- Aircrew
- Operational Suitability Data (OSD) for flight crew (FC)
- Licensing
- Upset Prevention and Recovery Training
- Performance-based Navigation applicability
- Cabin Crew
- Definition of ‘cabin crew’
- Medical fitness
- Practical ‘raft’ training
- Instructor and Examiner being the same person – conflict of interest
- Cabin Crew Attestation
- Fire and smoke training
- Language proficiency
- Aircraft type training
- Reduction of cabin crew during ground operations
- Minimum required cabin crew
- Working for multiple operators
- Medical
- Flight Simulation Training Devices (FSTDs)
- General
- Continuing Airworthiness
- Air Operations
- Level of Involvement (LOI)
- Airspace Usage requirements
- Third Country Operators (TCO)
- Initial Airworthiness
- Additional Airworthiness specifications
- Basic Regulation
- ATCO Licensing
- Air Traffic Management (ATM) / Air Navigation Services (ANS)
- Air Traffic Management / Air Navigation Services (ATM/ANS) ground equipment
- Application for DPO
- Classification or notification of changes
- Acceptance of approvals issued by third countries
- Categorisation of systems or equipment
- Categorisation of software
- Commercial off the shelf (COTS) systems or equipment
- Cloud-based architectures
- Development Assurance for Software or Hardware
- Non-compliance
- Partnership Agreements
- Registry of certificates, statements of compliance, defects
- Scope/Applicability
- Means of compliance (MOC)
- Conformity assessment during the transition period
- Implementation support to stakeholders
- Aerodromes (ADR)
- Drones (UAS)
- Provisions applicable to both ‘open’ and ’specific’ category
- Open category
- Understanding the ‘open’ category
- Requirements under the ‘open’ category
- Training requirements in the 'open' category
- Operational authorisation requirements ‘open’ category
- Responsibilities for drone operators and remote pilots in the ‘open’ category
- Drones without class identification label ’open’ category
- I am into drone racing and/or flying drones with goggles (FPV) ‘open’ category
- I build my own drones (privately built) ‘open’ category
- I plan to provide services (commercial and other) with drones ‘open’ category
- I am a non-EU visitor / drone operator ‘open’ category
- Conduct an Operation in the open category in a state other than the one I am registered
- Specific category
- Understanding the ‘specific’ category
- Training requirements in the ‘specific’ category
- Operational authorisation requirements for the ‘specific’ category
- Responsibilities as a drone operator or remote pilot in the ‘specific’ category
- Drones without class identification label in the ‘specific’ category
- I am into drone racing and/or flying drones with goggles (FPV) ‘specific’ category
- I build my own drones (privately built) ‘specific’ category
- I plan to provide services (commercial and other) with drone(s) ‘specific’ category
- I am a non-EU visitor / drone operator ‘specific’ category
- I would like to know about the light UAS operator certificate (LUC)
- Conduct an Operation in the specific category in a state other than the one I am registered
- Drones with class identification label C0-C6
- Model aircraft
Aircrew
Operational Suitability Data (OSD) for flight crew (FC)
What is the content and purpose of the EASA type rating and licence endorsement lists?
Two separate EASA type rating and licence endorsement lists - flight crew are published by EASA (one for helicopters and one for all other aircraft): Type Ratings and Licence endorsement lists.
These lists constitute the class and type of aircraft categorisations in accordance with definitions of category of aircraft, class of aeroplane, and type of aircraft and paragraph FCL.700 and GM1 FCL.700 of Annex I (Part-FCL) to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011.
The lists also indicates if operational suitability data (OSD) for flight crew are available. EASA type certificate data sheets (TCDSs) and the list of EASA supplemental type certificates contain further references to OSD. Complete current OSD information is held by the relevant type certificate (TC) or supplemental type certificate (STC) holder.
Furthermore, the lists provide aircraft-specific references relevant to flight crew qualifications and air operations, including references to (non-OSD) documents, such as (J)OEB reports or Operational Evaluation Guidance Material (OE GM).
Explanatory notes for these lists are found at the same website location.
Why do the EASA type rating and licence endorsement lists not contain references to the latest applicable version of an OSD FC document?
The EASA type rating and licence endorsement lists indicate whether an OSD FC document for a relevant aircraft exists. OSD FC documents are certification documents which are held and maintained by TC/STC Holder and are subject to Annex I to Commission Regulation No 748/2012 (Part-21) provisions. Consequently, changes to OSD are handled in accordance with Part-21 procedures in the same way that e.g. changes to aeroplane flight manual (AFM’s) are dealt with. This includes the principle of delegation of privileges to DOAs based on which minor changes to OSD FC are approved under DOA privileges.
The responsibility of tracking the OSD FC document version resides therefore with the TC/STC holder and referencing that in the TR and licence endorsement list could potentially generate inconsistencies.
Users should consider establishing a process to ensure the regular receipt of OSD FC updates, similarly to what might exist for holding current AFM and quick reference handbook (QRH) documents.
Are ODR tables available as part of the operational suitability data (OSD) for flight crew (FC) document?
ODR tables which have been established as part of an OSD FC operational evaluation, are part of the OSD FC data, approved under the type certificate (TC)/ supplemental type certificate (STC) and owned by the TC/STC holder. These ODR tables are original equipment manufacturer OEM generic and must be customized for use by operators to their specific aircraft configurations.
Such ODR tables should therefore be requested directly from the TC/STC holder which has an obligation according to Part-21 to make OSD FC documents available to users.
When should changes to OSD FC provisions be implemented by users to take into account any revised mandatory elements included in a revision?
Article 9a of Commission Regulation No 1178/2011 (amended by Commission Regulation No 70/2014) contains a 2 year transition period for the implementation after initial publication of OSD FC report. This allows training providers, such as ATOs and operators time to adapt their training programmes and provide additional training if needed.
Pilot training courses which were approved before the approval of the OSD FC data should contain the mandatory elements not later than 18 December 2017 or within 2 years after the OSD FC was approved, whichever is later.
Implementation of changes to the OSD FC into existing approved training courses should be implemented within a reasonable timeframe following the OSD change. This timeframe is not clearly defined within the aircrew regulation, however a timeframe of 3 months (or 90 days as under the air ops requirements for an MEL) is considered reasonable.
What is the status of non-mandatory items in the OSD FC? How should users proceed if deviating from non-mandatory items in the OSD FC?
The data contained in OSD FC documents are identified as either ‘mandatory’ or ‘non-mandatory’ elements. While mandatory elements have the status of a rule, non-mandatory elements have the status of Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC).
In order to provide some flexibility to users, non-mandatory elements typically address such items as training devices, training duration, previous experience, or currency. In line with the general principles for AMCs, these elements are non-binding provisions established as a means of compliance with the Aircrew Requirements.
Users may choose Alternative Means of Compliance (AltMoC) to use alternatives to the OSD-FC non-mandatory parts by following the dedicated process for AltMoCs described in the implementing rules for aircrew licensing and air operations. Further details on the AltMoC process can be found on EASA's website.
What aspects should be considered when substituting a training level or device described in the OSD FC by another training level or device?
The data approved in the OSD FC are linked to the minimum training syllabus for a pilot type rating. An evaluation of differences (e.g. for aircraft modifications or between variants) identifies minimum training levels and associated training devices, if required.
With regard to the acquisition of knowledge through theoretical training, some elements may be validated as Level A and can be adequately addressed through self-instruction, whereas other elements may require aided instruction and are identified as Level B. Training organisations may find it more practical to combine Level A and Level B elements into one module of the higher level (such as computer-based training or instructor-led sessions).
With regard to the acquisition of skills through practical training, the OSD FC minimum syllabus identifies elements requiring Level C, D or E practical training and these elements are usually associated in the OSD FC document with specified training devices.
In principle, the devices described in the OSD FC document and the devices used in pilot training should be of the same training level. The use of a more complex device requires additional considerations, regarding the capabilities and characteristics of the device and the impact this may have on the training objective(s).
As an example, the OSD FC may refer to an FMS desktop trainer for Level C training. FMS training in an FTD, an FFS (without motion or vision) or in the aircraft (static, on power) may provide the same training objectives. However, the more complex training environment introduces elements which may affect the focus of the training, the time required, or other factors and these should be taken into consideration.
The same principles apply for the substitution of an FTD. To replicate the characteristics of an FTD Level I with an FTD Level II, to replicate an FTD Level I with an FFS (without motion or vision), or to replicate an FTD Level II with an FFS (without motion or vision) require different considerations to preserve achievement of the training objective.
How can I get access to OSD FC documents?
Contrary to Operational Evaluation Board (OEB) reports which were owned and published by EASA, OSD documents are certification documents which are held by the TC/STC Holder within the framework of Annex I to Commission Regulation No 748/2012 (Part-21).
Paragraph 21.A.62 of Part-21 establishes requirements for the owner of the data (type certificate (TC)/supplemental type certificate (STC) holder) on making these OSD data available. It reads as follows:
21.A.62 Availability of operational suitability data
The holder of the type-certificate or restricted type-certificate shall make available:
(a) at least one set of complete operational suitability data prepared in accordance with the applicable operational suitability certification basis, to all known EU operators of the aircraft, before the operational suitability data must be used by a training organisation or an EU operator; and
(b) any change to the operational suitability data to all known EU operators of the aircraft; and
(c) on request, the relevant data referred to in points (a) and (b) above, to:
1. the competent authority responsible for verifying conformity with one or more elements of this set of operational suitability data; and
2. any person required to comply with one or more elements of this set of operational suitability data.
Consequently, users should request OSD data from the relevant owner, when required.
To assist users in contacting the relevant owner of the document, EASA provides some information on its website for OSD, in particular an OSD contact list based on feedback from manufacturers.
Licensing
What is the difference between the terms FCL (Flight Crew Licensing) and Aircrew?
Aircrew is the common term for "Flight Crew" and "Cabin Crew". Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 laying down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to civil aviation aircrew (“the Aircrew Regulation”) covers both flight crew and cabin crew.
Annex I (Part-FCL) to the Aircrew Regulation contains Implementing Rules for Flight Crew.
Annex V (Part-CC) to the Aircrew Regulation contains Implementing Rules for Cabin Crew.
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.
Pilots must receive differences training or familiarisation as appropriate in accordance with point FCL.710 of Part-FCL in order to extend their privileges to another variant of aircraft within one class or type rating.
A class or type rating and license endorsement should comply with the class and type ratings that are listed in one of the following EASA publications, as applicable: (1) ‘List of Aeroplanes — Class and Type Ratings and Endorsement List’; and (2) ‘List of Helicopters — Type Ratings List’ .
Unless otherwise required in the EASA Type Rating & License Endorsement List Flight Crew’ published on the Agency’s web page, aircraft models/names of variants which are separated by a horizontal line in the tables require differences training, whereas those aircraft which are contained in the same cell require familiarisation when transitioning from one aircraft to another.
2. Qualification of pilots, instructors and examiners for the new variant:
1. 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 complete differences training or familiarization on that new type (as applicable) and qualify in accordance with the last subparagraph of point FCL.910.TRI(b) / point FCL.910.SFI or, alternatively and solely for the initial phase of new aircraft introduction, may obtain a special certificate in accordance with point FCL.900(b) (special conditions for the introduction of a new type).
2. 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 (1) and (2) above (differences training on the new variant and instructor privileges).
3. 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.
How should the new class and type rating list for aeroplanes which is published on the Agency’s website be understood?
For guidance on how to read and understand the EASA List of Class or Type Ratings, please refer to the related Explanatory Notes.
How can a third country (non-EU) licence be converted into a Part-FCL licence?
For conversion of third country licences, the provisions of the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/723 of 4 March 2020 are applicable. That Regulation sets out possible credits and experience requirements, when seeking a Part-FCL licence on the basis of a third-country licence.
National Competent authorities of the EASA Member States are responsible for the conversion of third country licences. 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 competent authorities (NAAs), please visit the EASA member states page.
To access the different national competent authorities, you should:
1. select the tab ''EASA Member State'';
2. select the MS to be contacted;
3. select the hyperlink to the authority website under the 'Related Content' tab.
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.
Could the European Central Question Bank be published?
The Agency is the administrator of the European Central Question Bank (ECQB).
Taking into account that:
- Ownership of the copyright of the ECQB database is vested to the European Aviation Safety Agency; and
- Ownership of the contents of the database remains vested to its respective owners; and
- The possession, management and administration of the contents of the database have been fully vested in the hands of the Agency; and
- 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.
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.
Which licence do I have to hold to become a TRI on a multi pilot aeroplane (MPA)?
The prerequisites to obtain and hold any TRI rating are regulated in FCL.915.TRI. There it is stated in a) that an applicant for a TRI rating shall hold a CPL, MPL or ATPL pilot licence on the applicable aircraft category.
Can a co-pilot apply for a TRI rating on a multi pilot aeroplane (MPA)?
Upset Prevention and Recovery Training
Which pilots need to undergo what kind of UPRT?
The different ‘levels’ of UPRT (please refer to the FAQ ‘What is UPRT?’) will be integrated into pilot training as follows:
- basic UPRT
- all modular and integrated CPL and ATP training courses for aeroplanes as well as the integrated MPL training course
- all modular and integrated CPL and ATP training courses for aeroplanes as well as the integrated MPL training course
- ‘advanced UPRT course’
- Part of
- integrated ATP course
- integrated MPL course
- Pre-requisite to
- training courses for single-pilot class or type ratings operated in multi-pilot operations
- training courses for single-pilot high performance complex aeroplanes
- training courses for multi-pilot aeroplanes
- Part of
- class-or type-related UPRT
- training courses for single-pilot high performance complex aeroplanes
- training courses for multi-pilot aeroplanes
- bridge course for extending privileges on a single-pilot aeroplane to multi-pilot operations
To which extent flight simulation training devices (FSTDs) can be used for upset prevention and recovery training (UPRT)?
Training of UPRT exercises within the validated training envelope of the particular FSTD will be possible. In this context, it needs to be highlighted that the revised Part-FCL requirements mandate the conduct of ‘approach-to-stall’ exercises only, with no obligation to conduct ‘post-stall’ exercises. For the conduct of stall or post-stall UPRT exercises, FSTDs need to be qualified in accordance with special evaluation criteria (see Section A, point 18 of Appendix 9 to Part-FCL).
Is UPRT also be mandatory for the LAPL and the PPL?
UPRT, as introduced into Part-FCL with amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1974, is not applicable to LAPL or PPL training.
However, to address the fact that loss of control in-flight is still a major issue in general aviation, the requirements and associated AMC applicable to training flights for revalidation of SEP and TMG class ratings/privileges are planned to be revised to outline the necessity for these training flights to cover emergency procedures (such as different stall scenarios).
What is UPRT?
UPRT stands for aeroplane ‘upset prevention and recovery training’ and constitutes:
• aeroplane upset prevention training: a combination of theoretical knowledge and flying training with the aim of providing flight crew with the required competencies to prevent aeroplane upsets; and
• aeroplane upset recovery training: a combination of theoretical knowledge and flying training with the aim of providing flight crew with the required competencies to recover from aeroplane upsets.
In order to expose pilots to different ‘levels’ of UPRT at various stages of their professional pilot’s career, Annex I (Part-FCL) to Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 contains the following “levels” of UPRT:
• Basic UPRT exercises as part of all CPL and ATP integrated training courses as well as the MPL training course (phase 1 to 3).
• An ‘advanced UPRT course’ including at least 5 hours of theoretical instruction as well as at least 3 hours of dual flight instruction in an aeroplane, with the aim to enhance the student’s resilience to the psychological and physiological aspects associated with upset conditions.
• Class- or type-related UPRT during class or type rating training to address the specificities of the relevant class or type of aeroplane.
Cabin Crew
Definition of ‘cabin crew’
What is the definition of ‘cabin crew member’?
Reference: Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 Aircrew, Article 2 ‘Definitions’.
Article 2 ‘Definitions’ defines ‘cabin crew member’ as follows:
Reference: Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 Aircrew, Article 2 ‘Definitions’.
Article 2 ‘Definitions’ 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;
Does the definition of ‘aircrew’ include cabin crew members?
Reference: Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 Aircrew, Article 2 ‘Definitions’.
Yes, the definition of ‘aircrew’ includes a cabin crew member as well.
Article 2 ‘Definitions’ defines ‘aircrew’ as follows:
(12) “Aircrew” means flight crew and cabin crew;
Medical fitness
Is Cabin Crew Member required to carry his/her medical certificate when on duty?
Reference: Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 Aircrew, Annex IV Part-MED and ED Decision 2011/015/R are available on EASA website.
EU legislation does not contain any provisions on the carriage of a medical report when on duty. MED.C.030(a)(2) requires cabin crew members to provide the related information of their medical report or the copy of their medical report to the operator(s) employing their services. MED.C.030(b) requires the cabin crew medical report to indicate the date of the aero-medical assessment, whether the cabin crew member has been assessed fit or unfit, the date of the next aero-medical assessment and, if applicable, any limitation(s). Any other elements shall be subject to medical confidentiality in accordance with MED.A.015.
Cabin crew members are encouraged to carry their medical report or a copy while on duty to attest their medical fitness and limitation(s). The operator may also have procedures in place through which a cabin crew member’s medical report can be readily available upon request by a competent authority.
Decrease of medical fitness and an ‘unfit’ medical report.
Reference: Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 Aircrew, Annex IV Part-MED and ED Decision 2011/015/R are available on EASA website.
In case of a decrease in cabin crew member’s medical fitness, the cabin crew member shall, without undue delay, seek the advice of an aero-medical examiner or aero-medical centre or, where allowed by the Member State, an occupational health medical practitioner who will assess the medical fitness of the individual and decide if the cabin crew member is fit to resume his/her duties.
In case a cabin crew member has been assessed as ‘unfit’, the cabin crew member has the right of a secondary review. The cabin crew member shall not perform duties on an aircraft and shall not exercise the privileges of their cabin crew attestation until assessed as ‘fit’ again.
Where can I find the EU medical requirements for Cabin Crew?
References:
Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 Aircrew, Annex IV Part-MED.
ED Decision 2011/015/R containing AMC and GM.
All the referenced regulations are available on EASA website.
NOTE: This FAQ only provides an overview of the area-content covered by the individual Subparts A, C and D of the Reg. 1178/2011. The medical requirements for cabin crew are extensive in text, therefore to find the exact aspect you are looking for, you need to look through the respective Subpart of the Reg. 1178/2011, Annex IV Part-MED and the related AMC and GM (ED Decision 2011/015/R).
Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 - Annex IV - Part-MED: https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-library/regulations/commission-regulation-eu-no-11782011
- Subpart A, Section 1: scope, definitions, decrease in medical fitness, obligations of doctors who conduct aero-medical assessments of cabin crew, etc.
- Subpart C (all): requirements for medical fitness of cabin crew
- Subpart D, Section 1: aero-medical examiners (AEM)
- Subpart D, Section 3: occupational health medical practitioners (OHMP); requirements for doctors who conduct aero-medical assessments of cabin crew
ED Decision 2011/015/R contains acceptable means of compliance (AMC) and guidance material (GM) which complement the rules. The AMC and GM specify the detailed medical conditions and the related medical examinations or investigations: https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-library/agency-decisions/ed-decision-2011015r
Practical ‘raft’ training
Why does Initial training under Part-CC require practical ‘raft’ training even if the operator’s aircraft is not equipped with slide rafts or life rafts?
Reference: Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 Aircrew as amended by Regulation (EU) No 290/2012 Part-CC available on EASA website.
Under EU-OPS, practical training on the use of rafts was required during Initial training. EU-OPS was a regulation directed, and applicable, to operators, therefore, an operator could provide raft training only when a cabin crew member was to actually operate on the operator’s aeroplane fitted with rafts or similar equipment. The training was conducted with that operator’s specific equipment/rafts.
The Initial training under Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011, Part CC is no longer ‘operator-related’, it is generic, therefore, the practical training on rafts or similar equipment and an actual practice in water are not specific to an operator’s equipment.
CCA holders, when recruited by an operator, are expected to have the ability to perform all types of cabin crew duties, including ditching related duties in water. Part-CC Cabin Crew Attestation (CCA) is issued for a life time and is recognised across all EU. Unlike the EU OPS Attestation, the CCA is subject to validity to attest the competence of the individual cabin crew member. This is foreseen in the Basic Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2018/1139) taking into account the increasing mobility of personnel in the aviation industry and the need to harmonise cabin crew qualifications.
