has established no exact regulation on electronic signature methods or standards.
To make sure, I posed this question to our Director of Quality a mere few minutes ago and this was his response:
*"So, through my extensive research I have not been able to find anything in current FAA regulation and/or documents regarding electronic signatures in the aerospace manufacturing world. There is a multitude of guidance for the maintenance world that is really not applicable for our manufacturing environment.
Obviously, your aviation manufacturing environment would be different than ours, but the point is, there seems to be no “official FAA regulation” covering electronic signature requirements.
There is this particular advisory circular (AC 120-78A) that discusses electronic signatures, but it also states:
“This advisory circular (AC), as any AC, is not mandatory and does not constitute a regulation; rather, it provides standards and guidance for electronic signatures, electronic recordkeeping, and electronic manual systems.”
One idea we tried as an internal proof-of-concept to a very specific Epicor customization was to scan handwritten signatures taken from DERs, QA Inspectors, MDRs, etc - and process them as graphic assets (png, jpg, gif). These asset files were then placed in a separate “Signatures” folder right next to the “Reports” folder on our SSRS report server.
We then placed Epicor user accounts into very specific security groups based on their authorized qualifications as a DER, QA Inspector, or MDR. Our Epicor customization was arranged so that access to the form module itself, or controls within the form module, were accessible only to those accounts in certain security groups – which included “signature buttons”. The idea was fairly simple: if I log into Epicor and I am in a particular security group that has permissions for a signature button, then I can see that button on the form module (which means I am authorized to sign-off for a process on that form). If not, I don’t even see that button, or signature field (the button merely places the signed-in user’s name as a session variable into the field).
When I’m ready to print the internal document from this form module, the SSRS report translates the user sign-off value into the physical graphic file that resides within the “Signatures” folder on the SSRS report server:
Example 1
Example 2
Notice that the same “John Doe” signature example above can be reproduced anywhere that specific user had been authorized to “sign” – i.e. “click on the signature button”.
Now, stating all of this, I do understand that the FAA certification document is a different animal altogether because it’s a controlled document. However, you may be able to see if your local FAA rep (who normally conducts final cert inspections with your DER) can authorize your site to create and maintain “reasonable facsimiles” of the official certification document on your SSRS report server. This could be an option, if the agreement is approved – but you’d need to consult with your FAA rep to arrange that agreement in writing.
So, when under an FAA audit and your FAA rep requests the certification document for aircraft #12345, you can jump into Epicor and print that record out, complete with the authorized inspection sign-off.
We have not pursued this as an option in our environment (concerning the FAA certification document), but we have reproduced the 8110-3 on our SSRS report server for a different solution in Epicor relating to non-conformances.
I know this technically doesn’t answer your original question in any direct manner, but I figured I’d give you some info to kick around a bit.
1 Like
Thanks - I’ll look into it.
Thanks, Bill. This is great info! This approach is very much how we would like things to work. I’ll get with our other internal folks and see what it would take to implement in our particular production environment.
-Jeff