Regulations

Popular

PDF

Aircrew
Medical
Flight Simulation Training Devices (FSTDs)
General
Continuing Airworthiness
Air Operations
Level of Involvement (LOI)
Airspace Usage requirements
Third Country Operators (TCO)
Initial Airworthiness
- Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA)
Additional Airworthiness specifications
Basic Regulation
ATCO Licensing
Air Traffic Management (ATM) / Air Navigation Services (ANS)
Air Traffic Management / Air Navigation Services (ATM/ANS) ground equipment
Aerodromes (ADR)
- Aerodromes
- Rescue and Firefighting
Drones (UAS)

Expand all questions

Aircrew

Operational Suitability Data (OSD) for flight crew (FC)

What is the content and purpose of the EASA type rating and licence endorsement lists?

The data approved in the OSD FC are linked to the minimum training syllabus for a pilot type rating. An evaluation of differences (e.g. for aircraft modifications or between variants) identifies minimum training levels and associated training devices, if required.

With regard to the acquisition of knowledge through theoretical training, some elements may be validated as Level A and can be adequately addressed through self-instruction, whereas other elements may require aided instruction and are identified as Level B. Training organisations may find it more practical to combine Level A and Level B elements into one module of the higher level (such as computer-based training or instructor-led sessions).

With regard to the acquisition of skills through practical training, the OSD FC minimum syllabus identifies elements requiring Level C, D or E practical training and these elements are usually associated in the OSD FC document with specified training devices.

In principle, the devices described in the OSD FC document and the devices used in pilot training should be of the same training level. The use of a more complex device requires additional considerations, regarding the capabilities and characteristics of the device and the impact this may have on the training objective(s).

As an example, the OSD FC may refer to an FMS desktop trainer for Level C training. FMS training in an FTD, an FFS (without motion or vision) or in the aircraft (static, on power) may provide the same training objectives. However, the more complex training environment introduces elements which may affect the focus of the training, the time required, or other factors and these should be taken into consideration.

The same principles apply for the substitution of an FTD. To replicate the characteristics of an FTD Level I with an FTD Level II, to replicate an FTD Level I with an FFS (without motion or vision), or to replicate an FTD Level II with an FFS (without motion or vision) require different considerations to preserve achievement of the training objective.

View

Licensing

Yes

Medical fitness

My cabin crew qualification document was issued in a country that is not a member of the European Union and is not an EASA Member State either. Is my cabin crew qualification document recognised in the European Union?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Fire and smoke training

What are the requirements for cabin crew fire/smoke training?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

What is the content of fire and smoke training during the Initial training ?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Language proficiency

Is there any requirement on cabin crew member(s) communication with passengers in a certain language?

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 Air Operations, Annex III (Part-ORO) and Annex IV (Part-CAT) is available on EASA website.

There is no EU (or ICAO requirement) that cabin crew members must speak English. It is a general practice that cabin crew members do speak English to facilitate the communication in the aviation industry. The operator defines what languages its cabin crew members must be able to speak and at what level.

Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 specifies the following two requirements:

The operator shall ensure that all personnel are able to understand the language in which those parts of the Operations Manual, which pertain to their duties and responsibilities, are written (ORO.MLR.100(k)), and
The operator shall ensure that all crew members can communicate with each other in a common language (CAT.GEN.MPA.120).
There is no EU (or ICAO) requirement for a specific language regarding cabin crew communication with passengers. It must be noted that it is difficult, if not impossible, to mandate the ‘required’ languages to be used on board with regard to communication with passengers, as this differs on daily basis from a flight to flight. For example, a German airline has a flight departing from Frankfurt to Madrid and it is assumed that the cabin crew members speak German since they work for a German operator. In addition, they may speak English if the operator selected this language as a criterion. The passenger profile may, however, be such that these languages are not ‘desired’ on this flight as passengers do not necessarily speak or understand any of the two languages (passengers may be e.g. Russian, Chinese, Iranian, Indian, Pakistani, Polish, Finnish, Croatian, Hungarian, Bulgarian, Czech, Slovak, etc., or there is a large group of e.g. Japanese tourists).

Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 mandates the operator to ensure that briefings and demonstrations related to safety are provided to passengers in a form that facilitates the application of the procedures applicable in case of an emergency and that passengers are provided with a safety briefing card on which picture type-instructions indicate the operation of emergency equipment and exits likely to be used by passengers. It is therefore the operator’s responsibility to choose the languages to be used on its flights, which may vary depending on the destination or a known passenger profile. It is also a practice of some operators to employ ‘language speakers’, i.e. cabin crew members speaking certain languages, who mainly operate their language-desired route(s).

Can a cabin crew training organisation (CCTO) provide Aircraft type specific training and operator conversion training?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Reduction of cabin crew during ground operations

Do the evacuation procedures with a reduced number of required cabin crew during ground operations or in unforeseen circumstances require prior endorsement?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Minimum required cabin crew

Determination of the minimum required number of cabin crew on an aircraft

NOTE: The purpose of this FAQ is to explain how the operator and the Competent Authority (National Aviation Authority) conclude the minimum number of cabin crew required on the operator’s aircraft. This FAQ does not provide specific numbers for aircraft types or individual aircraft. The minimum number of cabin crew may vary on each aircraft, depending on the certification history of that aircraft. To learn the minimum number of cabin crew on your aircraft, please, consult your Competent Authority. To have a better view and understanding of the explanation below, this FAQ should be read together with the rule ORO.CC.100 (Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on air operations).
Minimum number of cabin crew is established during the certification process of the aircraft and this number must be clearly written in the certification documentation (reference: EASA Certification Memorandum CM-CS-008, issued on 03 July 2017). The ‘certification documentation’ is the Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS) or the Supplemental Type Certificate (STC).

Therefore, in order to establish the minimum number of cabin crew on the operator’s aircraft, as specified in ORO.CC.100(b)(1) of Regulation (EU) No 965/2012, the operator/National Aviation Authority must check the aircraft certification documentation and apply the number written in the certification documentation.

However, historically, not all aircraft had the number of minimum cabin crew written in the certification documentation, or even established during the certification process. In this case, the operator may use the calculation method specified in ORO.CC.100(b)(2) of Regulation (EU) No 965/2012.

In summary:
Certification documentation of the operator’s aircraft issued:

Before 3rd July 2017: if the certification documentation does not include the number of minimum cabin crew or the number has not been established for the aircraft, you may apply the calculation method specified in ORO.CC.100(b)(2)).
After 3rd July 2017: you must apply the number of minimum cabin crew specified in the certification documentation in accordance with the rule ORO.CC.100(b)(1).

Background information:
The development stage of Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 (‘AIR OPS’) initially did not include the paragraph (b)(2) in ORO.CC.100, i.e. the ‘1 per 50’ calculation. This inclusion was done last minute and it resulted in the overall lack of clarity of ORO.CC.100(b). To help with the implementation, EASA published Safety Information Bulletin (SIB) 2014-29, which provided detailed information on how to comply with ORO.CC.100. The SIB was supported by the EU Members States, however resulted in a strong opposition by EU operators. As a result, discussions were held in 2015 between EASA and IATA/IACA on the application of ORO.CC.100(b), i.e. how to establish the minimum required number of cabin crew. As an outcome of these discussions, on 7th December 2015 EASA communicated to the stakeholders the ‘EASA conclusions following the consultation on the proposed Certification Memo and Safety Information Bulletin on minimum cabin crew for twin‐aisle aeroplanes’.

On 3rd July 2017, EASA published the above-mentioned Certification Memorandum EASA-CM-CS-008. This document clarifies to aircraft manufacturers and design organisations that the number of cabin crew assumed in their evacuation certification activity must be clearly stated in their documentation. Following the publication of this Certification Memorandum, the TCDSs have been amended to include the minimum number of cabin crew. Some aircraft manufacturers have amended their TCDSs even before the publication of this Certification Memorandum.

There may be cases where the minimum number of cabin crew for the operator’s aircraft will be different (e.g. lower) than the number written in the TCDS. Such a change must be approved by EASA and such an aircraft will hold a Supplemental Type Certificate. STC means that it was demonstrated that the aircraft cabin configuration used by the operator is compliant with the applicable certification specifications with a lower number of cabin crew members than the number specified in the TCDS. If the operator’s aircraft holds a STC, the number of minimum cabin crew written in the STC will be applicable to that aircraft.

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Working for multiple operators

Flight Simulation Training Devices (FSTDs)

CS- FSTD(A) Issue 2 - UPRT Compliance of current qualified FSTD

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Where can I find more information about Flight Simulation Training Devices (FSTDs)?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

General

Where can I find guidance on the use of ‘shall’, ‘must’, ‘should’ and ‘may’ in the Agency’s rulemaking publications and generally in EU legislation?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

What is the difference between European Community (EC) and European Union (EU) in the regulation reference?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Why has the numbering of the EU regulations changed as of 2015?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

What is the definition of an IR, AMC and CS and GM and what differences can be proposed?

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.

In case the answer you were looking for in this FAQ section is not available, you are invited to contact first your competent authority (here for EASA member states). For further assistance, you might submit your enquiry, together with the description of your authority’s position, here.

Easy Access Rules for Continuing Airworthiness (Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014), covering covering Part-M, Part-145, Part-66, Part-147 and Part-T.

COVID-19 - Continuing Airworthiness

What is the flexibility allowed to the person or organisation responsible for the aircraft continuing airworthiness when it comes to the planning of Aircraft Maintenance Programme (AMP) scheduled maintenance tasks with intervals expressed in calendar time?

1. Purpose of the document

The Agency was requested by the industry for additional guidance on the application of the airworthiness rules in respect to certain specific issues particularly affected by the current COVID-19 crisis. One of those topics concerns the obligations of the person or organisation responsible for continuing airworthiness of aircraft when it comes to the accomplishment of Aircraft Maintenance Programme tasks with intervals expressed in calendar times. Accordingly, the Agency prepared this additional, temporary, guidance, which complements the existing AMC/GM to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014.

The guidance provided in this document is primarily intended for ‘Part-M’ aircraft, but can be used also as regards ‘Part-ML’ aircraft, except that in case of ‘Part-ML’ aircraft, the competent authority does not need to be involved if an AMP task is to be postponed, as this is done under the responsibility of the aircraft owner or the organisation responsible for the aircraft continuing airworthiness. This person or organisation may also decide, if necessary to revise the AMP, which will not involve the competent authority.

2. Description of the issue

During the COVID-19 crisis, a large number of aircraft is being parked / stored at different and partially remote locations. This guidance document was prepared based on an assumption that these aircraft have been subject to parking/storage procedures defined by the Type Certificate (TC) Holder (those parking and storage procedures are usually contained in a chapter of the Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM e.g. Chapter 10). If the existing AMM does not contain parking/storage procedures, the TC Holder should be contacted.

Note: It is not necessary to revise the AMP to include the parking/storage tasks to be followed.

During the COVID-19 crisis, the parked/stored aircraft are not operated and consequently the AMP scheduled maintenance tasks based on ‘Flight hours’ and ‘Flight cycles’ are not impacted. On the other hand the AMP scheduled maintenance tasks based on intervals (and threshold, if applicable) expressed in calendar times need to be considered. Indeed, some of the calendar time based scheduled maintenance tasks will become due during parking/storage period.

In the normal practice, following the principles of AMC M.A.301(c) and point 4 of Appendix I to AMC M.A.302 and AMC M.B.301(b), if a scheduled maintenance task cannot be performed within the interval approved in the AMP, its postponement may be allowed in accordance with pre-defined ‘permitted variation’ agreed with the CA in the AMP.

3. Considerations in the frame of COVID-19 crisis

3.1 Postponement until the end of parking/storage period
In the current situation, it may not be always feasible, to perform the calendar scheduled maintenance tasks of the AMP in due time, or within the permitted variation specified in the AMP.
In such cases, it is acceptable for EASA to plan the accomplishment of these tasks (even if they have become due multiple times during the parking/storage period) at the next suitable opportunity (e.g. next weekly check of storage/parking procedure), or at the end of the storage/parking period, but in any case before the next flight, as part of the work package necessary for the de-preserving/de-storage of the aircraft.

Note: Certain AMP scheduled maintenance tasks may be assessed as unnecessary because they are covered by equivalent tasks in the parking/storage procedures put in place.

3.2 Postponement beyond return to service
If exceptionally, a calendar task needs to be postponed until after the return to service and beyond the AMP permitted variation, the aircraft owner or CAMO/CAO should receive advice from the TCH or the Design Approval holder (DAH) on such postponement and on the subsequent due date after the accomplishment.

The applicant should then submit such postponement, together with the proposed technical justification, including if appropriate, a risk assessment, for approval by the CA.
The CA should consider the following conditions, mitigating actions or any other elements which the CA deems necessary, when allowing a postponement of a due calendar task after return to service:

An approved maintenance organisation has applied the appropriate parking/storage procedures during the full period.
The owner/CAMO/CAO has monitored what AMP tasks are due (M.A.708(b)(4), CAMO.A.315(b)(5) and CAO.A.075(b)(7)).
This does not apply to mandatory continuing airworthiness instructions (MCAI) such as AD or ALS tasks.
The environmental conditions where the aircraft was parked/stored have been taken into consideration. Certain calendar tasks may be more relevant to a particular storage environment, e.g. wet, salty conditions propagate corrosion.

2. Description of the issue

In accordance with:

For Part 21, Subpart F: points 21.A.125A and 21.A.126(a)(3)/GM No 2 to 21.A.126(a)(3);
For Part 21, Subpart G: points 21.A.139(b)1.(vii), 21.A.143(a)(11) and 21.A.145(a)/GM 21.A.145(a); and
For Part-M, Subpart F; Part-CAO and Part-145: as applicable, points M.A.604(a)7, M.A.608(b), CAO.A.050(b), CAO.A.025(a)(10), 145.A.40(b), 145.A.70(a)12., M.A.402(d) and ML.402(b)(4),

the production or maintenance organisation shall ensure, by complying with adequate procedures included in its exposition or manual, that all tools and equipment, as appropriate, are controlled and calibrated/periodically checked according to an officially recognised standard at a frequency to ensure serviceability and accuracy.

When such a procedure includes a recurrent calibration/periodical check of tools or equipment, it is possible that, due to the COVID-19 crisis, the procedure cannot be complied with because a recurring calibration/periodical check cannot be carried out before the specified due date. In such a case, a temporary change (direct or indirect approved or concessions) to the procedure may be acceptable in order to allow continuation of the activities in compliance with the rules.

In accordance with:

For Part 21, Subpart F: points 21.A.125A and 21.B.140;
For Part 21, Subpart G: points 21.A.143, 21.A.147 and 21.B.240;
For Part-M, Subpart F: points M.A.604, M.A.617 and M.B.606;
For Part-CAO: points CAO.A.025, CAO.A.105 and CAO.B.065; and
For Part-145: points 145.A70, 145.A.85 and 145.B.35,

the competent authority may approve a temporary change to the applicable organisation’s procedure to allow an extension of the period at the end of which the calibration/periodical check of the tool or equipment is due.

3. Considerations for the competent authority (CA) and the organisations

The decision of the competent authority on the approval of such a temporary change should be taken based on a risk analysis performed by the organisation. The risk analysis shall consider the previous performance and reliability of the tool or equipment, previous calibration and periodical checks results and possible additional mitigating measures (like using tools from other organisations for critical applications).

Few considerations for the risk analysis may be, but are not limited to the following:

when the normal calibration/check period is ≤ 12 months the extension of the calibration and/or periodical check can be up to a maximum of 10 % of the normal calibration/check;
when the calibration/check period is > 12 months the extension of the calibration can be 10 % of the normal calibration/check period up to a maximum of 3 months;
the risk associated to the use of the tool or equipment for the specific task in relation to ensuring conformity with the approved data or continuing airworthiness of the aircraft or components is not determined critical;
the tool or equipment is inspected before use and no damage or corrosion is identified;
the tool or equipment was recently used (e.g. within the 3 months preceding the calibration or periodical check due date);
no deficiency with the use of this tool or equipment has been reported since the last calibration or periodical check;
the last two calibration results or last periodical checks are not showing any possible issues (e.g.: drift in the value, value very close to the acceptable limit, etc.) that can endanger the result of the activity performed.

If the risk associated to the use of the tool or equipment for the specific task is identified as critical, the organisation shall receive the tool or equipment manufacturer extension acceptance, and shall take additional measures to verify and ensure the correct production / maintenance results, such as:
verification of the tool or equipment serviceability by comparison with another tool/equipment duly calibrated/periodically checked, and/or
verification of the measurement/test/job-result by other acceptable means.

The tools or equipment with extended calibration or maintenance interval, should be recorded in a dedicated form, allowing tracking the tasks performed. If the tool / equipment fails during next regular calibration / inspection, the completed tasks may require to be verified / performed again.

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Under the present rules, can a maintenance organisation continue to keep a supplier on the approved list even if full compliance with its evaluation of suppliers’ procedure cannot be ensured?

1. Purpose of the document

Considering the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on the aviation sector - the reduced personnel in the maintenance organisations, or late feedback/reply from their suppliers which may affect compliance with their suppliers’ evaluation procedures - the Agency was requested to provide to competent authorities (CA´s) with additional guidance material to facilitate a simpler process of approving changes to the applicable organisation’s procedures, in order to ensure as much as possible the continuation of maintenance organisation activities in compliance with the applicable requirements.
This document is therefore intended to guide CA´s in keeping continuing compliance with the applicable requirements and ensure, as much as possible, the continuation of maintenance organisation activities.

2. Description of the issue

In accordance with 145.A.70(a)(12), 145.A.42(b)(i), M.A.604(a)(7), CAO.A.025(a)(10), M.A.501(b) and ML.A.501(a)(i) of Regulation (EU) 1321/2014, as applicable, the approved organisation carrying out maintenance on products or components have to ensure, by complying with adequate procedures included in the exposition or manual (MOE chapter 2.1, MOM chapter 2.8 or CAE chapter C.3), that the necessary components, standard parts and/or material are supplied in satisfactory conditions. When such a procedure includes a recurrent evaluation of a supplier’s quality system based on a questionnaire which is periodically sent by the maintenance organisation to the supplier, it is possible that, due to the COVID-19 crisis, the procedure cannot be complied with. In such a case, a temporary change to the procedure (including concessions), in accordance with 145.A.70(b), M.A.604(b) and CAO.A.105(a) 5, as applicable, may be acceptable in order to allow continuation of the activities in compliance with the rules.

3. Considerations for the competent authority (CA)

In accordance with 145.B.35, 145.B.40, M.B.606(c) or CAO.B.065 of said Regulation, the competent authority may approve (direct or indirect) a temporary change to the applicable organisation’s procedure to allow an extension of the period for evaluation of the suppliers’ performance (when based on a questionnaire sent to supplier) up to 3 months in order to maintain the respective suppliers on the approved list of suppliers, based on a risk assessment which considers at least the following elements:

confidence in the quality system / organisational review of the maintenance organisation; and
analysis performed by the maintenance organisation to support the extension, taking into account the criticality of the supplied articles, the results of the previous evaluation of the respective supplier and the supplier’s performance.

After the agreed extension period the situation may be reassessed and an additional extension of the initial period up to a maximum of 3 additional months may be envisaged by the CA, following the same process as the one described above (change of the organisation’s applicable procedure).

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Is there any possibility to temporary extend the validity of NDT personnel certification due to coronavirus (COVID-19) crisis?

According to the industry standard EN4179, recognised by the EASA via AMC 145.A.30(f) and AMC M.A.606(f) to be used for qualification of NDT personnel, the NDT personnel Level 1, 2 and 3 shall be recertified every 5 years. No flexibility is given by EN4179 to deviate from the specific requirements of EN4179, Chapter 8 related to the recertification of NDT personnel process.

Due to the extraordinary worldwide coronavirus crisis, the recertification requirements might not be fulfilled (examinations). Other impacted processes can be “annual maintenance” and “vision examination” which invalidate the certification if not performed on time.

In these circumstances, the Agency recommends the organisation to agree with the Competent Authority a deviation from the organisation’s procedure (e.g. in case of Part-145 to use the normal concession process - deviation from an approved exposition (MOE) for a limited period of time) in case of a need to temporary extend (without fulfilling the normal requirements) the validity of NDT personnel certification, annual maintenance and/or vision examination. The organisation should contact their Competent Authority surveyor and agree on mitigating measures depending on the extent of the concession needed (e.g. EN4179 para. 8.3.2, second and fourth bullet points could offer grounds for mitigation measures).

For standardisation reasons, it is recommended that each National Aerospace NDT Board (NANDTB) together with the corresponding Competent Authority establishes the general scenario to be followed by the organisations (e.g. by an information notice on the NANDTB website or by e-mail etc.). This will be further adapted to the specific case (e.g. in the case of a Part-145 organisation with D1 rating additional mitigation measure could be taken for the NDT personnel who is also certifying staff).

Same principles can be applied by Part-21 Subpart G and F organisations having the NDT personnel qualified/certified i.a.w. EN 4179 when applying the GM 21.A.145(a) or GM No 2 to 21.A.126(a)(3).

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Interpretation and policy papers

Continuing airworthiness - General

Concerning the approval of the continuing airworthiness organisations, what is the sharing of responsibilities between EASA and the national competent authorities of the EASA Member States? How to get the lists of the approved continuing airworthiness organisations?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Where can I find the continuing airworthiness requirements for third-country registered aircraft used by EU operator/owner?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

How to use information and communication technologies for performing remote audits on to DOA, LoA/POA, AMO, CAMO, CAO and AMTO holders*?

Objective of this document:
This document provides technical guidance on the use of remote information and communication technology (ICT) to support:

the competent authorities when performing the oversight of regulated organisations and
the industry when conducting internal audits / monitoring compliance of the organisation with the relevant requirement and when performing evaluation of suppliers and subcontractors.

It is the responsibility of the competent authority to assess whether the use of remote ICT constitutes a suitable alternative to the physical presence of the auditor on-site in accordance with the applicable requirements.

In the context of this document, “remote audit” is understood as an audit performed with the use of any real-time video and audio communication tools in replacement of the physical presence of the auditor on-site. Specificities of each type of approval / letter of agreement need to be considered in addition to the below general overview when applying the “remote audit” concept.

1. Conduct of remote audit by a Competent Authority

Competent authorities who decide to use remote audit should describe the remote audit process in their documented procedures and should consider at least the following elements:

Methodology for the use of ICT is sufficiently flexible and non-prescriptive in nature to optimise the conventional audit process.
Adequate controls are defined and in place to avoid abuses that could compromise the integrity of the audit process.
Measures to ensure that security and confidentiality are maintained throughout the audit activities (data protection and intellectual property of the organisations also need to be safeguarded).

Examples of use of ICT during audits may include but are not limited to:

meetings, by means of teleconference facilities, including audio, video and data sharing;
assessment of documents and records by means of remote access, in real-time;
recording, in real-time during the process, of evidence to document the results of the audit (non-/conformities) by means of exchange of emails or documents, instant pictures, video or/and audio recordings;
visual (livestream video) and audio access to facilities, stores, equipment, tools, processes, operations, etc.