An operator may be granted an approval to provide Part-CC Initial training and to issue the CCA (entitled to a mutual recognition as described above). That operator no longer acts as an operator training only its own cabin crew for its specific operations. That operator acts as a training organisation training future cabin crew who, in their life time, may also operate with other operators and in other Member States.
Instructor and Examiner being the same person – conflict of interest
Instructor who provided any topic of the Initial training should not act as Examiner to avoid conflict of interest. What about small operators / cabin crew training organisations employing only one ground Instructor, for example to cover dangerous goods or aero-medical aspects and first aid?
Reference: Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 Aircrew and ED Decision 2012/006/R are available on EASA website.
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.
Cabin Crew Attestation
My Cabin Crew Attestation was issued in EU Member State A. I would like to join an operator in EU Member State B. Is my Cabin Crew Attestation recognised in EU Member State B?
References:
Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 New Basic Regulation.
Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 Aircrew.
Regulation (EU) No 290/2012 amended by Regulation (EU) No 2015/445 and Regulation (EU) No 245/2014.
All the referenced regulations are available on EASA website.
EU cabin crew member must hold a Cabin Crew Attestation compliant with the rules established by the Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 290/2012, Regulation (EU) No 2015/445 and Regulation (EU) No 245/2014:
https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-library/regulations/commission-regulation-eu-no-11782011
Cabin Crew Attestation issued in one EU Member State, or in EASA Member State, is valid and recognised in all EU Member States without further requirements or evaluation. Each cabin crew member can benefit from a free working movement amongst the EU operators/Member States.
The mutual recognition is established by Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 New Basic Regulation, in Article 67 and Article 3, paragraph (12) and (9).
My cabin crew qualification document was issued in a country that is not a member of the European Union and is not an EASA Member State either. Is my cabin crew qualification document recognised in the European Union?
References:
Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 New Basic Regulation.
Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 Aircrew.
Regulation (EU) No 290/2012 amended by Regulation (EU) No 2015/445 and Regulation (EU) No 245/2014.
All the referenced regulations are available on EASA website.
No, the document is not recognised in the European Union. EU cabin crew member must hold a Cabin Crew Attestation compliant with the rules established by the Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 290/2012, Regulation (EU) No 2015/445 and Regulation (EU) No 245/2014:
https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-library/regulations/commission-regulation-eu-no-11782011
Fire and smoke training
What are the requirements for cabin crew fire/smoke training?
References: (all are available on EASA website)
Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 Aircrew as amended by Regulation (EU) No 290/2012.
Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 Air Operations.
ED Decision 2014/017/R containing AMC and GM to the rules.
NOTE: The requirements on fire and smoke training are extensive in text, therefore to have a better view and understanding, this FAQ should be read together with the rule text. The relevant rule reference is included in each line (type of training) below.
1. Initial training:
- CC.TRA.220 Initial training course and examination
- Appendix 1 to Part-CC Initial training course and examination / Training programme;
Point 8 on Fire and Smoke training
Reference: Regulation (EU) No 290/2012, Annex V Part-CC.
2. Aircraft type training:
- ORO.CC.125 Aircraft type specific and operator conversion training
Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 - AMC1 ORO.CC.125(c) and AMC1 ORO.CC.125(d) containing a training programme for aircraft type specific training and operator conversion training respectively
Reference: ED Decision 2014/017/R
3. Recurrent training:
- ORO.CC.140 Recurrent training
Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 - AMC1 ORO.CC.140 Recurrent training
Reference: ED Decision 2014/017/R
4. Refresher training:
- ORO.CC.145 Refresher training
Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012
What is the content of fire and smoke training during the Initial training ?
Reference: Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 Aircrew as amended by Regulation (EU) No 290/2012, see Annex V ‘Part-CC’ and Appendix I to Part-CC.
Each applicant for a Cabin Crew Attestation shall undergo the Initial training and examination specified in the above referenced regulation. Please, refer to the point 8. Fire and smoke training, which shall cover the following elements:
8.1. emphasis on the responsibility of cabin crew to deal promptly with emergencies involving fire and smoke and, in particular, emphasis on the importance of identifying the actual source of the fire;
8.2. the importance of informing the flight crew immediately, as well as the specific actions necessary for coordination and assistance, when fire or smoke is discovered;
8.3. the necessity for frequent checking of potential fire-risk areas including toilets, and the associated smoke detectors;
8.4. the classification of fires and the appropriate type of extinguishing agents and procedures for particular fire situations;
8.5. the techniques of application of extinguishing agents, the consequences of misapplication, and of use in a confined space including practical training in fire-fighting and in the donning and use of smoke protection equipment used in aviation; and
8.6. the general procedures of ground-based emergency services at aerodromes.
Language proficiency
Is there any requirement on cabin crew member(s) communication with passengers in a certain language?
Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 Air Operations, Annex III (Part-ORO) and Annex IV (Part-CAT) is available on EASA website.
There is no EU (or ICAO requirement) that cabin crew members must speak English. It is a general practice that cabin crew members do speak English to facilitate the communication in the aviation industry. The operator defines what languages its cabin crew members must be able to speak and at what level.
Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 specifies the following two requirements:
- The operator shall ensure that all personnel are able to understand the language in which those parts of the Operations Manual, which pertain to their duties and responsibilities, are written (ORO.MLR.100(k)), and
- The operator shall ensure that all crew members can communicate with each other in a common language (CAT.GEN.MPA.120).
There is no EU (or ICAO) requirement for a specific language regarding cabin crew communication with passengers. It must be noted that it is difficult, if not impossible, to mandate the ‘required’ languages to be used on board with regard to communication with passengers, as this differs on daily basis from a flight to flight. For example, a German airline has a flight departing from Frankfurt to Madrid and it is assumed that the cabin crew members speak German since they work for a German operator. In addition, they may speak English if the operator selected this language as a criterion. The passenger profile may, however, be such that these languages are not ‘desired’ on this flight as passengers do not necessarily speak or understand any of the two languages (passengers may be e.g. Russian, Chinese, Iranian, Indian, Pakistani, Polish, Finnish, Croatian, Hungarian, Bulgarian, Czech, Slovak, etc., or there is a large group of e.g. Japanese tourists).
Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 mandates the operator to ensure that briefings and demonstrations related to safety are provided to passengers in a form that facilitates the application of the procedures applicable in case of an emergency and that passengers are provided with a safety briefing card on which picture type-instructions indicate the operation of emergency equipment and exits likely to be used by passengers. It is therefore the operator’s responsibility to choose the languages to be used on its flights, which may vary depending on the destination or a known passenger profile. It is also a practice of some operators to employ ‘language speakers’, i.e. cabin crew members speaking certain languages, who mainly operate their language-desired route(s).
Do cabin crew members have to be able to speak English to obtain their Cabin Crew Attestation?
Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 Air Operations, Annex III (Part-ORO) and Annex IV (Part-CAT) is available on EASA website.
There is no EU (or ICAO requirement) that cabin crew members must speak English. It is a general practice that cabin crew members do speak English to facilitate the communication in the aviation industry. The operator defines what languages its cabin crew members must be able to speak and at what level.
Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 specifies the following two requirements:
- The operator shall ensure that all personnel are able to understand the language in which those parts of the Operations Manual, which pertain to their duties and responsibilities, are written (ORO.MLR.100(k)), and
- The operator shall ensure that all crew members can communicate with each other in a common language (CAT.GEN.MPA.120).
There is no EU (or ICAO) requirement for a specific language regarding cabin crew communication with passengers. It must be noted that it is difficult, if not impossible, to mandate the ‘required’ languages to be used on board with regard to communication with passengers, as this differs on daily basis from a flight to flight. For example, a German airline has a flight departing from Frankfurt to Madrid and it is assumed that the cabin crew members speak German since they work for a German operator. In addition, they may speak English if the operator selected this language as a criterion. The passenger profile may, however, be such that these languages are not ‘desired’ on this flight as passengers do not necessarily speak or understand any of the two languages (passengers may be e.g. Russian, Chinese, Iranian, Indian, Pakistani, Polish, Finnish, Croatian, Hungarian, Bulgarian, Czech, Slovak, etc., or there is a large group of e.g. Japanese tourists).
Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 mandates the operator to ensure that briefings and demonstrations related to safety are provided to passengers in a form that facilitates the application of the procedures applicable in case of an emergency and that passengers are provided with a safety briefing card on which picture type-instructions indicate the operation of emergency equipment and exits likely to be used by passengers. It is therefore the operator’s responsibility to choose the languages to be used on its flights, which may vary depending on the destination or a known passenger profile. It is also a practice of some operators to employ ‘language speakers’, i.e. cabin crew members speaking certain languages, who mainly operate their language-desired route(s).
Aircraft type training
Do I have to undergo Aircraft type specific training and operator conversion training with every new operator I join if I am already qualified on that aircraft type?
Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 Air Operations, Annex III (Part ORO) is available on EASA website.
Aircraft type specific training and operator conversion training is not transferable from one operator to another as each operator may have its own customised aircraft cabin configurations incl. differences in safety and emergency equipment and standard operating and emergency procedures. Therefore, as required by ORO.CC.125, cabin crew members must complete Aircraft type specific training and operator conversion training before being assigned to operate on the operator’s aircraft.
Can a cabin crew training organisation (CCTO) provide Aircraft type specific training and operator conversion training?
Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 Air Operations, Annex III (Part ORO) is available on EASA website.
Aircraft type specific training and operator conversion training is a requirement directed to operators as specified in ORO.GEN.005, therefore the operator is responsible for this training. However, an operator may contract out some activities (e.g. training) as specified in ORO.GEN.205 complemented by AMC1 ORO.GEN.205 and GM1 ORO.GEN.205 and GM2 ORO.GEN.205. Therefore, CCTO can only provide Aircraft type specific training and operator conversion training if contracted by an operator to do so. The operator remains responsible for this training and for the competence of its cabin crew.
Reduction of cabin crew during ground operations
Do the evacuation procedures with a reduced number of required cabin crew during ground operations or in unforeseen circumstances require prior endorsement?
Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 Air Operations and the associated ED Decisions are available on EASA website.
The minimum number of cabin crew for an aircraft type, as determined by certification and approved by EASA, is stated on the Type Certification Data Sheet. The minimum number of cabin crew and the evacuation procedures form part of the Operations Manual. Reducing the minimum cabin crew is a deviation from the required minimum number and requires close monitoring. Changes to evacuation procedures with a reduced number of cabin crew are required to be acceptable to the Competent Authority.
The minimum number of cabin crew required in the passenger compartment may be reduced under conditions stated in ORO.CC.205 incl. AMC1 ORO.CC.205 (c)(1). Procedures must be established in the operations manual; it has to be ensured that an equivalent level of safety is achieved with the reduced number of cabin crew, in particular for evacuation of passengers.
Minimum required cabin crew
Determination of the minimum required number of cabin crew on an aircraft
NOTE: The purpose of this FAQ is to explain how the operator and the Competent Authority (National Aviation Authority) conclude the minimum number of cabin crew required on the operator’s aircraft. This FAQ does not provide specific numbers for aircraft types or individual aircraft. The minimum number of cabin crew may vary on each aircraft, depending on the certification history of that aircraft. To learn the minimum number of cabin crew on your aircraft, please, consult your Competent Authority. To have a better view and understanding of the explanation below, this FAQ should be read together with the rule ORO.CC.100 (Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on air operations).
Minimum number of cabin crew is established during the certification process of the aircraft and this number must be clearly written in the certification documentation (reference: EASA Certification Memorandum CM-CS-008, issued on 03 July 2017). The ‘certification documentation’ is the Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS) or the Supplemental Type Certificate (STC).
Therefore, in order to establish the minimum number of cabin crew on the operator’s aircraft, as specified in ORO.CC.100(b)(1) of Regulation (EU) No 965/2012, the operator/National Aviation Authority must check the aircraft certification documentation and apply the number written in the certification documentation.
However, historically, not all aircraft had the number of minimum cabin crew written in the certification documentation, or even established during the certification process. In this case, the operator may use the calculation method specified in ORO.CC.100(b)(2) of Regulation (EU) No 965/2012.
In summary:
Certification documentation of the operator’s aircraft issued:
- Before 3rd July 2017: if the certification documentation does not include the number of minimum cabin crew or the number has not been established for the aircraft, you may apply the calculation method specified in ORO.CC.100(b)(2)).
- After 3rd July 2017: you must apply the number of minimum cabin crew specified in the certification documentation in accordance with the rule ORO.CC.100(b)(1).
Background information:
The development stage of Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 (‘AIR OPS’) initially did not include the paragraph (b)(2) in ORO.CC.100, i.e. the ‘1 per 50’ calculation. This inclusion was done last minute and it resulted in the overall lack of clarity of ORO.CC.100(b). To help with the implementation, EASA published Safety Information Bulletin (SIB) 2014-29, which provided detailed information on how to comply with ORO.CC.100. The SIB was supported by the EU Members States, however resulted in a strong opposition by EU operators. As a result, discussions were held in 2015 between EASA and IATA/IACA on the application of ORO.CC.100(b), i.e. how to establish the minimum required number of cabin crew. As an outcome of these discussions, on 7th December 2015 EASA communicated to the stakeholders the ‘EASA conclusions following the consultation on the proposed Certification Memo and Safety Information Bulletin on minimum cabin crew for twin‐aisle aeroplanes’.
On 3rd July 2017, EASA published the above-mentioned Certification Memorandum EASA-CM-CS-008. This document clarifies to aircraft manufacturers and design organisations that the number of cabin crew assumed in their evacuation certification activity must be clearly stated in their documentation. Following the publication of this Certification Memorandum, the TCDSs have been amended to include the minimum number of cabin crew. Some aircraft manufacturers have amended their TCDSs even before the publication of this Certification Memorandum.
There may be cases where the minimum number of cabin crew for the operator’s aircraft will be different (e.g. lower) than the number written in the TCDS. Such a change must be approved by EASA and such an aircraft will hold a Supplemental Type Certificate. STC means that it was demonstrated that the aircraft cabin configuration used by the operator is compliant with the applicable certification specifications with a lower number of cabin crew members than the number specified in the TCDS. If the operator’s aircraft holds a STC, the number of minimum cabin crew written in the STC will be applicable to that aircraft.
Working for multiple operators
I work for Operator A and have short/long-term contract(s) with Operator B. What training do I require when I return back to Operator A after the completion of my short/long-term contract with Operator B?
Ref.: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 Air Operations, Annex III (Part-ORO) is available on EASA website.
When joining Operator B, the cabin crew member undergoes the Aircraft type specific and operator conversion training & Familiarisation.
When returning to Operator A (after completing the short/long-term contract with Operator B) the options are:
- No training is required, provided the cabin crew member’s recency is within the validity of the Recurrent training and the cabin crew member has operated on Operator A aircraft type during the last 6 months.
- Recurrent training if the validity is about to expire.
- Refresher training, provided the cabin crew member has not operated on Operator A aircraft type for more than 6 months.
- Refresher training, if Operator A considers this training to be necessary due to complex equipment or procedures for the cabin crew member who has been absent from flying duties for less than 6 months.
- Aircraft type specific and operator conversion training & Familiarisation if the validity of the Recurrent training has expired.
What credit can I get as regards Subject 090 Communications for my IR, CPL or ATPL(H)/VFR?
Regulation (EU) 2018/1974 extended the scope of the training & examination on communications for the CPL(A) and CPL(H) (and the ATPL(H)/VFR) from only VFR to both VFR and IFR. Likewise, it extended the scope of communications for the instrument rating from just IFR to both VFR and IFR. Applicants applying for a CPL or ATPL who already hold an IR can be credited towards Subject 090 Communications, if they sat that specific exam. Such credit can also be given to the IR holder who completed ECQB-based exams for Subjects “VFR Communications” and “IFR Communications”. If the applicant only completed “IFR Communications” then no credit for the exam is available. A similar case applies to applicants holding a CPL or ATPL(H)/VFR applying for an IR: credit towards Subject 090 is available, except for where the applicant only holds a pass in “VFR Communications”.
I have successfully passed the CB-IR theoretical knowledge examinations – what instrument rating can I use this for?
According to point FCL.035 to Aircrew Regulation, someone who has successfully passed the IR(A) theoretical knowledge examination (including via the CB-IR(A) route) can use this towards their IR(A), or also for credit towards the Basic IR. If the candidate is seeking to obtain an IR in another aircraft category, additional training at an ATO must be completed.
On which learning objectives will my theoretical knowledge training and exam for the ATPL, CPL or instrument rating be based?
As of 01 February 2022, the theoretical knowledge training and exam is based on learning objectives that include Subject 090 Communications. The learning objectives are published as appendices to AMC1 FCL.310; FCL.515(b); FCL.615(b); FCL.835(d). Further information is available on the ECQB page.
Medical
Where can the aero-medical requirements for ATCOs be found?
The requirements for Air Traffic Controllers’ aero-medical certification can be found in Annex IV –PART ATCO.MED – of the Regulation (EU) 2015/340.
Please follow this link: https://www.easa.europa.eu/regulations#regulations-atco---air-traffic-controllers
Who can perform the Class 1 aero-medical examination?
Initial Class 1 aero-medical examination can be performed only at an Aero-medical centre (AeMC) certified to perform class 1 aero-medical examinations. The aero-medical examination for the renewal or revalidation of the medical certificate can be performed by either an AeMC or an authorized aero-medical examiner (AME) with the privileges to revalidate and renew Class 1 medical certificate. For more details, please refer to the website of the competent authority of a Member State where you are planning to apply. Usually competent authorities publish a list of the authorised AeMCs and AMEs on their website. The list of Member States and the websites of their competent authorities can be found on our website under 'EASA by Country'.
Who can perform the Class 3 aero-medical examination?
Initial Class 3 aero-medical examination can be performed only at an Aero-Medical Centre (AeMC) certified to perform class 3 aero-medical examinations. The recurrent aero-medical examination can be performed by either an AeMC or an authorized aero-medical examiner (AME) with the privileges to revalidate and renew Class 3 medical certificate. For more details, please refer to the website of the competent authority of a Member State where you are planning to apply. Usually competent authorities publish a list of the authorised AeMCs and AMEs on their website. The list of Member States and the web sites of their competent authorities can be found on our website under 'EASA by Country'.
Who can perform the Class 2 and LAPL aero-medical examination?
All Class 2 and LAPL aero-medical examination can be performed by any AeMC or AME authorized to perform aero-medical examinations for aircrew. In addition to that, subject to national provisions, LAPL aero-medical examinations may be performed by General Medical Practitioners (GMPs). For more details, please refer to the website of the competent authority of a Member State where you are planning to apply. Usually competent authorities publish a list of the authorised AeMCs and AMEs including information whether GMPs are allowed to perform aero-medical examinations for LAPL applicants. The list of Member States and the websites of their competent authorities can be found on our website under 'EASA by Country'.
Who can perform the Cabin crew aero-medical assessment?
Cabin Crew aero-medical assessment can be performed by any AeMC or AME authorized to perform aero-medical examinations in accordance with Regulation (EU) 1178/2011. In addition to that, subject to national provisions, aero-medical examinations and assessments may be performed by Occupational Health Medical Practitioners (OHMPs). For more details, please refer to the website of the competent authority of a Member State where you are planning to apply. The list of Member States and the websites of their competent authorities can be found on our website under 'EASA by Country'.
Do you have a list of certified AeMCs and AMEs in Europe?
No, EASA does not have any list of available AeMCs and AMEs. Nevertheless you should be able to find the list of AeMCs and AME on Competent Authorities’ web-sites for each Member State. The list of Member States and links to the competent authorities websites can be found on our website under 'EASA by Country'.
Is there any AeMC available outside Europe?
Where can the aero-medical requirements for Pilots and Cabin Crew be found?
The requirements for Aircrew aero-medical certification can be found in Annex IV – Part-MED – of the Regulation (EU) 1178/2011.
Please follow this link: https://www.easa.europa.eu/regulations#regulations-aircrew
May I exercise the privileges of my PPL licence if I have a Class 1 medical certificate?
Yes, the Class 1 medical certificate includes Class 2 and LAPL privileges.
May I exercise the privileges of my PPL licence if I have a Class 3 medical certificate?
No, the Class 3 medical certificate does not include Class 2 privileges. In order to exercise the privileges of or undertake solo flights for a PPL licence you need to hold a valid Class 2 or Class 1 medical certificate.
If I undertake my aero-medical examination in another Member State than the state that issued my licence do I need to validate resulting medical certificate with my licensing authority?
