Regulations

General

What is the progress of a regulation towards publication?

The Agency drafts regulatory material as Implementing Rules, Acceptable Means of Compliance, Guidance Material and Certification Specifications. These are available for consultation (as Terms of Reference, Notices of Proposed Amendment and Comment Response Documents). After consultation, the Implementing Rules are sent to the European Commission as Opinions.

Following publication of the Opinions, responsibility for completing the decision-making process prior to the Regulation’s publication in the Official Journal of the European Union passes onto the European Commission. The Opinions’ progress can be followed via the European Commission’s comitology website. It is advisable to search by year and for the committee dealing with these Opinions: Committee for the application of common safety rules in the field of civil aviation. As several Opinions may be negotiated in one such committee meeting, it is difficult to search by rule or title.

Once the committee has adopted the draft regulation, it is passed on to the European Parliament and Council for scrutiny. Further information and links to the documents under scrutiny can be found via the European Parliament’s Register of Documents.

The Agency is responsible for finalising the associated Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC), Guidance Material (GM) and Certification Specifications. As these need to take into account any changes made to the Cover Regulation and Implementing Rules by the EASA Committee, European Parliament and Council, the Decisions are published on the Agency website shortly after the date when their corresponding regulation has been published in the Official Journal.

The Agency also publishes a rulemaking programme, listing the tasks that are ongoing and advance planning. It is available here.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  22
Vote down  2

What is the comitology procedure?

Under the Treaty the European Commission is responsible for the required implementation of Community legislation in many areas. When exercising these delegated powers it is often obliged to work with national civil servants appointed by Member States in different committees. These committees, which are a forum for discussions and the voicing of opinions, are chaired by the European Commission.

For the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 (the Basic Regulation, BR) the European Commission is assisted by the EASA committee and the Single European Sky committee. Another committee of importance as regards aviation safety is the Air Safety committee, which is best known for being the guardian of the so called ‘Safety list’ as provided by Directive 2004/36/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on the safety of third-country aircraft using Community airports.

The procedures which govern the work of these committees follow the standard procedures established in Regulation (EU) 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers. It replaces Decision 1999/468/EC. This Regulation introduces a new ‘comitology’ procedure, which gives somewhat amended rights to Member States to control the way the Commission uses its delegated powers. The powers conferred to the European Parliament have been reduced slightly by the new Regulation and an Appeals Committee has been introduced in case no agreement can be reached in the committee. The latest comitology regulation can be consulted using the following link.

In principle the new comitology works as follows:

For the adoption of detailed implementing rules, the basic act may provide for the application of the examination procedure or the advisory procedure, taking into account the nature or the impact of the implementing act required.

The examination procedure applies, in particular, for the adoption of:

  1. Implementing acts of general scope;
  2. Other implementing acts relating to:
    1. programmes with substantial implications;
    2. the common agricultural and common fisheries policies;
    3. the environment, security and safety, or protection of the health or safety, of humans, animals or plants;
    4. the common commercial policy;
    5. taxation.

The advisory procedure applies, as a general rule, for the adoption of implementing acts not falling within the ambit of the aforementioned areas. However, the advisory procedure may apply for the adoption of the implementing acts referred to there in duly justified cases.

For the adoption of EASA implementing measures in the field of ATM/ANS and aerodromes only one procedure is relevant: the examination procedure.

However, to understand comitology in conjunction with the ATM and aerodromes regulatory processes it should be taken into account that the BR still refers to the old comitology process. In particular Articles 8a (Aerodromes) and 8c (Air Traffic Controllers) refer to Article 65(4) of the BR, which reads as follows:

Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5a (1) to (4), and Article 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, having regard to the provisions of Article 8 thereof.

Under the old regime this was dealt with by Single Sky and EASA committees using the Regulatory Procedure with Scrutiny.

Article 8b of the BR, however, refers to Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004, which reads as follows:

Where reference is made to this paragraph, Articles 5 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, having regard to the provisions of Article 8 thereof.

This was dealt with by the Single Sky Committee under the Regulatory Procedure (without scrutiny).
As said before, the new Regulation 182/2011 repeals the old comitology Decision, however, its Article 12 indicates that:

  • The effects of Article 5a of Decision 1999/468/EC shall be maintained for the purposes of existing basic acts making reference thereto.

So the regulatory procedure with scrutiny stays.

Article 13 indicates:

c. where the basic act makes reference to Article 5 of Decision 1999/468/EC, the examination procedure referred to in Article 5 of this Regulation shall apply ….

This means that the examination procedure replaces the old regulatory procedure. However, the examination procedure does not differ very much from the regulatory procedure. The whole procedure stays with the Single Sky committee and the EASA committee, even if no agreement is reached. It may in that case go to an appeal committee. In exceptional cases there may even be a consultation round by the Commission amongst the Member States. The Council is no longer involved. Parliament is involved only at a distance.

Conclusion:

Procedures applicable to aerodromes rules and ATCO licensing will hardly change. 
Procedures applicable to ATM/ANS rulemaking will stay within the SSC, with possibility of appeals committee; there is no Council involvement; Parliament’s involvement only on distance.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  5
Vote down  4

What does cover regulation mean?

Implementing rules are Commission Regulations. They are usually composed of a short introductory regulation, colloquially known as ‘cover regulation’, and Annexes thereto, containing the technical requirements for implementation. In the EASA system, these Annexes are usually called Parts (e.g. Part-21 is an Annex to Regulation 1702/2003).

The ‘cover’ regulation is usually short (3-4 pages) and it includes:

  • Considering clauses (“whereas”), explaining the principles and considerations that lead the legislator when adopting the Regulation;
  • A description of the objective and scope of the regulation;
  • Definitions that are used throughout the Regulation and its Annexes;
  • the establishment of the applicability of its annex(es)
  • Conversion and transition measures
View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  15
Vote down  2

Where can I find definitions for ‘shall’, ‘must’, ‘should’ and ‘may’, as used in the Agency’s rulemaking publications?

This question relates to the English writing standards used in Community legislation. The following link gives access to the English Style Guide prepared by the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Translation. Guidance concerning the use of verbs in legislation can be found in paragraphs 10.19-10.27, as well as an explanation of the distinction between the verbs used in enacting or non-enacting terms. For more information click here . The Joint Practical Guide of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission also gives guidance on the principles of drafting Community legislation, for more information click here

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  8
Vote down  52

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

The Lisbon Treaty, the latest primary treaty at EU level, was signed on 13 December 2007 and entered into force on 1 December 2009.

The European Union has been given a single legal personality under this Treaty.

Previously, the European Community and the European Union had different statutes and did not operate the same decision-making rules. The Lisbon Treaty ended this dual system.

On practical terms, all EU legislation has the reference to the EU since 1 December 2009. Up till then, the reference was made to the European Community (EC) as only this body had legal personality.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  27
Vote down  5

Implementing Rules are available in all of the national languages of the EASA Member States. How is the quality of these translations assured? Who is responsible for the translations?

EASA is committed to facilitating the production of good quality translations. To ensure this and, where necessary, to improve, EASA has set up a Translation Working Group in 2008. This Working Group is made up of members of the National Aviation Authorities (NAAs), the Translation Centre of the EU Bodies (CdT), as well as EASA staff members. Also, EASA in cooperation with NAAs and CdT, is developing glossaries in the different aviation domains, such as Air Operations or Air Traffic Management, to enhance the quality of translations. The Member States also contribute to this project in order to capitalise on existing material and experience.

The final responsibility for translations lies with the EU Commission. The correction of translation mistakes of the Implementing Rules follows the same formal procedure as for their adoption: 1. preparation of the proposal, 2. interservice consultation, 3. committee, 4. scrutiny of European Parliament and of European Council, and 5. adoption. For minor mistakes, the procedure may be shorter. In any case, the linguistic changes will have to be agreed by the Commission’s translation services. These linguistic services will check that no substantial change is introduced, that the term used is acceptable according to an internal translation code or that the same change is included in all linguistic versions.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  5
Vote down  2

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.

SCs, like CSs, become binding on an individual basis to the applicant as part of an agreed CB.

Guidance Material (GM) is non-binding explanatory and interpretation material on how to achieve the requirements contained in the Basic Regulation, the IRs, the AMCs and the CSs. It contains information, including examples, to assist the user in the interpretation and application of the Basic Regulation, its IRs, AMCs and the CSs.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  57
Vote down  0
Back to top

Basic Regulation

Which kind of measures can the Commission apply against the National aviation authorities who do not comply with their obligations deriving from Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 (the Basic Regulation) and its implementing regulations?

The implementation of the Basic Regulation and its implementing regulations by Member States is subject to the European Union oversight.
According to Article 54 of the Basic Regulation - Inspections of Member States - the Agency shall assist the Commission in monitoring such implementation by conducting standardisation inspections. Upon the standardisation inspection the Agency establishes an inspection report where it addresses findings identified during the inspection and which will be sent to the Member State concerned and to the Commission. In cases of non-compliance, the Commission may initiate an infringement procedure.

Additionally, in accordance with Article 11 (2), the Commission, on its own initiative or at the request of a Member State or the Agency, may initiate a comitology procedure to decide whether a certificate issued in accordance with the Basic Regulation and its implementing regulations effectively complies with them. In case of non-compliance, the Commission shall require the issuer of a certificate to take appropriate corrective action, such as limitation or suspension of that certificate. Moreover, once the Commission issues such a decision, the obligation of mutual recognition of certificates ceases to apply to the other Member States. Once the Commission has sufficient evidence that appropriate corrective action has been taken, it will decide that mutual recognition shall be restored.

Until now no such measure has been undertaken.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  15
Vote down  8

Will the new rules be available in all official languages of the European Union and where are the rules published?

The implementing rule will be available in all official languages of the European Union. They will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and can also be searched electronically in the database EUR-LEX.

AMC, GM and CS will be available on the website of EASA in English only.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  4
Vote down  9

When talking about the extension of the scope of the Basic Regulation, does it mean that there will be more checks and that the Agency will have more operational responsibilities?

Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 of 15 July 2002 gave responsibility to the Agency for the airworthiness and environmental certification of all aeronautical products, parts, and appliances designed, manufactured, maintained or used by persons under the regulatory oversight of EU Member States. This includes all post-certification activities, such as the approval of changes to, and repairs of, aeronautical products and their components, as well as the issuing of airworthiness directives to correct any potentially unsafe situation. Furthermore, the Agency is in charge of the oversight of EU organisations involved in the design of aeronautical products, parts and appliances as well as of non-EU organisations involved in the manufacture or maintenance of such products. In these domains the Agency has taken over the certification tasks that were under the responsibility of Member States.

Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 that extended the scope of Community competence to air operations, flight crew licences and aircraft used by third country operators into, within or out of the Community gave the Agency additional operational responsibilities. In the field of flight crew licensing, the Agency is responsible for the approval and oversight of pilot training organisations and aero-medical centres located outside the territory of the Community; the certification of flight simulation training devices used by the training organisations it certifies, or located outside the territory of the Community, or located in the Community territory, if the member State concerned so requests. In the field of operations, the Agency was given the power to determine corrective actions and disseminate information to react without undue delay to a problem affecting the safety of air operations. Regarding third country operators, the Agency is competent for the authorisation and oversight of commercial operators; for the oversight of non-commercial operators, when they need to declare their activities; and for the authorisation of third country aircraft when they or their crews do not comply with ICAO Standards.

The Agency’ responsibilities were further extended by Regulation (EC) No 1108/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009. The provisions of the Regulation ensure precise, uniform and binding rules for aerodrome operations and operators, air traffic management and air navigation service provision. Moreover, based on the new ATM/ANS rules the Agency will commence its standardisation inspections in ATM/ANS from 2012 onwards aiming at ensuring a uniform implementation of the common rules but also at reinforcing the national competent authorities in their important oversight role.. With the extension to ATM/ANS, the Agency is empowered to take the necessary measures related to certification and oversight of Pan-European and third country ATM/ANS organisations, as well as for the air traffic controllers’ training organisations located outside the territory of the Community.

These new competences taken on by the EASA system allow a more comprehensive and uniform approach to safety regulation across all fields of aviation and ensure that common safety rules are applied in all phases of flight, starting from the tarmac.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  4
Vote down  7

Is the Agency in charge of controlling foreign aircraft? Who controls them and how?

Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 that extended the scope of Community competence to air operations, flight crew licences and aircraft used by third country operators into, within or out of the Community gave the Agency additional operational responsibilities. Regarding third country operators, the Agency is competent for the authorisation and oversight of commercial operators; for the oversight of non-commercial operators, when they need to declare their activities; and for the authorisation of third country aircraft when they or their crews do not comply with ICAO Standards.

With regard to third country operators the Basic Regulation specifically requires that:

  • all third country operators (their aircraft, the crews and the operations) comply with the ICAO Standards. To the extent that there are no such standards, these aircraft and their operations shall comply with the Essential Requirements for airworthiness, pilot licensing and air operations as laid down in Annexes I, III and IV of the Basic Regulation, provided these requirements are not in conflict with the rights of third countries under international conventions (article 9(1));
  • third country operators engaged in commercial operations receive an authorization issued by the Agency (article 9(2));  and
  • third country operators engaged in non-commercial operations of complex motor-powered aircraft may be required to submit a declaration to the Agency (article 9(3)).

The detailed provisions on how to meet the above requirements of the Basic Regulation will be contained in Implementing Rules and relevant Operations Specifications and guidance material. These provisions will address the conditions, privileges and responsibilities associated with the relevant provisions of the Basic Regulation (of articles 9(1), 9(2) and 9(3)) as outlined in the above bullet points above; as well as aircraft or crew which do not hold a standard ICAO certificate of airworthiness or licence. These provisions will make use of ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs); will not exceed any requirements for Community operators; and will contain a simple, proportionate, cost-effective and efficient process for authorizations of commercial operations. The authorization process will take account of results of the ICAO Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme (USOAP), information from ramp inspections and other recognised information on safety aspects with regard to the operator concerned (article 9(4)). The Implementing Rules will address the process for the authorization of a commercial operator, including any conditions that would necessitate an audit.

Third country aircraft operating within the EU are subject to oversight by the Member States in accordance with Directive 2004/36/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on the safety of third-country aircraft using Community airports, the so-called SAFA Directive. This Directive establishes a harmonised approach for the exchange of information, the execution of ramp inspections and the grounding of third-country aircraft landing at airports located in the Member States. The new Implementing Rules will incorporate the SAFA Directive while maintaining the same principles and competencies of oversight by Member States.

The Implementing Rules and supplemental material associated to third country operators are currently being developed by the Agency. These will be published for consultation in due course and will subsequently be transmitted to the European Commission as an Opinion for consideration when adopting these Implementing Rules.

The provisions for third country operators as outlined above will then become applicable from the date specified in the relevant Implementing Rules during their adoption, but not later than 8 April 2012 (article 70). Until then, the SAFA Directive and national rules of Member States continue to apply.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  9
Vote down  3

What is the scope of the Basic Regulation regarding aerodromes foreseen under Art. 4 Para. (3a)?

[3a of amending Regulation (EC) No 1108/2009] Aerodromes, including equipment, located in the territory subject to the provisions of the treaty, open to public use and which serve commercial air transport and where operations using instrument approach or departure procedures are provided, and:

  1. have a paved runway of 800 metres or above; or
  2. exclusively serve helicopters;   
    shall comply with this Regulation. Personnel and organisations involved in the operation of these aerodromes shall comply with this Regulation.
View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  2
Vote down  3
Back to top

Initial Airworthiness

Can manufacturers of raw materials obtain a Production Organisation Approval (POA) under Part 21 Subpart G? (19/11/2004)

The Agency has concluded after a thorough review that the current Basic Regulation and Part 21 do not provide for the approval of manufacturers of raw materials. Only organisations responsible for the manufacturing and subsequent release of a 'product' and 'parts and appliances' as defined in the Basic Regulation Article 3 (c) and (d) are required to hold a POA and are therefore eligible to apply for such an approval. ED Decision 2007/012/R introduced an amendment to AMC/GM to Part-21 bringing all AMC and GM to Part 21 back into line with the EC Regulations regarding this issue and thus removing any ambiguity.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  16
Vote down  1

Design Approval: FAA Supplementary Type Certificates (STC) approved by National Aviation Authorities (NAAs) before 28-09-03 are deemed to be approved by EASA. If the NAA has limited the approval in scope compared to the original FAA STC such that it does not cover all the models, how can we apply for an extension of the scope?

Because Agency ED Decision 2004/04/CF automatically approves minor changes and major level 2 changes to FAA STCs when made by the STC holder on his own STC, the scope of the EASA STC is considered to be the same as the scope of the original FAA STC. Therefore there is no need for an application and the STC can be applied to all models listed on the FAA STC.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  13
Vote down  3

Should parts fabricated under a maintenance approval (Part 145) be marked with an EPA (European Part Approval) marking in accordance with Part 21A.804(a)(3)?

A Part 145 approved organisation can only fabricate parts for its own use in accordance with approved design data (145.A.42(c)). If that data comes from the Type Certificate holder; 21A.804(a)(3) would not be applicable and those parts will not need EPA marking. If the data comes from a Supplemental Type Certificate holder, minor change approval holder or repair approval holder, the parts will have to be marked as prescribed in the applicable data which should include an EPA marking since 28/3/2004.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  25
Vote down  5

What is the mandate of the Agency for Environmental issues? What does the Agency concretely do?

Article 6 of the Basic Regulation transposes into Community law the International standards of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) related to the environmental certification of aeronautical products. The Agency is involved, together with the Commission, in the further development of such standards to ensure that they do take into account Community objectives in this field. Another important task of the Agency is to verify that the design of products comply with environmental requirements. The Agency shall therefore establish and notify the appropriate environmental requirements for each product for which environmental certification is required and issue the appropriate environmental certificates.

Such powers are established by articles 20(d) and (h) respectively of the Basic Regulation and further detailed in Part 21.A.18 "Designation of applicable environmental protection requirements and certification specifications" of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1702/2003.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  0
Vote down  6

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

First of all it should be clear that the definition of "parts and appliances" (Refer to article 3 of the Basic Regulation) includes software. This is software that is installed in an aircraft and used in operating or controlling that aircraft. The rest of this response only refers to this type of software.

Secondly, "Subpart K - Parts and appliances" from Part-21 addressing installation, approval and release is applicable to this software and therefore:

  1. this software must be part of the design data; and
  2. the installation of this software in a type-certified aircraft is only accepted when it is accompanied by an EASA Form 1 and properly marked; and
  3. the installation is approved. (Refer to 21A.303).

In order to achieve 1) and 2), the organisation that manufactures and releases the software must meet the requirements of Subpart F or G from Part-21. This means in particular that the software must be part of the scope of that production organisation and there must be a link between the design organisation and the production organisation.

The conclusion for Field Loadable Software is therefore that this software can be delivered with an EASA Form 1 when:

  • it is part of design data for which approval has been applied or granted; and.
  • it is produced by, and within the scope of a production organisation that meets the requirements of Subpart F or G.

Marking of this Field Loadable Software must be in accordance with Subpart Q of Part-21. For practical reasons the marking could be on the software "container" (e.g. the CD carrying the software).

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  26
Vote down  12

What is the definition of "Critical parts"?

The term "critical part" or "critical component" is used in various EASA requirements, certification specifications and also in the EU-US bilateral, however it is not always defined. 
A general definition does not exist. There are currently basically three different definitions:

  • for rotorcraft
    CS 27-29-VLR.602(a): A critical part is a part, the failure of which could have a catastrophic effect upon the rotorcraft, and for which critical characteristics have been identified which must be controlled to ensure the required level of integrity. 
     
  • for engines, propellers and APUs: 
    CS-E.510(c) It is recognised that the probability of Primary Failures of certain single elements cannot be sensibly estimated in numerical terms. If the Failure of such elements is likely to result in Hazardous Engine Effects, reliance must be placed on meeting the prescribed integrity specifications of CS-E 515 (Engine critical parts) in order to support the objective of an Extremely Remote probability of Failure. 
    (similar for CS-P.150(c) and CS-P.160 and also for CS-APU.210(c) and CS-APU.150)
     
  • in the EU-US bilateral: 
    A "Critical component" means a part identified as critical by the design approval holder during the product type validation process, or otherwise by the exporting authority. Typically, such components include parts for which a replacement time, inspection interval, or related procedure is specified in the Airworthiness Limitations section or certification maintenance requirements of the manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness. 
     

Each of the above definitions should be used only within their own context and for their own purpose i.e. the definition of the bilateral is only relevant for the automatic acceptance of PMA parts and repair design from the US. Where the term "critical part" is not defined the dictionary meaning of "critical" should be used i.e. crucial, decisive, important, etc. 
For the application of Part 21A.805 critical parts are those identified as such by the design approval holder, which for rotorcraft, engines, propellers and APUs as a minimum should be those using the definitions of the relevant CS.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  33
Vote down  13

Why and how must Parts and Appliances be marked, when are the letters EPA required, and which exceptions are acceptable?

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.

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.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  20
Vote down  6
Back to top

Continuing Airworthiness

Continuing airworthiness - General

What is the difference between Commission Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014 of 26 November 2014 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2042/2003 as amended?

Commission Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014 of 26 November 2014 is an official consolidated version of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2042/2003 and its amendments published up to date, as follows:

  • (EC) No 707/2006;
  • (EC) No 376/2007;
  • (EC) No 1056/2008;
  • (EU) No 127/2010;
  • (EU) No 962/2010;
  • (EU) No 1149/2011; and
  • (EU) No 593/2012.

You can access the various lingual and format versions at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1421934905395&uri=CELEX:32014R1321 .

Commission Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014 (recast) repeals Regulation (EC) 2042/2003 and its amendments. Its date of application is 20 days after 17/12/2014 (date of publication in the Official Journal).

Some subsequent changes in that new Regulation compared to the old one(s) were deemed necessary but remain very minor, without any impact in its implementation. The following items can be mentioned:

  • The Cover Regulation, i.e. the recitals and articles at the beginning of the document have been adjusted;
  • Article 6(3) of Regulation (EU) 1321/2014 introduces new provisions related to the minimum syllabus of certifying staff type rating training in the operational suitability data for the relevant type in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 748/2012, which further refers to Part-66 Appendix III points 1 (a)(ii) and (b)(ii).
  • Some editorial corrections were introduced with no effect in its implementation.
  • Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014 contains references to Regulation (EC) 2042/2003 in the approval certificates (EASA Forms). These references will be changed with the next amending regulation planned before summer 2015.Until that moment the templates for the certificates and forms shall be used as published in Regulation (EU) 1321/2014

 

The existing approved AMCs/GMs covered by the EASA Decisions,  which complemented (EC) 2042/2003 as amended , keep on being valid for newly published Commission Regulation (EU) 1321/2014.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  51
Vote down  1

As regard to the approval of the continuing airworthiness organisations, what is the sharing of responsibilities between EASA and the EASA Member States? How to get a list of the EASA approved continuing airworthiness organisations?

According to Article 20 of (EC) No.216/2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a EASA, the Agency is responsible for :

  1. The management of all applications for organisations whose principal place of business is outside the territory of the EASA Member States (MS) for EASA Part-145 maintenance organisation approvals (MOA), EASA Part-147 maintenance training organisation approvals (MTOA), EASA Part-M Subpart G continuing airworthiness management organisation (CAMO) and EASA Part-M Subpart F approvals (Subpart F).
  2. The oversight of related certificates and their continued surveillance.

These activities are as follows:

  • MOA: Part-145 organisations ('Foreign', USA and Canada ),
  • MTOA: Part-147 organisations,
  • CAMO: Part-M Subpart G organisations,
  • Subpart F : Part-M Subpart F organisations.

Such organisations, generally nicknamed as “foreign” organisations, are managed by EASA in accordance with the relevant Annexes of Regulation (EU) No.1321/2014 and the associated EASA procedures. For more information, see Continuing-airworthiness-organisations  where the lists of such  “foreign” organisations are available as well as the fees and charges Regulations.

The management of all applications for organisations whose principal place of business is inside the territory of the EASA Member States (MS) is performed by the competent authorities of these MS.

Therefore, information about continuing airworthiness management organisations, maintenance organisations and maintenance training organisation which have principal place of business within any of the EASA MS is kept up-to-date by  the competent authorities from these EASA MS. You may contact these authorities at http://easa.europa.eu/the-agency/member-states or consult their public websites when the MS accepted to publish these lists on a voluntary basis.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  4
Vote down  6

Part-M

Is part-M applicable to approved part-145 organisations?

Yes, part-M is applicable to part-145 organisations.

Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) 2042/2003 states that organisations and personnel involved in maintenance of aircraft and components shall comply with part-M. Nevertheless, not all the requirements of part-M are applicable to part-145 organisations.

Part-145 organisations shall take into account the following requirements of part-M.

  • M.A.402 Performance of maintenance
  • M.A.403 Aircraft defects
  • M.A.501 Installation
  • M.A.502 Component Maintenance

In addition, part-145 refers to the following Appendices of part-M:

  • Appendix II to part-M (EASA Form 1)
  • Appendix IV to part-M (Class and rating system)
  • Appendix IX to AMC M.A.602 and AMC M.A.702 (EASA Form 2)
  • Appendix X to AMC M.B.602(a) and AMC M.B.702(a) (EASA Form 4)
View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  108
Vote down  8

Continuing airworthiness management for each type of operator/ aircraft

    CONTINUING AIRWORTHINESS MANAGEMENT

Commercial operations

Licenced air carriers*

Continuing airworthiness shall be performed by a CAMO. Operator shall be CAMO approved (CAMO linked to the AOC).

Commercial operations other than licenced air carriers

Continuing airworthiness shall be performed by a CAMO.Operator shall obtain CAMO approval, or operator shall contract a CAMO

Other than commercial operations Large aircraft Continuing airworthiness shall be performed by a CAMO. Owner shall contract a CAMO
Other than large aircraft

Continuing airworthiness management may be performed by the owner. CAMO is not required.

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

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  47
Vote down  7

Does an approved training organisation (ATO) need to contract a CAMO?

Point M.A.201 (i) applies to ATO holding an approval from the competent authority, as long as they deliver training as an activity with commercial purposes. In that case the continuing airworthiness management of the aircraft operated by the ATO shall be performed by a CAMO.  The ATO shall either obtain a CAMO approval or contract a CAMO.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  31
Vote down  6

Does an approved training organisation (ATO) need to contract a maintenance organisation?

Point M.A.201 (i) applies to ATO holding an approval from the competent authority, as long as they deliver training as an activity with commercial purposes. In that case maintenance of the aircraft operated by the ATO shall be performed, as follows:

  • For large aircraft, maintenance shall be performed by part-145 organisations
  • For other than large aircraft, maintenance shall be performed by part-145 organisations or by part-M subpart-F organisations.
View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  27
Vote down  0

Can an independent certifying staff maintain ELA1 aircraft used for commercial operations (such as ATO)?

No, ELA1 aircraft used for commercial operations cannot be maintained by independent certifying staff because in accordance with M.A.201(i) commercial operations require maintenance release by an organisation (part-M subpart-F or part-145 approved).

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  15
Vote down  3

What does the term “detailed maintenance records” mean?

“Detailed maintenance records” are those records required to be kept by the owner/operator to be able to determine the continuing airworthiness and configuration of the aircraft in accordance with part-M relevant for future maintenance. These are different from the detailed maintenance records required to be kept by a maintenance organisation as per M.A.614 or 145.A.55(c). Whereas maintenance organisations are required to retain all detailed records to demonstrate that they worked in compliance with their respective requirements, aircraft owners/operators need to retain those records required for assessing the aircraft configuration and the airworthiness of the aircraft and all components installed. ‘Dirty finger prints’ may not need to be transferred from the maintenance organisation to the aircraft owner/operator.

Where the maintenance organisation retains the detailed maintenance records in accordance with 145.A.55(c) and M.A.614, the owner/operator should receive the aircraft release to service of the maintenance performed  and all information necessary to determine the aircraft continuing airworthiness and its configuration, which includes references to all:

  • References to taskcards,
  • Information and substantiating data on modifications,
  • Airworthiness directives,
  • Information and substantiating data on repaired and non-repaired damage, and measurements relating to defects.
View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  40
Vote down  6

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

The term “back to birth” is not used in European regulations. The requirements that apply to a service life-limited component (see definition in AMC M.A.305) are basically stated in M.A.305 (e) and (h). All detailed maintenance records of a maintenance action (e.g. a restoration) must be kept until another maintenance action equivalent in scope (another restoration) is done, but never less than 36 months. Keep in mind that:

  • a service life limited component log card must be kept with all the relevant information, so the action should be recorded there, and
  • the records showing compliance with other requirements stated in M.A.305, e.g. an airworthiness directive, or any other information that could be affecting the configuration of the aircraft, must be retained too.
View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  45
Vote down  1

Which are the correct statements to be written in block 11 of EASA Form 1 after maintenance?

Appendix II to part-M describes the following 4 permissible entries in block 11 of EASA Form 1:

  • Overhauled,
  • Repaired
  • Inspected/tested
  • Modified

The meaning of “Inspected/Tested” status is inspected and/or, if applicable, tested as it described in provisions of part-M/part-145.  Besides that, block 12 in the EASA Form 1 should contain the detailed information on the status/work described in block 11.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  35
Vote down  1

Quality manager for CAMO: Nomination, acceptance, qualification

The quality manager is considered nominated personnel according M.A.706 (c). The minimum qualification and experience requirements are contained in AMC M.A.706.

The nomination of the quality manager shall be performed using the EASA Form 4.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  20
Vote down  20

Are deputy nominated persons required in CAMO?

Neither M.A.706 (c) nor M.A.706 (d)  contain a specific requirement for the identification of deputy “nominated persons” as in part-145 (145.A.30(b)(4)). So, in principle, we could say that there is no requirement for the nomination or identification of deputy “nominated persons”.

Nevertheless, the CAMO needs to take into account the conditions for the continued validity of the approval contained in M.A.715, in particular point (a)(1) which refers to the continued validity of the approval provided the organisation remains in compliance with the requirements.

