In case the answer you were looking for in this FAQ section is not available: you might submit your enquiry here.
The Agency drafts regulatory material as Implementing Rules, Acceptable Means of Compliance, Guidance Material and Certification Specifications. These are available for consultation (as Terms of Reference, Notices of Proposed Amendment and Comment Response Documents). After consultation, the Implementing Rules are sent to the European Commission as Opinions.
Following publication of the Opinions, responsibility for completing the decision-making process prior to the Regulation’s publication in the Official Journal of the European Union passes onto the European Commission. The Opinions’ progress can be followed via the European Commission’s comitology website. It is advisable to search by year and for the committee dealing with these Opinions: Committee for the application of common safety rules in the field of civil aviation. As several Opinions may be negotiated in one such committee meeting, it is difficult to search by rule or title.
Once the committee has adopted the draft regulation, it is passed on to the European Parliament and Council for scrutiny. Further information and links to the documents under scrutiny can be found via the European Parliament’s Register of Documents.
The Agency is responsible for finalising the associated Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC), Guidance Material (GM) and Certification Specifications. As these need to take into account any changes made to the Cover Regulation and Implementing Rules by the EASA Committee, European Parliament and Council, the Decisions are published on the Agency website shortly after the date when their corresponding regulation has been published in the Official Journal.
This whole sequence is illustrated in the diagram below.
The Agency also publishes a rulemaking programme, listing the tasks that are ongoing and advance planning. It is available here.
Under the Treaty the European Commission is responsible for the required implementation of Community legislation in many areas. When exercising these delegated powers it is often obliged to work with national civil servants appointed by Member States in different committees. These committees, which are a forum for discussions and the voicing of opinions, are chaired by the European Commission.
For the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 (the Basic Regulation, BR) the European Commission is assisted by the EASA committee and the Single European Sky committee. Another committee of importance as regards aviation safety is the Air Safety committee, which is best known for being the guardian of the so called ‘Safety list’ as provided by Directive 2004/36/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on the safety of third-country aircraft using Community airports.
The procedures which govern the work of these committees follow the standard procedures established in Regulation (EU) 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers. It replaces Decision 1999/468/EC. This Regulation introduces a new ‘comitology’ procedure, which gives somewhat amended rights to Member States to control the way the Commission uses its delegated powers. The powers conferred to the European Parliament have been reduced slightly by the new Regulation and an Appeals Committee has been introduced in case no agreement can be reached in the committee. The latest comitology regulation can be consulted using the following link.
In principle the new comitology works as follows:
For the adoption of detailed implementing rules, the basic act may provide for the application of the examination procedure or the advisory procedure, taking into account the nature or the impact of the implementing act required.
The examination procedure applies, in particular, for the adoption of:
- Implementing acts of general scope;
- Other implementing acts relating to:
- programmes with substantial implications;
- the common agricultural and common fisheries policies;
- the environment, security and safety, or protection of the health or safety, of humans, animals or plants;
- the common commercial policy;
The advisory procedure applies, as a general rule, for the adoption of implementing acts not falling within the ambit of the aforementioned areas. However, the advisory procedure may apply for the adoption of the implementing acts referred to there in duly justified cases.
For the adoption of EASA implementing measures in the field of ATM/ANS and aerodromes only one procedure is relevant: the examination procedure.
However, to understand comitology in conjunction with the ATM and aerodromes regulatory processes it should be taken into account that the BR still refers to the old comitology process. In particular Articles 8a (Aerodromes) and 8c (Air Traffic Controllers) refer to Article 65(4) of the BR, which reads as follows:
Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5a (1) to (4), and Article 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, having regard to the provisions of Article 8 thereof.
Under the old regime this was dealt with by Single Sky and EASA committees using the Regulatory Procedure with Scrutiny.
Article 8b of the BR, however, refers to Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004, which reads as follows:
Where reference is made to this paragraph, Articles 5 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, having regard to the provisions of Article 8 thereof.
This was dealt with by the Single Sky Committee under the Regulatory Procedure (without scrutiny).
As said before, the new Regulation 182/2011 repeals the old comitology Decision, however, its Article 12 indicates that:
- The effects of Article 5a of Decision 1999/468/EC shall be maintained for the purposes of existing basic acts making reference thereto.
So the regulatory procedure with scrutiny stays.
Article 13 indicates:
c. where the basic act makes reference to Article 5 of Decision 1999/468/EC, the examination procedure referred to in Article 5 of this Regulation shall apply ….
This means that the examination procedure replaces the old regulatory procedure. However, the examination procedure does not differ very much from the regulatory procedure. The whole procedure stays with the Single Sky committee and the EASA committee, even if no agreement is reached. It may in that case go to an appeal committee. In exceptional cases there may even be a consultation round by the Commission amongst the Member States. The Council is no longer involved. Parliament is involved only at a distance.
Procedures applicable to aerodromes rules and ATCO licensing will hardly change.
Procedures applicable to ATM/ANS rulemaking will stay within the SSC, with possibility of appeals committee; there is no Council involvement; Parliament’s involvement only on distance.
Implementing rules are Commission Regulations. They are usually composed of a short introductory regulation, colloquially known as ‘cover regulation’, and Annexes thereto, containing the technical requirements for implementation. In the EASA system, these Annexes are usually called Parts (e.g. Part-21 is an Annex to Regulation 1702/2003).
The ‘cover’ regulation is usually short (3-4 pages) and it includes:
- Considering clauses (“whereas”), explaining the principles and considerations that lead the legislator when adopting the Regulation;
- A description of the objective and scope of the regulation;
- Definitions that are used throughout the Regulation and its Annexes;
- the establishment of the applicability of its annex(es)
- Conversion and transition measures
This question relates to the English writing standards used in Community legislation. The following link gives access to the English Style Guide prepared by the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Translation. Guidance concerning the use of verbs in legislation can be found in paragraphs 6.14-6.22, as well as an explanation of the distinction between the verbs used in enacting or non-enacting terms. For more information click here . The Joint Practical Guide of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission also gives guidance on the principles of drafting Community legislation, for more information click here
The Lisbon Treaty, the latest primary treaty at EU level, was signed on 13 December 2007 and entered into force on 1 December 2009.
The European Union has been given a single legal personality under this Treaty.
Previously, the European Community and the European Union had different statutes and did not operate the same decision-making rules. The Lisbon Treaty ended this dual system.
On practical terms, all EU legislation has the reference to the EU since 1 December 2009. Up till then, the reference was made to the European Community (EC) as only this body had legal personality.
EASA is committed to facilitating the production of good quality translations. To ensure this and, where necessary, to improve, EASA has set up a Translation Working Group in 2008. This Working Group is made up of members of the National Aviation Authorities (NAAs), the Translation Centre of the EU Bodies (CdT), as well as EASA staff members. Also, EASA in cooperation with NAAs and CdT, is developing glossaries in the different aviation domains, such as Air Operations or Air Traffic Management, to enhance the quality of translations. The Member States also contribute to this project in order to capitalise on existing material and experience.
The final responsibility for translations lies with the EU Commission. The correction of translation mistakes of the Implementing Rules follows the same formal procedure as for their adoption: 1. preparation of the proposal, 2. interservice consultation, 3. committee, 4. scrutiny of European Parliament and of European Council, and 5. adoption. For minor mistakes, the procedure may be shorter. In any case, the linguistic changes will have to be agreed by the Commission’s translation services. These linguistic services will check that no substantial change is introduced, that the term used is acceptable according to an internal translation code or that the same change is included in all linguistic versions.
Implementing Rules (IR) are binding in their entirety and used to specify a high and uniform level of safety and uniform conformity and compliance. The IRs are adopted by the European Commission in the form of Regulations.
Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC) are non-binding. The AMC serves as a means by which the requirements contained in the Basic Regulation, and the IR, can be met. However, applicants may decide to show compliance with the requirements using other means. Both NAAs and organisations may propose alternative means of compliance. ‘Alternative Means of Compliance’ are those that propose an alternative to an existing AMC. Those Alternative Means of Compliance proposals must be accompanied by evidence of their ability to meet the intent of the IR. Use of an existing AMC gives the user the benefit of compliance with the IR.
Certification Specifications (CS) are non-binding technical standards adopted by the EASA to meet the essential requirements of the Basic Regulation. CSs are used to establish the certification basis (CB) as described below. Should an aerodrome operator not meet the recommendation of the CS, they may propose an Equivalent Level of Safety (ELOS) that demonstrates how they meet the intent of the CS. As part of an agreed CB, the CS become binding on an individual basis to the applicant.
Special Conditions (SC) are non-binding special detailed technical specifications determined by the NAA for an aerodrome if the certification specifications established by the EASA are not adequate or are inappropriate to ensure conformity of the aerodrome with the essential requirements of Annex Va to the Basic Regulation. Such inadequacy or inappropriateness may be due to:
- the design features of the aerodrome; or
- where experience in the operation of that or other aerodromes, having similar design features, has shown that safety may be compromised.
SCs, like CSs, become binding on an individual basis to the applicant as part of an agreed CB.
Guidance Material (GM) is non-binding explanatory and interpretation material on how to achieve the requirements contained in the Basic Regulation, the IRs, the AMCs and the CSs. It contains information, including examples, to assist the user in the interpretation and application of the Basic Regulation, its IRs, AMCs and the CSs.
Starting with 2015, the European Union adopts a new numbering system for its legal acts. (see Harmonising the numbering of EU Legal Acts)
The implementation of the Basic Regulation and its implementing regulations by Member States is subject to the European Union oversight.
According to Article 54 of the Basic Regulation - Inspections of Member States - the Agency shall assist the Commission in monitoring such implementation by conducting standardisation inspections. Upon the standardisation inspection the Agency establishes an inspection report where it addresses findings identified during the inspection and which will be sent to the Member State concerned and to the Commission. In cases of non-compliance, the Commission may initiate an infringement procedure.