Flight Simulation Training Devices (FSTDs)
CS- FSTD(A) Issue 2 - UPRT Compliance of current qualified FSTD
In order to satisfy the FCL requirements, of Opinion 6, CS-FSTD(A) Issue 2 is applicable. For updated devices this can be done either through a special evaluation or at the recurrent evaluation (requires application for the Issue 2 elements to be evaluated and credited).
Please refer to CS-FSTD(A) Issue 2 AMC11 FSTD(A).300 Guidance on high angle of attack/stall model evaluation, and approach to stall for previously qualified FSTDs.
When considering the additional requirements under Issue 2 as well for the UPRT requirements please refer to the Explanatory Note to Decision 2018/006/R (reference section 2.5. What are the benefits and drawbacks “Safety improvement by further mitigating/preventing loss of control in-flight (LOC-I). Safety would improve due to the objective testing provisions which would validate not only the cruising configuration, but also the approach and landing configurations. Current FSTDs would be qualified to accurately reproduce the approach to stall in certain conditions and the behaviour of the aeroplane when affected by ice.”
AMC11 applies to previously qualified devices and in some cases where the aeroplane being represented may not have the required validation data – this AMC allows an acceptable means of providing such test data by using a footprint method (when no validation data is available).
If any of the elements of Issue 2 are missing, then this will be shown in the Qualification Certificate as “Restrictions or limitations” to show the users the capabilities of the FSTD.
In conclusion, current qualified FSTD will not need to be fully compliant with CS-FSTD(A) issue 2 but only with the elements related to UPRT and icing. The qualification certificate of the FSTD will therefore show references to two PRDs (Primary Reference Document):
- The PRD used during the initial evaluation of the FSTD;
- CS-FSTD(A) issue 2 for UPRT and icing.
General
Where can I find guidance on the use of ‘shall’, ‘must’, ‘should’ and ‘may’ in the Agency’s rulemaking publications and generally in EU legislation?
This question relates to the English writing standards used in Community legislation. Points 10.23 to 10.32 of the English Style Guide, prepared by the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Translation, provide guidance concerning the use of modal verbs in legislation, contracts and the like, as well as an explanation of the distinction between modal verbs used in enacting and non-enacting terms.
Further, points 2.3, 10 and 12 of the Joint Practical Guide of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission for persons involved in the drafting of European Union legislation also provide guidelines on the principles of drafting Community legislation.
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.
Why has the numbering of the EU regulations changed as of 2015?
Starting with 2015, the European Union adopts a new numbering system for its legal acts. (see Harmonising the numbering of EU Legal Acts)
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.
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.
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.
What is the legal status of documents published during the EASA Rulemaking process such as Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA), Comment Response Document (CRD) or an Opinion? Can they be used if there is no EU rule available?
The proposed draft rules published during the EASA Rulemaking process are not binding documents as they are still subject to change. This may occur either during the EASA rulemaking process or through the Commission's comitology process. Consequently, NPAs, CRDs and Opinions cannot be used in place of an EU rule.
NPAs and CRDs are part of the Agency's rulemaking process, at different stages. They inform and consult stakeholders on possible rule changes or new rules. The NPAs include an explanatory note, the proposed draft rules, a regulatory impact assessment (RIA) — if applicable, and proposed actions to support implementation. They are published on the Agency’s website to allow any person or organisation with an interest in or being affected by the draft proposed rule to submit their comments.
The CRD to a particular NPA is published after the comments have been reviewed and contains a summary of the comments received, along with all the comments submitted by stakeholders on that particular NPA and EASA’s responses to those comments.
Most of the times, the EASA rulemaking process also leads to the issuance of Opinions, which contain proposals of implementing and delegated acts. They are submitted to the European Commission, as a proposal to change existing regulations or create new ones.
More information on EASA rulemaking.
What is the comitology procedure?
Please refer to the information provided by the European Commission at:
https://ec.europa.eu/info/implementing-and-delegated-acts/comitology_en
What does 'Cover’ Regulation mean?
Implementing rules are Commission regulations. A regulation is 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; Part-ORO is an annex to Regulation (EU) No 965/2012).
The ‘cover’ regulation is usually short (a few pages) and it includes:
- The preamble made up of:
- Citations (the paragraphs introduced by ‘Having regard to…’); and
- Recitals (clauses introduced by ‘whereas’), explaining the reasons for the contents of the enacting terms (i.e. the articles) of an act, the background principles and considerations that lead the legislator to adopt the regulation;
- The articles of the regulation, which contain:
- 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.
Can the information provided in EASA's FAQ be considered legally binding?
No, the information included in the Agency’s FAQs cannot be considered in any way to be legally binding. EASA is not the competent authority to interpret EU Law. Such responsibility rests with the judicial system, and ultimately with the Court of Justice of the European Union. Therefore any information included in these FAQs shall only be considered as EASA's technical understanding on a specific matter.
Continuing Airworthiness
In case the answer you were looking for in this FAQ section is not available, you are invited to contact first your competent authority (here for EASA member states). For further assistance, you might submit your enquiry, together with the description of your authority’s position, here.
COVID-19 - Continuing Airworthiness
What is the flexibility allowed to the person or organisation responsible for the aircraft continuing airworthiness when it comes to the planning of Aircraft Maintenance Programme (AMP) scheduled maintenance tasks with intervals expressed in calendar time?
1. Purpose of the document
The Agency was requested by the industry for additional guidance on the application of the airworthiness rules in respect to certain specific issues particularly affected by the current COVID-19 crisis. One of those topics concerns the obligations of the person or organisation responsible for continuing airworthiness of aircraft when it comes to the accomplishment of Aircraft Maintenance Programme tasks with intervals expressed in calendar times. Accordingly, the Agency prepared this additional, temporary, guidance, which complements the existing AMC/GM to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014.
The guidance provided in this document is primarily intended for ‘Part-M’ aircraft, but can be used also as regards ‘Part-ML’ aircraft, except that in case of ‘Part-ML’ aircraft, the competent authority does not need to be involved if an AMP task is to be postponed, as this is done under the responsibility of the aircraft owner or the organisation responsible for the aircraft continuing airworthiness. This person or organisation may also decide, if necessary to revise the AMP, which will not involve the competent authority.
2. Description of the issue
During the COVID-19 crisis, a large number of aircraft is being parked / stored at different and partially remote locations. This guidance document was prepared based on an assumption that these aircraft have been subject to parking/storage procedures defined by the Type Certificate (TC) Holder (those parking and storage procedures are usually contained in a chapter of the Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM e.g. Chapter 10). If the existing AMM does not contain parking/storage procedures, the TC Holder should be contacted.
Note: It is not necessary to revise the AMP to include the parking/storage tasks to be followed.
During the COVID-19 crisis, the parked/stored aircraft are not operated and consequently the AMP scheduled maintenance tasks based on ‘Flight hours’ and ‘Flight cycles’ are not impacted. On the other hand the AMP scheduled maintenance tasks based on intervals (and threshold, if applicable) expressed in calendar times need to be considered. Indeed, some of the calendar time based scheduled maintenance tasks will become due during parking/storage period.
In the normal practice, following the principles of AMC M.A.301(c) and point 4 of Appendix I to AMC M.A.302 and AMC M.B.301(b), if a scheduled maintenance task cannot be performed within the interval approved in the AMP, its postponement may be allowed in accordance with pre-defined ‘permitted variation’ agreed with the CA in the AMP.
3. Considerations in the frame of COVID-19 crisis
3.1 Postponement until the end of parking/storage period
In the current situation, it may not be always feasible, to perform the calendar scheduled maintenance tasks of the AMP in due time, or within the permitted variation specified in the AMP.
In such cases, it is acceptable for EASA to plan the accomplishment of these tasks (even if they have become due multiple times during the parking/storage period) at the next suitable opportunity (e.g. next weekly check of storage/parking procedure), or at the end of the storage/parking period, but in any case before the next flight, as part of the work package necessary for the de-preserving/de-storage of the aircraft.
Note: Certain AMP scheduled maintenance tasks may be assessed as unnecessary because they are covered by equivalent tasks in the parking/storage procedures put in place.
3.2 Postponement beyond return to service
If exceptionally, a calendar task needs to be postponed until after the return to service and beyond the AMP permitted variation, the aircraft owner or CAMO/CAO should receive advice from the TCH or the Design Approval holder (DAH) on such postponement and on the subsequent due date after the accomplishment.
The applicant should then submit such postponement, together with the proposed technical justification, including if appropriate, a risk assessment, for approval by the CA.
The CA should consider the following conditions, mitigating actions or any other elements which the CA deems necessary, when allowing a postponement of a due calendar task after return to service:
- An approved maintenance organisation has applied the appropriate parking/storage procedures during the full period.
- The owner/CAMO/CAO has monitored what AMP tasks are due (M.A.708(b)(4), CAMO.A.315(b)(5) and CAO.A.075(b)(7)).
- This does not apply to mandatory continuing airworthiness instructions (MCAI) such as AD or ALS tasks.
- The environmental conditions where the aircraft was parked/stored have been taken into consideration. Certain calendar tasks may be more relevant to a particular storage environment, e.g. wet, salty conditions propagate corrosion.
In addition, the importance of the AMP task (e.g. based on MRB task type/source/category, reliability-alert task), the performance of the CAMO/CAO quality system, and if applicable the review of the risk assessment performed by the applicant, should also be considered.
Based on the above elements, it may be possible to allow an exceptional (one-off) postponement, not exceeding the following:
(i) AMP task interval of 1 year or less: up to 3 months
(ii) AMP task interval of more than 1 year, but not exceeding 2 years: up to 4 months
(iii) AMP task interval of more than 2 year, but not exceeding 3 years: up to 5 months
(iv) AMP task interval of more than 3 years: up to 6 months.
Such postponement should be calculated from the original AMP task due date, unless otherwise agreed with the competent authority.
The subsequent due date should also be part of the CA approval.
The Aircraft continuing airworthiness record system, and if applicable, the aircraft technical log system should properly record such agreement and the effective accomplishment date.
Depending on the length of the COVID-19 crisis and the future annual utilisation of the aircraft, the CA may also require to the owner/CAMO/CAO an ad-hoc review of the AMP pursuant to M.A.302(h).
Under the present rules, is the person responsible for the continuing airworthiness of an aircraft (owner, CAO or CAMO) allowed to split the customised maintenance checks?
1. Purpose of the document
The Agency was requested by the industry for additional guidance on the application of the airworthiness rules in respect to certain specific issues particularly affected by the current COVID-19 crisis. One of those topics concerns the possibility for a person responsible for continuing airworthiness of aircraft to split the customised maintenance tasks. Accordingly, the Agency prepared this additional, temporary, guidance document, which complements the existing GM/AMC to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014.
2. Description of the issue
Considering the large number of aircraft grounded at the same time during the COVID-19 crisis, the movement restrictions of persons, the temporary lack of access to certain facilities and/or services, the competent authorities may need to facilitate a more practical scheduling process of the Aircraft Maintenance Programme (AMP) tasks and a simpler process of approving changes to the responsible organisation’s procedures, in order to ensure as much as possible the continuation of organisation activities during this period, in compliance with the applicable requirements.
For aircraft managed under Annex I (Part-M) to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014, in accordance with M.A.301(c), the owner, CAO or CAMO, as applicable, should have a system to ensure that all aircraft maintenance tasks are performed within the limits prescribed by the approved Aircraft Maintenance Programme (AMP) and that, whenever a maintenance task cannot be performed within the required time limit, its postponement is allowed in accordance with a procedure agreed by the competent authority (CA).
If an owner, CAO or CAMO, as applicable, has developed the AMP through grouping of individual maintenance tasks into packages based on usage parameter(s) (e.g.: annual inspection, 1,000 FH inspection) or letter-checks (e.g.: A-check, C1-check), as per points M.A.302(a)&(f) any split of such a package back to individual maintenance tasks requires an amendment to the AMP and is subject to direct approval by the CA as per point M.A.302(b), unless this is already covered by the indirect approval of the AMP as per point M.A.302(c).
Under the COVID-19 circumstances, splitting the maintenance packages may give to the aircraft owner, CAO or CAMO, as applicable, the possibility to tailor and schedule the individual maintenance tasks as they are strictly needed, fitting the aircraft operational needs and activities, as well as the availability of the required facilities and/or services. It must be ensured that the AMP task intervals are respected.
For aircraft managed under Annex Vb (Part-ML) to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014, the aircraft owner, CAO or CAMO, as applicable, may simply declare/approve an amendment to the AMP in accordance with ML.A.302(b). When doing so, the same principles as the ones mentioned above for aircraft managed under Part M may be implemented, within the limits of the applicable rules.
EASA welcomes the efforts of the owners, CAOs and CAMOs, as applicable, for amending the AMPs and the CAs for having the amendments approved as quickly as possible, based on the principles mentioned above, within the limits of the applicable rules.
EASA is available to provide more technical support on this process on a case by case basis, upon the CAs’ request.
Under the present rules, how can a maintenance organisation extend the use of the privileges specified in 145.A.75(c) of line maintenance performed away from an approved location?
1. Purpose of the document
Considering the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on the aviation sector – a large number of aircraft grounded at airports/ locations where there is no maintenance organisation which can perform the required maintenance/ preservation tasks, to name but a few – the Agency was requested to provide to competent authorities (CAs) with additional guidance material to facilitate a simpler process of approving changes to the applicable organisation’s procedures. This document is therefore intended to guide CAs in keeping continuing compliance with the applicable requirements and ensure, as much as possible, the continuation of maintenance organisation activities.
The guidance provided in this document is primarily intended for Part-145 organisations, but can be used also in case of Part-M, Subpart F and Part-CAO organisations, if needed.
2. Description of the issue
In accordance with 145.B.35 and 145.B.40 of Regulation (EU) 1321/2014, the CA may consider to approve a concession to allow deviating from the Maintenance Organisation Exposition (MOE) procedures for maintenance performed away from an approved location, as per 145.A.75(c) and permit the performance of line maintenance in a non-approved location for a period up to 3 months (90 days).
The maintenance organisation may be allowed to perform line maintenance at such a location without having the obligation to get the approval of a line station in accordance with 145.A.85 i.e. without the need to declare the location in the MOE as required by 145.A.75(d).
The concession will be controlled by the maintenance organisation in accordance with MOE Ch. 3.10.
3. Considerations for the competent authority (CA)
When deciding on approving such a concession (requested by the maintenance organisation), the CA should take into consideration its duration period and the conditions for applying the respective change of procedure, based on at least the following aspects:
- previous performance of the organisation; and
- confidence of the competent authority in the ability of the internal quality system of the organisation to ensure safe operations.
After the initial period of the approved concession, the competent authority may reassess, following the same process as described above, the situation and may approve an additional extension of the initial period with another maximum 3 months (90 days) together with specifying the related conditions, as necessary.
Under the present rules, how can a production or maintenance organisation continue to use tools or equipment even if their calibration/periodical check cannot be carried out before the due date?
1. Purpose of the document
Considering the restrictions of movement of people or the temporary lack of access to certain facilities and/or services due to the COVID-19 crisis, which may have as a result that production and maintenance organisations are not able to get calibration/periodical checks of their tools and equipment carried out before the due date, the Agency was requested to provide additional guidance to the competent authorities to facilitate a simpler process of approving changes to the applicable organisation’s procedures, and to ensure as much as possible the continuation of production and maintenance organisation activities during this period, in compliance with the applicable requirements.
2. Description of the issue
In accordance with:
- For Part 21, Subpart F: points 21.A.125A and 21.A.126(a)(3)/GM No 2 to 21.A.126(a)(3);
- For Part 21, Subpart G: points 21.A.139(b)1.(vii), 21.A.143(a)(11) and 21.A.145(a)/GM 21.A.145(a); and
- For Part-M, Subpart F; Part-CAO and Part-145: as applicable, points M.A.604(a)7, M.A.608(b), CAO.A.050(b), CAO.A.025(a)(10), 145.A.40(b), 145.A.70(a)12., M.A.402(d) and ML.402(b)(4),
the production or maintenance organisation shall ensure, by complying with adequate procedures included in its exposition or manual, that all tools and equipment, as appropriate, are controlled and calibrated/periodically checked according to an officially recognised standard at a frequency to ensure serviceability and accuracy.
When such a procedure includes a recurrent calibration/periodical check of tools or equipment, it is possible that, due to the COVID-19 crisis, the procedure cannot be complied with because a recurring calibration/periodical check cannot be carried out before the specified due date. In such a case, a temporary change (direct or indirect approved or concessions) to the procedure may be acceptable in order to allow continuation of the activities in compliance with the rules.
In accordance with:
- For Part 21, Subpart F: points 21.A.125A and 21.B.140;
- For Part 21, Subpart G: points 21.A.143, 21.A.147 and 21.B.240;
- For Part-M, Subpart F: points M.A.604, M.A.617 and M.B.606;
- For Part-CAO: points CAO.A.025, CAO.A.105 and CAO.B.065; and
- For Part-145: points 145.A70, 145.A.85 and 145.B.35,
the competent authority may approve a temporary change to the applicable organisation’s procedure to allow an extension of the period at the end of which the calibration/periodical check of the tool or equipment is due.
3. Considerations for the competent authority (CA) and the organisations
The decision of the competent authority on the approval of such a temporary change should be taken based on a risk analysis performed by the organisation. The risk analysis shall consider the previous performance and reliability of the tool or equipment, previous calibration and periodical checks results and possible additional mitigating measures (like using tools from other organisations for critical applications).
Few considerations for the risk analysis may be, but are not limited to the following:
- when the normal calibration/check period is ≤ 12 months the extension of the calibration and/or periodical check can be up to a maximum of 10 % of the normal calibration/check;
- when the calibration/check period is > 12 months the extension of the calibration can be 10 % of the normal calibration/check period up to a maximum of 3 months;
- the risk associated to the use of the tool or equipment for the specific task in relation to ensuring conformity with the approved data or continuing airworthiness of the aircraft or components is not determined critical;
- the tool or equipment is inspected before use and no damage or corrosion is identified;
- the tool or equipment was recently used (e.g. within the 3 months preceding the calibration or periodical check due date);
- no deficiency with the use of this tool or equipment has been reported since the last calibration or periodical check;
- the last two calibration results or last periodical checks are not showing any possible issues (e.g.: drift in the value, value very close to the acceptable limit, etc.) that can endanger the result of the activity performed.
If the risk associated to the use of the tool or equipment for the specific task is identified as critical, the organisation shall receive the tool or equipment manufacturer extension acceptance, and shall take additional measures to verify and ensure the correct production / maintenance results, such as:
verification of the tool or equipment serviceability by comparison with another tool/equipment duly calibrated/periodically checked, and/or
verification of the measurement/test/job-result by other acceptable means.
The tools or equipment with extended calibration or maintenance interval, should be recorded in a dedicated form, allowing tracking the tasks performed. If the tool / equipment fails during next regular calibration / inspection, the completed tasks may require to be verified / performed again.
Under the present rules, can a maintenance organisation continue to keep a supplier on the approved list even if full compliance with its evaluation of suppliers’ procedure cannot be ensured?
1. Purpose of the document
Considering the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on the aviation sector - the reduced personnel in the maintenance organisations, or late feedback/reply from their suppliers which may affect compliance with their suppliers’ evaluation procedures - the Agency was requested to provide to competent authorities (CA´s) with additional guidance material to facilitate a simpler process of approving changes to the applicable organisation’s procedures, in order to ensure as much as possible the continuation of maintenance organisation activities in compliance with the applicable requirements.
This document is therefore intended to guide CA´s in keeping continuing compliance with the applicable requirements and ensure, as much as possible, the continuation of maintenance organisation activities.
2. Description of the issue
In accordance with 145.A.70(a)(12), 145.A.42(b)(i), M.A.604(a)(7), CAO.A.025(a)(10), M.A.501(b) and ML.A.501(a)(i) of Regulation (EU) 1321/2014, as applicable, the approved organisation carrying out maintenance on products or components have to ensure, by complying with adequate procedures included in the exposition or manual (MOE chapter 2.1, MOM chapter 2.8 or CAE chapter C.3), that the necessary components, standard parts and/or material are supplied in satisfactory conditions. When such a procedure includes a recurrent evaluation of a supplier’s quality system based on a questionnaire which is periodically sent by the maintenance organisation to the supplier, it is possible that, due to the COVID-19 crisis, the procedure cannot be complied with. In such a case, a temporary change to the procedure (including concessions), in accordance with 145.A.70(b), M.A.604(b) and CAO.A.105(a) 5, as applicable, may be acceptable in order to allow continuation of the activities in compliance with the rules.