The CAMO should ensure that they remain in compliance during the absence of the nominated persons, this could be by identifying in the CAME  “one or several deputies” and the conditions under which the deputies will assume the responsibilities (this option could be acceptable for a short/medium absence). Another option would be to nominate another person. This would be necessary when the absence is going to be of considerable length and in this case the nomination and acceptance by the competent authority is done using the Form 4.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  19
Vote down  3

Does the CAMO quality system need to be subject to monitoring?

Yes, the quality system is part of the activities of the CAMO and therefore it should be monitored.

Point M.A.712(b) requires that the quality system monitors:

  • that all CAMO activities are being performed in accordance with the approved procedures, and,
  • the continued compliance with requirement of part-M.

The quality system procedures are considered to be within these approved procedures . This implies that quality system must be subject to audits and the CAMO audit programme/plan needs to reflect this.

Besides that the audits to the quality system shall satisfy the requirement of independent audits. This is further explained in AMC M.A.712(b) point 8: the independence of the audits should be established by always ensuring that audits are carried out by personnel not responsible for the functions, procedures or products being checked. So, the quality manager cannot audit the quality system in terms of independence of the audit. Therefore, to audit the quality system, it is acceptable:

  • to use competent personnel from a different section/department in the same organisation not responsible for the quality function/procedure, or,
  • to contract the independent audit element of the quality system to another organisation or a qualified competent person, or,
  • that the quality system is monitored and certified against an internationally recognised quality standards by a certification organisation

The way the quality system is going to be audited has to be described in the CAME and approved by the competent authority.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  18
Vote down  1

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

Neither an ARC nor a recommendation can be issued with open findings. Each finding requires a corrective action before the issue of the ARC or recommendation. The corrective action should be adequate to the open finding and it should be carried out and verified by the airworthiness review staff (ARS) before the issue of the ARC/ recommendation.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  22
Vote down  7

Can a part-66 certifying staff perform an airworthiness review on an aircraft in which he or she had released some maintenance?

To avoid compromising the independence of the ARS,  he or she should have not been involved in the release to service of the aircraft of which he or she intends to perform the airworthiness review, except on maintenance tasks performed during the physical survey or performed as a result of findings discovered during the physical survey of the airworthiness review (AMC M.A.707 (a)).

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  15
Vote down  4

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

As long as the conditions established for controlled environment (M.A.901 (b): continuously managed during the previous 12 months by a unique CAMO and maintained for the previous 12 months by part-145/part-M subpart F maintenance organisations or maintenance tasks referred to in point M.A.803(b) carried out and released to service by independent certifying staff (M.A.801(b)2) or pilot owner (M.A.801(b)3)  are met, the validity of the ARC can be extended for a period of one year. Should the ARC extension be anticipated more than 30 days, you will lose the continuity of the airworthiness review pattern, being the next date of expiry one year after the date of extension.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  16
Vote down  2

Maintenance for each type of aircraft/operation

 

 

 

MAINTENANCE

Commercial operations

Licenced air carriers*

Maintenance to be performed by part-145 organisations.

Commercial operations other than licenced air carriers.

Large aircraft

Maintenance to be performed by part-145 organisations.

Other than large aircraft

Maintenance to be performed by:

  • Part-M subpart-F organisations; or,
  • Part-145 organisations.

Other than commercial operations

Large aircraft

Maintenance to be performed by part-145 organisations.

Other than large aircraft

Maintenance may be performed by:

  • Part-145 organisations,
  • Part-M subpart-F organisations,
  • Independent certifying staff, or,
  • Pilot-owner maintenance.

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

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  15
Vote down  0

Is EASA Forms 1 required during the import of the aircraft in the EU?

For the import of aircraft in the EU, the provisions of M.A.904 require the accomplishment of the airworthiness review, associated AMC M.A.904(a)(2) defines work to be performed in order to determine the airworthiness status of the aircraft.

When performing the airworthiness review there would be certain provisions of part-M where it might be not possible to show the full compliance with M.A.710 e.g. availability of EASA Form 1 for all relevant components. In such case, other releases to service or serviceable tags may be acceptable for the competent authority of the importing country.

Nevertheless, it must be ensured that the information required by M.A.305(d) related to the status of ADs, determination of remaining life, modifications and repairs is available (see also AMC M.A.305(d)).

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  14
Vote down  0

Which tasks of the aircraft maintenance programme (AMP) could be the subject to deletion or interval extension by a CAMO using the indirect approval procedures?

The indirect approval procedures may only be used for:

  • the tasks, prescribed by the Design Approval Holder (DAH) in accordance with Part-21. The interval of these tasks could be decreased by the CAMO and extended to the values prescribed by the DAH,
  • CAMO originated tasks which could be added, deleted or extended,
  • addition/deletion/interval extension for the tasks arising from recommendations issued by the DAH.

In any case, such processes still should be based on the M.A.301(4) analysis of the effectiveness of the AMP.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  13
Vote down  0

Can the airworthiness review certificate (ARC) of the large aircraft be extended during the extensive maintenance/long term storage?

An ARC extension could be performed as long as:

  1. the conditions established for controlled environment (M.A.901 (b)) are met. This means:
    1. continuously managed during the previous 12 months by a unique CAMO, and
    2. maintained for the previous 12 months by Part 145 organisations.

AND

  1. there is no evidence or reason to believe that the aircraft is not airworthy, as stated in M.A.901(k).

Thus, the procedure for the extension established in the CAMO has to address verification of the compliance with 3 above mentioned conditions. An aircraft going through the lengthy maintenance/modification or long-term storage is not considered to meet the condition number 2.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  13
Vote down  7

CAMO 1 uses the anticipation when performing the airworthiness review or extension for 90 or 30 days correspondingly. After the issue or extension of the ARC, the aircraft is transferred during the anticipation period from CAMO 1 to CAMO 2. As the consequence CAMO 2 has solely continuously managed the aircraft for more than 12 months due to the term of the validity of the ARC accordingly being more than 12 month. Are the requirements of the M.A.901(b)(i) satisfied?

The intent of the article M.A.901(b)(i) is to define the ‘controlled environment’ by indicating that the aircraft must be managed during last 12 months by unique CAMO, which indirectly refers to a standard term of validity of the ARC.  Therefore, if the aircraft has been managed by more than one CAMO since the date of issue of the last ARC or the date of issue of the ARC extension, it actually indicates that controlled environment was discontinued.

In addition in accordance with M.A.710(d) the 90 days anticipation shall be used to allow the physical review to be performed during a maintenance check. However, the intention of the rule was never to address the transfer of the aircraft within those 90 days with the purpose of avoiding the forthcoming airworthiness review.  Concerning the 30 days anticipation for the ARC extension, point M.A.901(f) is intended for 2 consecutive extensions by the same CAMO managing the continuing airworthiness of the aircraft from the date of issue of the ARC, so the extended ARC could not be extended 2nd time by another organisation, because this constitutes a ‘breach’ of controlled environment.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  15
Vote down  6

What are the plans of EASA in regards of the guidance relating to components’ Time between overhaul (TBO) extension?

The Decision 2013/025/R of the Executive Director of the Agency of 11 September 2013  "Recommended practice for TBO extension’"was published by EASA in September 2013.  Two months later, in December 2013, the ED Decision 2013/034/R cancelled the ED Decision 2013/025/R - "Recommended practice for TBO extension". That was done in reply to implementation difficulties reported by some NAAs. Afterwards EASA has decided to include the guidance related to the extension of the TBO into the framework of the Rulemaking task Part-M GA Task Force (Phase II).

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  8
Vote down  3

When does the interval for the next calendar aircraft maintenance check/task or the calendar interval for the next component check/overhaul starts?

In a normal scenario :

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

However, there may be a lot of different considerations that change the normal scenario and make the statements above no longer valid. For example:

Case 1: The interval of the maintenance task has been ‘extended’ using a procedure included in the aircraft maintenance programme and approved by competent authority (refer to Appendix I to AMC M.A.302 point 4). Such procedure is often referred as permitted variation or ’tolerance’. In this case the next due date calculated using the original due date.

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.

Case 3: The task is part of a maintenance check, where the duration of the check is significant compared to the interval of the task. For example, a check that lasts for 2 months and an inspection that has an interval of 3 months. In this case, it is reasonable to think that the performance of this task would need to be planned for the last days of the maintenance check, when possible. Otherwise, the inspection also can be done on the first day, but in that case, it is reasonable to expect that it will be released the same day (then the next due date would be 3 months after the CRS is signed). It also applies to the specific cases of mandatory tasks (ADs, CMRs, ALIs, etc.) defining repetitive action with a calendar limit.

There are many other examples, the key 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?

Vote up  18
Vote down  6

Must the EASA Form 1 be kept for on-condition components ?

There is no specific requirement to retain the EASA Form 1 of such components unless needed to comply with the requirements set forth in M.A.305 (h)(1), (h)(4), (h)(5) and (h)(6) for determining the continuing airworthiness and configuration of the aircraft.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  20
Vote down  14

Do the maintenance contracts need to be submitted for the approval to the competent authorities after Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1536 applies?

M.A.708(c) requires the CAMO to establish a written maintenance contract for CMPA or aircraft used for CAT or commercial specialised operations or commercial ATO operations.

The individual contracts need not to be submitted for approval to the competent authority. The competent authority shall approve the procedures for contracted maintenance as part of the CAME Part 3 and the basic information of the contracted maintenance should be included in a list of contracted maintenance organisations in the CAME part 5.4.

The amendment to the list mentioned in 5.4 may be managed through the indirect approval procedure.

Only for air carriers licenced in accordance with Regulation (EC) 1008/2008, the maintenance contracts need to be submitted to the competent authority as part of the package for initial application or for a change to the Air Operator Certificate as indicated in under M.B.701(a)(4).

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  2
Vote down  0

Part-145

Can the subcontractor’s staff of a part-145 approved organisation issue an EASA Form 1?

One of the fundamentals of subcontracting activities is that, during such maintenance, the part-145 has been temporarily extended to include the subcontractor. Subcontracting can be done only if the part-145 has approved procedures to do it (145.A.75 (b)) and the MOE is amendment to show this new subcontractor.

A certificate of release to service can be signed by a person from the subcontractor who meets the part-145 approved maintenance organisation certifying staff standard approved in the MOE, which means:

  • The subcontractor’s staff (who does not need to hold a part-66 licence) must meet the authorisation criteria of the part-145 approved organisation, including the assessment of competence (knowledge, on-the-job performance and experience), continuation training and ongoing competency assessments.
  • The subcontractor’s staff must be authorised by the part-145 to issue an EASA Form 1

The certificate of release to service and the EASA Form 1 will always be issued under the maintenance organisation approval reference.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  46
Vote down  12

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?

Yes, the dimensions of the damage and the removed/remaining material should be recorded. This is a very important information in order to assess whether further damage (adjacent or at the same spot) at a later stage would be allowable or not. In addition, it is a safeguard measure in order to be able to determine, during audits, whether the person correctly determined that the damage was within limits.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  27
Vote down  10

Does the part-145 quality system need to be subject to monitoring?

Yes, the quality system is part of the activities of the part-145 organisation and therefore it should be monitored.

Point 145.A.65 (c) requires that the quality system monitors that the activities are being performed in accordance with the approved procedures. The quality system procedures are included within these approved procedures. This implies that quality system must be subject to audits and the part-145 organisation audit programme/plan needs to reflect this.

Besides that the audits of the quality system shall satisfy the requirement of independent audits. This is further explained in AMC 145.A.65(c)(1) point 11: the independence of the audits should be established by always ensuring that audits are carried out by personnel not responsible for the functions, procedures or products being checked. So, the quality manager cannot audit the quality system in terms of independence of the audit.
Therefore, to audit the quality system, it is acceptable to:

  • use competent personnel from a different section/department in the same organisation not responsible for the quality function/procedure, or,
  • contract the independent audit element of the quality system to another organisation or a qualified competent person, or,
  • have the quality system is monitored and certified against an internationally recognised quality standards by a certification organisation.

The way the quality system is going to be audited has to be described in the MOE and approved by the competent authority.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  25
Vote down  7

Release to service of NDT tasks by part-145 organisations

Part-145 organisation

Certifying staff required

Qualification system

General Release procedure

Release procedure for an NDT inspection

Aircraft
(class A)

 

The release of the works carried out on aircraft has to be performed by certifying staff holding a part-66 licence

Licencing of personnel has to follow part-66 regulation

The release is either on the aircraft technical log or issuing an aircraft release to service statement

A part-145 organisation holding an A approval rating on a particular aircraft type and having in its approved scope of work NDT inspections for this aircraft type.
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 the work order. The aircraft is released by appropriately qualified B1, B3 or C 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 works carried out on engines has to be performed by engine’s certifying staff

The certifying staff is qualified following the procedures established by the organisation, part-66 licence is not required.

The release of works performed under class B is done on an EASA form 1 (there are some exceptions for particular cases)

A part-145 organisation holding a B rating approval on a particular engine type and having in its approved scope of work NDT inspections for this engine type.
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 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 works carried out on aircraft has to be performed by components certifying staff

The certifying staff is qualified following the procedures established by the organisation, no need to have a part-66 licence

The release of works performed under class C is done on an EASA form 1 (there are some exceptions for particular cases)

A part-145 organisation holding a C rating approval on a particular component and having in its approved scope of work NDT inspections for this component.
This organization needs to have “component” 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 the Work Order / Engineering Order. The component certifying staff releases the works performed to the component (including NDT inspection) on an EASA form 1

Specialised services
Class D

The release of the works carried out on aircraft has to be performed by “specialised services” certifying staff

The certifying staff is qualified following the procedures established by the organisation in compliance with EN4179, part-66 licence is not required.

The release of works performed under class D rating is done on an EASA Form 1 or on a format defined by the organisation in the MOE in compliance with 145.A.50 and approved by the competent authority.

A part-145 organisation holding an D approval on a particular NDT method. The approved scope of work will be NDT inspections on this method.
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 on a release to service document defined by the organisation in the MOE in compliance with 145.A.50 and approved by the competent authority

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  33
Vote down  2

What does it mean ‘a release document issued by an organisation under the terms of a bilateral agreement signed by the European Community’ referred in AMC M.A.501(a)5(a)/AMC 145.A.42(a)1a)?

AMC M.A.501(a)5(a)/AMC 145.A.42(a)1a) refers to a release document issued by an organisation under the terms of any existing bilateral agreement signed by the European Community. Currently such agreements are signed with:  

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  6
Vote down  4

What kind of release document is considered equivalent to an EASA Form 1 under the terms of the US-EU Bilateral safety agreement? (AMC M.A.501(a)(5)(a)/AMC 145.A.42(a)(1)(a))

The equivalent in accordance with US-EU BASA is:

For the new products, parts, appliances the information on the acceptability is contained on p.113 of the Appendix to Annex 1 to the Agreement, which could be found here. The details for the acceptance are contained in Technical Implementation Procedures (TIP), item 5.1.4 – page 5-3, item 5.1.6 - page 5-5, item 5.1.8 - page 5-7, item 5.1.10 - page 5-8, which could be found here. These paragraphs state the conditions when an FAA Form 8130-3 is an acceptable authorised release document for new products, parts, appliances.

For the used products, parts, appliances, maintained by an FAA repair station holding an EASA Part-145 approval in accordance with the BASA, the Maintenance Annex Guidance (MAG) Section B - Certification Process for U.S.-Based Repair Stations, Appendix 1, chapter 10 (item (b) explains that the FAA Form 8130-3 should include the EASA Part-145 release to service certifying statement (typically called ‘dual release’) with the EASA Part-145 Approval Certificate number in block 12 and specify any overhauls, repairs, alterations, Airworthiness Directives, replacement parts, PMA parts, and quote the reference and issue/revision of the approved data used.

The MAG could be found here.

Just to summarize:

  • the new components require the FAA  Form 8130-3,
  • the used components require the FAA  Form 8130-3 with ‘dual release’.

 

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  19
Vote down  13

Are the changes imposed by the EU Regulation 1149/2011 applicable to the Certifying staff qualified in accordance with Appendix IV to part-145?

  • The provisions of the paragraph 6 of the Article 6 of the Commission Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014 which were introduced by the Commission Regulation (EU) No 1149/2011 relating to the 10 years limit for obtaining the basic training/experience and 3 years requirement referred to in part-66 Appendix III para 1(a)(iv) relating to the type rating endorsement in part-66 Licence are not applicable to Certifying staff qualified in accordance with Appendix IV.
  • The practical type training is required in accordance with para 1 (e) of the Appendix IV to part-145, because in accordance with changes imposed by the Commission Regulation (EU) No 1149/2011, the type training shall consist of the theoretical training and examination and  practical training and assessment, as stated by item 1 of Appendix III to part-66.
  • On job training required by 66.45(c) is not applicable to the Certifying staff qualified in accordance with Appendix IV.
View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  7
Vote down  2

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, 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 (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 or B3 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 subparagraph 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 to be maintained together with the associated organisation procedures. In the case of certifying staff, this shall be accomplished before the issue or re-issue 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 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 re-issue 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.

AMC M.A.301-1

 

Personnel

References

Accountable Manager

145.A.30(a) point 3.

Nominated persons (including the Quality Manager)

145.A.30(b) point 3.

 

All personnel involved in any maintenance, management and/or quality audits.

 

145.A.30(e) and associated AMC/GM.

Appendix IV to AMC 145.A.30(e) and 145.B.10(3). (Fuel Tank Safety)

AMC 20-22. (EWIS)

Personnel who carry out and/or control a continued airworthiness non-destructive test of aircraft structures and/or components.

Personnel who carry out any other specialised task shall be appropriately qualified in accordance with officially recognised Standards.

 

145.A.30(f) and AMC 145.A.30(f).

Certifying staff and support staff

145.A.30(g) and (h) and associated AMC.

145.A.35(a) and AMC 145.A.35(a).

145.A.35(c) and AMC 145.A.35(c).

145.A.35(d) and AMC 145.A.35(d).

145.A.35(e) and AMC 145.A.35(e).

145.A.35(f) and AMC 145.A.35(f).

145.A.35(n) and AMC 145.A.35(n).

145.A.35(o) and AMC 145.A.35(o).

145.A.30(j) and associated AMC/GM.

Appendix IV to Part-145.

 

Personnel performing Pre-flight inspections (when the 145 organisation has an agreement with an operator)

AMC M.A.301-1

 

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  38
Vote down  8

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?

The maintenance data either can be arranged directly by the part-145 maintenance organisation (AMO) or provided by the customer/operator as specified by 145.A.45(a) and 145.A.45(g). 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, as mentioned by 145.A.50(a) and 145.A.80 of the Regulation 1321/2014 correspondingly.

Additionally, maintenance data has direct influence on many processes of the AMO therefore it should also be available during the initial approval and continuous surveillance audits on the AMO to demonstrate the overall capability of the organisation to perform maintenance.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  7
Vote down  21

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

145.A.30(j)(3) is usually not applicable in case the CMRs included in an AD but it is not a “repetitive pre-flight airworthiness directive”,

145.A.30(j)(4) could be used for CMRs as long as all the applicable conditions are met. In particular:

  • The aircraft is away from a supported location.
  • Sufficient practical training has been carried out.
  • There is a procedure in the Maintenance Organisation Exposition.
  • The conditions of AMC 145.A.30(j)(4) are met (of other agreed with the competent authority which are consistent with this AMC). Please refer, in particular, to:
    • the point 2(i) where it says “minor maintenance or simple checks, and
    • the point 2((i)e of this AMC, which states “Any check/replacement involving simple techniques consistent with this AMC and as agreed by the competent authority”

 As a consequence, the competent authority should assess that the test is simple and that all the other conditions mentioned in 145.A.30(j)(4) and associated AMC/GMs are met.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  9
Vote down  2

What does the term ‘occasional’ mean in 145.A.75(c)?

Within the privilege described in 145.A.75(c) a Part-145 maintenance organisation may perform line maintenance activity in other-than-approved locations, provided it is considered as ‘occasional’. There is no formal definition of ‘occasional’ in the regulation, AMC and GM, but the need for line maintenance in such case should be understood as arising from special occasion, not frequent, regular or recurrent. The repetitive use of this privilege at the same location should not be foreseen.

Subject to the approval by the Competent Authority, the maintenance organisation should develop in the MOE (e.g. Chapter 2.24 Reference to Specific Maintenance Procedures) the procedures to be followed in such a case: how to assess whether the maintenance can be performed, availability of tools/equipment/material/components/maintenance data, staff, adequacy of the facilities, environmental conditions, quality system etc. In particular, it should describe the maximum duration of such line maintenance activity at that location.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  1
Vote down  1

Part-66

I want to work in an organisation located within the EU. Do I need a Part-66 licence?

Part-66 licences are required for:

  • certifying the release to service of aircraft after maintenance,
  • work in maintenance organisations as support staff.

Aircraft affected are those covered by the Basic Regulation. See the definition in Articles 1 and 4 of the Basic Regulation.
Release to service of piston-engine non-pressurised aircraft of 2000 Kg MTOM and below not involved in CAT do not need a Part-66 licence until 28 September 2014.
Release to service of ELA1 aeroplanes not involved in CAT do not need a Part-66 licence until 28 September 2015.
Release to service of sailplanes, balloons, and airships do not need a Part-66.
Other activities within maintenance organisations do not need Part-66 licences.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  18
Vote down  0

Which are the Part-66 licences?

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

LICENCE CATEGORY FOR: AT:
 

Certifying the release of aircraft after:

 
A Minor scheduled line maintenance and simple defect rectification Line station
B1 Maintenance performed on aircraft structure, powerplant and mechanical and electrical systems, avionic systems requiring simple tests to prove their serviceability and no troubleshooting Line station
B3 Maintenance activities on non-pressurized aeroplanes of 2T MTOM and below. Line station
B2 Maintenance performed on avionic and electrical systems and electric and avionics tasks within powerplant and mechanical systems requiring only simple test and minor scheduled line maintenance and simple defect rectification Line station
C Base maintenance activities Base
  Support staff for:  
B1 B1 activities Base
B2 B2 activities Base
B3 B3 activities Base

Part-66 EU Regulation can be found on the Agency website as Annex III to Commission Regulation (EC) 2042/2003 and can be ordered from the Technical Publications page.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  12
Vote down  6

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?

No, unless the basic knowledge got outside of the EU is acquired in a Part-147 training organisation approved by EASA, according to 66.B.405.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  14
Vote down  3

I hold a Part-66 or a national licence issued by my country, may I get a Part-66 licence valid in EU by conversion?

No, unless:

  • there is a bilateral agreement between your country and the EU (the Agency is not aware of any such agreement),
  • the national licence was valid within EU before the entry into force of the Regulation.
View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  4
Vote down  3

I hold a JAR-66 licence, may I get a Part-66 licence by conversion in accordance with the conversion process in 66.A.70?

The holder of a JAR-66 licence may get a Part-66 licence by conversion only when the licence has been issued by a JAA Member State which has successfully completed the JAR-66 Review Board process. If a country is not in the list shown in this EASA document, no conversion can be made.
More details are shown on the Mutual recognition page

The holders of a JAR-66 licence issued from a country not in this list are not eligible to a conversion. They are required to demonstrate compliance with all requirements.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  1
Vote down  0

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?

According to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1149/2011 of 21 October 2011 (amending Regulation (EC) No 2042/2003), the basic examinations shall be passed and experience shall be acquired within the ten years preceding the application for an aircraft basic licence.
The new regulation also states that for the purpose of time limits related to basic knowledge examinations, basic experience acquired before the Regulation applies, the origin of time shall be the date by which this Regulation applies, which is 01/08/2012 (which means until 31/07/2022).

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  18
Vote down  1

Can I get a Part-66 licence with Annex II aircraft endorsed on my licence?

Type ratings should be endorsed on the Part-66 licence in accordance with the list of type ratings shown in the ED Decision posted under the Aircraft type ratings for Part-66 aircraft maintenance licence page.

This list does not contain any Annex II aircraft as these are out of the scope of Basic Regulation according to subparagraph 4 of Article 4 on the maintenance field.
However, a Part-66 licence includes a page whose title is: ‘Annex to EASA Form 26’ and this page is dedicated to national privileges. When an aircraft is under the remit of the Member State, then such aircraft may be endorsed under these provisions. This is typically the case of Annex II aircraft.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  2
Vote down  0

Is there a requirement to have 6 months’ experience every 2 years to maintain the validity of the Part-66 licence? If I don’t meet anymore the 6 months’ requirement, how can I get back my right to exercise my privileges. If so, on which aircraft may I demonstrate this experience ?

The requirement of 6 months’ experience within the preceding 2 years is only for the validity of the certification authorisation. The licence itself is valid 5 years from the last renewal. Only the certification privileges are affected by the recency of experience.
To regain your experience, you may:

  • either continue to accumulate maintenance experience until you gain the missing time  required, or
  • meet the provisions for the issue of appropriate privileges, which means:
  • going to a type-training course again, including OJT as necessary, or
  • when the aircraft does not require a training (aircraft belonging in Group 2 or 3), pass a type-examination, including practical assessment. See GM 66.A.20(b)2.

Neither a short period of job training session nor an aircraft type refresher training are acceptable.
Demonstration of experience should be made on similar aircraft.
Definition of ‘similar’ aircraft is provided by the AMC to 66.A.20(b)2.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  21
Vote down  5

If I cannot demonstrate 6 months of maintenance experience, do I lose my licence?

No, you lose only your rights to exercise your privileges of certifying staff or support staff. The licence remains valid.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  9
Vote down  0

As a category A certifying staff at line, can my authority allow me to carry out more tasks than those specified in AMC 145.A.30(g)?

The list of typical tasks to be carried out by a category A certifying staff at line shown in the AMC include a line r. stating: “Any other task agreed by the competent authority as a simple task for a particular aircraft type. This may include defect deferment when all the following conditions are met:

  • there is no need for troubleshooting; and
  • the task is in the MEL, and
  • the maintenance action required by the MEL is agreed by the competent authority to be simple.

When these conditions are met, your authority may allow other tasks to be carried out under AMC 145.A.30g.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  6
Vote down  5

I have attended a type training, may I immediately ask my authority to endorse it on my licence?

Yes, if the following conditions are met for the theoretical + practical parts of type training:

  • the course has been attended and the exams passed in a Part-147 approved training organisation,
  • or in another organisation, provided the course has been directly approved by the authority who issued the licence as per 66.B.130,
  • and for B1 and B2 licences, in case where the aircraft type is the first in a licence category or subcategory, an OJT training has been performed.
View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  13
Vote down  0

I hold a licence with a type rating on Airbus A320 Series, and I wish to add the rating on A330 Series. Do I need a complete course?

As per Appendix I to AMC to Part-66, the A330 type rating is a different rating from the A320, therefore the differences should be covered, and:

  • a complete theoretical + practical course is required on A330, or
  • a differences training course is also an acceptable solution. See Appendix III point 1(c).
View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  3
Vote down  0

I just got an empty Part-66 licence. I plan now to get type ratings. Are 2 weeks practical training sufficient?

As per the new Regulation (EC) No. 1149/2011, the practical element of training is no longer a question of time. The duration of the practical training should be adequate in order to complete the contents required by paragraph 3.2 of Appendix III to Part-66.

For aeroplanes with a MTOM equal or above 30.000 kg the duration for the practical element of a type rating training course should not be less than two weeks.

In addition, for B1 and B2 licences, where the aircraft is the first in a licence category or subcategory, an OJT training shall be performed.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  8
Vote down  1

The Appendix III of Part-66 states that a type training course shall be started and finished within 3 years before the application for a type rating, is this still valid if I started the course before 1 August 2012?

Type training courses started and finished before 01 Aug 2012 can be used for rating endorsement application until 31 July 2015.

Any theoretical type training course finished after 01 Aug 2012 can be used for rating endorsement application until 3 years after they were started (even in the case where they were started before 01 Aug 2012).

Any practical type training course finished after 01 Aug 2012 can be used for rating endorsement application until 3 years after they were started (even in the case where they were started before 01 Aug 2012).

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  13
Vote down  1

Does OJT (on job training) mean ‘practical training’?

OJT is not a substitution for a practical element of the type training course and it is not any more part of a type rating training, as it was in Part-66 before being changed by Regulation 1149/2011.

66.A.45(c) states the following:

‘ In addition to the requirement of point (b), the endorsement of the first aircraft type rating within a given category/sub-category requires satisfactory completion of the corresponding On the Job Training, as described in Appendix III to Annex III (Part-66) (point 6).’

An OJT is required for the endorsement of the first type rating in a new category/sub-category. It shall be set and carried out in an approved maintenance organisation (Part-145 or M/F). Previous approval by the AML authority is required.

It shall be started and completed within 3 years preceding the application of the type rating endorsement.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  24
Vote down  5

Tasks listed in Appendix II of Part-66 for an OJT are not suited to large aircraft. Shall we select the OJT tasks only from this list?

Not only, because it is required that:

  • the tasks for an OJT must be representative of the aircraft: this means that the tasks listed in Appendix II which are representative of the aircraft or another model in the type rating should be kept and those not representative be disregarded,
  • some tasks should be selected from each paragraph of the Appendix II list: this means that it is not necessary to perform exactly 50% in each ATA chapter,
  • new tasks more representative of the type of aircraft may be added by the maintenance organisation,
  • the OJT tasks should be selected because of their frequency, safety, novelty: tasks selected among those frequently carried out by the organisation on this type or more related to safety should be deleted.
View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  6
Vote down  1

How tasks for OJT shall be selected for different licences?

The AMC states that the tasks are representative of the licence (sub)category applied for. This means that:

  • the tasks should identify whether they relate to a B1.1, B1.3 licence … or to a B2,
  • and be adapted to the privilege of each licence category / subcategory as defined in 66.A.20(a)3:
    • for a B1 licence: aircraft structure, powerplant and mechanical and electrical systems + work on avionics system with simple test but not including troubleshooting,
    • and those related to a B2: avionics, aircraft electrical system tasks and avionics/electrical tasks within mechanical and powerplant systems.
View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  6
Vote down  1

Who is allowed to issue EASA Part-66 licences? Can I apply for a Part-66 licence to EASA?

EASA is not a licensing authority and therefore does not issue any licences. Part-66 licences are issued by the competent authorities of the EU Member States, plus Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. The list of the National Aviation Authorities and their contact details can be accessed here: http://easa.europa.eu/the-agency/member-states .

