EASA Member States Advisory Body (MAB) Meeting 02-2025

The MAB is composed of representatives of the EASA Members States, of selected third countries with working arrangements or specific agreements with the Agency to adopt and apply the Basic Regulation and its implementing rules, of specific organisations, such as the European Defence Agency (EDA), as well as the European Commission.

If you want to learn more about the EASA Advisory Bodies, please visit our Advisory Bodies' page.

Outcome of the meeting

The MAB held its second meeting on 20 and 21 May with 38 EASA Member States’ representatives, 6 observer States’ representatives, DG MOVE, ECTL, EDA and SESAR JU participating.

The main points raised during the discussions were as follows:

• EASA update

  The aim was to provide information about main developments since the last MAB meeting. On the update of the Fees & Charges Regulation EASA confirmed that the review was on track. A draft EASA proposal had previously been addressed to the ABs for comments and a revised proposal submitted to the Commission. The revised proposal clarified some misunderstandings, made some small adjustments and lowered the general fee increase by 1%. DG MOVE had completed its interservice consultation based on the proposal, which would now be discussed at the EASA Committee meeting in June. On GNSS topic EASA presented the evolution of the situation on the GNSS interferences since the last MAB, using updated charts. The EASA website on GNSS interferences is now updated every week and presents the list of impacted FIRs. On this topic EASA asked the MAB if they would accept to transition the presentation of this information from a list of FIRs to a geographical visualisation of areas with GNSS interferences. Two main topics have been raised by the MAB: 1) apparent diminution of ADS-B reports that can be created by the application of operational measures by flight crew, like turning off the GNSS and 2) TCAS interferences. 
  On Safety promotion topic EASA provided an update on Unruly Passengers, that a number of NAAs had raised at the previous meeting. EASA had now restarted the previous task team with a small number of NAAs and developed an initial plan for a coordinated package of actions, activities and safety promotion material to better manage passenger behaviour and reduce the risk. This would include training material, staff support activities, collaborative promotion and enforcement activities. The work would build on the successful work in FI, IE, NL and NO. Material created for previous campaigns would be made available for this summer and then new material developed for testing and use from Autumn 2025 before a full European-wide campaign in spring 2026. Success relies all stakeholders working collaboratively and EASA requested that MAB Members propose a National SP Focal Point to be involved in this activity. 
  With regards to Environment an update was presented, including the implementation status of ReFuelEU Aviation in terms of the Reporting Exercise for 2024 and an adoption plan to mitigate the low uptake of the Flight Emissions Label (FEL). Support was expressed for EASA to act as a facilitator to simplify, harmonise and digitalise reporting processes. The need to incentivise the reporting of SAF, and associated emissions reductions, under the ETS was highlighted. It was also noted that the current regulatory reporting obligations (e.g. ReFuelEU, ETS) that airline operators are facing has contributed to the low uptake in the voluntary FEL and an action plan was supported to see how this could be addressed. The coordination through the ReFuelEU Member State Network was welcomed, as was the valuable technical support of EASA within the ICAO environmental committee (CAEP). The CAEP/13 outcomes on new aircraft noise and CO2 standards were clarified as in line with European interests, but that Boeing is apparently lobbying to revisit the CAEP recommendations in the Council during the ICAO adoption process and that Europe will need to monitor this closely. DG MOVE made it clear that any attempts to roll back decisions should be resisted. 
  A presentation was delivered outlining the proposal to establish a Medical Technical Body (MED TeB), transitioning from the current Medical Expert Group (MEG) structure. The MED TeB will serve as a formal platform under the MAB to address medical issues affecting pilots, cabin crew, air traffic controllers (ATCOs) and Public Health. Under the proposal, the existing two-day MEG format would be preserved with a revised structure: the first day will become the Aero-Medical Expert Forum (AMEF), a collaborative event between industry and NCAs, managed outside the MAB framework. The second day will transition into the formal MED TeB, composed solely of NCA members, reporting directly to the MAB. MAB expressed support for the creation of the MED TeB. Most comments were related to the organisation and participation. MAB suggested allowing more than two participants per NCA to attend the MED TeB, and emphasised the importance of maintaining industry involvement, particularly on the first day. EASA confirmed that industry participation will remain integral through the AMEF, as this exchange continues to provide valuable insights and stakeholder input. The MAB endorsed the creation of the MED TeB and supported the required updates to the MAB Rules of Procedure. 
  On Runway Incursion topic the MAB was informed about the possible roadmap actions that were identified based on the review of several sources of relevant information (amongst others the MAB survey and GAPPRI recommendations). There was support for the publication of a Safety Information Bulletin (SIB) on 24/7 stop bar use. Some MAB Members (DE, AT, CH) expressed their concerns with the “Triple one” concept. Also the need to identify the Best Intervention Strategy (BIS) for onboard solutions and ground movement surveillance (GMS) equipment was highlighted, leading to the comment (FR) that GMS equipment is not a good solution for all the certified aerodromes, especially the smallest ones with limited traffic.  
   