3. Considerations for the competent authority (CA)
In accordance with 145.B.35, 145.B.40, M.B.606(c) or CAO.B.065 of said Regulation, the competent authority may approve (direct or indirect) a temporary change to the applicable organisation’s procedure to allow an extension of the period for evaluation of the suppliers’ performance (when based on a questionnaire sent to supplier) up to 3 months in order to maintain the respective suppliers on the approved list of suppliers, based on a risk assessment which considers at least the following elements:
- confidence in the quality system / organisational review of the maintenance organisation; and
- analysis performed by the maintenance organisation to support the extension, taking into account the criticality of the supplied articles, the results of the previous evaluation of the respective supplier and the supplier’s performance.
After the agreed extension period the situation may be reassessed and an additional extension of the initial period up to a maximum of 3 additional months may be envisaged by the CA, following the same process as the one described above (change of the organisation’s applicable procedure).
Is there any possibility to temporary extend the validity of NDT personnel certification due to coronavirus (COVID-19) crisis?
According to the industry standard EN4179, recognised by the EASA via AMC 145.A.30(f) and AMC M.A.606(f) to be used for qualification of NDT personnel, the NDT personnel Level 1, 2 and 3 shall be recertified every 5 years. No flexibility is given by EN4179 to deviate from the specific requirements of EN4179, Chapter 8 related to the recertification of NDT personnel process.
Due to the extraordinary worldwide coronavirus crisis, the recertification requirements might not be fulfilled (examinations). Other impacted processes can be “annual maintenance” and “vision examination” which invalidate the certification if not performed on time.
In these circumstances, the Agency recommends the organisation to agree with the Competent Authority a deviation from the organisation’s procedure (e.g. in case of Part-145 to use the normal concession process - deviation from an approved exposition (MOE) for a limited period of time) in case of a need to temporary extend (without fulfilling the normal requirements) the validity of NDT personnel certification, annual maintenance and/or vision examination. The organisation should contact their Competent Authority surveyor and agree on mitigating measures depending on the extent of the concession needed (e.g. EN4179 para. 8.3.2, second and fourth bullet points could offer grounds for mitigation measures).
For standardisation reasons, it is recommended that each National Aerospace NDT Board (NANDTB) together with the corresponding Competent Authority establishes the general scenario to be followed by the organisations (e.g. by an information notice on the NANDTB website or by e-mail etc.). This will be further adapted to the specific case (e.g. in the case of a Part-145 organisation with D1 rating additional mitigation measure could be taken for the NDT personnel who is also certifying staff).
Same principles can be applied by Part-21 Subpart G and F organisations having the NDT personnel qualified/certified i.a.w. EN 4179 when applying the GM 21.A.145(a) or GM No 2 to 21.A.126(a)(3).
Interpretation and policy papers
What is the EASA policy on Certificates of Release to Service for aircraft maintenance? With respect to such maintenance, what are the responsibilities of maintenance organisations and CAMO?
EASA issued on December 17, 2015 a paper to answer these questions; please see the link here: “EASA policy on Certificates of Release to Service for aircraft maintenance and associated responsibilities of maintenance organisations and CAMOs”.
Since that time, several regulations, including the ones below were adopted, amending Commission Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014.:
1. Regulation (EU) 2018/1142, introducing certain categories of aircraft maintenance licences;
2. Regulation (EU) 2019/1383, introducing new Annexes to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014:
• Part-CAMO;
• Part-CAO for non-complex aircraft
• Part-ML for light aircraft defined in Article 3(2).
The intent of that paper is still valid in describing the principles of EASA’s position on the following questions:
- Continuing airworthiness responsibilities, including maintenance (chapter 1)
- How many CRS can or should be issued (chapter 3)
- What does it mean that “there are no non-compliances which are known to endanger flight safety” (chapter 4)
However, questions on roles and responsibilities of certifying staff and support staff (chapters 5, 6, 7 and 8) are now addressed in an updated paper dated March 2023 that is available in FAQ n° 137750.
What practice is accepted by EASA to release maintenance on aircraft not covered by the Basic Regulation?
EASA issued on 20 March 2013 a paper to answer this question (please see link here):
‘Rulemaking interpretation on “Maintenance release of aircraft not covered by the Basic Regulation” ’.
Since that time:
- the Basic Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 was issued, repealing the previous Basic Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 216/2008); and
- Commission Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014 was issued, repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 2042/2003.
However, the intent of that paper is still valid in describing the various practices and EASA’s position on the release of maintenance on aircraft that are aircraft excluded from complying with the airworthiness requirements contained in the Basic Regulation, and in its delegated and implementing acts.
What is the view of EASA on the transition of existing continuing airworthiness organisations to the new Part-CAO and Part-CAMO organisations?
Regulation (EU) 2019/1383 amending Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014 introduces new types of organisations (Part-CAO and Part-CAMO) in the Continuing Airworthiness domain, as of 24 March 2020.
This guide offers the view of EASA on the transition of existing continuing airworthiness organisations to the new Part-CAO and Part-CAMO organisations, based on Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014 as amended. This is not binding material.
Regulation (EU) 2021/1963 introduces SMS requirements to Part-145. What is the view of EASA on the transition of these maintenance organisation to the new requirements?
Regulation (EU) 2021/1963 amends Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014 and introduces new requirements for Part-145 approved maintenance organisations, which apply from 02 December 2022.
This guide offers the view of EASA on the transition of a Part-145 approved maintenance organisation to the new requirements, including SMS, based on Article 4(7) of Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2021/1963.
This is not binding material.
What are the roles and responsibilities of personnel involved in aircraft line and base maintenance?
EASA issued on March 2023 a paper to answer this question: “EASA Policy on the roles and responsibilities of personnel involved in aircraft line and base maintenance”.
This paper supersedes the chapters 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the paper issued December 2015 that can be found in FAQ No. 46216.
Please refer also to the Roles and responsibilities of Maintenance personnel webinar that was organised to explain the content of this paper
What is the view of EASA on ‘paperless maintenance’ and on the use of electronic documents, records, and signatures?
Both European industry and EU Member State competent authorities have requested EASA to prepare guidelines to cover the topic of ‘paperless maintenance’, aiming to establish some basic standards upon which stakeholders can create their systems under the assumption that these will be recognised as adequate and regulatory-compliant by the competent authorities, at least those participating in the EU-aviation system.
This guide offers the view of EASA on the use of electronic documents, records, and signatures. This is not binding material.
Continuing airworthiness - General
Concerning the approval of the continuing airworthiness organisations, what is the sharing of responsibilities between EASA and the national competent authorities of the EASA Member States? How to get the lists of the approved continuing airworthiness organisations?
In accordance with point 2(b) in Article 77 of the Basic Regulation (i.e. Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Union Aviation Safety Agency), EASA is responsible for the organisations whose principal place of business is outside the territories for which the EASA Member States are responsible under the Chicago Convention.
For more information, see the website Continuing-airworthiness-organisations, where the lists of organisations managed by the Agency are available.
This webpage also includes the lists of the Part-145 maintenance organisations managed on the basis of the Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreements (BASAs) with Brazil, Canada and USA.
In all other cases, and in the absence of the implementation of Articles 64 or 65 of the Basic Regulation, the organisation is managed by the national competent authority of the EASA Member State in whose territory the principal place of business of the organisation is located.
Therefore, information request (including on the application process) about those organisations should be directed to the EASA Member State national competent authorities.
You may contact them using information available on https://www.easa.europa.eu/the-agency/member-states, or consult their public websites, when they accepted, on a voluntary basis, to publish the lists of the organisations they manage.
The continuing airworthiness organisations concerned are the following:
- Part-145 (Annex II) maintenance organisations
- Part-147 (Annex IV) maintenance training organisations
- Continuing airworthiness management organisations: Part-M Subpart G until 24 September 2021 and Part-CAMO (Annex Vc) from 24 March 2020
- Part-M Subpart F maintenance organisations until 24 September 2021
- From 24 March 2020, Part-CAO (Annex Vd) combined airworthiness organisations.
Where can I find the continuing airworthiness requirements for third-country registered aircraft used by EU operator/owner?
The European Implementing Rules for continuing airworthiness (EU) 1321/2014 do apply to third-country registered aircraft if:
- The regulatory safety oversight of such aircraft has been delegated to one of the Member States (*), in which case Part-M (Annex I) or Part-ML (Annex Vb) applies [see Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014] or
- The aircraft is dry leased-in by an EU licenced air carrier, in which case Part-T (Annex Va) is applicable [see Article 3(6) of Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014].
When third-country registered aircraft are not captured by above-mentioned cases, it is advised to go back to the foundation of the EASA system, namely the Basic Regulation (BR), i.e. Regulation (EU) 2018/1139.
Reference should be made to Annex V (Essential requirements for air operations) in accordance with Article 29 for the aircraft described in Article 2(1)(b)(ii) (aircraft registered in a third country and operated by an aircraft operator established, residing or with a principal place of business in the territory to which the Treaties apply). Point 6 in Annex V of the BR describes air operations requirements related to continuing airworthiness, such as the requirement for release to service, pre-flight inspection, maintenance programme, records, … Being part of an Annex relevant to air operations, these requirements have to be overseen by the competent authority of the state of the operator.
Furthermore, as required by point 8 of Annex V of the BR, for commercial air transport and other operations subject to a certification or declaration requirement performed with aeroplanes, helicopters or tilt rotor aircraft, the continuing airworthiness management and maintenance tasks shall be controlled by an organisation, whose obligations (such as establishment of a management system) are referred to in points 8.8 and 8.9 of Annex V.
(*) – The transfer of a state’s oversight responsibility is addressed in Article 83bis bis of Chicago Convention.
How to use information and communication technologies for performing remote audits on to DOA, LoA/POA, AMO, CAMO, CAO and AMTO holders*?
Objective of this document:
This document provides technical guidance on the use of remote information and communication technology (ICT) to support:
- the competent authorities when performing the oversight of regulated organisations and
- the industry when conducting internal audits / monitoring compliance of the organisation with the relevant requirement and when performing evaluation of suppliers and subcontractors.
It is the responsibility of the competent authority to assess whether the use of remote ICT constitutes a suitable alternative to the physical presence of the auditor on-site in accordance with the applicable requirements.
In the context of this document, “remote audit” is understood as an audit performed with the use of any real-time video and audio communication tools in replacement of the physical presence of the auditor on-site. Specificities of each type of approval / letter of agreement need to be considered in addition to the below general overview when applying the “remote audit” concept.
1. Conduct of remote audit by a Competent Authority
Competent authorities who decide to use remote audit should describe the remote audit process in their documented procedures and should consider at least the following elements:
- Methodology for the use of ICT is sufficiently flexible and non-prescriptive in nature to optimise the conventional audit process.
- Adequate controls are defined and in place to avoid abuses that could compromise the integrity of the audit process.
- Measures to ensure that security and confidentiality are maintained throughout the audit activities (data protection and intellectual property of the organisations also need to be safeguarded).
Examples of use of ICT during audits may include but are not limited to:
- meetings, by means of teleconference facilities, including audio, video and data sharing;
- assessment of documents and records by means of remote access, in real-time;
- recording, in real-time during the process, of evidence to document the results of the audit (non-/conformities) by means of exchange of emails or documents, instant pictures, video or/and audio recordings;
- visual (livestream video) and audio access to facilities, stores, equipment, tools, processes, operations, etc.
An agreement between the competent authority and the organisation should be established when planning a remote audit which should include:
- determining the platform for hosting the audit (e.g. Go-To-Meeting, WebEx, Microsoft Lync, Microsoft TEAMS, etc.);
- granting security and/or profile access to the auditor;
- testing platform compatibility between the competent authority and organisation prior to the audit;
- considering the use of web-cams, cameras, drones, etc. when physical evaluation of an event (product, part, process, etc.) is desired or necessary;
- establishing an audit plan which will identify how ICT will be used and the extent of its use for the audit purposes to optimise its effectiveness and efficiency while maintaining the integrity of the audit process;
- if necessary, time zone acknowledgement and management to coordinate reasonable and mutually agreeable convening times;
- a written statement of the organisation that they ensure full cooperation and provision of the actual and valid data as requested, including ensuring any supplier or subcontractor cooperation, if needed; and
- data protection aspects.
The following elements of the equipment and setup should be considered:
- the suitability of video resolution, fidelity, and field of view for the verification being conducted;
- the need for multiple cameras, imaging systems, or microphones and whether the person performing the verification can switch between them, or direct them to be switched and has the possibility to stop the process, ask a question, move equipment, etc.;
- the controllability of viewing direction, zoom, and lighting;
- the appropriateness of audio fidelity for the evaluation being conducted; and
- real-time and uninterrupted communication between the person(s) participating to the remote audit from both locations.
When using ICT, the competent authority and other involved persons (e.g. drone pilots, technical experts) should have the competency and ability to understand and utilize the ICT tools employed to achieve the desired results of audit(s)/assessment(s). The competent authority should also be aware of the risks and opportunities of the ICT used and the impacts that they may have on the validity and objectivity of the information gathered.
Audit reports and related records should indicate the extent to which ICT has been used in carrying out remote audit and the effectiveness of ICT in achieving the audit objectives, including any item that was not able to be completely reviewed.
2. Internal Audits performed by approved organisation and evaluation of its suppliers and subcontractors
The considerations described in paragraph 1 may also be applied by approved organisations when conducting internal audits / monitoring compliance of the organisation with the relevant requirements and when performing evaluation of suppliers and subcontractors. The application of “remote audit” concept should be described in a documented procedure accepted / approved by the Competent Authority.
* DOA: Design Organisation Approval; LoA/POA: Letters of Approval/Production Organisation Approval; AMO: Maintenance Organisation Approval; CAMO: Continuing Airworthiness Management Organisations Approval; CAO: Combined Airworthiness Organisation Approval; and AMTO: Maintenance Training Organisation Approval
Can a Pilot-Owner or Flight Crew accomplish an inspection required by an AD?
The provisions for a Pilot-Owner or Flight Crew to accomplish AD actions are to be found in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014 on the continuing airworthiness of aircraft and aeronautical products, parts and appliances, and on the approval of organisations and personnel involved in these tasks, Annex I (Part-M), Annex II (Part-145), Annex Vb (Part-ML) & Annex Vd (Part-CAO).
For AD tasks carried out by Flight Crew:
- IF INDICATED IN THE AD (*- see Note), THE FOLLOWING APPLIES:
145.A.30(j)3 or M.A.606(h)1 Personnel requirements, or CAO.A.040(c)(1) Certifying staff.
For a repetitive pre-flight task, where the AD specifically states that the flight crew may carry out such task, the organisation (Part-145, Part-M Subpart F or Part-CAO maintenance organisation) may issue a limited certifying staff authorisation to the pilot-in command/aircraft commander on the basis of the flight crew licence held, provided that the organisation ensures that sufficient practical training has been carried out to ensure that such person can accomplish the AD task to the required standard. A repetitive pre-flight task in an AD does not mean that the task needs to be certified prior to each flight. At AD issuance EASA will determine that the task is simple enough and does not require complex tools nor complex instructions, which allows the Maintenance Organisation to authorise the person.
- IF NOT INDICATED IN THE AD, THE FOLLOWING APPLIES:
145.A.30(j)4 or M.A.606(h)2 Personnel requirements, or CAO.A040(c)(2) Certifying staff.
In the case of aircraft operating away from a supported location the organisation may issue a limited certification authorisation to the pilot-in command/aircraft commander on the basis of the flight crew licence held, provided that the organisation ensures that sufficient practical training has been carried out to ensure that such person can accomplish the specified AD task to the required standard. The organisation’s manual shall include specific procedures for such authorisations, and in addition the task must be simple maintenance.
For AD actions performed by Pilot-Owner for aircraft subject to Part-M:
M.A.803 Pilot-owner authorisation
- This is only applicable for other than complex motor-powered aircraft of 2 730 kg MTOM and below, which are not used commercially;
- The accomplishment of an AD task by the Pilot-Owner is permitted only in the case where it is specifically allowed in the AD (* - see Note); and
- Furthermore, it is only permitted to the Pilot-Owner under the conditions of M.A.803 (a) and (b) (limited Pilot-owner maintenance (Appendix VIII to Part-M)).
For AD actions performed by Pilot-Owner for aircraft subject to Part-ML:
ML.A.803 Pilot-owner authorisation
- This is only applicable to aircraft not operated commercially, to balloons not operated under Subpart-ADD of Regulation (EU) 2018/395 or to sailplanes not operated under Subpart DEC of Regulation (EU) 2018/1976;
- The accomplishment of an AD task by the Pilot-Owner is permitted only in the case where it is specifically allowed in the AD (* - see Note); and
- Furthermore, it is only permitted to the Pilot-Owner under the conditions of ML.A.803 (a) and (b) (limited Pilot-owner maintenance (Appendix II to Part-ML)).
* Note: For ADs issued by EASA, when the flight crew / pilot-owner is entitled to carry out the AD task(s) subject to the applicable requirements, the AD will contain a text similar to the following:
The action(s) required by paragraph (x) of this AD may be accomplished, as appropriate: either by suitably authorised flight crew under the provisions of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014 145.A.30(j)3, M.A.606(h)1, or CAO.A.040(c)(1), as applicable; or by the pilot-owner under the provisions of M.A.803 or ML.A.803, as applicable, of the same regulation.
In respect of aircraft not subject to (EU) No 1321/2014, the State of Registry should consider if the national regulations allow the action(s) to be accomplished by the flight crew or pilot owner.
Bilateral Agreement (BASA) - related to Continuing Airworthiness
When do I need a dual release on FAA Form 8130-3 under EU/US bilateral agreement?
Under the terms of the EU/US bilateral agreement (BASA) (see here), a DUAL release is required for acceptance of USED engine/components from an US based repair station.
NOTE: a single EASA release on Form 8130-3 with only “Other regulation specified in block 12” ticked in block 14a is also acceptable for USED engine/components. This is to cover the case where component maintenance includes the installation of a used (sub)component released on an EASA Form 1 with ‘single release’ only, and therefore where the assembly is not eligible for US-registered aircraft.
CAUTION: DUAL release is not acceptable for ‘rebuilt’ engine/components because EASA recognises the term ‘rebuilt’ only as a manufacturing/production release (not a maintenance release) and only for engine.
Can I import a rebuilt engine and associated components from US?
Under the terms of the EU/US bilateral agreement (BASA) (see here), you can import an engine with a ‘rebuilt’ status in block 11, only when it has been released by the original engine manufacturer on a Form 8130-3 using the blocks 13a. to 13e. (left side).
Please note that Form 8130-3 with ‘rebuilt’ status are not acceptable for components other than engine (regardless whether it has been released on left or right side) therefore the components accompanying the rebuilt engine should either be released REPAIRED/OVERHAULED… (right side) or NEW (left side).
What does it mean ‘a release document issued by an organisation under the terms of a bilateral agreement signed by the European Union’ referred in AMC1 M.A.501(a)(1)/AMC1 145.A.42(a)(i)/AMC1 ML.A.501(a)(ii)?
AMC1 M.A.501(a)(1)/AMC1 145.A.42(a)(i)/AMC1 ML.A.501(a)(ii) refers to a release document issued by an organisation under the terms of any existing bilateral agreement signed by the European Union. Currently such agreements are signed with:
- USA
- Canada
- Brazil
- Japan (limited to design and production)
- China (limited to design and production)
- United Kingdom (limited to design and production)
Note:
For organisations approved under Part-CAO and Part-M Subpart F the situation is different. Credit can be taken for their technical capabilities and their competent authority oversight (FAA and TCCA). This situation is explained in AMC1 CAO.A.070(a) paragraph 2.8 and AMC M.A.613(a) paragraph 2.8.
What kind of release document is considered equivalent to an EASA Form 1 under the terms of the US-EU Bilateral safety agreement? (AMC1 M.A.501(a)(1)/AMC1 145.A.42(a)(i)/AMC1 ML.A.501(a)(ii)/AMC1 CAO.A.070(a))
Acceptance of NEW engine/components (and rebuilt engines) is governed by the Technical Implementation Procedure (TIP). The general principle is to accept such engine/components when released new on FAA Form 8130-3 using the blocks 13a to 13e (left side). Please refer to Section VII (from para 7.7 on) of the TIP for the detailed conditions under which this is acceptable.