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  5
Vote down  8

How can I apply for an EASA Part-66 licence? What is required at the time of the application?

An application for an aircraft maintenance licence or change to such licence shall be made on an EASA Form 19 in a manner established by the competent authority and submitted thereto (see Appendix V to Part-66). An application for the change to an EASA Part-66 licence shall be made to the competent authority of the Member State that previously issued the aircraft maintenance licence. Each application shall be supported by documentation to demonstrate compliance with the applicable theoretical knowledge, practical training and experience requirements at the time of application.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  6
Vote down  8

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

Maintenance experience should be written up in a manner that the reader has a reasonable understanding of where, when and what maintenance constitutes the experience. A task-by-task account is not necessary, but at the same time a bland statement such as “X years maintenance experience completed” would not be acceptable. A maintenance log book detailing the experience is desirable and some competent authorities may require such a log book (see AMC 66.A.10).  

Consequently, the format used to evidence the maintenance experience is not strictly defined in the rules and is left at the discretion of the competent authority issuing the licence. Hence, EASA advises you follow the instructions of the competent authority where you intend to apply for.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  5
Vote down  1

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?

According to the AMC 66.A.30(a)(4), aircraft maintenance experience gained within different types of maintenance organisations (under Part-145, M.A. Subpart F, FAR-145, etc.) or under the supervision of independent certifying staff may be accepted by the competent authorities. This means that the aircraft maintenance experience may be accepted by the competent authority when such maintenance is performed in a maintenance organisation which does not necessarily hold an EASA Part-145 approval. However, it is on the competent authority to evaluate whether this experience is acceptable.

Consequently, please contact the competent authority where you intend to apply for a licence, in order to check whether the basic experience would be acceptable, with detailed information on the type of aircraft, its operation and the nature of the work.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  10
Vote down  6

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?

Vote up  9
Vote down  3

Is it mandatory to go to a Part-147 approved training organisation to get type training? Can we do this training in a Part-145 approved organisation or at the aircraft manufacturer?

Only approved Part-147 organisations are entitled to conduct type training courses in accordance with Article 6 of the Commission Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014. However, according to Appendix III to Part-66, other than Part-147 organisation (including Part-145 maintenance organisations and manufacturers) can be approved by their competent authorities to provide theoretical element (theoretical training and examination) and/or practical element (practical training and assessment) of aircraft type training. This so called “direct” approval may be given by the competent authority in accordance with 66.B.130 provided:

  • This is a one-time approval on a case-by-case basis for a single course or a predefined group of courses i.e. Part-145 approved maintenance organisation cannot receive a permanent approval for aircraft type training.
  • The course and the assessment complies with the same standard valid for approved Part-147 organisations; this standard is described in paragraph 1 to 4 of Appendix III to Part-66.
  • No Part-147 Certificate of Recognition can be issued for the purpose of the mutual recognition[1] between Member States. However, an appropriate training certificates can be issued after successful completion of both elements.

Directly approved aircraft type training course is only valid for Part-66 AML type rating endorsement in that Member State which has issued this direct approval, which means it cannot be used for aircraft type endorsement in other Member States (no mutual recognition of the certificate), unless this other competent authority has approved the course.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  6
Vote down  0

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

Basically, the requirements to extend a cat A licence towards a cat B1.1 are demonstration of :

  • the basic knowledge required for the relevant subcategory B1.1; and
  • the experience required by Appendix IV to Part-66.

Two years of practical maintenance experience on operating aircraft in the B1.1 category (not in the A category) is needed before applying for the extension in addition to the demonstration of basic knowledge required for the relevant subcategory B1.1.

The experience requirement will be reduced by 50% if the applicant has completed an approved Part-147 course relevant to the category extension according to Appendix IV of Part-66.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  9
Vote down  6

I am a colour-blind. Does this prevent me from getting a Part-66 licence or exercising my licence privileges?

Regulation (EU) 1321/2014 does not require any medical examination before applying for a Part-66 licence.

In the past some medical criteria were proposed in JAR-66, but these were removed in order to avoid conflicts with national rules. JAR 66.A.50 had requirements on:

  • use of alcohol at work,
  • effects of medicines,
  • physical conditions, vision, ability to see colours,
  • mental conditions.

Current 145.A.30(e) requests certifying staff to receive a human factor training and GM 1 145.A.30 (e) gives guidance about the elements of the training to be imparted:

4 - Human performance & limitations
4.1    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.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  5
Vote down  8

Does EASA plan to release regulation on the management of persons with specific learning difficulties (e.g. dyslexia, attention deficit disorder, hyperactivity,…) who wish to undertake aircraft maintenance training in a Part-147 approved training organisation with the aim of gaining a Part-66 license?

Anybody able to pass the basic knowledge examinations and fulfil the basic experience requirements can get a Part-66 licence. There are no additional conditions such as a medical certificate or any other proof regarding the mental or physical abilities. In other words, people with specific learning difficulties or physical impairments are not discriminated by Part-66 or Part-147.

Obtaining the licence does not give the certification privileges. Before granting such privileges, the maintenance organisation will have first to check the competence, including the assessment of the skills and abilities and considering the Human Factors principles. The scope of the certification authorisation will be commensurate to these competence/abilities. Please note that in some EU Member States additional occupational safety and health requirements may apply (working on heights, confined spaces, etc.).

EASA does not plan to amend the regulations taking into account the cases of people with special needs during examinations: a single Regulation cannot cover all individual cases. This is why Basic Regulation (EU) No. 216/2008 includes the possibility for the Member States to apply Article 14.4 or 14.6 for exemption, after evaluation of these individual cases. To illustrate, such exemptions in the past have been positively instructed for candidates with confirmed dyslexia (i.e. 25% additional time).

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  5
Vote down  1

I am the holder of a B1.2 licence (i.e “aeroplane piston”). Can I exercise my privileges for piston-engine non-pressurised aeroplanes1 of 2000 kg MTOM and below (i.e. category B3)?

By default, a category B3 licence is included in a category B1.2 licence because the basic knowledge requirements (66.A.25(a)) and the basic experience requirement (66.A.30) for a B3 licence are covered by the similar requirements of a B1.2 licence.

Provided that the qualification requirements are fulfilled, the B1.2 licence holder can release maintenance tasks performed on piston-engine non-pressurised aeroplanes of 2000 kg MTOM and below.

In particular the B1.2 licence holder would have to meet 66.A.20(b), which means that:

  • the applicable requirements of Part-M and/or Part-145 will be complied; and
  • in the preceding two-year period he/she has 6 months of maintenance experience in accordance with the privileges granted by the aircraft maintenance licence or; met the provision for the issue of the appropriate privileges; and
  • he/she has the adequate competence to certify maintenance on the corresponding aircraft; and
  • he/she is able to read, write and communicate to an understandable level in the language(s) in which the technical documentation and procedures necessary to support the issue of the certificate of release to service are written.

AMC 66.A.20(b)  and GM 66.A.20(b)  gives further explanations on the 6-months maintenance experience in the last 2 years, including demonstration of experience on at least one aircraft type per aircraft structure (metal, composite or wood).1 

1 - “Aeroplane” does not include “helicopter”.
View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  3
Vote down  6

I have passed the aircraft type rating training (TRT) in an approved EASA Part-147 organisation, although I have not completed the basic knowledge training. Is this TRT valid for life? Would it be possible to endorse it on my Part-66 licence as soon as I get one?

Aircraft type rating training must have been started and be completed within the 3 years preceding the application for a type rating endorsement (Part-66, Appendix III, paragraph 1 refers).

It does not make sense to attend in the first instance a TRT course with the intent of getting this TRT later endorsed on the maintenance licence for two main reasons:

  • at the time the TRT is gained, the holder has no licence and it may take more than 3 years before the applicant is compliant with the basic knowledge (66.A.25) as well as the experience requirements (66.A.30). Therefore the applicant runs the risk to get its TRT certificate expired at the time he applies for the licence and the TRT endorsement; and
  • From an intellectual point of view, this is not logical to demonstrate maintenance competence on a specific aircraft type without having acquired the basic knowledge, skills and attitude related to the maintenance and the technologies used in aviation in general.

Legally speaking the situation is not forbidden. However be sure that you get your licence within the 3-years’ timeframe from the date you passed the TRT course.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  6
Vote down  1

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?

According to 66.B.100(b), the competent authority shall verify that all required modules of Appendix I to Part-66 related to that new (sub)category sought are met. Credit can be granted as regards to the basic knowledge of the (sub)category for which the licence has been already issued.

This means that a comparison of the basic knowledge (gap analysis) will have to be done between the different (sub)categories. Such a comparison has not been yet done once and for all in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014 due to the different potential cases (wide diversity of (sub)categories).

Therefore such a comparison should be done by the Member State that has already issued the Part-66 licence, before the applicant is enrolled in such a “gap” basic knowledge course.

Please contact your competent authority, which may have already performed this comparison. Some competent authorities may have already posted such comparison(s) on their websites; however be sure that the comparison relevant to your case is acceptable to the competent authority who issued your licence.

In addition the applicant will have to comply with the additional experience requirements for the new (sub)category sought, as detailed in Appendix IV to Part-66.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  1
Vote down  1

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.

Regarding Part-66 Appendix III, point 5., “Type Examination Standard” does not apply to the examination performed as part of type training. This point only applies to those cases where type examination is performed as a substitute for type training, which means it is intended for the examinations conducted by (or on behalf of) the competent authority on those aircraft that do not require a type training (typically Group 2 and Group 3 aircraft according to Appendix I to the AMCs to Part-66). So, it is true that the examiners authorised by the competent authority shall not have been involved in the applicant's training. In all other cases AMC to Part-66 Appendix III applies, which means that the roles of  the assessor and the instructor may be combined for the practical elements, depending on the size of the organisation.

Regarding the roles of examiners and assessors, these are different functions (which does not prevent that one person can’t be authorised both as examiner and assessor). Normally, these functions should not be confused. The expression “The examination shall be oral, written or practical assessment based, or a combination thereof, …” applies only for Section 5, i.e. “Type Examination Standard”.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  11
Vote down  2

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  type training.

Completeness of the OJT.

Reference:  66.A.45 (a)(b); Appendix III, 4.2.; AMC Appendix III

Reference:  66.A.45 (c); Appendix III, section 6; AMC to Section 6 of Appendix III

Function of assessor:

To perform the final evaluation of the knowledge, skills and attitude of the trainee following the practical element of the type training

To conduct the final assessment of the completed OJT, whereas the candidate’s competence is indirectly justified.

Reference: Appendix III 4.2.;  AMC Appendix III

Reference:  Appendix III, 6.;  AMC to Section 6 of Appendix III 8.

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 or M.A. Subpart F with A rating

Reference: Appendix III 1(b)

Reference: Appendix III 6.; AMC to Section 6 of Appendix III 1.

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.

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)

Reference: AMC to Part-66 Appendix III 2)

Reference: AMC to Section 6 of Appendix III to Part-66

Qualification of the assessor:

The assessment shall be performed by designated assessors appropriately qualified.  It means that the assessors should demonstrate training and experience on the assessment process being undertaken and be authorised to do so by the organisation. Guidance about the qualification is given in AMC to Part-66 Appendix III 3.)

The OJT shall be assessed by designated assessors appropriately qualified. It means that the assessors should demonstrate training and experience on the assessment process being undertaken and be authorised to do so by the organisation. Guidance about the qualification is given in AMC to Part-66 Appendix III 3.)

Reference:  Appendix III 4.2.;  AMC to Part-66 Appendix III 3.)  

Reference:  Appendix III 6.;  AMC to Part-66 Appendix III 3.)  

Procedure included in:

Part-147 MTOE

Part-145 Exposition Manual (chapter 3.15) or “one-off” direct approval

Reference: Appendix III 1(b); Part-147

Reference: AMC 145.A.70 (a)

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  5
Vote down  1

(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.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  4
Vote down  0

Since the OJT is intended for the first aircraft type endorsement within a given licence (sub)category, does this mean that it can be performed on different aircraft types typical for that (sub)category?

OJT shall be performed on the aircraft type for which the applicant is seeking type endorsement. The objective of the OJT is to gain the required competence and experience in performing safe maintenance on that particular aircraft type.

However, a certain number of tasks may be performed on other aircraft type(s) (typically from the same manufacturer), only in the cases where such tasks are very similar to the tasks applicable to the aircraft type for which the candidate seeks the type endorsement. The AMC to section 6. of Appendix III to Part-66 states: “Tasks should be selected among those applicable to type of aircraft and licence (sub)category applied for.” Tasks applicable to the aircraft type may be found also on other aircraft types, perhaps not many, but some may fulfil the requirement. A good example would be same engine types installed on different aircraft types (i.e. CFM56 installed on A320 Family and B737). The location of LRUs, oil servicing, IDG, generator, filter change, engine standard practices, etc., those tasks often do not depend on the specific aircraft type (even could be performed off-wing or on spare engine), except the tasks belonging to the airframe - engine interface. The similar can also be applied for the same type of APU installed on different aircraft types or a limited number of other components/systems. Consequently, this may be acceptable, if properly justified to the competent authority within the MOE Chapter 3.15. This flexibility provision is applicable for a limited number of tasks and should not be used to conduct the entire OJT on other aircraft type(s) showing similarities.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  2
Vote down  2

What should be the content of the OJT procedure in MOE chapter 3.15?

As agreed during the Standardisation Meeting with the competent authorities, as a minimum, the OJT procedure should describe the following elements:

  • Content of the OJT: the list of tasks that should be performed during the OJT or a list of generic tasks and the process how to develop a list of particular tasks out of this list of generic tasks,
  • Qualifications of the assessor and supervisors performing the OJT,
  • OJT logbook/worksheets format and content,
  • OJT compliance report format and content
  • Production planning for the implementation of OJT (how to plan the tasks),
  • Supervision process and the assessment process, what to do if the assessment is not positive,
  • Safe release to service of the aircraft after OJT.

Note: AMC to Section 6. of Appendix III to Part-66 should be used when defining the content of the procedure.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  5
Vote down  0

I work in a maintenance organisation approved by the competent authority of a country different from the one who issued my Part-66 licence. An OJT programme via MOE chapter 3.15 has been approved by the competent authority of my maintenance organisation. However, my licensing authority refuses to accept the OJT from the organisation I’m working for. Why? What shall I do?

Please review the extracted requirements here below from Part-66 Appendix III, Section 6:

  • ‘On-the-Job Training (OJT) shall be approved by the competent authority who has issued the licence.’
  • ‘It shall be conducted at and under the control of a maintenance organisation appropriately approved for the maintenance of the particular aircraft type’.
  • ‘OJT shall cover a cross section of tasks acceptable to the competent authority’.
  • ‘In order to facilitate the verification by the competent authority, demonstration of the OJT shall consist of:
    • detailed worksheets/logbook and
    • (ii) a compliance report demonstrating how the OJT meets the requirement of this Part.’

Since the procedure in MOE is approved by the competent authority of the maintenance organisation, it can only be used when the licensing authority is the same as the competent authority of the maintenance organisation. AMC 66.B.115(c) states that “in the case where the licensing competent authority is different from the competent authority of the maintenance organisation which provides the OJT, your licensing authority may take into consideration the fact that the maintenance organisation has the OJT programme already accepted by their own competent authority (through chapter 3.15 of the MOE, as described in AMC 145.A.70(a))”.

Since your competent authority is responsible for the issue and extension of your licence, please follow the instruction of your competent authority and try to find a solution based on the above AMC.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  7
Vote down  1

How to get an EASA Part-66 Licence?

  1. In order to get an EASA Part-66 AML (Aircraft Maintenance License), an applicant needs:
    1. Basic knowledge (66.A.25);
    2. Basic experience (66.A.30).
  2. In order to get TR endorsed in the AML, an applicant needs:
    1. Type Training (Theoretical and Practical) (66.A.45)
    2. OJT for the first TR (66.A.45).

The following two schemes depict the most common paths and are for information only.  

  • The first scheme applies to Group 1 aircraft (B1 and B2 licence categories).
  • The second scheme applies to other than Group 1 aircraft (B1 and B2 licence categories).

NOTE: Aircraft groups are described in 66.A.5.

These schemes do not override Part-66 requirements nor capture all the possibilities (various licences, educations and experiences). The start and end of each phase can vary depending on individual cases.

For further and detailed information:

  • Refer to Part-66 and related AMC/GM; and
  • Consult the Competent Authority where you intend to apply for the AML.

NOTE:
An aircraft maintenance licence issued by a country other than EASA Member States cannot be rendered valid as EASA Part-66 AML.

NOTE:
Part-66 licences issued by the countries other than EASA Member States are not mutually recognised in European system.

Click on the pictures to zoom in.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  12
Vote down  0

Part-147

Shall a Part-147 approved organisation have a mandatory occurrence reporting system according to (EU) No.376/2014?

Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No. 376/2014 defines the persons and organisations obliged to report occurrences under the “mandatory reporting system”. Personnel working at/for organisations approved in accordance with EASA Part 147 are not listed in paragraph 6 of article 4, therefore such organisations are not required to implement mandatory/ voluntary reporting systems according to Regulation (EU) No. 376/2014. This does not prevent any organisation or person involved in aviation activities, including maintenance training activities, to report any safety occurrence or other safety information they consider relevant.

Such reports would be to the voluntary reporting system to be established by all competent authorities according to Article 5.2 of Regulation (EU) No. 376/2014.

Typically a Part- 147 approved training organisation having implemented an Safety Management System (SMS) on a voluntary basis would have such a voluntary occurrence reporting system.

The European Commission (EC) published Guidance Material  for Regulation EU No. 376/2014. Paragraph 3.3 further elaborates on the organisations affected by that regulation.

An online service developed by the EC allows organisations and individuals to report aviation safety occurrences to aviation authorities.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  0
Vote down  0

Is it possible to grant a Part-147 approval to an organisation applying only for basic knowledge training?

Yes, in such case Form 148 shall be used as template for the Certificate of Recognition, which specifies “Basic training course” or “Basic examination”. In the particular case where all modules are not conducted, (see next questions) the certificate shall state only “Basic examination” and the modules conducted be mentioned on the certificate including the date(s) of the examination(s).

Reference: 147.A.145

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  5
Vote down  0

Is it possible to grant a Part-147 approval to a training organisation which intend to conduct only basic knowledge examinations?

No, a Part-147 approval can only be granted to an organisation which can prove its capability to conduct training and examinations on a complete syllabus of at least one (sub)category of the Part-66 licence. Only in the case the organisation holds the approval for the complete basic training course, it may conduct basic examinations not being an integral part of the approved basic training course.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  7
Vote down  0

Is it possible to grant a Part-147 approval to a training organisation which intend to conduct only training on one or only several modules?

No, a Part-147 approval can only be granted to an organisation which plans to conduct training on all the modules related to a (sub)category of an aircraft maintenance licence, so that a full understanding of the training needs, interfaces and examination relative to that (sub)category of licence is achieved.

However, some modules may be sub-contracted as mentioned in 147.A.145(d).

It does not mean that the Part-147 organisation is not allowed to conduct courses on just one module. In particular, in the case of limitations resulting from the conversion process, limitations can be lifted through the teaching and/or examination of one module or a part of a module.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  6
Vote down  0

Can an examination be limited to some modules only, or one module only or part of a module only?

As mentioned in the previous question, for some particular cases, the basic training need to be conducted and the relevant examination to be passed on some modules only or one module or part of a module (this is typically the case where the holder of a licence applies for removing some limitations mentioned in his/her licence).

However, the Part-147 organisation should be capable of conducting the full course relative to the (sub)category sought, so that they can run the examination.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  4
Vote down  0

Part-147 approved organisations can also give courses outside the scope of Part-66. Can these courses be certified? (e.g. continuation training for the purpose of the certifying staff privileges as required by 145.A.35, task training, NDT, engine run, HF, SMS, etc.)

Courses outside the scope of Part-66 cannot be part of the Approval Schedule of the approved Part-147 organisation. This does not prevent a training organisation to provide such courses. The scope, content and the delivery methods of these courses will not be reviewed by the Agency or the EASA Member States, as part of the audit scope of the Part-147 organisation. However, when Part-M or Part-145 requires the staff to be trained, the appropriateness of such training being delivered would be assessed during the audits of these particular organisations.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  7
Vote down  1

Part-147 approved organisations have the privilege to carry out basic examinations on behalf of the competent authority. Does this imply that the said authority has to supply or approve examination questions?

No, the competent authority does not have to supply examination questions. However, as part of the oversight, the authority must sample check and review the organisations' question data bank and the examination process.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  4
Vote down  1

Should examiners be specialists in the subjects, or can they be responsible for the proper conduct of the examination without being responsible for the content?

“Examiner” should be here understood as “invigilator” (i.e. the personnel responsible for merely running the examination).

The examiners (invigilators) are not required to be experts in the subjects examined when relative to the MCQs in accordance with Appendix II to Part-66. However, the assessment  of essay questions as part of the basic knowledge has to be conducted by knowledgeable personnel with the help of a standard reply. Eventually, the invigilators must be trained to the examination process.

Examiners should demonstrate a clear understanding of the examination standard required by Part-66 and have a responsible attitude to the conduct of examinations such that the highest integrity is ensured. (GM 147.A.105(g)).

Regarding the type training examination and assessment standard as well as type examination standard as described in Part-66, Appendix III, paragraphs 4 and 5, the theoretical element examination can follow the same principle as above; however, for the practical element assessment, the examiner(s) must be appropriately qualified. Further provisions are available in Appendix III to AMC to Part-66.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  7
Vote down  0

Should the Part-147 organisation’s quality system be audited?

147.A.130(b) states that the approved Part-147 organisation shall establish a quality system including:

  1. an independent audit function to monitor training standards, the integrity of knowledge examinations and practical assessments, compliance with and adequacy of the procedures, and
  2. a feedback system of audit findings to the person(s) and ultimately to the accountable manager referred to in 147.A.105(a) to ensure, as necessary, corrective action.

This means that the quality system itself should be independently audited. The competent authority cannot perform this function on behalf of the organisation.

Within its approved procedures, the organisation has to monitor the quality system’s procedures. This implies that quality system monitoring itself must be subject to internal audits:

  • No conflict of interest is allowed - it is not permitted that such a function be performed by quality system’s staff;
  • This can be also outsourced;
  • The right level of the auditor(s)’ position within the organisation shall be met in order to assure the objective of 147.A.130 (b)2. (e.g. conflict of hierarchy, which could hinder an efficient and transparent report to the accountable manager).

In addition, the audit programme/plan needs to reflect this regulatory aspect.

The EASA Flight Standard Directorate consistently applies that policy during their standardisation visits.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  5
Vote down  0

What is the maximum number of students attending the examination?

147.A.100(b) defines the facility requirements for the instructions of theory and the conduct of knowledge examinations. Point 1 deals with the facility requirement for knowledge training whereby the number of students shall not exceed 28. Point 2  defines the facility requirements for the examination purposes, where the maximum number of students attending the knowledge examination is not limited. The number of students attending the knowledge examination is indirectly limited only by the size, layout and arrangement of the accommodation in order to fulfil the following requirements:

  •  … no student can read the paperwork or computer screen of any other student from his/her position during examinations (147.A.100(b)2), and
  • Examination candidates shall be separated from each other so that they cannot read each other’s examination papers. (66.B.200(h)).

Consequently, as long as the facility and examination standard as well as the integrity of the examination can be ensured, the number of candidates attending the examination may not be limited. In case of a larger number of candidates, two or more examiners may be used to ensure the integrity of the examination, such as separation of the candidates, no potential cheating, no speaking to each other, only examination paper on the table, no examination paper removed from the room, etc.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  5
Vote down  0

What is the minimum duration of the practical element of the aircraft type training?

The duration of the practical training should ensure that the content of training required by paragraph 3.2 of Appendix III to Part-66 is completed. However, for aeroplanes with a MTOM equal or above 30000 kg, AMC to paragraph 1(b) of Appendix III to Part-66 recommends the duration of the practical element of a type rating training course be not less than two weeks, unless a shorter duration meeting the objectives of the training and taking into account pedagogical aspects (maximum duration per day) is justified to the competent authority. This means that the duration of the a/c type practical training is not the main driver as justified by the status of that AMC. According to point 3.2 (b) Appendix III to Part-66 (having the status of requirement), the duration should be based on the content sufficiently representative in diversity and complexity in order to gain the needed competence.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  2
Vote down  2

I have completed a part of my basic training course (including some module examinations) in an approved Part-147 organisation. I’m moving to another country and would like to continue my basic training in a Part-147 organisation located in the country where I move in. Is this possible? What will happen with my certificates? Can I get the maximum reduction of the experience required for the Part-66 licence?

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

Case No 1 (baseline – standard case) :  The applicant completes the whole basic knowledge course (including the training, practical assessments and basic modules examinations) in an approved Part-147 maintenance training organisation.

Result: The Certificate of Recognition (CoR) of the basic course completion is issued by the organisation. The applicant can apply for the Part-66 licence with 2 years of maintenance experience.

Case No 2: The applicant completes the basic training in two different Part-147 AMTO (including the examinations).

Result: The CoRs for the successful examination of each individual module are issued (by different AMTO), but not the CoR for the basic course completion. The applicant does not benefit from the experience reduction and have to fulfil the requirement of 3 years of experience (if recognised as skilled worker) or 5 years.

  • It may happen that some of the competent authorities would give the complete credit on experience in case the applicant can prove that:the training completed in different organisation covers in total the Appendix I syllabus; and
  • all the practical assessments are performed and passed successfully; and
  • all interactions between the modules have been correctly addressed; and
  • there was a right proportion of theoretical and practical training for each subject.

As this demonstration requires a significant investment, the applicant is invited to directly contact the competent responsible for performing such an investigation.

Case No 3: The applicant has completed a full basic training course in one approved Part-147 organisation. Unfortunately, the candidate was not in a position to successfully pass the full  examination process (all modules) in that organisation and had to pass the missing portion of the examination in another approved Part-147 organisation.

Result: In this case the applicant would receive a CoR for basic training only as well as the CoRs related to the modules successfully passed in that approved Part-147 organisation. The examination for the missing modules may be successfully passed in another approved Part-147 organisation(s) with issuance of the related CoRs thereof. The combination of all these CoRs may be sufficient for the competent authority to recognise the training course as successfully “completed” and to grant the maximum credit for the experience (only 2 years needed) for the issue of the license.

Case No 4: The applicant did not attend a Part-147 basic training course but only took  examinations in one or more approved Part-147 organisation(s).

Result: The applicant would receive several CoRs for the successful examination of individual modules from one or more approved Part-147 organisations. No credit of experience as per 66.A.30 will be granted (except for skill workers – 3 years). Standard 5 years of experience will be required.

Further information is given in AMC to Appendix III to Part-147 “Certificates of Recognition referred to in Annex IV (Part-147) – EASA Forms 148 and 149.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  12
Vote down  1

Is it possible to perform aircraft type training in two different organisations? Can I do my practical portion of the type training in a Part-145 organisation?

Only a Part-147 organisation has the privilege (if approved by its competent authority) to provide aircraft type training courses. This comprises both the theoretical and practical element of the aircraft type training, including the related examinations and assessments. This means that the practical element of the aircraft type training shall be completed in a Part-147 organisation.

However, the aircraft type training may be conducted physically in a Part-145 organisation under the control (and as a part of the approval) of a Part-147 organisation issuing the Certificate of Recognition. It is not the privilege of the Part-145 organisation to conduct aircraft type training courses on its own.

In addition, the theoretical and practical element of the aircraft type training can be conducted by two different approved Part-147 organisations. The competent authority endorsing the type rating on the license should be convinced that the interfaces have been correctly addressed before proceeding thereof (66.B.115(b) refers).

In the special case where the aircraft type course is directly approved by the competent authority in accordance with the procedure 66.B.130 (i.e. only on a case by case basis – special authorization not granted for long term periods), the training can be conducted outside the scope of a Part-147 organisation. As a consequence, the certificate issued is not mutually recognized between Member States, which means it can only be used for aircraft type endorsement by the licensing authority who issued that direct approval.

 

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  5
Vote down  0

How should the 50% of tasks required for practical training be selected? Should it be 50% of tasks as per glossary (e.g. LOC, FOT, SGH, R/I, etc.)?

The selection of 50% of tasks cannot be selected according to the glossary. Paragraph 3.2 of Appendix III to Part-66 clearly states that ‘the tasks selected shall be representative of the aircraft and systems both in complexity and diversity. In addition, the practical training should particularly address the tasks which cannot be explained by theoretical training only. While relatively simple tasks may be included, other more complex tasks shall also be incorporated and completed as appropriate to the aircraft type.

Regarding the way to read the table in paragraph 3.2, the lines aims at covering the main systems so that no line relevant to the particular aircraft type should be omitted in the selection. Inside each line applicable to the aircraft type, half or more of the crosses can be selected. From a learning point of view, selecting 2 simple tasks as LOC and SGH would not be “representative”, while selecting LOC and TS, for example, would be much more appropriate.

When selecting the tasks, the usage of filtering method based on the criteria similar to that described in AMC to paragraph 3.1(d) of Appendix III to Part-66, point 5 f) is recommended.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  3
Vote down  4
Back to top

Air Operations

Air Operations - General

What is the 'Basic Regulation'?

Reference: Regulation (EC) No 216/2008

The 'Basic Regulation' (BR) designates Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency, and repealing Council Directive 91/670/EEC, Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 and Directive 2004/36/EC, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 690/2009 and Regulation (EC) No 1108/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009. A consolidated version of the Basic Regulation can be found here.

Under the EU legal order, the Basic Regulation has general application. It is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. The main objective of the BR is to “establish and maintain a high uniform level of civil aviation safety in Europe” - Article 2 (1). Additional objectives are, among others, to ensure a high uniform level of environmental protection, to facilitate the free movement of goods, persons and services and to provide a level playing field for all actors in the internal aviation market” - Article 2 (2) (a), (b) and (f). One of the means to attain such objectives is “the preparation, adoption and uniform application of all necessary acts” - Article 2 (3) (a).