Additionally, in accordance with Article 11 (2), the Commission, on its own initiative or at the request of a Member State or the Agency, may initiate a comitology procedure to decide whether a certificate issued in accordance with the Basic Regulation and its implementing regulations effectively complies with them. In case of non-compliance, the Commission shall require the issuer of a certificate to take appropriate corrective action, such as limitation or suspension of that certificate. Moreover, once the Commission issues such a decision, the obligation of mutual recognition of certificates ceases to apply to the other Member States. Once the Commission has sufficient evidence that appropriate corrective action has been taken, it will decide that mutual recognition shall be restored.
Until now no such measure has been undertaken.
The implementing rule will be available in all official languages of the European Union. They will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and can also be searched electronically in the database EUR-LEX. And later on also on the EASA web site.
AMC, GM and CS will be available on the website of EASA in English only.
Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 of 15 July 2002 gave responsibility to the Agency for the airworthiness and environmental certification of all aeronautical products, parts, and appliances designed, manufactured, maintained or used by persons under the regulatory oversight of EU Member States. This includes all post-certification activities, such as the approval of changes to, and repairs of, aeronautical products and their components, as well as the issuing of airworthiness directives to correct any potentially unsafe situation. Furthermore, the Agency is in charge of the oversight of EU organisations involved in the design of aeronautical products, parts and appliances as well as of non-EU organisations involved in the manufacture or maintenance of such products. In these domains the Agency has taken over the certification tasks that were under the responsibility of Member States.
Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 that extended the scope of Community competence to air operations, flight crew licences and aircraft used by third country operators into, within or out of the Community gave the Agency additional operational responsibilities. In the field of flight crew licensing, the Agency is responsible for the approval and oversight of pilot training organisations and aero-medical centres located outside the territory of the Community; the certification of flight simulation training devices used by the training organisations it certifies, or located outside the territory of the Community, or located in the Community territory, if the member State concerned so requests. In the field of operations, the Agency was given the power to determine corrective actions and disseminate information to react without undue delay to a problem affecting the safety of air operations. Regarding third country operators, the Agency is competent for the authorisation and oversight of commercial operators; for the oversight of non-commercial operators, when they need to declare their activities; and for the authorisation of third country aircraft when they or their crews do not comply with ICAO Standards.
The Agency’ responsibilities were further extended by Regulation (EC) No 1108/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009. The provisions of the Regulation ensure precise, uniform and binding rules for aerodrome operations and operators, air traffic management and air navigation service provision. Moreover, based on the new ATM/ANS rules the Agency will commence its standardisation inspections in ATM/ANS from 2012 onwards aiming at ensuring a uniform implementation of the common rules but also at reinforcing the national competent authorities in their important oversight role.. With the extension to ATM/ANS, the Agency is empowered to take the necessary measures related to certification and oversight of Pan-European and third country ATM/ANS organisations, as well as for the air traffic controllers’ training organisations located outside the territory of the Community.
These new competences taken on by the EASA system allow a more comprehensive and uniform approach to safety regulation across all fields of aviation and ensure that common safety rules are applied in all phases of flight, starting from the tarmac.
Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 that extended the scope of Community competence to air operations, flight crew licences and aircraft used by third country operators into, within or out of the Community gave the Agency additional operational responsibilities. Regarding third country operators, the Agency is competent for the authorisation and oversight of commercial operators; for the oversight of non-commercial operators, when they need to declare their activities; and for the authorisation of third country aircraft when they or their crews do not comply with ICAO Standards.
With regard to third country operators the Basic Regulation specifically requires that:
- all third country operators (their aircraft, the crews and the operations) comply with the ICAO Standards. To the extent that there are no such standards, these aircraft and their operations shall comply with the Essential Requirements for airworthiness, pilot licensing and air operations as laid down in Annexes I, III and IV of the Basic Regulation, provided these requirements are not in conflict with the rights of third countries under international conventions (article 9(1));
- third country operators engaged in commercial operations receive an authorization issued by the Agency (article 9(2)); and
- third country operators engaged in non-commercial operations of complex motor-powered aircraft may be required to submit a declaration to the Agency (article 9(3)).
The detailed provisions on how to meet the above requirements of the Basic Regulation will be contained in Implementing Rules and relevant Operations Specifications and guidance material. These provisions will address the conditions, privileges and responsibilities associated with the relevant provisions of the Basic Regulation (of articles 9(1), 9(2) and 9(3)) as outlined in the above bullet points above; as well as aircraft or crew which do not hold a standard ICAO certificate of airworthiness or licence. These provisions will make use of ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs); will not exceed any requirements for Community operators; and will contain a simple, proportionate, cost-effective and efficient process for authorizations of commercial operations. The authorization process will take account of results of the ICAO Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme (USOAP), information from ramp inspections and other recognised information on safety aspects with regard to the operator concerned (article 9(4)). The Implementing Rules will address the process for the authorization of a commercial operator, including any conditions that would necessitate an audit.
Third country aircraft operating within the EU are subject to oversight by the Member States in accordance with Directive 2004/36/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on the safety of third-country aircraft using Community airports, the so-called SAFA Directive. This Directive establishes a harmonised approach for the exchange of information, the execution of ramp inspections and the grounding of third-country aircraft landing at airports located in the Member States. The new Implementing Rules will incorporate the SAFA Directive while maintaining the same principles and competencies of oversight by Member States.
The Implementing Rules and supplemental material associated to third country operators are currently being developed by the Agency. These will be published for consultation in due course and will subsequently be transmitted to the European Commission as an Opinion for consideration when adopting these Implementing Rules.
The provisions for third country operators as outlined above will then become applicable from the date specified in the relevant Implementing Rules during their adoption, but not later than 8 April 2012 (article 70). Until then, the SAFA Directive and national rules of Member States continue to apply.
[3a of amending Regulation (EC) No 1108/2009] Aerodromes, including equipment, located in the territory subject to the provisions of the treaty, open to public use and which serve commercial air transport and where operations using instrument approach or departure procedures are provided, and:
- have a paved runway of 800 metres or above; or
- exclusively serve helicopters;
shall comply with this Regulation. Personnel and organisations involved in the operation of these aerodromes shall comply with this Regulation.
The Agency has concluded after a thorough review that the current Basic Regulation and Part 21 do not provide for the approval of manufacturers of raw materials. Only organisations responsible for the manufacturing and subsequent release of a 'product' and 'parts and appliances' as defined in the Basic Regulation Article 3 (c) and (d) are required to hold a POA and are therefore eligible to apply for such an approval. ED Decision 2007/012/R introduced an amendment to AMC/GM to Part-21 bringing all AMC and GM to Part 21 back into line with the EC Regulations regarding this issue and thus removing any ambiguity.
Because Agency ED Decision 2004/04/CF automatically approves minor changes and major level 2 changes to FAA STCs when made by the STC holder on his own STC, the scope of the EASA STC is considered to be the same as the scope of the original FAA STC. Therefore there is no need for an application and the STC can be applied to all models listed on the FAA STC.
A Part 145 approved organisation can only fabricate parts for its own use in accordance with approved design data (145.A.42(c)). If that data comes from the Type Certificate holder; 21A.804(a)(3) would not be applicable and those parts will not need EPA marking. If the data comes from a Supplemental Type Certificate holder, minor change approval holder or repair approval holder, the parts will have to be marked as prescribed in the applicable data which should include an EPA marking since 28/3/2004.
Article 6 of the Basic Regulation transposes into Community law the International standards of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) related to the environmental certification of aeronautical products. The Agency is involved, together with the Commission, in the further development of such standards to ensure that they do take into account Community objectives in this field. Another important task of the Agency is to verify that the design of products comply with environmental requirements. The Agency shall therefore establish and notify the appropriate environmental requirements for each product for which environmental certification is required and issue the appropriate environmental certificates.
Such powers are established by articles 20(d) and (h) respectively of the Basic Regulation and further detailed in Part 21.A.18 "Designation of applicable environmental protection requirements and certification specifications" of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1702/2003
First of all it should be clear that the definition of "parts and appliances" (Refer to article 3 of the Basic Regulation) includes software. This is software that is installed in an aircraft and used in operating or controlling that aircraft. The rest of this response only refers to this type of software.
Secondly, "Subpart K - Parts and appliances" from Part-21 addressing installation, approval and release is applicable to this software and therefore:
- this software must be part of the design data; and
- the installation of this software in a type-certified aircraft is only accepted when it is accompanied by an EASA Form 1 and properly marked; and
- the installation is approved. (Refer to 21A.303).
In order to achieve 1) and 2), the organisation that manufactures and releases the software must meet the requirements of Subpart F or G from Part-21. This means in particular that the software must be part of the scope of that production organisation and there must be a link between the design organisation and the production organisation.
The conclusion for Field Loadable Software is therefore that this software can be delivered with an EASA Form 1 when:
- it is part of design data for which approval has been applied or granted; and.
- it is produced by, and within the scope of a production organisation that meets the requirements of Subpart F or G.
Marking of this Field Loadable Software must be in accordance with Subpart Q of Part-21. For practical reasons the marking could be on the software "container" (e.g. the CD carrying the software).
The term "critical part" or "critical component" is used in various EASA requirements, certification specifications and also in the EU-US bilateral, however it is not always defined.
A general definition does not exist. There are currently basically three different definitions:
- for rotorcraft:
CS 27-29-VLR.602(a): A critical part is a part, the failure of which could have a catastrophic effect upon the rotorcraft, and for which critical characteristics have been identified which must be controlled to ensure the required level of integrity.