• EPAS and ATM Master Plan Implementation:

  The aim was to present the evolution of EPAS actions supporting implementation of the ATM Master Plan in a safety and timely and effective manner in such a way as to address the timely resolution of operational capacity and efficiency improvements. EASA highlighted that alignment of EPAS with ATM MP falls into the EASA strategic priorities, where “safety” and “innovation” are fundamental aspects driving our work. Regulatory amendments are required to enable the implementation of these SDO actions (two of safety relevance and two contributing to EASA strategic priorities). Measures are being taken in cooperation with SESAR 3 JU and involved stakeholders to prioritise certain SDOs and identify those to be included in future EPAS editions in a phased approach taking into consideration Agency resource constraints as well regulatory simplification. MAB Members (ES, AT, CH) supported EASA’s approach, though the regulatory focus should aim at enhancing safety (CH), and observed the need for clarity on how EPAS actions related to dual use are coordinated with the military (ES). SJU representative acknowledged good cooperation with EASA.
   

• EPAS and SRM:

  As previously presented to MAB, EASA is reviewing the content and structure of the EPAS to fully comply with Art. 6 of the Basic Regulation. In this context it is also reviewing the Safety Risk Management process to ensure that the main safety risks are clear and actionable. 
  The aim of this item is to present the latest status of this review and table proposed changes for comment EASA presented the state-of-play on the review of the EPAS and the SRM process. Objectives include the need to properly implement BR art.6 and the contribution of EPAS to the ICAO GASP and RASP, to clarify the top safety topics and to rationalise the EPAS. Specifically, it was agreed that for 2026 the EPAS Volume I would not be fully reviewed, but an addendum would be published describing limited modifications to the strategic priorities. 
  There was general support for the goals (NO), the intention to describe a stable set of European Top Safety Topics (SE) that cluster related safety issues, and the proposal to maintain the coverage of actions related to both BR art.1(1) (safety) and BR art. 1(2) (e.g. level playing field, competitiveness)(IE). It was also proposed that the integration of the ATM MP into EPAS should highlight the safe implementation of the plan (ES). On environmental actions NO requested that the proposed addendum to EPAS Volume I should allow flexibility for the MS to take action beyond the implementation of the ReFuelEU Aviation Regulation. A more comprehensive working paper was requested (NO, DG MOVE) to detail the proposals in full when ready. EASA confirmed that the ABs would be consulted on both Volume I and II in July and August
   

• Art. 89 interdependencies between civil aviation safety and socioeconomic factors:

  The aim was to provide an update on the progress of the study and the contributions of the Advisory Board, which includes MAB and SAB members consulted for the outsourced study on the mapping of socio-economic factors and aviation safety risks. 
  The goal is to deliver a comprehensive, evidence-based report by the end of 2025. EASA provided an overview of the scope, key deliverables, and forthcoming steps related to the Article 89 report on the socio-economic impact of aviation. The outsourced study is now commencing and is expected to be completed by year end. 
  Members of the MAB expressed their support for the initiative (ES, DE, NL, FR) and will be further engaged throughout the year, either through targeted consultations or as participants in the Advisory Board, which is currently being established.
   

• Rules Simplification Programme:

  Following the call for nominations to the joint Simplification Review Board, EASA to inform of the outcome and propose for discussion principles to be applied when selecting simplification projects. EASA updated the MAB on the status of the simplification programme and on the next steps, focusing on the expected outcomes and milestones in 2025. 
  The need for simplification has been raised consistently in the ABs. There was a general support for the initiative. DG MOVE highlighted the importance of this topic in the current political agenda, and urged EASA to present concrete proposals already in the 2026 edition of the EPAS, and to focus on quick wins and projects that could be finalised within the next 4 years. Nevertheless, the EC also stated that simplification should not impact the level of safety protection offered by the current regulations, which was fully supported by all participants. 
  There was a clear commitment from MS to embark on this initiative. MAB highlighted the need to simplify without cost to safety or predictability. The proposal for a survey was supported in principle, but this should not delay the start of the review. The MAB approved the proposed state representatives on the Board. EASA thanked all participants for their support and commitment to the project, and committed to organise the kick off meeting of the simplification board very soon.  
   