An agreement between the competent authority and the organisation should be established when planning a remote audit which should include:

determining the platform for hosting the audit (e.g. Go-To-Meeting, WebEx, Microsoft Lync, Microsoft TEAMS, etc.);
granting security and/or profile access to the auditor;
testing platform compatibility between the competent authority and organisation prior to the audit;
considering the use of web-cams, cameras, drones, etc. when physical evaluation of an event (product, part, process, etc.) is desired or necessary;
establishing an audit plan which will identify how ICT will be used and the extent of its use for the audit purposes to optimise its effectiveness and efficiency while maintaining the integrity of the audit process;
if necessary, time zone acknowledgement and management to coordinate reasonable and mutually agreeable convening times;
a written statement of the organisation that they ensure full cooperation and provision of the actual and valid data as requested, including ensuring any supplier or subcontractor cooperation, if needed; and
data protection aspects.

The following elements of the equipment and setup should be considered:

the suitability of video resolution, fidelity, and field of view for the verification being conducted;
the need for multiple cameras, imaging systems, or microphones and whether the person performing the verification can switch between them, or direct them to be switched and has the possibility to stop the process, ask a question, move equipment, etc.;
the controllability of viewing direction, zoom, and lighting;
the appropriateness of audio fidelity for the evaluation being conducted; and
real-time and uninterrupted communication between the person(s) participating to the remote audit from both locations.

When using ICT, the competent authority and other involved persons (e.g. drone pilots, technical experts) should have the competency and ability to understand and utilize the ICT tools employed to achieve the desired results of audit(s)/assessment(s). The competent authority should also be aware of the risks and opportunities of the ICT used and the impacts that they may have on the validity and objectivity of the information gathered.

Audit reports and related records should indicate the extent to which ICT has been used in carrying out remote audit and the effectiveness of ICT in achieving the audit objectives, including any item that was not able to be completely reviewed.

2. Internal Audits performed by approved organisation and evaluation of its suppliers and subcontractors

The considerations described in paragraph 1 may also be applied by approved organisations when conducting internal audits / monitoring compliance of the organisation with the relevant requirements and when performing evaluation of suppliers and subcontractors. The application of “remote audit” concept should be described in a documented procedure accepted / approved by the Competent Authority.

* DOA: Design Organisation Approval; LoA/POA: Letters of Approval/Production Organisation Approval; AMO: Maintenance Organisation Approval; CAMO: Continuing Airworthiness Management Organisations Approval; CAO: Combined Airworthiness Organisation Approval; and AMTO: Maintenance Training Organisation Approval

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Can a Pilot-Owner or Flight Crew accomplish an inspection required by an AD?

The provisions for a Pilot-Owner or Flight Crew to accomplish AD actions are to be found in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014 on the continuing airworthiness of aircraft and aeronautical products, parts and appliances, and on the approval of organisations and personnel involved in these tasks, Annex I (Part-M), Annex II (Part-145), Annex Vb (Part-ML) & Annex Vd (Part-CAO).

For AD tasks carried out by Flight Crew:

IF INDICATED IN THE AD (*- see Note), THE FOLLOWING APPLIES:
145.A.30(j)3 or M.A.606(h)1 Personnel requirements, or CAO.A.040(c)(1) Certifying staff.

For a repetitive pre-flight task, where the AD specifically states that the flight crew may carry out such task, the organisation (Part-145, Part-M Subpart F or Part-CAO maintenance organisation) may issue a limited certifying staff authorisation to the pilot-in command/aircraft commander on the basis of the flight crew licence held, provided that the organisation ensures that sufficient practical training has been carried out to ensure that such person can accomplish the AD task to the required standard. A repetitive pre-flight task in an AD does not mean that the task needs to be certified prior to each flight. At AD issuance EASA will determine that the task is simple enough and does not require complex tools nor complex instructions, which allows the Maintenance Organisation to authorise the person.

IF NOT INDICATED IN THE AD, THE FOLLOWING APPLIES:
145.A.30(j)4 or M.A.606(h)2 Personnel requirements, or CAO.A040(c)(2) Certifying staff.

In the case of aircraft operating away from a supported location the organisation may issue a limited certification authorisation to the pilot-in command/aircraft commander on the basis of the flight crew licence held, provided that the organisation ensures that sufficient practical training has been carried out to ensure that such person can accomplish the specified AD task to the required standard. The organisation’s manual shall include specific procedures for such authorisations, and in addition the task must be simple maintenance.

For AD actions performed by Pilot-Owner for aircraft subject to Part-M:

M.A.803 Pilot-owner authorisation

This is only applicable for other than complex motor-powered aircraft of 2 730 kg MTOM and below, which are not used commercially;
The accomplishment of an AD task by the Pilot-Owner is permitted only in the case where it is specifically allowed in the AD (* - see Note); and
Furthermore, it is only permitted to the Pilot-Owner under the conditions of M.A.803 (a) and (b) (limited Pilot-owner maintenance (Appendix VIII to Part-M)).

For AD actions performed by Pilot-Owner for aircraft subject to Part-ML:

ML.A.803 Pilot-owner authorisation

This is only applicable to aircraft not operated commercially, to balloons not operated under Subpart-ADD of Regulation (EU) 2018/395 or to sailplanes not operated under Subpart DEC of Regulation (EU) 2018/1976;
The accomplishment of an AD task by the Pilot-Owner is permitted only in the case where it is specifically allowed in the AD (* - see Note); and
Furthermore, it is only permitted to the Pilot-Owner under the conditions of ML.A.803 (a) and (b) (limited Pilot-owner maintenance (Appendix II to Part-ML)).

* Note: For ADs issued by EASA, when the flight crew / pilot-owner is entitled to carry out the AD task(s) subject to the applicable requirements, the AD will contain a text similar to the following:

The action(s) required by paragraph (x) of this AD may be accomplished, as appropriate: either by suitably authorised flight crew under the provisions of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014 145.A.30(j)3, M.A.606(h)1, or CAO.A.040(c)(1), as applicable; or by the pilot-owner under the provisions of M.A.803 or ML.A.803, as applicable, of the same regulation.

In respect of aircraft not subject to (EU) No 1321/2014, the State of Registry should consider if the national regulations allow the action(s) to be accomplished by the flight crew or pilot owner.

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Part-M

Part-M: General

Continuing airworthiness management for each type of operator/ aircraft

		CONTINUING AIRWORTHINESS MANAGEMENT
Commercial operations	Licenced air carriers [¹]	Continuing airworthiness shall be performed by a CAMO. Operator shall be CAMO approved (CAMO linked to the AOC).
Commercial operations	Commercial specialised operations or CAT operations other than licensed air carriers or commercial ATOs	Continuing airworthiness shall be performed by a CAMO. Operator shall obtain CAMO approval, or operator shall contract a CAMO
Other than commercial operations	Complex motor-powered aircraft [²]	Continuing airworthiness shall be performed by a CAMO. Owner shall contract a CAMO
Other than commercial operations	Other than complex motor-powered aircraft (CMPA) and limited operations [³]	Continuing airworthiness management may be performed by the owner. CAMO is not required.

[1] Licenced air carriers are EU air carriers holding an operating licence in accordance with Regulation (EC) 1008/2008

[2] Twin turboprop aeroplanes of 5 700 kg MTOM and below can be exempted by the Member State from complying with any requirements applicable to CMPA and shall instead comply with the requirements applicable to other than CMPA.

[3] Limited operations are defined in Regulation (EU) 1312/2014 Article 2(p).

The pre-flight inspection forms part of the essential requirements for air operation, as required in Annex V (point 6.2) of the ‘Basic Regulation’ (Regulation (EU) 2018/1139). Being relevant to the aircraft’s fitness for the intended flight, this essential requirement is implemented by the Commission Regulation (EU) 1321/2014 for continuing airworthiness in the following way:

Reference	Obligation	Who	Remark
M.A.201(d) ML.A.201(d)	Carry out pre-flight inspection satisfactorily	Part-M: Pilot-in-command or, in case of Licensed Air Carrier, a qualified staff under the responsibility of the operator (e.g. maintenance staff - see note) Part-ML: Pilot-in-command or a qualified person under the responsibility of the pilot-in-command
M.A.301(a)/ ML.A.301(a)	Ensure pre-flight inspection is carried out	Owner or CA(M)O (according to M.A.201/ML.A.201)
M.A.301(a)/ ML.A.301(a)	Ensure pre-flight inspection includes the actions necessary to ensure that the aircraft is fit to carry out the intended flight	Owner or CA(M)O (according to M.A.201/ML.A.201)	AMC M.A.301(a) points (1) and (2) elaborates those actions
M.A.301(a)/ ML.A.301(a)	If a/c managed by CA(M)O: Provide training to ensure that pre-flight inspection is carried out adequately [AMC M.A.301(a) point (3)]	CA(M)O	Pre-flight inspection training described in the CAME part 1.11 or CAE part D.6
Additional information:
M.A.712(b)/ CAMO.A.200(a)(3)/ CAO.A.100(b)	If a/c managed by CA(M)O: Ensure pre-flight inspection is subject to the quality system/compliance monitoring [AMC M.A.301(a) point (3)]	CA(M)O	This is important because the pre-flight inspection contributes in feeding the process of aircraft continuing airworthiness

Note:

As per the definition of ‘maintenance’ in article 2 (h) of Commission Regulation (EU) 1321/2014, ‘pre-flight inspection’ (as defined in article 2(j)) is not considered maintenance. Therefore, it does not require a certificate of release to service [M.A.201(d)/ML.A.201(d)].

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Do declared training organisations (DTO) need a CAMO/CAO and approved maintenance organisations?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Airworthiness review

Can an airworthiness review certificate (ARC)/recommendation be issued after an airworthiness review with open findings?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Can the extension of an ARC be anticipated more than 30 days?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Can an Airworthiness Review Staff (ARS) perform an airworthiness review on an aircraft in which he/ she had released some maintenance as Certifying Staff (CS)?

To avoid possible conflict of interests, the ARS (Airworthiness Review Staff) should not be or have been involved in the release of the maintenance for the aircraft on which he or she intends to perform the airworthiness review (AR), except in one of the following cases:

Such maintenance has been released as part of the airworthiness review’s physical survey of the aircraft (e.g. release necessary after visual inspections requiring panel opening);
Such maintenance has been released as a result of findings discovered during the physical survey of the aircraft (defect rectification)
Note: cases 1 and 2 are justified by the fact that such specific maintenance activity is part of the AR and therefore does not require independence between maintenance and the AR.
Such maintenance has been released as part of the 100-h/annual inspection contained in the maintenance programme conducted together with the Airworthiness Review of the Part-ML aircraft:
- by an approved maintenance organisation (145.A.75(f) or CAO.A.095(c)(2)) (see also ML.A.901(b)(3)); or
- by independent certifying staff holding an ARS authorisation (see ML.A.901(b)(4)) for aircraft operated under Annex VII (Part-NCO) to Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 or, for balloons not operated under Subpart-ADD of Annex II (Part-BOP) to Regulation (EU) 2018/3951 or for sailplane, not operated under Subpart DEC of Annex II (Part-SAO) to Regulation (EU) 2018/1976.

Remark

From regulatory perspective, cases 1 and 2 are explicitly considered by ‘AMC M.A.707(a)’ and ‘AMC1 CAMO.A.310(a)’ [2nd bullet of point (5), respectively point (e)] for an ARS belonging to a CAMO also holding a AMO approval. Although not explicitly mentioned in any AMC, considering the Note above, the Agency understands that this principle is also permitted in other cases where the ARS happens to be also Certifying staff (including independent certifying staff).

Remark:
Iaw M.A.901(l) or ML.A.903(b), when the ARS is not Certifying Staff, he/she must be assisted by a Certifying Staff to release the maintenance mentioned in cases 1 and 2.

Is there any European requirement to maintain the back-to-birth traceability for any component fitted to an European aircraft?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

What does the term “detailed maintenance records” mean?

There has been a certain confusion about the understanding of “detailed maintenance records”, because this term is used in a different context for continuing airworthiness management and approved maintenance organisation (AMO).

“Detailed maintenance records” as defined in M.A.614, 145.A.55(c) or CAO.A.90(a) are required to be kept by an AMO (respectively Part-M/F organisation, Part-145 organisation or CAO with maintenance privileges). Maintenance organisations are required to retain all detailed records in order to be able to demonstrate that they maintained aircraft and components in compliance with applicable requirements (see also remark).

“Detailed maintenance records” as defined in M.A.305(e)(2) or ML.A.305(h)(1) are those records, coming from the AMO1 having performed maintenance, required to be kept by the owner/operator (or the CAMO or CAO with Continuing airworthiness management privileges when required by M.A.201 or ML.A.201) allowing to determine the aircraft configuration, the airworthiness status of the aircraft and all components installed, as well as to plan future maintenance as required by the AMP, based on the last accomplishment.

Consequently, the AMO should transmit to the owner/operator/CA(M)O a certain subset of the AMO maintenance records, including the certificates of release to service and repair/modification data related to the performed maintenance, so that the owner/operator/CA(M)O can demonstrate compliance with M.A.305 or ML.A.305.

Not all AMO maintenance records need to be transferred from the AMO to the owner/operator unless they specifically contain information relevant to aircraft configuration/status and future maintenance. Thus, incoming certificates of conformity, batch number references and individual task card sign-offs verified by and/or generated by the maintenance organisation are not required to be transferred to the owner/operator/CA(M)O. However, dimensional information contained in the task card sign-offs or work packages may need to be transferred and kept by the owner/ operator.

It is to be noted that the record-retention period requirements are slightly different for the AMO and the CAMO and CAO with Continuing airworthiness management privileges. The AMO shall retain the records for 3 years, whereas the CAMO and CAO with Continuing airworthiness management privileges has to retain their records until they are superseded by new information (equivalent in scope and detail), but not less than 3 years. The starting point in both cases is when the aircraft or component maintenance has been released.

Remark: It is considered a best practice as part of the AMO record-keeping system, (and it is also required by certain competent authorities) to record information (e.g. batch number or other tracking reference) relevant to the identification of all standard parts and material used during any maintenance. This practice may limit safety and industrial risks in the case where a batch is recalled by the manufacturer. Such record does not need to be transmitted to the owner/operator/CAMO/CAO with Continuing airworthiness management privileges.

*: Transmitted records is a subset of AMO maintenance records provided to the CA(M)O. Certain transmitted records do not need to be kept as a record by the CA(M)O such as EASA Form 1 for a component with no scheduled maintenance task selected and not subject to AD or modification/repair.

**: by new information equivalent in scope and detail
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

¹Or pilot-owner [M.A.803 or ML.A.803], or independent certifying staff [M.A.801(b)point 1 or ML.A.801(b)(2)]

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Is there an obligation to keep the EASA Form 1 for on-condition components?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

AMP (Aircraft Maintenance Programme)

What are the main principles governing the development of the AMP under Part-ML?

For aircraft complying with Part-ML (refer to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014, the AMP should be based either on the applicable ICA or on the Minimum Inspection Programme (MIP) defined in ML.A.302(d).

The owner, when she/he has not contracted the continuing airworthiness management to a CAMO or CAO [see ML.A.201(f)], should ‘declare’ the AMP assuming responsibility for its content. Such declared AMP does not need to be sent to the competent authority. Except for the mandatory requirements (see also remark below) the owner may decide, under his/her full responsibility, to deviate from the applicable scheduled maintenance recommendations (including ICA if the AMP is not based on the MIP) without the need to justify such deviation(s) (see GM1 ML.A.302).

If the aircraft is managed by a CAMO or CAO, such organisation should ‘approve’ the AMP. Deviations from the applicable scheduled maintenance recommendations (including ICA if the AMP is not based on the MIP) should be justified and properly recorded.

In both scenarios though (AMP declared by owner or approved by CAMO/CAO), when the AMP is not based on the MIP, the deviations to the applicable ICA shall not result in a less restrictive task than the corresponding MIP task. A clear overview of the different options for the development (including the source of information and potential customisation) and approval of such an AMP is provided by ‘GM1 ML.A.201’, ‘GM2 ML.A.302’.

In addition, the AMP shall be reviewed annually. For declared AMP, this review should be done by the person who performs the airworthiness review during its accomplishment (see AMC1 ML.A.302(c)(9)). For approved AMP, the review can be done either by the Airworthiness Review Staff (ARS) during the airworthiness review or by the CAMO itself.

If during the airworthiness review it is observed that there are discrepancies on the aircraft linked to deficiencies in the content of the aircraft maintenance programme, the AMP must be amended. The competent authority shall be informed in the case where the ARS does not agree with the measures taken to amend the AMP.

Remarks:

In accordance with ML.A.302 and in particular ML.A.302(c)(4), the AMP, declared or approved, shall in all cases include all the mandatory maintenance/continuing airworthiness requirements, such as repetitive Airworthiness Directives or the Airworthiness Limitation Section (ALS).

References:

Please refer also to ‘AMC2 ML.A.302’ (EASA Form AMP), ‘GM1 ML.A.302’ and ‘AMC1 ML.A.302(d)’ (content of MIP).

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

When does the calendar interval for the next aircraft or component maintenance task start?

In a normal scenario :

The date of signing the certificate of release to service (CRS) should be considered to be the date of the accomplishment.
The next due date should be calculated using this date.

However, there may be different considerations that render the normal scenario no longer applicable. For example:

Case 1: The interval of the maintenance task has been previously subject to a one-time extension using an approved procedure included in the aircraft maintenance programme (refer to Appendix I to AMC M.A.302 point 4) normally called ‘permitted variation’ or ’tolerance’. In this case the next due date should be calculated using the previous due date (as opposed to accomplishment date) or as agreed by the competent authority.

For aircraft regulated by Part-ML the situation is different when applying the tolerance of 1 month foreseen in ML.A.302(d), the next interval shall be calculated from the accomplishment date (refer to ML.A.302(d)(1) and AMC1 ML.A.302(d)).

Case 2: The maintenance task refers to a component maintenance task, for example the landing gear overhaul. In this case the start of the interval would be the date of the release to service after the overhaul of the landing gear or in some particular cases when specified in the maintenance data the interval may start from the date of installation on aircraft.

Case 3: The task is released as part of a maintenance check/visit, where the duration of the check/visit is significant compared to the interval of the task. In this case, there may be significant difference between date of accomplishment and date of release. For example, a check/visit that lasts for 2 months and an inspection that has an interval of 3 months. In this case, either the task is carried out on the last days of the maintenance check/visit and the next due date is calculated from the CRS, or the task is carried out at the beginning of the visit and the next due date should be calculated from the date of accomplishment.

There may be other examples, but the key principle is to use sound engineering judgment and the guidance provided in the Instructions for Continuing Airworthiness to calculate the next due date.

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

When should I revise my Aircraft Maintenance Programme (AMP)?

Part-M:

In accordance with M.A.302(h), the Aircraft Maintenance Programme (AMP) shall be subject to ‘periodic reviews’ and amended accordingly when necessary.

This means that the owner/operator/CA(M)O should review at a regular interval:

new/modified maintenance instructions by the TC holder,
modifications and repairs embodied in the particular a/c, which may require compliance to additional maintenance instructions (by Design Approval Holder),
in-service experience collected for the particular a/c or for the fleet and
changes in the type and specificity of operations.

Such a review allows to determine if an AMP revision is necessary to still comply with the obligations of M.A.302(h), and ensure that the AMP continues to be valid in light of the operating experience. As a minimum, point (3) of AMC M.A.302 states it should be at least annually.

However, this should not prevent amending the AMP outside of this formal periodic review, when a specific need arises. This may depend for example on in-service experience (e.g. adverse trend), nature of instruction revisions (e.g. significant reduction of TBO (time between overhaul)), the extent of instruction revisions (amount of affected tasks) as well as source of instruction revisions (e.g. MRBR, ALS, etc.)

When a revision of the ALS (Airworthiness Limitation Section) introduces a new or more restrictive task, EASA has the policy to issue an AD (Airworthiness Directive). Such an AD would typically mandate on one side the revised task accomplishment and on the other side the revision of the AMP itself, together with a compliance time for these two actions.

However, in accordance with point (3) of AMC M.A.302, EASA recommends to review the AMP as soon as possible in this case to avoid a disconnection between accomplished maintenance task(s) and maintenance task(s) listed in the AMP.

If the aircraft’s continuing airworthiness is being managed by a CA(M)O, the CA(M)E (Continuing Airworthiness Management Exposition/Combined Airworthiness Exposition) should describe the AMP revision policy (including ‘periodic review’) under point 1.2 [Appendix V to AMC M.A.704], point 1.2 [AMC1 CAMO.A.300] or point D.3 [AMC1 CAO.A.025].

Remark: In the case where the source documents are amended without having an effect on the AMP content, it is acceptable to use an indirect approval procedure (if granted by the competent authority in accordance with M.A.302(c)) to amend the relevant source document references in the AMP.

Part-ML:

ML.A.302(c)(9) requires an annual review of the AMP.
For aircraft regulated by Part-ML the review of the AMP may be carried out with the airworthiness review (AR) of the aircraft by the person who performs such AR.

Such a review allows to determine if an AMP revision is necessary to still comply with the obligations of ML.A.302(c) or ML.A.302(d) and ensure that the AMP or MIP continues to be valid in light of the operating experience. As a minimum, ML.A.302(c)(9) states it should be at least annually.

However, in accordance with ML.A.302(c)(9), EASA recommends to review the AMP as soon as possible in this case to avoid a disconnection between accomplished maintenance task(s) and maintenance task(s) listed in the AMP.

Remark:

AMP regulated by Part-ML are declared by the owner or approved by the CAMO or CAO (ML.A.302(b)).

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Can a competent authority require the owner/CAMO/CAO to include national requirements in the Aircraft Maintenance Programme (AMP), based on M.A.302(d)(1)?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

How is it possible to escalate AMP task intervals?

Part-M

General:

Some general expectations for escalation initiatives are described in the following paragraph:

a) It should be ensured that the AMP continues to be valid in light of the operating experience [M.A.302(h) – see FAQ n.47406].

b) It should form part of the analysis of the effectiveness of the AMP (if required by M.A.301(e)),

c) The AMP should include a procedure to manage the escalation of established intervals [AMC M.A.302 point (4) and point (2) of AMC M.B.301(c)].

Supported by a formal reliability programme if required by M.A.302(g) or voluntarily implemented [AMC M.A.302(d) point (6)] or collection and analysis of in-service experience.

‘Appendix I to AMC M.A.302 and AMC M.B.301(b)’ provides detailed guidelines for the integration of this information into the AMP.

d) If there is a CA(M)O involved, those points also have to be emphasised within the CA(M)E, as specified in Appendix V to AMC1 M.A.704, AMC1 CAMO.A.300 or AMC1 CAO.A.025.

Two different cases:

The escalation of AMP task intervals falls into the alternative instructions proposed by the owner/CA(M)O [M.A.302(e)] and distinguishes in the following cases:

Case 1:

Escalation of safety-related task intervals, which consist of all mandatory tasks (Airworthiness Limitation Section) as well as certain non-mandatory tasks issued by the DAH (Design Approval Holder) such as various MRBR (Maintenance Review Board Report) tasks [see note below], tasks related to emergency equipment, critical components…

Case 2:

Escalation of non-safety-related task (e.g. non-safety related MRBR task or a task recommended by a Service Letter) intervals

Note:
In cases, where the aircraft type has been subjected to the MRB process, the following MRBR tasks should be considered safety-related:

Failure Effect Category (FEC) ‘5’ (evident safety) and ‘8’ (hidden safety) tasks (systems and powerplant)
SSI (Structural Significant Item) tasks
L/HIRF (Lightning / High Intensity Radiated Field) tasks (as applicable)
Stand-alone EWIS tasks (EZAP procedure)

Escalation approval:

The approval of a task escalations is addressed separately for each case:

Regarding case 1:

1.1 Escalation of mandatory tasks represents a change of the initial type design and therefore must be discussed and agreed between the DAH and the Agency*.
1.2 The AMP revision proposal and the information used to substantiate the escalation of non-mandatory tasks [AMC M.B.301(b)(6)] have to be evaluated by the competent authority [AMC M.B.301(b) point (2)]. Following a positive evaluation, a direct approval of the AMP revision will be issued by the competent authority, as stated in M.A.302(e).