- for engines, propellers and APUs:
CS-E.510(c) It is recognised that the probability of Primary Failures of certain single elements cannot be sensibly estimated in numerical terms. If the Failure of such elements is likely to result in Hazardous Engine Effects, reliance must be placed on meeting the prescribed integrity specifications of CS-E 515 (Engine critical parts) in order to support the objective of an Extremely Remote probability of Failure.
(similar for CS-P.150(c) and CS-P.160 and also for CS-APU.210(c) and CS-APU.150)
- in the EU-US bilateral:
A "Critical component" means a part identified as critical by the design approval holder during the product type validation process, or otherwise by the exporting authority. Typically, such components include parts for which a replacement time, inspection interval, or related procedure is specified in the Airworthiness Limitations section or certification maintenance requirements of the manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.
Each of the above definitions should be used only within their own context and for their own purpose i.e. the definition of the bilateral is only relevant for the automatic acceptance of PMA parts and repair design from the US. Where the term "critical part" is not defined the dictionary meaning of "critical" should be used i.e. crucial, decisive, important, etc.
For the application of Part 21A.805 critical parts are those identified as such by the design approval holder, which for rotorcraft, engines, propellers and APUs as a minimum should be those using the definitions of the relevant CS.
Part-66 licences are required for:
- certifying the release to service of aircraft after maintenance,
- work in maintenance organisations as support staff.
Aircraft affected are those covered by the Basic Regulation. See the definition in Articles 1 and 4 of the Basic Regulation.
Release to service of piston-engine non-pressurised aircraft of 2000 Kg MTOM and below not involved in CAT do not need a Part-66 licence until 28 September 2014.
Release to service of ELA1 aeroplanes not involved in CAT do not need a Part-66 licence until 28 September 2015.
Release to service of sailplanes, balloons, and airships do not need a Part-66.
Other activities within maintenance organisations do not need Part-66 licences.
In a Part-145 approved organisation, the different categories of Part-66 licences are:
Certifying the release of aircraft after:
|A||Minor scheduled line maintenance and simple defect rectification||Line station|
|B1||Maintenance performed on aircraft structure, powerplant and mechanical and electrical systems, avionic systems requiring simple tests to prove their serviceability and no troubleshooting||Line station|
|B3||Maintenance activities on non-pressurized aeroplanes of 2T MTOM and below.||Line station|
|B2||Maintenance performed on avionic and electrical systems and electric and avionics tasks within powerplant and mechanical systems requiring only simple test and minor scheduled line maintenance and simple defect rectification||Line station|
|C||Base maintenance activities||Base|
|Support staff for:|
No, unless the basic knowledge got outside of the EU is acquired in a Part-147 training organisation approved by EASA, according to 66.B.405.
- there is a bilateral agreement between your country and the EU (the Agency is not aware of any such agreement),
- the national licence was valid within EU before the entry into force of the Regulation.
The holder of a JAR-66 licence may get a Part-66 licence by conversion only when the licence has been issued by a JAA Member State which has successfully completed the JAR-66 Review Board process. If a country is not in the list shown in this EASA document, no conversion can be made.
More details are shown on the Mutual recognition page
The holders of a JAR-66 licence issued from a country not in this list are not eligible to a conversion. They are required to demonstrate compliance with all requirements.
According to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1149/2011 of 21 October 2011 (amending Regulation (EC) No 2042/2003), the basic examinations shall be passed and experience shall be acquired within the ten years preceding the application for an aircraft basic licence.
The new regulation also states that for the purpose of time limits related to basic knowledge examinations, basic experience acquired before the Regulation applies, the origin of time shall be the date by which this Regulation applies, which is 01/08/2012 (which means until 31/07/2022).
Type ratings should be endorsed on the Part-66 licence in accordance with the list of type ratings shown in the ED Decision posted under the Aircraft type ratings for Part-66 aircraft maintenance licence page.
This list does not contain any Annex II aircraft as these are out of the scope of Basic Regulation according to subparagraph 4 of Article 4 on the maintenance field.
However, a Part-66 licence includes a page whose title is: ‘Annex to EASA Form 26’ and this page is dedicated to national privileges. When an aircraft is under the remit of the Member State, then such aircraft may be endorsed under these provisions. This is typically the case of Annex II aircraft.
The requirement of 6 months’ experience within the preceding 2 years is only for the validity of the certification authorisation. The licence itself is valid 5 years from the last renewal. Only the certification privileges are affected by the recency of experience.
To regain your experience, you may:
- either continue to accumulate maintenance experience until you gain the missing time required, or
- meet the provisions for the issue of appropriate privileges, which means:
- going to a type-training course again, including OJT as necessary, or
- when the aircraft does not require a training (aircraft belonging in Group 2 or 3), pass a type-examination, including practical assessment. See GM 66.A.20(b)2.
Neither a short period of job training session nor an aircraft type refresher training are acceptable.
Demonstration of experience should be made on similar aircraft.
Definition of ‘similar’ aircraft is provided by the AMC to 66.A.20(b)2.
No, you lose only your rights to exercise your privileges of certifying staff or support staff. The licence remains valid.
The list of typical tasks to be carried out by a category A certifying staff at line shown in the AMC include a line r. stating: “Any other task agreed by the competent authority as a simple task for a particular aircraft type. This may include defect deferment when all the following conditions are met:
- there is no need for troubleshooting; and
- the task is in the MEL, and
- the maintenance action required by the MEL is agreed by the competent authority to be simple.
When these conditions are met, your authority may allow other tasks to be carried out under AMC 145.A.30g.
Yes, if the following conditions are met for the theoretical + practical parts of type training:
- the course has been attended and the exams passed in a Part-147 approved training organisation,
- or in another organisation, provided the course has been directly approved by the authority who issued the licence as per 66.B.130,
- and for B1 and B2 licences, in case where the aircraft type is the first in a licence category or subcategory, an OJT training has been performed.
As per Appendix I to AMC to Part-66, the A330 type rating is a different rating from the A320, therefore the differences should be covered, and:
- a complete theoretical + practical course is required on A330, or
- a differences training course is also an acceptable solution. See Appendix III point 1(c).
As per the new Regulation (EC) No. 1149/2011, the practical element of training is no longer a question of time. The duration of the practical training should be adequate in order to complete the contents required by paragraph 3.2 of Appendix III to Part-66.
For aeroplanes with a MTOM equal or above 30.000 kg the duration for the practical element of a type rating training course should not be less than two weeks.
In addition, for B1 and B2 licences, where the aircraft is the first in a licence category or subcategory, an OJT training shall be performed.
Type training courses started and finished before 01 Aug 2012 can be used for rating endorsement application until 31 July 2015.
Any theoretical type training course finished after 01 Aug 2012 can be used for rating endorsement application until 3 years after they were started (even in the case where they were started before 01 Aug 2012).
Any practical type training course finished after 01 Aug 2012 can be used for rating endorsement application until 3 years after they were started (even in the case where they were started before 01 Aug 2012).
OJT is not a substitution for a practical element of the type training course and it is not any more part of a type rating training, as it was in Part-66 before being changed by Regulation 1149/2011.
66.A.45(c) states the following:
‘ In addition to the requirement of point (b), the endorsement of the first aircraft type rating within a given category/sub-category requires satisfactory completion of the corresponding On the Job Training, as described in Appendix III to Annex III (Part-66) (point 6).’
An OJT is required for the endorsement of the first type rating in a new category/sub-category. It shall be set and carried out in an approved maintenance organisation (Part-145 or M/F). Previous approval by the AML authority is required.
It shall be started and completed within 3 years preceding the application of the type rating endorsement.
Not only, because it is required that:
- the tasks for an OJT must be representative of the aircraft: this means that the tasks listed in Appendix II which are representative of the aircraft or another model in the type rating should be kept and those not representative be disregarded,
- some tasks should be selected from each paragraph of the Appendix II list: this means that it is not necessary to perform exactly 50% in each ATA chapter,
- new tasks more representative of the type of aircraft may be added by the maintenance organisation,
- the OJT tasks should be selected because of their frequency, safety, novelty: tasks selected among those frequently carried out by the organisation on this type or more related to safety should be deleted.
The AMC states that the tasks are representative of the licence (sub)category applied for. This means that:
- the tasks should identify whether they relate to a B1.1, B1.3 licence … or to a B2,
- and be adapted to the privilege of each licence category / subcategory as defined in 66.A.20(a)3:
- for a B1 licence: aircraft structure, powerplant and mechanical and electrical systems + work on avionics system with simple test but not including troubleshooting,
- and those related to a B2: avionics, aircraft electrical system tasks and avionics/electrical tasks within mechanical and powerplant systems.
EASA is not a licensing authority and therefore does not issue any licences. Part-66 licences are issued by the competent authorities of the EU Member States, plus Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. The list of the National Aviation Authorities and their contact details can be accessed here: http://easa.europa.eu/the-agency/member-states .
An application for an aircraft maintenance licence or change to such licence shall be made on an EASA Form 19 in a manner established by the competent authority and submitted thereto (see Appendix V to Part-66). An application for the change to an EASA Part-66 licence shall be made to the competent authority of the Member State that previously issued the aircraft maintenance licence. Each application shall be supported by documentation to demonstrate compliance with the applicable theoretical knowledge, practical training and experience requirements at the time of application.
Maintenance experience should be written up in a manner that the reader has a reasonable understanding of where, when and what maintenance constitutes the experience. A task-by-task account is not necessary, but at the same time a bland statement such as “X years maintenance experience completed” would not be acceptable. A maintenance log book detailing the experience is desirable and some competent authorities may require such a log book (see AMC 66.A.10).
Consequently, the format used to evidence the maintenance experience is not strictly defined in the rules and is left at the discretion of the competent authority issuing the licence. Hence, EASA advises you follow the instructions of the competent authority where you intend to apply for.
