Regulation (EU) 2015/1536
(a) For licenced air carriers in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 the competent authority shall receive for approval with the initial application for the air operator's certificate and where applicable any variation applied for and for each aircraft type to be operated:
1. the continuing airworthiness management exposition;
2. the operator's aircraft maintenance programmes;
3. the aircraft technical log;
4. where appropriate the technical specification of the maintenance contracts between the CAMO and Part-145 approved maintenance organisation.
(b) Where facilities are located in more than one Member State the investigation and continued oversight of the approval shall be carried out in conjunction with the competent authorities designated by the Member States in whose territory the other facilities are located.
ED Decision 2016/011/R
1. The documents listed in M.B.701(a) points (1), (2) and (3) may require approval. Draft documents should be submitted at the earliest opportunity so that assessment of the application can begin. Grant or change cannot be effected until the competent authority has received the completed documents. This information is required to enable the competent authority to conduct its assessment in order to determine the volume of oversight work necessary and the locations at which it will be accomplished.
2. If considered appropriate for the assessment, the competent authority may request that at the time of initial application or change of the approval schedule the CAMO applicant provides a copy of the technical specifications of the contracts with Part-145 organisations to demonstrate that arrangements are in place for all base and scheduled line maintenance for an appropriate period of time.
Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014
(a) Provided the requirements of points M.A.706(a), (c), (d) and M.A.707 are complied with, the competent authority shall formally indicate its acceptance of the M.A.706(a), (c), (d) and M.A.707 personnel to the applicant in writing.
(b) The competent authority shall establish that the procedures specified in the continuing airworthiness management exposition comply with Section A, Subpart G of this Annex (Part-M) and ensure the accountable manager signs the commitment statement.
(c) The competent authority shall verify the organisation's compliance with requirements laid down in Section A, Subpart G of this Annex (Part-M).
(d) A meeting with the accountable manager shall be convened at least once during the investigation for approval to ensure that he/she fully understands the significance of the approval and the reason for signing the exposition commitment of the organisation to compliance with the procedures specified in the continuing airworthiness management exposition.
(e) All findings shall be confirmed in writing to the applicant organisation.
(f) The competent authority shall record all findings, closure actions (actions required to close a finding) and recommendations.
(g) For initial approval all findings shall be corrected by the organisation and closed by the competent authority before the approval can be issued.
AMC M.B.702(a) Initial approval
ED Decision 2015/029/R
1. ‘Formally indicate in writing’ means that an EASA Form 4 (Appendix X to AMC M.B.602(a) and AMC M.B.702(a)) should be used for this activity. With the exception of the accountable manager, an EASA Form 4 should be completed for each person nominated to hold a position required by M.A.706(c), (d) and M.A.707.
2. In the case of the accountable manager, approval of the continuing airworthiness management exposition containing the accountable manager’s signed commitment statement constitutes formal acceptance, once the authority has held a meeting with the accountable manager and is satisfied with its results.
AMC M.B.702(b) Initial approval
ED Decision 2016/011/R
1. The competent authority should indicate approval of the continuing airworthiness management exposition in writing.
2. Contracts for sub-contracting continuing airworthiness management tasks by CAMOs should be included in the continuing airworthiness organisation exposition. The competent authorities should verify that the standards set forth in AMC M.A.711(a)(3) have been met when approving the exposition.
3. The competent authority while investigating the acceptability of the proposed subcontracted continuing airworthiness management tasks arrangements will take into account, in the subcontracted organisation, all other such contracts that are in place irrespective of state of registry in terms of sufficiency of resources, expertise, management structure, facilities and liaison between the CAMO, the subcontracted organisation and, where applicable, the contracted maintenance organisation(s).
AMC M.B.702(c) Initial approval
ED Decision 2015/029/R
1. The competent authority should determine by whom, and how the audit shall be conducted. For example, it will be necessary to determine whether one large team audit or a short series of small team audits or a long series of single man audits are most appropriate for the particular situation.
2. The audit may be carried out on a product line type basis. For example, in the case of an organisation with Airbus A320 and Airbus A310 ratings, the audit is concentrated on one type only for a full compliance check. Dependent upon the result, the second type may only require a sample check that should at least cover the activities identified as weak for the first type.
3. When determining the scope of the audit and which activities of the organisation will be assessed during the audit, the privileges of the approved organisation should be taken into account, e.g. approval to carry out airworthiness reviews.