For that purpose, the BR conferred to the European Commission the power to adopt implementing rules which will detail how to comply with the essential requirements of the BR and will regulate the subject matters included in the its scope: airworthiness of aircraft, environmental protection, pilots, air operations, aerodromes, ATM/ANS, Air Traffic Controllers and aircraft used by third country operators into, within or out of the Community - see, among others, item 38 of the preamble to the BR.

One of EASA's (the Agency) tasks is to assist the Commission in the adoption of implementing rules, under Articles 18(a) and 19 BR.

Therefore, Regulation (EC) No 216/2008, as last amended, has been termed as the Basic Regulation in the Agency's documentation. The implementing rules proposed by the Agency take the form of Opinions addressed to the Commission. Once approved under the Comitology procedure, such implementing rules are published as Commission Regulations and this term appears in their titles.

Further FAQs on the Basic Regulation are available here.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  17
Vote down  5

What are the essential requirements?

Reference: Regulation (EC) No 216/2008, Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations as amended by Regulation (EU) No 800/2013

Essential requirements are a legal means of setting high level objectives and obligations on authorities, persons and organisations in order to achieve the objectives of the Basic Regulation ((EC) No 216/2008). Implementing rules are then developed on the basis of these essential requirements, to further detail how to achieve these objectives and obligations. The Basic Regulation has annexes containing essential requirements for:

  • airworthiness (in Annex I),
  • certain aircraft that fall outside the scope of the Agency's activities (Annex II),
  • pilot licensing (Annex III),
  • air operations (Annex IV),
  • qualified entities in the case of certification (Annex V),
  • aerodromes (Annex Va) and
  • ATM/ANS and air traffic controllers (Annex Vb).

For example, the implementing rules for air operations (e.g. Regulation (EU) No 965/2012) are developed using the essential requirements as a starting point. For certain aspects and types of operation, the essential requirements do not need to be further elaborated on with a specific implementing rule. For example, in the case of non-commercial operations with other-than-complex motor-powered aircraft, some of the responsibilities of the pilot-in-command are set out in adequate detail in 1.b and 1.c of Annex IV to the Basic Regulation, and did not need to be further detailed in implementing rules. For legal certainty, the essential requirements should not be repeated in the implementing rule, but to support industry in identifying the requirements with which they should comply, the Agency makes a reference to the essential requirement from the implementing rule:
“NCO.GEN.105 Pilot-in-command responsibilities and authority

a) The pilot-in-command shall be responsible for:

(1) the safety of the aircraft and of all crew members, passengers and cargo on board during aircraft operations as referred to in 1.c of Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008”.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  22
Vote down  6

What is the 'Cover Regulation'?

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011, Regulation (EU) No 290/2012, Regulation (EU) No 965/2012, Regulation (EU) No 800/2013

The 'Cover Regulation' designates:

  • The first 12 articles of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 of 3 November 2011 laying down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to civil aviation aircrew pursuant to Regulation 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 311, 25.11.2011, p. 1) as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 290/2012 of 30 March 2012 (OJ L 100, 5.4.2012, p. 1) - the full regulation is available here;
  • The first 10 articles of Commission Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 of 5 October 2012 laying down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to air operations pursuant to Regulation 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 296, 25.10.2012, p. 1) as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 800/2013 (OJ L 227, 24.08.2013, p.1).

The Cover Regulation:

  • explains the principles and considerations of the legislator when adopting the regulation (the 'whereas' clauses);
  • describes the regulation's objective and scope;
  • defines the terms used in the Cover Regulation;
  • indicates to whom/what the regulation and its annexes apply;
  • provides one or more dates from when the rules become applicable (opt-out provisions), including any grandfathering and transition measures for the adaptation to the new rules.

Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 as amended by Regulation (EU) No 290/2012 has been termed by the Commission as the 'Aircrew Regulation'.

The Aircrew Regulation is thus composed of the Cover Regulation (12 Articles) and seven annexes, which contain the implementing rules on pilot licensing (Annex I - Part FCL), conversion of existing national licences (Annex II), conditions for the acceptance of licences issued by or on behalf of third countries (Annex III), medical certification and attestation (Annex IV - Part MED), qualification of cabin crew (Annex V - Part CC), authority requirements for aircrew (Annex VI - Part ARA) and organisation requirements for aircrew (Annex VII - Part ORA).

Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 has been termed the 'Air OPS Regulation'.

The Air OPS Regulation is thus composed of the Cover Regulation (10 Articles) and seven annexes, Annex I Definitions for terms used in Annexes II to VII, Annex II Authority requirements for air operations (Part ARO), Annex III Organisation requirements for air operations (Part ORO), Annex IV Commercial air transport operations (Part CAT), Annex V Specific approvals (Part SPA), Annex VI Non-commercial operations with complex motor-powered aircraft (Part NCC), Annex VII Non-commercial operations with other-than-complex motor-powered aircraft (Part NCO), which contain the implementing rules on air operations for commercial and non-commercial operations with aeroplanes, helicopters, sailplanes and balloons. Annex VIII Specialised Operations (Part SPO), to be published this year, will complete the Air Operations package. If you'd like to see the structure of the Air OPS regulation, click here.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  9
Vote down  0

What do 'grandfathering', 'transition measure' and 'opt-out' mean?

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011, Regulation (EU) No 290/2012, Regulation (EU) No 965/2012, Regulation (EU) No 800/2013, Regulation (EU) No 71/2014, Regulation (EU) No 83/2014

Aircrew Regulation

In the Aircrew Regulation, 'grandfathering' designates the legal recognition and acceptance of certificates issued by national authorities prior to the entry into force of the Aircrew Regulation. In the Cover Regulation, 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.

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.

A 'transition measure' is a means of allowing a gradual change to the new rules and its scope and timeline are clearly stated within the Cover Regulation. Several examples can be found in the Aircrew Regulation, such as in Article 11c (in relation to the obligation of Member States regarding transfer of records and certification processes of those organisations for which the Agency is the competent authority) and Article 4 (1) obligation of Member States to adapt grandfathered pilot licences to the new licence format by a certain date of the Cover Regulation. 
The 'opt-out' can also be considered as a form of transition measure applicable to Member States. Opt-out provisions allow Member States to decide not to implement the new EU Regulation for a certain period of time, delaying the date of applicability of the new regulation within that Member State. This requires the Member State to notify the European Commission and the Agency of the 'opt-out', describing the reasons for such derogation and the programme for implementation. Article 12 (1) of the amended Cover Regulation allowed for a general opt out to Annexes I to IV until 8 April 2013. Other specific opt-outs are listed in Article 12 (2) to (6).

Air OPS Regulation

In the Air OPS Regulation, 'grandfathering' designates the legal recognition and acceptance of certificates issued by national authorities prior to the entry into force of the Air OPS Regulation. In the Cover Regulation, the conditions for the 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 EU-OPS to the new air ops rules. In the case of air operations, provisions on grandfathering consider EU-OPS AOCs issued in compliance with given regulations and by a certain date as being in compliance with the new Air OPS Regulation.

A 'transition measure' is a means of allowing a gradual change to the new rules and its scope and timeline are clearly stated within the Cover Regulation. An example to be found in the Air OPS Regulation is Article 7.1 obligation of Member States to issue AOC complying with the new format by a certain date.

The 'opt-out' can also be considered as a form of transition measure applicable to Member States. Opt-out provisions allow Member States to decide not to implement the new EU Regulation and its amendments for a certain period of time, delaying the date of applicability of the new regulation within that Member State. This requires the Member State to notify the European Commission and the Agency of the 'opt-out', describing the reasons for such derogation and the programme for implementation. Article 10.2 of the Cover Regulation ((EU) No 965/2012) allows for a general opt out to Annexes I to V until 28 October 2014. The amendments to Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 have different dates of applicability.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  3
Vote down  3

What do 'enter into force' and 'applicability' mean in the Cover Regulation?

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 on Aircrew and its amendments, Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations and its amendments

When Regulations are published in the Official Journal of the European Union they invariably include several dates. The date of entry into force is usually expressed as the 20th day following publication of the Regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union. It means that the EU rules have been adopted and published - thus producing legal effects -, but are not necessarily mandatory on the date of entry into force. The date when they become mandatory is the date of applicability.

The Aircrew Regulation applies from 8 April 2012.

The Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations applies from 28 October 2012. Its further amendments have different dates of entering into force and of applicability.

However, since Article 12 of the Aircrew Regulation and Article 10 of the Air OPS Regulation include several opt-out provisions, this means that entire Annexes and/or specific parts of the Annexes will not be applicable until the end of the out-out periods, in case Member States take up this possibility. This means that the entry into force and applicability dates are common to all Member States, but due to the possibility of opt-outs, concrete implementation of specific provisions of Annexes or entire Annexes may vary among Member States. Please find Derogations to Aircrew Regulation ((EU) No 1178/2011, (EU) No 290/2012) and Air Operations Regulation ((EU) No 965/2012 and (EU), No 800/2013) here.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  6
Vote down  0

When will the new rules on air operations be applicable?

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations and its amendments

Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 entered into force on 28 October 2012.

Article 10 of the Air OPS Regulation includes an opt-out provision allowing Member States to postpone the applicability of Annexes I to V until 28 October 2014. This means that entire Annexes and/or specific parts of the Annexes will not be applicable if a Member States chooses to opt-out. The Agency has published an overview of the opt-out period applied by Member States here.

The amendments to the Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 have different applicability dates:

  • Commission Regulation (EU) No 800/2013 on non-commercial operation became applicable on 25 August 2013 and the opt-out period is 3 years.
  • Commission Regulation (EU) No 71/2014 on operational suitability data was published on 27 January 2014; it entered into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication and must be applied not later than 18 December 2017 or two years after the approval of the operational suitability data, whichever is the latest.
  • Commission Regulation (EU) No 83/2014 on flight and duty time limitations and rest requirements was published on 29 January 2014, entered into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication and shall apply from 18 February 2016 and from 17 Feb 2017 for ORO.FTL.205(e).

Once the Implementing Rules have been adopted, it is still possible that transition measures defer their applicability to a later date. Therefore, the exact date of applicability of each requirement will depend on the transition measures adopted by the European Commission. Until the date the new Implementing Rules apply, Member States' national rules and EU-OPS remain in force.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  4
Vote down  1

What is the comitology procedure?

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 182/2011

Under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the European Commission is responsible for the required implementation of Union legislation in many areas. When exercising these delegated powers, the Commission is often obliged to work with national civil servants appointed by Member States in different committees. These committees, which are a forum for discussions and the voicing of opinions, are chaired by the European Commission.

For the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 (the Basic Regulation), the European Commission is assisted by the EASA Committee and by the Single European Sky Committee. Another committee of importance as regards aviation safety is the Air Safety Committee, which is best known for being the guardian of the so-called 'Safety list' as provided by Directive 2004/36/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on the safety of third-country aircraft using Community airport as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2005 on the establishment of a Community list of air carriers subject to an operating ban within the Community and on informing air transport passengers of the identity of the operating air carrier, and repealing Article 9 of Directive 2004/36/EC.

The procedures which govern the work of these committees follow the standard procedures approved by Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers. It replaces former Decision 1999/468/EC. This Regulation introduces a new amended 'comitology' procedure. The latest Comitology Regulation and other relevant information on the new comitology procedure can be consulted here.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  0
Vote down  3

Can the information provided on EASA's FAQ be considered as legally binding?

EASA is not the competent authority to interpret EU Law. The responsibility to interpret EU Law rests with the judicial system, and ultimately with the European Court of Justice. EASA cannot even provide an 'authentic interpretation' (which is an official interpretation of a statute issued by the statute's legislator). Therefore any information included in these FAQs shall only be considered as EASA's understanding on a specific matter, and cannot be considered in any way as legally binding.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  6
Vote down  0

Why can't I find EU-OPS on the Agency website?

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations, associated Decisions (AMC/GM)

EU-OPS is published in the Official Journal of the EU as Regulation (EC) No 1899/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 on the harmonisation of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation (OJ L 377, 27.12.2006, p. 1). It is available online via EUR-Lex. Although the Agency assists the Commission in administering this Regulation, any enquiries related to EU-OPS, if not handled by your national aviation authority, should be addressed to the Commission.

The JAA published TGL 44 in 2008, containing extensive guidance material for use with EU-OPS. This is available online.

EU-OPS continues to apply until the new requirements of Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations and its amendments are applicable in your Member State.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  4
Vote down  24

What is the status of 'Implementing Rules', 'Acceptable Means of Compliance', Alternative Means of Compliance (AltMOC), 'Guidance Material' and 'Frequently Asked Questions'?

Implementing rules (IRs): EU law in the area of civil aviation generally defines safety objectives at the level of essential requirements and implementing rules, whereas detailed implementation aspects are included as Certification Specifications (CS) or Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC). EU law is directly applicable (full part of Member States' legal order). These IRs are binding in all their aspects.

AMC and Guidance Material (GM): The AMC and GM are Agency measures. AMCs are defined as non-binding standards adopted by the Agency to illustrate means to establish compliance with the Basic Regulation and its Implementing Rules.

The AMCs issued by the Agency are not of a legislative nature; therefore they cannot create obligations on the regulated persons, who may decide to show compliance with the applicable requirements using other means. 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.

GM is issued by the Agency to assist in the understanding of the Basic Regulation, its IRs and CSs.

For a clear differentiation between the AMC and AltMOC, please consult the relevant FAQ page.

Frequently Asked Questions: FAQs are published on the Agency (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 Agency FAQs are necessary to share information and enable to get a common understanding.

These FAQs are not additional GM.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  5
Vote down  1

How can alternative means of compliance to the AMC published by the Agency be used by NAAs, operators and approved training organisations across the EU?

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 290/2012 on Aircrew (ARA.GEN.120); Decision AMC/GM to Part ARA (AMC1 ARA.GEN.120(d)(3), GM1 ARA.GEN.120); Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations (ARO.GEN.120); Decision AMC/GM to Part ARO (AMC1 ARO.GEN.120(d)(3), GM1 ARO.GEN.120)

The only means of compliance to the Aircrew/Air OPS Regulations that all organisations can use across the EU are the AMC as published by the Agency. For alternative means of compliance, the following scenarios are foreseen:

  1. an alternative means of compliance approved for an individual organisation may be used by another organisation, but that organisation must also apply for approval to use such alternative means of compliance;
  2. an alternative means of compliance issued by the competent authority (e.g. NAA) may be used by all organisations for which that authority is responsible.

Whenever the competent authority accepts an alternative means of compliance proposed by an organisation, it must notify the Agency and inform all other Member States. However, each Member State may decide how to deal with this information. This is explained in:

Regulation (EU) No 290/2012 on Aircrew:

ARA.GEN.120 MEANS OF COMPLIANCE

“(d) The competent authority shall evaluate all alternative means of compliance proposed by an organisation in accordance with ORA.GEN.120 by analysing the documentation provided and, if considered necessary, conducting an inspection of the organisation.

When the competent authority finds that the alternative means of compliance are in accordance with the Implementing Rules, it shall without undue delay:

(1) notify the applicant that the alternative means of compliance may be implemented and, if applicable, amend the approval or certificate of the applicant accordingly; and
(2) notify the Agency of their content, including copies of all relevant documentation;
(3) inform other MS about alternative means of compliance that were accepted.

(e) When the competent authority itself uses alternative means of compliance to achieve compliance with Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 and its Implementing Rules it shall:

(1) make them available to all organisations and persons under its oversight; and
(2) without undue delay notify the Agency.
The competent authority shall provide the Agency with a full description of the alternative means of compliance, including any revisions to procedures that may be relevant, as well as an assessment demonstrating that the Implementing Rules are met.”

AMC1 ARA.GEN.120(d)(3):

“The information to be provided to other Member States following approval of an alternative means of compliance should contain a reference to the Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC) to which such means of compliance provides an alternative, as well as a reference to the corresponding Implementing Rule, indicating as applicable the subparagraph(s) covered by the alternative means of compliance.”

GM1 ARA.GEN.120 explains that alternative means of compliance are valid for an individual organisation:

“Alternative means of compliance used by a competent authority or by organisations under its oversight may be used by other competent authorities or organisations only if processed again in accordance with ARA.GEN.120 (d) and (e).”

When the Agency finds that an alternative means of compliance of which it has been notified has value to be issued as an Agency AMC, this alternative means of compliance will be fed into the Rulemaking process. On completion of the rulemaking process, the means of compliance will be published as AMC.

AMC & GM to Part ARA are available here.

Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations:

ARO.GEN.120:

“(d) The competent authority shall evaluate all alternative means of compliance proposed by an organisation in accordance with ORO.GEN.120 (b) by analysing the documentation provided and, if considered necessary, conducting an inspection of the organisation.
When the competent authority finds that the alternative means of compliance are in accordance with the Implementing Rules, it shall without undue delay:

(1) notify the applicant that the alternative means of compliance may be implemented and, if applicable, amend the approval or certificate of the applicant accordingly; and
(2) notify the Agency of their content, including copies of all relevant documentation.
(3) inform other Member States about alternative means of compliance that were accepted.

(e) When the competent authority itself uses alternative means of compliance to achieve compliance with Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 and its Implementing Rules it shall:

(1) make them available to all organisations and persons under its oversight; and
(2) without undue delay notify the Agency.

The competent authority shall provide the Agency with a full description of the alternative means of compliance, including any revisions to procedures that may be relevant, as well as an assessment demonstrating that the Implementing Rules are met.”

AMC1 ARO.GEN.120(D)(3): MEANS OF COMPLIANCE

“GENERAL
The information to be provided to other Member States following approval of an alternative means of compliance should contain a reference to the Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC) to which such means of compliance provides an alternative, as well as a reference to the corresponding Implementing Rule, indicating as applicable the subparagraph(s) covered by the alternative means of compliance.”

GM1 ARO.GEN.120 MEANS OF COMPLIANCE

“GENERAL
Alternative means of compliance used by a competent authority or by organisations under its oversight may be used by other competent authorities or organisations only if processed again in accordance with ARO.GEN.120 (d) and (e).”

In the Information on Alternative Means of Compliance notified to the Agency page you can find a list of all the notifications sent by the Member States to EASA with the alternative means of compliance that they adopted.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  3
Vote down  1

Is there a consolidated version of the EASA decisions containing AMC and GM?

Yes, in the list of pdf documents on the Acceptable Means of Compliance and Guidance Material page, please select the documents entitled 'Supplementary document to ED Decision.

The consolidated version shows the different amendments in a single document and makes it much easier to find the appropriate AMC and GM for your type of operation.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  5
Vote down  6

Will the new rules be available in all official languages of the European Union and where are the rules published?

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 and its amendments, Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 and its amendments, related EASA Decisions (AMC/GM/CS)

The new requirements (on aircrew, air operations and third country operators) consist of:

  1. a Cover Regulation,
  2. Annexes containing Implementing Rules,
  3. Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC) and Guidance Material (GM),
  4. Certification Specifications (e.g. for the qualification of flight simulation training devices, or on flight time limitations).

They are published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 containing the first four annexes of the Aircrew Regulation was published in the Official Journal on 25 November 2011.

The remaining three annexes of the Aircrew Regulation were published in the Official Journal as Commission Regulation (EU) No 290/2012 on 5 April 2012.

Commission Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on air operations and applicable to commercial air transport operations with aeroplanes and helicopters was published in the Official Journal on 25 October 2012.

Commission Regulation (EU) 800/2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 and applicable to non-commercial operations with complex motor-powered aircraft (Part NCC) and other-than-complex motor-powered aircraft (Part NCO) was published in the Official Journal on 24 August 2013. The date of applicability is 25 August 2013. It also amends Regulation (EU) 965/2013 in its already published Annexes accordingly.

The Official Journal is published in all the official languages of the EU.

Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC), Guidance Material (GM) and Certification Specifications (CS) are published on the Agency website, as Agency Decisions. As these need to take into account any changes made to the Cover Regulation and Implementing Rules by the EASA Committee, European Parliament and Council, the Decisions are published shortly after the date when their corresponding regulations have been published in the Official Journal. These are available in English only.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  1
Vote down  0

What is the status of documents published during the EASA Rulemaking process such as Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) or Comment Response Document (CRD)? Can they be used if there is no EASA rule available?

Reference: Regulation (EC) No 216/2008

NPAs and CRDs are part of the Agency's rulemaking process, to inform and consult stakeholders on possible rule changes or newly developed rules. The proposed rules are obviously not binding and still subject to change, either during the EASA rulemaking process or the Commission's comitology process. While a NPA and CRD may give a broad indication on how the future rule could look like, the Agency generally does not recommend using it before the final rules are published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  0
Vote down  1

What happens to existing EU-OPS (aeroplane) AOCs? Are they still valid in the new system? Will EASA issue Air Operator Certificates in the future?

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations

As stated in Article 7.1 of the Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations, EU-OPS (aeroplane) AOCs issued by a Member State before the Regulation applies shall be deemed to have been issued in accordance with this Regulation. This means that an operator will not have to re-apply for an AOC.

However, all existing AOCs issued before the entry into force of this Regulation will have to be replaced by AOCs corresponding to the new format (Appendix I to Part ARO) no later than 28 October 2014. Before the new AOC document can be issued, operators will have to adapt their management system, training programmes, procedures and manuals accordingly. More detailed information on how this transition process is managed is available from the national aviation authority that issued the AOC.

EASA will not issue AOCs. New AOCs will continue to be issued by National Aviation Authorities (the competent authority for this scope) in compliance with the requirements for organisations (Part ORO) and authorities (Part ARO).

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  6
Vote down  0

Do the new EASA rules also apply to non-commercial operations?

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations as amended by Regulation (EU) No 800/2013, (EU) 71/2014 and (EU) 83/2014

Yes, the new rules also apply to non-commercial operations. For general aviation and business/corporate aviation, the applicable rules are partly determined by the type of aircraft being flown: Annex VI (Part NCC: non-commercial operations with complex motor-powered aircraft) or Annex VII (Part NCO: non-commercial operations with other-than-complex motor-powered aircraft) will apply. The definition of complex motor-powered aircraft is found in Article 3 of the Basic Regulation and 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 also contained in Article 3 of the Basic Regulation:

“(i) 'commercial operation' shall mean 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 aircraft being flown.

In addition, Part SPA applies to any operations 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 respectively the authority and organisation requirements regarding air operations. Annex III applies to operators of complex motor-powered aircraft, both commercial and non-commercial.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  12
Vote down  1

I am not familiar with the new rule structure. Which parts apply to me?

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations and the associated Decisions

This is determined by the nature of your flight, and for non-commercial operation by the type of aircraft flown. The following diagram indicates under which requirements your flight should be operating.

Commercial operations Commercial air transport (CAT) Technical rules: Part CAT
Specific approvals: Part SPA
Operator requirements: Part ORO
Non-CAT 
(specialised operations - e.g. aerial work
Technical rules: Part SPO
Specific approvals: Part SPA
Operator requirements: Part ORO
Non-commercial operations Non-commercial operations 
(including training flights)
With complex motor-powered aircraft: Technical rules: Part NCC
Specific approvals: Part SPA
Operator requirements: Part ORO
With other-than-complex motor-powered aircraft Technical rules: Part NCO
Specific approvals: Part SPA
Specialised operations 
(e.g. aerial work)
Technical rules: Part SPO
Specific approvals: Part SPA
With complex motor-powered aircraft: also Part ORO
View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  14
Vote down  2

How can I find out where a rule from EU-OPS / JAR-OPS 3 has been transposed in the new Regulation (EU) 965/2012 on Air Operations and its amendments, as well as its associated Agency Decisions, and if any changes have been introduced?

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations, associated Decisions (AMC/GM)

The Agency has published a cross-reference table to assist industry in transitioning to the new rules. This table contains detailed information on the transposition of EU-OPS / JAR-OPS 3 provisions (both Section 1 and Section 2 - for aeroplanes, TGL 44) into the new Implementing Rules (IR), Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC) and Guidance Material (GM):

  • new rule reference and rule title;
  • old rule reference and rule title;
  • indication of any differences to EU-OPS / JAR-OPS 3 provisions by stating “No change”, “Amended”, “New” or “Not transposed”; and
  • short description of the differences, if any, between the old and new rules.

With this cross-reference table one can analyse in detail where and how the old provisions have been transposed into the new regulatory framework.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  9
Vote down  2

There are four different aircraft categories in the rules - aeroplanes, helicopters, sailplanes, balloons. How can I identify which rules apply to a balloon pilot for example?

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations

Where rules apply only to a specific category of aircraft, this has been indicated in the title. Within Subpart IDE (instruments, data and equipment), sections for each aircraft category have been created, so there the distinction is easy to make. Where no distinction is made in the rule title or section, the rule will apply to all aircraft categories.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  4
Vote down  2

Which operational requirements (EU/EASA Parts) apply to flight activities carried out by Manufacturer (i.e. ferry flights, demonstration flights, etc.)?

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations

At the present stage no EU requirements exist for flights related to design and production activities (“manufacturer flights”). Instead these flights are regulated under national law. This is laid down in Paragraph 3 of Article 6 of Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 as follows:

“By way of derogation from Article 5(1) [air operations are regulated on a EU level], flights related to the introduction or modification of aircraft types conducted by design or production organisations within the scope of their privileges shall continue to be operated under the conditions set out in Member States' national law.”

However, the Agency started a rulemaking task (RMT.0348/0349) on “Flights related to design and production activities”. The goal is to establish a European regulatory framework for manufacturer flights including ferry flights, demo flights etc. At the present stage, a rulemaking group is working on a draft proposal to be published as “Notice of Proposed Amendments (NPA)” in 2014.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  2
Vote down  2

Would there be a restriction that requires baby bassinets to be removed and stowed during in-flight turbulent weather conditions? Where is it documented?

Reference: CS-25 (Large Aeroplanes)

Baby bassinets are currently included in a certification process of the particular aircraft in which they will be installed; baby bassinets are not certified as a separate device and they are not certified for taxi, take-off, landing and turbulent weather conditions. Placards advising on their stowage 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 in place on the baby bassinet itself.

Because of the standard fixation of the unit, they are not stable during turbulence, they may swing up and down, and therefore they must be stowed during turbulence.

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. The applicable reference paragraph is CS 25.1301, 25.1541. There is no specific mention of baby bassinets, however, equipment installed in an aircraft must meet the applicable requirements of the certification basis, the equipment specifications (if available) or aircraft manufacturer specifications (if available), or NAA requirements applicable to the operation of the aircraft.

For any questions on certification matters, do not hesitate to contact EASA Certification directorate.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  2
Vote down  4

The definition of commercial operation according to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 Article 3 (Definitions) (i) is as follows: “commercial operation” shall mean 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 a customer, where the latter has no control over the operator.” In this context, what does the term “control” actually mean?

Reference: Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 (‘the Basic Regulation’)

The legislator has not further specified the term “control”. It is therefore EASA’s view that it should be understood in a wider sense, i.e. the term is not limited to operational control. In this sense, control could for example also encompass financial control, control of management decisions etc. This notion of the definition is for example particularly valid for managed operations or fractional ownership. These are operations where an aircraft is owned by one or several persons who contract a management company to manage operations and continuing airworthiness. It then depends on the specific contract between the owner(s) and the management company how much control the owner(s) still have over the operation.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  5
Vote down  10

What is the definition of ‘cabin crew member’? Does the definition of Aircrew include cabin crew members?

Commission Regulation (EU) No 290/2012 on Aircrew gives the following definitions:

Article 1 (2)(11) defines ‘cabin crew member’ as follows:

(11) “Cabin crew member” means an appropriately qualified crew member, other than a flight crew or technical crew member, who is assigned by an operator to perform duties related to the safety of passengers and flight during operations;

Article 1 (2)(12) defines Aircrew as follows:

(12) “Aircrew” means flight crew and cabin crew; To conclude, the definition of aircrew includes cabin crew member.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  7
Vote down  2

Definitions

What is the difference between 'commercial operation' and 'commercial air transport (CAT) operation'?

Reference: Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 ('the Basic Regulation'), Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations

The term 'commercial operation' is defined in Article 3 of the Basic Regulation as follows:

'Commercial operation' shall mean 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 a customer, where the latter has no control over the operator.

The term 'commercial air transport (CAT) operation' is defined in Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 as follows:

'Commercial air transport (CAT) operation' means an aircraft operation to transport passengers, cargo or mail for remuneration or other valuable consideration.

The two definitions make it clear that 'commercial operations' include 'CAT operations'.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  33
Vote down  10

What are critical phases of flight?

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations, Annex I Definitions

Annex I (Definitions) of the Regulation (EU) 965/2012 on Air Operations contains definitions for critical phases of flight for aeroplane and helicopters:

“'Critical phases of flight' in the case of aeroplanes means the take-off run, the take-off flight path, the final approach, the missed approach, the landing, including the landing roll, and any other phases of flight as determined by the pilot-in-command or commander.

'Critical phases of flight' in the case of helicopters means taxiing, hovering, take-off, final approach, missed approach, the landing and any other phases of flight as determined by the pilot-in-command or commander.”

As one can see from these definitions, for helicopters taxiing is defined as a critical phase of flight, while for aeroplanes it is not. Rules for activities considered acceptable during critical phases of flight are provided in the Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations - in Annex III (Part ORO), Annex IV (Part CAT), Annex VI (Part NCC), Annex VII (Part NCO) and Annex VIII (Part SPO). Basically, these Implementing Rules require crew members during critical phases of flight:

  • to be seated at his/her assigned station; and
  • not to perform any activities other than those required for the safe operation of the aircraft.
View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  14
Vote down  1

What are 'Sterile Flight Deck Procedures'?

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations, Annex I (Definitions) and Annex III (Part ORO)

The term 'Sterile Flight Deck' is used to describe any period of time when the flight crew members shall not be disturbed e.g. by cabin crew, except for matters critical to the safe operation of the aircraft and/or the safety of the occupants. In addition, during these periods of time the flight crew members should focus on their essential operational activities without being disturbed by non-flight related matters, i.e. flight crew members should avoid non-essential conversations, should not make non-safety related announcements towards the passengers, etc.

Sterile flight deck procedures are meant to increase the flight crew members' attention to their essential operational activities when their focused alert is needed, i.e. during critical phases of flight (take-off and landing, etc.), during taxiing and below 10 000 feet (except for cruise flight).