According to the AMC 66.A.30(a)(4), aircraft maintenance experience gained within different types of maintenance organisations (under Part-145, M.A. Subpart F, FAR-145, etc.) or under the supervision of independent certifying staff may be accepted by the competent authorities. This means that the aircraft maintenance experience may be accepted by the competent authority when such maintenance is performed in a maintenance organisation which does not necessarily hold an EASA Part-145 approval. However, it is on the competent authority to evaluate whether this experience is acceptable.
Consequently, please contact the competent authority where you intend to apply for a licence, in order to check whether the basic experience would be acceptable, with detailed information on the type of aircraft, its operation and the nature of the work.
As stated in 66.A.30(e), for mechanics having a military background and seeking a Part-66 licence, the objective is to ensure adequate understanding of the civil aircraft maintenance environment, not only because of possible different aircraft technologies, but also because of practices linked to the civil environment.
Not only the technology or systems of the civil aircraft might differ from the military aircraft version configuration (e.g. no video entertainment system; no sliding chutes; different fuel or electrical systems) but the experience gained in the military environment might also significantly differ from the scope of work of the civil maintenance organisation, its procedures and policies (e.g. use and meaning of the certificate of release to service - EASA Form 1, standard parts, store and tools procedures, use of the maintenance documentation such as ADs, SB, SIL…, quality and safety management system; human factor aspects, continuing airworthiness record systems…).
In addition the interaction with the customers (i.e. the airliners) induces new practices such as use of the aircraft technical log book, MEL, aircraft defect rectification and deferment of items; use of customer documentation (e.g. MPD, MRB, SRM, IPC); interaction with the crew; how to behave with the passengers; special procedure such as (re)fuelling, de-icing /anti-icing; communication with the tower or moving on the apron.
Finally, the requirements for the continuing airworthiness of the aircraft might significantly evolve in the civil environment. To name a few, the following items can be reminded: ADs, SBs, operational directives, EASA requirements; records and archives; repairs and modifications (use of data, EASA/FAA rules; dual-release); special inspections (e.g. CPCP, EWIS); approved maintenance programme and its effectiveness / reliability; occurrence reporting; understanding of MSG-3 methods …
The military regulations widely differ from country to country, with certain countries having military rules similar to the EU ones, while others have very different rules. The 12-month additional civil maintenance experience average (as per AMC 66.A.30(e)), has been agreed by the Member States and accepted as a standard way to demonstrate compliance with the rule to achieve mutual recognition and adequate degree of standardisation.
Only approved Part-147 organisations are entitled to conduct type training courses in accordance with Article 6 of the Commission Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014. However, according to Appendix III to Part-66, other than Part-147 organisation (including Part-145 maintenance organisations and manufacturers) can be approved by their competent authorities to provide theoretical element (theoretical training and examination) and/or practical element (practical training and assessment) of aircraft type training. This so called “direct” approval may be given by the competent authority in accordance with 66.B.130 provided:
- This is a one-time approval on a case-by-case basis for a single course or a predefined group of courses i.e. Part-145 approved maintenance organisation cannot receive a permanent approval for aircraft type training.
- The course and the assessment complies with the same standard valid for approved Part-147 organisations; this standard is described in paragraph 1 to 4 of Appendix III to Part-66.
- No Part-147 Certificate of Recognition can be issued for the purpose of the mutual recognition between Member States. However, an appropriate training certificates can be issued after successful completion of both elements.
Directly approved aircraft type training course is only valid for Part-66 AML type rating endorsement in that Member State which has issued this direct approval, which means it cannot be used for aircraft type endorsement in other Member States (no mutual recognition of the certificate), unless this other competent authority has approved the course.
Basically, the requirements to extend a cat A licence towards a cat B1.1 are demonstration of :
- the basic knowledge required for the relevant subcategory B1.1; and
- the experience required by Appendix IV to Part-66.
Two years of practical maintenance experience on operating aircraft in the B1.1 category (not in the A category) is needed before applying for the extension in addition to the demonstration of basic knowledge required for the relevant subcategory B1.1.
The experience requirement will be reduced by 50% if the applicant has completed an approved Part-147 course relevant to the category extension according to Appendix IV of Part-66.
Regulation (EU) 1321/2014 does not require any medical examination before applying for a Part-66 licence.
In the past some medical criteria were proposed in JAR-66, but these were removed in order to avoid conflicts with national rules. JAR 66.A.50 had requirements on:
- use of alcohol at work,
- effects of medicines,
- physical conditions, vision, ability to see colours,
- mental conditions.
Current 145.A.30(e) requests certifying staff to receive a human factor training and GM 1 145.A.30 (e) gives guidance about the elements of the training to be imparted:
4 - Human performance & limitations
4.4 Attention and perception
4.5 Situational awareness
4.7 Claustrophobia and physical access
4.11 Workload management
4.13 Alcohol, medication, drugs
4.14 Physical work
4.15 Repetitive tasks / complacency
Common sense recommends the certifying staff not to exercise the privileges of their certification authorisation if they know or suspect that their physical or mental condition renders them unfit to exercise such privileges (impact to the safe maintenance operations). In addition such recommendation may be covered and rendered mandatory by the national requirements of the Member State where you exercise your privileges. Typical examples are for intoxication (alcohol, drugs, etc.).
It is therefore recommended that you inform the management of your maintenance organisation:
- as you should not deviate from the national law;
- as the organisation shall establish and control the competence of personnel; (145.A.30(e) – necessary expertise related to the job function);
- as the organisation shall have a human performance programme in place (145.A.35(e)); and
- as the ICAO safety management system encourages to identify hazards and risks.
Please find an agreement with your company in order to list the maintenance tasks that you are allowed to carry out without jeopardising the aircraft safety.
Note: The same reasoning as explained above applies for any medical condition.
Anybody able to pass the basic knowledge examinations and fulfil the basic experience requirements can get a Part-66 licence. There are no additional conditions such as a medical certificate or any other proof regarding the mental or physical abilities. In other words, people with specific learning difficulties or physical impairments are not discriminated by Part-66 or Part-147.
Obtaining the licence does not give the certification privileges. Before granting such privileges, the maintenance organisation will have first to check the competence, including the assessment of the skills and abilities and considering the Human Factors principles. The scope of the certification authorisation will be commensurate to these competence/abilities. Please note that in some EU Member States additional occupational safety and health requirements may apply (working on heights, confined spaces, etc.).
EASA does not plan to amend the regulations taking into account the cases of people with special needs during examinations: a single Regulation cannot cover all individual cases. This is why Basic Regulation (EU) No. 216/2008 includes the possibility for the Member States to apply Article 14.4 or 14.6 for exemption, after evaluation of these individual cases. To illustrate, such exemptions in the past have been positively instructed for candidates with confirmed dyslexia (i.e. 25% additional time).
By default, a category B3 licence is included in a category B1.2 licence because the basic knowledge requirements (66.A.25(a)) and the basic experience requirement (66.A.30) for a B3 licence are covered by the similar requirements of a B1.2 licence.
Provided that the qualification requirements are fulfilled, the B1.2 licence holder can release maintenance tasks performed on piston-engine non-pressurised aeroplanes of 2000 kg MTOM and below.
In particular the B1.2 licence holder would have to meet 66.A.20(b), which means that:
- the applicable requirements of Part-M and/or Part-145 will be complied; and
- in the preceding two-year period he/she has 6 months of maintenance experience in accordance with the privileges granted by the aircraft maintenance licence or; met the provision for the issue of the appropriate privileges; and
- he/she has the adequate competence to certify maintenance on the corresponding aircraft; and
- he/she is able to read, write and communicate to an understandable level in the language(s) in which the technical documentation and procedures necessary to support the issue of the certificate of release to service are written.
AMC 66.A.20(b) and GM 66.A.20(b) gives further explanations on the 6-months maintenance experience in the last 2 years, including demonstration of experience on at least one aircraft type per aircraft structure (metal, composite or wood).1
Aircraft type rating training must have been started and be completed within the 3 years preceding the application for a type rating endorsement (Part-66, Appendix III, paragraph 1 refers).
It does not make sense to attend in the first instance a TRT course with the intent of getting this TRT later endorsed on the maintenance licence for two main reasons:
- at the time the TRT is gained, the holder has no licence and it may take more than 3 years before the applicant is compliant with the basic knowledge (66.A.25) as well as the experience requirements (66.A.30). Therefore the applicant runs the risk to get its TRT certificate expired at the time he applies for the licence and the TRT endorsement; and
- From an intellectual point of view, this is not logical to demonstrate maintenance competence on a specific aircraft type without having acquired the basic knowledge, skills and attitude related to the maintenance and the technologies used in aviation in general.
Legally speaking the situation is not forbidden. However be sure that you get your licence within the 3-years’ timeframe from the date you passed the TRT course.
According to 66.B.100(b), the competent authority shall verify that all required modules of Appendix I to Part-66 related to that new (sub)category sought are met. Credit can be granted as regards to the basic knowledge of the (sub)category for which the licence has been already issued.
This means that a comparison of the basic knowledge (gap analysis) will have to be done between the different (sub)categories. Such a comparison has not been yet done once and for all in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014 due to the different potential cases (wide diversity of (sub)categories).
Therefore such a comparison should be done by the Member State that has already issued the Part-66 licence, before the applicant is enrolled in such a “gap” basic knowledge course.
Please contact your competent authority, which may have already performed this comparison. Some competent authorities may have already posted such comparison(s) on their websites; however be sure that the comparison relevant to your case is acceptable to the competent authority who issued your licence.
In addition the applicant will have to comply with the additional experience requirements for the new (sub)category sought, as detailed in Appendix IV to Part-66.