Regarding case 2:

An indirect approval of the AMP through a CA(M)O is possible and described in more detail in FAQ n.19061.

* Exception may exist under certain condition for Two Star CMR (Certification Maintenance Requirement) (see AMC 25-19).

Remarks:

In all cases, task de-escalation may need to be considered based on the supporting data [AMC M.A.302(g) point (4)].
Escalation should not be confused with ‘permitted variations’ to AMP intervals, which applies to a unique aircraft for a unique occasion [‘Appendix I to AMC M.A.302 point (4)].

Part-ML

General:

Some general expectations for escalation initiatives are described in the following paragraph:

a) It should be ensured that the AMP continues to be valid in light of the operating experience [[ML.A.302(c)(9) – see FAQ n.47406].

b) The effectives of the AMP should be assessed at least by an annual review [ML.A.302(c)(9)].

c) The AMP may include additional maintenance actions [ML.A.302(c)(3)] supported by collection and analysis of in-service experience.

‘GM1 ML.A.302(c)(3)’ provides detailed guidelines for the integration of this information into the AMP.

d) If there is a CA(M)O involved, those points also have to be emphasised within the CA(M)E, as specified in Appendix V to AMC M.A.704, AMC1 CAMO.A.300 or AMC1 CAO.A.025.

Two different cases:

The escalation of AMP task intervals falls into the alternative instructions proposed by the owner/CA(M)O [GM1 ML.A.302(c)(2)(b)] and distinguishes in the following cases:

Case 1:

Escalation of safety-related task intervals, which consist of all mandatory tasks (Airworthiness Limitation Section) as well as certain non-mandatory tasks issued by the DAH (Design Approval Holder), tasks related to emergency equipment, critical components…

Case 2:

Escalation of non-safety-related task (e.g. task recommended by a Service Letter) intervals

Escalation approval:

The approval of the escalation is carried out by the CAMO or CAO [ML.A.302(b)(2)]. For declared AMP no approval is needed [ML.A.302(b)(1)].

Remarks:

In all cases, task de-escalation may need to be considered based on the supporting data.
Escalation should not be confused with ‘permitted variations’ to AMP intervals, which applies to a unique aircraft for a unique occasion [GM1 ML.A.302(c)(3)].

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

What kind of alternative (other than escalation) or additional instructions can be introduced in the AMP?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

CAMO (Continuing Airworthiness Management Organisation)

Are deputies to nominated persons required in CAMO or CAO?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Under which condition can a CAMO or CAO use the indirect approval procedure to amend AMP (Aircraft Maintenance Programme) task(s) under Part-M?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Does the CAMO or CAO compliance monitoring/quality system need to be subject to internal audit?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

The requirement to establish a procedure to assess non-mandatory modifications/inspections pursuant to CAMO.A.315(b)(4) refers to the “use of the organisation’s safety risk management process”. What does this mean?

The CAMO has the obligation, for complex motor-powered aircraft and aircraft used by air carriers licensed in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008, to establish a procedure to assess non mandatory modifications and inspections (e.g. Service Bulletins).

This assessment should result in a decision to implement or not the recommendation provided in such non-mandatory information (e.g. perform the inspection, embody the modification, amend the aircraft maintenance programme (AMP)).

This assessment procedure should take into consideration several aspects, as the case may be, including but not limited to:

the applicability to the operator’s fleet (e.g. type of operating environment, utilization, aircraft configuration);
achievement of operator’s safety objectives;
mitigating potential aviation safety risks already identified by the operator;
mitigating potential aviation safety risks not yet apparent to the operator but identified by other operators or TC/STC holder, for aircraft in a similar operational environment;
reliability improvement of the aircraft and components; and
improvement of the effectiveness of the AMP.

In case of potential aviation safety risks, the CAMO should review the hazard(s) identified in the recommendation and the proposed maintenance action and its timeframe (i.e. timeline to embody the modification or amend the AMP). This is the main purpose of the expression “making use of the organisation’s safety risk management process”. If necessary, the CAMO will perform a safety risk assessment (e.g. in terms of probability and severity of consequences) and a review of the related mitigations.

Typically, SBs are issued for technical purposes (as mitigation or safety risk control). For instance, a SB could provide the following:

an elimination of an identified hazard by the embodiment of a modification, or
reducing the safety risk (i.e. the severity and/or likelihood) of the consequences of an identified hazard by the embodiment of a modification, or
reducing the likelihood of the consequences of an identified hazard by performing repetitive inspections.

Since SBs are also used for other purposes (e.g. optional equipment installation, commercial retrofit) and not only for potential safety-related situations, it is not required to use safety risk management process for each SB.

The CAMO should use its safety risk management process to determine if the hazard identified in the SB applies to the managed fleet and what the associated risk is, and/or whether the proposed action (modification/inspection) are applicable, effective and reasonable. For clarity, it is not intended that the CAMO should redo the safety assessment performed by the design approval holder; the CAMO assessment should be tailored to its fleet and related operations.

The referred CAME procedure for the assessment of non-mandatory modifications and inspections should ideally describe the decision-making process and mandate to record the decision taken and its justifications (e.g. based on considerations of costs vs benefits such as safety or reliability).

The decision to embody a modification may require the change management process to be followed to ensure proper coordination between the aircraft operator, the CAMO and the approved maintenance organisation. For example, a modification that affects Mass and Balance, requires maintenance check flights, introduces revised flight manual procedures, maintenance manual procedures, changes to the AMP, which needs to be managed to ensure proper dissemination of the information, training, review of existing hazards, and review of risk assessment, as applicable.

Yes

Quality system

Does the Part-145 or Part-CAO quality system need to be subject to monitoring?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Certification of maintenance

With respect to blend out repairs, is it required to record the depth and area dimensions of material removed during a blend out repair or is it sufficient to simply record that the damage has been repaired as per the SRM?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Can the subcontractor of a Part-145 or Part-CAO organisation release maintenance?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Release to service of NDT tasks by Part-145 or Part-CAO organisations

This answer is separated in two tables. One table is for organisation holding a Part-145 approval and the second table is for organisations holding a Part-CAO approval.

Part-145:

Part-145 organisation	Certifying staff required	Qualification system	General Release procedure	Release procedure for an NDT inspection
Aircraft (class A)	The release of the aircraft maintenance carried out under A class rating has to be performed by certifying staff holding a Part-66 licence. (B1 or B3 or C or L certifying staff under the organisation’s A rating.)	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. This organization needs to have part-66 certifying staff and NDT personnel qualified in accordance with 145.A.30(f). In this case the NDT inspector performs the NDT task and signs off the work order. The aircraft is released by appropriately qualified B1, B3, C or L certifying staff under the organisation’s A rating. 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.
Engines Class B	The release of the engine maintenance carried out under B class rating has to be performed by engine’s certifying staff.	The certifying staff is qualified following the procedures established by the organisation in compliance with the competent authority requirements. Part-66 licence is not required.	The release of works performed under class B is done on an EASA Form 1 (or by means of an internal release document when this component is for the organisation’s own use and the organisation has in place the related internal procedures in the MOE).	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. This organization needs to have “engine” certifying staff (qualified in accordance with company procedures) and NDT personnel qualified in accordance with 145.A.30(f). In this case the NDT inspector performs the NDT task and signs off the work order. The engine certifying staff releases the works performed to the engine (including NDT inspection) on an EASA Form 1.
Components Class C	The release of the component maintenance carried out under C class rating has to be performed by components certifying staff (CCS).	The certifying staff is qualified following the procedures established by the organisation in compliance with the competent authority requirements. The CCS is not required to have a Part-66 licence.	The release of works performed under class C is done on an EASA Form 1 (or by means of an internal release document when this component is for the organisation’s own use and the organisation has in place the related internal procedures in the MOE).	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. This organization needs to have CCS and NDT personnel qualified in accordance with 145.A.30(f). In this case the NDT inspector performs the NDT task and signs off the Work Order / Engineering Order. The CCS releases the works performed to the component (including NDT inspection) on an EASA Form 1.
Specialised services	The release of the maintenance carried out under D1 class rating 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 D1 rating is done on an EASA Form 1 or using another form of release to service (other than aircraft release to service) as defined by the organisation in the MOE in compliance with 145.A.50 and approved by the competent authority.	A Part-145 organisation holding a D1 approval on a particular NDT method. The approved scope of work will be NDT inspections on this method. This organisation needs to have NDT certifying staff qualified in accordance with 145.A.30(f). In this case the NDT certifying staff performs and releases the NDT task on an EASA Form 1 or using another form of release to service (other than aircraft release to service) as defined by the organisation in the MOE in compliance with 145.A.50 and approved by the competent authority.

Note: In case of non-EU organisations approved by the EASA in accordance with Part-145, the Part-66 licence could be read as “Part-66 or national licence in accordance with Part-145 Appendix IV”

Part-CAO:

Part-145 organisation	Certifying staff required	Qualification system	General Release procedure	Release procedure for an NDT inspection
Aircraft (class aeroplanes, helicopter, airships, balloons or sailplanes)	The release of the aircraft maintenance carried out under A class rating 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-CAO organisation holding an aeroplanes, helicopter, airships, balloons or sailplanes particular aircraft type or and having in its approved scope of work NDT inspections for this aircraft type. This organization needs to have part-66 certifying staff and NDT personnel qualified in accordance with CAO.A.035(f). In this case the NDT inspector performs the NDT task and signs off the work order. The aircraft is released by appropriately qualified B1, B3 or L certifying staff under the organisation’s aeroplanes, helicopter, airships, balloons or sailplanes rating. 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.
Engines or Components other than complete engines Class Components	The release of the engine maintenance carried out under components class rating has to be performed by ‘engine’s’ or ‘components other than complete engines‘ 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 components is done on an EASA Form 1 (or by means of an internal release document when this component is for the organisation’s own use and the organisation has in place the related internal procedures in the CAE).	A Part-CAO organisation holding a components rating approval on a particular engine type or ‘components other than complete engines‘ and having in its approved scope of work NDT inspections for this engine type. This organization needs to have “engine” or ‘components other than complete engines‘ certifying staff (qualified in accordance with company procedures) and NDT personnel qualified in accordance with CAO.A.035(f). In this case the NDT inspector performs the NDT task and signs off the work order. The engine or ‘components other than complete engines‘ certifying staff releases the works performed to the engine or ‘components other than complete engines‘ (including NDT inspection) on an EASA Form 1.
Components Class C	The release of the component maintenance carried out under C class rating has to be performed by components certifying staff (CCS).	The certifying staff is qualified following the procedures established by the organisation in compliance with the competent authority requirements. The CCS is not required to have a Part-66 licence.	The release of works performed under class C is done on an EASA Form 1 (or by means of an internal release document when this component is for the organisation’s own use and the organisation has in place the related internal procedures in the MOE).	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. This organization needs to have CCS and NDT personnel qualified in accordance with 145.A.30(f). In this case the NDT inspector performs the NDT task and signs off the Work Order / Engineering Order. The CCS releases the works performed to the component (including NDT inspection) on an EASA Form 1.
Specialised services	The release of the maintenance carried out under ‘Specialised Services’ class rating 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 ‘Specialised Services’ rating is done on an EASA Form 1 or using another form of release to service (other than aircraft release to service) as defined by the organisation in the CAE in compliance with CAO.A.070(a) and approved by the competent authority (AMC1 CAO.A.070 (a)(1)).	A Part-CAO organisation holding a ‘Specialised Services’ approval on a particular NDT method. The approved scope of work will be NDT inspections on this method. This organisation needs to have NDT certifying staff qualified in accordance with CAO.A.035(f). In this case the NDT certifying staff performs and releases the NDT task on an EASA Form 1 or using another form of release to service (other than aircraft release to service) as defined by the organisation in the CAE in compliance with CAO.A.070 and approved by the competent authority.

Note: In case of non-EU organisations approved by the EASA in accordance with Part-145, the Part-66 licence could be read as “Part-66 or national licence in accordance with Part-145 Appendix IV”

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Maintenance data

Shall the maintenance data be available and controlled at all times, even if there is no maintenance work going, or shall it be available only during the performance of maintenance?

Maintenance data has direct influence on many processes of the approved maintenance organisation (AMO) and contributes to demonstrate the overall capability of the organisation to perform maintenance.

The maintenance data either can be arranged directly by the AMO or provided by the customer/operator as specified by 145.A.45(a), M.A.609 or CAO.A.055(a). In both cases, the AMO should demonstrate that the maintenance data used, regardless of the source, is up-to-date. To discharge this responsibility, a procedure should be established to:

(a) control the amendment status of any documents being used;

and

(b) regularly check that all amendments are being received, e.g. by subscribing to a document amendment scheme (sufficient in case of direct access to the maintenance data through the DAH/OEM. The subscription to the maintenance data distribution system of the customer/operator is insufficient, additional independent verifications through the original author shall be done).

When the maintenance data is arranged directly by the AMO it shall be available and controlled continuously.

There are certain situations when the maintenance data can be obtained only through the customer/operator. One of the examples would be the maintenance data for the large aircraft. The maintenance data coming from the TC holder is usually customised because of the model/configuration/modification/order of aircraft, so it is normally not possible for the AMO to have this customised maintenance data directly from TC holder without having an aircraft of that type under the contract.

When the maintenance data is provided by the customer/operator, it shall be held and controlled by the AMO during maintenance on the concerned aircraft/component. Whenever the maintenance data is not available or not current, the maintenance shall not be performed and released.

Additionally, as part of the obligation for maintenance records, used maintenance data shall be:

recorded (in compliance with 145.A.55(c), M.A.614(c) or CAO.A.090(b))
Remark: Manuals issued by the (S)TC (Supplementary Type Certificate) holder such as AMM and CMM do not need to be stored as a record. Recording the revision status of such manual may be sufficient [AMC 145.A.55(c), AMC M.A.614(c)]; and
accessible for auditing purpose

to demonstrate that the organisation worked in compliance with their respective requirements.

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Personnel requirements

Can a certification maintenance requirement (CMR) be performed by the Flight Crew before flight?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

What is the meaning of the Protected Rights in the Appendix IV to Part-145?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

What are the training requirements for personnel within a Part-145 organisation, other than those contained in Part-66?

Requirement	Reference
The accountable manager shall demonstrate a basic understanding of Part-145.	145.A.30(a) point 3.
The person or group of persons nominated responsible for ensuring that the organisation complies with Part-145 (including the Quality Manager) shall be able to demonstrate relevant knowledge, background and satisfactory experience related to aircraft or components maintenance as applicable, a working knowledge of Part-145,	145.A.30(b) point 3.
The organisation shall establish and control the competence of personnel involved in any maintenance, airworthiness review management and/or quality audits in accordance with a procedure and to a standard agreed by the competent authority. In addition to the necessary expertise related to the job function, competence must include an understanding of the application of human factors and human performance issues appropriate to that person's function in the organisation. This should include also: Fuel Tank Safety training (AMC3 145-A-30(e) and Appendix IV to AMC 145.A.30(e) and 145.B.10(3)). EWIS training (AMC 20-22)	145.A.30(e) and associated AMC/GM. Appendix IV to AMC 145.A.30(e) and 145.B.10(3). AMC 20-22.
The organisation shall ensure that personnel who carry out and/or control a continued airworthiness non-destructive test of aircraft structures and/or components are appropriately qualified for the particular non-destructive test in accordance with the European or equivalent Standard recognised by the Agency. Personnel who carry out any other specialised task shall be appropriately qualified in accordance with officially recognised Standards. By derogation to this paragraph those personnel specified in paragraphs (g) and (h)(1) and (h)(2), qualified in category B1, B3 or L in accordance with Annex III (Part-66) may carry out and/or control colour contrast dye penetrant tests.	145.A.30(f) and AMC 145.A.30(f).
By derogation to paragraphs (g) and (h), in relation to the obligation to comply with Annex III (Part-66), the organisation may use certifying staff qualified in accordance with the following provisions: 1. For organisation facilities located outside the Community territory certifying staff may be qualified in accordance with the national aviation regulations of the State in which the organisation facility is registered subject to the conditions specified in Appendix IV to this Part. 2. For line maintenance carried out at a line station of an organisation which is located outside the Community territory, the certifying staff may be qualified in accordance with the national aviation regulations of the State in which the line station is based, subject to the conditions specified in Appendix IV to this Part. 3. For a repetitive pre-flight airworthiness directive which specifically states that the flight crew may carry out such airworthiness directive, the organisation may issue a limited certification authorisation to the aircraft commander and/or the flight engineer on the basis of the flight crew licence held. However, the organisation shall ensure that sufficient practical training has been carried out to ensure that such aircraft commander or flight engineer can accomplish the airworthiness directive to the required standard. 4. In the case of aircraft operating away from a supported location the organisation may issue a limited certification authorisation to the commander and/or the flight engineer on the basis of the flight crew licence held subject to being satisfied that sufficient practical training has been carried out to ensure that the commander or flight engineer can accomplish the specified task to the required standard. The provisions of this paragraph shall be detailed in an exposition procedure. 5. In the following unforeseen cases, where an aircraft is grounded at a location other than the main base where no appropriate certifying staff are available, the organisation contracted to provide maintenance support may issue a one-off certification authorisation: (i) to one of its employees holding equivalent type authorisations on aircraft of similar technology, construction and systems; or (ii) to any person with not less than five years maintenance experience and holding a valid ICAO aircraft maintenance licence rated for the aircraft type requiring certification provided there is no organisation appropriately approved under this Part at that location and the contracted organisation obtains and holds on file evidence of the experience and the licence of that person. All such cases as specified in this point shall be reported to the competent authority within seven days of the issuance of such certification authorisation. The organisation issuing the one-off authorisation shall ensure that any such maintenance that could affect flight safety is re-checked by an appropriately approved organisation.	145.A.30(j) and associated AMC/GM. Appendix IV to Part-145.
In addition to the appropriate requirements of 145.A.30(g) and (h), the organisation shall ensure that certifying staff and support staff have an adequate understanding of the relevant aircraft and/or components, or both, to be maintained and of the associated organisation procedures. In the case of certifying staff, this shall be accomplished before the issue or reissue of the certification authorisation.	145.A.35(a) and AMC 145.A.35(a).
The organisation shall ensure that all certifying staff and support staff are involved in at least six months of actual relevant aircraft or component maintenance experience in any consecutive two-year period.	145.A.35(c) and AMC 145.A.35(c).
The organisation shall ensure that all certifying staff and support staff receive sufficient continuation training in each two-year period to ensure that such staff have up-to-date knowledge of relevant technology, organisation procedures and human factor issues.	145.A.35(d) and AMC 145.A.35(d).
The organisation shall establish a programme for continuation training for certifying staff and support staff, including a procedure to ensure compliance with the relevant paragraphs of 145.A.35 as the basis for issuing certification authorisations under this Part to certifying staff, and a procedure to ensure compliance with Annex III (Part 66).	145.A.35(e) and AMC 145.A.35(e).
Except where any of the unforeseen cases of 145.A.30(j)(5) apply, the organisation shall assess all prospective certifying staff for their competence, qualification and capability to carry out their intended certifying duties in accordance with a procedure as specified in the exposition prior to the issue or reissue of a certification authorisation under this Part.	145.A.35(f) and AMC 145.A.35(f).
The holder of a category A aircraft maintenance licence may only exercise certification privileges on a specific aircraft type following the satisfactory completion of the relevant category A aircraft task training carried out by an organisation appropriately approved in accordance with Annex II (Part-145) or Annex IV (Part-147). This training shall include practical hands on training and theoretical training as appropriate for each task authorised. Satisfactory completion of training shall be demonstrated by an examination or by workplace assessment carried out by the organisation.	145.A.35(n) and AMC 145.A.35(n).
The holder of a category B2 aircraft maintenance licence may only exercise the certification privileges described in point 66.A.20(a)(3)(ii) of Annex III (Part-66) following the satisfactory completion of (i) the relevant category A aircraft task training and (ii) six months of documented practical experience covering the scope of the authorisation that will be issued. The task training shall include practical hands on training and theoretical training as appropriate for each task authorised. Satisfactory completion of training shall be demonstrated by an examination or by workplace assessment. Task training and examination/assessment shall be carried out by the maintenance organisation issuing the certifying staff authorisation. The practical experience shall be also obtained within such maintenance organisation.	145.A.35(o) and AMC 145.A.35(o).
Pre-flight inspections (when the 145 organisation has an agreement with an operator) It should be demonstrated that the personnel carrying out pre-flight inspections have received appropriate training for the relevant pre-flight inspection tasks based on the operator’s CAME.	ML.A.301(a) or M.A.301(a) and AMC M.A.301(a)

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Part-66

Get a Part-66 licence

What are the Part-66 licence categories?

In a Part-145 approved organisation, the different categories of Part-66 licences are:

LICENCE CATEGORY	For certifying the release to service of work performed on aircraft:	What:
A	Minor scheduled line maintenance and simple defect rectification Divided into the following subcategories: A1 Aeroplanes Turbine; A2 Aeroplanes Piston; A3 Helicopters Turbine; A4 Helicopters Piston.	Line Maintenance
B1	Maintenance on aircraft structure, power plant and mechanical and electrical systems, avionic systems requiring simple tests to prove their serviceability and no troubleshooting Divided into B1.1 for turbine aeroplanes, B1.2 for piston engine aeroplanes, B1.3 for Turbine helicopter and B1.4 for piston engine helicopter	Line Maintenance
B3	Maintenance on aeroplane structure, power plant and mechanical and electrical systems; and on avionics systems requiring only simple tests to prove their serviceability and not requiring troubleshooting limited to non-pressurized aeroplanes of 2 000 kg MTOM and below.	Line Maintenance
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 Maintenance
B2L	The same as B2 but limited to the systems endorsed on the licence: Divided into the following ‘system ratings’: communication/navigation (com/nav), instruments, auto flight, surveillance, airframe systems.	Line Maintenance
L	Maintenance on aircraft structure, power plant and mechanical and electrical systems; radio, Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELT) and transponder systems; and work on other avionics systems requiring simple tests to prove their serviceability Divided into the following subcategories: L1C: composite sailplanes, L1: sailplanes, L2C: composite powered sailplanes and composite ELA1 aeroplanes, L2: powered sailplanes and ELA1 aeroplanes, L3H: hot-air balloons, L3G: gas balloons, L4H: hot-air airships, L4G: ELA2 gas airships, L5: gas airships other than ELA2.	Line Maintenance
C	Base maintenance C with respect to complex motor-powered aircraft and C with respect to other than complex motor-powered aircraft	Line Maintenance
	Support staff for:
B1	Maintenance on aircraft structure, power plant and mechanical and electrical systems, avionic systems requiring simple tests to prove their serviceability and no troubleshooting (subdivided into B1.1 for turbine aeroplanes, B1.2 for piston engine aeroplanes, B1.3 for Turbine helicopter and B1.4 for piston engine helicopter)	Base Maintenance
B2	Maintenance on avionic and electrical systems and electric and avionics tasks within power plant and mechanical systems requiring only simple test and minor scheduled line maintenance and simple defect rectification	Base Maintenance
B2L	The same as B2 but limited to the systems endorsed on the licence: communication/navigation (com/nav), instruments, auto flight, surveillance, airframe systems.
B3	Maintenance on aeroplane structure, power plant and mechanical and electrical systems; and on avionics systems requiring only simple tests to prove their serviceability and not requiring troubleshooting limited to non-pressurized aeroplanes of 2 000 kg MTOM and below.	Base Maintenance
L	Maintenance on aircraft structure, power plant and mechanical and electrical systems; radio, Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELT) and transponder systems; and work on other avionics systems requiring simple tests to prove their serviceability Divided into the following subcategories: L1C: composite sailplanes, L1: sailplanes, L2C: composite powered sailplanes and composite ELA1 aeroplanes, L2: powered sailplanes and ELA1 aeroplanes, L3H: hot-air balloons, L3G: gas balloons, L4H: hot-air airships, L4G: ELA2 gas airships, L5: gas airships other than ELA2.	Base Maintenance

See points 66.A.3 and 66.A.20 of Annex III (Part-66) to Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014 can be found on the Agency website https://www.easa.europa.eu/regulations#regulations-continuing-airworthi… or in the eRules https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-library/easy-access-rules/easy-acce…)

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

How to get an EASA Part-66 Licence (Category B1 or B2)?