Acceptance of USED engine/components from an US based repair station is governed by the Maintenance Annex Guidance (MAG). The general principle is to accept such engine/components when subject to ‘dual release’ on FAA Form 8130-3 (except where the component is not eligible for U.S.-registered aircraft), using the blocks 14a to 14e (right side).
- Block 11 should provide the status of the component (e.g. ‘overhauled’)
- Block 12 should include (or refer to) detailed information on the work performed, the associated approved data (e.g. ‘Overhauled in accordance with CMM 111, Section X, Rev 2, S/B 23 and FAA AD xyz complied with’) as well as the EASA Part-145 statement and approval number.
- Block 14 should at least show “Other regulation specified in block 12” ticked
What are the component release documents acceptable for installing a component (on aircraft or on a higher assembly) and releasing associated maintenance under EASA Part-145 regulation?
The linked reference table provides a table summarising the component release documents (FAA Form 8130-3, TCCA Form One, ANAC Form F-100-01…) acceptable to an EASA Part-145 organisation, depending on where such organisation is located and from which regulatory system the component is coming.
Part-M
Part-M: General
Continuing airworthiness management for each type of operator/ aircraft
CONTINUING AIRWORTHINESS MANAGEMENT | ||
---|---|---|
Commercial operations |
Licenced air carriers [1] |
Continuing airworthiness shall be performed by a CAMO. Operator shall be CAMO approved (CAMO linked to the AOC). |
Commercial specialised operations or CAT operations other than licensed air carriers or commercial ATOs |
Continuing airworthiness shall be performed by a CAMO. Operator shall obtain CAMO approval, or operator shall contract a CAMO |
|
Other than commercial operations | Complex motor-powered aircraft [2] | Continuing airworthiness shall be performed by a CAMO. Owner shall contract a CAMO |
Other than complex motor-powered aircraft (CMPA) and limited operations [3] |
Continuing airworthiness management may be performed by the owner. CAMO is not required. |
[1] Licenced air carriers are EU air carriers holding an operating licence in accordance with Regulation (EC) 1008/2008
[2] Twin turboprop aeroplanes of 5 700 kg MTOM and below can be exempted by the Member State from complying with any requirements applicable to CMPA and shall instead comply with the requirements applicable to other than CMPA.
[3] Limited operations are defined in Regulation (EU) 1312/2014 Article 2(p).
Can an independent certifying staff maintain non-complex motor-powered aircraft used by commercial ATO or commercial DTO?
No, non-complex motor-powered aircraft used by commercial ATO or commercial DTO cannot be maintained by independent certifying staff because in accordance with M.A.201(h) or ML.A.201(e)(2), these aircraft require maintenance release by an approved maintenance organisation (Part-CAO with maintenance privilege, Part-M Subpart F or Part-145).
Note: ‘GM1 ML.A.201(e)’ provides examples of aircraft not considered to be operated by a commercial ATO or a commercial DTO.
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.
Can a licenced pilot without a valid medical certificate perform pilot-owner maintenance?
This question arises because of the different understandings of license validity in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 This question arises because of the different understandings of license validity in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 (Aircrew) and No 1321/2014 (Continuing Airworthiness).
In Reg. (EU) 1321/2014, the pilot-owner authorisation described in M.A.803 or ML.A.803 assumes that a pilot has sufficient technical knowledge to perform certain maintenance tasks. While exercising such pilot-owner authorisation, the pilot-owner even further develops his/her competency in maintenance. Hence, in the case where the medical examination has not been conducted or not been passed and the licence has therefore lost its validity, it is the intent of the rule to allow the pilot-owner to continue using this authorisation as long as he/she still considers himself/herself physically fit (including good visual acuity) and competent to carry out such maintenance (ref. point (a)(2) of Appendix VIII to Part-M or Appendix II of Part-ML).
This is the reason why a new point (5) was introduced in AMC M.A.803 in 2016 (ED Decision 2016/011/R) stating: “not holding a valid medical examination does not invalidate the pilot licence (or equivalent) required for the purpose of the pilot-owner authorisation”. For Part-ML the same information can be found in AMC1 ML.A.803 (ED Decision 2020/002/R).
What are the responsibilities relevant to pre-flight inspection?
The pre-flight inspection forms part of the essential requirements for air operation, as required in Annex V (point 6.2) of the ‘Basic Regulation’ (Regulation (EU) 2018/1139). Being relevant to the aircraft’s fitness for the intended flight, this essential requirement is implemented by the Commission Regulation (EU) 1321/2014 for continuing airworthiness in the following way:
Reference |
Obligation |
Who |
Remark |
M.A.201(d) |
Carry out pre-flight inspection satisfactorily |
Part-M: Pilot-in-command or, in case of Licensed Air Carrier, a qualified staff under the responsibility of the operator (e.g. maintenance staff - see note) Part-ML: Pilot-in-command or a qualified person under the responsibility of the pilot-in-command |
|
M.A.301(a)/ |
Ensure pre-flight inspection is carried out
|
Owner or CA(M)O (according to M.A.201/ML.A.201) |
|
M.A.301(a)/ |
Ensure pre-flight inspection includes the actions necessary to ensure that the aircraft is fit to carry out the intended flight |
Owner or CA(M)O (according to M.A.201/ML.A.201) | AMC M.A.301(a) points (1) and (2) elaborates those actions |
M.A.301(a)/ ML.A.301(a) |
If a/c managed by CA(M)O: Provide training to ensure that pre-flight inspection is carried out adequately [AMC M.A.301(a) point (3)] | CA(M)O | Pre-flight inspection training described in the CAME part 1.11 or CAE part D.6 |
Additional information: |
|||
M.A.712(b)/ |
If a/c managed by CA(M)O: |
CA(M)O |
This is important because the pre-flight inspection contributes in feeding the process of aircraft continuing airworthiness |
Note:
As per the definition of ‘maintenance’ in article 2 (h) of Commission Regulation (EU) 1321/2014, ‘pre-flight inspection’ (as defined in article 2(j)) is not considered maintenance. Therefore, it does not require a certificate of release to service [M.A.201(d)/ML.A.201(d)].
Do declared training organisations (DTO) need a CAMO/CAO and approved maintenance organisations?
Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 was amended in July 2018 to introduce Part-DTO as regards to declared training organisations (ref. Reg. (EU) 2018/1119). Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014 was therefore amended and aligned the Continuing Airworthiness obligations of ATO with those of DTO.
This means:
|
Complex motor-powered aircraft |
Other than complex motor-powered aircraft |
|
Commercial DTO |
Applicable requirement |
M.A.201(f) is applicable |
M.A.201(h) or, for aircraft specified in Article 3(2), ML.A.201(e) are applicable |
Continuing airworthiness management |
CAMO is required
|
CAO (with continuing airworthiness management privilege) or CAMO is required |
|
Maintenance |
Part-145 organisation is required |
CAO (with maintenance privilege) or Part-145 or Part-M Subpart F organisation is required |
|
Non-Commercial DTO |
Applicable requirement |
M.A.201(g) is applicable |
M.A.201(i) or, for aircraft specified in Article 3(2), ML.A.201(f) are applicable |
Continuing airworthiness management |
CAMO is required
|
CAMO is not required CAO (with continuing airworthiness management privilege) is not required
|
|
Maintenance |
Part-145 organisation is required |
With the exception of complex maintenance tasks under Part-M: CAO (with maintenance privilege) is not required Part-145 organisation not required Part-M Subpart F organisation is not required
|
Please also refer to GM1 ML.A.201(e) which provides examples of aircraft not considered to be operated by a commercial ATO or a commercial DTO.
Airworthiness review
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.
Can the extension of an ARC be anticipated more than 30 days?
Assuming the aircraft satisfies the conditions for extension established in M.A.901 or ML.A.901, 30 days is the maximum allowed period for which the ARC extension can be anticipated without losing the continuity of the airworthiness review pattern. This means that the new expiry date is established as one year after the previous expiry date (AMC M.A.901(c)2, (e)2 and (f), ML.A.901(d)).
If the extension is anticipated by more than 30 days, the new expiry date will be established as one year after the date of extension.
Can an Airworthiness Review Staff (ARS) perform an airworthiness review on an aircraft in which he/ she had released some maintenance as Certifying Staff (CS)?
To avoid possible conflict of interests, the ARS (Airworthiness Review Staff) should not be or have been involved in the release of the maintenance for the aircraft on which he or she intends to perform the airworthiness review (AR), except in one of the following cases:
- Such maintenance has been released as part of the airworthiness review’s physical survey of the aircraft (e.g. release necessary after visual inspections requiring panel opening);
- Such maintenance has been released as a result of findings discovered during the physical survey of the aircraft (defect rectification)
Note: cases 1 and 2 are justified by the fact that such specific maintenance activity is part of the AR and therefore does not require independence between maintenance and the AR. - Such maintenance has been released as part of the 100-h/annual inspection contained in the maintenance programme conducted together with the Airworthiness Review of the Part-ML aircraft:
- by an approved maintenance organisation (145.A.75(f) or CAO.A.095(c)(2)) (see also ML.A.901(b)(3)); or
- by independent certifying staff holding an ARS authorisation (see ML.A.901(b)(4)) for aircraft operated under Annex VII (Part-NCO) to Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 or, for balloons not operated under Subpart-ADD of Annex II (Part-BOP) to Regulation (EU) 2018/3951 or for sailplane, not operated under Subpart DEC of Annex II (Part-SAO) to Regulation (EU) 2018/1976.
Remark
From regulatory perspective, cases 1 and 2 are explicitly considered by ‘AMC M.A.707(a)’ and ‘AMC1 CAMO.A.310(a)’ [2nd bullet of point (5), respectively point (e)] for an ARS belonging to a CAMO also holding a AMO approval. Although not explicitly mentioned in any AMC, considering the Note above, the Agency understands that this principle is also permitted in other cases where the ARS happens to be also Certifying staff (including independent certifying staff).
Remark:
Iaw M.A.901(l) or ML.A.903(b), when the ARS is not Certifying Staff, he/she must be assisted by a Certifying Staff to release the maintenance mentioned in cases 1 and 2.
Can the airworthiness review certificate (ARC) of the Part-M aircraft be extended during the extensive maintenance/long term storage?
An ARC extension could be performed as long as:
- the conditions established for controlled environment (M.A.901 (b)) are met. This means:
- continuously managed during the previous 12 months by a unique CAMO or CAO, and
- maintained for the previous 12 months by Part-145, Part-M Subpart F or Part-CAO organisations.
AND
- there is no evidence or reason to believe that the aircraft is not airworthy, as stated in M.A.901(j).
Thus, the procedure for the extension established in the CAMO or CAO 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.
Is an aircraft considered to be in controlled environment at the end of the ARC validity when that aircraft was received by the CA(M)O during the 90/30 days anticipation of the ARC issue/extension performed by the preceding CA(M)O?
CA(M)O 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 CA(M)O 1 to CA(M)O 2. As the consequence CA(M)O 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 months. Are the requirements of the M.A.901(b) point 1 satisfied?
The intent of the point M.A.901(b) point 1 is to define the ‘controlled environment’ (see also ML.A.901(c)(1)) by indicating that the aircraft must be managed during last 12 months by unique CA(M)O, which indirectly refers to a standard term of validity of the ARC. Therefore, if the aircraft has been managed by more than one CA(M)O 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.901(n) or ML.A.903(d) the 90 days anticipation for the ARC issue shall be used to allow the physical review to be performed during a maintenance check. Hence the intention of the rule is not to address the transfer of the aircraft within those 90 days with the purpose of avoiding the forthcoming airworthiness review.
Concerning the ARC extension and its 30 days anticipation, point M.A.901(f) [AMC M.A.901(c)2, (e)2 and (f)] or ML.A.901(d) are intended for 2 consecutive extensions by the same CA(M)O managing the continuing airworthiness of the aircraft from the date of issue of the ARC. Therefore, an ARC extended for the first time by an organisation cannot be extended a 2nd time by another organisation, because this constitutes a ‘breach’ in controlled environment.
Are EASA Forms 1 required during the import in the EU of an aircraft subject to Part-M?
For the import of an aircraft in the EU under Part-M regime, the provisions of M.A.904 require the accomplishment of an airworthiness review in accordance with point M.A.901.
Note: AMC M.A.904(a)(2) defines specific elements to be considered for imported aircraft.
However, when performing the airworthiness review of an imported aircraft in accordance with point M.A.901 and its AMC, it may happen that ‘AMC M.A.901(k)’ is not fully satisfied in which certain components subject to the review may not hold an EASA Form 1 (or equivalent under a bilateral agreement) In such a case, other component releases to service or serviceable tags may be acceptable for the competent authority of the importing Member State.
Nevertheless, it is important to ensure that the information required by M.A.305(c) and (d) related to the status of ADs, life accumulated by life-limited parts and time-controlled components, modifications and repairs is available.
Technical records
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 life-limited part or a service life-limited component (see definition in ML.A.503(a)) are basically stated in M.A.305 (d)&(e) or ML.A.305(e). 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 life-limited part or 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 or ML.A.305, e.g. an airworthiness directive, or any other information that could be affecting the configuration of the aircraft, must be retained too.
What does the term “detailed maintenance records” mean?
There has been a certain confusion about the understanding of “detailed maintenance records”, because this term is used in a different context for continuing airworthiness management and approved maintenance organisation (AMO).
“Detailed maintenance records” as defined in M.A.614, 145.A.55(c) or CAO.A.90(a) are required to be kept by an AMO (respectively Part-M/F organisation, Part-145 organisation or CAO with maintenance privileges). Maintenance organisations are required to retain all detailed records in order to be able to demonstrate that they maintained aircraft and components in compliance with applicable requirements (see also remark).
“Detailed maintenance records” as defined in M.A.305(e)(2) or ML.A.305(h)(1) are those records, coming from the AMO1 having performed maintenance, required to be kept by the owner/operator (or the CAMO or CAO with Continuing airworthiness management privileges when required by M.A.201 or ML.A.201) allowing to determine the aircraft configuration, the airworthiness status of the aircraft and all components installed, as well as to plan future maintenance as required by the AMP, based on the last accomplishment.
Consequently, the AMO should transmit to the owner/operator/CA(M)O a certain subset of the AMO maintenance records, including the certificates of release to service and repair/modification data related to the performed maintenance, so that the owner/operator/CA(M)O can demonstrate compliance with M.A.305 or ML.A.305.
Not all AMO maintenance records need to be transferred from the AMO to the owner/operator unless they specifically contain information relevant to aircraft configuration/status and future maintenance. Thus, incoming certificates of conformity, batch number references and individual task card sign-offs verified by and/or generated by the maintenance organisation are not required to be transferred to the owner/operator/CA(M)O. However, dimensional information contained in the task card sign-offs or work packages may need to be transferred and kept by the owner/ operator.
It is to be noted that the record-retention period requirements are slightly different for the AMO and the CAMO and CAO with Continuing airworthiness management privileges. The AMO shall retain the records for 3 years, whereas the CAMO and CAO with Continuing airworthiness management privileges has to retain their records until they are superseded by new information (equivalent in scope and detail), but not less than 3 years. The starting point in both cases is when the aircraft or component maintenance has been released.
Remark: It is considered a best practice as part of the AMO record-keeping system, (and it is also required by certain competent authorities) to record information (e.g. batch number or other tracking reference) relevant to the identification of all standard parts and material used during any maintenance. This practice may limit safety and industrial risks in the case where a batch is recalled by the manufacturer. Such record does not need to be transmitted to the owner/operator/CAMO/CAO with Continuing airworthiness management privileges.
*: Transmitted records is a subset of AMO maintenance records provided to the CA(M)O. Certain transmitted records do not need to be kept as a record by the CA(M)O such as EASA Form 1 for a component with no scheduled maintenance task selected and not subject to AD or modification/repair.
**: by new information equivalent in scope and detail
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
1Or pilot-owner [M.A.803 or ML.A.803], or independent certifying staff [M.A.801(b)point 1 or ML.A.801(b)(2)]
Is there an obligation to keep the EASA Form 1 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(e) or ML.A.305(h) for determining the continuing airworthiness and configuration of the aircraft.
AMP (Aircraft Maintenance Programme)
What are the main principles governing the development of the AMP under Part-ML?
For aircraft complying with Part-ML (refer to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014, the AMP should be based either on the applicable ICA or on the Minimum Inspection Programme (MIP) defined in ML.A.302(d).
The owner, when she/he has not contracted the continuing airworthiness management to a CAMO or CAO [see ML.A.201(f)], should ‘declare’ the AMP assuming responsibility for its content. Such declared AMP does not need to be sent to the competent authority. Except for the mandatory requirements (see also remark below) the owner may decide, under his/her full responsibility, to deviate from the applicable scheduled maintenance recommendations (including ICA if the AMP is not based on the MIP) without the need to justify such deviation(s) (see GM1 ML.A.302).
If the aircraft is managed by a CAMO or CAO, such organisation should ‘approve’ the AMP. Deviations from the applicable scheduled maintenance recommendations (including ICA if the AMP is not based on the MIP) should be justified and properly recorded.
In both scenarios though (AMP declared by owner or approved by CAMO/CAO), when the AMP is not based on the MIP, the deviations to the applicable ICA shall not result in a less restrictive task than the corresponding MIP task. A clear overview of the different options for the development (including the source of information and potential customisation) and approval of such an AMP is provided by ‘GM1 ML.A.201’, ‘GM2 ML.A.302’.
In addition, the AMP shall be reviewed annually. For declared AMP, this review should be done by the person who performs the airworthiness review during its accomplishment (see AMC1 ML.A.302(c)(9)). For approved AMP, the review can be done either by the Airworthiness Review Staff (ARS) during the airworthiness review or by the CAMO itself.
If during the airworthiness review it is observed that there are discrepancies on the aircraft linked to deficiencies in the content of the aircraft maintenance programme, the AMP must be amended. The competent authority shall be informed in the case where the ARS does not agree with the measures taken to amend the AMP.
Remarks:
In accordance with ML.A.302 and in particular ML.A.302(c)(4), the AMP, declared or approved, shall in all cases include all the mandatory maintenance/continuing airworthiness requirements, such as repetitive Airworthiness Directives or the Airworthiness Limitation Section (ALS).
References:
Please refer also to ‘AMC2 ML.A.302’ (EASA Form AMP), ‘GM1 ML.A.302’ and ‘AMC1 ML.A.302(d)’ (content of MIP).
When does the calendar interval for the next aircraft or component maintenance task start?
In a normal scenario :
- The date of signing the certificate of release to service (CRS) should be considered to be the date of the accomplishment.
- The next due date should be calculated using this date.
However, there may be different considerations that render the normal scenario no longer applicable. For example:
Case 1: The interval of the maintenance task has been previously subject to a one-time extension using an approved procedure included in the aircraft maintenance programme (refer to Appendix I to AMC M.A.302 point 4) normally called ‘permitted variation’ or ’tolerance’. In this case the next due date should be calculated using the previous due date (as opposed to accomplishment date) or as agreed by the competent authority.
For aircraft regulated by Part-ML the situation is different when applying the tolerance of 1 month foreseen in ML.A.302(d), the next interval shall be calculated from the accomplishment date (refer to ML.A.302(d)(1) and AMC1 ML.A.302(d)).
Case 2: The maintenance task refers to a component maintenance task, for example the landing gear overhaul. In this case the start of the interval would be the date of the release to service after the overhaul of the landing gear or in some particular cases when specified in the maintenance data the interval may start from the date of installation on aircraft.
Case 3: The task is released as part of a maintenance check/visit, where the duration of the check/visit is significant compared to the interval of the task. In this case, there may be significant difference between date of accomplishment and date of release. For example, a check/visit that lasts for 2 months and an inspection that has an interval of 3 months. In this case, either the task is carried out on the last days of the maintenance check/visit and the next due date is calculated from the CRS, or the task is carried out at the beginning of the visit and the next due date should be calculated from the date of accomplishment.
There may be other examples, but the key principle is to use sound engineering judgment and the guidance provided in the Instructions for Continuing Airworthiness to calculate the next due date.
When should I revise my Aircraft Maintenance Programme (AMP)?
Part-M:
In accordance with M.A.302(h), the Aircraft Maintenance Programme (AMP) shall be subject to ‘periodic reviews’ and amended accordingly when necessary.
This means that the owner/operator/CA(M)O should review at a regular interval:
- new/modified maintenance instructions by the TC holder,
- modifications and repairs embodied in the particular a/c, which may require compliance to additional maintenance instructions (by Design Approval Holder),
- in-service experience collected for the particular a/c or for the fleet and
- changes in the type and specificity of operations.