Examination is a written form of demonstration of a certain level of theoretical knowledge by the student based on achievement of the learning objectives, usually performed on completion of a theoretical training course or a portion of a course. The student shall demonstrate, to the levels identified in the table in Appendix III, the detailed theoretical knowledge of the aircraft’s applicable systems, structure, operations, maintenance, repair, and troubleshooting according to approved maintenance data, as well as the use of manuals and approved procedures, including the knowledge of relevant inspections and limitations. The standard, format, pass mark, etc. are defined in Appendix III, 4.1. The examination shall be performed by the appropriately trained and approved examiner.
Assessment is a practical form of measuring the competence of the student by evaluating three major factors associated to the learning objectives: knowledge, skills and attitude, usually performed on completion of a practical training course. The assessment should focus on the competencies relevant to the aircraft type and its maintenance. The principles on how to perform the competence assessments are given in the AMCs to Part-66, Appendix III. The assessment shall be performed by appropriately trained and approved assessors.
Regarding Part-66 Appendix III, point 5., “Type Examination Standard” does not apply to the examination performed as part of type training. This point only applies to those cases where type examination is performed as a substitute for type training, which means it is intended for the examinations conducted by (or on behalf of) the competent authority on those aircraft that do not require a type training (typically Group 2 and Group 3 aircraft according to Appendix I to the AMCs to Part-66). So, it is true that the examiners authorised by the competent authority shall not have been involved in the applicant's training. In all other cases AMC to Part-66 Appendix III applies, which means that the roles of the assessor and the instructor may be combined for the practical elements, depending on the size of the organisation.
Regarding the roles of examiners and assessors, these are different functions (which does not prevent that one person can’t be authorised both as examiner and assessor). Normally, these functions should not be confused. The expression “The examination shall be oral, written or practical assessment based, or a combination thereof, …” applies only for Section 5, i.e. “Type Examination Standard”.
The practical assessment addresses the practical portion of any type training whereas the OJT assessment addresses the additional practical experience necessary to gain in a true maintenance environment as part of the first type rating in a (sub)category, as illustrated by the table below:
|PRACTICAL ASSESSMENT||OJT ASSESSMENT
For the purpose of 66.A.45(c)
What/who is assessed:
Candidates following practical element of type training.
Completeness of the OJT.
Reference: 66.A.45 (a)(b); Appendix III, 4.2.; AMC Appendix III
Reference: 66.A.45 (c); Appendix III, section 6; AMC to Section 6 of Appendix III
Function of assessor:
To perform the final evaluation of the knowledge, skills and attitude of the trainee following the practical element of the type training
To conduct the final assessment of the completed OJT, whereas the candidate’s competence is indirectly justified.
Reference: Appendix III 4.2.; AMC Appendix III
Reference: Appendix III, 6.; AMC to Section 6 of Appendix III 8.
Always in a maintenance organisation approved under Part-145 or M.A. Subpart F with A rating
Reference: Appendix III 1(b)
Reference: Appendix III 6.; AMC to Section 6 of Appendix III 1.
To evaluate if the candidate has gained the required competence in performing safe maintenance, inspections and routine work according to the aircraft documentation and other relevant instructions and tasks as appropriate for the type of aircraft.
To confirm the completion of the required diversity and quantity of OJT, based on the supervisor(s) reports and feedback. It is sufficient that the completion of individual OJT tasks is confirmed by the direct supervisor(s), without being necessary the direct evaluation of the assessor.
Reference: Appendix III, 3.2.
Reference: AMC to Section 6 of Appendix III 7. & 8.
Type of assessment:
The assessment may be:
Reference: AMC to Part-66 Appendix III 2)
Reference: AMC to Section 6 of Appendix III to Part-66
Qualification of the assessor:
The assessment shall be performed by designated assessors appropriately qualified. It means that the assessors should demonstrate training and experience on the assessment process being undertaken and be authorised to do so by the organisation. Guidance about the qualification is given in AMC to Part-66 Appendix III 3.)
The OJT shall be assessed by designated assessors appropriately qualified. It means that the assessors should demonstrate training and experience on the assessment process being undertaken and be authorised to do so by the organisation. Guidance about the qualification is given in AMC to Part-66 Appendix III 3.)
Reference: Appendix III 4.2.; AMC to Part-66 Appendix III 3.)
Reference: Appendix III 6.; AMC to Part-66 Appendix III 3.)
Procedure included in:
Part-145 Exposition Manual (chapter 3.15) or “one-off” direct approval
Reference: Appendix III 1(b); Part-147
Reference: AMC 145.A.70 (a)
The completeness of the whole OJT process shall be assessed. The intent of the requirement is not to suggest that:
- there should be an assessment performed by the assessor on top of every task monitored by the supervisor; and/or
- at the very end of the OJT programme, there should be a comprehensive hands-on assessment of the candidate on a real aircraft as an additional and ultimate evaluation
All report(s) or feedback from the supervisor(s) having monitored every actual job task performance or any other source of information (use of manuals and procedures; observance of safety measures, warnings and recommendations; adequate behaviour in the maintenance environment), the designated assessor should be in a position to:
- ensure that the OJT procedure was fully met (in terms of objective and content); and
- check that the competence of the candidate was positively assessed.
In case of doubt, the assessor may decide to proceed him/herself to an additional evaluation of the candidate or perform a gap analysis when the OJT procedure is not fully met such as an insufficient number of tasks or diversity of tasks or unclear supervisor’s report regarding the candidate’s performance. The supervisor should not sign the actual task if the person did not achieve the required competence in safe task performance.
Note: It is worth being reminded here that OJT addresses:
- the first type rating in a (sub)category of aircraft; and
- subsequently addresses young mechanics (e.g. “newcomers”) or mechanics having no experience in that new (sub)category of aircraft (e.g. extension of the license).
AMC to Section 6. of Appendix III to Part-66 gives more clarification about the assessment process and the function of the assessor:
- “It is sufficient that the completion of individual OJT tasks is confirmed by the direct supervisor(s), without being necessary the direct evaluation of the assessor”, and
- “The function of the assessor, as described in Section 6 of Appendix III to Part-66, is to conduct the final assessment of the completed OJT. This assessment should include confirmation of the completion of the required diversity and quantity of OJT and should be based on the supervisor(s) reports and feedback”.
It is left to the decision of the competent authority how to comply with this requirement: the AMC as suggested by the Agency aims at avoiding additional burden, duplication or over-regulation while proposing a simple final evaluation process.
OJT shall be performed on the aircraft type for which the applicant is seeking type endorsement. The objective of the OJT is to gain the required competence and experience in performing safe maintenance on that particular aircraft type.
However, a certain number of tasks may be performed on other aircraft type(s) (typically from the same manufacturer), only in the cases where such tasks are very similar to the tasks applicable to the aircraft type for which the candidate seeks the type endorsement. The AMC to section 6. of Appendix III to Part-66 states: “Tasks should be selected among those applicable to type of aircraft and licence (sub)category applied for.” Tasks applicable to the aircraft type may be found also on other aircraft types, perhaps not many, but some may fulfil the requirement. A good example would be same engine types installed on different aircraft types (i.e. CFM56 installed on A320 Family and B737). The location of LRUs, oil servicing, IDG, generator, filter change, engine standard practices, etc., those tasks often do not depend on the specific aircraft type (even could be performed off-wing or on spare engine), except the tasks belonging to the airframe - engine interface. The similar can also be applied for the same type of APU installed on different aircraft types or a limited number of other components/systems. Consequently, this may be acceptable, if properly justified to the competent authority within the MOE Chapter 3.15. This flexibility provision is applicable for a limited number of tasks and should not be used to conduct the entire OJT on other aircraft type(s) showing similarities.
As agreed during the Standardisation Meeting with the competent authorities, as a minimum, the OJT procedure should describe the following elements:
- Content of the OJT: the list of tasks that should be performed during the OJT or a list of generic tasks and the process how to develop a list of particular tasks out of this list of generic tasks,
- Qualifications of the assessor and supervisors performing the OJT,
- OJT logbook/worksheets format and content,
- OJT compliance report format and content
- Production planning for the implementation of OJT (how to plan the tasks),
- Supervision process and the assessment process, what to do if the assessment is not positive,
- Safe release to service of the aircraft after OJT.
Note: AMC to Section 6. of Appendix III to Part-66 should be used when defining the content of the procedure.
Please review the extracted requirements here below from Part-66 Appendix III, Section 6:
- ‘On-the-Job Training (OJT) shall be approved by the competent authority who has issued the licence.’
- ‘It shall be conducted at and under the control of a maintenance organisation appropriately approved for the maintenance of the particular aircraft type’.
- ‘OJT shall cover a cross section of tasks acceptable to the competent authority’.
- ‘In order to facilitate the verification by the competent authority, demonstration of the OJT shall consist of:
- detailed worksheets/logbook and
- (ii) a compliance report demonstrating how the OJT meets the requirement of this Part.’
Since the procedure in MOE is approved by the competent authority of the maintenance organisation, it can only be used when the licensing authority is the same as the competent authority of the maintenance organisation. AMC 66.B.115(c) states that “in the case where the licensing competent authority is different from the competent authority of the maintenance organisation which provides the OJT, your licensing authority may take into consideration the fact that the maintenance organisation has the OJT programme already accepted by their own competent authority (through chapter 3.15 of the MOE, as described in AMC 145.A.70(a))”.
Since your competent authority is responsible for the issue and extension of your licence, please follow the instruction of your competent authority and try to find a solution based on the above AMC.
Yes, part-M is applicable to part-145 organisations.
Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) 2042/2003 states that organisations and personnel involved in maintenance of aircraft and components shall comply with part-M. Nevertheless, not all the requirements of part-M are applicable to part-145 organisations.