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.

Part-66 has only a provision to suspend, limit or revoke licences in case of carrying out maintenance or issuing a certificate of release to service when adversely affected by alcohol or drugs [66.B.500 point(7)].

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
4.1    Vision
4.2    Hearing
4.3    Information-processing
4.4    Attention and perception
4.5    Situational awareness
4.6    Memory
4.7    Claustrophobia and physical access
4.8    Motivation
4.9    Fitness/Health
4.10 Stress
4.11 Workload management
4.12 Fatigue
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.

For personnel studying a qualification at a University or a degree in a country outside of the EU: I am studying aeronautics and I wish to obtain an EASA Part-66 licence? May I get a credit or may I get a licence based on my degree?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Which documentation is required to support the application demonstrating compliance with the experience requirements?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Where do I gain the required basic maintenance experience? Is it mandatory to gain the required maintenance experience in an EASA approved Part-145 organisation?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

I work as a mechanic in the military field on aircraft being also certified for civil operations. In order to obtain the Part-66 licence, why do I need additional experience of civil aircraft maintenance as required by 66.A.30(e) on top of my experience in the military field?

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.

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

I have completed my EASA Part-66 modules for B1 and I have passed all the exams, but I still lack experience to get my licence. Is there a time limit to get the licence ? Will the certificate expire in a few years if I do not get the experience?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Categories of a Part-66 licence

I hold a Category A1 Part-66 licence. What are the requirements to extend my licence to Category B1.1?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

I already hold a Part-66 licence and I would like to include an additional basic (sub)category? Which additional (sub)modules are required to be passed for the addition of that new (sub)category?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Type ratings of a Part-66 licence

What is a difference between examination and assessment? Why are there two different examination standards, respectively in Part-66 Appendix III, points 4 and 5?

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.

What is the intention of the requirement regarding the assessment of the OJT. What is the nature of the assessment for an OJT? What are the differences between practical assessment and OJT assessment? What are the objectives of the OJT assessment?

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 training.	Completeness of the OJT.
What/who is assessed:	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.
Function of assessor:	Reference: Appendix III 4.2.; AMC Appendix III	Reference: Appendix III, 6.; AMC to Section 6 of Appendix III 8.
Organisation :	Part-147 Approved maintenance environment (Part-145, M.A. Subpart F with A rating, manufacturer) under the Part-147 approval Defined maintenance environment as described in the direct approved procedure by the competent authority (66.B.130)	Always in a maintenance organisation approved under Part-145 with an aircraft rating
Organisation :	Reference: Appendix III 1(b)	Reference: Appendix III 6.; AMC to Section 6 of Appendix III 1.
Objectives:	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.
Objectives:	Reference: Appendix III, 3.2.	Reference: AMC to Section 6 of Appendix III 7. & 8.
Type of assessment:	The assessment may be: diagnostic (prior to a course), formative summative (partial or final evaluation) performed task-by-task performed as a group of tasks partly executed on simulation devices performed as a final assessment	Continuous during OJT (confirmed by the direct supervisor) Summative, as a final evaluation of the completeness of the OJT (based on the supervisor(s) reports and feedback)
Type of assessment:	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.)
Qualification of the assessor:	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-147 MTOE	Part-145 Maintenance organisation exposition (chapter 3.15) or “one-off” direct approval
Procedure included in:	Reference: Appendix III 1(b); Part-147	Reference: AMC 145.A.70 (a)

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

(OJT) What is the meaning of the following statement in Part-66 Appendix III, Section 6: “The final assessment of the completed OJT is mandatory and…”?

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.

The endorsement of the first aircraft type rating, within a given category/sub-category, requires satisfactory completion of the corresponding On-the-Job-Training (ref. 66.A.45(c)).

The OJT shall be approved by the competent authority who has issued the licence (ref. Part 66, Appendix III, sec. 6).

It shall be carried out in a maintenance organisation approved under Part-145 with A rating or and the procedures for OJT should be included in the exposition (MOE chapter 3.15 “OJT procedure”, approved by the competent authority of the maintenance organisation. However, since these procedures are approved by the competent authority of the maintenance organisation, and providing training is not one of the privileges of a maintenance organisation, they can only be used when the licensing authority (competent authority issuing the license) is the same as the competent authority of the maintenance organisation. In other cases, it is up to the licensing authority to decide whether it accepts such procedures for the purpose of approving the OJT (ref. AMC to Section 6 of Appendix III to Part-66).

For the Part-145, whose principal place of business is located outside the EASA Member states, the competent authority of the maintenance organisation is EASA. In such case, the OJT procedures cannot be included in the MOE, due to the fact that EASA is not a licensing authority.

The possibility still exists in this case that a licensing authority may directly approve OJT procedures, which have to be included in a separate document outside (and not being part) of the MOE.

Consequently, personnel working in these AMOs, or the AMOs wishing to support its staff on this matter, should:

Option A: apply directly to the licensing authority who has issued the license for the approval of an OJT (to be proposed in a document outside the MOE). This option should normally be considered by organisations and not by individuals.
Option B: find an agreement to follow an already approved OJT at another organisation, which was approved by the same licensing authority who has issued the license. Possibility also exists to follow an OJT which was approved by any other licensing authority, however in such a case the final acceptance of this OJT for the purpose of endorsing the first type rating in the license remains at the sole discretion of the competent authority issuing the license.

It is recommended that prior to starting any OJT, the licensing authority who has issued the license is contacted to verify its acceptance of any possible intended option.

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

There are several scenarios possible depending on the particular case. Here are some most probable cases for category A, B1, B2, B2L, B3 or L:

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 1 or 2 years of maintenance experience (66.A.30).

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 2 or 3 years of experience (if recognised as skilled worker) or 1, 2, 3 or 5 years (66.A.30).

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 or Appendix VII 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 1 or 2 years needed, see case No 1) 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 – 2 or 3 years). Standard 1, 2, 3 or 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.

Examination

In case the answer you were looking for in this FAQ section is not available: you might submit your enquiry here

Air Operations - General

In the definition of ‘commercial operation’ published in Art. 2 of Regulation (EU) 965/2012 (introduced by the amending Reg. (EU) 2018/1975), what is the meaning of the term “control”?

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011, Regulation (EU) No 965/2012

These terms refer to certain legal concepts used in aviation safety regulations, in particular Reg. (EU) No 1178/2011 on aircrew and Reg. (EU) No 965/2012 on air operations.

'Grandfathering' designates the legal recognition and acceptance of certificates issued on the basis of national legislation by national authorities prior to the entry into force of a specific regulation. For example, in Reg. (EU) No 1178/2011, the conditions for the grandfathering of JAR-compliant and non-JAR-compliant pilot licences and medical certificates are set forth in its Articles 4 and 5. In Reg. (EU) No 965/2012, the conditions for grandfathering of EU-OPS AOCs are set forth in Article 7(1).

Grandfathering measures are included in the Cover Regulation to assist Member States in the transition from national rules to unified EU rules. In the case of aircrew licensing, provisions on grandfathering consider some national certificates issued in compliance with given regulations and by a certain date as being in compliance with the new Aircrew Regulation (i.e. Reg. (EU) No 1178/2011).

A 'transition measure' is a provision helping the national competent authorities and regulated entities to gradually adapt to the new EU rules. Several examples can be found in the Aircrew Regulation, such as in Article 11c (in relation to the obligation of Member States regarding the transfer of records and certification processes of those organisations for which the Agency is the competent authority) and in Article 4 (1) — the obligation of Member States to adapt grandfathered pilot licences to the new format by a certain date.

The 'opt-out' is a form of transition measure applicable to Member States. Opt-out provisions allowed Member States to decide not to implement an EU regulation or certain provisions thereof for a certain period of time, delaying the date of application of the new regulation (or certain provisions thereof) within that Member State. For example, the opt-out provisions contained in the Aircrew and Air Ops regulations required the Member State to notify the European Commission and EASA of the 'opt-out', describing the reasons for such derogation and the programme for the phasing out of the opt-out and achieving full implementation of the common requirements.

Was this helpful?

Yes

What is the difference between 'entry into force' and 'date of applicability' in the Cover Regulations?

Many Commission Regulations adopted in EASA domains contain two different dates, usually under the heading “entry into force”. The example below is from Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on air operations:

Article 10
Entry into force
1. This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
It shall apply from 28 October 2012.

The entry into force of an EU regulation represents the date when the regulation has legal existence in the EU legal order and in the national legal order of each Member State.

It is common practice that the regulation enters into force 20 days after its publication in the Official Journal of the EU. That is the case when the legislator simply uses the expression “This Regulation enters into force on the 20th day after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.” Shorter periods are also used, as was the case in the example above.

Sometimes the date of entry into force is also the date of applicability of a regulation, meaning that from the date when it enters into force, the regulation is also applicable; it can be fully invoked by its addressees and is fully enforceable.

However, due to the complexity of the domains that are regulated, a period of time may be needed between the date the regulation enters into force, i.e. it legally exists, and the date it can actually be applied, i.e. the date when it is enforceable and the legal rights and obligations can be effectively exercised.

This period of time (vacatio legis) is deliberately introduced for Member States, competent authorities, operators, organisations, licence holders and any other addressees or beneficiaries of the regulations to prepare their systems, processes, procedures, documentation, etc. for compliance with the new rules.

Vacatio legis is also a period given for the addressees of the regulation to adjust to the upcoming rights and obligations and take the necessary measures to benefit from the legal effects of the regulation, namely for the purposes of mutual recognition of certificates and approvals in the aviation internal market.

In those cases, it is common practice of the legislator to establish two different dates under the article on entry into force. One date establishes the legal existence of the act (entry into force); the second date establishes the date when it becomes applicable (applicability).

The date of applicability therefore represents the date from which the regulation can produce rights and obligations on the addressees and can be directly enforced towards the courts, administrations, national governments, etc. This means that before the date of applicability, obligations or privileges can neither be exercised nor enforced.

The same understanding is shared by the Legal Service of the Commission, which has also clarified in EASA Committee that the privileges provided for in a regulation can only be exercised as of the applicability date chosen by the legislator. Persons subject to the relevant regulation (including national aviation authorities) may prepare themselves for such an effective date (adapting their procedures and practices), but can neither enjoy the privileges nor enforce the obligations.

Legal consequences

This means that Member States cannot start delivering authorisations, approvals, certificates, etc. issued in accordance with the new regulations and at the same time producing all the legal effects of the regulation from the date of entry into force of the regulation, but only from the date of its applicability. However, during the gap period existing between the date of entry into force and the date of applicability, Member States and competent authorities can prepare the process towards the issuance of such authorisations, approvals, and any other certificates in accordance with the new provisions.

In addition, during the period of vacatio legis, an option that Member States and competent authorities can consider, in order to avoid issuing certificates on the last day before the date of applicability, is to issue the new certificates in accordance with the new regulation while clearly indicating in those certificates that they are only valid as of a certain date that would coincide with the date of applicability of the regulation on the basis of which those certificates are issued. This means that those new certificates may be issued, but are not yet effective and cannot be mutually recognised among Member States until the common date of applicability established by the regulation. Until they become effective, licence holders, organisations and operators should still retain and use the certificates already issued under the previous regime. Competent authorities are only obliged to accept the new certificates once the regulation has become applicable.

Implementing rules (IRs) are binding in their entirety and used to specify a high and uniform level of safety and uniform conformity and compliance. They detail how to comply with the essential requirements of the Basic Regulation and regulate the subject matters included in its scope. The IRs are adopted by the European Commission in the form of Regulations. EU law is directly applicable (full part of Member States' legal order).

Detailed implementation aspects are included as Certification Specifications (CS) or Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC).

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 IRs can be met. The AMC illustrate a means, but not the only means, by which a requirement of an implementing rule can be met. Satisfactory demonstration of compliance using a published AMC shall provide for presumption of compliance with the related requirement; it is a way to facilitate certification tasks for the applicant and the competent authority. However, NAAs and organisations may decide to show compliance with the requirements using other means. Both NAAs and the organisations may propose alternative means of compliance (AltMoCs). ‘Alternative Means of Compliance’ are those that propose an alternative to an existing AMC. Those AltMoC 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.

Read more on the difference between AMC and AltMoC.

Certification Specifications (CS) are non-binding technical standards adopted by 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 EASA are not adequate or are inappropriate to ensure conformity of the aerodrome with the essential requirements of Annex VII 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 correct understanding and application of the Basic Regulation, its IRs, AMCs and the CSs.

Frequently Asked Questions: FAQs are published on the EASA website and cover a wide range of material. Although the information contained in the FAQs is a summary of existing law or procedures, it may contain the results of a more complex interpretation of IR or other rules of law. In such cases there is always an internal quality consultation within the Agency prior to the publication of the FAQ on the website. The EASA FAQs are necessary to share information and enable to get a common understanding.

The FAQs are not additional GM.

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Does Reg. (EU) No 965/2012 on air operations also apply to non-commercial operations?

References: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on air operations as amended by Regulation (EU) No 800/2013; Reg. (EC) No 216/2008

Yes, non-commercial operations with aeroplanes and helicopters are covered by Reg. (EU) No 965/2012 on air operations. The applicable rules are determined by the complexity of the aircraft being used: Annex VI (Part–NCC) applies to non-commercial operations with complex motor-powered aircraft) and Annex VII (Part–NCO) applies to non-commercial operations with other-than-complex motor-powered aircraft.

The definition of complex motor-powered aircraft is found in Article 3 of Reg. (EC) No 216/2008. Pursuant to Article 140(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 (the New Basic Regulation), ‘complex motor-powered aircraft’ shall still be understood as a reference to point (j) of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008. This is a transitional provision until not later than 12 September 2023, when the implementing rules adopted on the basis of Regulations (EC) No 216/2008 and (EC) No 552/2004 shall be adapted to this Regulation. The definition is as follows:

“complex motor-powered aircraft' shall mean:

(i) an aeroplane:

with a maximum certificated take-off mass exceeding 5 700 kg, or
certificated for a maximum passenger seating configuration of more than nineteen, or
certificated for operation with a minimum crew of at least two pilots, or
equipped with (a) turbojet engine(s) or more than one turboprop engine, or

(ii) a helicopter certificated:

for a maximum take-off mass exceeding 3 175 kg, or
for a maximum passenger seating configuration of more than nine, or
for operation with a minimum crew of at least two pilots,

or

(iii) a tilt rotor aircraft”.

The definition for 'commercial operation' is in Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 965/2012:

“(1)(d) 'commercial operation' means any operation of an aircraft, in return for remuneration or other valuable consideration, which is available to the public or, when not made available to the public, which is performed under a contract between an operator and customer, where the latter has no control over the operator”.

Training flights fall under either Part-NCC or Part-NCO, depending on the complexity of the aircraft used for the non-commercial operations.

In addition, Part-SPA applies to any operation requiring a specific approval (e.g. low visibility operations, transport of dangerous goods, performance-based navigation and more).

Finally, Annexes II (Part-ARO) and III (Part-ORO) contain the authority requirements and respectively the organisation requirements. Annex III applies to operators of complex motor-powered aircraft, both commercial and non-commercial.

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations, Annex III (Part-ORO); Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014 on continuing airworthiness, Part-M

1. Continuing airworthiness management

The EU licensed air carrier hereafter referred to as ‘the operator’, needs to consider both the relevant Part-ORO rules that will become fully applicable on 29 October 2014 and the applicable Part-M requirements. For these operators, the Part-M Subpart-G approval is an integral part of the AOC (as defined in Part-M, M.A.201(h)).

The Part-M requirements have not yet been amended to align with the management system framework adopted for air operations. However the operator should ‘scrutinise’ all its activities under its hazard identification and risk management processes, including the continuing airworthiness activities. It is the operator’s responsibility to ensure that hazards entailed by any continuing airworthiness management task are subject to the applicable hazard identification procedures and that related risks are managed as part of the operator’s management system procedures.

A crew member is considered to be acclimatised to the time zone of the reference time for the first 48 hours.

In the following example there are 4 departure places: A, B, C and D and the crew member is in a known state of acclimatisation all the time.

between A and B there is a 2-hour time difference
between A and C – a 4 hour-time difference
between A and D – a 6-hour time difference

Day 1: The crew member starts acclimatised at A and finishes at B. The reference time is the local time at A, because the crew member is acclimatised at A and reports at A. The time difference between A and B is 2 hours. That means that after resting at B, the crew will be considered acclimatised at B.

Day 2: The crew member reports at B acclimatised to the local time at B for an FDP to C. At C the crew member has a rest period and becomes acclimatised to C. He/she has now covered 4-hour time difference, but in 2 days.

Day 3: The crew member reports at C acclimatised to the local time at C for an FDP to D. At D the crew member has a rest period and becomes acclimatised to D. He/she has now covered 6-hour time difference.

Day 4: The crew member reports again considered to be acclimatised at D. The local time at D is the reference time. The FDP between D and A covers 6-hour time difference. Crossing 6-hour time difference in one day (one FDP) induces time zone de-synchronisation. If the rotation finishes at A, the rest requirements in CS FTL.1.235 (b)(3)(i) are applicable.

Unknown state of acclimatisation

After the first 48 hours of the rotation have elapsed, the crew member is considered to be in an unknown state of acclimatisation.

The crew member only becomes acclimatised to the destination time zone, if he/she remains in that destination time zone for the time established in the table in ORO.FTL.105 (1).

During that time the crew member may have the rest in accordance with CS FTL.1.235(b)(3) and/or take other duties that end in different time zones than the first arrival destination, until he/she becomes acclimatised in accordance with the values in the table in ORO.FTL.105(1). In the case of duties to different time zones, the state of acclimatisation should be determined in accordance with GM1 ORO.FTL.105(1) (d)(3).

There are no specific provisions and conditions for such changes except in unforeseen circumstances, where, on the day, a Commander may use the provisions of Commander’s Discretion:

to continue with an FDP which exceeds the maximum FDP that the crew will operate or reduces the minimum rest period, or
to reduce the actual FDP and/or increase the rest period, in case of unforeseen circumstances which could lead to severe fatigue.

The operator may not plan or change an FDP at any time such that it exceeds the maximum applicable FDP.

FTL rules build upon the predictability of rosters so that crews can plan and achieve adequate rest (ORO.FTL.110 (a) and (g)). Operators are expected to plan sufficient capacity, at their operating bases, to deal with disruptions normally expected in daily operations using the specific FTL provisions (e.g. stand-by, reserve). Therefore, FDP changes after reporting should be an infrequent event as such changes can create roster instability and may generate fatigue. An aircrew member remains at all times under the responsibilities set out in CAT.GEN.MPA.100 (c)(5) to report unfit to fly, if s/he suspects fatigue which may endanger flight safety.

If changes to planned duties are to be made on the day of operation, all applicable limits apply: in particular the limits established pursuant to ORO.FTL. 205(b), (d), (e) or ORO.FTL.220. If a duty has not been planned with an operator’s extension under ORO.FTL. 205(d), it cannot be changed into a duty with such extension on the day of operation.

In addition, the operator must ensure that the impact on forward duties and days off, and importantly on cumulative limits, is accounted for.

It is possible during other-standby to assign a duty that will start after the rostered end of the standby period.

Duties assigned during other-standby should in principle start within the operator’s defined response time from the call. For example, a cabin crew while on home standby between 08:00h and 14:00h (as planned in the roster) receives a call at 13:55 h to report for duty at 14:55 h since the operator’s response time is 60 min. The response time between the call and reporting is considered a continuation of the standby, notwithstanding the rostered end of the standby; this time also includes travelling to the reporting point.

Operators describe their procedures and practices regarding standby, including reporting after the rostered standby period ends, in the OM-A. In doing so, they take into account that the Regulation provides a number of cumulative protections to crew member from excessive periods of combined standby and duty:

Operators shall only use the rostered standby availability period to place their call for duty. ORO.FTL.105 (25) defines standby as the period of time during which a crew member is required by the operator to be available to receive an assignment for a flight;
The maximum duration of other-standby is 16 hours. In its OM-A however, the operator may specify shorter periods considering its type of operation and the impact of the time spent on standby on the duty that may be assigned. Under the obligations of ORO.FTL.110 (b & e), operators must carefully evaluate what duration of standby is safely allowable within their particular operation;
The combination of standby and FDP do not lead to more than 18 hours awake time (see FAQ # 60);
The maximum FDP is reduced, if the standby period ceases after the first 6 hours (or 8 hours in case of extended FDP);
A crew member is always able to consider whether his/her duties on board an aircraft will be performed with the necessary level of alertness (CAT.GEN.MPA.100(c))

Any operator needs to demonstrate to the competent authority that their personnel has acquired at least the knowledge as per the syllabus in AMC1 ORO.FTL.250.

In essence, the fatigue management training is a competency-based training. The operator should identify what training and competences are needed for each personnel group: aircrew, instructors, rostering and management staff to perform their roles effectively, and what means of measuring the level of competency attained by each person who receives the training is available.

For example, a fatigue management instructor must have the training required by AMC1 ORO.FTL.250. The operator may, in addition to that, require that the instructor also complete training normally required for FRM inspectors in accordance with AMC5 ARO.GEN 200(a) (2).

Recommended fatigue management training topics for specific groups of employees can be found in the ICAO Doc 9966 Manual for the Oversight of Fatigue Management Approaches/Second Edition 2016.

Operators who aim to establish a system for fatigue risk management (FRM), should consider including the following additional subjects, for aircrew, FSAG members, FRM instructors, FRM auditors, managers, according to their functions:

the science behind FRM;
requirements of Part-ORO with respect to FRM;
components of the FRM of that particular operator and its functioning;
- FRM predictive, reactive and proactive processes
- roster fatigue metrics
- fatigue safety performance indicators
employees’ responsibilities with respect to the FRM;
use of fatigue reporting systems and implementing mitigations;
collection of fatigue data (both subjective and objective) to feed the FRM system.

The content and frequency of fatigue management training should be proportional to the operator’s fatigue risk exposure. For example, a scheduled airline and an on-demand night cargo operator are likely to establish different syllabus and frequency for their aircrew training. Also, an airline with crew members commuting long hours to/from their home base, should particularly focus on the use of company’s airport or hotel crew rooms for fatigue mitigation of disruptive schedules when providing fatigue management training.