4. The competent authority auditing surveyor should always ensure that he/she is accompanied throughout the audit by a senior technical member of the organisation. Normally this is the quality manager. The reason for being accompanied is to ensure the organisation is fully aware of any findings during the audit.
5. The auditing surveyor should inform the senior technical member of the organisation at the end of the audit visit on all findings made during the audit.
AMC M.B.702(e) Initial approval
ED Decision 2015/029/R
1. Findings should be recorded on an audit report form with a provisional categorisation as a level 1 or 2. Subsequent to the audit visit that identified the particular findings, the competent authority should review the provisional finding levels, adjusting them if necessary and change the categorisation from ‘provisional’ to ‘confirmed’.
2. All findings should be confirmed in writing to the applicant organisation within 2 weeks of the audit visit.
3. There may be occasions when the competent authority finds situations in the applicant's organisation on which it is unsure about compliance. In this case, the organisation should be informed about possible non-compliance at the time and the fact that the situation will be reviewed within the competent authority before a decision is made. If the review concludes that there is no finding then a verbal confirmation to the organisation will suffice.
AMC M.B.702(f) Initial approval
ED Decision 2015/029/R
1. The audit report form should be the EASA Form 13 (Appendix VII).
2. A quality review of the EASA Form 13 audit report should be carried out by a competent independent person nominated by the competent authority. The review should take into account the relevant paragraphs of M.A. Subpart G, the categorisation of finding levels and the closure action taken. Satisfactory review of the audit form should be indicated by a signature on the EASA Form 13.
AMC M.B.702(g) Initial approval
ED Decision 2015/029/R
The audit reports should include the date each finding was cleared together with reference to the competent authority report or letter that confirmed the clearance.
Regulation (EU) 2020/270
(a) The competent authority shall issue to the applicant an EASA Form 14-MG approval certificate (Appendix VI to this Annex) which includes the extent of approval, when the continuing airworthiness management organisation is in compliance with Section A, Subpart G of this Annex (Part-M).
(b) The competent authority shall indicate the validity of the approval on the EASA Form 14‑MG approval certificate.
(c) The reference number shall be included on the Form 14‑MG approval certificate in a manner specified by the Agency.
(d) In the case of licenced air carriers in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008, the information contained on an EASA Form 14‑MG will be included on the air operator's certificate.
ED Decision 2015/029/R
The table shown for the Approval Schedule in EASA Form 14 includes a field designated as ‘Aircraft type/series/group’
The intention is to give maximum flexibility to the competent authority to customise the approval to a particular organisation.
Possible alternatives to be included in this field are the following:
A specific type designation that is part of a type certificate, such as Airbus 340-211 or Cessna 172R.
A type rating (or series) as listed in Part-66 Appendix I to AMC, which may be further subdivided, such as Boeing 737-600/700/800, Boeing 737-600, Cessna 172 Series.
An aircraft group such as, for example, ‘all sailplanes and powered sailplanes’ or ‘Cessna single piston engined aircraft’ or ‘Group 3 aircraft’ (as defined in 66.A.5) or ‘aircraft below 2 730 kg MTOM’.
Reference to the engine type installed in the aircraft may or may not be included, as necessary.
It is important to note that the scope of work defined in EASA Form 14 is further limited to the one defined in the Continuing Airworthiness Management Exposition (CAME). It is this scope of work in the CAME which ultimately defines the approval of the organisation. As a consequence, it is possible for a competent authority to endorse in EASA Form 14, for example, a scope of work for Group 3 aircraft while the detailed scope of work defined in the CAME does not include all Group 3 aircraft.
Nevertheless, in all cases, the competent authority should be satisfied that the organisation has the capability to manage the types/groups/series endorsed in the EASA Form 14.
Since the activities linked to continuing airworthiness management are mainly process-oriented rather than facility/tooling-oriented, changes to the detailed scope of work defined in the CAME (either directly or through a capability list), within the limits already included in EASA Form 14, may be considered as not affecting the approval and not subject to M.A.713. As a consequence, for these changes the competent authority may allow the use by the CAMO of the indirect approval procedure defined in M.A.704(c).