Part-145 organisations shall take into account the following requirements of part-M.
- M.A.402 Performance of maintenance
- M.A.403 Aircraft defects
- M.A.501 Installation
- M.A.502 Component Maintenance
In addition, part-145 refers to the following Appendices of part-M:
- Appendix II to part-M (EASA Form 1)
- Appendix IV to part-M (Class and rating system)
- Appendix IX to AMC M.A.602 and AMC M.A.702 (EASA Form 2)
- Appendix X to AMC M.B.602(a) and AMC M.B.702(a) (EASA Form 4)
|CONTINUING AIRWORTHINESS MANAGEMENT|
Licenced air carriers*
Continuing airworthiness shall be performed by a CAMO. Operator shall be CAMO approved (CAMO linked to the AOC).
|Commercial operations other than licenced air carriers||
Continuing airworthiness shall be performed by a CAMO.Operator shall obtain CAMO approval, or operator shall contract a CAMO
|Other than commercial operations||Large aircraft||Continuing airworthiness shall be performed by a CAMO. Owner shall contract a CAMO|
|Other than large aircraft||
Continuing airworthiness management may be performed by the owner. CAMO is not required.
*Licenced air carriers are EU air carriers holding an operating licence in accordance with Regulation (EC) 1008/2008
Point M.A.201 (i) applies to ATO holding an approval from the competent authority, as long as they deliver training as an activity with commercial purposes. In that case the continuing airworthiness management of the aircraft operated by the ATO shall be performed by a CAMO. The ATO shall either obtain a CAMO approval or contract a CAMO.
Point M.A.201 (i) applies to ATO holding an approval from the competent authority, as long as they deliver training as an activity with commercial purposes. In that case maintenance of the aircraft operated by the ATO shall be performed, as follows:
- For large aircraft, maintenance shall be performed by part-145 organisations
- For other than large aircraft, maintenance shall be performed by part-145 organisations or by part-M subpart-F organisations.
No, ELA1 aircraft used for commercial operations cannot be maintained by independent certifying staff because in accordance with M.A.201(i) commercial operations require maintenance release by an organisation (part-M subpart-F or part-145 approved).
“Detailed maintenance records” are those records required to be kept by the owner/operator to be able to determine the continuing airworthiness and configuration of the aircraft in accordance with part-M relevant for future maintenance. These are different from the detailed maintenance records required to be kept by a maintenance organisation as per M.A.614 or 145.A.55(c). Whereas maintenance organisations are required to retain all detailed records to demonstrate that they worked in compliance with their respective requirements, aircraft owners/operators need to retain those records required for assessing the aircraft configuration and the airworthiness of the aircraft and all components installed. ‘Dirty finger prints’ may not need to be transferred from the maintenance organisation to the aircraft owner/operator.
Where the maintenance organisation retains the detailed maintenance records in accordance with 145.A.55(c) and M.A.614, the owner/operator should receive the aircraft release to service of the maintenance performed and all information necessary to determine the aircraft continuing airworthiness and its configuration, which includes references to all:
- References to taskcards,
- Information and substantiating data on modifications,
- Airworthiness directives,
- Information and substantiating data on repaired and non-repaired damage, and measurements relating to defects.
The term “back to birth” is not used in European regulations. The requirements that apply to a service life-limited component (see definition in AMC M.A.305) are basically stated in M.A.305 (e) and (h). All detailed maintenance records of a maintenance action (e.g. a restoration) must be kept until another maintenance action equivalent in scope (another restoration) is done, but never less than 36 months. Keep in mind that:
- a service life limited component log card must be kept with all the relevant information, so the action should be recorded there, and
- the records showing compliance with other requirements stated in M.A.305, e.g. an airworthiness directive, or any other information that could be affecting the configuration of the aircraft, must be retained too.
Appendix II to part-M describes the following 4 permissible entries in block 11 of EASA Form 1:
The meaning of “Inspected/Tested” status is inspected and/or, if applicable, tested as it described in provisions of part-M/part-145. Besides that, block 12 in the EASA Form 1 should contain the detailed information on the status/work described in block 11.The text in AMC No 2 to 145.A.50(d) point 2.4 “stating ‘Inspected’ in block 11” is an editorial mistake and it will be corrected in the next revision of the AMC to part-145.
The quality manager is considered nominated personnel according M.A.706 (c). The minimum qualification and experience requirements are contained in AMC M.A.706.
The nomination of the quality manager shall be performed using the EASA Form 4.
Neither M.A.706 (c) nor M.A.706 (d) contain a specific requirement for the identification of deputy “nominated persons” as in part-145 (145.A.30(b)(4)). So, in principle, we could say that there is no requirement for the nomination or identification of deputy “nominated persons”.
Nevertheless, the CAMO needs to take into account the conditions for the continued validity of the approval contained in M.A.715, in particular point (a)(1) which refers to the continued validity of the approval provided the organisation remains in compliance with the requirements.
The CAMO should ensure that they remain in compliance during the absence of the nominated persons, this could be by identifying in the CAME “one or several deputies” and the conditions under which the deputies will assume the responsibilities (this option could be acceptable for a short/medium absence). Another option would be to nominate another person. This would be necessary when the absence is going to be of considerable length and in this case the nomination and acceptance by the competent authority is done using the Form 4.
Yes, the quality system is part of the activities of the CAMO and therefore it should be monitored.
Point M.A.712(b) requires that the quality system monitors:
- that all CAMO activities are being performed in accordance with the approved procedures, and,
- the continued compliance with requirement of part-M.
The quality system procedures are considered to be within these approved procedures . This implies that quality system must be subject to audits and the CAMO audit programme/plan needs to reflect this.
Besides that the audits to the quality system shall satisfy the requirement of independent audits. This is further explained in AMC M.A.712(b) point 8: the independence of the audits should be established by always ensuring that audits are carried out by personnel not responsible for the functions, procedures or products being checked. So, the quality manager cannot audit the quality system in terms of independence of the audit. Therefore, to audit the quality system, it is acceptable:
- to use competent personnel from a different section/department in the same organisation not responsible for the quality function/procedure, or,
- to contract the independent audit element of the quality system to another organisation or a qualified competent person, or,
- that the quality system is monitored and certified against an internationally recognised quality standards by a certification organisation
The way the quality system is going to be audited has to be described in the CAME and approved by the competent authority.
Neither an ARC nor a recommendation can be issued with open findings. Each finding requires a corrective action before the issue of the ARC or recommendation. The corrective action should be adequate to the open finding and it should be carried out and verified by the airworthiness review staff (ARS) before the issue of the ARC/ recommendation.
To avoid compromising the independence of the ARS, he or she should have not been involved in the release to service of the aircraft of which he or she intends to perform the airworthiness review, except on maintenance tasks performed during the physical survey or performed as a result of findings discovered during the physical survey of the airworthiness review (AMC M.A.707 (a)).
As long as the conditions established for controlled environment (M.A.901 (b): continuously managed during the previous 12 months by a unique CAMO and maintained for the previous 12 months by part-145/part-M subpart F maintenance organisations or maintenance tasks referred to in point M.A.803(b) carried out and released to service by independent certifying staff (M.A.801(b)2) or pilot owner (M.A.801(b)3) are met, the validity of the ARC can be extended for a period of one year. Should the ARC extension be anticipated more than 30 days, you will lose the continuity of the airworthiness review pattern, being the next date of expiry one year after the date of extension.
Licenced air carriers*
Maintenance to be performed by part-145 organisations.
Commercial operations other than licenced air carriers.
Maintenance to be performed by part-145 organisations.
Other than large aircraft
Maintenance to be performed by:
Other than commercial operations
Maintenance to be performed by part-145 organisations.
Other than large aircraft
Maintenance may be performed by:
*Licenced air carriers are EU air carriers holding an operating licence in accordance with Regulation (EC) 1008/2008
For the import of aircraft in the EU, the provisions of M.A.904 require the accomplishment of the airworthiness review, associated AMC M.A.904(a)(2) defines work to be performed in order to determine the airworthiness status of the aircraft.
When performing the airworthiness review there would be certain provisions of part-M where it might be not possible to show the full compliance with M.A.710 e.g. availability of EASA Form 1 for all relevant components. In such case, other releases to service or serviceable tags may be acceptable for the competent authority of the importing country.
Nevertheless, it must be ensured that the information required by M.A.305(d) related to the status of ADs, determination of remaining life, modifications and repairs is available (see also AMC M.A.305(d)).
The indirect approval procedures may only be used for:
- the tasks, prescribed by the Design Approval Holder (DAH) in accordance with Part-21. The interval of these tasks could be decreased by the CAMO and extended to the values prescribed by the DAH,
- CAMO originated tasks which could be added, deleted or extended,
- addition/deletion/interval extension for the tasks arising from recommendations issued by the DAH.
In any case, such processes still should be based on the M.A.301(4) analysis of the effectiveness of the AMP.
An ARC extension could be performed as long as:
- the conditions established for controlled environment (M.A.901 (b)) are met. This means:
- continuously managed during the previous 12 months by a unique CAMO, and
- maintained for the previous 12 months by Part 145 organisations.
- there is no evidence or reason to believe that the aircraft is not airworthy, as stated in M.A.901(k).
Thus, the procedure for the extension established in the CAMO has to address verification of the compliance with 3 above mentioned conditions. An aircraft going through the lengthy maintenance/modification or long-term storage is not considered to meet the condition number 2.
The intent of the article M.A.901(b)(i) is to define the ‘controlled environment’ by indicating that the aircraft must be managed during last 12 months by unique CAMO, which indirectly refers to a standard term of validity of the ARC. Therefore, if the aircraft has been managed by more than one CAMO since the date of issue of the last ARC or the date of issue of the ARC extension, it actually indicates that controlled environment was discontinued.