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Reporting point ORO.FTL.105 (2): The global COVID-19 pandemic necessitated, on a number of occasions, a change to the typical aircrew reporting point. How should the operators address this change?

Aircrew typically used to report for duty at a crew room, at their home base or at outstation. The global COVID-19 pandemic caused disruptions in flight operations and necessitated, on a number of occasions, a change to the typical aircrew reporting point. Here below are some considerations that operators and aircrew should account for when addressing such change.

Notification to crew members. The operator must inform the crew about any change of the reporting point prior to operating as this is part of operator’s responsibilities under ORO.FTL.110.

Travelling time to the reporting point. Due to the change of reporting point, the otherwise duty time may turn into travelling time, thus extending the usual travelling time that a crew member is accustomed or prepared for. Therefore, the operator should make sure that the impact of the change of reporting point on traveling time and consequently on crew fatigue is not significant. The operator’ SMS has to manage the change of reporting point by assessing the potential negative impact on aircrew fatigue levels, based on evidence of adequate time frames and/or a comparison between the time necessary to report to the new point and the typical reporting point. In assessing the impact, the operator should account for additional operational factors e.g. standby call out times. The operator should address reporting at a place other than a crew room in the OM.

Commencement of duty. Duty starts from reporting for duty at the reporting point designated by the operator e.g. when the crew member checks-in in a crew room. In cases where the crew member is required by the operator to commence an activity prior to entering a crew room or a non-public area of an airport, so as to obtain flight documents at a check-in counter or ticket office, pass a security checkpoint or update the EFB, the duty starts at the point of commencing this activity. At airports where the crew members can access the non-public area or reach the departing gate through more than one security checkpoints, the operator should make sure that commencement time is the same for the same duty.

Aircrew briefing. The time for aircrew briefing is a duty time no matter where it takes place. If the briefing takes place at the gate where other people are also present, the operator should arrange for a secluded place considering security matters among other things. The size of the crew should not prevent crew members from talking to each other without disturbing and being disturbed. If the briefing takes place on board the aircraft, the operator should ensure that certain conditions are present, such as running APU/GPU, no disturbance from ground personnel or cleaning staff. Where the operator provides EFB, the briefing material should already be uploaded to it or if, new material is to be downloaded, the crew must be provided with means to do so.

Reporting times. The operator should specify in the OM reporting times that account for the type of operation, ground duties, size and type of the aircraft and the airport conditions (GM1 ORO.FTL.205(a)(1)). Ground duties include pre-flight duties (briefings; provision of documentation; transport to the aircraft parking stand, etc.).

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Individual crew members’ records of flight time and duty periods ORO.FTL.245, (see also ORO.FTL.105):

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Must the time for all training at the behest of the operator be entered in the schedule of the crew members and recorded?

To any training at the behest of the operator regardless of the method (e-learning¹) or self-study or otherwise) that an aircrew member is assigned to by the operator the following applies:

It is a duty and the time spent on training task constitutes a duty period.
It cannot be considered a rest period or a day free of all duty or an annual leave period (ORO.FTL.105).

E-learning¹ or self-study may be included as a single duty period in the CM roster with start and end times or assigned as a number of hours to be used over certain time (week(s) or month(s)), by the crew member to study the training material, in parts or at once, at the crew member discretion.

When assigning a number of hours, the operator should notify the crew member concerned in advance, specifying the allocated hours and time period for completion of the training. The training methods described above should comply with all daily or cumulative duty limits and rest requirements of Commission Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 and of Council Directive 2000/79/EC of 27 November 2000 (WTD), considering the period allocated for completion². The policy and description on how these training methods are managed should be clearly documented in the operations manual (OM). As part of their shared responsibilities with regard to crew fatigue, the crew members should manage their time and tasks considering other assigned duties and rest requirements as per ORO.FTL.115 (b).

As part of their shared responsibilities with regard to crew fatigue, the operator should ensure that the training duties are assigned in a way that enables crew members to fulfil their flight duties to a satisfactory level of safety under all circumstances. The operator should in particular provide rest periods of sufficient time prior to the next flight duty/duties and an adequate number of hours and period of time to enable a successful fulfilment.

¹ ICAO Circular 356 definition: E-Learning – is the delivery of a learning, training or education programme by electronic means.

² ORO.FTL.205; ORO.FTL.210; ORO.FTL.235; CS FTL.1.235; WTD Annex Clause 8 & 9.

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Passenger Safety

Use of baby bassinets on board

Reference: Certification Specifications and Acceptable Means of Compliance for Large Aeroplanes CS-25 (ED Decision 2012/008/R) is available on EASA website.

Provision of a baby bassinet is a cabin service provided by an airline to a parent travelling with a baby for the purpose of relieving the parent from holding the lap-held baby for a long period of time, especially on long-haul and ultra-long-haul flights.

Baby bassinets are included in the certification process of the aircraft in which they will be installed. They are not certified as separate devices, therefore an aircraft may not have a baby bassinet at all. The choice is up to the airline. The airline may choose to have a permanently installed ‘baby bed’ on its aircraft and its use during taxi, take-off, landing and turbulence will be described in the attached placards.

If baby bassinets are available on board, their number in the cabin depends on the cabin arrangement of the aircraft and locations where the bassinets can be safely attached/positioned. The number of baby bassinets at one location, usually at a bulkhead, depends on the available space, the weight the bulkhead can hold and the number of oxygen masks for the adults and babies located in that individual row.

Baby bassinet is not a child restraint device. Baby bassinets are not certified for taxi, take-off, landing and turbulent weather conditions. They may swing up and down and are not stable during turbulence, therefore the baby must be removed from the baby bassinet during turbulence and secured as instructed by your cabin crew members.

Airlines carrying baby bassinets on board may have varying policies on their use, therefore it is necessary to check the airline’s website or get in contact with the airline. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) may also be able to provide more information.

Certification placarding requirements
Placards advising on the stowage of baby bassinets during taxi, take-off, landing and turbulence are required either at the location where baby bassinets will be fixed to the aircraft structure (e.g. bulkhead) or a clearly visible instruction advising on the same must be placed on the baby bassinet itself.

The placarding requirements are related to the general certification requirements on placarding and intended function in accordance with Certifications Specifications and Acceptable Means of Compliance for Large Aeroplanes CS-25 (ED Decision 2012/008/R) and the marking requirements as specified in the approval of the equipment. For any questions on certification matters, please contact the EASA Certification directorate.

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Use of Child Seats on Board

Can I use a child seat on board for my baby/child? What about a rear-facing child seat?

EASA cares for the safe transport of babies and children by air and encourages the use of child seats on board an aircraft.
Having a child seat on board an aircraft requires an assessment of several aspects, such as the aircraft seat itself, if the aircraft seat is forward-facing or rear-facing, how the child seat can be safely secured on the aircraft seat, the distance between seat rows where the child seat is intended to be placed, etc. Practically all child seats allowed on board are those that have been tested and certified for the use in cars. There may be limitations for their use in cars and there are also limitations for their use in an aircraft cabin. Depending on the specifics of the child seat, but also on the specifics of the aircraft seats and of the aircraft cabin arrangement, the operator decides which child seats are accepted on board its aircraft and which ones cannot be accepted due to safety reasons.

Rear-facing child seats are recommended for the use in cars for babies and children up until the age of 4. The use of a rear-facing (also referred to as ‘aft-facing’) child seat on board an aircraft may however be limited due to the distance between passenger seat rows (so-called ‘seat pitch’). Airlines are free to order from an aircraft manufacturer an aircraft with a cabin arrangement of their choice (including the distance between seat rows) provided it is compliant with the existing aircraft certification rules. Each cabin arrangement must be approved by EASA and must comply with the applicable safety standards including emergency evacuation. EU legislation however does not specify a prescriptive figure related to the minimum distance between seats (i.e. seat rows), aircraft designers comply with the standards using a range of biometrics.

It is the operator’s responsibility to establish procedures for its operation which are subject to the approval or acceptance by the National Aviation Authority of that EU Member State. Please, contact your airline for information on types of child seats and their use on board the airline’s aircraft. You may also wish to visit the EASA webpage ‘Travelling with children’.

Extract from the EU rules on air operations related to the acceptance of child seats on board:

CAT.IDE.A.205 Seats, seat safety belts, restraint systems and child restraint devices

(a) Aeroplanes shall be equipped with:

(1) a seat or berth for each person on board who is aged 24 months or more;

(2) a seat belt on each passenger seat and restraining belts for each berth except as specified in (3);

(3) a seat belt with upper torso restraint system on each passenger seat and restraining belts on each berth in the case of aeroplanes with an MCTOM of 5 700 kg or less and with an MOPSC of nine or less, having an individual CofA first issued on or after 8 April 2015;

(4) a child restraint device (CRD) for each person on board younger than 24 months;

(5) …

AMC1 CAT.IDE.A.205 Seats, seat safety belts, restraint systems and child restraint devices
CHILD RESTRAINT DEVICES (CRDs)

(a) A CRD is considered to be acceptable if:

(1) it is a ‘supplementary loop belt’ manufactured with the same techniques and the same materials as the approved safety belts; or

(2) it complies with (b).

(b) Provided the CRD can be installed properly on the respective aircraft seat, the following CRDs are considered acceptable:

(1) CRDs approved for use in aircraft according to the European Technical Standard Order ETSO-C100c on Aviation Child Safety Device (ACSD);

(2) CRDs approved by EASA through a Type Certificate or Supplemental Type Certificate;

(3) Child seats approved for use in motor vehicles on the basis of the technical standard specified in point (i) below. The child seat must be also approved for use in aircraft on the basis of the technical standard specified in either point

(ii) or point (iii):

(i) UN Standard ECE R44-04 (or 03), or ECE R129 bearing the respective ‘ECE R’ label; and

(ii) German ‘Qualification Procedure for Child Restraint Systems for Use in Aircraft’ (TÜV/958-01/2001) bearing the label ‘For Use in Aircraft’; or

(iii) Other technical standard acceptable to the competent authority. The child seat should hold a qualification sign that it can be used in aircraft.

(4) Child seats approved for use in motor vehicles and aircraft according to Canadian CMVSS 213/213.1 bearing the respective label;

(5) Child seats approved for use in motor vehicles and aircraft according to US FMVSS No 213 and bearing one or two labels displaying the following two sentences:

(i) ‘THIS CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEM CONFORMS TO ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS’; and

(ii) in red letters ‘THIS RESTRAINT IS CERTIFIED FOR USE IN MOTOR VEHICLES AND AIRCRAFT’;

(6) Child seats approved for use in motor vehicles and aircraft according to Australia/New Zealand’s technical standard AS/NZS 1754:2013 bearing the green part on the label displaying ‘For Use in Aircraft’; and

(7) CRDs manufactured and tested according to other technical standards equivalent to those listed above. The devices should be marked with an associated qualification sign, which shows the name of the qualification organisation and a specific identification number, related to the associated qualification project. The qualifying organisation should be a competent and independent organisation that is acceptable to the competent authority.

(1) Forward-facing child seats may be installed on both forward-and rearward-facing passenger seats, but only when fitted in the same direction as the passenger seat on which they are positioned. Rearward-facing child seats should only be installed on forward-facing passenger seats. A child seat should not be installed within the radius of action of an airbag unless it is obvious that the airbag is de-activated or it can be demonstrated that there is no negative impact from the airbag.

(2) An infant/child in a CRD should be located in the vicinity of a floor level exit.

(3) An infant/child in a CRD should not hinder evacuation for any passenger.

(4) An infant/child in a CRD should neither be located in the row (where rows are existing) leading to an emergency exit nor located in a row immediately forward or aft of an emergency exit. A window passenger seat is the preferred location. An aisle passenger seat or a cross aisle passenger seat that forms part of the evacuation route to exits is not recommended. Other locations may be acceptable provided the access of neighbour passengers to the nearest aisle is not obstructed by the CRD.

(5) In general, only one CRD per row segment is recommended. More than one CRD per row segment is allowed if the infants/children are from the same family or travelling group provided the infants/children are accompanied by a responsible adult sitting next to them in the same row segment.

(6) A row segment is one or more seats side-by-side separated from the next row segment by an aisle.

(d) Installation

(1) CRDs tested and approved for use in aircraft should only be installed on a suitable passenger seat by the method shown in the manufacturer’s instructions provided with each CRD and with the type of connecting device they are approved for the installation in aircraft. CRDs designed to be installed only by means of rigid bar lower anchorages (ISOFIX or equivalent) should only be used on passenger seats equipped with such connecting devices and should not be secured by passenger seat lap belt.

(2) All safety and installation instructions should be followed carefully by the responsible adult accompanying the infant/child. Operators should prohibit the use of a CRD not installed on the passenger seat according to the manufacturer's instructions or not approved for use in aircraft.

(3) If a forward-facing child seat with a rigid backrest is to be fastened by a seat lap belt, the restraint device should be fastened when the backrest of the passenger seat on which it rests is in a reclined position. Thereafter, the backrest is to be positioned upright. This procedure ensures better tightening of the child seat on the aircraft seat if the aircraft seat is reclinable.

(4) The buckle of the adult safety belt must be easily accessible for both opening and closing, and must be in line with the seat belt halves (not canted) after tightening.

(5) Forward-facing restraint devices with an integral harness must not be installed such that the adult safety belt is secured over the infant.

(e) Operation

(1) Each CRD should remain secured to a passenger seat during all phases of flight unless it is properly stowed when not in use.

(2) Where a child seat is adjustable in recline, it must be in an upright position for all occasions when passenger restraint devices are required.

Extract from the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) guidance on the approval and use of child restraint systems (ICAO Document 10049):

2.4.3 The seat pitch or the available space between two rows of seats may also be an issue and particularly significant for aft-facing CRS as they are further reclined and take up more horizontal space. The inability to be effectively installed using existing aircraft seat belts may also render motor vehicle CRS ineffective on board. The location of anchor points can also be problematic. This includes the location of the aircraft seat belt attachment to the aircraft seat, as a CRS must translate forward until the belt path angle allows for belt tension forces to restrain the device.

Note: CRS stands for ‘child restraint system’ and means the same as ‘child restraint device’.

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Passenger safety briefing

Is there any requirement on what language(s) should be used for information provided to passengers via safety briefings and announcements?

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 Air Operations, Annex III: Part-ORO is available on EASA website. ICAO Doc 10086 Manual on information and instructions for passenger safety is available on ICAO website.

Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 mandates the operator to ensure that briefings and demonstrations related to safety are provided to passengers in a form that facilitates the application of the procedures applicable in case of an emergency and that passengers are provided with a safety briefing card on which picture type-instructions indicate the operation of emergency equipment and exits likely to be used by passengers. It is therefore the operator’s responsibility to choose the languages to be used on its flights, which may vary depending on the destination or a known passenger profile. It is indeed difficult, if not impossible, to accommodate every ‘required’ language on board as this differs on daily basis from a flight to flight. For example, a German airline has a flight departing from Frankfurt to Rome and it is assumed that the most required languages on this flight will be German and Italian. The passenger profile may, however, be such that these languages are not ‘desired’ on this flight as passengers do not necessarily speak or understand any of the two languages (passengers may be e.g. Irish, Canadian, Russian, Chinese, Iranian, Egyptian, Pakistani, Latvian, Finnish, Croatian, Hungarian, Bulgarian, Czech, Slovak, etc., or there is a large group of e.g. Japanese tourists). It is therefore a practice of some operators to employ ‘language speakers’, i.e. cabin crew members speaking certain languages, who mainly operate their language-desired route(s). The aircraft may also have an option of a multi-language pre-recorded set of public announcements, the operator may choose this feature when modifying the cabin systems on its aircraft configuration.

ICAO Doc 10086 recommends that information provided to passengers via safety briefings, announcements and safety demonstrations should be transmitted in the language of the operator and in English to promote appropriate communication with passengers. Further, that in order to cover the largest percentage of passengers on board on international flights, the operator should consider the use of English and the use of the official language of the State of departure and destination. In addition, the operator should consider the language(s) of the passengers on board and assign language-qualified cabin crew members or interpreters on board the aircraft, on specific routes. The operator should verify that emergency exit-row occupants comprehend the language spoken by the crew.

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Part-SPA

SPA.HEMS.110 Equipment requirements for HEMS operations specifies: "The installation of all helicopter dedicated medical equipment and any subsequent modifications and, where appropriate, its operation shall be approved in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1702/2003". Does it mean that even a defibrillator or an oxylog has to be approved in accordance with Regulation (EC) 1702/2003 or (EU) 748/2012? Or does it mean that only the fix installed medical equipment, such as a stretcher or a fix provision, has to be approved?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Dangerous Goods

Is there a European regulation on dangerous goods training requirements or should each European country follow its own national regulations?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Q2: What are the rules concerning the carriage of portable air concentrators (POC) on board? Can they be used during the whole flight?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Q1: What are the rules for passengers using bottled oxygen on board an aircraft?

[NOTE: Q1 and Q2 must be read together as they are closely related.]

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations; Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 on the right of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility when travelling by air

Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 establishes the rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility when travelling by air. The Regulation also stipulates that air operators should provide assistance, including transportation of medical equipment subject to dangerous goods legislation. Article 4(3) of this Regulation requires an air carrier or its agent to make publicly available the safety requirements and relevant information on restrictions. Annex II to the Regulation stipulates that the relevant legislation on dangerous goods can be invoked to limit the transport of mobility equipment. For more information on Regulation 1107/2006, please refer to the Commission's interpretative guidelines on this regulation from 11.06.2012, which has been published on the Commission's website and can be accessed here.

Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 of 5 October 2012 on Air Operations (Air OPS Regulation) refers to Annex 18 of the Chicago Convention and the Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by air when relating to their carriage on board. For safety reasons, oxygen/air cylinders or bottles are considered dangerous goods and fall under Annex 18 of the Chicago Convention; therefore, the provisions under Part 8 of the ICAO Technical Instructions must be applied to passengers who intend to carry these items with them on board. Oxygen/air cylinders for medical use of no more than 5 kg gross weight and never containing liquid oxygen are allowed in checked and carry-on baggage or on the person, with approval of the operator. In addition, the operator must provide the pilot-in-command with written information on their number and location on board. The valves and regulators of oxygen bottles must be protected from damage which could cause inadvertent release of the contents. Under the ICAO Technical Instructions, spare oxygen cylinders of a similar size are also allowed to ensure an adequate supply for the duration of the journey. The operator's Operations Manual, which has been approved by the National Authority, will contain procedures on the use of oxygen bottles.

Nevertheless, for safety reasons, national authorities may decide to prohibit all oxygen bottles, irrespective of their size, from being carried on board by passengers. Where the national authorities allow oxygen bottles of less than 5 kg to be taken on board, it is still left to the discretion of the operator to accept them, also due to safety reasons (oxygen is highly flammable and it cannot be guaranteed that the bottles/valves have been maintained properly).
If passengers have special needs, they should request more information from the airline at the time of booking.

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Which operators have to establish and maintain dangerous goods training programmes? Which training programmes should be approved by the authority?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

AMC1 ORO.GEN.200(b) ‘Management system. Size, nature and complexity of the activity ’ provides criteria to determine if an operator belongs to the group of complex organisations or the one of non-complex organisations. These criteria are based on the assessment of the size, nature and complexity of the operator’s activity.

The idea behind this AMC is to provide some basic criteria for an organisation (an operator) to establish which AMCs on management system they should follow — the more ‘comprehensive’ ones for complex organisations, or those including some specific ‘alleviations’ for the non-complex ones.

It is important to note that the assessment of organisational complexity is not only a function of size, but it also needs to consider the specific activities, the operating environment, the scope, the variety of different aircraft types operated, the contracted activities, etc. Therefore, the AMC includes some specific risk criteria.

The fact that this AMC is included in Part-ORO indicates that it is the operator’s responsibility to determine the right ‘layout’ of their management system. The competent authority will need to validate this determination during the oversight activities, and it may challenge the operator on the option retained (complex or non-complex).

At the same time, AMC1 ORO.GEN.200(b) does not include any overly detailed complexity criteria. This is because it is impossible to address all cases and, more importantly, it is not the intent that the AMC be used as a substitute for the operator’s own risk assessment.

The main ‘alleviations’ for a non-complex operator are the following:

The operator may use simple procedures and tools for its safety risk management process (e.g. checklists), and safety performance monitoring and measurement (no need to perform extensive safety studies, surveys, etc.).
The accountable manager or a person with an operational role in the organisation may fulfil the role of safety manager.
The organisation does not need to have a safety review board.
The accountable manager may also be the compliance-monitoring manager if he or she has demonstrated to have the required competence and that the independence of the internal audits is maintained.
Simple checklists may be used to document compliance monitoring audits and inspections.

Before the operator decides which AMCs to follow, it should demonstrate proper understanding of the risks entailed by its activities. Upon initial implementation of the EASA management system framework, the organisation will normally start describing and analysing its activity and processes, to determine not only how best to implement the management system framework, but also where to focus the risk management efforts. Not investing in this step will lead to inefficient/costly management system implementation and require subsequent rework.

Such system description and related analysis will be an effective means for identifying hazards proactively. It will also create a baseline for the management of changes and will allow identifying safety performance requirements for safety relevant processes, as well as related performance indicators and controls in order to manage the defined performance goals.

NCC.GEN.100 specifies the following: “The competent authority shall be the authority designated by the Member State in which the operator has its principal place of business or is residing”.
This means that the State of the Operator (SoO) designates the competent authority for NCC operators. Here are some examples:

For a European NCC operator with aircraft registered in a Member State, the Competent Authority is designated by the State of the Operator.
For a European NCC operator with third-country registered aircraft, the Competent Authority is designated by the State of the Operator. These operators may also have to comply with rules of the third-country State of Registry (SoR) if this State has not delegated its responsibilities to the European State of the Operator.
For a third-country NCC operator having its principal place of business in a third country and performing operations with aircraft registered in a Member State, the Competent Authority is designated by the State of the Operator (the third country SoO). However, these operators may also have to comply with rules of the EU Member State (State of Registry) related to the aircraft if the State of Registry has not delegated its responsibilities to the State of the Operator.

For cases under (2) and (3), the State of Registry and the State of the Operator need to coordinate their safety and security oversight actions in accordance with ICAO SARPs (3.4.2.1.2 of ICAO Annex 6 Part II).

To avoid interferences with the responsibility of a third-country State of Registry for specific approvals, Part-SPA SPA.GEN.100 specifies that the European competent authority shall not issue operational approvals when they are required by Annex 6 and issued by the third-country State of Registry.

EASA has published a draft Guidance Material (GM) related to this topic, in order to make it easier for declared operators (NCC and SPO) to determine which their competent authority is. The GM can be found in the draft AMC&GM related to Opinion 04/2017, published for information 'draft GM proposed to Annex I Definitions'.

A good starting point would be to describe your regular operation, the daily business. The description of your operation will give direction to your organisation’s effective SMS and will become its foundation.

This description should simply be a checklist containing the day-to-day activities, as it provides the understanding necessary to identify and manage the risks associated with the operation.