In the example mentioned above, before endorsing the Group 3 in EASA Form 14 for the first time, the competent authority should make sure that the organisation is capable of managing this category of aircraft as a whole. In particular, the competent authority should ensure that Baseline/Generic Maintenance Programmes (see M.A.709) or individual maintenance programmes (for contracted customers) are available for all the aircraft which are intended to be initially included in the scope of work detailed in the CAME. Later on, if changes need to be introduced in the detailed scope of work detailed in the CAME to include new aircraft types (within Group 3), this may be done by the CAMO through the use of the indirect approval procedure.
Since, as mentioned above, the competent authority should make sure that the organisation is capable of managing the requested category as a whole, it is not reasonable to grant a full Group 3 approval based on an intended scope of work which is limited to, for example, a Cessna 172 aircraft. However, it may be reasonable to grant such full Group 3 approval, after showing appropriate capability, for an intended scope of work covering several aircraft types or series of different complexity and which are representative of the full Group 3.
Special case for ELA1 aircraft:
In order to promote standardisation, for this category of aircraft the following approach is recommended:
Possible ratings to be endorsed in EASA Form 14:
ELA1 sailplanes;
ELA1 powered sailplanes and ELA1 aeroplanes;
ELA1 balloons;
ELA1 airships.
Before endorsing any of those ratings (for example, ELA1 sailplanes) in EASA Form 14, the competent authority should audit that the organisation is capable of managing at least one aircraft type (for example, one type of sailplanes within the ELA1 category), including the availability of the necessary facilities, data, maintenance programmes, and staff.
It is acceptable that the detailed scope of work in the CAME contains the same ratings endorsed in EASA Form 14 (for example, ELA1 sailplanes), without a need to further limit them. However, the CAMO will only be able to manage a certain aircraft type when all the necessary facilities, data, maintenance programmes and staff are available.
AMC M.B.703(a) Issue of approval
ED Decision 2015/029/R
For approvals involving more than one competent authority, the approval should be granted in conjunction with the competent authority of the Member States in whose territories the other continuing airworthiness management organisation facilities are located. For practical reasons the initial approval should be granted on the basis of a joint audit visit by the approving competent authority and competent authority of the Member States in whose territories the other continuing airworthiness management organisation facilities are located. Audits related to the renewal of the approval should be delegated to the competent authority of the Member States in whose territories the other continuing airworthiness management organisation facilities are located. The resulting audit form and recommendation should then be submitted to the approving competent authority.
AMC M.B.703(c) Issue of approval
ED Decision 2015/029/R
The numeric sequence should be unique to the particular CAMO.
Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014
(a) The competent authority shall keep and update a program listing, for each continuing airworthiness organisation approved under Section A, Subpart G of this Annex (Part-M) under its supervision, the dates when audit visits are due and when such visits were carried out.
(b) Each organisation shall be completely audited at periods not exceeding 24 months.
(c) A relevant sample of the aircraft managed by the organisation approved under Section B, Subpart G of this Annex (Part-M) shall be surveyed in every 24 month period. The size of the sample will be decided by the competent authority based on the result of prior audits and earlier product surveys.
(d) All findings shall be confirmed in writing to the applicant organisation.
(e) The competent authority shall record all findings, closure actions (actions required to close a finding) and recommendations.
(f) A meeting with the accountable manager shall be convened at least once every 24 months to ensure he/she remains informed of significant issues arising during audits.
AMC M.B.704(b) Continuing oversight
ED Decision 2020/002/R
1. Where the competent authority has decided that a series of audit visits are necessary to arrive at a complete audit of an approved continuing airworthiness management organisation, the program should indicate which aspects of the approval will be covered on each visit.
2. It is recommended that part of an audit concentrates on two ongoing aspects of the M.A. Subpart G approval, namely the organisations internal self monitoring quality reports produced by the quality monitoring personnel to determine if the organisation is identifying and correcting its problems and secondly the number of concessions granted by the quality manager.
3. At the successful conclusion of the audit(s) including verification of the exposition, an audit report form should be completed by the auditing surveyor including all recorded findings, closure actions and recommendation. An EASA Form 13 should be used for this activity.
4. Credit may be claimed by the competent authority surveyor(s) for specific item audits completed during the preceding 23 month period subject to four conditions:
(a) the specific item audit should be the same as that required by M.A. Subpart G latest amendment, and
(b) there should be satisfactory evidence on record that such specific item audits were carried out and that all corrective actions have been taken, and
(c) the competent authority surveyor(s) should be satisfied that there is no reason to believe standards have deteriorated in respect of those specific item audits being granted a back credit;
(d) the specific item audit being granted a back credit should be audited not later than 24 months after the last audit of the item.