In addition in accordance with M.A.710(d) the 90 days anticipation shall be used to allow the physical review to be performed during a maintenance check. However, it is not the intention of the rule was never to address the transfer of the aircraft within those 90 days with the purpose of avoiding the forthcoming airworthiness review. Concerning the 30 days anticipation for the ARC extension, point M.A.901(f) is intended for 2 consecutive extensions by the same CAMO managing the continuing airworthiness of the aircraft from the date of issue of the ARC, so the extended ARC could not be extended 2nd time by another organisation, because this constitutes a ‘breach’ of controlled environment.
One of the fundamentals of subcontracting activities is that, during such maintenance, the part-145 has been temporarily extended to include the subcontractor. Subcontracting can be done only if the part-145 has approved procedures to do it (145.A.75 (b)) and the MOE is amendment to show this new subcontractor.
A certificate of release to service can be signed by a person from the subcontractor who meets the part-145 approved maintenance organisation certifying staff standard approved in the MOE, which means:
- The subcontractor’s staff (who does not need to hold a part-66 licence) must meet the authorisation criteria of the part-145 approved organisation, including the assessment of competence (knowledge, on-the-job performance and experience), continuation training and ongoing competency assessments.
- The subcontractor’s staff must be authorised by the part-145 to issue an EASA Form 1
The certificate of release to service and the EASA Form 1 will always be issued under the maintenance organisation approval reference.
Yes, the dimensions of the damage and the removed/remaining material should be recorded. This is a very important information in order to assess whether further damage (adjacent or at the same spot) at a later stage would be allowable or not. In addition, it is a safeguard measure in order to be able to determine, during audits, whether the person correctly determined that the damage was within limits.
Yes, the quality system is part of the activities of the part-145 organisation and therefore it should be monitored.
Point 145.A.65 (c) requires that the quality system monitors that the activities are being performed in accordance with the approved procedures. The quality system procedures are included within these approved procedures. This implies that quality system must be subject to audits and the part-145 organisation audit programme/plan needs to reflect this.
Besides that the audits of the quality system shall satisfy the requirement of independent audits. This is further explained in AMC 145.A.65(c)(1) point 11: the independence of the audits should be established by always ensuring that audits are carried out by personnel not responsible for the functions, procedures or products being checked. So, the quality manager cannot audit the quality system in terms of independence of the audit.
Therefore, to audit the quality system, it is acceptable to:
- use competent personnel from a different section/department in the same organisation not responsible for the quality function/procedure, or,
- contract the independent audit element of the quality system to another organisation or a qualified competent person, or,
- have the quality system is monitored and certified against an internationally recognised quality standards by a certification organisation.
The way the quality system is going to be audited has to be described in the MOE and approved by the competent authority.
Certifying staff required
General Release procedure
Release procedure for an NDT inspection
The release of the works carried out on aircraft has to be performed by certifying staff holding a part-66 licence
Licencing of personnel has to follow part-66 regulation
The release is either on the aircraft technical log or issuing an aircraft release to service statement
A part-145 organisation holding an A approval rating on a particular aircraft type and having in its approved scope of work NDT inspections for this aircraft type.
Please note that the release may include not only the NDT task but also the associated tasks (removal of panels, blankets, wires, re-installation, etc), or the NDT task may be part of a base maintenance check.
The release of the works carried out on engines has to be performed by engine’s certifying staff
The certifying staff is qualified following the procedures established by the organisation, part-66 licence is not required.
The release of works performed under class B is done on an EASA form 1 (there are some exceptions for particular cases)
A part-145 organisation holding a B rating approval on a particular engine type and having in its approved scope of work NDT inspections for this engine type.
The release of the works carried out on aircraft has to be performed by components certifying staff
The certifying staff is qualified following the procedures established by the organisation, no need to have a part-66 licence
The release of works performed under class C is done on an EASA form 1 (there are some exceptions for particular cases)
A part-145 organisation holding a C rating approval on a particular component and having in its approved scope of work NDT inspections for this component.
The release of the works carried out on aircraft has to be performed by “specialised services” certifying staff
The certifying staff is qualified following the procedures established by the organisation in compliance with EN4179, part-66 licence is not required.
The release of works performed under class D rating is done on an EASA Form 1 or on a format defined by the organisation in the MOE in compliance with 145.A.50 and approved by the competent authority.
A part-145 organisation holding an D approval on a particular NDT method. The approved scope of work will be NDT inspections on this method.
The equivalent in accordance with US-EU BASA is the following:
When considering the new products, parts, appliances the information on acceptability of the said items is contained on p.32 of the Appendix to Annex 1 to the agreement, which could be found here. The details for the acceptance are contained in Technical Implementation Procedures (TIP), item 5.1.4 – page 5-3, item 5.1.6 - page 5-5, item 5.1.8 - page 5-7 which could be found here. These paragraphs state the conditions when an FAA Form 8130-3 is an acceptable release document for new products, parts, appliances.
As for the used products, parts, appliances, maintained by an FAA repair station holding an EASA part-145 approval in accordance with the BASA, the Maintenance Annex Guidance (MAG) Section B - Certification Process for U.S.-Based Repair Stations, Appendix 1, chapter 10 (item (b), explains that the FAA Form 8130-3 should include the EASA Part-145 release to service (typically called “dual release”) certifying statement with the EASA Part-145 Approval Certificate number in block 13, and specify any overhauls, repairs, alterations, Airworthiness Directives, replacement parts, PMA parts and quote the reference and issue/revision of the approved data used. The MAG could be found here.
Just to summarize: the new component will require the FAA Form 8130-3, the used component will require the FAA Form 8130-3 with “dual release”.
- The provisions of the paragraph 6 of the Article 6 of the Commission Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014 which were introduced by the Commission Regulation (EU) No 1149/2011 relating to the 10 years limit for obtaining the basic training/experience and 3 years requirement referred to in part-66 Appendix III para 1(a)(iv) relating to the type rating endorsement in part-66 Licence are not applicable to Certifying staff qualified in accordance with Appendix IV.
- The practical type training is required in accordance with para 1 (e) of the Appendix IV to part-145, because in accordance with changes imposed by the Commission Regulation (EU) No 1149/2011, the type training shall consist of the theoretical training and examination and practical training and assessment, as stated by item 1 of Appendix III to part-66.
- On job training required by 66.45(c) is not applicable to the Certifying staff qualified in accordance with Appendix IV.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014 of 26 November 2014 is an official consolidated version of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2042/2003 and its amendments published up to date, as follows:
- (EC) No 707/2006;
- (EC) No 376/2007;
- (EC) No 1056/2008;
- (EU) No 127/2010;
- (EU) No 962/2010;
- (EU) No 1149/2011; and
- (EU) No 593/2012.
You can access the various lingual and format versions at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1421934905395&uri=CELEX:32014R1321 .
Commission Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014 (recast) repeals Regulation (EC) 2042/2003 and its amendments. Its date of application is 20 days after 17/12/2014 (date of publication in the Official Journal).
Some subsequent changes in that new Regulation compared to the old one(s) were deemed necessary but remain very minor, without any impact in its implementation. The following items can be mentioned:
- The Cover Regulation, i.e. the recitals and articles at the beginning of the document have been adjusted;
- Article 6(3) of Regulation (EU) 1321/2014 introduces new provisions related to the minimum syllabus of certifying staff type rating training in the operational suitability data for the relevant type in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 748/2012, which further refers to Part-66 Appendix III points 1 (a)(ii) and (b)(ii).
- Some editorial corrections were introduced with no effect in its implementation.
- Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014 contains references to Regulation (EC) 2042/2003 in the approval certificates (EASA Forms). These references will be changed with the next amending regulation planned before summer 2015.Until that moment the templates for the certificates and forms shall be used as published in Regulation (EU) 1321/2014
The existing approved AMCs/GMs covered by the EASA Decisions, which complemented (EC) 2042/2003 as amended , keep on being valid for newly published Commission Regulation (EU) 1321/2014.
According to Article 20 of (EC) No.216/2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a EASA, the Agency is responsible for :
- The management of all applications for organisations whose principal place of business is outside the territory of the EASA Member States (MS) for EASA Part-145 maintenance organisation approvals (MOA), EASA Part-147 maintenance training organisation approvals (MTOA), EASA Part-M Subpart G continuing airworthiness management organisation (CAMO) and EASA Part-M Subpart F approvals (Subpart F).
- The oversight of related certificates and their continued surveillance.
These activities are as follows:
- MOA: Part-145 organisations ('Foreign', USA and Canada ),
- MTOA: Part-147 organisations,
- CAMO: Part-M Subpart G organisations,
- Subpart F : Part-M Subpart F organisations.
Such organisations, generally nicknamed as “foreign” organisations, are managed by EASA in accordance with the relevant Annexes of Regulation (EU) No.1321/2014 and the associated EASA procedures. For more information, see http://easa.europa.eu/easa-and-you/aviation-domain/aircraft-products/continuing-airworthiness-organisations where the lists of such “foreign” organisations are available as well as the fees and charges Regulations.
The management of all applications for organisations whose principal place of business is inside the territory of the EASA Member States (MS) is performed by the competent authorities of these MS.
Therefore, information about continuing airworthiness management organisations, maintenance organisations and maintenance training organisation which have principal place of business within any of the EASA MS is kept up-to-date by the competent authorities from these EASA MS. You may contact these authorities at http://easa.europa.eu/the-agency/member-states or consult their public websites when the MS accepted to publish these lists on a voluntary basis.