The analysis of your daily operation should consider the following aspects (this list is not exhaustive):

What is the frequency of your flights?
What aircraft type(s) do you have in your fleet?
What are your departure & destination points?
What is specific to the aerodromes you use?
Which are the routes on which you fly – more or less the same routes or very different routes?
Do you carry passengers?
What type of operation do you perform on those routes? Be as specific as you can.
Do you have a system that helps you prepare your flight?
How do you plan and calculate the necessary fuel supply?
Do you have any specific approvals (e.g., LVO, PBN, etc.)?
Are your pilots’ training and qualifications compliant with the requirements? How about the other employees involved in operation?
Are the operational procedures and any flight documents current and available to all the personnel involved in operation?
How do you ensure that the necessary information is communicated to the right persons involved in operation?
How do you ensure aircraft maintenance?
What do you do if any of the elements above changes for one reason or another? Are you prepared to cope with that change and minimise its effects in your daily operation? How do you deal with such changes?
Make sure you include the aspect of disruptive changes in your analysis.
Have you set up the minimum levels of acceptance to which every key operational activity (e.g. scheduling, planning, flight execution, fuel consumption, training, aircraft maintenance) can go? In other words, have you set up your performance expectations?

The last two questions will lead to the second step in building your SMS:

What could be the main potential risks associated to each of the elements above – what could go wrong with these daily variables?

Identifying the key elements of risk in this day-to-day operation will help you to spot more easily the strengths and weaknesses in your regular business, the errors, as well as the good practices.

The third step is then to choose/apply adequate mitigation measures to reduce the risks inherent to your daily operation:

Make a list of solutions to reduce each risk to an acceptable level. Consider to use the Risk register checklist proposed in GM3 ORO.GEN.200(a)(3) for your safety risk management/assessment.

A fourth step is to assess whether the mitigation measures that you have prepared are effective and help you to achieve the required level of safety.

Keep evidence of any occurrence, identify their cause, and see if they are repetitive and if they have anything in common.
Find ways to prevent them from reoccurring by addressing the “root cause”.
Check how well your solutions helped in preventing the reoccurrence of that event.

A fifth step ensures that the whole process becomes cyclic, and that you learn from your previous experience in order to make your operation safer and more efficient.

Run this check once a year or after an event or change in the aspects mentioned above.

Does this scheme address your needs and help you to have a safe operation?

According to AMC1 SPO.GEN.140(a)(3) a permit to fly may (PtF) be used in SPO operations, if issued in accordance with the applicable airworthiness requirements and subject to compliance with the flight conditions established by the competent authority.

The applicable airworthiness requirements are those contained in Commission Regulation (EU) No 748/2012 (Part-21 thereof). Part-21 contains a list of purposes for which a PtF may be issued under certain conditions. For example, a mission for air racing may be possible with PtF. Please check with your competent authority if the purpose of the SPO mission complies with that list and those conditions.

For non-commercial specialised operations falling under Part-NCO, NCO.GEN.135 (a) (3) requires the original certificate of airworthiness (CofA) be carried on each flight.

According to AMC1 NCO.GEN.135 (a) (3) a PtF may be used in NCO operations, if issued in accordance with the applicable airworthiness requirements and subject to compliance with the flight conditions established by the competent authority.

The applicable airworthiness requirements are those contained in Part-21. Part-21 contains a list of purposes for which a PtF may be issued under certain conditions. For example, a non-commercial flying activity on individual non-complex aircraft or types for which a certificate of airworthiness or restricted certificate of airworthiness is not appropriate (mainly, but not limited to, the so-called ‘orphan’ aircraft) may be possible with PtF. Please check with your competent authority if the purpose of the SPO mission complies with that list and those conditions.

Special Categories of Passengers (SCPs)

Who is an SCP?

References: Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 is available on EUR-Lex website. Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 and Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 and the study EASA 2008.C.25 are available on EASA website.

SCPs are passengers who, when carried on a flight, require special conditions, assistance and/or devices and their situation needs appropriate attention and adaptation to their particular needs. These passengers shall not be allocated, nor occupy, seats that permit direct access to emergency exits or where their presence could impede crew members in their duties, obstruct access to emergency equipment or impede evacuation of the aircraft.

Under the EU law, aircraft operators are ultimately responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft and for the safety of passengers on board. Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on air operations mandates the operator (airline) to establish procedures for its air operation. The operator’s procedures, and the operator’s activities overall, are under the oversight of the Competent Authority (CA) of the individual EU Member State. The CA has the necessary powers and allocated responsibilities for the certification and oversight of persons and organisations subject to Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 and its implementing rules.

The EU rule on SCPs states the following:

The rule is complemented by Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC) and Guidance Material (GM) which address aspects such as the factors the operator should take into account when establishing procedures for carriage of SCPs, information provided to SCPs, conditions for safe carriage of unaccompanied children, a passenger capable of assisting in case of an emergency, seating allocation, etc. The EU provisions are available on EASA website (the link ‘Easy Access Rules for Air Operations’ contains the rule and the AMCs and GMs in one document):
https://www.easa.europa.eu/regulations#regulations-air-operations

The rules for air operations on SCPs have been developed under the EASA rulemaking tasks RMT.0269/0270 involving a rulemaking group. The track of this rulemaking activity is available on EASA website:

Terms of Reference (ToR) MDM.072 (a) & (b) (RMT.0269 & RMT.0270):
https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-library/terms-of-reference-and-group-compositions/tor-mdm072-b-rmt0269-rmt0270

Notice of Proposed Amendment NPA 2014-01
https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-library/rulemaking-subjects/carriage-special-categories-passengers-scps

Comment Response Document CRD 2014-01
https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-library/comment-response-documents/crd-2014-01

ED Decision 2016/004/R
https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-library/agency-decisions/ed-decision-2016004r

Study on Carriage by Air of Special Categories of Passengers (SCPs), EASA 2008.C.25:
https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-library/research-projects/easa2008c25

Additional information
Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Union Aviation Safety Agency specifies the mandate entrusted to EASA by the European Parliament and by the Council:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32018R1139

Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council contains the European provisions on rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility (PRMs) when travelling by air: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM:l24132 . Questions on this regulation should be addressed to the European Commission.

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

I am tall or have other circumstances. Do I belong to the group of SCPs?

References: Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 is available on EUR-Lex website. Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 and the study EASA 2008.C.25 are available on EASA website.

Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility (PRMs) when travelling by air does not include the height of an individual in the definition of ‘disability or a person with reduced mobility’. Hence, the EU rules on air operations - Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 - do not include a height of an individual (i.e. a tall passenger) in the ‘special categories of passengers (SCPs)’.

Air operators are free to order from an aircraft manufacturer an aircraft cabin/seat configuration they wish, provided that such cabin/seat configuration meets the certification safety requirements. The space between seat rows (so-called ‘seat-pitch’) is a matter of aircraft certification process*. *Questions on aircraft certification matters should be addressed to EASA Certification Directorate.

EASA has conducted a study on Carriage by air of special categories of passengers, reference EASA 2008.C.25, which, amongst others, concludes that aircraft designers must take into account the increasing percentage of tall passengers. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32018R1139

There may be passengers who do not fall into the category specified by the EU regulations on PRMs and SCPs referenced above, however they may have certain individual circumstances where intervention of the air operator or the Competent Authority may be beneficial or required. Most airlines offer various forms of assistance to passengers with certain requirements. For example, persons suffering from certain specific allergies (not necessarily food-related) are not considered disabled and do not fall into the SCP category either. However, passengers with any such circumstances may contact the operator, or the Competent Authority, to seek a solution prior to their travel.

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Yes

I. Terminology:
In the context of this FAQ the following terminology will be used:

“Issue of an EASA Form 1” means “issue of an EASA Form 1” under Part-21, Subpart G by a certifying staff, “raise an EASA Form 1” under Part-21, Subpart F by an authorised person and “validation of an EASA Form 1” under Part-21, Subpart F by an inspector of the competent authority, except the cases of issuance of an EASA Form 1 for correction of error(s) on a previously issued certificate and for re-certification of an item from “prototype” to “new” provided that the design data has not changed;
“Authorised staff” means “certifying staff” as defined in Part-21, Subpart G, “authorised person” and “competent authority inspector” as defined in Part-21, Subpart F;
“Item” means any part, appliance or product other than a complete aircraft;
"Applicable design data" means "non-approved design data” in case of prototype and “approved design data” in case of new produced item;
“Task” means any inspection, test and/or verification, as described in a written procedure, needed to be performed by an authorised staff before signing an EASA Form 1;
“Remote ICT” means any real-time video and audio communication tools using information and communication technologies (ICT), which aim at enabling performance of the tasks by the authorised staff from a location different than where is located the item (on-site).

II. Regulatory context:
According to:

point 21.A.130(a), the holder of a letter of agreement issued in accordance with Part 21, Subpart F;
point 21.A.130(d), the competent authority in the context of Part-21, Subpart F; and
point 21.A.163(c), the holder of a production organisation approval (POA) in accordance with Part 21, Subpart G

may issue an EASA Form 1 for produced items in order to certify their conformity to the applicable design data and, in case of new items, their condition for safe operation.

The EASA Form 1 has to be issued by appropriately qualified authorised staff.
Part 21 does not require that the authorised staff has to be on-site when issuing the EASA Form 1, nor how the production organisation and the competent authority shall determine whether the part/appliance/product other than aircraft conforms to the applicable design data and, in case of a new item, is in condition for safe operation. These should be detailed in a written procedure accepted by the competent authority.

Part 21 requires:

in point 21.A.130 (d) that the competent authority validates the EASA Form 1 after inspections performed in according to 21.B.135(b), “if it finds after inspection that the product, part or appliance conforms to the applicable design data and is in condition for safe operation”; and
in point 21.A.165(c) that the POA holder has to:
2. “determine that other products, parts or appliances are complete and conform to the approved design data and are in a condition for safe operation before issuing an EASA Form 1…”

4. “determine that other products, parts or appliances conform to the applicable data before issuing an EASA Form 1…”.

Typically compliance with these requirements is ensured through on-site presence of the authorised staff in order to guarantee appropriate access to the item, as needed.

However, compliance with these requirements may be also ensured in certain circumstances, determined as per the considerations described in chapter III, by remotely conducting the tasks which are needed before issuance of an EASA Form 1 by the use of remote ICT. The following considerations should be used as a guideline when the on-site presence of the authorised staff is to be replaced by virtual presence, using remote ICT.

III. Use of remote ICT to support the issuance of EASA Form 1
Remote ICT may have limitations that could render it unsuitable for some applications. Accordingly, careful consideration and risk management should be applied when making a determination when to use it. These considerations, listed below, are however not exhaustive and should not be treated as a checklist.

1. General considerations

As an overarching principle, it needs to be determined whether the nature of the tasks to be performed by the authorised staff allows the use of remote ICT;
the facility where the item is located:
a) should be referred to in the EASA Form 65 or EASA Form 55, directly or indirectly by reference to the corresponding section of the manual or production organisation exposition, or
b) in case of a POA, should be a facility from where a production organisation exposition’s procedure related to point 21.A.139(b)1(xv) authorises the issuance of the EASA Form 1;
The complexity, novelty, and safety criticality of the item to be released with the EASA Form 1, should be taken into account;
The level of competence and experience of the personnel in the use of the particular procedures and equipment that will be used to conduct the tasks before issuing the EASA Form 1;
Previous experience of the organisation / confidence in the organisation’s Inspection system / Quality system / Management system; and
The appropriateness of the inspection and test instruments and/or equipment, especially if used to evaluate qualitative aspects of a product, part or appliance.

2. Equipment and Setup Considerations

The suitability of video resolution, fidelity and field of view for the task being conducted;
The need for multiple cameras, imaging systems or microphones and whether the person performing or witnessing the tasks can switch between them or direct them to be switched and has the possibility to stop the process, ask a question, move equipment, etc.;
The controllability of viewing direction, zoom and lighting;
The appropriateness of audio fidelity for the evaluation being conducted;
Whether real-time, uninterrupted communication between the person(s) authorised to remotely witness the activity (authorised staff) and the personnel conducting it exists at the location where the item is located;
The need for unique testing devices or equipment (for examples, fast-frame cameras, special lighting conditions, sensitive listening devices, mobile phones with cameras for HD video calls);
Whether personnel have been adequately trained in the proper set up, validation and use of the technology, tools and/or equipment to be used; and
The need for recording the audio and video data, as well for retention of them or other information.

3. Cybersecurity considerations

There are cases where the facilities, where the tasks has to be performed, are subject to strict security limitations. When using remote ICT for the tasks needed before issuing an EASA Form 1, it is the responsibility of the organisation to provide an equivalent level of security, thus the IT security responsible person within the organisation should concur to the ICT technology before proceeding.

4. Documenting the use of remote ICT

The documented processes (procedures) developed by the holder of a letter of agreement or a POA should be accepted by the competent authority and describe:

The risk assessment process needed to determine the appropriateness of the remote ICT taking into account the above mentioned considerations;
The tasks to be performed, including preparation activities, inspections, tests, verifications to be done, personnel involved in the remote ICT activity and their level of competence;
How authorised staff access to all necessary data (e.g. drawings, schematics, datasheets, etc.) needed to determine that the item conforms to the applicable design data, needs to be guaranteed;
How remote ICT will be used in real-time (not pre-recorded) so that the authorised staff may direct the performance of the tasks as if conducted in-person, on-premises, with the aid of the equipment or the personnel supporting the activity at the remote location;
Procedures for conducting a re-inspection if the equipment malfunctions or the process fails to yield acceptable results. A re-inspection using remote ICT may be accomplished after correcting the malfunction or process, or by an actual on-site inspection;
How the authorised staff should record and communicate any difficulties or concerns regarding the process so that the organisation can improve its programme;
How use of remote ICT will be documented in the required records; and
How IT security is maintained throughout the remote ICT process (data protection and intellectual property of the organisations also need to be safeguarded).

To comply with EASA Part-21, Subpart D, 21.A.109, Subpart E, 21A.118A (b) and Subpart M, 21A.451(a) and (b), it is the obligation of the respective Holders of a Minor Change Approval, a STC, or a Major Repair Design Approval, to specify the required markings, including EPA letters as applicable, in their Design (read, ‘Approved Data’), according EASA Part-21, Subpart Q.

Subpart Q, 21.A.804(a), and related GM, require proper identification of each Part and Appliance that is designed or redesigned, including parts designed to be incorporated in repairs (21A.451), by ‘permanent and legible marking’ hereof, and is applicable for Design Organisations and Manufacturers.

21.A.804(a) 1 and 2 clearly require marking of Parts and Appliances with ‘name, trademark, or symbol identifying the Manufacturer’ and ‘Part number’, as defined in the applicable Design Data.

According to the GM the Design Approval Holder shall identify in all its Design (TC, STC, ETSO, Repair, Change) approved after 28 December 2009, how the Manufacturer has to mark subject Parts and Appliances in accordance with 21A.804(a) 1; which can be limited to identifying a marking field and the method, without prescribing the actual text or symbols.

21.A.804(a) 3 requires additionally marking with the letters ‘EPA’ of all parts produced (manufactured) in accordance with data ‘not belonging to the TC holder of the related product’.

Each interchangeable or removable Part or Appliance that is manufactured in accordance with a design issued by the Design Organisation, shall be permanently and legibly marked according to 21.A.804. The EPA marking was introduced in 2004; this was done to clearly identify any ‘not original’ Part, (which means any Part or Appliance not designed by the TC- or ETSO- Approval Holder), as a trigger for Maintenance Organisations and Accident or Incident investigators, in the light of Continuing Airworthiness. The intention was certainly not to require adding of the letters ‘EPA’ to mark repairs. In this context, EPA marking only applies to the new designed and manufactured parts to be incorporated in the repair. Especially where repairs have an impact on interchangeability, identification of incorporated new Parts is very important, and DO Procedures should address this item. Note that for parts referred to in 21.A.307(b), as amended with (EU)2021/699 (applicable from 18.05.2022), the EPA marking is not required as stated in 21.A.804(a)(3).

The only accepted exception with regard to Marking (including EPA), is defined in 21.A.804(b). This subparagraph offers the possibility to not physically mark the Part of Appliance, when it is too small or when marking hereof is otherwise impractical, but only after “Agency agreement”. This wording allows an Applicant/Holder of a Design and the Agency to further define in detail how this ‘agreement’ can be obtained and will be formalised. DOATL should however ensure that the DOA Applicant/Holder reflects this approach in its DO Handbook or Procedures, requiring at least a justification of the reason for not marking physically, and details of the alternative way chosen for the identification, in accordance with 21A.804(b), to know on the authorised release document accompanying the Part or Appliance, or on its container.

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 because it depends upon the context in which the term is used.

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 point Part 21.A.805 of Annex I (Part 21) of Regulation (EU) 748/2012, 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.

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Can "Field Loadable Software" be delivered with an EASA Form 1 and is an EASA Form 1 required for installation?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

From 18 May 2022, a new requirement 21.A.307 becomes applicable (refer to Regulation (EU) 2021/699). This means that certain new parts do not require an EASA Form 1 for installation during maintenance. What are the implications of these regulatory changes, especially for General Aviation? Are ‘standard parts’ and ‘owner-accepted-parts (former 21.A.307(c)-parts’) impacted?

In essence, two new categories of new parts will be permitted to be installed during maintenance of European registered aircraft without the parts being accompanied with an EASA Form 1, but with an alternative document instead:

parts with negligible safety effect as identified by the holder of the design approval (according to 21.A.307(b)3);

parts with negligible safety effect as identified by EASA in CS-STAN for standard changes/repairs (according to 21.A.307(b)4)

This will permit fabrication of the above parts by organisations which are not approved as productions organisations (POA), which was considered too stringent for the manufacturing of parts having negligible safety impact in case of non-conformities.

Note that already for years, and after the new regulatory change will become applicable, ‘standard parts’ (parts i.a.w. 21.A.307(b)1) and ‘owner-accepted-parts’ (parts i.a.w. 21.A.307(b)2) are not required to be accompanied with an EASA Form 1 when they fulfil certain conditions.

For all the above-mentioned parts, as an alternative to the EASA Form 1, the rule requires a manufactured-issued document accompanying the part (for instance a certificate of conformity) to properly identify the part and trace it to the original manufacturer (refer to the new 21.A.307(c) for details). In respect of ‘standard parts’, this requirement is fulfilled with a ‘dated delivery-note’ from the manufacturer stating the name and the part-number (and the parts being engraved with that number). For parts obtained through a part’s dealer, the dealer can add a scanned copy of the dated delivery note (or equivalent) from the manufacturer on the shipment of the parts. This also applies to ‘owner-accepted-parts’.

Finally, note that the regulatory amendment excludes the need for ‘EPA’ marking (see new point 21.A.804(a)3) for all the above-mentioned parts, and that the requirements applicable for the maintenance of these parts are also alleviated as established in M.A.502 (d) and (e) and ML.A.502 (a) and (c) of regulation (EU) 2021/700.

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Regulations (EU) 2022/201 and 2022/203 introduce new requirements to Part 21 such as SMS, Occurrence Reporting, AltMoC. What is the view of EASA on the transition of production organisations to these requirements?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Basic Regulation

What does the EASA Basic Regulation apply to? How many extensions of the scope have there been?

The initial EASA Basic Regulation - Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 of 15 July 2002 – included airworthiness and environmental protection of products, parts and appliances in the scope of European Union competence. It made the Agency responsible 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. Furthermore, the Agency was put 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 took 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 extended the scope of Union competence to air operations, flight crew licenses and aircraft used by third country operators into, within or out of the Community. It also gave the Agency additional operational responsibilities. In the field of flight crew licensing, the Agency was made responsible for the approval and oversight of pilot training organisations and aero-medical centers 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 scope of EU law and 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 are the basis for precise, uniform and binding rules for aerodrome operations and operators, air traffic management and air navigation service provision. With the extension to ATM/ANS, the Agency was 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.

The entry into force of Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council on 11 of September 2018 consolidated the scope of European Union competence to cover the full spectrum of the aviation landscape and reinforce the European aviation system as a whole.

The Basic Regulation now applies to all unmanned aircraft irrespective of their operating mass. The only exception are certain small tethered aircraft in Annex I of the Basic Regulation which will remain under national competence.

The Basic Regulation was also extended to ground handling services.

The Basic Regulation also explicitly includes the design of airspace structures – which is not considered as a service but a specific Member State function.

The Basic Regulation continues not to apply to aircraft while carrying out military, customs, police, search and rescue, firefighting, border control, coastguard or similar activities or services, nor to several aircraft mentioned in Annex I to the Basic Regulation.

However, a novelty of the new Basic Regulation is the introduction of the possibility for chnages in scope due to the operation of several opt-in and opt-out possibilities.

One of novelties introduced by the new Basic Regulation is the possibility for member States to decide to apply the Basic Regulation to aircraft performing State activities (military, police, coast guard, firefighting, search and rescue and other similar operations and services), which would normally be subject to national rules.

The main advantage of the opt-in is that once the aircraft are in the EASA system, they would benefit from mutual recognition of certificates, and therefore move more freely within the EU, enjoy international recognition, and increase their market value.

In relation to this opt-in, the important elements to highlight are its voluntary and modular nature - the decision to apply the BR, and the extent to which it is applied remains in the hands of the Member States. This means that the opt-in does not need to extend to the full EASA system system (from airworthiness, maintenance and production to OPS and licensing) nor to the full range of State operations under the responsibility of the Member States:

A Member State may decide to opt-in for police operations, but not for search and rescue;
Equally, the Member States may decide to opt-in for a certain category/type of aircraft and not for others (eg, opt-in for rotorcraft but not for fixed wing);
Finally, a Member State may decide to opt-in for one area of the EASA system and not for others (e.g. opt-in for the airworthiness of the aircraft but not for the operations).

It is important to highlight in relation to modular opt-ins (for instance restricted to airworthiness or OPS/licensing) that within each area the opt-in has to be complete – it is not possible to opt-in for initial airworthiness but not for the continued airworthiness/maintenance of the aircraft, for example. Another important element to highlight is that in certain cases there will be the need for specific measures to address risks created by the disconnection from the total system approach – e.g. if a Member State opts-in for the airworthiness/maintenance but not for the operations, appropriate measures need to be put in place to ensure the continued airworthiness of the aircraft.

Due to this modularity, each opt-in case will be different from the next, and requires an individual approach.

The Basic Regulation establishes only one condition for the opt-in, which is that the provisions covered by the opt-in can be effectively applied. The formalities needed to implement the opt-in are simple:

The Member State needs to issue a decision; from the date of that decision, the opt-in applies immediately;
The Member State then notifies this decision to the Commission and the Agency, together with relevant information;
The Commission, after consulting the Agency, establishes whether the condition for the opt-in is fulfilled. If it is not, then the Commission issues a decision. Once notified, the Member State needs to modify or revoke its decision.

The implementation of the Basic Regulation and its implementing rules by Member States is subject to the European Union oversight. According to Article 85 of the Basic Regulation - Monitoring of Member States - the Agency shall assist the Commission in monitoring such implementation by conducting standardisation inspections and monitoring activities. 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 67, 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 or declaration made in accordance with the Basic Regulation or of delegated and implementing acts adopted on the basis thereof, effectively complies with them. In case of non-compliance, the Commission shall require, based on a recommendation of EASA, the Member State responsible of the oversight 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.

The oversight support mechanism in Article 66 is a new mechanism foreseen in the Basic Regulation meant to deal with situations where the Member State has shown a serious and persisting failure in complying with the safety provisions; in other words, it is a tool to react to immediate safety concerns. Article 66 of the Basic Regulation provides that in certain cases and only when the conditions described in the article the Commission can request the Member State concerned and EASA to establish jointly a temporary technical assistance programme, where the Agency would help the Member State to restore the acceptable level of safety. In accordance to Article 66 (2), during the oversight support programme, the Member State and the Agency would work together and the operations in the affected Member State can continue while the deficiencies are corrected, hence no negative impact to the aviation industry in the concerned Member State.