• Update on EASA AI roadmap:

  The aim was to update MAB members on the EASA AI Roadmap implementation, with focus on the on-going Rulemaking Task RMT.0742 on AI trustworthiness. EASA updated the MAB with the progress of implementation of the EASA AI Roadmap 2.0, focusing on the two main priorities:
  Priority 1: Progress with the Rulemaking Group under RMT.0742 (Artificial Intelligence Trustworthiness) and 
  Priority 2: progress is also made towards a proposed Issue 03 of the EASA AI Concept Paper, in order to give shape to the extension of the AI technical scope foreseen in EASA AI Roadmap 2.0 and propose a set of objectives for the Level 3 AI applications (advanced automation) in line EU AI Act article 14. 
  MAB acknowledged the progress made in the implementation of the AI Roadmap 2.0. MS feedback addressed the good alignment between the updated ATM Master Plan and EASA AI Roadmap, the importance of anticipation of training to NAAs inspectors to prepare for AI deployment (ES), the wish to extend participation to RMG when starting with RMT.0742 Step 2 (CH), the relevance of the discussion on Part-AI in the context of simplification of rules (FR).
   

• Repository Steering Committee:

  The aim was to provide an update on the development status of the Repository as well as on the (preparation of) the regular update task of the implementing rule. EASA provided an update to the MAB (in its capacity as the Repository Steering Committee) on the Repository of Information. 
  The meeting was informed on the work performed by the Repository Steering board regarding the data models. Information was provided on the development status and release schedule. Furthermore, the status of the (completed, ongoing and planned) implementing rule’s update cycles was provided, while highlighting that the NPA for the ongoing cycle should be published in Q3 2025 to allow for a timely amendment of the rule. 
  To that end, it is essential that the Member States and the Commission reach an agreement on the new deadlines during the EASA committee meeting in June.
   

• Pilot age limits – Collection and analysis of data:

  The aim was to start a discussion on a strategy towards a future extension of pilot age limits for multicrew commercial air transport beyond the current ICAO / EU threshold of 65 years, in light of industry requests and the increasing general retirement age in several MS, many of which are already applying 67 years. EASA presented a WP facilitating an initial discussion with MAB on how to address pilot age limitations (65 years) with a focus on multi-pilot commercial operations. The MAB (BE, CH, NO, AT, ES, DK, FR, FI, DE, IT, MT, HR) generally supports the strategy outlined in the WP. 
  There was a general call for addressing the topic with cross-domain coordination (MED, OPS, FCL), while keeping a scientific and risk-based approach, ensuring a safety level equal of better than today. MAB called EASA to leverage the positive outcome of the recent extension of age limits in single-pilot HEMS operations (AT, ES), where both medical and operational mitigations were used. It was deemed important to consider the socio-political aspects (FR, DE), which calls for a proactive engagement of all stakeholders (i.e. air operators and crew associations). 
  EASA informed that the topic will also be discussed at the next SAB. The lack of specific data on over-65 pilots was identified as a concern, which can be partially addressed by operational mitigations like crew pairing with different age groups (“one over one under”). ICAO successfully implemented this approach 20 years ago when extending the 60-year limit to 65 years, the same concept can be applied for raising the limit beyond 65. Finally, there was good support for pursuing a long-term strategy allowing the coexistence of new performance-based and existing prescriptive rules, particularly in States/Regions with mature safety oversight systems. Health performance was flagged as key aspect to consider when discussing the removal of prescriptive age limits.
   