The Agency issued draft rules addressing sterile flight deck procedures in June 2013 (Opinion 05/2013) to the European Commission. Once adopted, these rules will be incorporated in the Regulation on Air Operations. The Agency expects that the sterile flight deck procedures will be in place in 2014.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  6
Vote down  0

Part ARO

How do the provisions on code-sharing articulate with the future Regulation applying to Third Country Operators (Part TCO)?

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations, Annex III (Part ORO)

Regarding code-sharing, Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air operations requires from the EU Operator, who wishes to enter into a code-sharing agreement with a third country operator (TCO), compliance with the requirements of Annex III to Regulation (EU) No 965/2012. This means the TCO as a code-share partner will undergo comprehensive audits for the initial verification of compliance and continuous compliance with the applicable ICAO standards [AMC1 ORO.AOC.115(a)(1)]. These audits can be performed either by the EU operator itself or a third party provider. The AMC (AMC2 ORO.AOC.115(b)) refers to the possibility of using industry standards. The audit will focus on the operational, management and control systems of the TCO (see AMC1 ORO.AOC.115(a)(1)). Continuous compliance of the code sharing TCO with the applicable ICAO standards will be performed on the basis of a code-share audit programme (see AMC1 ORO.AOC.115(b)).

This means that the audit and verification requirements contained in Part ORO of Regulation 965/2012 cannot be substituted by a TCO authorisation issued by the Agency. For code-share, an EU operator must, in addition to the TCO authorisation, audit and monitor the TCO.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  2
Vote down  1

How do the provisions on wet-leasing articulate with the future Regulation applying to Third Country Operators (TCO)?

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations, Annex III (Part ORO)

The TCO authorisation issued by the Agency is no substitute for requirements regarding wet-lease agreements between EU and third country operators that are contained in Part ORO of Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations. For wet-lease agreements, the TCO operator must demonstrate equivalence to EU safety requirements. Before entering into a wet-lease agreement, the EU operator should demonstrate to the authority that (1) the TCO has a valid AOC, (2) that safety standards of the TCO regarding continuing airworthiness and air operations are equivalent to the EU continuing airworthiness requirements 2042/2003 (593/2012) and (3) the aircraft has a standard Certificate of Airworthiness (CofA) issued in accordance with ICAO Annex 8.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  4
Vote down  2

Must the competent authority check and approve the content of the operator's Safety Management Manual?

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations, Annex II (Part ARO), Annex III (Part ORO)

As stated in ORO.AOC.100, an operator has to submit, as part of its application for an AOC, a description of its management system, including the organisational structure, which constitutes its safety management manual, whose content is described in AMC1 and AMC2 to ORO.GEN.200(a)(5).
The Competent Authority has to check the content of the operator's Safety Management Manual (SMM) as mentioned in ARO.GEN.310(a) and in the corresponding AMC to ARO.GEN.310.

ARO.GEN.310 INITIAL CERTIFICATION PROCEDURE - ORGANISATIONS

(a) Upon receiving an application for the initial issue of a certificate for an organisation, the competent authority shall verify the organisation's compliance with the applicable requirements. This verification may take into account the statement referred to in ORO.AOC.100 (b).
[...]

AMC1 ARO.GEN.310(a) INITIAL CERTIFICATION PROCEDURE - ORGANISATIONS
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE

(a) Upon receipt of an application for an air operator certificate (AOC), the competent authority should:

(1) assess the management system and processes, including the operator's organisation and operational control system;
(2) review the operations manual and any other documentation provided by the organisation; [...]

Information on the content of the operator's Safety Management Manual (SMM), which can be part of the Operations Manual or included in a separate manual, can be found in AMC1 and AMC2 to ORO.GEN.200(a)(5). It should be noted that the SMM is not required to be approved according to ORO.GEN.200(a)(5) and the related AMCs. Nevertheless, changes affecting the operator's management system are required to be approved (ORO.GEN.130 + GM1) and these changes would have to be reflected in the operator's manual dealing with Safety management:

AMC1 ORO.GEN.200(a)(5) MANAGEMENT SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION - GENERAL
[...]

(b) The operator's management system documentation may be included in a separate manual or in (one of) the manual(s) as required by the applicable Subpart(s). A cross reference should be included.

ORO.GEN.130 CHANGES

(a) Any change affecting:

(1) the scope of the certificate or the operations specifications of an operator; or
(2) any of the elements of the operator's management system as required in ORO.GEN.200 (a)(1) and (a)(2),
shall require prior approval by the competent authority.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  4
Vote down  0

AMC2 ARO.GEN.305(c) Oversight programme (c) stipulates that audits should include at least one on-site audit within each oversight planning cycle. What is meant by an 'on-site audit' in this sentence? Could it be so that every audit undertaken by an NAA could be performed while sitting in the NAA's office and reviewing operator's documents and procedures and only one of those audits should be undertaken in a way that NAA inspectors actually visit an operator on-site?

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations, Annex II (Part ARO, ARO.GEN and ARO.RAMP)

There is no further guidance on how many on-site audits should actually be performed. This decision depends on the confidence of the authority in the operator, on results of past certification and/or oversight activities required by ARO.GEN and ARO.RAMP and on the assessment of associated risks. The number of on-site audits is therefore part of the oversight responsibility of the authority.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  4
Vote down  0

Part ORO

ORO.GEN

I am looking for the acceptance of post holders, particularly the Safety manager. In the AMC we agreed on the functions of the Safety manager, but did we agree on his or her acceptance?

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations, Annex II (Part ARO, ARO.GEN.310, ARO.GEN.330), Annex III (Part ORO, ORO.GEN.130)

Part ORO does not mention anymore the notion of acceptance/acceptability of nominated persons. This is now replaced by the notion of changes requiring prior approval or changes not requiring prior approval.

During the initial certification process, nominations of personnel in general are considered to be part of the verification of compliance performed by the competent authority and therefore covered by the issuance of the AOC.

Regarding changes to certified organisation, the notion of changes requiring prior approval/changes not requiring prior approval applies and therefore, a formal approval of certain change is required. Guidance is provided through GM1 ORO.GEN.130(a) and GM3 ORO.GEN.130(c). Likewise, upon initial certification, the competent authority may agree with the organisation on a more specific scope of changes that do not require prior approval, on the basis of ARO.GEN.310(c), and within the limits of the applicable requirements. Items not required to get a prior approval are managed by the organisation based on a procedure approved by the competent authority for the management of such changes. In any case, these changes have to be notified to the competent authority which will verify compliance with the applicable requirements (cf. ORO.GEN.130(c) and ARO.GEN.330(c)).

Regarding the specific case of the safety manager, it should be noted that there is no requirement for a safety manager at an implementing rule level. The nomination of a safety manager is one means to comply with the IR objective. Therefore, a change in safety manager is not listed in the GMs to ORO.GEN.130: A change in safety manager is not considered a change requiring a prior approval from the competent authority, unless, the accountable manager fulfils the role of safety manager, in which case a change would obviously require prior approval.

The above references are those to Regulation (EU) No 965/2012; the same provisions are included in Regulation (EU) No 290/2012 (ARA/ORA).

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  9
Vote down  0

Regarding ORO.GEN.200, could a commercial operator of complex motor powered aircraft, such as the Cessna Citation Bravo that operates within Europe and with no SPAs, be considered non-complex?

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations, Annex III (Part ORO)

As defined in AMC1 ORO.GEN.200(b) the criterion in terms of full-time equivalents (FTEs) is the first one to be checked. This relates not only to the required organisational capability to implement and maintain a management system in line with Part ORO, but also to the fact that the larger the organisation gets, the more complex its procedures, communication and feedback channels will be, hence the need for robust processes related to hazard identification, safety risk management, performance measurement etc. For an organisation up to 20 FTEs, it is important to assess the 'risk profile' of the organisation in relation to the way it operates and this may justify the need for robust management processes for safety. The AMC defines the most relevant ones. The extent of contracting, the number, complexity and diversity of aircraft operated and type of operations (CAT, commercial, local, standard routes, hostile environment etc.) are all to be considered. It is important to note that the complexity criteria are included in an AMC to Part ORO and this makes a strong point as to the responsibility of the operator to make the assessment and justify the option chosen (complex or non-complex management system) to the satisfaction of the competent authority. If the option is to implement the provisions applicable to complex organisations, having details of management system implementation included in the form of AMCs to ORO.GEN.200, the operator may apply for an alternative means of compliance should it consider any of the elements of these AMCs inadequate for its specific type of organisation and operations.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  3
Vote down  2

ORO.GEN.110 (a): “The operator is responsible for the operation of the aircraft in accordance with Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008”. Is this requirement met when an Operator follows the Implementing Rules (965/2012)?

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations, Annex III (Part-ORO)

The Essential Requirements (ER) are as applicable as the implementing rules.

The operators are responsible for checking that they comply with all the Essential Requirements contained in Annex IV of the Basic Regulation (EC 216/2008).

Some implementing rules make a direct reference to the Essential Requirements. This is the case when an ER is not further developed in the implementing rules.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  3
Vote down  1

What are the responsibilities of the AOC holder required to implement a management system in accordance with ORO.GEN.200 in regards to continuing airworthiness management and contracted maintenance?

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations, Annex III (Part-ORO); Regulation (EC) No 2042/2003 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.

If the operator’s continuing airworthiness activities do not comply with the new management system requirements adopted with Part-ORO the competent authority may not raise any finding in reference to Part-M Subpart G, but may do so under Part-ORO should it consider that the operator’s safety risk management process does not sufficiently capture those risks stemming from the continuing airworthiness management activities that may impact the safety of operations. The integration of safety management across all activities will lead to increased efficiency and effectiveness in hazard identification and risk management as compared to a system where activities are being dealt with in isolation through separate management systems. This will improve the assessment of risks identified and ensure better allocation of resources to address these risks, by eliminating conflicting or duplicating procedures and objectives.

When it comes to assessing compliance with Part-ORO competent authorities should acknowledge that implementing effective safety risk management capabilities for all activities subject to the approval will take time and therefore a balanced approach for checking compliance is needed to enable a smooth transition towards the new management system requirements.

Considering the benefits of taking a holistic, integrated approach to management system for effective safety management, competent authorities should also not mandate the implementation of separate management systems for the different approvals of the same organisation. Competent authorities should instead focus on assessing whether the management system implemented is adequate as regards the size, nature and complexity of the activities it is deemed to cover.

2. Maintenance

The issue is slightly different in the area of contracted maintenance: As the Part-145 requirements have not yet been amended to align with the management system framework adopted for air operations, the maintenance organisation may not have established a management system to effectively identify maintenance specific hazards and manage related risks. However, the operator would still need to consider such hazards and risks entailed by contracted maintenance, as it would do for any other contracted activity that has an impact on aviation safety, under its own management system. Once Part-145 organisations will have implemented the new management system requirements including safety risk management, the operator will be able to establish an interface with the hazard identification and risk management processes of the maintenance organisation and consider the contracted organisation’s capability to properly address maintenance specific hazards and risks for their own safety risk management.


This FAQ addresses the case of  EU licenced air carriers, meaning operators holding both and AOC in accordance with Regulation (EU) No. 965/2013 and an operating licence in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  3
Vote down  3

Why do the EASA Air Operations rules use the term ‘management system’ (ORO.GEN.200) and not ‘safety management system’ (SMS), like in ICAO Annex 19? Is there a difference between the two concepts?

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations, Annex III (Part ORO)

In the area of SMS the Agency promotes consolidated general requirements for an organisation’s management system. The starting point for drafting the ‘first extension’ rules are the essential requirements attached in the annexes to the EASA Basic Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 216/2008) and these refer to ‘management system’, cf.  the essential requirements for Operations (Annex IV):

“the operator must implement and maintain a management system to ensure compliance with these essential requirements for operations and aim for continuous improvement of this system; and” ….

The underlying concept is that for managing safety it is essential to take a holistic approach and to implement the new safety risk management (SRM) related processes while making use of and integrating these into the already existing management system (e.g. quality system as per JAR-OPS/ EU-OPS). For example, the internal audit process (compliance monitoring) is kept as an essential element of the management system, while ICAO Annex 19 is not that clear about it.

Hence, organisations should be encouraged to integrate the new SRM elements into their existing system and articulate these with the way the organisation is managed, addressing every facet of management, as any organisational change and any decision (even in areas such as Finance, Human Resources) will need to be assessed for their impact on safety. Such integrated approach to management is much more efficient for monitoring compliance, managing risks and maximising opportunities.

Finally, it is not required that organisations adapt their terminology to that used in Part-ORO: Should they wish to refer to SMS, QMS or SQMS etc., this is possible as long as they can demonstrate that all requirements are met. In the same vein, they can still use the title ‘quality manager’, although the rules refer to compliance monitoring manager.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  5
Vote down  10

Is there a difference between safety risk management (SRM) and SMS?

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations, ICAO Annex 19

ICAO defines SMS as “a systematic approach to managing safety, including the necessary organisational structures, accountabilities, policies and procedures.”

While SRM is an essential element within a management system for safety, it is not the only element required. To be effective, SRM needs a structured approach and an organisational framework with clearly defined policies, safety responsibilities and accountabilities. Such framework is essential to facilitate and encourage hazard identification, ensure a structured & consistent approach to risk assessment, as well as for allowing informed decisions to be made at the right organisational level, e.g. in relation to risk acceptability or different risk mitigation options. For example, the organisation needs to put in place policies, procedures and mechanisms for internal safety reporting and then maintain the conditions for allowing such reporting to take place.

Also, in order to ensure that the organisation is continually managing its risks it needs to monitor how well it performs, both in terms of effectiveness of risk controls implemented and effective compliance with applicable requirements. This is part of safety assurance, which is another component of an SMS as per ICAO Annex 19.

Additionally the organisation has to train their staff to fulfil their duties, including those related to any safety management task and to properly communicate on any safety relevant issue.

All this should lead to ensuring a systematic approach to SRM and help fostering the necessary ‘culture’ within the organisation to enable careful management and sound understanding of risk, including in day-to-day activities.

In conclusion, SRM, while being a core element of any management system for safety, should not be singled out as the only element required to implement such system.

See also the FAQ on SMS versus management system above.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  7
Vote down  1

If an operator is considered complex , may a person hold the position as a Safety Manager and at the same time be one (or more) of the nominated persons as described in ORO.GEN.210(b), taken into account the size and complexity of the operator?

There is no guidance indicating that the safety manager may not be a nominated person in the organisational set up of a complex operator.

However, when assessing the organisational set-up of a complex operator, please consider also GM1 ORO.GEN.200(a)(1) point (b): “Regardless of the organisational set-up it is important that the safety manager remains the unique focal point as regards the development, administration and maintenance of the operator’s safety management system”.

In summary, the role of the safety manager is not addressed at the level of implementing rules. The acceptable means of compliance describe the functions of the safety manager in complex operators. The guidance material emphasises on the importance of having a unique focal point for the operator’s safety management system.

It is for the operator to determine if the combination of the safety manager function with that of a nominated person allows to fulfil the management functions of the nominated persons post associated with the scale and scope of the operation. It is then for the competent authority  to assess if such organisational set-up corresponds to the size of the operator and the nature and complexity of its activities, taking into account the hazards and associated risks inherent in these activities.

For the assessment of the appropriateness of the organisational set-up, the competent authority should also be satisfied that the operator complies with ORO.GEN.210(c) “The operator shall have sufficient qualified personnel for the planned tasks and activities to be performed in accordance with the applicable requirements.”

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  3
Vote down  0

ORO.MLR

How should an operator use external material in relation with its operations manual (OM)?

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations, Annex III (Part ORO)

AMC1 ORO.MLR.100 states that when the operator chooses to use material from other sources, either this material is copied or the OM should contain a reference to the appropriate section of this material.

In any case, this material from another source is considered to be part of the OM and therefore should meet all the general requirements applicable to the OM. It includes:

  • (c) of ORO.MLR.100, which states that the OM shall be kept up-to-date;
  • (d) of ORO.MLR.100, which states that the personnel shall have easy access to the portions of the OM relevant for their duties;
  • (c)(3) of AMC1 ORO.MLR.100, which states that the content and amendment status of the manual is controlled and clearly indicated;
  • (d)(3) of AMC1 ORO.MLR.100, which states that the OM should include a description of the amendment process which specifies the method by which the personnel are advised of the changes.

Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 does not define any specific way to achieve this; therefore it is left to the operator to identify the best way to achieve these objectives. It is then the responsibility of the operator’s competent authority during the initial certification process/evaluation of change process to determine if the solution chosen by the operator allows meeting these requirements.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  8
Vote down  1

Part CAT

Are there any requirements for loadmasters?

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations, Annex IV (Part CAT)

There are no specific provisions for loadmasters, either in terms of their duties or in terms of their qualification. The only provision applicable to loading is in Part CAT:

CAT.POL.MAB.100 Mass and balance, loading

CAT.POL.MAB.105 Mass and balance data and documentation, stating:

  • The loading of an aircraft shall be performed under the supervision of qualified personnel in a way that is consistent with the results of mass and balance calculations.
  • The person supervising the loading of the aircraft shall confirm by hand signature or equivalent that the load and its distribution are in accordance with the mass and balance documentation given to the commander.
  • The person who prepared the mass and balance documentation must be named on it.
  • The operator has to specify principles and methods for the loading and the mass and balance system in use in its Operations Manual.

Regarding the categorization of such personnel, a loadmaster can be either ground personnel or a crew member if the operator assigns him/her duties on board (as it is the case for some cargo operators), but certainly not flight crew.

Of course this does not prevent a flight crew member to be also qualified as a loadmaster, but he or she would be flight crew independently from being a loadmaster at the same time.

Please note that in accordance with ORO.GEN.110(e), it is the operator's responsibility to “ensure that all personnel assigned to, or directly involved in, ground and flight operations are properly instructed, have demonstrated their abilities in their particular duties and are aware of their responsibilities and the relationship of such duties to the operation as a whole”.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  13
Vote down  2

Referring to Annex II - AMC 20-6 rev.2, on ETOPS Applicability, is ETOPS approval required or not for aircraft with a seating configuration of 19 or less and a maximum take-off mass of less than 45 360 kg and not exceeding 180 minutes at the approved one-engine-inoperative speed (in still air) from an adequate aerodrome?

“(2) or Two-engine aeroplanes with a maximum passenger seating configuration of 19 or less and a maximum take-off mass of less than 45 360 kg, in excess of 180 minutes at the approved one-engine-inoperative speed (in still air) from an adequate aerodrome.”

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations, Annex IV (Part CAT), Annex V (Part SPA)

In the EASA regulatory framework an ETOPS operational approval is not required for commercial operations with twin-engine aeroplanes with a maximum passenger seating configuration of 19 or less and a maximum take-off mass of less than 45 360 kg to operate in excess of 180 minutes at the approved one-engine-inoperative speed (in still air) from an adequate aerodrome.

Nevertheless, Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 must be considered, especially CAT.OP.MPA.140 which states:

“CAT.OP.MPA.140 Maximum distance from an adequate aerodrome for two-engined aeroplanes without an ETOPS approval

(a) Unless approved by the competent authority in accordance with Annex V (Part SPA), Subpart F, the operator shall not operate a two-engined aeroplane over a route that contains a point further from an adequate aerodrome, under standard conditions in still air, than:
[...]

(2) for performance class A aeroplanes with:

(i) an MOPSC of 19 or less; and 
(ii) a maximum take-off mass less than 45 360 kg,

the distance flown in 120 minutes or, subject to approval by the competent authority, up to 180 minutes for turbo-jet aeroplanes, at the OEI cruise speed determined in accordance with (b);”

Therefore, a specific ETOPS approval under Part SPA (Annex V to Regulation (EU) No 965/2012) is not required to operate between 120 and 180 mn from an adequate aerodrome; nevertheless, an operator is required to hold an approval based on the provisions contained in AMC1 CAT.OP.MPA.140(c). Without this approval, an operator cannot operate in excess of 120 mn from an adequate aerodrome.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  10
Vote down  1

NPAs CDFA-SA with IAP instrument approach procedure expressing minima as a "DA/H" should have an "ADD-ON" or not? Am I allowed to go a little bellow the "DA/H" while performing a missed approach/going around?

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations, Annex IV (Part CAT)

Please note that the rules on CDFA are now specified in the following rule of Regulation (EU) 965/2012: CAT.OP.MPA.115 Approach flight technique - aeroplanes. To this implementing rule, three AMCs and one Guidance Material are assigned.

AMC1 CAT.OP.MPA.115 (a)(5) specifies the following: “This DA/H should take into account any add-on to the published minima as identified by the operator's management system and should be specified in the OM (aerodrome operating minima).” This means that the use of any add-on is left to the responsibility of the operator.

Usually, the operator should avoid going below DA/H if the missed approach is initiated. Therefore, (a)(7) specifies: “The operator should establish a procedure to ensure that an appropriate callout is made when the aeroplane is approaching DA/H. If the required visual references are not established at DA/H, the missed approach procedure is to be executed promptly.”

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  5
Vote down  0

Which EASA regulations govern the mandatory use of Child Restraint seats by infants under two years of age, secured to normal passenger "host" seat in aircraft cabins during taxi, take off, flight, descent, landing and taxi, approved for use only in aircraft by STC and TSO.C100b? If not already promulgated, is it intended to make it so?

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations, Annex IV (Part CAT)

Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 Air Operations requires an infant, i.e. person younger than 24 months, to be secured on adult's lap by a supplementary loop belt or other restraint device.

“CAT.OP.MPA.225 Seats, safety belts and restraint systems

(b) Passengers
 

(2) The operator shall make provisions for multiple occupancy of aircraft seats that is only allowed on specified seats. The commander shall be satisfied that multiple occupancy does not occur other than by one adult and one infant who is properly secured by a supplementary loop belt or other restraint device.”

The use of 'child restraint seats' on board is currently dealt with at national level, i.e. at discretion of an air operator and the respective national aviation authority that does oversight of the operator's activities. However, EASA had brought up the issue of Child Restraint Devices (CRD) to ICAO in the recent past and ICAO agreed to take up the initiative on a global level.

The approval of a Child Restraint System (CRS) would require either an Authorisation in accordance with ETSO-C100b or an STC. Should any further clarification on certification aspects be required, please contact ETSOA [at] easa [dot] europa [dot] eu

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  5
Vote down  2

Can I use my car seat as a child restraint device for my 1 year old son/daughter during a flight?

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations, associated Decision AMC/GM to Part CAT: AMC1 CAT.IDE.A.205

In the first instance, passengers wishing to use their car seat as a child restraint device (CRD) on board an aircraft should contact the airline or travel agency through which the ticket has been booked, in order to obtain information on which CRDs are acceptable and also to ensure that the car seat can be installed properly on the seat of the particular aircraft with which they will fly.

Since 2008, EU law determines that children under 2 years of age must be secured by an approved child restraint device when flying with EU airlines. This can either be a child seat or a 'loop belt', the latter being attached to the seat belt of the adult who is holding the child on his/her lap.

Regarding the use of a car seat as an acceptable child restraint device, this is regulated under the Regulation on Air Operations, through Annex IV (Part CAT), specifically CAT.IDE.A.205. The basis for the provision on child restraint devices is JAR-OPS 1 guidance material.

To conclude, the proposed examples for acceptable child restraint devices include car seats, and item 2 of AMC1 CAT.IDE.A.205 lists the standards with which the CRD should comply. This includes the UN standard ECE R 44, -03 or later series - this is commonly indicated on the car seat's label.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  4
Vote down  8

AMC1 (a) to CAT.IDE.A.280 says, “Batteries used in the ELTs should be replaced (or recharged, if the battery is rechargeable) when the equipment has been in use for more than 1 cumulative hour”. What should be understood by “in use for more than 1 cumulative hour”?

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations, Annex IV (Part CAT)

“In use for more than 1 cumulative hour” should be understood as an hour of cumulative ELT operation, whatever the purpose may be (testing, intended or unintended transmitting).

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  4
Vote down  2

Is there any regulatory statement by which it is required for all European aeroplanes to carry a defibrillator on board?

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations, Annex IV (Part CAT)

In the AMCs to the Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations (available here), it is recommended, for commercial air transport operations, to carry an automatic external defibrillator on aeroplanes required to carry an emergency medical kit (those having a passenger seating configuration of more than 30 seats when any point on the planned route is more than 60 minutes flying time at normal cruising speed from an aerodrome at which qualified medical assistance could be expected to be available) under certain conditions.

Namely the acceptable means of compliance to the rule concerned (CAT.IDE.A.225), listing the content of the Emergency Medical Kit, recommend operators to determine through risk assessment the need to carry the defibrillator. So there is no strict requirement for operators, but only a recommendation based on the result of a risk assessment.

The full text of the AMC is available here.

The above is in line with the current ICAO Annex 6 recommendation, which reads as follows:

ATTACHMENT B. MEDICAL SUPPLIES

Supplementary to Chapter 6, 6.2.2 a)

1.2 Based on the limited available evidence, only a very small number of passengers are likely to benefit from the carriage of automated external defibrillators (AED) on aeroplanes. However, many operators carry them because they offer the only effective treatment for cardiac fibrillation. The likelihood of use, and therefore of potential benefit to a passenger, is greatest in aircraft carrying a large number of passengers, over long duration sector lengths. The carriage of AEDs should be determined by operators on the basis of a risk assessment taking into account the particular needs of the operation.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  10
Vote down  0

What is the applicability of the data link recording requirements (CAT.IDE.A.195, CAT.IDE.H.195, NCC.IDE.A.170, NCC.IDE.H.170, SPO.IDE.A.150 and SPO.IDE.H.150)?

  • The requirement to record data link communication messages stated in paragraphs CAT.IDE.A.195, CAT.IDE.H.195, NCC.IDE.A.170, NCC.IDE.H.170, SPO.IDE.A.150 and SPO.IDE.H.150 should be understood as follows: if an aircraft is equipped with data link communication equipment and it is going to use this equipment to replace voice communications during part or the entire flight (when also required to be equipped with a CVR and first issued with an individual CofA on or after the applicability date stated in the relevant paragraph), then it must also have a working data link recording function.  The expression ‘where applicable’ in CAT.IDE.A.195(a) is to indicate that the requirement applies when information enumerated in CAT.IDE.A.195(a)(1) is exchanged or could be exchanged via data link replacing voice during the flight. This is also valid for the expression ‘where applicable’ in CAT.IDE.H.195(a), NCC.IDE.A.170(a), NCC.IDE.H.170(a),  SPO.IDE.A.150(a) and SPO.IDE.H.150(a).
  • Examples where this requirement would not apply include but are not limited to:
    • the case where the aircraft is only operated in airspace where no data link communication service is offered and therefore only voice communications are used between the aircraft and ATC;
    • the case where the airborne data link communication equipment is not compatible with the data link services of the airspace where it is operating and therefore, voice remains the means of communication between the aircraft and ATC;
    • the case where the data link communication equipment is disabled permanently and in a way that it cannot be enabled again during the flight and therefore voice remains the means of communication between the aircraft and ATC.

Note:

Commission Regulation No 29/2009 requires aircraft performing IFR flights above Flight Level 285 in the airspace of most EASA Member States to ‘have the capability to operate data link services’ (as defined by this Commission Regulation) by February 2013 or by February 2015, depending on the airspace and the date of manufacture of the aircraft.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  7
Vote down  1

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?

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations, Annex V (Part SPA)

It is not the medical equipment itself that has to be approved in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 748/2012, but its installation on the helicopter. Therefore, if it is a fixed installed equipment, it has to be approved; if it is removable, the housing or any other part which is installed has to be approved. In general terms, the principle applied here is that no kind of equipment (medical or not, installed or not) shall affect the airworthiness or the safe operation of the aircraft even in the case of failures or malfunctions.

This means, for example, that if the equipment is powered by a power source of the aircraft, there shall be no adverse effect on the power source itself or on other systems or parts of the aircraft, or that the equipment is checked and cleared against electromagnetic interference.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  8
Vote down  5

Part NCC/NCO

Why are non-commercial operations treated in two Parts, i.e. Part NCC (non-commercial with complex motor-powered aircraft and a Part NCO (non-commercial with other-than-complex motor-powered-aircraft)?

The rules concerning non-commercial operations are developed separately for complex motor-powered aircraft (MPA) and other-than-complex MPA because it does not make sense to have the same requirements apply to operations with an Airbus 320 for example and a Cessna 172. This way, the principle of proportionality of rules is preserved.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  44
Vote down  13

Which requirements does an ATO need to follow? Is Part ORO applicable?

An ATO is required to comply with Part ORA of Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 and either Part-NCC or Part-NCO of Regulation (EU) No 965/2012, depending on the aircraft being operated. Part-ORO is not applicable to ATOs.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  33
Vote down  20

What is the meaning of the term NCC?

NCC stands for non-commercial operations with complex motor-powered aircraft. The term ‘complex motor-powered aircraft’ is defined in the Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 (the ‘Basic Regulation’).

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  19
Vote down  1

Which Annexes of Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 are applicable to NCC operations?

The following Annexes contain applicable rules for NCC operations:

  • Annex I – Definitions
  • Annex II – Part-ARO
  • Annex III – Part-ORO
  • Annex V – Part-SPA
  • Annex VI – Part-NCC.
View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  30
Vote down  8

May a European NCC operator use third-country registered aircraft?

Yes, this is permitted.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  16
Vote down  0

Is the European State of the Operator principle for NCC operations in contradiction to the Chicago Convention?

The standards and recommended practices (SARPs) of ICAO Annex 6, Part II are based on the State of Registry (SoR) principle.

The European rules for NCC operations are based on the State of the Operator (SoO) principle.

This does not constitute a contradiction to the Chicago Convention but rather establishes a complementary safety instrument, particularly when a European operator uses third-country registered aircraft.

The SoR is responsible for the oversight of the aircraft in its registry. The EU SoO is responsible for the oversight of operators having their principal place of business in an EU Member State. Although the EU SoO is the competent authority for the operators having their principal place of business in an EU Member State, the EU SoO and the foreign SoR should cooperate in order to ensure proper oversight of these operators, in compliance with the ICAO requirements.