It is also important to note, that differently to Articles 64 and 65 of the new Basic Regulation, the support mechanism does not result in reallocation of responsibilities for the tasks related to certification, oversight and enforcement. This means that even during the oversight support programme, the Member State concerned remains responsible for its tasks, Article 66 (2).

While the Commission has a power to request that the Member State concerned and EASA establish an oversight support programme and the Member State concerned should make all possible efforts to restore its ability to perform its tasks, the article also provides a Member State a possibility to step out from the programme. If the Member State concerned recognises that the programme cannot be successfully implemented as planned, it should inform the Commission, and either reallocate responsibility for the certification, oversight and enforcement tasks to which the deficiencies pertain to the Agency or another Member State, or take other measures to resolve the deficiencies (Article 66(4).

In accordance with AMC1 ATCO.B.025(a)(5);(6), subjects taught during refresher training, such as standard practices and procedures, abnormal and emergency situations and human factors, should be assessed on STD or in other simulated environments and/or examined. This is because it might not be possible to observe the skills related to all refresher training subjects (e.g. those related to seasonally dependent procedures) during the regular assessment.

Assessments are required on subjects that are of practical nature, while other subjects should be examined. When defining the need for assessment and/or examination, attention should be paid on the training objectives (what is the required performance/taxonomy level) and the processes and method for assessment/examination.

It is left to the Training Organisation, in coordination with the Air Navigation Service Provider, to decide and to arrange for the assessment of refresher training subjects in the context of the ‘regular’ assessment purposed for the revalidation of the unit endorsement. In this case, a clear link between the refresher training subjects and the performance objectives of the assessment needs to be established.

Yes

ATM/ANS Specifics

Which ATM/ANS providers fall under the EASA Basic Regulation and its implementing rules?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

What are the main regulations governing ATM/ANS?

The main regulations governing ATM/ANS are the Basic Regulation 2018/1139 and the Single European Sky framework package, consisting of:

Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 laying down the framework for the creation of the single European sky (the framework Regulation);
Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 on the provision of air navigation services in the single European sky (the service provision Regulation);
Regulation (EC) No 551/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 on the organisation and use of the airspace in the single European sky (the airspace Regulation); and
Regulation (EC) No 552/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 on the interoperability of the European Air Traffic Management network (the interoperability Regulation).
- Amended by Regulation (EC) No 1070/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 amending Regulations (EC) No 549/2004, (EC) No 550/2004, (EC) No 551/2004 and (EC) No 552/2004 in order to improve the performance and sustainability of the European aviation system.

It shall be noted that COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2017/373 of 1 March 2017 laying down common requirements for providers of air traffic management/air navigation services and other air traffic management network functions and their oversight is an implementing rule to both SES Regulations and EASA Basic Regulation.

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1035/2011 of 17 October 2011 laying down common requirements for the provision of air navigation services; and

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1034/2011 of 17 October 2011 on safety oversight in air traffic management and air navigation services;

Note: Implementing Regulations (EU) No 1034/2011 and (EU) No 1035/2011 will be repealed as from 2nd January 2020 (Applicability Date of Regulation (EU) 2017/373).

“The hourly rates set out in Part II of the Annex shall apply as of the entry into force of this Regulation to any tasks ongoing at the entry into force of this Regulation and for which fees or charges are calculated on an hourly basis.”

The level of effort depends on a number of specific factors linked to the organization itself and the type of equipment under consideration, so the assessment is done based on the documentation and exposition of activities accompanying the application. This is why EASA only provides detailed estimates in conjunction with a submitted application. The following provides additional detail:

An applicant is entitled to request a financial quotation, and the Agency will provide the quotation before starting the investigation. This ensures that the DPO applicant has all the financial elements to make a business decision. An applicant can request a financial estimate (including working hours) via point 8 of the Application form. After submitting the application, EASA will reply with a quotation of estimated cost. Invoicing will be done based on the actual effort.
The production of the estimate should not last more than a few working days, in parallel to the assessment of technical and administrative eligibility of the application, and the information is provided to the applicant. Procedurally, there is a maximum period of 90 days for the applicant to evaluate the quote and accept it.
If the applicant would decide not to accept the quotation, there would be no fees/charges incurred. The investigation would start once the quotation is accepted.
It is also important to be aware that an approved DPO organisation will incur additional costs under the EASA oversight activity. This oversight activity will also be invoiced for hours worked and travel costs.

If an organization has other questions linked to filling out the DPO application forms or about the logic applied to the initial investigation in order to better prepare the approach, it is possible to schedule a “pre-application” meeting with EASA to clarify specific points before an application is formally submitted.

Acceptance of approvals issued by third countries

Some of the equipment produced by our company has a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approval and some equipment does not. For the FAA-approved equipment, can you confirm that our company can apply to have the FAA certification accepted by EASA?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Categorisation of systems or equipment

Categorisation of software

For surveillance (SUR) equipment, e.g. ADS-B station, there is also processing equipment (including software) for at least converting the received signal to ASTERIX. Does this mean that this equipment will always be subject to certification by EASA?

View

Was this helpful?

Non-compliance

The implementation of a change from the awarding of a public contract to the introduction into operation is a long-term process, during which the following situations may occur (we are considering the transition period): - Issuance of the specification for the given device during implementation - Failure to certify the supplier by the end of the transition period - Reluctance of the contracted supplier to certify. We consider it appropriate to agree with the procedure of the provider/regulator for these cases. Does EASA work on something as a guidelines in this matter?

View

Was this helpful?

For example, this could be achieved by applying (and demonstrating compliance to) the requirements of Regulation (EU) 2023/1768. It could also be achieved by demonstrating that the standards and requirements used to develop the military ATM/ANS or equipment (e.g. military standards) are equivalent to the standards and requirements defined in Regulation (EU) 2023/1768. This demonstration that the equipment provides a level of safety and interoperability as effective as civil systems is to be made available, upon request, to any civil ANSP intending to make use of the military equipment in the provision of their services.

Finally, there is an obligation to EASA, when monitoring Member States’ compliance with the Basic Regulation through the standardisation processes, to verify that the process/criteria used by Member States (to determine that military services or equipment are “as effective as” the systems and equipment produced under Regulation (EU) 2023/1768) are coherent and aligned, and achieve that objective.

Please see below for the relevant regulatory references.

Recital 9 of the Basic Regulation states:

“(9) Aerodromes that are controlled and operated by the military, as well as air traffic management and air navigation services (‘ATM/ANS’) that are provided or made available by the military, should be excluded from the scope of this Regulation. However, Member States should ensure, in accordance with their national law, that such aerodromes, when opened to the public, and such ATM/ANS when serving air traffic to which Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) applies, offer a level of safety and interoperability with civil systems that is as effective as that resulting from the application of the essential requirements for aerodromes and ATM/ANS set out in this Regulation.”

Article 2(3) 3 states:

“3. This Regulation shall not apply to … (c) ATM/ANS, including systems and constituents, personnel and organisations, that are provided or made available by the military;”

Article 2(5) states:

“5. Without prejudice to national security and defence requirements, and Article 7(5) of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1), Member States shall ensure that:

(a) the facilities referred to in point (b) of the first subparagraph of paragraph 3 of this Article that are open to public use; and

(b) the ATM/ANS referred to in point (c) of the first subparagraph of paragraph 3 of this Article that are provided to air traffic to which Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 applies,

offer a level of safety and interoperability with civil systems that is as effective as that resulting from the application of the essential requirements set out in Annexes VII and VIII to this Regulation.”

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Means of compliance (MOC)

Should the ATM/ANS Equipment Release Form attach external documentation/evidence how the GE is compliant with the AMCs and DSs?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Conformity assessment during the transition period

Implementation support to stakeholders

What is the EASA plan to ensure wide communication towards ATM GE providers and common understanding of the regulation framework?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Aerodromes (ADR)

In case the answer you were looking for in this FAQ section is not available: you might submit your enquiry here.

Aerodromes

ADR.1 Which aerodromes fall under the EASA Basic Regulation and its implementing rules?

According to Art. 2.1 (e) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1139, the applicability of the Basic Regulation (BR) in the domain of aerodromes is as follows:

(e) the design, maintenance and operation of aerodromes, including the safety-related equipment used at those aerodromes, located in the territory to which the Treaties apply, which:

(i) are open to public use;
(ii) serve commercial air transport; and
(iii) have a paved instrument runway of 800 metres or more, or exclusively serve helicopters using instrument approach or departure procedures;

According to Art. 2.7 of the BR, a Member State can decide to exempt the design, maintenance and operation of an aerodrome, and its safety-related equipment, where that aerodrome handles no more than 10,000 commercial air transport passengers per year and no more than 850 movements related to cargo operations per year. However, the Member State concerned must ensure that such exemption does not endanger compliance with the essential requirements for aerodromes that are detailed in the Annex VII of the BR.

Art. 2.7 details this exemption possibility even further and states that:

When such exemption decision is taken for a specific aerodrome, the design, maintenance and operation of the aerodrome concerned and the safety-related equipment and ground handling services and AMS (apron management services) at that aerodrome shall no longer be regulated by this Regulation and by the delegated and implementing acts adopted on the basis thereof;
When such an exemption decision was granted without meeting the traffic conditions, the Commission will address an Implementing act to the the Member State concerned to modify or revoke its exemption decision; and notify the Commission and the Agency thereof;
The Member States need to also to notify to the Commission and the Agency all “old” such low traffic exemptions granted under Art. 4 (3b) of the revoked Regulation 216/2008 and examine their traffic figures annually. Where this examination demonstrates that, over three consecutive years, one of those aerodromes handles more than 10 000 commercial air transport passengers per year or more than 850 movements related to cargo operations per year, the Member State concerned shall revoke the exemption of that aerodrome.
All such revocations need to be notified to the Commission and the Agency, and the Agency shall include all decisions by the Commission and the Member States in the repository, described under Art. 74 of the Basic Regulation.

A list of currently exempted aerodromes is found on EASA's website: List of aerodromes falling in the scope of Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 [Regulation (EC) No 216/2008] .You can directly filter on screen and download the information.

A Member State shall use a dedicated platform (FlexTool) to provide needed information and upload associated documentation. For troubleshooting, the FlexTool Focal Point (FoP) for the country should contact exemptions [at] easa.europa.eu (exemptions[at]easa[dot]europa[dot]eu).

Aerodrome traffic exemptions notification form (EC) 216/2008 only applicable for Iceland, Liechtenstein & Norway.

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

ADR.2 Is an extension of the applicability of the EASA rules towards smaller aerodromes planned?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

ADR.3 What is the “Certification Basis” of an aerodrome?

The term “Certification Basis” (CB) is a key term in the area of oversight of aerodromes. According to Art. 34.1 (a) of the Basic Regulation (EU) No 2018/1139 a certificate is required for aerodromes in scope of the BR. The process of obtaining such an aerodrome certificate involves the establishment of the aerodrome’s CB to describe the infrastructure and equipment in terms of the regulatory requirements which they are meant to comply with. The concept of the CB gives also the necessary flexibility to take account of the non-uniform elements of the infrastructure at Europe’s airports. The CB concept does so by allowing local solutions to local issues of deviations from the European aerodrome certification specifications (CS). This CB document is proposed by the applicant (usually the aerodrome operator) and is finally decided on by the Competent Authority, the State entity designated to certify and oversee aerodromes.

The CB concept is enshrined in the Basic Regulation under Art. 34.5, where it is stipulated that the certification basis for an aerodrome shall consist of the following:

a) the applicable certification specifications related to the type of aerodromes;
b) those provisions of the applicable certification specifications for which an equivalent level of safety has been accepted;
c) the special detailed technical specifications necessary when the design features of a particular aerodrome or the experience in operation render any of the certification specifications referred to in point (a) of this paragraph inadequate or inappropriate to ensure conformity with the essential requirements referred to in Article 33.

The CB can be a list of all the applicable Certification Specifications, which are relevant to the aerodrome infrastructure elements in question, ideally with an indication for each infrastructure element how each relevant and applicable CS is satisfied. For CS that are not met, an equivalent level of safety (ELOS) or special condition (SC) can be proposed. The CB would normally reference the documentation showing the compliance, the ELOS or the SC, as the case may be.

When the applicant has demonstrated that the aerodrome complies with the agreed CB as per ADR.OR.B.025 (in Annex II of Regulation (EU) No 139/ 2014), one condition for the issuance of the certificate would be met. The final aerodrome certificate shall be considered to include the aerodrome’s CB, and moreover any Deviation Acceptance and Action Documents (DAAD) based on Art.7 “Deviations from certification specifications” of Regulation (EU) No 139/2014, which may have been issued. (See also ADR.AR.C.035 (d) in Annex II of 139/2014).

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

ADR.4 When establishing the certification basis of aerodrome, to what extent will the Competent Authority be allowed to take into account the differing environments and location of aerodromes?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

ADR.5 What is the Deviation Acceptance and Action Document (DAAD) described in Art. 7 of Regulation 139/2014?

The old and the new Basic Regulation (BR) tasked the Agency to provide solutions to measures at existing aerodromes, which Member States had already authorized on the basis of national law and which stem from notified deviations from Annex 14 filed by the Member States to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). One of the tools that the Agency developed in order to meet this request is found in Art. 7 “Deviations from certification specifications” of the aerodrome implementing rules (Regulation (EU) No 139/2014). It says the following:

Article 7 Deviations from certification specifications

1) The Competent Authority may, until 31 December 2024, accept applications for a certificate including deviations from the certification specifications issued by the Agency, if the following conditions are met:

a. the deviations do not qualify as an equivalent level of safety case under ADR.AR.C.020, nor qualify as a case of special condition under ADR.AR.C.025 of Annex II to this Regulation;

b. the deviations existed prior to the entry into force of this Regulation;

c. the essential requirements of Annex Va to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 are respected by the deviations, supplemented by mitigating measures and corrective actions as appropriate;

d. a supporting safety assessment for each deviation has been completed.

2) The Competent Authority shall compile the evidence supporting the fulfilment of the conditions referred to in paragraph 1 in a Deviation Acceptance and Action Document (DAAD). The DAAD shall be attached to the certificate. The Competent Authority shall specify the period of validity of the DAAD.

3) The aerodrome operator and the Competent Authority shall verify that the conditions referred to in paragraph 1 continue to be fulfilled.

This means that during the initial certification process all existing deviations at an aerodrome must undergo review. In a next step, all deviations which cannot be handled with the other flexibility tools provided (i.e. the Equivalent Level of Safety and Special Condition), and which pre-date 2014, can be accepted by the Competent Authority in a “Deviation Acceptance and Action Document” (DAAD), which would be attached to the certificate, but which does not form part of it.

Is it required to perform a ‘Task and Resource Analysis’ as referred to in ICAO Airport Service Manual (Doc 9137) and GM2 ADR.OPS.B.010(a)(2)?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

What considerations for determining the number of personnel are already given in the regulatory framework?

Although Regulation (EU) No 139/2014 does not contain specific considerations on the number of required rescue and firefighting services (RFFS) personnel, the existing EU regulatory framework contains different factors that may influence the number of RFFS personnel and should be taken into account. The following four key aspects affecting the number of personnel should be considered:

RFFS Level of Protection (AMC2 ADR.OPS.B.010(a)(2));
Core Tasks as indicated in the scope of RFFS (GM1 ADR.OPS.B.010(a)(1));
Comparison of available and required resources (AMC6 ADR.OPS.B.010(a)(2)); and
Human Performance (AMC6 ADR.OPS.B.010(a)(2)).

However, the determination should always be guided by the question whether an aerodrome operator is confident with its tactics and the associated number of personnel.

GM1 ADR.OPS.B.010(a)(1) specifies that the principal objective […] is to save lives […]. The rescue and firefighting service is provided to create and maintain survivable conditions, to provide egress routes […] and initiate the rescue of those occupants unable to make their escape without aid. The rescue may […] use equipment and personnel other than those assessed primarily for rescue and firefighting […].

In determining the number of personnel required to provide for rescue and firefighting, a Task and Resource Analysis should be performed, taking into consideration the types of aircraft […], the available […] vehicles and equipment (consider: AMC3 ADR.OPS.B.010(a)(2)), and other duties required from RFFS personnel (GM2 ADR.OPS.B.010(a)(2)).

AMC6 ADR.OPS.B.010(a)(2) specifies that the aerodrome operator should ensure that:

during flight operations […] sufficient trained personnel is detailed and readily available to ride […] vehicles, and to operate the equipment […];
personnel is deployed […] considering also the use of hand lines, ladders, and other rescue equipment normally associated with aircraft rescue and firefighting operations; […] and
any other duties carried out […] do not compromise the response […].

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

How does the RFFS level of protection influence the minimum number of RFFS personnel?

The rescue and firefighting services (RFFS) level of protection reflects the size and capacity of aircraft normally using an aerodrome. Hence, it sets the overall frame when determining the number of RFFS personnel. When aligning the number of personnel, it could either reflect the largest aircraft usually scheduled at the aerodrome or the largest type of aircraft within the published RFFS aerodrome category. Furthermore, the number of personnel usually available at an aerodrome should be sufficient to man the available vehicles associated with the RFFS level of protection and operate the equipment deemed to be required by the aerodrome operator at its maximum capacity (c.f. AMC3 ADR.OPS.B.010(a)(2) and AMC6 ADR.OPS.B.010(a)(2)).

In addition to the RFFS level of protection, the potential existence of difficult environments at or near the aerodrome may impact the number of RFFS personnel, as a response to such areas is to be initiated and the effective deployment of rescue equipment for such areas is to be considered.

To determine the minimum number of RFFS personnel, the aerodrome operator should develop a credible scenario in accordance with its published RRFS level(s) of protection.

Possible factors taken into account		Example Scenario #1	Example Scenario #2
Flight Phase	Landing / Take-Off / Taxiing / On Stand	Landing	On Stand
Prior Alert	Yes / No	No	Yes
Number of Aircraft / Vehicles involved	Aircraft / Ground Service Equipment / Regular Vehicle	1 Aircraft	1 Aircraft
Type of Aircraft	According to Airport RFFS Category or Reference Aircraft	RFFS Aerodrome Category	(Reference) Aircraft Type
Number of Persons on Board	According to Airport RFFS Category or Reference Aircraft	Maximum Capacity of Reference Aircraft	Actual Capacity of Reference Aircraft
Passengers with Reduced Mobility	Yes / No	No	Yes
Quantity of Fuel on Board	Low (e.g., on arrival) / Full (e.g., on departure) / Unknown	Low	Unknown
Dangerous Goods	Yes / No / Types and Quantities	No	No
Location of Accident	Runway / Before or After Threshold / Taxiway / Aprons	Runway	Taxiway
Conditions at Location	Paved / Unpaved / Water or swampy Area	Paved	Unpaved
Weather Conditions	Optimal / Impacting …	Optimal	Optimal
Aircraft Emergency State	Aircraft Accident / Full Emergency / Local Standby	Full Emergency	Aircraft Accident
Fuselage Integrity	OK / Damaged / In Several Parts	Damaged	OK
Access to Fuselage	Normal / Partial / Difficult	Partial	Normal
Emergency Evacuation	< 90 sec / < 5 min / Incomplete	< 5 min	Incomplete
External Emergency Services Arrival	< 10 min / X min / 30 min …	< 30 min	25 min

Such capability, with the aim to clarify how intervention would be implemented and the available means (i.e. responsibilities considering national or local legislation; type and quantity of equipment and personnel available; dispatch/activation time; other alternatives when response capacity is exhausted or in case there is no immediate response), should be documented and included in the National or Local Emergency Plans (GM1 ADR.OPS.B.005(a)), as well as in the Aerodrome Emergency Plan.

Such assessment should consider the safety management system requirement to coordinate the aerodrome emergency response plan. In that respect, coordination of the aerodrome emergency response plan with the emergency response plans of those organisations it must interface with during the provision of aerodrome services and with the relevant external organisations who have the responsibility to respond to an emergency occurring at an aerodrome or in its surroundings (ADR.OR.D.005) should be ensured.

The assessment of intervention capability should be periodically reviewed, tested, and discussed with all organisations that bear some responsibility in case of an emergency.

View

Drones (UAS)

Provisions applicable to both ‘open’ and ’specific’ category

‘An uninvolved person is a person who is not participating in the UAS operation or who is not aware of the instructions and safety precautions given by the UAS (drone) operator’.

A person is considered involved if he/she decides to be a part of the operation, understands the risk and is able to check the position of the drone while it is flying.

Therefore, in order to be considered ‘involved’ in the operation, a person needs to:

give consent to be a part of the operation (e.g. consent to be overflown by the drone); the consent needs to be explicit;
receive from the drone operator/remote pilot instructions and safety precautions to be applied in case of an emergency situation; and
not be busy with any other activities that would make the person unable to check the position of the drone and, in case of an incident, take action to avoid being hit.

Writing on a ticket that a drone will be used during an event is not considered sufficient, since the drone operator needs to receive individual explicit consent and make sure people understand the risk and the procedures to be taken in case of an emergency.

During the operation, it is expected that involved persons will follow the trajectory of the drone and be ready to take action to protect themselves in case the drone behaves unexpectedly. If, during the UAS operation, people are busy working or watching something that is not compatible with monitoring the trajectory of the drone, than they cannot be considered to be involved.

Examples of uninvolved people:

spectators gathered for sport activities, concerts or other mass events;
people in a beach or in a park, or walking on the streets.

An uninvolved person is not only a person who is directly exposed to a drone, but could also be a person who is in a bus, car, etc., and who is indirectly exposed. For example, if a drone is flying over a car, its driver should be considered to be an ‘uninvolved person’. The reason is that a drone flying close to a car (even if it does not impact it) could possibly distract its driver and therefore cause a car accident.

Regulatory reference: GM1 Article 2(18) Definitions, ED Decision 2019/021/R.

I fly model aircraft

How can I fly my model?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Once in the air

Do I need insurance?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Are there any Brexit related regulations?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Open category

Understanding the ‘open’ category

How do I determine I fall under the ‘open’ category?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

I fall under the ‘open’ category, how do I determine which subcategory I can fly under?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

I bought a DJI Mini (weight 249g) how can I operate it?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Requirements under the ‘open’ category

What are the requirements under the subcategories of the ‘open’ category?

According to the class identification label of the drone or the weight, in the case of privately built drones, they can be operated in different conditions as described below:

Drones bearing a CE class 0 mark or that are privately built and weigh up to 250 g can fly in subcategory A1, which means almost everywhere, except over assemblies of people, or areas that the state has forbidden by imposing a restriction on the flight of drones (please consult the website of your National Aviation Authority. See https://www.easa.europa.eu/domains/civil-drones/naa ).

Drones bearing a class identification label 1 can also be operated in subcategory A1 with the difference that you are required to minimise flying over uninvolved people.

Drones bearing a class identification label 2 can be operated in subcategory A2, which means in urban environments, however, you are required to keep a safe distance from any uninvolved people. As a rule, this minimum distance should be equal to the height at which the drone is flying (e.g. if you are flying at a height of 30 m, make sure that the closest uninvolved person is at least 30 m from the position where the drone would vertically fall in the event of an incident). In any case, this distance must never be less than 5 m. In addition, you can also fly in the conditions defined for subcategory A3. Finally, you must avoid flying in areas that the state has forbidden by imposing a restriction on the flight of drones.