• AltMocs – Use of AltMocs to improve flexibility:

  EASA would like to increase transparency and simplify the process of managing the AltMoCs notified by the Member States. The aim is to be more efficient and to make better use of the Member States’ practices in industry and other states. The proposed changes will be presented to the MAB to collect Member States’ feedback. EASA presented proposals to make the AltMoC assessment process lighter, more risk based and to increase the visibility on AltMoCs approved by Member States. The first proposal was to move from an assessment of all Member State AltMoCs to a sample check approach, due to an increase maturity of AltMoCs and the limited EASA resources to perform the assessment. The second proposal was to increase the visibility of AltMoCs approved by Member States by making available summaries of all AltMoCs to all Member States in Flextool, as is currently the case with positive approved ones, and by extending the list published on the EASA website to include all AltMoCs notified, together with the case summary provided by the Member State in Flextool. Finaly, EASA informed the MAB that they might issue AltMoCs as Competent Authority, although in exceptional cases. These AltMoCs will be communicated to the respective TeB, and reported to the MAB. The MAB welcomed the presentation and generally agreed with EASA’s proposals (SE, CH, DE, FI, AT, IE, IT, IS, LU, NL, ES). They asked EASA to organise a dedicated meeting to clarify the practical implementation of the new process, and share the criteria for the EASA sampling of AltMoCs. They wish to retain the possibility to ask EASA for advice on specific cases when needed. The dissemination of further information on the EASA website was generally welcome in the interest of industry, but special attention is needed regarding the details to be shared. The SAB will also be consulted on this.
   

• Collaboration with ICAO on USOAP Programme:

  The aim was to report on the conclusion of the Implementation Group B1 (established under recommendation of the Ad hoc USOAP Advisory Group – USOAP-AG)) and seek MAB agreement on the way forward. EASA provided MAB with a status on USOAP Advisory Group (USOAP-AG) recommendations implementation with the objective to reduce the duplication of ICAO and stakeholders audit/assessment activities to States. It explained the positive developments with the intent to reduce the duplication of task between ICAO and EASA and limit the audits burden for EASA MS. However, it also stressed that the current roadmap foresee more sharing of data with ICAO but does not engage ICAO on fixed crediting for EASA MS. MAB Members (FR, AT, SE, DE, IT) supported the additional proposal to work with ICAO on getting clearer credits in terms of audits frequencies and scope for EASA MS against more data sharing. It was highlighted that such initiative shall not jeopardise the EASA States competencies with regards to USOAP. USOAP remains under National responsibility and MS remains sole responsible for their Effective Implementation score (some USOAP part is not covered by EASA rules, AIG, SAR). DG MOVE emphasised that this initiative aim at getting credit from MS but respect the sovereignty and competencies of each contracting State. The current initiative to cascade PQs cannot work for all, it could work for instance on LEG part where some regulatory implementation of SARPS are common. The MAB (FR, DE) also highlighted that a direct comparison with the USA was not fully accurate because it is a single contracting State organised in a uniform manner but acknowledged that, in comparison, there is still a much higher amount of audits in the EASA region every year compared to some countries comparable in terms of size. One question also came on the quantitative credit that could be gained but was not addressed /*Post: meeting: such quantitative elements have not yet been discussed with ICAO*/.

• Part-IS implementation:

  The aim was to update the MAB members on the Part-IS implementation. In particular, further to the publication of the guidelines on oversight policy, exchange views on how to organise Part[1]IS oversight. MAB welcomed the training provisions to be put in place through EASA own resources or the endorsement of courses provided by commercial training providers under BR Art. 92. Also appreciated was the clarification of the requirements in the guidelines issued in March and the oversight approach in two phases, allowing authorities to achieve Present and Suitable status as an initial compliance threshold, to be improved steadily to Operational and Effective thereafter. MAB members shared the variety of models being adopted to organise resources, combining the upskilling of existing inspectors and the availability of staff specialised in cybersecurity.

• US drugs and alcohol testing requirements:

  The aim was to brief MAB on the ongoing discussion/ initiatives with regards to the implementation of the new FAA rule on drug and alcohol testing and to obtain MAB contribution to the EASA launched survey in order to enable EASA to support MAB vis a vis FAA. EASA asked MAB to reply to the survey by 30 May in order to prepare for the BOB meeting with US representatives held in June 2025 and asked MAB whether there are national rules in place to ask for waiver. MAB (FR, LU, DE) reported that no similar rules exist in their national legislation, or at least not to full extent.