Such a review allows to determine if an AMP revision is necessary to still comply with the obligations of M.A.302(h), and ensure that the AMP continues to be valid in light of the operating experience. As a minimum, point (3) of AMC M.A.302 states it should be at least annually.
However, this should not prevent amending the AMP outside of this formal periodic review, when a specific need arises. This may depend for example on in-service experience (e.g. adverse trend), nature of instruction revisions (e.g. significant reduction of TBO (time between overhaul)), the extent of instruction revisions (amount of affected tasks) as well as source of instruction revisions (e.g. MRBR, ALS, etc.)
When a revision of the ALS (Airworthiness Limitation Section) introduces a new or more restrictive task, EASA has the policy to issue an AD (Airworthiness Directive). Such an AD would typically mandate on one side the revised task accomplishment and on the other side the revision of the AMP itself, together with a compliance time for these two actions.
However, in accordance with point (3) of AMC M.A.302, EASA recommends to review the AMP as soon as possible in this case to avoid a disconnection between accomplished maintenance task(s) and maintenance task(s) listed in the AMP.
If the aircraft’s continuing airworthiness is being managed by a CA(M)O, the CA(M)E (Continuing Airworthiness Management Exposition/Combined Airworthiness Exposition) should describe the AMP revision policy (including ‘periodic review’) under point 1.2 [Appendix V to AMC M.A.704], point 1.2 [AMC1 CAMO.A.300] or point D.3 [AMC1 CAO.A.025].
Remark: In the case where the source documents are amended without having an effect on the AMP content, it is acceptable to use an indirect approval procedure (if granted by the competent authority in accordance with M.A.302(c)) to amend the relevant source document references in the AMP.
Part-ML:
ML.A.302(c)(9) requires an annual review of the AMP.
For aircraft regulated by Part-ML the review of the AMP may be carried out with the airworthiness review (AR) of the aircraft by the person who performs such AR.
Such a review allows to determine if an AMP revision is necessary to still comply with the obligations of ML.A.302(c) or ML.A.302(d) and ensure that the AMP or MIP continues to be valid in light of the operating experience. As a minimum, ML.A.302(c)(9) states it should be at least annually.
However, this should not prevent amending the AMP outside of this formal periodic review, when a specific need arises. This may depend for example on in-service experience (e.g. adverse trend), nature of instruction revisions (e.g. significant reduction of TBO (time between overhaul)), the extent of instruction revisions (amount of affected tasks) as well as source of instruction revisions (e.g. MRBR, ALS, etc.)
However, in accordance with ML.A.302(c)(9), EASA recommends to review the AMP as soon as possible in this case to avoid a disconnection between accomplished maintenance task(s) and maintenance task(s) listed in the AMP.
If the aircraft’s continuing airworthiness is being managed by a CA(M)O, the CA(M)E (Continuing Airworthiness Management Exposition/Combined Airworthiness Exposition) should describe the AMP revision policy (including ‘periodic review’) under point 1.2 [Appendix V to AMC M.A.704], point 1.2 [AMC1 CAMO.A.300] or point D.3 [AMC1 CAO.A.025].
Remark:
AMP regulated by Part-ML are declared by the owner or approved by the CAMO or CAO (ML.A.302(b)).
Can a competent authority require the owner/CAMO/CAO to include national requirements in the Aircraft Maintenance Programme (AMP), based on M.A.302(d)(1)?
Although the Member State’s competent authorities are responsible for approving the AMP, the intention of the rule is that they should not impose aeronautical instructions (such as national requirements) in addition to the instructions for continuing airworthiness (ICA) issued by the design approval holder during the certification process with the Agency. The Agency is, on behalf of the Member States, the competent authority for initial airworthiness as per Article 77(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 (the EASA ‘Basic Regulation’). Following M.A.302(d)(2), those ICA shall be the basis to develop an AMP.
Nevertheless, competent authorities may issue alternate instructions to ICA when such instructions aim to offer flexibility to the operator [AMC M.A.302(d) point (2)].
Additionally, the mentioned AMC facilitates the rare case, where there has been no ICA issued by the design approval holder for a particular aircraft, modification, repair or STC (Supplemental Type Certificate): competent authorities may issue relevant instructions for the AMP in this case.
Remarks:
- The airworthiness (initial and continuing) of the aircraft for which the Basic Regulation is not applicable, has to comply solely with the national rules of the state of registry; and
- There is no equivalent of US CFR Title 14 Part-43 Appendix E/Part-91 (§91.411) or Part-43 Appendix F/Part-91 (§91.413) in the EU system.
How is it possible to escalate AMP task intervals?
Part-M
General:
Some general expectations for escalation initiatives are described in the following paragraph:
a) It should be ensured that the AMP continues to be valid in light of the operating experience [M.A.302(h) – see FAQ n.47406].
b) It should form part of the analysis of the effectiveness of the AMP (if required by M.A.301(e)),
c) The AMP should include a procedure to manage the escalation of established intervals [AMC M.A.302 point (4) and point (2) of AMC M.B.301(c)].
Supported by a formal reliability programme if required by M.A.302(g) or voluntarily implemented [AMC M.A.302(d) point (6)] or collection and analysis of in-service experience.
‘Appendix I to AMC M.A.302 and AMC M.B.301(b)’ provides detailed guidelines for the integration of this information into the AMP.
d) If there is a CA(M)O involved, those points also have to be emphasised within the CA(M)E, as specified in Appendix V to AMC1 M.A.704, AMC1 CAMO.A.300 or AMC1 CAO.A.025.
Two different cases:
The escalation of AMP task intervals falls into the alternative instructions proposed by the owner/CA(M)O [M.A.302(e)] and distinguishes in the following cases:
Case 1:
Escalation of safety-related task intervals, which consist of all mandatory tasks (Airworthiness Limitation Section) as well as certain non-mandatory tasks issued by the DAH (Design Approval Holder) such as various MRBR (Maintenance Review Board Report) tasks [see note below], tasks related to emergency equipment, critical components…
Case 2:
Escalation of non-safety-related task (e.g. non-safety related MRBR task or a task recommended by a Service Letter) intervals
Note:
In cases, where the aircraft type has been subjected to the MRB process, the following MRBR tasks should be considered safety-related:
- Failure Effect Category (FEC) ‘5’ (evident safety) and ‘8’ (hidden safety) tasks (systems and powerplant)
- SSI (Structural Significant Item) tasks
- L/HIRF (Lightning / High Intensity Radiated Field) tasks (as applicable)
- Stand-alone EWIS tasks (EZAP procedure)
Escalation approval:
The approval of a task escalations is addressed separately for each case:
Regarding case 1:
1.1 Escalation of mandatory tasks represents a change of the initial type design and therefore must be discussed and agreed between the DAH and the Agency*.
1.2 The AMP revision proposal and the information used to substantiate the escalation of non-mandatory tasks [AMC M.B.301(b)(6)] have to be evaluated by the competent authority [AMC M.B.301(b) point (2)]. Following a positive evaluation, a direct approval of the AMP revision will be issued by the competent authority, as stated in M.A.302(e).
Regarding case 2:
An indirect approval of the AMP through a CA(M)O is possible and described in more detail in FAQ n.19061.
* Exception may exist under certain condition for Two Star CMR (Certification Maintenance Requirement) (see AMC 25-19).
Remarks:
- In all cases, task de-escalation may need to be considered based on the supporting data [AMC M.A.302(g) point (4)].
- Escalation should not be confused with ‘permitted variations’ to AMP intervals, which applies to a unique aircraft for a unique occasion [‘Appendix I to AMC M.A.302 point (4)].
Part-ML
General:
Some general expectations for escalation initiatives are described in the following paragraph:
a) It should be ensured that the AMP continues to be valid in light of the operating experience [[ML.A.302(c)(9) – see FAQ n.47406].
b) The effectives of the AMP should be assessed at least by an annual review [ML.A.302(c)(9)].
c) The AMP may include additional maintenance actions [ML.A.302(c)(3)] supported by collection and analysis of in-service experience.
‘GM1 ML.A.302(c)(3)’ provides detailed guidelines for the integration of this information into the AMP.
d) If there is a CA(M)O involved, those points also have to be emphasised within the CA(M)E, as specified in Appendix V to AMC M.A.704, AMC1 CAMO.A.300 or AMC1 CAO.A.025.
Two different cases:
The escalation of AMP task intervals falls into the alternative instructions proposed by the owner/CA(M)O [GM1 ML.A.302(c)(2)(b)] and distinguishes in the following cases:
Case 1:
Escalation of safety-related task intervals, which consist of all mandatory tasks (Airworthiness Limitation Section) as well as certain non-mandatory tasks issued by the DAH (Design Approval Holder), tasks related to emergency equipment, critical components…
Case 2:
Escalation of non-safety-related task (e.g. task recommended by a Service Letter) intervals
Escalation approval:
The approval of the escalation is carried out by the CAMO or CAO [ML.A.302(b)(2)]. For declared AMP no approval is needed [ML.A.302(b)(1)].
Remarks:
- In all cases, task de-escalation may need to be considered based on the supporting data.
- Escalation should not be confused with ‘permitted variations’ to AMP intervals, which applies to a unique aircraft for a unique occasion [GM1 ML.A.302(c)(3)].
What kind of alternative (other than escalation) or additional instructions can be introduced in the AMP?
For guidance on the escalation of AMP task intervals, please refer to FAQ no.48248.
Examples of alternative/additional instructions to the Design Approval Holder’s (DAH) Instructions for Continuing Airworthiness (ICA) are listed below [see point (7) of AMC M.A.302(d):
1. De-escalation of task intervals (i.e. ‘more restrictive intervals’). Regardless of the source of the task, this may be eligible to indirect approval [see FAQ n.19061].
2. Additional scheduled maintenance tasks selected by the operator on voluntary basis (e.g. operator policy for interiors), or manufacturer recommendations outside ICA (e.g. Service Letter) linked to product improvements or maintenance practices... Depending on their nature, those tasks may be added, changed and deleted through the indirect approval [see FAQ n.19061].
Remark:
Additional and de-escalated tasks may originate from the reliability programme as indicated in point (4) of AMC M.A.302(g).
3. Concerning changes in task type (e.g. from General Visual Inspection to Detailed Inspection, or from Operational Check to Functional Check), by analogy with the escalation [see FAQ no.48248] EASA recommends that for safety-related tasks such changes are directly approved by the competent authority. For non-safety related tasks, the competent authority may accept an indirect approval.
For Part-ML aircraft, the principles of the AMP development are described in FAQ n.43423.
CAMO (Continuing Airworthiness Management Organisation)
Are deputies to nominated persons required in CAMO or CAO?
Part-M Subpart G, Part-CAMO and Part-CAO do not contain specific requirements for the identification of deputies to “nominated persons” as it is foreseen in Part-145 (145.A.30(b)(4)).
Nevertheless, the CAMO or CAO needs to take into account the conditions for the continued validity of the approval laid down in M.A.715, CAMO.A.135 or CAO.A.110, in particular in case of findings or in case of changes.
The CAMO or CAO should ensure that they remain in compliance even during short/medium absence of the nominated persons, this could be achieved by identifying in the CAME or CAE “one or several deputies” and the conditions under which the deputies will assume such responsibility. For longer absence of the nominated person, it is recommended to identify a new nominated person. For Part-M Subpart G organisations, the nomination and acceptance by the competent authority is done using the EASA Form 4. For Part-CAMO and Part-CAO approvals no EASA Form 4 is foreseen and the acceptance by the competent authority is formalised by the approval of an amendment to the exposition.
Under which condition can a CAMO or CAO use the indirect approval procedure to amend AMP (Aircraft Maintenance Programme) task(s) under Part-M?
The indirect approval procedures may only be used for:
- non-safety-related tasks as described in case 2 of FAQ n.48248 and example 3 of FAQ n.48249
- de-escalated tasks as described in example 1 of FAQ n.48249
- additional tasks as described in example 2 of FAQ n.48249
- editorial issues, typos, etc., (without having an effect on the AMP content)
In such case, as required by M.A.302(c) and M.B.301(c), the CAME (Continuing Airworthiness Management Exposition) or CAE (Combined Airworthiness Exposition) must include, and the competent authority shall approve, a procedure describing as a minimum:
- which AMP amendments are eligible for indirect approval;
- who in the organisation is responsible to issue the indirect approval;
- how the amendments are controlled; and
- how and when the competent authority is informed of an AMP amendment.
Based on M.A.302(c), the indirect approval may only be used when:
- the aircraft is managed by a CAMO/CAO or there is a limited contract between the owner and the CAMO/CAO for the development and approval of the AMP;
- and
- the aircraft managed by the CAMO/CAO is registered in the Member State ensuring the oversight of this CAMO/CAO (unless an agreement exists between the competent authority for the AMP and the competent authority of the CAMO/CAO).
Remark
AMPs regulated by Part-ML are not subject to an approval by the competent authority.
Does the CAMO or CAO compliance monitoring/quality system need to be subject to internal audit?
Yes, the compliance monitoring/quality system is part of the activities of the CAMO or CAO and therefore it should be monitored by internal audit.
Points M.A.712(b), CAMO.A.200(a)(6) or CAO.A.100(b) requires that the compliance monitoring/quality system monitors the compliance of the organisation with its relevant requirements and procedures.
The compliance monitoring/quality procedures are considered to be within the scope of this monitoring function. Therefore, the compliance monitoring/quality system should also be subject to audits and the CAMO or CAO audit programme/plan needs to reflect this.
Besides that, the audits conducted in respect of the compliance monitoring/quality system should satisfy the requirement of independence. This means that audits should be carried out by personnel not responsible for the functions, procedures or products being checked.
So, the compliance monitoring/quality staff cannot audit the compliance monitoring/ quality system themselves because of the necessary independence of the audit. Therefore, to audit the compliance monitoring/quality system, it is acceptable:
- to use competent personnel from a different section/department in the same organisation not responsible for the compliance monitoring/quality function/ procedure, or,
- to contract the independent audit element of the compliance monitoring/quality system to another organisation or a qualified competent person, or,
- that the compliance monitoring/quality system is monitored and certified against an internationally recognised standards by a certification organisation.
The way the compliance monitoring/quality system is going to be audited has to be described in the CAME or CAE and approved by the competent authority.
For a small CAO, as defined in CAO.A.100(e), the quality system may be replaced by regular organisational review. Further information on the organisational review can be found in ‘AMC1 CAO.A.100(f)’ and ‘Appendix II to AMC1 CAO.A.100(f)’.
The requirement to establish a procedure to assess non-mandatory modifications/inspections pursuant to CAMO.A.315(b)(4) refers to the “use of the organisation’s safety risk management process”. What does this mean?
The CAMO has the obligation, for complex motor-powered aircraft and aircraft used by air carriers licensed in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008, to establish a procedure to assess non mandatory modifications and inspections (e.g. Service Bulletins).
This assessment should result in a decision to implement or not the recommendation provided in such non-mandatory information (e.g. perform the inspection, embody the modification, amend the aircraft maintenance programme (AMP)).
This assessment procedure should take into consideration several aspects, as the case may be, including but not limited to:
- the applicability to the operator’s fleet (e.g. type of operating environment, utilization, aircraft configuration);
- achievement of operator’s safety objectives;
- mitigating potential aviation safety risks already identified by the operator;
- mitigating potential aviation safety risks not yet apparent to the operator but identified by other operators or TC/STC holder, for aircraft in a similar operational environment;
- reliability improvement of the aircraft and components; and
- improvement of the effectiveness of the AMP.
In case of potential aviation safety risks, the CAMO should review the hazard(s) identified in the recommendation and the proposed maintenance action and its timeframe (i.e. timeline to embody the modification or amend the AMP). This is the main purpose of the expression “making use of the organisation’s safety risk management process”. If necessary, the CAMO will perform a safety risk assessment (e.g. in terms of probability and severity of consequences) and a review of the related mitigations.
Typically, SBs are issued for technical purposes (as mitigation or safety risk control). For instance, a SB could provide the following:
- an elimination of an identified hazard by the embodiment of a modification, or
- reducing the safety risk (i.e. the severity and/or likelihood) of the consequences of an identified hazard by the embodiment of a modification, or
- reducing the likelihood of the consequences of an identified hazard by performing repetitive inspections.
Since SBs are also used for other purposes (e.g. optional equipment installation, commercial retrofit) and not only for potential safety-related situations, it is not required to use safety risk management process for each SB.
The CAMO should use its safety risk management process to determine if the hazard identified in the SB applies to the managed fleet and what the associated risk is, and/or whether the proposed action (modification/inspection) are applicable, effective and reasonable. For clarity, it is not intended that the CAMO should redo the safety assessment performed by the design approval holder; the CAMO assessment should be tailored to its fleet and related operations.
The referred CAME procedure for the assessment of non-mandatory modifications and inspections should ideally describe the decision-making process and mandate to record the decision taken and its justifications (e.g. based on considerations of costs vs benefits such as safety or reliability).
The decision to embody a modification may require the change management process to be followed to ensure proper coordination between the aircraft operator, the CAMO and the approved maintenance organisation. For example, a modification that affects Mass and Balance, requires maintenance check flights, introduces revised flight manual procedures, maintenance manual procedures, changes to the AMP, which needs to be managed to ensure proper dissemination of the information, training, review of existing hazards, and review of risk assessment, as applicable.
Part-145
Part-145: General
Is Part-M applicable to approved Part-145 organisations?
Yes, in addition to the Part-M or Part-ML provisions directly referred to in Part-145 (such as reference to point M.A.304 or ML.A.304 in 145.A.48), certain other requirements laid down in Part-M or Part-ML should also be considered by these organisations. Guidance on this subject is given in ‘GM Article 4(1)’.
What does the term ‘occasional’ mean in 145.A.75(c)?
Within the privilege described in 145.A.75(c) an aircraft maintenance organisation (AMO) may perform line maintenance activity (Part-145) 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 this privilege should be used to support an operator with which the AMO is already in contractual relation, when this operator needs line maintenance service for a short period at a new location due to a special occasion or particular reason (e.g. one-time flights, short term contracts/flight destination, flight schedule changes, special event at a particular location such as European athletics championship in Berlin, 6-12 August 2018, etc.) or the owner needs supporting maintenance service for a short period at a new location due to a special occasion or particular reason.
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 generic 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, record keeping, need to report these cases to the competent authority, etc. In addition, the procedure should include the criteria (e.g. maximum service duration without gap in the continuity; limitation in the repetition of the need* at one given location) to classify the activity as ‘occasional line maintenance’.
* In principle, the repetitive use of this privilege at the same location should not be considered, and for repetitive needs, an approved line station should normally be established at that location.
How to easily update the “EASA Form 1 – MF/145 Issue 2” to “EASA Form 1 – MF/CAO/145 Issue 3”?
Purpose of the FAQ
This FAQ is intended to recommend the industry and national competent authority (NCA) an easy way to implement the ‘EASA Form 1 Issue 3’, applicable from 24.03.2020, by the Maintenance organisations.
Description of the issue
The Regulation (EU) 2019/1383 updated the Appendix II to Annex I (Part-M) — Authorised Release Certificate — EASA Form 1 by changing the footer of the form in order to add the reference of the Part-CAO.
Some organisations may still have in stock hardcopies of EASA Form 1 Issue 2.
In such case, due to the fact that there is no change in the content of the EASA Form 1 or/and in its completion methodology, for the Part-145 and Part-M, Subpart F approved organisations, the change can be done by:
- crossing out the footer in an ‘EASA Form 1 – MF/145 Issue 2’ and replacing it by ‘EASA Form 1 – MF/CAO/145 Issue 3’; or
- accompanying the Form 1 with a communication explaining that the footer should be read as ‘EASA Form 1 – MF/CAO/145 Issue 3’ in accordance with the MOE/MOM procedure; or
- by other means acceptable to the NCA.
How did you install a Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) equipment without EASA form-1? How do you arrange Part-145 side actually?
Please check for the answer published here.
We are a maintenance organisation approved for component maintenance (B/C-rated Part-145 organisation, or Part-CAO with class “component”). Can we issue a “removed serviceable” EASA Form 1 for a component removed from an engine/component off-aircraft in our organisation?
The current point 2.6 of AMC2 145.A.50(d) or AMC1 CAO.A.070(a) refers to the issue of an EASA Form 1 for serviceable aircraft components removed from serviceable aircraft registered in a Member State (*).