When the SoR and the SoO are both EU Member States, they oversee the aircraft, as well as the organisations and personnel involved in their operation in a complementary manner and according to the same rules. The European regulatory framework permits both the SoR and the SoO to duly exercise their respective oversight responsibilities and to take the appropriate enforcement actions. Oversight and enforcement are therefore ensured at all times, irrespective of the EU Member State in which the aircraft is registered or where the operations take place. It is at all times legally clear which EU Member State is responsible for each aspect of the safety oversight of any aircraft registered in an EU Member State and operated by an operator having its principal place of business in an EU Member State acting as SoO.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  7
Vote down  16

Which is the competent authority responsible for the oversight of the NCC operations in Europe?

The European rules for NCC operations are based on the State of the Operator principle. 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”. 

What does this mean? Here are some examples:

  1. For a European NCC operator with aircraft registered in a Member State, the Competent Authority is the State of Operator.
  2. For a European NCC operator with third-country registered aircraft, the Competent Authority is the State of Operator. These operators may also have to comply with rules of the third-country State of Registry if this State has not delegated its responsibilities to the European State of the Operator.
  3. 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 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.

In accordance with ICAO SARPs (3.4.2.1.2 of ICAO Annex 6 Part II), the State of Registry and State of the Operator shall coordinate their safety and security oversight actions.  

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.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  11
Vote down  6

Is a CAMO required for a European NCC operator using a third-country registered aircraft?

European Implementing rules for continuing airworthiness (EU) 2014/1321 do not apply to European NCC operators for third-country registered aircraft unless the regulatory oversight has been delegated to an EU Member State.

In particular, tasks related to the continuing airworthiness management do not need to be implemented by a CAMO in the sense of Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014. However, an organisation for the continuing airworthiness management is mandatory in accordance with point 8 (g) of Annex IV of the Regulation (EC) 216/2008.

In short, European NCC operators of third-country registered aircraft need to ensure that an organisation is managing the continuing airworthiness of their aircraft and that this organisation is able to demonstrate that the aircraft comply with the continuing airworthiness requirements contained in Appendix IV of Regulation 216/2008. This organisation does not need to be a CAMO; it can be the operator itself or any other organisation or natural person under the responsibility of the operator.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  16
Vote down  5

Which pilot licence is required for flying a third-country registered aircraft in the EU?

European pilots or pilots flying for a European operator will have to hold a European licence irrespective of whether the aircraft is EU registered or registered in a third country. 

It should be noted that European NCC pilots are entitled to fly with foreign licences in non-commercial operations until 8 April 2016.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  20
Vote down  12

Do NCC operators with non-EU registered aircraft need to maintain two different Operations Manuals?

The European provisions for the structure of the Operations Manual are specified in AMC2 ORO.MLR.100. The structure is very flexible and – where needed – could be amended through an alternative means of compliance.

It is strongly advised that the operator work with a single Operations Manual, which should address the specified minimum items of the State of the Operator and the State of Registry.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  9
Vote down  2

Are there differences between the European Air Ops rules for NCC and ICAO SARPs?

There are some differences between European Air Ops rules for NCC and ICAO Annex 6 SARPs. However, none of these differences would result in a lower safety level than intended by ICAO.

The following list describes differences generated by the Basic Regulation (EU) 216/2008 and the European Regulation (EU) 965/2012 on air operations.

Differences generated by the Basic Regulation:

  • Aircraft category (difference in drawing the line between complex and non-complex aircraft): some aircraft are considered complex in the European rules, while at ICAO level, they are considered non-complex; European rules exceed ICAO standards.
  • Oversight: European rules assign oversight responsibilities to the State of the Operator and not to the State of Registry; European rules achieve the safety target with an alternative method.
  • Declaration: the operator requirement to declare itself to the competent authority supports authorities to discharge their responsibilities; European rules exceed ICAO standards.

Differences generated by Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on air operations:

  • List of specific approvals: European rules exceed ICAO standards; ICAO may require this list by November 2018.
View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  12
Vote down  1

What is the intent of the declaration?

The intent of the declaration is to:

  1. have the operator acknowledge its responsibilities under the applicable safety regulations and that it holds all necessary approvals;
  2. inform the competent authority of the existence of an NCC or an SPO operator; and
  3. enable the competent authority to fulfil its oversight responsibilities in accordance with ARO.GEN.300 and 305.

When the NCC operation is managed by a third party on behalf of the owner, that party may be the operator in the sense of Article 3(h) of the Basic Regulation, and therefore has to declare its capability and means to discharge the responsibilities associated with the operation of the aircraft to the competent authority.

In such a case, it should also be assessed whether the third party operator undertakes a commercial operation in the sense of Article 3(i) of the Basic Regulation.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  15
Vote down  1

Why do European rules require a list of specific approvals?

Appendix V of the Authority Requirements (Part-ARO) contains a list of specific approvals for non-commercial operations and specialised operations. This list replicates in a proportionate manner the OpSpecs template for CAT operations.

The reasons for this list are to standardise the documentation of specific approvals for non-commercial operators and to support ramp inspectors in their oversight activities.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  5
Vote down  1

How can a NCC operator establish if its organisation is a complex or non-complex organisation?

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 or non-complex organisations. These criteria are based on the assessment of the size, nature and complexity of the operator’s activity.

The Agency is closely cooperating with competent authorities to provide further guidance to operators on this issue.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  6
Vote down  18

Do the European rules recognise if an operator conforms to European industry standards?

The European rule recognises the compliance with European industry standards.

The declaration form specified in the Organisation Requirements (Part-ORO, Appendix 1) requires operators to declare if they conform to an industry standard. Any compliance with a recognised European industry standard should be taken into account by the competent authority when planning and implementing their risk-based oversight activities. The competent authority may adapt its oversight programme, in order to avoid duplication of specific audit items.

This is further described in AMC1 ARO.GEN.305(b);(d);(d1) ‘Oversight programme’ and AMC1 ARO.GEN.305(b);(c);(d);(d1) ‘Oversight programme’.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  2
Vote down  4

Do NCC operators, not intending to carry dangerous goods, have to establish and maintain a dangerous goods (DG) training programme? Must this training programme be approved by the State of the Operator?

ORO.GEN.110 establishes that operators need to develop and maintain dangerous goods (DG) training programmes that need to be approved by the competent authority. This will be also applicable to NCC and SPO operators not intending to carry DG once the NCC and SPO requirements enter into force.

However, the EASA Committee approved, in June 2016, an amendment to ORO.GEN.110 (j) to say the following:

The operator shall establish and maintain dangerous goods training programmes for personnel as required by the technical instructions. Such training programmes shall be commensurate with the responsibilities of personnel. Training programmes of operators performing CAT, whether they transport dangerous goods or not, and of operators conducting operations other than CAT referred to in points (b), (c) and (d) of point ORO.GEN.005 that transport dangerous goods shall be subject to review and approval by the competent authority.

Therefore, once this new paragraph enters into force, only the operators mentioned above shall be the required by ORO.GEN.110 (j) to have their dangerous goods programmes reviewed and approved by the competent authority.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  19
Vote down  1

Do NCO operators need to establish and maintain a DG training programme? Does this training programme need to be approved by the State of the Operator?

The NCO rules do contain a requirement under ORO.GEN.110 for operators to develop and maintain dangerous goods (DG) training programme that need to be approved by the competent authority.

However, the intention of the European regulators is not to apply such provision to NCO operators. In this sense, the Agency is preparing an alleviation that has been included in the NPA 2015-18 to RMT.0516 (publication expected in 2015); this alleviation will apply to the following operators:

  1. sailplanes; 
  2. balloons; or
  3. commercial flights taking off and landing at the same aerodrome or operating site, under VFR by day, with
    1. a single-engined propeller-driven aeroplane having an MCTOM of 5 700 kg or less and a MOPSC of 5 or less; or
    2. an other-than-complex-motor-powered helicopter, single-engined, with an MOPSC of 5 or less.

Regardless, these operators will have to ensure that the flight crew have received an appropriate dangerous goods training or briefing, to enable them to recognise undeclared dangerous goods brought on board by passengers or as cargo.

As the alleviation included in RMT.0516 will be published as an EASA Opinion and further adopted as a regulation only after Part-NCO becomes applicable (25 August 2016), it is recommended that MSs apply for a derogation from the respective NCO rules after 25 August 2016. Derogations should thus cover the period until this alleviation is published in a Commission regulation.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  9
Vote down  4

Part SPO

Is an aerobatic flight (with other-than-complex motor-powered aircraft) operated by a commercial company and carrying a fee paying passenger considered as a commercial SPO flight or as a CAT A-to-A flight under the Air OPS regulation?

Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 on aircrew; Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations, Annex VIII (Part-SPO)

Aerobatic flights are considered commercial SPO flights. Therefore Part-ORO & Part-SPO apply to those flights. The dedicated Section in Subpart E of Part-SPO lists some exemptions for aerobatic flights.

The definition of aerobatic flight can be found in the Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 on aircrew (‘Aerobatic flight’ means an intentional manoeuvre involving an abrupt change in an aircraft’s attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight or for instruction for licences or ratings other than the aerobatic rating).

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  3
Vote down  8

Cabin Crew

Approval of training programmes

Is there a standard procedure for the approval of courses designed for cabin crew? Should they be approved by EASA?

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 on Aircrew requirements; Regulation (EU) No 965/2012, Annex II (Part ARO), Annex III (Part ORO)

Approval of training for cabin crew is the competence of the competent authority designated by each Member State.

As regards the initial training course required under Part CC (Aircrew Regulation), operators and training organisations intending to provide such training can do so only if they are approved by the competent authority. In the case of an AOC holder, such an approval shall be granted as an additional privilege to be specified in the Operations Specifications. Approval of the initial training course should therefore be part of the overall approval process in accordance with the procedures established by the competent authority.

For the other cabin crew training required under Part ORO, operators are responsible for their crew training programmes, including the means of delivering those training (e.g. online, classroom and representative devices), taking into account the objective of crew competence as defined by the rules.

Crew training and checking programmes of airlines/operators must be established in the Operator manual (OM) to be approved by the competent authority.

As EU-OPS requirements are being replaced, here are the new rules on Air Operations.

The paragraphs of particular relevance to this topic are:

  • Article 7 on AOC,
  • Part ARO, particularly ARO.OPS.100
  • Part ORO, in particular
    • Subpart AOC Air Operator Certification, particularly ORO.AOC.100;
    • Subpart MLR Manuals, logs and records, particularly ORO.MLR.100;
    • Subpart CC Cabin crew

The related AMC (acceptable means of compliance) and GM (guidance material) in the Agency Decision provide further details on this topic (Part ORO - for operators).

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  3
Vote down  2

Aircraft type specific training and conversion training

Who can conduct aircraft type specific training and conversion training for cabin crew members? Can a cabin crew training organisation (CC TO) provide aircraft type specific training and operator conversion training even though ORO.CC.125 requires aforementioned training to be conducted by the operator?

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations, Annex III (Part ORO)

Taking into account that:

  • The Aircrew Regulation refers to CC TO only for the Initial training course (and eventually for issuing the related cabin crew attestation); and
  • Aircraft type specific training and conversion training are requirements specified in Part ORO, which is applicable to operators, as stated in ORO.GEN.005 Scope,

crew training and qualifications are therefore requirements directed to the operator who will have to train its cabin crew members accordingly, as specified in point (d) of ORO.GEN.110 and ORO.CC.005.

However, an operator may contract out some activities (e.g. training) under the conditions specified in ORO.GEN.205 Contracted activities complemented by AMC1 ORO.GEN.205 and the associated GM1 and GM2.

Therefore, CC TO can only provide Aircraft type specific training and conversion training if contracted by an AOC holder/operator, who will remain responsible for the training and competence of its cabin crew.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  4
Vote down  3

Reduction of minimum required cabin crew: approval of procedures

Do the evacuation procedures with a reduced number of required cabin crew during ground operations or in unforeseen circumstances require prior approval according to the new Air OPS Regulations?

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations, ORO.CC.205, GM3 ORO.GEN.130(b)

The minimum number of cabin crew and the related procedures for evacuation are approved as part of the OM. As reducing the minimum cabin crew is a deviation from the required minimum number (which must be determined based on the number established by certification rules for each aircraft type), it requires close monitoring. Therefore changes to evacuation procedures with a reduced number of cabin crew require prior approval by the Authority.

This requirement originates from EU-OPS 1.311(a):

“provided that:

1. the operator has established a procedure for the evacuation of passengers with this reduced number of cabin crew that has been accepted by the Authority as providing equivalent safety;”

However, for legal certainty and clarity purposes, the term 'accepted' is now avoided by the EU, as well as by the ICAO. The items for which 'accepted' was used in JAR/EU-OPS were assessed and, depending on their nature/potential impact, have been changed in the new rules into 'notified' or 'approved'. Changes requiring prior approval are now clearly identified.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  5
Vote down  3

Conflict of interest - instructor/examiner

The Aircrew Regulation requires that conflict of interest be avoided, meaning that the trainer/instructor who provided any topic of the initial training course should not act as examiner. 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? Would it be acceptable if, for example, the written examination (test) on a particular topic would be corrected by the Training Manager according to enclosed key test? Would EASA recommend any other acceptable solution?

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 on Aircrew

In the Annex to ED Decision 2012/006/R, AMC1 ARA.CC.200(b)(2) clarifies that in such cases, the operator/training organisation shall establish appropriate procedures to avoid situations that could lead to conflict of interest, e.g. where an instructor/trainer has to check/evaluate the proficiency of the trainee/student he/she has taught/trained.

The qualifications of instructors/trainers, as well as of examiners, are not defined at EU level, and remain to be defined by each Member State. At the same time, the particular context of the concerned operator/training organisations is also known by the competent authority.

Therefore, only the competent authorities may assess, on a case by case basis, when approving the training and checking programmes of the operators/training organisations established in their territory, whether the procedures established can ensure that the objective of the rule is met, i.e. to minimise as far as possible the risk of conflict of interest, and possible undue side effects on the evaluation of the trainee/student.

“AMC1 ARA.CC.200(b)(2) Approval of organisations to provide cabin crew training or to issue cabin crew attestations 
PERSONNEL CONDUCTING EXAMINATIONS

For any element being examined for the issue of a cabin crew attestation as required in Part CC, the person who delivered the associated training or instruction should not also conduct the examination. However, if the organisation has appropriate procedures in place to avoid conflict of interest regarding the conduct of the examination and/or the results, this restriction need not apply.”

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  2
Vote down  3

Medical fitness of cabin crew

Where can I find the medical requirements according to the EASA in order to become Cabin Crew?

Reference: Regulation (EU) 1178/2011, Part MED

The new medical requirements for cabin crew medical fitness can be found in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011, and shall be applied at the latest by 8 April 2014.

Annex IV, Part MED, contains the implementing rules (IR) covering:

  • In Subpart A Section 1, the general requirements, such as competent authority, medical confidentiality, decrease in medical fitness and obligations of medical doctors conducting the aero-medical assessment of cabin crew (see below AME and OHMP);
  • In Subpart C, all three Sections, the requirements  for medical fitness of cabin crew;
  • In Subpart D, Section 1 on Aero-medical examiners (AEM) and Section 3 on Occupational Health Medical Practitioners (OHMP), the requirements for the medical doctors who conduct aero-medical assessment of cabin crew. Please note that general medical practitioners (GMP) (Section 2) may not conduct aero-medical assessment of cabin crew.
    • Agency Decision 2011/015/R contains the associated acceptable means of compliance (AMC) and guidance material (GM). These AMC/GMs complement the above-mentioned IR by specifying the detailed medical conditions and related medical examinations or investigations.
View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  4
Vote down  3

What shall I do to become a cabin crew member in an airline?

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 on aircrew; Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on air operations, Annex III (Part-ORO)

Information on airline employment opportunities and recruitment process can be sought with the airline directly.

The applicant will have to obtain a Cabin Crew Attestation in accordance with the Commission Regulation (EU) 1178/2011 and the related ED Decision 2012/005/R containing Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC) and Guidance Material (GM). The first step is to submit an application for a Cabin Crew Attestation in accordance with the procedures established by the Competent Authority (CA) of the Member State. This information is usually provided on their website, you can also contact the CA.

For requirements related to cabin crew and the Cabin Crew Attestation, please refer to the following parts of the Regulation:

  1. Article 11a Cabin crew qualifications and related attestations;
  2. Article 11c Transitional Measures - Article 2;
  3. Annex V Qualification of cabin crew involved in commercial air transport operations (Part-CC);
  4. Appendix 1 to Part-CC;
  5. Annex VI Subpart CC;
  6. Appendix II to ANNEX VI PART-ARA Standard EASA format for cabin crew attestation.

A Cabin Crew Attestation issued in accordance with Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 is recognised and transferable amongst the EU Member States.

The second step is to undergo training and checking with an airline in accordance with Commission Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 Air Operations. For requirements related to cabin crew, please refer to Annex III - Part-ORO, Subpart-CC and to the related ED Decision 2014/017/R containing AMC and GM. Following the successful completion of the training and checking, the individual can be assigned to flying duties as a cabin crew member.

For further details, please refer to the National Aviation Authority, the operator or a training organisation conducting training for cabin crew in the country where you intend to undergo cabin crew training.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  1
Vote down  3

How and when can/shall an EU-OPS attestation of safety training for cabin crew be replaced by the new EASA cabin crew attestation required by Aircrew regulation (EU) No 1178/2011?

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 on aircrew, Part-CC

EU-OPS attestations of safety training held by active cabin crew members complying with applicable training and recency requirements are considered equivalent to the new cabin crew attestations (CCA) until they can be replaced by a CCA. Replacement must be done at the latest by 8 April 2017, as stated in point 3 of Article 11a of the Aircrew Regulation:

“3. The attestations of safety training issued in accordance with EU-OPS shall be replaced with cabin crew attestations complying with the format laid down in Annex VI by 8 April 2017 at the latest.”

Some conditions must be fulfilled as specified in point 2 of Article 11a of the Aircrew Regulation. The knowledge and competence acquired with the initial training must, at the time of the replacement, have been maintained by completion of the other training provided by the operator and current operating experience on at least one aircraft type.

If changing to another operator or during a period of up to maximum 5 years (60 months) without operating as cabin crew, any holder of an EU-OPS attestation of safety training will only need to complete the applicable training with the new operator (i.e. aircraft type and conversion training followed by familiarisation) before being assigned to flying duties as part of the minimum required cabin crew on an aircraft. There is no change in this matter in the new rules compared to EU-OPS.

The main difference with EU-OPS is the 5-year validity which is applicable for the replacement of EU-OPS attestation as well as to the new CCA as specified in Part-CC, paragraph CC.CCA.105 ‘Validity of the cabin crew attestation’.

If holders of EU-OPS attestations have not operated for more than 5 years, they must in such a case complete again the initial training course before being issued a new CCA (see Article 11a, point 2.(c)) and being in position to complete the training of the new operator and then be reassigned to operate as cabin crew.

This is because it was considered, based on experience gained, that after 5 years without completing operator training nor operating as cabin crew,  the knowledge and competence gained previously has expired and needs to be updated and renewed by completing again initial  training before undertaking any other training.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  13
Vote down  2

Why does initial training under Part-CC require providing to cabin crew practical training of rafts even if the operator’s aircraft to be flown is not so equipped?

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 on aircrew, Part-CC

Under EU-OPS, practical training on the use of rafts was required during initial training.  As EU-OPS was a regulation directed, and applicable, to operators, an operator could provide raft training only ‘before first operating on an aeroplane fitted with life-rafts or similar equipment. The training was conducted with the operator’s specific equipment/rafts.

The new Part-CC cabin crew attestations (CCA) are also issued for life time and recognised across all EU. However, conversely to the EU-OPS attestation, CCA are subject to certain conditions (e.g. validity) to attest the competence of the individual cabin crew member. This is as foreseen in the Basic Regulation taking into account the increasing mobility required from staff in the aviation sector and the need to further harmonise cabin crew qualifications.

Part-CC is part of the Aircrew Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 as amended. The initial training syllabus is no longer ‘operator related’, and the practical training of the use of rafts or similar equipment and actual practice in water are therefore not specific to a particular operator’s equipment. It is required in all cases, in consistency with the fact that all CCA holders, when recruited, are expected to have the ability to perform all types of cabin crew duties, including ditching related duties in water.

When operators are granted an approval to provide Part-CC Initial training and to issue the related CCA entitled to mutual recognition across the EU, they no longer act only as an operator training its cabin crew for its specific operations, but as training organisations training future cabin crew who, in their life time, may also operate with other operators and in other Member States.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  3
Vote down  1

Are there any requirements relating to the ability of CC to communicate with passengers in a certain language? Example: An air operator with an Irish AOC is operating with a full crew from, say Thailand. They would fulfil the requirement for a common language, and the flight crew would have to undergo licence validation/conversion in Ireland thereby also demonstrating their ability to communicate in English. Will the CC have to communicate in English to get their attestation?

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations, Annexes III (Part-ORO) and IV (Part-CAT)

The only requirements for languages relevant to CC are specified in the Air Operations Regulation ((EU) No 965/2012) as follows:

  • all personnel shall be able to understand the language of the OM relevant to their duties (ORO.MLR.100(k)), and
  • all FC and CC members shall be able to communicate in a common language (CAT.GEN.MPA.120).

Common practice is nevertheless that cabin crew speak the language of the State of the operator, and English as this is usually required by the operators.

There is actually no language requirement for cabin crew regarding communication with passengers. This issue is now on the task list of the ICAO Cabin safety Group, as it was considered more consistent to be addressed at worldwide level, taking into account any relevant Safety Recommendations resulting from accident or incident investigations.

It should be noted that it is difficult, if not impossible, to identify which languages, other than the language of the operator and English, should be required.

For example, a French airline may have a flight departing from Paris to Madrid (CC would then speak French and English as normally required by operators), but most passengers could be a group of Japanese.

In this global sector, it is very difficult to anticipate which languages will be necessary depending on the nationality of the passengers to be carried, which may change for each flight. It could also be different from the language of the country of departure, as well as from the country of destination.

Ultimately, it is the responsibility of each operator to ensure that safety briefing / instructions can be given in a way that will ensure general understanding by passengers and will allow cabin crew to be understood when applying safety and emergency procedures.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  2
Vote down  0

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

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 on aircrew, Part-CC; Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations, Annexes III (Part-ORO) and related EASA Decision

The following regulatory requirements contain provisions on fire and smoke training for cabin crew:

Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011:

  • Annex V – Part-CC, CC.TRA.220 Initial training course and examination;
  • Appendix 1 to Part-CC Training programme of the Initial training course
  • Appendix 1 to Part-CC point 8.  Fire and smoke training;

Commission Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations Annex III, Part-ORO, Subpart-CC:

  • ORO.CC.125 Aircraft type specific and operator conversion training
  • ORO.CC.140 Recurrent training
  • ORO.CC.145 Refresher training

ED Decision 2014/017/R contains Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC) and Guidance Material (GM) to Annex III – Part-ORO:

  • AMC1 ORO.CC.125(c) and AMC1 ORO.CC.125(d) Aircraft type specific training and operator conversion training
  • AMC1 ORO.CC.140 Recurrent training
View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  3
Vote down  3

Dangerous Goods

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

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations, Annex III (Part ORO), Annex IV (Part CAT), Annex V (Part SPA), Annex VI (Part NCC), Annex VII (Part NCO)

European rules regarding the transport of dangerous goods can be found in the Commission Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations (Air OPS). Air OPS Regulation substitutes the EU-OPS Regulations. So far, only the rules for commercial air transport and non-commercial operations have been published in Annexes I to VII of the Air OPS. The rules on aerial work (specialised operations) will follow later to complete it.

Apart from the implementing rules which are comprised in the Regulation (EU) 965/2012, the Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC) and Guidance Material (GM), which are published as EASA Decisions on the Agency's website, should be taken into account as well (namely Decisions 2012/015/R through to 2012/019/R, respectively the amended ones 2013/017/R through to 2013/022/R).

The requirements in ORO.GEN.110, CAT.GEN.MPA.200, SPA.DG.105, NCC.GEN.150 and NCO.GEN.140 are more general, whereas the related AMC/GM (especially AMC1 SPA.DG.105(a) in ED Decision 2013/020/R on Part SPA) include more specific details.

The requirements stipulated in Part I, Chapter 4 of the ICAO Doc 9284-AN/905, Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air, mentioned as a further reference in the Air OPS Regulation, must also be complied with.

In addition, national aviation authorities are responsible for approving the dangerous goods training in their countries and therefore they have to establish the conditions under which they shall be approved. For detailed information on training requirements (including the type of training interaction - classroom or computer-based training), each operator should contact the national aviation authority in their country of registration.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  9
Vote down  3

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?

Vote up  4
Vote down  3

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

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

Portable air concentrators (POC) do not contain oxygen as such; they only concentrate the oxygen in the surrounding area. Therefore they should not be confused with oxygen bottles/cylinders. Under the European regulations, POCs do not have to be approved to be carried and used on board.

As POCs contain batteries, they fall under the definition of portable electronic devices (PEDs).

In accordance with the European regulations (AMC1 CAT.GEN.MPA.140 (b)(2)(i)), medical equipment necessary to support physiological functions (i.e. POCs) does not need to be switched-off during any phases of the flight.

Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 establishes the rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility when travelling by air. 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. For more information on Regulation (EC) No 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 using this link.

If passengers have special needs, they should request more information from the airline at the time of booking.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  4
Vote down  0
Back to top

Aircrew

How should the new class and type rating list for aeroplanes which is published on the Agency’s website be understood ? (complex aircraft, SET class, PA 46, instructor qualification)

The new list intends to make it easier to find specific aeroplanes by putting them into alphabetical order and abandoning the former grouping into many different lists. The aeroplanes which belong to the group of single pilot high performance complex aeroplanes are identified as such.

  1. Information on the SET class:
    Those aeroplanes that belong to a specific group whilst they still require aeroplane specific training, testing and checking have a licence endorsement that specifies that they are in this group and the remarks column provides any information if an OSD report was established. (SET class with a validity of 2 years, FCL.740(a)).
    Nevertheless all members of the SET class rating group require a class rating specific for the aeroplane and those ratings have to be revalidated individually with the possibility of any credits that are mentioned in the OSD for the relevant aeroplane.
    There is no generic SET (land) or SET(sea) rating to be entered in a pilot licence.
     
  2. Information on PA 46:
    The piston engine variants of the PA 46 may now be treated as falling within the SEP(land) class but require a difference training on one of the PA 46 piston engine variants. For revalidation there is no class specific requirement the revalidation can be done by experience on any SEP plus a training flight on any SEP or any proficiency check or no experience and a proficiency check on any SEP.
    The SET PA 46 class rating can be obtained with an approved difference training course from the piston engine PA 46 or with a specific SET PA 46 class rating course both of which have to be done in an ATO on a SET PA 46. As it is a separate class rating the requirements of FCL.725 (a)(b)(c) apply and as it is an HPA also the relevant requirements for those aeroplanes apply.
     
  3. Information on instructor qualification for SET class:
    With the facts mentioned above the instructor requirements for a CRI or FI are to be considered class specific. Meaning PA 46 with piston engine will require an instructor qualification for SEP with difference training for the PA 46 piston engine. All SET class ratings to be covered as individual class ratings with individual instructor qualifications as indicated on the licence endorsement list.

The list will shortly undergo further editorial changes. The Agency tries to make the list more easily understandable and therefore has amended it and the explanatory note that comes with it.”

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  7
Vote down  3

When will the new rules on pilot licensing be applicable?

The new Implementing Rules implementing the requirements set out in Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 in the field of pilot licensing were published as Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 on Aircrew in the Official Journal of the European Union on 25 November 2011.
In November 2011, the first four annexes to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 on Aircrew were published:

  • Annex I - Part-FCL (flight crew licensing)
  • Annex II - Conditions for the conversion of existing national licences and ratings for aeroplanes and helicopters
  • Annex III - Conditions for the acceptance of licences issued by or on behalf of third countries
  • Annex IV - Part-MED (medical).

The remaining annexes were published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 5 April 2012 as Commission Regulation (EU) No 290/2012 amending Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 on Aircrew. These annexes are:

  • Annex V - Part-CC (cabin crew)
  • Annex VI - Part-ARA (authority requirements for aircrew)
  • Annex VII - Part-ORA (organisation requirements for aircrew)

As stated in Article 12 paragraph 1 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 on Aircrew, the application date was 8 April 2012, though by way of derogation from this paragraph in accordance with Article 1 paragraph (6) and Article 2 paragraph 2. (a) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 290/2012, Member States could decide not to apply the provisions of the aforementioned Annexes until 8 April 2013.
The amending Regulation introduced additional transition measures deferring the applicability of certain Implementing Rules to a later date. Therefore the exact date of applicability of each requirement depends on the transition measures introduced by the Member States. 
Until the date the new Implementing Rules apply, Member States national rules remain in force. 
The related Acceptable Means of Compliance and Guidance Material to:

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  5
Vote down  8

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

Aircrew is the common term for "Flight Crew" and "Cabin Crew".
The new Implementing Rules cover both flight crew and cabin crew, and were published as Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 laying down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to civil aviation aircrew and its amending Commission Regulation (EU) No 290/2012.

Annex I to the above-mentioned Regulation on Aircrew contains Implementing Rules for Flight Crew (Part-FCL).

Annex V to this Regulation on Aircrew contains Implementing Rules for Cabin Crew (Part-CC).

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  23
Vote down  2

How can a national pilot licence be converted into an EASA pilot licence?

In accordance with Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 in the field of pilot licensing, the Agency is not authorised to issue pilot licences and therefore there will not be any EASA pilot licence in the future.

According to Annex I (Part-FCL) to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 on Aircrew, the title of a new licence issued in accordance with this Annex is a Part-FCL licence.

National licences shall be converted into Part-FCL licences by the competent authority of the Member State that issued the national licence in accordance with Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 on Aircrew and its amending Commission Regulation (EU) No 290/2012.

Conclusion:
The competent authorities of Member States will convert and issue Part-FCL licences and not the Agency.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  7
Vote down  0

How can a national pilot licence be converted into a Part-FCL licence?

Existing national pilots licences will be converted in accordance with Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 on Aircrew and its amending Commission Regulation (EU) No 290/2012.

JAR-compliant licences issued or recognised by the Member State before the applicability of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 on Aircrew shall be deemed to have been issued in accordance with this Regulation, and shall be replaced with a Part-FCL licence by 8 April 2018 at the latest.