• Incentivising more Sustainable and Safer Aviation – Proposed increase of CS23/CS 27 Maximum Take Off Mass limits

  The aim was to provide the MAB with the proposal EASA is currently working on and to be presented at next ICAO IAW WG level to incentivise more Sustainable and Safer Aviation. To share initial feedback received by other authorities (FAA, TCCA, ANAC and CAA-UK). EASA presented to the MAB a proposal to incentivise more Sustainable and Safer Aviation by increasing the CS23/CS27 Maximum Take Off Mass Certificated Mass (MTCOM) but keeping the passenger current limits (19 for airplane, 9 for rotorcraft). Innovation and new propulsion systems are currently being developed on small aircraft and small rotorcraft. Several projects of fully electric or hybrid aircraft are being develop, however, Electrical and Hybrid Propulsion Systems (EHPS) are much heavier compared to traditional piston engine, turbopropellers and turbines. To design A/C meetingthe current CS23/CS27 limit, industry has to trade of payload and/or range which is penalising heavily the new project and de facto reduce significantly their potential market and their economic viability. EASA is proposing to alleviate this issue and to allow increase of CS23/CS27 MTCOM based on reduction of CO2. Criteria, which have been consulted with Industry and other stakeholders would allow 30% MTCOM increase for zero tail pipe emission aircraft, 10% increase for hybrid propulsion system and 5% increase for development of system/improvement reducing CO2 emission. A draft ICAO Working Paper is being developed to leverage 2 existing ICAO Airworthiness Panel WG4 Job cards in order to include EASA proposal. MAB acknowledged and supported the proposal which would give visibility to industry and encourage EU innovation. MAB expressed concerns on ICAO potential leadtime. The following points were highlighted: • Preferred approach is to have a global agreement at ICAO. However, should the process be too long, it could be envisage to develop an EASA framework change and to make a Direct Submission of change to ICAO in a second step. • Evaluation of the impact of other regulations needs to be done (OPS, CAW, FCL...) • Definition of Complex Powered Motor Aircraft should be consistent and on-going NPA to be reviewed • MAB requested more time to provide a detailed feedback on the proposed criteria. EASA agreed to circulate to NAA the draft ICAO WP and to organise a workshop with NAA experts to further discuss the proposed criteria.

• AOB

  Draft Opinion (ATM/ANS) Topic proposed by DK (supported by DE, RO, ES, AT, FR, BE, CH,SE, MT). EASA noted the observations expressed by the MAB about some AIS-related aspects of the draft Opinion resulting from RMT.0719 Subtask 4b. EASA also mentioned that to our understanding the RM procedures were followed and acknowledge several substantial disagreements. The main pain points revolve around safety vs. economic impact. EASA explained that the Agency tried to address documented safety issues, whereas the critical comments are pointing out the substantial economic impact of the proposed rules. Other comments stemmed from transposing ICAO requirements. EASA expressed that the transposition is needed, however the timeline can be discussed. The Agency also reiterated that all safety rules must be proportionate: Safety must be addressed, but we must be mindful of the consequences. The plan was to come back to MS mid-June with an EASA consolidated proposal following your comments, however following the discussion at the meeting EASA offered an in-between meeting (online – outlook invitation sent out after the meeting for 5 June) with MS to discuss the main concerns. 
  Third country applicant for personal licence (Part 66) requested by HU. DG MOVE reported there have been no further developments from last year. HU, supported by GR, insisted that the issue needs to be solved.
  Aircraft fumes events (Cabin Air Quality) proposed by PT. CAA PT sees a significant increase in fume-related occurrence reports – they received already more reports this year compared to last year. The occurrences all relate to TAP flights across all types and engines, so there is no pattern for specific aircraft/engine combinations identified. There were two recent occurrences in 2025 where TAP flights had to be diverted, and crew/passengers were hospitalised (one occurrence was a flight with crews only) but medical examination did not reveal any health problem. The CAA PT is in contact with the operator, manufacturers, engine OEMs, maintenance organisations with no possibility to identify the root cause nor a solution. CAA PT called for a common approach of EASA/NAAs and possible a new EPAS action. IE reported 1 event with aircraft occupant affected as well. EASA provided replies with respect to Continued Airworthiness where the Agency closely monitors the occurrence reports for CAQ events maintained by the EU large airplane manufacturers and with respect to On-going research on CAQ (engine oil leakage) – CAQ III project, which is led by the Agency. MAB confirmed their interest for a briefing on the outcome of the EASA CAQ III research project.

The next MAB meeting will take place on 4 and 5 November 2025 at EASA HQ