Yes, in such case Form 148 shall be used as template for the Certificate of Recognition, which specifies “Basic training course” or “Basic examination”. In the particular case where all modules are not conducted, (see next questions) the certificate shall state only “Basic examination” and the modules conducted be mentioned on the certificate including the date(s) of the examination(s).
No, a Part-147 approval can only be granted to an organisation which can prove its capability to conduct training and examinations on a complete syllabus of at least one (sub)category of the Part-66 licence. Only in the case the organisation holds the approval for the complete basic training course, it may conduct basic examinations not being an integral part of the approved basic training course.
No, a Part-147 approval can only be granted to an organisation which plans to conduct training on all the modules related to a (sub)category of an aircraft maintenance licence, so that a full understanding of the training needs, interfaces and examination relative to that (sub)category of licence is achieved.
However, some modules may be sub-contracted as mentioned in 147.A.145(d).
It does not mean that the Part-147 organisation is not allowed to conduct courses on just one module. In particular, in the case of limitations resulting from the conversion process, limitations can be lifted through the teaching and/or examination of one module or a part of a module.
As mentioned in the previous question, for some particular cases, the basic training need to be conducted and the relevant examination to be passed on some modules only or one module or part of a module (this is typically the case where the holder of a licence applies for removing some limitations mentioned in his/her licence).
However, the Part-147 organisation should be capable of conducting the full course relative to the (sub)category sought, so that they can run the examination.
Courses outside the scope of Part-66 cannot be part of the Approval Schedule of the approved Part-147 organisation. This does not prevent a training organisation to provide such courses. The scope, content and the delivery methods of these courses will not be reviewed by the Agency or the EASA Member States, as part of the audit scope of the Part-147 organisation. However, when Part-M or Part-145 requires the staff to be trained, the appropriateness of such training being delivered would be assessed during the audits of these particular organisations.
No, the competent authority does not have to supply examination questions. However, as part of the oversight, the authority must sample check and review the organisations' question data bank and the examination process.
“Examiner” should be here understood as “invigilator” (i.e. the personnel responsible for merely running the examination).
The examiners (invigilators) are not required to be experts in the subjects examined when relative to the MCQs in accordance with Appendix II to Part-66. However, the assessment of essay questions as part of the basic knowledge has to be conducted by knowledgeable personnel with the help of a standard reply. Eventually, the invigilators must be trained to the examination process.
Examiners should demonstrate a clear understanding of the examination standard required by Part-66 and have a responsible attitude to the conduct of examinations such that the highest integrity is ensured. (GM 147.A.105(g)).
Regarding the type training examination and assessment standard as well as type examination standard as described in Part-66, Appendix III, paragraphs 4 and 5, the theoretical element examination can follow the same principle as above; however, for the practical element assessment, the examiner(s) must be appropriately qualified. Further provisions are available in Appendix III to AMC to Part-66.
147.A.130(b) states that the approved Part-147 organisation shall establish a quality system including:
- an independent audit function to monitor training standards, the integrity of knowledge examinations and practical assessments, compliance with and adequacy of the procedures, and
- a feedback system of audit findings to the person(s) and ultimately to the accountable manager referred to in 147.A.105(a) to ensure, as necessary, corrective action.
This means that the quality system itself should be independently audited. The competent authority cannot perform this function on behalf of the organisation.
Within its approved procedures, the organisation has to monitor the quality system’s procedures. This implies that quality system monitoring itself must be subject to internal audits:
- No conflict of interest is allowed - it is not permitted that such a function be performed by quality system’s staff;
- This can be also outsourced;
- The right level of the auditor(s)’ position within the organisation shall be met in order to assure the objective of 147.A.130 (b)2. (e.g. conflict of hierarchy, which could hinder an efficient and transparent report to the accountable manager).
In addition, the audit programme/plan needs to reflect this regulatory aspect.
The EASA Flight Standard Directorate consistently applies that policy during their standardisation visits.
147.A.100(b) defines the facility requirements for the instructions of theory and the conduct of knowledge examinations. Point 1 deals with the facility requirement for knowledge training whereby the number of students shall not exceed 28. Point 2 defines the facility requirements for the examination purposes, where the maximum number of students attending the knowledge examination is not limited. The number of students attending the knowledge examination is indirectly limited only by the size, layout and arrangement of the accommodation in order to fulfil the following requirements:
- … no student can read the paperwork or computer screen of any other student from his/her position during examinations (147.A.100(b)2), and
- Examination candidates shall be separated from each other so that they cannot read each other’s examination papers. (66.B.200(h)).
Consequently, as long as the facility and examination standard as well as the integrity of the examination can be ensured, the number of candidates attending the examination may not be limited. In case of a larger number of candidates, two or more examiners may be used to ensure the integrity of the examination, such as separation of the candidates, no potential cheating, no speaking to each other, only examination paper on the table, no examination paper removed from the room, etc.
The duration of the practical training should ensure that the content of training required by paragraph 3.2 of Appendix III to Part-66 is completed. However, for aeroplanes with a MTOM equal or above 30000 kg, AMC to paragraph 1(b) of Appendix III to Part-66 recommends the duration of the practical element of a type rating training course be not less than two weeks, unless a shorter duration meeting the objectives of the training and taking into account pedagogical aspects (maximum duration per day) is justified to the competent authority. This means that the duration of the a/c type practical training is not the main driver as justified by the status of that AMC. According to point 3.2 (b) Appendix III to Part-66 (having the status of requirement), the duration should be based on the content sufficiently representative in diversity and complexity in order to gain the needed competence.
There are several scenarios possible depending on the particular case. Here are some most probable cases for category B1 or B2:
Case No 1 (baseline – standard case) : The applicant completes the whole basic knowledge course (including the training, practical assessments and basic modules examinations) in an approved Part-147 maintenance training organisation.
Result: The Certificate of Recognition (CoR) of the basic course completion is issued by the organisation. The applicant can apply for the Part-66 licence with 2 years of maintenance experience.
Case No 2: The applicant completes the basic training in two different Part-147 AMTO (including the examinations).
Result: The CoRs for the successful examination of each individual module are issued (by different AMTO), but not the CoR for the basic course completion. The applicant does not benefit from the experience reduction and have to fulfil the requirement of 3 years of experience (if recognised as skilled worker) or 5 years.
- It may happen that some of the competent authorities would give the complete credit on experience in case the applicant can prove that:the training completed in different organisation covers in total the Appendix I syllabus; and
- all the practical assessments are performed and passed successfully; and
- all interactions between the modules have been correctly addressed; and
- there was a right proportion of theoretical and practical training for each subject.
As this demonstration requires a significant investment, the applicant is invited to directly contact the competent responsible for performing such an investigation.
Case No 3: The applicant has completed a full basic training course in one approved Part-147 organisation. Unfortunately, the candidate was not in a position to successfully pass the full examination process (all modules) in that organisation and had to pass the missing portion of the examination in another approved Part-147 organisation.
Result: In this case the applicant would receive a CoR for basic training only as well as the CoRs related to the modules successfully passed in that approved Part-147 organisation. The examination for the missing modules may be successfully passed in another approved Part-147 organisation(s) with issuance of the related CoRs thereof. The combination of all these CoRs may be sufficient for the competent authority to recognise the training course as successfully “completed” and to grant the maximum credit for the experience (only 2 years needed) for the issue of the license.
Case No 4: The applicant did not attend a Part-147 basic training course but only took examinations in one or more approved Part-147 organisation(s).
Result: The applicant would receive several CoRs for the successful examination of individual modules from one or more approved Part-147 organisations. No credit of experience as per 66.A.30 will be granted (except for skill workers – 3 years). Standard 5 years of experience will be required.
Further information is given in AMC to Appendix III to Part-147 “Certificates of Recognition referred to in Annex IV (Part-147) – EASA Forms 148 and 149.
Only a Part-147 organisation has the privilege (if approved by its competent authority) to provide aircraft type training courses. This comprises both the theoretical and practical element of the aircraft type training, including the related examinations and assessments. This means that the practical element of the aircraft type training shall be completed in a Part-147 organisation.
However, the aircraft type training may be conducted physically in a Part-145 organisation under the control (and as a part of the approval) of a Part-147 organisation issuing the Certificate of Recognition. It is not the privilege of the Part-145 organisation to conduct aircraft type training courses on its own.
In addition, the theoretical and practical element of the aircraft type training can be conducted by two different approved Part-147 organisations. The competent authority endorsing the type rating on the license should be convinced that the interfaces have been correctly addressed before proceeding thereof (66.B.115(b) refers).
In the special case where the aircraft type course is directly approved by the competent authority in accordance with the procedure 66.B.130 (i.e. only on a case by case basis – special authorization not granted for long term periods), the training can be conducted outside the scope of a Part-147 organisation. As a consequence, the certificate issued is not mutually recognized between Member States, which means it can only be used for aircraft type endorsement by the licensing authority who issued that direct approval.
The selection of 50% of tasks cannot be selected according to the glossary. Paragraph 3.2 of Appendix III to Part-66 clearly states that ‘the tasks selected shall be representative of the aircraft and systems both in complexity and diversity. In addition, the practical training should particularly address the tasks which cannot be explained by theoretical training only. While relatively simple tasks may be included, other more complex tasks shall also be incorporated and completed as appropriate to the aircraft type.
Regarding the way to read the table in paragraph 3.2, the lines aims at covering the main systems so that no line relevant to the particular aircraft type should be omitted in the selection. Inside each line applicable to the aircraft type, half or more of the crosses can be selected. From a learning point of view, selecting 2 simple tasks as LOC and SGH would not be “representative”, while selecting LOC and TS, for example, would be much more appropriate.
When selecting the tasks, the usage of filtering method based on the criteria similar to that described in AMC to paragraph of Appendix III to Part-66, point 5 f) is recommended.