Non-JAR-compliant licences, including any associated ratings, certificates, authorisations and/or qualifications issued or recognised by the Member State before applicability of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 on Aircrew shall be converted into Part-FCL licences by the Member State that issued the licence in accordance with the provisions of Annex II to that Regulation or the requirements laid down in a conversion report.

As stated in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 on Aircrew, the application date was 8 April 2012, though flexibility was introduced via transition measures contained in Article 12 of Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 on Aircrew and Article 1 paragraph (6) of Regulation (EU) No 290/2012.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  3
Vote down  0

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

Pilots licences issued by third countries will be accepted in accordance with Article 8 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 on Aircrew .

According to paragraph 1 of this Article 8, the Member State may accept a third country licence, and the associated medical certificate, in accordance with the provisions of Annex III to the Regulation.
For the issue of a Part-FCL licence, the holder of at least an equivalent third country licence issued in accordance with ICAO Annex 1 shall comply with all the relevant requirements of Annex I to the Regulation (Part-FCL), except that the requirements of course duration, number of lesson and specific training hours may be reduced.

As stated in Article 12 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 on Aircrew, the application date was 8 April 2012, though by way of derogation from this paragraph, Member States could decide not to apply the provisions of Annex I to pilots holding a licence and associated medical certificate issued by a third country involved in non-commercial flights until 8 April 2015.

The competent authority of the Member State to which an applicant applies will determine the conversion requirements, which can be reduced on the basis of a recommendation from an approved training organisation.

Therefore, the national aviation authority of the Member State where an applicant resides or wishes to work should be contacted for further information concerning the applicable acceptance requirements.

To find a list of the national aviation authorities, please follow this link.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  8
Vote down  8

Will a licence issued in accordance with JAR-FCL requirements still be valid once the new rules become applicable?

Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 on Aircrew contains transition measures to ensure that JAR-FCL licences issued by Member States in accordance with JAR-FCL requirements and procedures will be grandfathered.

This means that holders of JAR compliant pilots' licences can continue to exercise the privileges of their licences after Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 on Aircrew applies, without the need for any further administrative procedures, but these licences shall be replaced with Part-FCL licences by 8 April 2018 at the latest. Further information can be found in paragraph 3 of Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 290/2012 on Aircrew (which amends the date of 8 April 2017 as stated in paragraph 1 of Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011).

Please note that Member States are not forced to replace valid JAR pilots' licences before the end of their validity period as these licences will be deemed to have been issued under the Part-FCL requirements.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  6
Vote down  0

Will a national licence that does not comply with JAR-FCL requirements still be valid once the new rules become applicable?

Once Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 on Aircrew becomes applicable in a certain Member State, it will no longer be possible to fly with a licence that does not comply with those requirements (except in the case of aircraft included in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008, according to Article 4(5)). 
Consequently, a national licence will need to be converted into a Part-FCL licence. To deal with those licences issued by Member States in accordance with national rules deviating from JAR-FCL, transition measures have been established in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 on Aircrew. These transition measures foresee a certain amount of time to convert the national licences into fully compliant Part-FCL licences.

As stated in Article 12 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 on Aircrew, the application date is 8 April 2012, though by way of derogation from this paragraph, Member States may decide not to apply the provisions of Annex I related to pilot licences of powered-lift aircraft, balloons, airships and sailplanes until 8 April 2015. 
Member States may also decide not to convert non-JAR-compliant aeroplane and helicopter licences that they have issued until 8 April 2014.

Non-JAR compliant national licences may be converted into Part-FCL licences by the competent authority as follows:

  • for aeroplanes and helicopters, in accordance with the requirements of Annex II to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 on Aircrew ;
  • for other categories of aircraft, on the basis of a conversion report drawn up by the competent authority.
View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  2
Vote down  0

Could the Agency assist with interpreting the JAR-FCL requirements?

JAR-FCL was drafted to harmonise European regulations on flight crew licensing in order to facilitate mutual recognition of licences and ratings. However, the Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR) (see the JAA publications) have been implemented under national law and under the full responsibility of each Member State.

Therefore the Rulemaking Directorate is not in the position to interpret or make comments on JAR-FCL requirements. In addition, please note that the Agency cannot intervene in cases where the national JAR text deviates from the original.

The national aviation authorities are responsible for interpreting and implementing JAR-FCL requirements.
We therefore recommend that for assistance in interpreting the JAR-FCL requirements, the national aviation authorities should be contacted directly.

A list of the national aviation authorities can be found here.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  1
Vote down  2

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

If an applicant does not agree with the result of his/her assessment, he/she can only resolve this problem at the national level.

An applicant cannot apply to the EASA management regarding a decision taken by his/her national aviation authority. Appeals to the Agency can only be made against decisions of the Agency.

Therefore the applicant should resolve this problem on the national level by sending his/her complaints to the national body dealing with complaints against state authorities.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  4
Vote down  1

Could the European Central Question Bank be published?

The Agency is the administrator of the European Central Question Bank (ECQB).

Taking into account that:

  1. Ownership of the copyright of the ECQB database is vested to the European Aviation Safety Agency; and
  2. Ownership of the contents of the database remains vested to its respective owners; and
  3. The possession, management and administration of the contents of the database have been fully vested in the hands of the Agency; and
  4. The contents of the database are confidential and have been treated as such without interruption.

The Agency, acting in the capacity of copyright owner and administrator of the database, enjoys the exclusive right among others, to prevent temporary or permanent reproduction by any means and in any form, as well as to prevent any form of distribution to the public of the database or of copies thereof.

It is the opinion of the Agency that such reproduction and distribution would endanger the functionality and integrity of the applicable examination system and would invalidate the associated substantial investment in both intellectual and monetary terms.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  7
Vote down  9

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

The EU rules for recognising military licences can be found in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 on Aircrew. Article 10 states that the knowledge, experience and skill gained in military service shall be credited towards the relevant requirements of Part-FCL in accordance with the principles of a credit report established by the competent authority of the Member State where a pilot served, in consultation with the Agency.

Therefore, the competent authority of the Member State where the pilot served should be contacted and asked for the provisions applicable for such credits.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  1
Vote down  3

Is it correct that there are new requirements for instrument ratings (IR) and provisions to allow cloud flying for sailplane pilots published in the Aircrew Regulation?

Yes, this is correct.

On 3 April 2014 Commission Regulation 245/2014 and Agency ED Decision 2014/022/R entered into force. This Regulation and associated AMC/GM include a new competency-based instrument rating (CB IR) and an en route instrument rating (EIR) for private (PPL(A)) and commercial pilot (CPL(A)) licence holders, and a sailplane cloud flying rating.

The new provisions establish a more accessible IR enabling more European General Aviation (GA) pilots to obtain such rating, thereby increasing safety by reducing the number of potential controlled flights into terrain (CFIT). Moreover, the proposed CB IR course will contain a reduced theoretical knowledge (TK) syllabus appropriately reflected by a different level of TK examinations and a reduced amount of instrument flight instruction time when compared with the existing IR courses. Furthermore, the EIR requires less training, but nevertheless consists of more comprehensive flight training when compared to the basic instrument flight module of the existing IR. As the EIR only provides en route IFR privileges, this rating serves as a stepping stone towards the IR through the proposed competency-based route. Both CB IR and EIR include provisions for crediting a certain amount of instrument flight time on aeroplanes outside of an ATO, such as instrument flight time under instruction, prior pilot-in-command (PIC) instrument flight time, including crediting provisions for third-country IR holders.

The cloud flying rating for sailplane pilots allows holders to enter clouds whilst taking into account the airspace structure, the required minima in different airspace categories, and the relevant Air Traffic Control (ATC) procedures.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  3
Vote down  3

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

  1. Licensing following the introduction of a new variant to an existing type rating.

    When a new variant of a type is introduced the existing type endorsement in the pilot licence may remain unchanged but valid for all variants as included in the ‘EASA Type Rating & License Endorsement List Flight Crew’ published on the Agency’s web page. The new endorsement should be added by the pilot’s competent authority at the next routine licensing action or at the request of the pilot in accordance with ARA.FCL.220 (a).
     

  2. Exercise of the licence privileges in the new variant.

    The pilot must receive differences training or familiarisation as appropriate in accordance with FCL.710. This would mean the pilot has to undergo a differences training course under the responsibility of a qualified instructor and have it confirmed with the instructor’s signature in the pilot’s logbook.
     

  3. Qualification of pilots, instructors and examiners for the new variant:

     

    1. Pilots holding a type rating intending to operate the new variant should receive differences training in accordance with FCL.710. This differences training is to be recorded in the pilot’s logbook and signed by a qualified instructor.
       
    2. Instructors holding instructor privileges as a TRI or SFI on the existing type intending to use their instructor privileges also on the new variant should qualify in accordance with either FCL.900(b) (special conditions for the introduction of a new type) or with (a) above (differences training on the new variant).
       
    3. Examiners holding examiner privileges as a TRE or SFE on the existing type intending to use their examiner privileges also on the new variant should qualify in accordance with either FCL.1000(b) (special conditions for the introduction of a new type) or with (a) and (b) above (differences training on the new variant and instructor privileges).
       
    4. Pilots, instructors and examiners without existing type privileges shall complete the full type rating course and follow the requirements of Part-FCL for instructor and examiner privileges on any variant in the type.
View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  4
Vote down  1
Back to top

ATM and Aerodromes

Aerodromes

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

According to Art. 4.3(a) of amending Regulation (EC) No 1108/2009 the applicability of the EASA Basic Regulation regarding aerodromes is as follows:

Aerodromes, including equipment, which are located in the territory subject to the provisions of the treaty, open to public use and which serve commercial air transport and where operations using instrument approach or departure procedures are provided, and:

  1. have a paved runway of 800 metres or above; or
  2. exclusively serve helicopters;

shall comply with this Regulation. Personnel and organizations involved in the operation of these aerodromes shall comply with this Regulation.

Furthermore, is it the case that Member States can exempt certain aerodromes from having to comply with the European Rules when the have very little passenger traffic and cargo movements. For details on this possibility please have a look at Art. 4. 3(b) of the Basic Regulation (introduced by amending Regulation (EC) No 1108/2009) and Art. 5 “Exemptions” of the new Regulation (EC) No 139/2014.

After the Member States reported in 2014 in accordance with Art. 4 of Regulation 139/2014 the aerodromes in the scope of EASA the following numbers were established: 592 aerodromes are in the scope. 105 aerodromes will be given a temporary exemption due to low traffic figures. There are no heliports among the figures.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  12
Vote down  2

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

Nothing is planned at this stage. Recital (6) of Regulation (EC) No 1108/2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 216/2008) contemplates this as future possibility:

(6) It would not be appropriate to subject all aerodromes to common rules. In particular, aerodromes which are not open to public use and aerodromes mainly used for recreational flying or serving commercial air transport other than in accordance with instrument flight procedures and with paved runways of less than 800 metres, should remain under the regulatory control of the Member States, without any obligation under this Regulation on other Member States to recognise such national arrangements. However, proportionate measures should be taken by Member States to increase generally the level of safety of recreational aviation and of all commercial air transport. The Commission will re-examine in due time, extending the scope of application to aerodromes currently excluded in a modular manner, and taking full account of the impact this might have on such aerodromes.

The Opinion 01/2015 issued by EASA in early 2015 on the review of the EASA Basic Regulation does not suggest any change of the applicability of the Basic Regulation to smaller aerodromes and this will not be part of any proposal coming out of the European Commission in the near future.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  5
Vote down  1

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

The term “Certification Basis” (CB) is a key term in the area of oversight over aerodromes. According to Art. 8a, para. 2a and 2b of Regulation (EC) No 216/2019, as amended by 1108/2009, a certificate shall be required in respect of each aerodrome to which the European rules apply. The process of obtaining an aerodrome certificate involves the establishment of the aerodrome’s CB. The concept of the CB embodies the flexibility with which Europe takes account of the non-uniform infrastructure of its airport industry. The CB therefore allows for dealing with local issues by allowing local solutions to deviations from the CS. This CB is to be proposed by the applicant (usually the aerodrome operator) and is finally decided on by the Competent Authority, the entity designated to certify and oversee aerodromes as per Art. 3.1 of Regulation (EC) No 139/2014. The CB consists of the following:

  • the applicable Certification Specifications (CSs) related to the type of aerodrome and the operations taking place there;
  • any provisions for which an Equivalent Level of Safety (ELOS) to that underlying the relevant Certification Specification has been proposed by the aerodrome and accepted by the competent authority;
  • any Special Conditions (SCs) determined and notified by the competent authority.

The CB can be a list of the applicable and relevant CS to the aerodrome in question with an indication if the CS is being met or if an ELOS is being argued for or if a special condition is being proposed. If this is the case the documentation underneath would be normally referenced.

When the applicant has demonstrated that the aerodrome complies with the agreed CB as per ADR.OR.B.025(in annex II of Regulation (EC) No 139/ 2014) one condition for the issuance of the certificate would be met. The certificate shall be considered to include the aerodrome’s certification basis, and 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 ADR.AR.C.035 (d)in Annex II of 139/2014). (see also question ADR.6)

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  12
Vote down  0

ADR.4 What happens to deviations from the certification specifications (CS) at existing aerodromes during the establishment of the certification basis (CB)?

In case of Member States where there are existing national certificates, these have to be converted into certificates based on the European rules. Art. 6 “Conversion of Certificates” of Regulation (EC) No 139/ 2014 defines the process of this. Basically it requires the following:

Article 6  Conversion of certificates

  1. Certificates issued by the Competent Authority prior to 31 December 2014 on the basis of national legislations shall remain valid until they are issued in accordance with this Article, or if no such certificates are issued, 31 December 2017.
  2. Before the end of the period specified in paragraph 1, the Competent Authority shall issue certificates for the aerodromes and aerodrome operators concerned, if the following conditions are met:
    1. the certification basis referred to in Annex II has been established using the certification specifications issued by the Agency, including any cases of equivalent level of safety and special conditions which have been identified and documented;
    2. the certificate holder has demonstrated compliance with the certification specifications which are different from the national requirements on which the existing certificate was issued;
    3. the certificate holder has demonstrated compliance with those requirements of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 and its Implementing Rules which are applicable to its organisation and its operation and which are different from the national requirements on which the existing certificate was issued.
  3. By way of derogation from paragraph 2 point (b), the Competent Authority may decide to waiver demonstration of compliance if it considers that this demonstration creates an excessive or disproportionate effort.

This means that the conversion process on the side of infrastructure would require the establishment of the aerodrome’s CB involving, if possible and needed, the employment of the flexibility tool discussed in the previous questions ( ELOS and Special Condition, as well as the DAAD). see also the answer to ADR. 3 above and ADR. 5 below.

During the establishment of the CB, the infrastructure at the aerodrome would be checked against the Europeans Certification Specifications (CS). In this process it can practically be assumed that the ‘same authorities will certify same airports’ along the requirements of the same technical substance so that the demonstration of compliance should be limited to the ‘factually new’ elements which had not been checked by the competent authority before because the underlying CS requirement is now either new or different from the previous national regulatory basis.

Therefore, for all resulting cases of differences the aerodrome would be expected to provide a demonstration of compliance with the European CS  (in accordance with ADR.OR.B.025 of Annex II of Regulation (EC) No 139/ 2014). However, as is said in Art. 6.3 above, that this demonstration of compliance can be waived if the Competent Authority considers that it would require an excessive and disproportionate effort. Yet, the compliance as such cannot be waived with reference to Art. 6.3 and it should be noted that the above “waiver” is only about the demonstration of compliance and should not be compromising the compliance as such. Hence, the airport in question and the competent authority should be sure that the specifications are respected.

EASA believes that the scope of necessary demonstration of compliance during the conversion process in the area of infrastructure should not be excessive.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  4
Vote down  1

ADR.5 To what extent will National Aviation Authorities be allowed to take into account the differing environments and location of aerodromes? And to what extent is flexibility possible?

There are altogether three important “flexibility tools” which can be applied in different situations:

The concept of the individual aerodrome Certification Basis (CB) includes the possible element of special conditions (SC), as described under ADR.AR.C.025 in annex II of Regulation (EC) No 139/2014. It gives the flexibility to the authority  to allow deviations from the European Certification Specifications when the aerodrome it is subject to topographical, physical or other limitations.

Additionally, the concept of the equivalent level of safety (ELOS), as described ADR.AR.C.020 (b) in annex II of Regulation (EC) No 139/2014, allows for technological solutions or alternatives to be introduced into the CB in lieu of complying with the applicable certification specification/s, under condition that the authority allows for an equivalent level of safety to be demonstrated. (see also GM ADR.AR.C.020(b))

Furthermore, the concept and instructions introduced by Art. 7 “Deviations from certification specifications” of Regulation (EC) No 139/2014 allow competent authorities until the end of 2024 to accept “legacy” deviations (i.e. deviations from the certification specifications which are pre-dating the coming into force of the rules, i.e. 6th March 2014) to continue as long as they cannot be captured with the aforementioned concepts,  are safety assessed and will undergo regular reviews to establish their continued legitimacy.  Such acceptances will be formalized in what is called a Deviations Acceptance and Action Document (DAAD). (see also question ADR6 below).

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  2
Vote down  0

ADR.6 What is the Deviation Acceptance and Action Document (DAAD) described in Art. 7 of Regulation 139/2014?

As a background it is useful to know that the Basic Regulation (BR) asked the Agency to provide solutions to deviations at existing aerodromes which Member States had already authorized before the entry into force of the BR and which stem from notified deviations from Annex 14 filed by the Member States to International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). The tool developed by the Agency to deal with such “legacy deviations” is found in Art. 7 “Deviations from certification specifications” of Regulation (EC) 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:
    1. 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;
    2. the deviations existed prior to the entry into force of this Regulation;
    3. 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;
    4. 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 in effect, that during either the conversion or the certification process all existing deviations at an aerodrome shall be reviewed or in case of conversion be compared with the new Certification Specifications (CS). Then in a next step all of those deviations that cannot be handled with the other flexibility tools provided (i.e. the Equivalent Level of Safety and Special Condition), and which predate 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.

Such a DAAD will have to describe the deviation, contain the outcomes of a safety assessment concerning the deviation and describe how the essential requirements of Annex Va to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 are nevertheless respected by the deviation, when supplemented by mitigating measures and corrective actions as appropriate.

It could also be that the Competent Authority includes an action plan for the removal of the deviation at some point in the future and the deviations should be regularly reviewed. After 2024 this possibility of a issuing a DAAD for newly certified aerodromes will no longer possible. However, when a DAAD is issued, there is no pre-defined expiry date. It is worth mentioning though that “validity period” must not necessarily be a temporal period. It can also be a traffic threshold or in relation to a change in the traffic mix or a condition where “fixing” a deviation is related to the next time when a piece of infrastructure is changed, renewed, re-furbished or maintained. It is up to the authority to decide.

 

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  4
Vote down  0

ADR.7 What will be the transition period for complying with the European rules and certification specifications?

In terms of transition the most important articles of Regulation (EC) No 139/ 2014 are Art. 6 “Conversion of certificates” and Art. 11 “Entry into force and application”. The following “deadlines” are set in these:

  • The conversion process of existing aerodrome certificates needs to be concluded by 31 December 2017 (see Art. 6 para. 1). At the point in time when an aerodrome obtains its new European based certificate (see Art. 11 para. 3), it needs to comply with the requirements in  Annex III and IV of Regulation (EC) No 139/ 2014 (ADR.OR and ADR.OPS rules).
  • Any aerodrome which at the point of coming into force of the new rules was in the process of being certified under national rules, was allowed to conclude this process by 31. December 2014. Now after this deadline has passed it canundergo the conversion of its certificate in accordance with Art. 6 and must have its certificate converted by 31 December 2017 (consequence of Art. 11 para. 4).
  • All aerodromes which did not hold a national aerodrome certificate before the coming into force of Regulation (EC) No 139/ 2014 (i.e. 6 March 2014) shall comply with the requirements in annex III and IV from the date of issuance of a certificate which is based the European rules.
  • After 6th March 2014 all new aerodromes or new infrastructure elements at an existing aerodromes shall be built to the certification specifications for aerodrome design and their aerodrome operators must comply with the requirements in annexes III and IV of Regulation (EC) No 139/ 2014 (this is the consequence of Art. 11).
  • The competent authorities themselves have until 31 December 2017 to comply with the authority requirements in annex II of Regulation (EC) No 139/ 2014 (see Art. 11 para. 2).
View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  3
Vote down  0

ADR.8 Would it be possible to first concentrate on the larger airports and deal with the regional airports/aerodromes later?

Yes. the Member States and their competent authorities are free to develop an internal plan at their discretion for conversion or issuance of new European based certificates.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  2
Vote down  0

ADR.9 Is it planned to have two different certificates, one for the aerodrome operator and one for the aerodrome infrastructure?

Based on the Basic Regulation and as detailed in ADR.AR.C.035 “Issuance of Certificates” under para (b) in annex II to Regulation (EC) No 139/2014 both options are possible.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  1
Vote down  0

ADR.10 Does the EASA certificate replace the ICAO certificate?

The future EASA-based certificate for European aerodromes shall only address the aerodrome safety part the former (ideally ICAO based) national certificate; as such it does not affect the non-safety related elements which may form part of such certificate/ permit/ license.

The EASA rules mirror the ICAO rule content 1:1, apart part from few exceptions about which EASA Member States are informed through the exercise called EFOD (Electronic Filing of Differences).

Moreover, it is at the discretion of the Member States to decide how to insert the new certificate into their own legal structure:  it may replace the former (safety) certificate or come in addition to it. By no means, however, should the insertion of the new certificate impair established privileges and legal finality of non-safety aspects. Recital 9 of Regulation (EC) No 139/2014 should be kept in mind:

(9) Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 only concerns aerodrome certificates to be issued by Competent Authorities in so far as safety aspects are concerned. Therefore, non-safety related aspects of existing national aerodrome certificates remain unaffected.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  0
Vote down  4

ADR.11 Is it the case that only Member State authorities undertake audits and issue certificates or is it planned that EASA will do such audits in the aerodrome domain, like those done by the EU Commission for aviation security?

After the beginning of 2018 EASA will only undertake standardisation visits to the Member States and their competent authorities covering the domain of aerodromes (similar to those in the area of continuing airworthiness). In the context of such a standardisation visit, some aerodromes  of the Member State in question may be visited to better understand the dealings between the authority and the aerodrome operator. However,  EASA would not raise findings against the aerodrome operator. Sole addressee of the visit remains the Member States and their authorities.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  2
Vote down  0

ADR.12 Safety Management System (SMS) for aerodrome operators: are the EASA rules regarding this area the same as those required by ICAO in Annex 19?

In line with ICAO Annex 19, the European rules for aerodromes require that aerodrome operators put  place and maintain a management system, which contains a system to manage safety (SMS). This reflects the need to integrate the various sub-systems used for the management of the different activities of an aerodrome organization (e.g. management of aeronautical data and related activities).

The relevant provisions on the management system of aerodrome operators may be found in the management requirements contained in Subpart D of Annex III of Regulation (EU) No 139/ 2014 (Part ADR.OR), as well as in the related acceptable means of compliance and guidance material. They reflect the Annex 19 requirements.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  5
Vote down  1

ADR.13 Is it planned to have a regulation for the design of heliports?

Yes, RMT.0638 Heliports (Certification requirements for VFR heliports located at an aerodrome) will be executed as part of the current EASA Rulemaking Program. Until these rules are in place, the respective national regulations are applicable. The future rules for heliports will reflect the planned changes to Annex 14, Vol. II, as EASA follows these developments closely.

For more information on this task visit the page Relevant legislation for Aerodromes.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  1
Vote down  0

ADR.14 The Basic Regulation under its Art. 8a 2(c) foresees the certification of safety-critical aerodrome equipment: Where can the implementing rules for this be found?

The question if there should be implementing measures for the certification of safety-critical Aerodrome Equipment is subject to continuing discussions, but nothing concrete is planned in the near future.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  3
Vote down  5

ADR.15 What are alternative means of compliance (AltMoC)?

Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 (in ARA.GEN.105), Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 (in its Annex I), Regulation (EU) No 139/2014 (in its Annex I), and Regulation (EU) 2015/340 (in its Article 4) define AltMoC as follows:

‘Alternative means of compliance’ mean those means that propose an alternative to an existing Acceptable Means of Compliance or those that propose new means to establish compliance with Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 and its Implementing Rules for which no associated AMC have been adopted by the Agency´.

Complementing the legal provisions, the Agency has developed further criteria that may be used to characterise an AltMoC:

  • It is technically different in character to the published EASA AMC;
  • A form included in EASA AMC is changed in layout or by adding/deleting fields;
  • A change of numbering, e.g. table of contents of the Operations Manual, is not per se an AltMoC, only if the order or numbering of whole chapters is changed (e.g. Chapter 7 becomes Chapter 8).

Editorial changes to an EASA AMC are not considered to constitute an AltMoC.

Please note that the above can only be a general guideline. Organisations and competent authorities may need to evaluate each case to establish if a means of compliance is an AltMoC.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  2
Vote down  1

ADR.16 When an implementing rule has no corresponding EASA AMC, does that mean that consequently any means of compliance an AltMoC?

We need to distinguish between new means of compliance proposed by competent authorities and those by organisations.

If the competent authority proposes a means of compliance for use by organisations, it is most likely an AltMoC. The reason is that the AltMoC might express expectations that need to be met by the regulated entities so as to establish rule compliance.

Conversely, if the competent authority establishes a means of compliance for itself (i.e. to Part-ARx) or an organisation proposes a means of compliance, it might be a description of an organisational process or standard operating procedure, implementing for example a prescriptive implementing rule. Process descriptions or detailed standard operating procedures reflecting the work of an individual entity are not per se AltMoC.

Nevertheless, the above can only be a general guideline. Organisations and competent authorities may need to evaluate each case to establish if a means of compliance is an AltMoC.

 

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  0
Vote down  1

ADR.17 What happens to current practices and authority approved means of compliance that were established before the entry into force of Regulations (EU) 1178/2011 and 965/2012 and which deviate from EASA AMC?

These means of compliances or practices might constitute an AltMoC. The transition periods to the new Regulations should be used to identify such issues. The organisation or competent authority need to assess these means of compliance and possibly submit them as AltMoC.

 

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  0
Vote down  0

ATCO licensing

How should the pages and the information in Item XIIa ‘Rating and endorsements with expiry date’ be arranged within the ATCO licence format?

Item XIIa ‘Ratings and endorsements with expiry dates’ could be arranged in two ways:

  • either by 1 table in landscape orientation – using 2 pages of 1/8 A4 (e.g. Pages 5 and 6); or
  • by 2 tables in portrait orientation – each of them rotated with the respective heading (e.g. Pages 5 and 6).
View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  0
Vote down  0

How should ratings and rating endorsements be linked together in the proposed licence format? There are two rating endorsements (Terminal Control (TCL) and Oceanic Control (OCN)) that can be attached either to the Approach Control Surveillance (APS) or the Area Control Surveillance (ACS) rating. The licence template establishes in point IX a place for ratings and another one for rating endorsements, with no link between these two. The question is how to differentiate between the two: to which rating (APS or ACS) corresponds each one of those rating endorsements (TCL or OCN)? Is it necessary at all to make the distinction?

The ‘pairing’ of the current rating(s) and rating endorsement(s) is visible in point XIIa, which lists the ratings and rating endorsements according to the unit endorsements. Apart from that, there is no need to distinguish further.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  2
Vote down  1

ATCOs who already hold a licence with an on-the-job training instructor (OJTI) endorsement according to Regulation (EU) No 805/2011, could they have their licence replaced to include the synthetic training device instructor (STDI) endorsement, with the same expiry dates?

ATCO.C.010 states that the OJTI endorsement entitles the person to also exercise the privileges of an STDI endorsement (that is, to provide practical training on Synthetic Training Devices (STDs). Thus, there is no need to introduce both endorsements simultaneously into the same licence, until the OJTI is valid. Once the OJTI endorsement cannot be exercised anymore, it can be exchanged into an STDI endorsement whose validity date shall correspond to the validity date of the original OJTI endorsement, until its next revalidation.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  9
Vote down  0

Is the same ‘practical instructional techniques course’ valid for obtaining/revalidating the OJTI/STDI licence endorsements?

The competences to be gained at the end of the practical instructional techniques course for the OJTI or STDI endorsement are the same (see AMC2 ATCO.D.090(a)(1)), but there may be differences in the assessment (see AMC1 ATCO.D.090(a)(3)) and there may also be natural differences between the courses themselves based on the applicants they are addressing.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  4
Vote down  0

How to deal with practical instructors employed at an initial training centre who no longer hold a medical certificate?

If the practical instructor was holding an OJTI endorsement, it can be exchanged for an STDI endorsement. If the practical instructor was holding an STDI endorsement though, there is no need for exchange.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  2
Vote down  0

How to issue a licence with STDI privileges for applicants not holding a licence and associated ratings issued in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 805/2011?

If the ratings are issued in accordance with Directive 2006/23/EC, they are ‘grandfathered’. Thus, a licence with an STDI endorsement could be issued to applicants who fulfil the provisions of ATCO.C.035. In order to exercise the privileges of the STDI endorsement, the holder has to demonstrate compliance with ATCO.C.030(b) including demonstrated knowledge of current operational practices.

If the ratings are issued earlier than the Directive, the competent authority would need to assess the equivalence between the old (ICAO?) ratings and the current ones. In the case where the applicant has not held a licence (because there were no licences in the Member State in question), the applicant would need to provide evidence for the working experience in the ATC domain in question and related training records to the competent authority, which would need to evaluate whether the applicant fulfils the requirements of ATCO.C.035.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  7
Vote down  0

Is there a requirement for an ATCO who holds an ACS rating to also hold an ACP rating?