(Please consult the website of your National Aviation Authority for additional information.

See https://www.easa.europa.eu/domains/civil-drones/naa).

Drones bearing a class identification label 3 or 4 , or that are privately built and weigh up to 25 kg, can be operated in subcategory A3. That means that they can never be operated in urban environments that you need to keep the drone at least 150 m from residential, commercial or industrial areas, and to only operate in areas where no uninvolved people are present in the range where the drone can be operated. In any case, you must avoid flying in areas that the state has forbidden by imposing a restriction on the flight of drones (please consult the website of your National Aviation Authority for additional information, see https://www.easa.europa.eu/domains/civil-drones/naa)

For the full image of requirements and limitations applicable to different classes of drones and conducted operations, please refer to the tables below:

Table 1 — ‘Open’ category, applicable until 31 December 2023

Table 2 — ‘Open’ category, applicable from 1 January 2024

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Training requirements in the 'open' category

Who issues the remote pilot competency certificate for the 'open' category and how long is it valid for?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Will the competency certificate for the 'open' category be recognised throughout Europe?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Which training I need to fly my drone in the open category?

The type of training required depends on the type of drone you use.

A transitional period until December 31, 2023 applies, and each EASA Member State may define the appropriate remote pilot training requirements according to the following table:

Remote pilot training as from 1 January 2024
The training requirements applicable as from January 1, 2024 are described below. However, most of the EASA Member States already offer the training listed below. In this way, you can already today receive a certificate according to the EU regulation. So, if you receive from an NAA of an EASA Member State one of the certificate of training with the EASA logo as shown below, you may already use it to operate your drone in the ‘open’ category in all EASA Member States. The training and exams can be conducted in an EASA Member State of your choice.

Please pay attention: we are made aware that some illegal websites are selling fake certificates of training. Please trust only the providers of training and exams that are listed in a NAA website!

How to operate drones in the open category from 01/01/2024 (These provisions already apply to drones with C-class marks)

Privately built and drones placed on the market before 01/01/2024 (under 250 gramm)

Subcategory	A1 (can also fly in subcategory A3)
Operational restrictions	May fly over uninvolved people (should be avoided when possible) No flight over assemblies of people
Drone operator registration	No, unless camera / sensor on board and a drone is not a toy
Remote pilot competence	No training required
Remote pilot minimum age	No minimum age

C0 (under 250 gramm)

Subcategory	A1 (can also fly in subcategory A3)
Operational restrictions	No flight over assemblies of people; Maintain flight altitude below 120m above ground level.
Drone operator registration	No, unless camera / sensor on board and a drone is not a toy
Remote pilot competence	Read carefully the user manual
Remote pilot minimum age	16*, no minimum age if drone is a toy

C1 (under 900 gramm)

Subcategory	A1 (can also fly in subcategory A3)
Operational restrictions	No flight expected over uninvolved people (if it happens, overflight should be minimised); No flight over assemblies of people; Maintain flight altitude below 120m above ground level.
Drone operator registration	Yes
Remote pilot competence	Read carefully the user manual Obtain a ‘Proof of completion for online training’ for A1/A3 ‘open’ subcategory by: Completing the online training Passing the online theoretical exam
Remote pilot minimum age	16*

C2 (under 4 kg)

Subcategory	A2 (can also fly in subcategory A3)
Operational restrictions	Must not overfly uninvolved people; Maintain a horizontal distance of 30 m from uninvolved people (can be reduced to 5 m if the low-speed function is activated); Maintain flight altitude below 120m above ground level.
Drone operator registration	Yes
Remote pilot competence	Read carefully the user manual Obtain a ’Remote pilot certificate of competency’ for A2 ‘open’ subcategory by: Having a ‘Proof of completion for online training’ for A1/A3 ‘open’ subcategory Conducting and declare a practical self- training Passing an additional theoretical exam at the NAA or proctored online
Remote pilot minimum age	16*

C3 (under 25 kg)

Subcategory	A3
Operational restrictions	Must not overfly uninvolved people; Maintain a horizontal distance of 150 m from uninvolved people and urban areas; Maintain flight altitude below 120m above ground level.
Drone operator registration	Yes
Remote pilot competence	Read carefully the user manual Obtain a ‘Proof of completion for online training’ for A1/A3 ‘open’ subcategory by: Completing the online training Passing the online theoretical exam
Remote pilot minimum age	16*

C4 (under 25 kg)

Subcategory	A3
Operational restrictions	Must not overfly uninvolved people; Maintain a horizontal distance of 150 m from uninvolved people and urban areas; Maintain flight altitude below 120m above ground level.
Drone operator registration	Yes
Remote pilot competence	Read carefully the user manual Obtain a ‘Proof of completion for online training’ for A1/A3 ‘open’ subcategory by: Completing the online training Passing the online theoretical exam
Remote pilot minimum age	16*

Privately built and drones placed on the market before 01/01/2024 (under 25 kg)

Subcategory	A3
Operational restrictions	Must not overfly uninvolved people; Maintain a horizontal distance of 150 m from uninvolved people and urban areas; Maintain flight altitude below 120m above ground level.
Drone operator registration	Yes
Remote pilot competence	Read carefully the user manual Obtain a ‘Proof of completion for online training’ for A1/A3 ‘open’ subcategory by: Completing the online training Passing the online theoretical exam
Remote pilot minimum age	16*

Note that an NAA may designate an entity that may conduct the online training and provide the online exam or the exam for the A2 subcategory. Please refer to the NAA’s website for additional information.

Summary

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Operational authorisation requirements ‘open’ category

Do I need to obtain an authorisation before flying my drone? ('open' category)

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Responsibilities for drone operators and remote pilots in the ‘open’ category

Drones without class identification label ’open’ category

Under the 'open' category do I still need training, given that I was flying drones before the rules became applicable?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

I fall under the 'open' category will I be able to fly my old drone after 31 December 2020 ?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Which are the maximum take-off mass requirements in the 'open' category for drones without class identification label?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

I am into drone racing and/or flying drones with goggles (FPV) ‘open’ category

Is beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) operation possible for flying drones with goggles (first-person view (FPV)) operation?

NB This answer applies only to non-racing FPV operation.

One of the conditions to operate in the open category is for the remote pilot to keep the drone in visual line of sight (VLOS) at all times. There are only two exceptions where VLOS is not strictly applied:

when using the follow-me mode with a drone with C0 or C1 label or below 250 g; and/or
when operating in first person view (FPV) and using an unmanned-aircraft observer that is always looking at the drone.

It is important to note that the open category catalogues all lower-risk drone operations without the need for prior authorisation; this lighter provision is compensated by more restrictive conditions of operation.

FPV googles by nature do not allow to have a wide field of view to see potential threats around the drone, so they do not enable VLOS. Hence, the requirement for an unmanned-aircraft observer for any FPV operation when operating in the open category. The unmanned-aircraft observer must look at the drone and be alongside the remote pilot so that the unmanned-aircraft observer can immediately inform the remote pilot in case of any threat around the drone.

With the above conditions, you are allowed to fly FPV in the open category. However, you need to be mindful of the risk to hit a person or other aircraft.

If you want to have a drone race in FPV, spectators are not allowed; please note that drones with a speed higher than 19 m/s are only allowed to operate in open subcategory A3 (far from people). Therefore, in case you want to have spectators, the FPV race should be conducted in the specific category (including standards scenarios). For more information, please refer to the following FAQ: I am into drone racing and/or flying drones with goggles (FPV) ‘open’ category | EASA (europa.eu).

For standard scenario (STS) 2, nothing prevents the remote pilot to fly in first person view when:

an airspace observer scans the sky; and
the remote pilots is assisted by an unmanned-aircraft observer.

The same person may be the airspace observer and the unmanned-aircraft observer, if that person complies with the requirements imposed for the two observers.

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

I am a non-EU visitor / drone operator ‘open’ category

I am a Non-EU resident visiting Europe and I plan to fly my drone in the 'open' category, do I need to register?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

As a non-EU resident, are my competencies for the 'open' category recognised in the EU?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Conduct an Operation in the open category in a state other than the one I am registered

Do I need to apply for an authorisation?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

When I buy a drone to be operated in the open category or in standard scenario (STS) in the specific category, what should I do?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Specific category

Understanding the ‘specific’ category

How do I determine I fall under the ‘specific’ category?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Training requirements in the ‘specific’ category

Are all remote pilots in the 'specific' category required to train to fly a drone?

Do I need to obtain an authorisation before flying my drone in the 'specific' category?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

I fall under the ‘specific’ category, so how do I obtain an authorisation?

Firstly check whether your operation can be accommodated within a standard scenario. If it can, you do not need an authorisation, but you do need to submit a declaration to the National Aviation Authority. A standard scenario is an operation defined in the Appendix to the drone regulation (EU Regulation 2019/947). You need to use a drone marked with the appropriate class identification label (5 or 6). After submitting the declaration to the National Aviation Authority, you will receive the confirmation of receipt and completeness from the National Aviation Authority and operate following the limitations of the standard scenario.
Otherwise, there are other means to obtain an operational authorisation under the ‘specific’ category, depending on the level of risk the operation poses. The drone operator can apply for:

An operational authorisation by conducting a risk assessment of the intended operation using a methodology for the risk assessment; one possible method is the SORA (specific operation risk assessment) that you can find as AMC1 to Article 11 to Regulation (EU) 2019/947. This methodology helps to identify the risk level of the operation and to identify the mitigations and operational safety objectives needed to make the operation safe. When the drone operator believes they have put in place satisfactory measures to ensure the safety of the operation, they send all the information to the National Aviation Authority and apply for an operational authorisation. When the National Aviation Authority is satisfied, it provides the drone operator with the authorisation, and the operation can be started.
An operation authorisation through a predefined risk assessment’ (PDRA) as a simplification of the drone operator conducting a risk assessment. For those operations that will be the most common in Europe, EASA will carry out the risk assessment and will publish, as an acceptable means of compliance with the drone regulation, the list of the actions that the drone operator needs to put in place in order to conduct the operation safely. An application for an authorisation to the National Aviation Authority is still needed, however, both the drone operator and the National Aviation Authority will benefit from the standardised measures defined in the PDRA. The PDRAs are published by EASA as AMC to Art 11 to Regulation (EU) 2019/947; more are already under development.
Light UAS operator certificate (LUC): this is a voluntary certification, after which the National Aviation Authority may allocate some privileges to the drone operator.

Drone operators may ask the National Aviation Authority to assess their organisation to evaluate whether they are capable of assessing the risk of an operation themselves. The requirements to be demonstrated by drone operators are defined in Part C of Regulation (EU) 2019/947. When the National Aviation Authority is satisfied, they will issue a light UAS operator certificate (LUC) and they will allocate privileges to the drone operators based on their level of maturity. The privileges may be one or more of the following:

To conduct operations covered by standard scenarios without submitting a declaration;
To self-authorise operations conducted by the drone operator and covered by a PDRA without applying for an authorisation.
To self-authorise all operations conducted by the drone operator without applying for an authorisation.

Regulatory reference: article 12 of EU regulation 2012/947.

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Responsibilities as a drone operator or remote pilot in the ‘specific’ category

What are my responsibilities as a drone operator in the 'specific' category?

As a drone operator flying in the ’specific’ category, you must:

ensure that the drone displays the drone operator registration number (e.g. with a sticker) and the same number is uploaded into the remote identification;
develop operational procedures (written procedures are required when the drone operator employs more than one remote pilot, otherwise it is enough that the remote pilot follows the procedures defined by the manufacturer in the user’s manual);
ensure that there is no radio interference that may affect the command and control link of the drone;
designate a remote pilot for each operation; it is important that it is clear who is the person responsible for each flight;
ensure that the remote pilot and the personnel supporting the operation of the drone are familiar with the user’s manual and with the drone operator’s procedures, have appropriate competency, and are provided with the relevant information concerning any geographical zones published by the MS;
ensure that the maps in the geo-awareness system of the drone are up to date, unless you are flying in a geographical zone where geo-awareness is not required;
ensure that, unless you are using a privately built drone, it has a declaration in conformity to the CE class mark and its class label (0 to 4) is affixed to the aircraft; and
ensure that the persons involved in the operation of the drone is aware of the risks involved in operations under subcategories A2 and A3.
carry out each operation within the limitations defined in the declaration or operational authorisation;
develop procedures to ensure the security of the operation;
establish measures against unlawful interference and unauthorised access;
ensure that the privacy of people is protected, and there may also be a requirement to conduct a data protection impact assessment if requested by the National Aviation Authority;
provide the remote pilot with guidelines on how to minimise the nuisance caused by noise and emissions;
ensure that the pilot conducting the operation and the other personnel in charge comply with all the conditions required for operating in the ’specific’ category;
keep a record of the drone operation; and
maintain the drone in a suitable condition to ensure safe operation.

Regulatory reference: UAS.SPEC.050 of EU Regulation 2019/947

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

What are my responsibilities as a remote pilot in the 'specific' category?

As a remote pilot you must:
Before the flight:

complete the training and examination required for the type of operation you will be involved in;
have relevant up-to-date information about any geographical zones published by the National Aviation Authority;
check for obstacles and the presence of people not involved in the operation of the drone (unless operating in the A1 subcategory with a privately built drone or a drone with a CE class 0 mark;
check that the drone is fit for flight and the operation it will undertake;
check that the remote control works properly (if applicable); and
ensure that the weight of the drone is within the limit of the category or subcategory of the intended operation.
ensure that the operating environment is compatible with the authorised or declared limitations, and
ensure that Air Traffic Services , airspace users and other stakeholders are informed of the intended operation.
During the flight in the ’specific’ category, you must:
not operate the drone when you are unfit either due to the consumption of psychoactive/ hallucinogenic substances or alcohol, or unfit due to sickness;
keep the drone at a distance such that you can clearly see it; you may use a UA observer to scan the airspace when you want to fly in first person view. UA observers must be located alongside you such that they can immediately communicate in case they see an obstacle and give you instructions such as to immediately land the drone.
if you or the UA observer see a manned aircraft, give way to it, and make sure you are far away from it. If you have any doubt about the operation, you should land the drone immediately.
comply with the limitation of the geographical zones;
operate the drone according to the manufacturer’s user manual;
comply with the operator’s procedure; and
do not operate where an emergency response service is ongoing (e.g. in the case of an accident, keep away from that location since an emergency helicopter may be required to be used);
Comply with the authorised or declared limitations.

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

Is beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) operation possible for flying drones with goggles (first-person view (FPV)) operation?

NB This answer applies only to non-racing FPV operation.

when using the follow-me mode with a drone with C0 or C1 label or below 250 g; and/or
when operating in first person view (FPV) and using an unmanned-aircraft observer that is always looking at the drone.

With the above conditions, you are allowed to fly FPV in the open category. However, you need to be mindful of the risk to hit a person or other aircraft.

For standard scenario (STS) 2, nothing prevents the remote pilot to fly in first person view when:

an airspace observer scans the sky; and
the remote pilots is assisted by an unmanned-aircraft observer.

The same person may be the airspace observer and the unmanned-aircraft observer, if that person complies with the requirements imposed for the two observers.

For STS 1, it is correct that at the moment, operating in FPV is not possible since the remote pilot is required to maintain VLOS.

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

I build my own drones (privately built) ‘specific’ category

Can my drone operate in the ‘specific’ category?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

I plan to provide services (commercial and other) with drone(s) ‘specific’ category

Will I need to validate my operational authorisation with every other EASA Members state?

By 31 December 2020, any authorisation given by one MS will be valid in the rest of Europe. The drone operator is required to first submit the declaration (if intending to conduct an operation covered by a standard scenario) or receive an operational authorisation from the National Aviation Authority of the state of registration.

For an operation covered by a standard scenario (SS), the drone operator must send to the National Aviation Authority where it intends to operate, a copy of the declaration and a copy of the confirmation of receipt and completeness received by the National Aviation Authority of the state of registration. Then the drone operator may start the operation following the requirement of the standard scenario and verifying the geographical zone published by the National Aviation Authority where the operation is conducted.

For operations not covered by a standard scenario in the ’specific’ category, the drone operator must ensure that the mitigating measures submitted in his original risk assessment are appropriate to the new environment it plan to operate in or update them is necessary.

Then the drone operator must provide the National Aviation Authority of the Member State of the intended operation with an application, which must include:

(a) a copy of the operational authorisation granted by the National Aviation Authority of the Member State of registration; with

(b) the location (s) of the intended operation, including the updated mitigation measures.

Upon receipt of the application, the National Aviation Authority of the Member State of the intended operation will review the updated mitigation measure proposed. They will confirm to the drone operator that the application is satisfactory. Once the operator receives the confirmation, they may start the intended operation.
If the drone operator has been granted, by the National Aviation Authority of the state of registration, an LUC (a light UAS operator certificate) with privileges to self-authorise its operations, they must provide the National Aviation Authority of the State of the intended operation with

a copy of the term of approval of the LUC and
the location or locations of the intended operation;

Regulatory reference: article 13 of EU regulation 2019/947.

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

What will happen to authorisation granted by NAAs before the 31st of December 2020?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

I am a non-EU visitor / drone operator ‘specific’ category

I am a Non-EU resident visiting Europe and I plan to fly my drone under the 'specific' category, do I need to register?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

As a non-EU resident, are my competencies under the 'specific' category recognised in the EU?

View

Was this helpful?

Yes

I would like to know about the light UAS operator certificate (LUC)

Conduct an Operation in the specific category in a state other than the one I am registered

Drones with class identification label C0-C6

Model aircraft

You mentioned that the Member States have the power to identify designated areas for the purpose of aeromodelling where drone and model aircraft operations are exempt from some of the ‘open’ category requirements. What are the advantages/disadvantages of this ‘option’?

		Complex motor-powered aircraft	Other than complex motor-powered aircraft
Commercial DTO	Applicable requirement	M.A.201(f) is applicable	M.A.201(h) or, for aircraft specified in Article 3(2), ML.A.201(e) are applicable
	Continuing airworthiness management	CAMO is required	CAO (with continuing airworthiness management privilege) or CAMO is required
	Maintenance	Part-145 organisation is required	CAO (with maintenance privilege) or Part-145 or Part-M Subpart F organisation is required
Non-Commercial DTO	Applicable requirement	M.A.201(g) is applicable	M.A.201(i) or, for aircraft specified in Article 3(2), ML.A.201(f) are applicable
	Continuing airworthiness management	CAMO is required	CAMO is not required CAO (with continuing airworthiness management privilege) is not required
	Maintenance	Part-145 organisation is required	With the exception of complex maintenance tasks under Part-M: CAO (with maintenance privilege) is not required Part-145 organisation not required Part-M Subpart F organisation is not required

Commercial operations	Commercial air transport (CAT) operations	Technical rules: Part-CAT
		Operator rules: Part-ORO
	Specialised operations (aerial work)	Technical rules: Part-SPO
		Operator rules: Part-ORO
Non-commercial operations	Non-commercial operations other than SPO (e.g. business/corporate flights, leisure flights, private flights, training flights)	With CMPA:	Technical rules: Part-NCC Operator rules: Part-ORO
		With Ot-CMPA:	Technical rules: Part-NCO
	Specialised operations (aerial work)	With CMPA:	Technical rules: Part-SPO Operator rules: Part-ORO
		With Ot-CMPA	Technical rules: Part-NCO

What is the content and purpose of the EASA type rating and licence endorsement lists?

Was this helpful?

Why do the EASA type rating and licence endorsement lists not contain references to the latest applicable version of an OSD FC document?

Was this helpful?

Are ODR tables available as part of the operational suitability data (OSD) for flight crew (FC) document?

Was this helpful?

When should changes to OSD FC provisions be implemented by users to take into account any revised mandatory elements included in a revision?

Was this helpful?

What is the status of non-mandatory items in the OSD FC? How should users proceed if deviating from non-mandatory items in the OSD FC?

Was this helpful?

What aspects should be considered when substituting a training level or device described in the OSD FC by another training level or device?

Was this helpful?

How can I get access to OSD FC documents?

Was this helpful?

What is the difference between the terms FCL (Flight Crew Licensing) and Aircrew?

Was this helpful?

Following the introduction of a new variant to an existing type rating, how do pilots attain the privileges to operate the new variant?

Was this helpful?

How should the new class and type rating list for aeroplanes which is published on the Agency’s website be understood?

Was this helpful?

How can a third country (non-EU) licence be converted into a Part-FCL licence?

Was this helpful?

To whom can an appeal against the examination/test/check results be sent?

Was this helpful?

Could the European Central Question Bank be published?

Was this helpful?

How can a military licence be converted to a civilian one?

Was this helpful?

Which licence do I have to hold to become a TRI on a multi pilot aeroplane (MPA)?

Was this helpful?

Can a co-pilot apply for a TRI rating on a multi pilot aeroplane (MPA)?

Was this helpful?

Which pilots need to undergo what kind of UPRT?

Was this helpful?

To which extent flight simulation training devices (FSTDs) can be used for upset prevention and recovery training (UPRT)?

Was this helpful?

Is UPRT also be mandatory for the LAPL and the PPL?

Was this helpful?

What is UPRT?

Was this helpful?

How does my national authority endorse the PBN privileges to my IR?

Was this helpful?

What is the definition of ‘cabin crew member’?

Was this helpful?

Does the definition of ‘aircrew’ include cabin crew members?

Was this helpful?

Is Cabin Crew Member required to carry his/her medical certificate when on duty?

Was this helpful?

Decrease of medical fitness and an ‘unfit’ medical report.

Was this helpful?

Where can I find the EU medical requirements for Cabin Crew?

Was this helpful?

Why does Initial training under Part-CC require practical ‘raft’ training even if the operator’s aircraft is not equipped with slide rafts or life rafts?

Was this helpful?

Instructor who provided any topic of the Initial training should not act as Examiner to avoid conflict of interest. What about small operators / cabin crew training organisations employing only one ground Instructor, for example to cover dangerous goods or aero-medical aspects and first aid?

Was this helpful?

My Cabin Crew Attestation was issued in EU Member State A. I would like to join an operator in EU Member State B. Is my Cabin Crew Attestation recognised in EU Member State B?

Was this helpful?

My cabin crew qualification document was issued in a country that is not a member of the European Union and is not an EASA Member State either. Is my cabin crew qualification document recognised in the European Union?

Was this helpful?

What are the requirements for cabin crew fire/smoke training?

Was this helpful?

What is the content of fire and smoke training during the Initial training ?

Was this helpful?

Is there any requirement on cabin crew member(s) communication with passengers in a certain language?

Was this helpful?

Do cabin crew members have to be able to speak English to obtain their Cabin Crew Attestation?

Was this helpful?

Do I have to undergo Aircraft type specific training and operator conversion training with every new operator I join if I am already qualified on that aircraft type?

Was this helpful?

Can a cabin crew training organisation (CCTO) provide Aircraft type specific training and operator conversion training?

Was this helpful?

Do the evacuation procedures with a reduced number of required cabin crew during ground operations or in unforeseen circumstances require prior endorsement?

Was this helpful?

Determination of the minimum required number of cabin crew on an aircraft

Was this helpful?

I work for Operator A and have short/long-term contract(s) with Operator B. What training do I require when I return back to Operator A after the completion of my short/long-term contract with Operator B?

Was this helpful?

What credit can I get as regards Subject 090 Communications for my IR, CPL or ATPL(H)/VFR?

Was this helpful?