This AMC provision is to be used only for components removed from serviceable Member State registered aircraft, not from engine/component off-aircraft, regardless of whether such engine/component is serviceable or not. Components removed from a higher assembly (engine or another component) off-aircraft are expected to undergo workshop maintenance in accordance with the relevant maintenance data before the EASA Form 1 (certifying such maintenance) is issued.
Note that an A-rated Part-145 maintenance organisation or a Part-CAO organisation with class “aircraft’’ can issue an EASA Form 1 following a “removed serviceable” procedure for a (sub)component removed from a higher assembly component when such higher assembly is still installed on (or temporarily removed from) serviceable Member State registered aircraft, following the procedure of the referred AMCs.
(*) means an aircraft which is registered in a Member State and holds a valid (R)CofA issued in accordance with Reg. (EU) No 748/2012 and an ARC.
Quality system
Does the Part-145 or Part-CAO 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) or CAO.A.100 (b) (1) 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 or Part-CAO 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. For Part-CAO this subject is explained in AMC1 CAO.A.100(b).
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.
The way the quality system is going to be audited has to be described in the MOE or CAE and approved by the competent authority.
Certification of maintenance
With respect to blend out repairs, is it required to record the depth and area dimensions of material removed during a blend out repair or is it sufficient to simply record that the damage has been repaired as per the SRM?
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.
Can the subcontractor of a Part-145 or Part-CAO organisation release maintenance?
One of the fundamentals of subcontracting activities is that, during such maintenance, the Part-145 approval is extended to include the subcontractor activities. Subcontracting can be done only if the Part-145 has approved procedures to do it (145.A.75(b)) and the MOE is amended to reflect this new subcontractor.
A certificate of release to service can be issued by a person from the subcontractor who has received a certification authorisation from the Part-145 organisation in accordance with the certification authorisation procedure of the MOE including the assessment of competence.
The certificate of release to service and the EASA Form 1 will always be issued under the maintenance organisation approval reference.
For maintenance by Part-CAO the situation is different. Only ‘specialised services’ (e.g. NDT) can be subcontracted to another organisation, in accordance with the appropriate procedure set out in the CAE and approved by the competent authority (CAO.A.095(a)(2)). In accordance with AMC1 CAO.A.025 the procedure should be part of chapter B.7 ‘Subcontracting’.
A certificate of release to service can be issued by a person from the other organisation who has received a certification authorisation from the CAO in accordance with the certification authorisation procedure of the CAE.
The certificate of release to service will always be issued under the CAO approval reference.
Release to service of NDT tasks by Part-145 or Part-CAO organisations
This answer is separated in two tables. One table is for organisation holding a Part-145 approval and the second table is for organisations holding a Part-CAO approval.
Part-145:
Part-145 organisation |
Certifying staff required |
Qualification system |
General Release procedure |
Release procedure for an NDT inspection |
---|---|---|---|---|
Aircraft
|
The release of the aircraft maintenance carried out under A class rating has to be performed by certifying staff holding a Part-66 licence. (B1 or B3 or C or L certifying staff under the organisation’s A rating.) |
Licencing of personnel has to follow Part-66 regulation. |
The release is either on the aircraft technical log or issuing an aircraft release to service statement. |
A Part-145 organisation holding an A approval rating on a particular aircraft type and having in its approved scope of work NDT inspections for this aircraft type.
This organization needs to have part-66 certifying staff and NDT personnel qualified in accordance with 145.A.30(f).
In this case the NDT inspector performs the NDT task and signs off the work order. The aircraft is released by appropriately qualified B1, B3, C or L certifying staff under the organisation’s A rating.
Please note that the release may include not only the NDT task but also the associated tasks (removal of panels, blankets, wires, re-installation, etc), or the NDT task may be part of a base maintenance check.
|
Engines
|
The release of the engine maintenance carried out under B class rating has to be performed by engine’s certifying staff. |
The certifying staff is qualified following the procedures established by the organisation in compliance with the competent authority requirements. Part-66 licence is not required. |
The release of works performed under class B is done on an EASA Form 1 (or by means of an internal release document when this component is for the organisation’s own use and the organisation has in place the related internal procedures in the MOE). |
A Part-145 organisation holding a B rating approval on a particular engine type and having in its approved scope of work NDT inspections for this engine type. This organization needs to have “engine” certifying staff (qualified in accordance with company procedures) and NDT personnel qualified in accordance with 145.A.30(f). In this case the NDT inspector performs the NDT task and signs off the work order. The engine certifying staff releases the works performed to the engine (including NDT inspection) on an EASA Form 1.
|
Components |
The release of the component maintenance carried out under C class rating has to be performed by components certifying staff (CCS). |
The certifying staff is qualified following the procedures established by the organisation in compliance with the competent authority requirements. The CCS is not required to have a Part-66 licence. |
The release of works performed under class C is done on an EASA Form 1 (or by means of an internal release document when this component is for the organisation’s own use and the organisation has in place the related internal procedures in the MOE). |
A Part-145 organisation holding a C rating approval on a particular component and having in its approved scope of work NDT inspections for this component. This organization needs to have CCS and NDT personnel qualified in accordance with 145.A.30(f). In this case the NDT inspector performs the NDT task and signs off the Work Order / Engineering Order. The CCS releases the works performed to the component (including NDT inspection) on an EASA Form 1. |
Specialised services |
The release of the maintenance carried out under D1 class rating has to be performed by “specialised services” certifying staff. |
The certifying staff is qualified following the procedures established by the organisation in compliance with EN4179, Part-66 licence is not required. |
The release of works performed under class D1 rating is done on an EASA Form 1 or using another form of release to service (other than aircraft release to service) as defined by the organisation in the MOE in compliance with 145.A.50 and approved by the competent authority. |
A Part-145 organisation holding a D1 approval on a particular NDT method. The approved scope of work will be NDT inspections on this method. This organisation needs to have NDT certifying staff qualified in accordance with 145.A.30(f). In this case the NDT certifying staff performs and releases the NDT task on an EASA Form 1 or using another form of release to service (other than aircraft release to service) as defined by the organisation in the MOE in compliance with 145.A.50 and approved by the competent authority. |
Note: In case of non-EU organisations approved by the EASA in accordance with Part-145, the Part-66 licence could be read as “Part-66 or national licence in accordance with Part-145 Appendix IV”
Part-CAO:
Part-145 organisation |
Certifying staff required |
Qualification system |
General Release procedure |
Release procedure for an NDT inspection |
---|---|---|---|---|
Aircraft
|
The release of the aircraft maintenance carried out under A class rating has to be performed by certifying staff holding a Part-66 licence. |
Licencing of personnel has to follow Part-66 regulation. |
The release is either on the aircraft technical log or issuing an aircraft release to service statement. |
A Part-CAO organisation holding an aeroplanes, helicopter, airships, balloons or sailplanes particular aircraft type or and having in its approved scope of work NDT inspections for this aircraft type.
This organization needs to have part-66 certifying staff and NDT personnel qualified in accordance with CAO.A.035(f). In this case the NDT inspector performs the NDT task and signs off the work order. The aircraft is released by appropriately qualified B1, B3 or L certifying staff under the organisation’s aeroplanes, helicopter, airships, balloons or sailplanes rating. Please note that the release may include not only the NDT task but also the associated tasks (removal of panels, blankets, wires, re-installation, etc), or the NDT task may be part of a base maintenance check. |
Engines or Components other than complete engines
|
The release of the engine maintenance carried out under components class rating has to be performed by ‘engine’s’ or ‘components other than complete engines‘ certifying staff. |
The certifying staff is qualified following the procedures established by the organisation, Part-66 licence is not required. |
The release of works performed under class components is done on an EASA Form 1 (or by means of an internal release document when this component is for the organisation’s own use and the organisation has in place the related internal procedures in the CAE). |
A Part-CAO organisation holding a components rating approval on a particular engine type or ‘components other than complete engines‘ and having in its approved scope of work NDT inspections for this engine type.
|
Components |
The release of the component maintenance carried out under C class rating has to be performed by components certifying staff (CCS). |
The certifying staff is qualified following the procedures established by the organisation in compliance with the competent authority requirements. The CCS is not required to have a Part-66 licence. |
The release of works performed under class C is done on an EASA Form 1 (or by means of an internal release document when this component is for the organisation’s own use and the organisation has in place the related internal procedures in the MOE). |
A Part-145 organisation holding a C rating approval on a particular component and having in its approved scope of work NDT inspections for this component. This organization needs to have CCS and NDT personnel qualified in accordance with 145.A.30(f). In this case the NDT inspector performs the NDT task and signs off the Work Order / Engineering Order. The CCS releases the works performed to the component (including NDT inspection) on an EASA Form 1. |
Specialised services |
The release of the maintenance carried out under ‘Specialised Services’ class rating has to be performed by “specialised services” certifying staff. |
The certifying staff is qualified following the procedures established by the organisation in compliance with EN4179, Part-66 licence is not required. |
The release of works performed under class ‘Specialised Services’ rating is done on an EASA Form 1 or using another form of release to service (other than aircraft release to service) as defined by the organisation in the CAE in compliance with CAO.A.070(a) and approved by the competent authority (AMC1 CAO.A.070 (a)(1)). |
A Part-CAO organisation holding a ‘Specialised Services’ approval on a particular NDT method. The approved scope of work will be NDT inspections on this method. |
Note: In case of non-EU organisations approved by the EASA in accordance with Part-145, the Part-66 licence could be read as “Part-66 or national licence in accordance with Part-145 Appendix IV”
Maintenance data
Shall the maintenance data be available and controlled at all times, even if there is no maintenance work going, or shall it be available only during the performance of maintenance?
Maintenance data has direct influence on many processes of the approved maintenance organisation (AMO) and contributes to demonstrate the overall capability of the organisation to perform maintenance.
The maintenance data either can be arranged directly by the AMO or provided by the customer/operator as specified by 145.A.45(a), M.A.609 or CAO.A.055(a). In both cases, the AMO should demonstrate that the maintenance data used, regardless of the source, is up-to-date. To discharge this responsibility, a procedure should be established to:
(a) control the amendment status of any documents being used;
and
(b) regularly check that all amendments are being received, e.g. by subscribing to a document amendment scheme (sufficient in case of direct access to the maintenance data through the DAH/OEM. The subscription to the maintenance data distribution system of the customer/operator is insufficient, additional independent verifications through the original author shall be done).
When the maintenance data is arranged directly by the AMO it shall be available and controlled continuously.
There are certain situations when the maintenance data can be obtained only through the customer/operator. One of the examples would be the maintenance data for the large aircraft. The maintenance data coming from the TC holder is usually customised because of the model/configuration/modification/order of aircraft, so it is normally not possible for the AMO to have this customised maintenance data directly from TC holder without having an aircraft of that type under the contract.
When the maintenance data is provided by the customer/operator, it shall be held and controlled by the AMO during maintenance on the concerned aircraft/component. Whenever the maintenance data is not available or not current, the maintenance shall not be performed and released.
Additionally, as part of the obligation for maintenance records, used maintenance data shall be:
- recorded (in compliance with 145.A.55(c), M.A.614(c) or CAO.A.090(b))
- Remark: Manuals issued by the (S)TC (Supplementary Type Certificate) holder such as AMM and CMM do not need to be stored as a record. Recording the revision status of such manual may be sufficient [AMC 145.A.55(c), AMC M.A.614(c)]; and
- accessible for auditing purpose
to demonstrate that the organisation worked in compliance with their respective requirements.
Personnel requirements
Can a certification maintenance requirement (CMR) be performed by the Flight Crew before flight?
Normally the flight crew should not release CMR task unless that task is included in a “repetitive pre-flight airworthiness directive” under the conditions of 145.A.30(j)(3), M.A.606(h)(1) or CAO.A.040(c)(1)
In case of aircraft operated away from a supported location, the provisions of 145.A.30(j)(4), M.A.606(h)(2) or CAO.A.040(c)(2) could be used for CMRs as long as all the applicable conditions are met. In particular:
- sufficient practical training has been carried out.
- there is a procedure in the Maintenance Organisation Exposition, Maintenance Organisation Manual or Combined Airworthiness Exposition (CAE).
the task is considered “minor maintenance or a simple check” (AMC 145.A.30(j)(4) point 2(i) or AMC M.A.606(h)(2) point 2).
What is the meaning of the Protected Rights in the Appendix IV to Part-145?
The protected rights mentioned in paragraph 2(a) of the Appendix IV to Part-145 were included in the Regulation 2042/2003 for the persons who were already working in a Part-145 organisation in a location situated outside the EU before the entry into force of Part-66. These protected rights allowed those persons to continue exercising (inside that particular Part-145 organisation) the privileges of the certification authorisation issued by that Part-145 organisation without the need to comply with paragraphs 1(c) to 1(f).
If this person changed the employment to a different Part-145 approved organisation after the entry into force of Part-66 (i.e. 28 November 2003), the previous certification authorisation is not valid and he/she needs to receive a new one from the new Part-145 approved organisation. In this case paragraph 2 of Appendix IV is not applicable anymore.
This implies that any new or extended authorisation granted by AMOs to their C/S after the entry into force of Part-66 must comply with paragraphs 1(c) to 1(f) in particular regarding the type training certificates.
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
|
145.A.30(b) point 3.
|
The organisation shall establish and control the competence of personnel involved in any maintenance, airworthiness review management and/or quality audits in accordance with a procedure and to a standard agreed by the competent authority. In addition to the necessary expertise related to the job function, competence must include an understanding of the application of human factors and human performance issues appropriate to that person's function in the organisation. This should include also:
|
145.A.30(e) and associated AMC/GM. Appendix IV to AMC 145.A.30(e) and 145.B.10(3). AMC 20-22. |
The organisation shall ensure that personnel who carry out and/or control a continued airworthiness non-destructive test of aircraft structures and/or components are appropriately qualified for the particular non-destructive test in accordance with the European or equivalent Standard recognised by the Agency. Personnel who carry out any other specialised task shall be appropriately qualified in accordance with officially recognised Standards. By derogation to this paragraph those personnel specified in paragraphs (g) and (h)(1) and (h)(2), qualified in category B1, B3 or L in accordance with Annex III (Part-66) may carry out and/or control colour contrast dye penetrant tests. |
145.A.30(f) and AMC 145.A.30(f). |
By derogation to paragraphs (g) and (h), in relation to the obligation to comply with Annex III (Part-66), the organisation may use certifying staff qualified in accordance with the following provisions: 1. For organisation facilities located outside the Community territory certifying staff may be qualified in accordance with the national aviation regulations of the State in which the organisation facility is registered subject to the conditions specified in Appendix IV to this Part. 2. For line maintenance carried out at a line station of an organisation which is located outside the Community territory, the certifying staff may be qualified in accordance with the national aviation regulations of the State in which the line station is based, subject to the conditions specified in Appendix IV to this Part. 3. For a repetitive pre-flight airworthiness directive which specifically states that the flight crew may carry out such airworthiness directive, the organisation may issue a limited certification authorisation to the aircraft commander and/or the flight engineer on the basis of the flight crew licence held. However, the organisation shall ensure that sufficient practical training has been carried out to ensure that such aircraft commander or flight engineer can accomplish the airworthiness directive to the required standard. 4. In the case of aircraft operating away from a supported location the organisation may issue a limited certification authorisation to the commander and/or the flight engineer on the basis of the flight crew licence held subject to being satisfied that sufficient practical training has been carried out to ensure that the commander or flight engineer can accomplish the specified task to the required standard. The provisions of this paragraph shall be detailed in an exposition procedure. 5. In the following unforeseen cases, where an aircraft is grounded at a location other than the main base where no appropriate certifying staff are available, the organisation contracted to provide maintenance support may issue a one-off certification authorisation: (i) to one of its employees holding equivalent type authorisations on aircraft of similar technology, construction and systems; or (ii) to any person with not less than five years maintenance experience and holding a valid ICAO aircraft maintenance licence rated for the aircraft type requiring certification provided there is no organisation appropriately approved under this Part at that location and the contracted organisation obtains and holds on file evidence of the experience and the licence of that person. All such cases as specified in this point shall be reported to the competent authority within seven days of the issuance of such certification authorisation. The organisation issuing the one-off authorisation shall ensure that any such maintenance that could affect flight safety is re-checked by an appropriately approved organisation.
|
145.A.30(j) and associated AMC/GM.
Appendix IV to Part-145. |
In addition to the appropriate requirements of 145.A.30(g) and (h), the organisation shall ensure that certifying staff and support staff have an adequate understanding of the relevant aircraft and/or components, or both, to be maintained and of the associated organisation procedures. In the case of certifying staff, this shall be accomplished before the issue or reissue of the certification authorisation. |
145.A.35(a) and AMC 145.A.35(a). |
The organisation shall ensure that all certifying staff and support staff are involved in at least six months of actual relevant aircraft or component maintenance experience in any consecutive two-year period. |
145.A.35(c) and AMC 145.A.35(c). |
The organisation shall ensure that all certifying staff and support staff receive sufficient continuation training in each two-year period to ensure that such staff have up-to-date knowledge of relevant technology, organisation procedures and human factor issues. |
145.A.35(d) and AMC 145.A.35(d). |
The organisation shall establish a programme for continuation training for certifying staff and support staff, including a procedure to ensure compliance with the relevant paragraphs of 145.A.35 as the basis for issuing certification authorisations under this Part to certifying staff, and a procedure to ensure compliance with Annex III (Part 66). |
145.A.35(e) and AMC 145.A.35(e). |
Except where any of the unforeseen cases of 145.A.30(j)(5) apply, the organisation shall assess all prospective certifying staff for their competence, qualification and capability to carry out their intended certifying duties in accordance with a procedure as specified in the exposition prior to the issue or reissue of a certification authorisation under this Part. |
145.A.35(f) and AMC 145.A.35(f). |
The holder of a category A aircraft maintenance licence may only exercise certification privileges on a specific aircraft type following the satisfactory completion of the relevant category A aircraft task training carried out by an organisation appropriately approved in accordance with Annex II (Part-145) or Annex IV (Part-147). This training shall include practical hands on training and theoretical training as appropriate for each task authorised. Satisfactory completion of training shall be demonstrated by an examination or by workplace assessment carried out by the organisation. |
145.A.35(n) and AMC 145.A.35(n). |
The holder of a category B2 aircraft maintenance licence may only exercise the certification privileges described in point 66.A.20(a)(3)(ii) of Annex III (Part-66) following the satisfactory completion of (i) the relevant category A aircraft task training and (ii) six months of documented practical experience covering the scope of the authorisation that will be issued. The task training shall include practical hands on training and theoretical training as appropriate for each task authorised. Satisfactory completion of training shall be demonstrated by an examination or by workplace assessment. Task training and examination/assessment shall be carried out by the maintenance organisation issuing the certifying staff authorisation. The practical experience shall be also obtained within such maintenance organisation. |
145.A.35(o) and AMC 145.A.35(o). |
Pre-flight inspections (when the 145 organisation has an agreement with an operator) It should be demonstrated that the personnel carrying out pre-flight inspections have received appropriate training for the relevant pre-flight inspection tasks based on the operator’s CAME. |
ML.A.301(a) |
Part-66
Get a Part-66 licence
What are the Part-66 licence categories?