No, there is no such explicit requirement in the Regulation. This depends on the service provided. If Air Traffic Control (ATC) is only provided with the use of surveillance equipment, there is no need for the ATCO to also hold the procedural rating, e.g. for applying vertical separation in emergency situations, this should be part of the ACS training. If the contingency plans also include procedures for service continuity by means of providing (limited) procedural ATC, a procedural rating should be required. It also needs to be taken into account what applies for the maintenance and revalidation of the unit endorsement.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  1
Vote down  0

It was explained at the ATCO Regulation Workshop in March 2015 that in the event of surveillance failure which results in having to switch to a procedural environment, once the failure is contained and the environment made safe, the provision of any further service would require an Approach Control Procedural (APP) or an Area Control Procedural (ACP) rating. What about if the unit or sector, operated in a rigid environment of 1 departure every 10 minutes, is to be handed over to a surveillance unit/sector and with no other traffic involved, would this be considered a requirement for the procedural rating?

As a rule of thumb, the provision of procedural ATC requires a procedural rating. It should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, e.g. whether procedural separation/clearances/procedures would be used.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  0
Vote down  0

The removal of the age limit from an ATCO licence is a difference against the ICAO Standards And Recommended Practices (SARPs). Are Member States required to file a difference to ICAO or has EASA already notified ICAO on behalf of Member States?

Filing of differences falls within the competence of the Member States, since EASA (or the EU) is not an ICAO member. EASA, however, prepares the Compliance Checklist for ICAO Annex 1 in relation to Regulation (EU) 2015/340, which will be communicated to the Member States via the network of the European National Continuous Monitoring Coordinators.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  6
Vote down  0

Initial Training Centre Assessors will be granted ‘grandfather rights’, according to Regulation (EU) 2015/340, with regard to the assessor endorsement. Shall this assessor privilege be endorsed on their licence?

Such privileges are not automatically ‘grandfathered’. It is up to the evaluation of the Member State how to convert the privileges of personnel acting as examiners or assessors for initial training (according to Regulation (EU) No 805/2011) into an assessor endorsement (according to Regulation (EU) 2015/340). Based on that evaluation, Member States may establish conversion requirements for this personnel in order to be issued with an assessor endorsement. The conversion shall be performed in accordance with the opt-out derogations.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  2
Vote down  0

Appendix 1 of Annex 2 is quite prescriptive as regards the content of the licence. It indicates that each page pf the licence shall be one-eighth A4 (first quality paper). Do we need to identify all the pages with numbers and do they all belong to the same piece of paper? For the optional item V (holder’s address), should we decide not to ask for it, can we delete line V from the licence?

The licence should ideally be one piece of paper of six pages (including the list of abbreviations). In this case, there is no need to identify the pages with numbers as the identification is done by the numbers of the columns (items). If the licence is printed on separate pages, the licence number and the date of issue, as well as page numbers, should be printed on each page. Item V (holder’s address) can be left empty, or it can be omitted from the licence, while still maintaining the layout of page 2.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  3
Vote down  0

Is it acceptable to have a licence with electronic elements, with the possibility for the ATCO to get the data via the Internet or by connecting the licence to a computer? Is a credit card format acceptable? If yes, can we have on the recto of the card the elements of page one, an on the verso the items of page 2? Is it compulsory to have all the permanent items displayed on the plastic card? Are there any EASA requirements for the font type and size, as well as the size of the card? For the signature of the holder, is it acceptable to use the signature on the application form and duplicate it on the licence (credit card format)?

The licence format, as set out in Regulation (EU) 2015/340, is developed in line with the specifications for personnel licences as required by ICAO Annex 1, and its purpose is to facilitate the recognition of licences at EU level. The means used to display the required information is left to the competent authorities. It should be either first quality paper and/or other suitable material, including plastic cards, which prevent or readily show any alterations or erasures. Any entries to or deletions from the form should be clearly authorised by the competent authority. The size of each page shall be one-eighth A4. There are no EASA requirements for the font type and size. Both the permanent and variable items shall be displayed on or as part of the licence. Only the variable items may appear on a separate or detachable part of the main form. The signature of the holder (as ‘permanent’ item) should appear on the ‘main part’ of the licence.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  0
Vote down  0

What does ‘national licence endorsement’ mean in GM1 ATCO.AR.D.001(c)?

Following Standardisation feedback, the Guidance Material in question has been introduced with the aim of allowing competent authorities to enter any additional licensing information deemed necessary, such as national licence endorsements and/or Radio-Telephony (R/T) licences. National licence endorsements may be issued for various reasons. They may convey additional information, according to national needs, but they are not subject to recognition at EU level. Such national licence endorsements may not limit or extend the privileges granted by the licence itself. It is important to note that they are not to be mistaken with national rating endorsements, which cannot be maintained according to Regulation (EU) 2015/340.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  3
Vote down  0

In case we have specimen of the new licences before issuing them, would EASA be in the position to verify whether they comply with the new requirements?

EASA would naturally advise competent authorities via various forms and fora on the implementation of the new requirements. However, the advance verification of licences not yet issued would not be in line with the shared competences in this domain and wouldn’t be compatible with the Agency’s task to conduct the standardisation inspections neither.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  0
Vote down  0

What are the assessor prerequisites for assessing applicant OJTIs and applicant assessors?

In order to assess for the purpose of the practical instructional techniques course for OJTIs/STDIs, the person shall hold an assessor endorsement and shall have 3 years’ OJTI/STDI experience. This means that only persons who have held at least an ATCO licence can perform such assessments. Currency is not a requirement. This is to ensure that the person in question is capable of maintaining safety during the assessment and capable of fully assessing the skills that are needed for the future OJTI in relation to maintaining safety. The human factor expert in the example may be the most appropriate person to deliver the course, but is not trained for assessing their applicants in the operational context and to verify the safety element to be possessed by the future OJTI.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  3
Vote down  0

ATCO.A.010 ‛Exchange of licence’ — Is this procedure valid also for the medical certificate?

No, there is no need to exchange the medical certificate. Medical certificates issued by any certified aero-medical examiner (AME)/ aero-medical centre (AeMC) are mutually recognised. Please, refer to GM1 ATCO.A.010 ‛Recognition of licences and certificates’.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  1
Vote down  0

ATCO.AR.D.001(a)(2) ...authorisation for assessors... — Does this mean that the competent authority shall specifically approve the assessors who will renew and revalidate unit endorsements?

It is up to the competent authority to decide whether they want to delegate this task to (certain) assessors. If they do, a procedure has to be established and the assessors have to be specifically authorised for the task.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  2
Vote down  0

Radio-telephony — I cannot find any provisions in Regulation (EU) 2015/340 requiring ATCOs to hold a radio-telephony certificate in order to be able to provide Air Traffic Services (ATS). There is also nothing on this in the licence form.

There are no requirements in Regulation (EU) 2015/340 for a radio-telephony licence. These requirements stem from the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and are dealt with at national level. However, in accordance with GM1 ATCO.AR.D.001(c), there is the possibility for the competent authority to include the radio-telephony licence in point XIII of the licence format, if they so wish.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  5
Vote down  0

It is still unclear whether training for a rating endorsement is initial training or unit training. Is it up to the competent authority to decide? If training for a rating endorsement is considered to be initial training, does the ATS unit providing the training need to be certified for initial training?

Training for rating endorsements can be both initial training and unit training (see ATCO.D.005(a)(1) and (2)). It is up to the training organisation to define the training and include it either in the initial training plan or as part of a unit endorsement course, both of which have to be approved by the competent authority. If the training for a rating endorsement is provided by an ATS unit as part of a unit endorsement course, the ATS unit (Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP)) has to be certified in order to provide training relevant to the rating endorsement in question. The type of training and the rating endorsement, for which the training is provided, shall be indicated to the competent authority when applying for the training organisation certificate (see ATCO.OR.B.001(c)(5)) and shall also be marked on the training organisation’s certificate according to the template provided in Appendix 2 of Annex II.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  2
Vote down  0

ATCO.D.015(f) ‛Initial training plan’ - What does this paragraph mean?

As the provision ATCO.D.010(b), referenced in ATCO.D.015(f), explicitly refers to ‛training for an additional rating’, the initial training plan shall include the description of a process to permit an applicant who has successfully completed initial training (therefore holding a student ATCO licence or an ATCO licence) to join an initial training course only for the rating training course therein, to achieve one or more additional ratings. This provision is relevant in particular in the case of integrated initial training courses, which are established in accordance with ATCO.D.020(a) and (b).

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  1
Vote down  0

Is it possible for ANSPs to provide training (e.g. transitional, pre-OJT, OJT, and continuation training) when having ‘training’ marked on its ANSP certificate without being certified as an ATCO training organisation?

With the new ATCO Regulation (EU) 2015/340 and the introduction of the ATCO TO certificate template, the possibility according to Article 27(3) of Regulation (EU) No 805/2011 stating that ‘The certificate may be issued for each type of training or in combination with other air navigation services, whereby the type of training and the type of air navigation service shall be certified as a package of services’ is not anymore valid.

Furthermore, it is important to note that according to Article 8(2) of Regulation (EU) 2015/340 the certificates for air traffic controller training organisations shall be replaced with certificates complying with the format laid down in Appendix 2 of Annex II to said Regulation, and for the new applicants according to ATCO.AR.E.001(b), if the applicant training organisation fulfils the applicable requirements, the competent authority shall issue a certificate using the format established in Appendix 2 of Annex II.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  2
Vote down  1

Should an STDI endorsement be issued for an OJTI who is no longer competent? In such case, is there a possibility for a temporary issue of the STDI endorsement or can the OJTI endorsement be retained on the licence if it is anticipated that the OJTI would regain competency?

ATCO.C.010 states that the OJTI endorsement entitles the person to also exercise the privileges of an STDI endorsement (that is, to provide practical training on Synthetic Training Devices (STDs)). Thus, there is no need to introduce both endorsements simultaneously into the licence during the validity of the OJTI endorsement. Once the OJTI endorsement cannot be exercised, it can be exchanged into an STDI endorsement, for which the validity date shall correspond to the validity date of the original OJTI endorsement, until its next revalidation.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  0
Vote down  0

Should an STDI endorsement be issued for an OJTI when the medical certificate has been withdrawn?

Yes, provided that the ATCO fulfils the requirements set out in ATCO.C.035 ‘Application for STDI endorsement’, or ATCO.C.040 ‘Validity of STDI endorsement’.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  1
Vote down  0

Should an STDI endorsement be issued for an OJTI when the person has not successfully completed an OJTI training course, but has successfully completed a training course for the STDI endorsement?

The competences to be gained at the end of the practical instructional techniques course for the OJTI or STDI endorsement are the same (see AMC2 ATCO.D.090(a)(1)), but there may be differences in the assessment (see AMC1 ATCO.D.090(a)(3)) and there may also be natural differences between the courses themselves based on the applicants they are addressing.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  1
Vote down  0
Back to top

Third Country Operators (TCO)

Third Country Operators - General

How will EU-OPS provisions on code-sharing interact with Part-TCO?

Holding a TCO authorisation alone is not sufficient in complying with the code-share requirements of Regulation (EU) No 965/2012. The code-share provisions apply in addition to the requirements of Part-TCO because they involve EU rules as well as ICAO standards. A third country operator code-sharing with an EU carrier will be subject to the requirements of both [ORO.AOC.115/ARO.OPS.105] and related AMC, and will be obliged to undergo comprehensive audits for the initial verification of compliance and continuous compliance with the applicable ICAO Standards [AMC1 ORO.AOC.115(a)(1)]. These audits can be performed either by the EU operator itself or by a third party provider [AMC2 ORO.AOC.115(b)], which refers to the possibility of using industry standards such as IOSA. The audit will focus on the operational, management and control systems of the TCO [AMC1 ORO.AOC.115(a)(1)]. Continuous compliance of the code-sharing TCO with the applicable ICAO Standards will be performed on the basis of a code-share audit programme [AMC1 ORO.AOC.115(b)].

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  20
Vote down  2

Are any fees anticipated for the TCO authorisation?

No fees are foreseen in the TCO authorisation process.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  12
Vote down  3

How is the economic aspect of the approval (commercial traffic rights - air services agreement) split from the EASA Safety oversight element?

EASA TCO will only take over the safety-related part of foreign operator assessment. Operating permits will continue to be issued by Member States. To this end, EASA becomes a service provider for its Member States in order to run safety assessments. EASA will not (and cannot) issue operating permits (commercial traffic rights). These remain an area of national responsibility. A valid TCO authorisation will be a mandatory prerequisite, in the absence of which an operating permit cannot be issued by a Member State.

Note: During the transition period Member States are still entitled to perform safety assessments on those operators which have not yet been processed by EASA (under Part-TCO).

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  9
Vote down  0

How long should we expect the process to take for the initial TCO authorisation?

Part-TCO foresees a transition period of 30 months, which started on 26th May 2014. During the first 6 months of this transition period all operators previously flying to the EU territories were required to file an application for a TCO authorisation with EASA. During the remaining 24 months of the transition period, which ends on 26November 2016, EASA is prioritising and processing the applications received.

It is at discretion of the Agency at what point in time during the transition period the application is processed. It is not necessary to ask EASA about the status of the application. EASA will approach the applicant in due course. The operator must ensure that its data submitted via the TCO we-interface is current at all times, in particular with respect to fleet information.

If the operator was previously flying to the EU territories and the application was submitted during the first 6 months of the transition period, your application will be processed before the 26th Nov 2016. If the operator was not previously flying to the EU territories the file will also be processed at discretion of the Agency.

An operator who was previously flying to Europe and has missed the deadline to apply for a TCO authorisation, can still submit an application. However, EASA cannot guarantee that the file will be processed before the transition period ends.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  16
Vote down  2

Will approvals obtained in the field of aviation security (e.g., ACC3) be considered in the TCO Authorisation process?

No. TCO is a flight safety (not aviation security) assessment. To this end, TCO addresses security-related issues only to the extent that these are relevant to flight safety and part of an ICAO standard applicable to air operators pursuant to ICAO Annex 6 (e.g., CCTV, reinforced cockpit door, etc.). ACC3 is subject to a separate EU regulation that is unrelated with the TCO regulation.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  9
Vote down  2

Applicability

Is a TCO authorisation required by Business Aviation Operators?

It depends. If you perform commercial air transport under an Air Operator Certificate (AOC) (operating aircraft for hire to transport passengers or cargo), then the answer is yes. If you file flight plans using the flight types “N” or “S” then you are conducting commercial air transport operations and must hold a TCO authorisation issued by EASA in order to operate to the EU.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  24
Vote down  0

We are a U.S. Part-91 operator. Are we subject to a TCO authorisation?

The FAA has published detailed information with respect to Part-91 operations in the form of an Advisory Circular (AC 91-84). Here, detailed conditions are listed including explanations on when an operator should be classified as Part-91 (General Aviation) or not. For operations performed strictly within the classification of Part-91 EASA will not require an authorisation under Part-TCO.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  13
Vote down  0

I plan to fly commercially from the Middle East to North America and I want to fly over Europe without landing. Is a TCO authorisation required?

No. A TCO authorisation is not required for merely flying over Europe.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  11
Vote down  1

I plan to fly commercially from the Middle East to North America and a technical fuel stop is required at a European airport. Is a TCO authorisation required?

Yes. A TCO authorisation is required for all commercial air transport flights to/from European airports (including certain EU overseas territories).

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  14
Vote down  2

I plan to fly from a non-EU departure airport to a non-EU destination airport and I intend to file a destination alternate airport in the territory of an EASA Member State. Can I do this without holding a TCO authorisation?

Yes. A third country operator can file an airport located in the territory of an EASA Member State as an alternate airport without holding a TCO authorisation.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  11
Vote down  0

We are a U.S. Part-135 operator. Do I need to hold an authorisation if I intend flying commercially to Europe?

Yes. Part-TCO is fully applicable to U.S. Part-135 operators.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  8
Vote down  1

Do non-scheduled charter operators need a TCO authorisation?

The European TCO authorisation regime does not differentiate between scheduled and non-scheduled commercial air transport operations. All commercial air transport air operators will need to apply for a TCO authorisation. However, in the case of unforeseen/emergency circumstances there is a possibility to start operations to the EU based on a one-off notification without already being issued a TCO authorisation. However, an application for TCO authorisation must be submitted within ten (10) days of such notification. Note: Initiating an operation using the one-off notification procedure is limited to justifiable requirements, a maximum of six (6) consecutive weeks and can be used by every operator only once within a 24 month period. Operators with a potential need of operating to the EU at some time in the near future are advised to apply for a TCO authorisation in due course, even when the date of operations is unknown.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  8
Vote down  0

I have an operation in the Middle East but with no plans to fly commercially to Europe. However, our maintenance facility is located in Europe. Will I need a TCO authorisation when flying there?

No. As long as these flights to and from the maintenance facility are non-commercial (ferry flights).

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  6
Vote down  0

I run a helicopter operation and I am frequently involved in aerial work in Europe. Do I have to apply for a TCO authorisation in order to do this?

No. Aerial work does not fall under Part-TCO. For activities which do not fall under Commercial Air Transport, as covered in ICAO Annex 6, operators have to apply for permission with the concerned Member State.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  5
Vote down  0

My operation is currently subject to an operating ban in accordance with the EU Air Safety List (Reg. (EC) No 2111/2005). Can I apply for a TCO authorisation? What process will be involved and what could be the potential outcome?

Operators who are subject to an operating ban or restriction in accordance with Reg. (EC) No 2111/2005 are eligible to apply for a TCO authorisation. The authorisation process will normally require that an audit be performed at the operational premises of the operator. Once EASA has finished its assessment it will present the results to the European Commission for consideration. EASA cannot issue an authorisation until and unless the European Commission has lifted the operating ban under the Safety List regulation. Note: When the operator is subject to an operating ban due to the State of the Operator not performing adequate oversight, EASA must coordinate with the European Commission before processing the application for a TCO authorisation.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  12
Vote down  0

I plan to wet lease one of my aircraft to an EU operator. The operations will be performed under my AOC, with my crew and under my full operational responsibility. Do I need a TCO authorisation?

Yes and in addition to this the European requirements for leasing, as laid down in Reg. (EC) No 965/2012, apply.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  13
Vote down  1

Could you specify for these three cases if the lessor must have a TCO authorisation ? Case 1: A third country operator (lessee) uses an aircraft wet leased-in from an EU carrier (lessor) operating flights under the AOC of the lessor, using the flight number of the third-country operator.

The lessor (EU carrier) does not need a TCO authorisation.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  4
Vote down  2

Could you specify for these three cases if the lessor must have a TCO authorisation ? Case 2: A third country operator (lessee) uses an aircraft wet leased-in from a non-EU carrier operating flights under the AOC of the lessor, using the flight number of the third-country operator.

The lessor (non-EU carrier) needs a TCO authorisation.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  2
Vote down  0

Could you specify for these three cases if the lessor must have a TCO authorisation ? Case 3: Dry leased aircraft

The aircraft lessor does not need a TCO authorisation. Rule of thumb: the operator (except EU-operators) having the dry-leased aircraft mentioned on its AOC needs a TCO authorisation.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  4
Vote down  0

Which elements of EU operating rules are applicable to air carriers certified in a State other than that of an EASA Member State (third country operators)?

Third country operators intending to perform commercial air transport operations (in, out or within the Community) are subject to Part-TCO. In addition, they must comply with the Standardised European Rules of the Air (SERA) and Airspace Usage Requirements (AUR). The State Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP), the Single European Sky (SES) implementing rules and in particular the Interoperability rules also apply. There are other Regulations under the responsibility of the European Commission. Some examples of these follow:

  • Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1206/2011 of 22 November 2011;
  • Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1207/2011 of 22 November 2011;
  • Commission Regulation (EC) No 29/2009 of 16 January 2009;
  • Commission Regulation (EC) No 1265/2007 of 26 October 2007;
  • Commission Decision C(2011)2611. (CPDL exemption)
  • Commission Regulation (EC) No 1332/2011 (ACAS II 7.1 and traffic avoidance procedures)
  • Noise: Council Directive 80/51/EEC of 20 December 1979 and Directive 14/1992.
View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  5
Vote down  0

We are a U.S. 14 CFR Part 125 Operator. Do we need a TCO Authorisation issued by EASA for operations to EU territories?

No. You are not subject to TCO Authorisation, because an FAA Part 125 Operating Certificate is not an Air Operator Certificate (AOC) as defined in ICAO Annex 6, Part I. An ICAO-compliant AOC is required for commercial air transport operations to EU territories. You may conduct non-commercial, general aviation flights to EU territories in line with provisions stipulated in the AIP of the State of destination. Make sure the type of flight is correctly denoted in item no. 8 of the ATS flight plan (‘G’ for general aviation).

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  4
Vote down  2

Do AOC holders certified by an EASA MS need to apply for a TCO Authorisation?

AOC holders certified by an EASA MS or associated States (Switzerland, Iceland, …) are not eligible for TCO.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  2
Vote down  1

Are there any territories related to the EU to which a third country operator can fly without holding a TCO authorisation?

A third country operator can fly to the following territories without holding a TCO authorisation:

  • Greenland and Faroe Islands
  • Channel Islands
  • French Polynesia
  • French Southern & Antarctic Territories
  • New Caledonia and Dependencies
  • Wallis and Futuna Islands
  • Saint Pierre and Miquelon
  • Aruba
  • Bonaire
  • Curaçao
  • Saba
  • Saint Eustatius
  • Saint Maarten
  • Anguilla
  • Cayman Islands
  • Falkland Islands
  • South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
  • Montserrat
  • Pitcairn
  • Saint Helena and Dependencies
  • British Antarctic Territory
  • British Indian Ocean Territory
  • Turks and Caicos Islands
  • British Virgin Islands
  • Bermuda
View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  6
Vote down  0

My principle place of business (POB) is in an EU overseas territory which is not listed in the scope of Commission Regulation (EU) 452/2014. Do I need a TCO authorisation to fly to territories which are in the scope of Commission Regulation (EU) 452/2014 ?

Yes a TCO authorisation is required, if your principle place of business (POB) is in one of the following territories:

  • Greenland and Faroe Islands
  • Channel Islands
  • French Polynesia
  • French Southern & Antarctic Territories
  • New Caledonia and Dependencies
  • Wallis and Futuna Islands
  • Saint Pierre and Miquelon
  • Aruba
  • Bonaire
  • Curaçao
  • Saba
  • Saint Eustatius
  • Saint Maarten
  • Anguilla
  • Cayman Islands
  • Falkland Islands
  • South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
  • Montserrat
  • Pitcairn
  • Saint Helena and Dependencies
  • British Antarctic Territory
  • British Indian Ocean Territory
  • Turks and Caicos Islands
  • British Virgin Islands
  • Bermuda

Exception: If your POB is in one of these territories, but the AOC was issued by an EU Member State, then no TCO authorisation is required.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  3
Vote down  2

Applications

We have applied for TCO. Can we continue to operate until EASA’s completion of our TCO authorisation?

During the transition period, which ends on 26 November 2016, TCOs can continue to operate on the grounds that the TCO holds a Commercial traffic right issued by the corresponding Member State (See the next Q&A). However you should take into account that the transition period for an operator ends the moment EASA has taken a decision on its application.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  6
Vote down  0

General considerations

The interplay between EASA and the Member States, during the transition phase, is explained in Article 4 paragraph 2 of the Commission Regulation (EU)  No 452/2014 laying down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to air operations of third country operators (TCO).

It is important to note that the TCO authorisation, issued by EASA, is a technical authorisation which only replaces technical/safety investigations performed by EASA Member States as part of their process to grant operating permits for commercial operations. This technical authorisation issued by EASA will become a mandatory prerequisite when applying for a Commercial traffic rights with any EASA Member State. Commercial traffic rights will continue to be issued by Member States in the future.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  5
Vote down  0

What information will an air carrier be required to supply during the initial TCO application process besides evidence of a current AOC and Operations Specifications?

The operator will be required to fill-in an electronic questionnaire. As a minimum requirement the operator must upload the air operator certificate, operations specifications, certificate of incorporation or similar document and the airworthiness certificates (of all aircraft to be used for flights to Europe) to a dedicated web-based EASA software application. The Agency may request any other relevant documentation as specified in TCO.300.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  8
Vote down  2

Can you explain the steps involved in the process, beginning with how the carrier should initiate contact to apply, through to the issuance of the TCO authorisation?

1. The operator should follow the process on the EASA website. EASA will publish the necessary details in order to begin the application process in suitable time. 2. Once EASA has received an application, and the eligibility is confirmed, the operator will receive log-on credentials to the dedicated web-based TCO software application. This serves as the primary means of communication throughout the process. 3. After EASA has received the filled-in online questionnaire it will decide if further in-depth assessment is necessary and inform the applicant accordingly. 4. As soon as the assessment is completed, and a positive decision is taken, the operator will receive its TCO authorisation document and associated technical specifications.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  9
Vote down  0

Where do I find the TCO application form?

The form "Application for Third Country Operators Authorisation" will be made available on our website, together with other EASA Application Forms -> http://easa.europa.eu/document-library/application-forms. The Form will be made available here on the EASA website after the entry into force of Part-TCO (expected on the 26/05/2014). You should then either scroll down to the subchapter "TCO Authorisation" or use the search filters. The name of this form is "Application for Third Country Operator Authorisation (TCO Authorisation)" and the number is FO.TCO.00160-001.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  3
Vote down  0

How can I submit my application form?

You can send it

  • by email to tco [dot] applications [at] easa [dot] europa [dot] eu;
  • by fax to +49 (0)221 89990 4461; or
  • by regular mail to the following address:

    European Aviation Safety Agency
    Applications and Procurement Services Department
    Postfach 10 12 53 D-50452
    Köln, Germany

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  2
Vote down  0

What happens after I have submitted my application to EASA?

1. Upon receipt of your application, EASA will send you a "notification of application receipt". 2. Once your application has been found to be administratively eligible you will receive a "notification of application acceptance". This includes a summary of the data you have provided on the application and the TCO Code that has been allocated to you.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  2
Vote down  0

What is the "TCO Code" that I have been allocated?

The TCO Code is a unique identifier composed of a 3-letter code (corresponding to your country) and a 4-digit sequential number.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  3
Vote down  0

How do I submit my technical data?

Once your application has been accepted we will provide you with a personal login and password that will allow you access to the EASA TCO web-interface. This will allow you to start the technical part of the authorisation process. At this stage you will be requested to submit the technical data package and any related additional information as requested.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  4
Vote down  0

How do I get access to the EASA TCO web-interface?

Upon reception of the TCO application, credentials (Login and password) will be provided to the TCO contact person by Email, together with the link to the EASA TCO web-interface.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  3
Vote down  0

What are the technical requirements needed to access the EASA TCO web interface?

The EASA TCO web-interface runs on all major internet browsers :

To use the EASA TCO web-interface your browser must support JAVA script and SSL (Secure Sockets Layer) in order to secure confidential communication.In order to correctly view and complete the application forms on the TCO web-interface you must have Adobe® Reader® (version 8 or higher) installed on your computers. This can be downloaded free-of-charge from http://www.adobe.com.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  3
Vote down  0

Who has access to the EASA TCO web-interface?

The person who has been explicitly nominated as contact point in the EASA form "Application for Third Country Operators Authorisation" will be the air operator’s Master User for the TCO web-interface. This Master User will be able to register and manage additional Users within his or her organisation. For further details please refer to the Terms of Use of the TCO web-interface, available on the EASA website.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  4
Vote down  0

How do I get my official Authorisation?

Once your technical data has been reviewed and processed (and the outcome is positive) you will receive the official EASA TCO authorisation document. This is valid subject to the conditions specified in the associated technical specifications (published electronically).

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  3
Vote down  0

Where can I find the TCO technical specifications associated with my TCO authorisation?

The latest TCO technical specifications associated with your TCO authorisation will be available on-line on the TCO web-interface.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  4
Vote down  1

What is the "TCO Authorisation number" mentioned on the TCO Authorisation?

The TCO Authorisation number (example: EASA.TCO.ABC-0567.01) is the official number of the authorisation document and is composed as follows: - EASA.TCO specifying the type of official EASA document - ABC-0567 corresponding to your TCO Code (unique identifier allocated to you upon application) - 01 the version of your authorisation

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  3
Vote down  0

How long should an application for TCO authorisation be submitted before the starting date of operation?

Although TCO.300 (b)(1) requires at least 30 days before the intended starting date of operation, it is highly recommended that you submit the application well in advance of the intended operation. This will allow for sufficient lead time as the Agency, under ART.200(b), might need to extend the assessment period in order to conduct further assessments.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  3
Vote down  0

Will Member States or EASA be responsible for the authorisation of an operator for low visibility operations (LVO)?

When an operator receives the TCO authorisation from EASA the authorisation will be accompanied by technical specifications associated to the authorisation. These technical specifications will contain the scope of the operations authorised in the EU, e.g. LVO, EDTO, PBN, DG. EASA will only authorise an operator for special operations (such as LVO) when the operator is certified for this operation by its competent authority. In other words, the scope of the TCO authorisation can never exceed the scope of operations approved in the underlying AOC issued by the competent authority of the operator.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  3
Vote down  0

Is there any effect on an operator who applies for a TCO if an EASA Member State is not ICAO compliant with a specific ICAO standard (and has notified a difference accordingly)?

In order to be authorised, an operator must comply with all relevant ICAO standards, unless covered by either a) or b) below. a) For reasons of equal treatment, EASA will not require compliance with those ICAO standards for which any EASA Member State has filed a difference to ICAO. b) EASA publishes a list of standards for which mitigating measures can be accepted, should the State of Operator have filed a difference to ICAO. In this case, the operator must demonstrate to EASA that the mitigating measure provides for an equivalent level of safety and that the operator has fully implemented to these mitigating measures for operations to the EU. For all other cases which do not fall under a) or b) the operator needs to demonstrate compliance with the standard. This is regardless of a difference that may have been filed by the State in which the operator is certified.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  2
Vote down  0

With respect to the “Alternative means of Compliance” provision in TCO.105(a), can we deviate from an ICAO standard if we submit a risk assessment to the Agency?

No. Alternative means of compliance cannot be used to establish compliance with ICAO standards (ref. Guidance Material GM1 TCO.105).

TCO.105 (a) solely refers to the situation where an operator intends to deviate from so called Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC). Currently, EASA has published only three AMC provisions related to Part-TCO, namely AMC1 TCO.105(a), AMC1 TCO.200(b) and AMC1 TCO.210. If the operator is compliant with these three, then TCO.105 is not applicable.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  2
Vote down  0