Definition of remote maintenance supervision was updated by FAA. Any idea about EASA?
Comments (9)
please add the FAA definition
Interesting. If adopted in EASA this will mean that engineers may have to travel in pairs across the globe instead of working alone and sending pictures / videos of the work done?
engineers (authorized person/ certifyng staff) didn't need remote supervision. mechanics not AP or CS will need supervision.. EASA didn't detailed if yes and how applicable remote supervision. Personally never imagine to accept remote supervision (pictures), for example,, for an engine change.
Hi Diomiro, thank you for sharing your perspective.
You bring up a very important distinction—between certifying staff (or APs) and mechanics who require supervision. I completely agree that, under current EASA regulations, certifying staff are fully authorized to work independently, so remote supervision wouldn't typically apply to them.
As for non-certifying personnel, you're right—EASA hasn’t explicitly defined how remote supervision should be applied, if at all. The lack of clear guidance creates uncertainty, especially when we talk about high-stakes tasks like an engine change. Using just photos or video for oversight in such cases raises valid safety and accountability concerns.
It would be helpful if EASA clarified whether remote supervision could ever be considered acceptable, and under what conditions. Perhaps it could be limited to specific low-risk tasks with strict procedures in place, but for now, I agree with your caution, especially when safety-critical work is involved.
Curious to hear if others have seen any internal practices or interpretations being developed around this.
Thank you for bringing this up. It's a very relevant topic, especially given the growing trend toward digital oversight and remote technologies in maintenance.
While the FAA has indeed updated its definition of remote maintenance supervision, EASA's stance is still developing in this area. As of now, EASA has not published a formal or dedicated definition that directly mirrors the FAA's recent updates. However, remote supervision practices may still fall under existing Continuing Airworthiness and Part-145 requirements, especially regarding accountability, competence, and oversight of contracted activities.
It will be interesting to see if EASA introduces clearer guidance or amendments in the near future to align with evolving industry practices. In the meantime, operators and maintenance organizations should ensure that any form of remote supervision complies with current EASA regulations, especially in terms of traceability, responsibility, and oversight.
Has anyone come across internal guidance or been part of an audit where this topic was discussed in the EASA context?
I worked years in an european airline and I remember that in US airports we used FAA maintenance organizations, so also FAA standard could be important for EU Countries. I strongly hope that EASA will provide guidance soon for the Industry. At least for Critical Items, ETOPS aircraft, Engine Change, AD and many other examples.
This new guidance could be used also by the Supporting staff in Base maintenance monitoring the mechanics.. .
Due to some of the remarks in this thread I rudely assume that most of the respondents are crew and not engineers.
To be clear. For all airlines (in the western hemisphere as far as I know) all Component changes involving flight controls or engines, fuel or landing gear and other systems require independent and stage checks during and after that work. The need for independent checks is catered for at the call-up for each individual task.
Some operators, not just airlines, have practiced using video calls to conduct remote inspections instead of in person observations and the aim of the FAA decision is to enforce the use of actual in person attendance at the work site.
Be aware that some airlines may also authorise particular flight crew to conduct those inspections too rather than send an engineer across the world for a 1-hour task.
Thanks for your clarification. I operate in EASA Countries and I know the new technologies could be useful. That's why I think a clarification from EASA could be necessary
Please log in or sign up to comment.
With a letter of interpretation FAA clarified that the term "in person" in Part 43-Maintenance Regulation means that remote supervision of aircraft maintenance is forbidden