5. When a CAMO sub-contracts continuing airworthiness management tasks all sub-contracted organisations should also be audited by the competent authority at periods not exceeding 24 months (credits per paragraph 4 above are permitted) to ensure they fully comply with M.A. Subpart G. For these audits, the competent authority auditing surveyor should always ensure that he/she is accompanied throughout the audit by a senior technical member of the CAMO. All findings should be sent to and corrected by the CAMO.
6. When performing the oversight of organisations that hold various approvals, the competent authority should arrange the audits to cover all approvals avoiding a duplicated visit of a particular area.
Regulation (EU) 2020/270
(a) When during audits or by other means, evidence is found showing non-compliance to a requirement laid down in this Annex (Part-M) or Annex Vb (Part-ML), as applicable, the competent authority shall take the following actions:
1. For level 1 findings, immediate action shall be taken by the competent authority to revoke, limit or suspend in whole or in part, depending upon the extent of the level 1 finding, the continuing airworthiness management organisation approval, until successful corrective action has been taken by the organisation.
2. For level 2 findings, the competent authority shall grant a corrective action period appropriate to the nature of the finding that shall not be more than three months. In certain circumstances, at the end of this first period, and subject to the nature of the finding the competent authority can extend the three month period subject to a satisfactory corrective action plan.
(b) Action shall be taken by the competent authority to suspend in whole or part the approval in case of failure to comply within the timescale granted by the competent authority.
ED Decision 2016/011/R
For a level 1 finding the competent authority should inform the owner/operator and the competent authority of any potentially affected aircraft in order that corrective action can be taken to ensure possible unsafe conditions on these aircraft are corrected before further flight.
Furthermore, a level 1 finding could lead to a non-compliance to be found on an aircraft as specified in M.B.303(f).
Regulation (EU) 2020/270
(a) The competent authority shall comply with the applicable elements of the initial approval for any change to the organisation notified in accordance with point M.A.713.
(b) The competent authority may prescribe the conditions under which the approved continuing airworthiness management organisation may operate during such changes unless it determines that the approval should be suspended due to the nature or the extent of the changes.
(c) For any change to the continuing airworthiness management exposition:
1. In the case of direct approval of changes in accordance with point M.A.704(b) of this Annex (Part-M), the competent authority shall verify that the procedures specified in the exposition are in compliance with this Annex (Part-M) or Annex Vb (Part-ML), as applicable, before formally notifying the approved organisation of the approval.
2. In the case an indirect approval procedure is used for the approval of the changes in accordance with point M.A.704(c) of this Annex (Part-M), the competent authority shall ensure all of the following:
(i) that the changes remain minor;
(ii) that it has an adequate control over the approval of the changes to ensure they remain in compliance with the requirements of this Annex (Part-M) or Annex Vb (Part-ML), as applicable.
ED Decision 2016/011/R
1. Changes in nominated persons. The competent authority should have adequate control over any changes to the personnel specified in M.A.706(a), (c), (d) and (i). Such changes will require an amendment to the exposition.
2. It is recommended that a simple exposition status sheet is maintained which contains information on when an amendment was received by the competent authority and when it was approved.
3. The competent authority should define the minor amendments to the exposition which may be incorporated through indirect approval. In this case a procedure should be stated in the amendment section of the approved continuing airworthiness management exposition.
4. Changes notified in accordance with M.A.713 are not considered minor. For all cases other than minor, the applicable part(s) of the EASA Form 13 should be used for the change.
5. The CAMO should submit each exposition amendment to the competent authority whether it be an amendment for competent authority approval or an indirectly approved amendment. Where the amendment requires competent authority approval, the competent authority when satisfied, should indicate its approval in writing. Where the amendment has been submitted under the indirect approval procedure the competent authority should acknowledge receipt in writing.
M.B.707 Revocation, suspension and limitation of an approval
Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014
The competent authority shall:
(a) suspend an approval on reasonable grounds in the case of potential safety threat, or;
(b) suspend, revoke or limit an approval pursuant to point M.B.705.
SUBPART H — CERTIFICATE OF RELEASE TO SERVICE — CRS
Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014
(to be developed as appropriate)