In a Part-145 approved organisation, the different categories of Part-66 licences are:
LICENCE CATEGORY | For certifying the release to service of work performed on aircraft: | What: |
---|---|---|
A | Minor scheduled line maintenance and simple defect rectification
Divided into the following subcategories:
|
Line Maintenance |
B1 | Maintenance on aircraft structure, power plant and mechanical and electrical systems, avionic systems requiring simple tests to prove their serviceability and no troubleshooting
Divided into B1.1 for turbine aeroplanes, |
Line Maintenance |
B3 | Maintenance on aeroplane structure, power plant and mechanical and electrical systems; and on avionics systems requiring only simple tests to prove their serviceability and not requiring troubleshooting limited to non-pressurized aeroplanes of 2 000 kg MTOM and below. | Line Maintenance |
B2 | Maintenance performed on avionic and electrical systems and electric and avionics tasks within powerplant and mechanical systems requiring only simple test and minor scheduled line maintenance and simple defect rectification | Line Maintenance |
B2L | The same as B2 but limited to the systems endorsed on the licence:
Divided into the following ‘system ratings’: communication/navigation (com/nav), |
Line Maintenance |
L |
Maintenance on aircraft structure, power plant and mechanical and electrical systems; radio, Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELT) and transponder systems; and Divided into the following subcategories: L1C: composite sailplanes, |
Line Maintenance |
C | Base maintenance
C with respect to complex motor-powered aircraft and |
Line Maintenance |
Support staff for: | ||
B1 | Maintenance on aircraft structure, power plant and mechanical and electrical systems, avionic systems requiring simple tests to prove their serviceability and no troubleshooting (subdivided into B1.1 for turbine aeroplanes, B1.2 for piston engine aeroplanes, B1.3 for Turbine helicopter and B1.4 for piston engine helicopter) | Base Maintenance |
B2 | Maintenance on avionic and electrical systems and electric and avionics tasks within power plant and mechanical systems requiring only simple test and minor scheduled line maintenance and simple defect rectification | Base Maintenance |
B2L | The same as B2 but limited to the systems endorsed on the licence:
|
|
B3 | Maintenance on aeroplane structure, power plant and mechanical and electrical systems; and on avionics systems requiring only simple tests to prove their serviceability and not requiring troubleshooting limited to non-pressurized aeroplanes of 2 000 kg MTOM and below. | Base Maintenance |
L |
Maintenance on aircraft structure, power plant and mechanical and electrical systems; radio, Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELT) and transponder systems; and Divided into the following subcategories: L1C: composite sailplanes, |
Base Maintenance |
See points 66.A.3 and 66.A.20 of Annex III (Part-66) to Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014 can be found on the Agency website https://www.easa.europa.eu/regulations#regulations-continuing-airworthi… or in the eRules https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-library/easy-access-rules/easy-acce…)
How to get an EASA Part-66 Licence (Category B1 or B2)?
- In order to get an EASA Part-66 AML (Aircraft Maintenance License), an applicant needs:
- Basic knowledge (66.A.25);
- Basic experience (66.A.30).
- In order to get an aircraft type rating TR endorsed in the AML, an applicant needs:
- Type Training (Theoretical and Practical) (66.A.45)
- On-the-job Training (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 AML 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 the European system.
Click on the pictures to zoom in.
How can I apply for an EASA Part-66 licence? What is required at the time of the application?
The initial application for a Part-66 aircraft maintenance licence shall be made to the competent authority of one of the Member States (MS). Please contact this competent authority for an application Form (EASA Form 19) and specific details concerning the application.
The EASA Form 19 shall be submitted to the MS together with evidence of compliance with the requirements. MS will specify the related fees and how compliance with the requirements shall be demonstrated.
See 66.A.10, 66.A.15, 66.A.25, 66.A.30, 66.A.45 and 66.A.70 and related AMC/GM.
An application for amendment or renewal of a Part-66 aircraft maintenance licence (AML) shall be made to the competent authority of the MS who issued the licence. Please contact this competent authority for an application Form (EASA Form 19) and specific details concerning the application.
The EASA Form 19 shall be submitted to the MS together with evidence of compliance with the requirements. MS will specify the related fees and how compliance with the requirements shall be demonstrated.
See 66.A.10, 66.A.15, 66.A.25, 66.A.30, 66.A.40, 66.A.45, 66.A.50, and 66.A.70 and related AMC/GM.
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: https://www.easa.europa.eu/the-agency/member-states .
I want to work in an organisation located within the EU. Do I need a Part-66 licence?
According to the current rules, a Part-66 licence is required for:
- certifying the release to service of maintenance of an aircraft;
- work in maintenance organisations as support staff.
For other activities within a maintenance organisation, a Part-66 licence is not required. No Part-66 licence exists for components (based on article 5 of Commission Regulation (EU) No. 2018/1142).
Remark: Privileges on the basis of national requirements may be added in the Part-66 licence in section XIV. national privileges.
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.
Part-66 has only a provision to suspend, limit or revoke licences in case of carrying out maintenance or issuing a certificate of release to service when adversely affected by alcohol or drugs [66.B.500 point(7)].
Current 145.A.30(e) requests certifying staff to receive a human factor training and GM 1 145.A.30 (e) gives guidance about the elements of the training to be imparted:
4 - Human performance & limitations
4.1 Vision
4.2 Hearing
4.3 Information-processing
4.4 Attention and perception
4.5 Situational awareness
4.6 Memory
4.7 Claustrophobia and physical access
4.8 Motivation
4.9 Fitness/Health
4.10 Stress
4.11 Workload management
4.12 Fatigue
4.13 Alcohol, medication, drugs
4.14 Physical work
4.15 Repetitive tasks / complacency
Common sense recommends the certifying staff not to exercise the privileges of their certification authorisation if they know or suspect that their physical or mental condition renders them unfit to exercise such privileges (impact to the safe maintenance operations). In addition such recommendation may be covered and rendered mandatory by the national requirements of the Member State where you exercise your privileges. Typical examples are for intoxication (alcohol, drugs, etc.).
It is therefore recommended that you inform the management of your maintenance organisation:
- as you should not deviate from the national law;
- as the organisation shall establish and control the competence of personnel; (145.A.30(e) – necessary expertise related to the job function);
- as the organisation shall have a human performance programme in place (145.A.35(e)); and
- as the ICAO safety management system encourages to identify hazards and risks.
Please find an agreement with your company in order to list the maintenance tasks that you are allowed to carry out without jeopardising the aircraft safety.
Note: The same reasoning as explained above applies for any medical condition.
Does EASA plan to propose changes to the implementing regulation to establish specific adaptations applicable to persons with learning difficulties (e.g. dyslexia, attention deficit disorder, hyperactivity,…) who wish to undertake aircraft maintenance training in a Part-147 approved training organisation as required to apply for Part-66 licenses?
Anybody able to pass the basic knowledge examinations and fulfil the basic experience requirements can get the related 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 propose amendments to the regulations to account for cases of people with special needs during examinations: a single regulation cannot cover all individual cases. If a Member State intends to introduce any such adaptation, Regulation EU 2018/1139 (the BR) includes the possibility for the Member States to grant an exemption under the Article 71(2), after evaluation of the individual conditions for the case.
As an additional information, the Agency already issued several positive recommendations for such exemptions (e.g. for candidates with confirmed dyslexia, i.e. 25% additional time). Please contact your competent authority for details.
For further information about the flexibility provisions under the BR, please see 'Safeguard & Flexibility Provisions'.
How can I get a Part-66 licence valid in the EU by conversion?
Either you are the holder of:
- a national licence [66.A.305] or an approved maintenance organisation authorisation [66.A.310], that was valid in the Member State before the entry into force of the EASA regulation introducing the relevant Part-66 categories (see entry into force of the amendments of the regulation), or
- JAR-66 licence, which will automatically be re-issued as Part-66 licences as they are deemed to have been issued in accordance with Part-66. This does only apply to JAR-66 licence issued by the countries listed on the Mutual recognition page.
Please note that none of the bilateral agreements between the EU and third countries (at present US, Canada, Brazil and China and Japan) have the maintenance licences in their scope.
Furthermore, 66.A.70 allows conversion of qualifications valid in a Member State in very specific and limited cases.
Basic Part-66 licence (without type rating)
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.
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.
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?
It is not mandatory to gain maintenance experience in a Part-145 organisation. According to the AMC 66.A.30(a) point 4, aircraft maintenance experience gained within different types of maintenance organisations (under Part-145, M.A. Subpart F, Part-CAO, 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.
Furthermore. aircraft maintenance experience gained outside a civil aircraft maintenance environment may include aircraft maintenance experience gained in armed forces, coast guards, police, etc., or in aircraft manufacturing (see AMC 66.A.30(e)). 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.
See Part-66.A.30 and related AMC/GM.
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.
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).
Categories of a Part-66 licence
I hold a Category A1 Part-66 licence. What are the requirements to extend my licence to Category B1.1?
The requirements to extend a Part-66 licence with a category A1 to B1.1 are:
- the knowledge demonstration of those basic modules, which are of higher level for B1.1 (see Part-66 Appendix I); and
- the demonstration of 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 A1 category) is needed before applying for the extension. This experience need to be accumulated within the 10 years preceding the application.
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.
See 66.A.10, 66.A.25, 66.A.30 and related AMC/GM.
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 or Appendix VII 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, to 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.
Type ratings of a Part-66 licence
What is a difference between examination and assessment? Why are there two different examination standards, respectively in Part-66 Appendix III, points 4 and 5?
Examination is a written form of demonstration of a certain level of theoretical knowledge by the student based on achievement of the learning objectives, usually performed on completion of a theoretical training course or a portion of a course. The student shall demonstrate, to the levels identified in the table in Appendix III, the detailed theoretical knowledge of the aircraft’s applicable systems, structure, operations, maintenance, repair, and troubleshooting according to approved maintenance data, as well as the use of manuals and approved procedures, including the knowledge of relevant inspections and limitations. The standard, format, pass mark, etc. are defined in Appendix III, 4.1. The examination shall be performed by the appropriately trained and approved examiner.
Assessment is a practical form of measuring the competence of the student by evaluating three major factors associated to the learning objectives: knowledge, skills and attitude, usually performed on completion of a practical training course. The assessment should focus on the competencies relevant to the aircraft type and its maintenance. The principles on how to perform the competence assessments are given in the AMCs to Part-66, Appendix III. The assessment shall be performed by appropriately trained and approved assessors.
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 national competent authority on those aircraft that do not require a type training (typically Group 2, Group 3 and Group 4 aircraft according to Appendix I to the AMCs to Part-66). So, it is true that the examiners authorised by the national 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”.
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, B2 and L5 licences, in case where the aircraft type is the first in a licence category or subcategory, an OJT training has been performed (derogation for Group 2 and 3 aircraft see 66.A.45(d)).
I hold a licence with a type rating and I wish to add the rating of a similar aircraft of the same manufacturer. For example: I have a type rating on Airbus A320 Series, and I wish to add the rating on A330 Series. Do I need a complete course?
If aircraft types of the same manufacturer have different type ratings as stated in Appendix I to AMC to Part-66, there is a gap of knowledge gap preventing the endorsement of the second aircraft type. E.g. the Airbus A330 (GE CF6) is a different rating to the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 (CFM56).
If the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 (CFM56) is previously endorsed or the criteria for endorsement are met (based on conversion or type training) the Airbus A330 (GE CF6) can be endorsed (within the time limits) following either
- a complete theoretical + practical Airbus A330 (GE CF6) course, or
- a differences training course, theoretical and practical for Airbus A330 (GE CF6) compared to Airbus A318 (CFM56) (and/or A319/A320/A321) as described in Appendix III point 1(c).
Those training courses may either be provided by a Part-147 training organisation or by the competent authority.
Remark: A Part-147 organisation difference training is not required for variants within the same aircraft type rating, for example: from A320 to A321. Nevertheless, some training to cover the differences may be necessary. This may be provided by an approved maintenance organisation, before issuing the certifying staff authorisation, (see AMC to Paragraph 1(c) of Appendix III to Part-66 ‘Aircraft Type Training and Examination Standard. On-the-Job Training’).
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 on the job(OJT) training shall be performed.
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).
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 comply 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 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 by that Member State, which means it cannot be used for aircraft type endorsement by other Member States (no mutual recognition of the certificate), unless this other competent authority has approved the course as well.
In the case of type training for airships in Group 1, the courses shall be directly approved by the competent authority in all cases. The competent authority shall have a procedure to ensure that the syllabus of the airship-type training covers all the elements contained in the maintenance data from the Design Approval Holder (DAH) (66.B.130(b)).
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).
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, it 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 three-year timeframe from the date you started the TRT course [see Part-66 Appendix III 1.(a)(iv) and (b)(v)].
OJT (On the Job Training) for a Part-66 licence
What is the intention of the requirement regarding the assessment of the OJT. What is the nature of the assessment for an OJT? What are the differences between practical assessment and OJT assessment? What are the objectives of the OJT assessment?
The practical assessment addresses the practical portion of any type training whereas the OJT assessment addresses the additional practical experience necessary to gain in a true maintenance environment as part of the first type rating in a (sub)category, as illustrated by the table below:
|
PRACTICAL ASSESSMENT | OJT ASSESSMENT For the purpose of 66.A.45(c) |
What/who is assessed: |
Candidates following practical element of training. |
Completeness of the OJT. |
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 : |
|
Always in a maintenance organisation approved under Part-145 with an aircraft 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:
|
|
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 Maintenance organisation exposition (chapter 3.15) or “one-off” direct approval |
Reference: Appendix III 1(b); Part-147 |
Reference: AMC 145.A.70 (a) |
(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.
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.
Note: See AMC to Section 6 of Appendix III to Part-66 point 4 and 5
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 …, to a B2 or L5,
- and be adapted to the privilege of each licence category / subcategory as defined in 66.A.20(a):
- for a B1 licence: aircraft structure, power plant and mechanical and electrical systems + work on avionics system with simple test but not including trouble shooting;
- and those related to a B2: avionics, aircraft electrical system tasks and avionics/electrical tasks within mechanical and power plant systems; or
- and those related to a L5: aircraft structure, power plant, mechanical and electrical systems, radio, Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELT), transponder systems and other avionics systems requiring simple tests to prove their serviceability.
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.
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.
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. In other cases, the licensing authority may accept such OJT after assessing and approving the programme, which should usually be done prior to starting the OJT. This is described in AMC 66.B.115 point (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.
How can I carry out my OJT in a Part-145 approved maintenance organisation (AMO) whose principal place of business is located outside the EASA Member States?
The endorsement of the first aircraft type rating, within a given category/sub-category, requires satisfactory completion of the corresponding On-the-Job-Training (ref. 66.A.45(c)).
The OJT shall be approved by the competent authority who has issued the licence (ref. Part 66, Appendix III, sec. 6).
It shall be carried out in a maintenance organisation approved under Part-145 with A rating or and the procedures for OJT should be included in the exposition (MOE chapter 3.15 “OJT procedure”, approved by the competent authority of the maintenance organisation. However, since these procedures are approved by the competent authority of the maintenance organisation, and providing training is not one of the privileges of a maintenance organisation, they can only be used when the licensing authority (competent authority issuing the license) is the same as the competent authority of the maintenance organisation. In other cases, it is up to the licensing authority to decide whether it accepts such procedures for the purpose of approving the OJT (ref. AMC to Section 6 of Appendix III to Part-66).
For the Part-145, whose principal place of business is located outside the EASA Member states, the competent authority of the maintenance organisation is EASA. In such case, the OJT procedures cannot be included in the MOE, due to the fact that EASA is not a licensing authority.
The possibility still exists in this case that a licensing authority may directly approve OJT procedures, which have to be included in a separate document outside (and not being part) of the MOE.
Consequently, personnel working in these AMOs, or the AMOs wishing to support its staff on this matter, should:
- Option A: apply directly to the licensing authority who has issued the license for the approval of an OJT (to be proposed in a document outside the MOE). This option should normally be considered by organisations and not by individuals.
- Option B: find an agreement to follow an already approved OJT at another organisation, which was approved by the same licensing authority who has issued the license. Possibility also exists to follow an OJT which was approved by any other licensing authority, however in such a case the final acceptance of this OJT for the purpose of endorsing the first type rating in the license remains at the sole discretion of the competent authority issuing the license.
It is recommended that prior to starting any OJT, the licensing authority who has issued the license is contacted to verify its acceptance of any possible intended option.
Privileges of a Part-66 licence
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, Part-ML, Part-145 and/or Part-CAO 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)(2) and GM 66.A.20(b)2 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”.
Can I have endorsed in my Part-66 licence aircraft types for which the Basic Regulation is not applicable?
The competent authority of the Member State issuing the licence may include in the Annex (Section XIV) of EASA Form 26 types for which the Basic Regulation is not applicable. The privileges endorsed for these types are based only on the national rules. The use of Section XIV of EASA Form 26 is optional.
EASA does not have any information about these types. If you want to get information about them, please contact the competent authority.
Is there a requirement to have 6 months’ experience every 2 years to maintain the validity of the Part-66 licence?
No, the validity of the Part-66 licence is not affected by recent experience. The requirement of 6 months’ experience within the preceding 2 years ensures that privileges are exercised by certifying staff with sufficient recent experience.
If you do not meet the experience requirement anymore, you lose your rights to exercise your privileges of certifying staff or support staff. 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 an individual training (aircraft belonging in Group 2, 3 or 4), 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 the particular or similar aircraft and the definition of a ‘similar’ aircraft is provided in the AMC to 66.A.20(b)2.
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 the line shown in the AMC include a (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.30(g).
Part-147
Basic training
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.
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 A, B1, B2, B2L, B3 or L:
Case No 1 (baseline – standard case): The applicant completes the whole basic knowledge course (including the training, practical assessments and basic modules examinations) in an approved Part-147 maintenance training organisation.
Result: The Certificate of Recognition (CoR) of the basic course completion is issued by the organisation. The applicant can apply for the Part-66 licence with 1 or 2 years of maintenance experience (66.A.30).
Case No 2: The applicant completes the basic training in two different Part-147 AMTO (including the examinations).
Result: The CoRs for the successful examination of each individual module are issued (by different AMTO), but not the CoR for the basic course completion. The applicant does not benefit from the experience reduction and have to fulfil the requirement of 2 or 3 years of experience (if recognised as skilled worker) or 1, 2, 3 or 5 years (66.A.30).
- It may happen that some of the competent authorities would give the complete credit on experience in case the applicant can prove that: the training completed in different organisation covers in total the Appendix I or Appendix VII syllabus; and
- all the practical assessments are performed and passed successfully; and
- all interactions between the modules have been correctly addressed; and
- there was a right proportion of theoretical and practical training for each subject.
As this demonstration requires a significant investment, the applicant is invited to directly contact the competent responsible for performing such an investigation.
Case No 3: The applicant has completed a full basic training course in one approved Part-147 organisation. Unfortunately, the candidate was not in a position to successfully pass the full examination process (all modules) in that organisation and had to pass the missing portion of the examination in another approved Part-147 organisation.
Result: In this case the applicant would receive a CoR for basic training only as well as the CoRs related to the modules successfully passed in that approved Part-147 organisation. The examination for the missing modules may be successfully passed in another approved Part-147 organisation(s) with issuance of the related CoRs thereof. The combination of all these CoRs may be sufficient for the competent authority to recognise the training course as successfully “completed” and to grant the maximum credit for the experience (only 1 or 2 years needed, see case No 1) for the issue of the license.
Case No 4: The applicant did not attend a Part-147 basic training course but only took examinations in one or more approved Part-147 organisation(s).
Result: The applicant would receive several CoRs for the successful examination of individual modules from one or more approved Part-147 organisations. No credit of experience as per 66.A.30 will be granted (except for skill workers – 2 or 3 years). Standard 1, 2, 3 or 5 years of experience will be required.
Further information is given in AMC to Appendix III to Part-147 “Certificates of Recognition referred to in Annex IV (Part-147) – EASA Forms 148 and 149.
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.
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, the certificate shall state only “Basic training course” and the modules conducted be mentioned on the certificate including the date(s) of the training module(s).
Reference: 147.A.145
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.
Type training
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-M Subpart F, Part-145 or Part-CAO 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-M Subpart F, Part-145 or Part-CAO 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.
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.
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), 3.2 and 4.2 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.
Examination
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.
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.
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.
Others
Shall a Part-147 approved organisation have a mandatory occurrence reporting system according to Regulation (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 a 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.
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 M.A.607, 145.A.35 or CAO.A.040, 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, Part-ML, Part-145 or Part-CAO requires the staff to be trained, the appropriateness of such training being delivered would be assessed during the audits of these particular organisations.
How can I become an EASA aircraft maintenance instructor?
Part-147, in particular, 147.A.105 (f), state that the experience and qualifications of instructors, knowledge examiners and practical assessors shall be established in accordance with criteria published or in accordance with a procedure and to a standard agreed by the competent authority. There are no additional requirements or guidance published in EASA rules regarding the experience and qualification of instructors, except that it is recommended that potential instructors be trained in instructional techniques.
The eligibility of candidates to a permanent or temporary (contracted independent) instructor’s position must be assessed in regards to the minimum qualifications defined by the concerned Approved Part 147 Training Organisation. The Organisation’s procedures should detail these minimum qualifications and associated eligibility criteria in terms of technical knowledge, pedagogical and instructional skills and working experience.
EASA does not issue Instructor licences or equivalent, and permanent or contracted instructors can only exercise instruction privileges through the approval of a Training Organisation. Instructors are nominated by the approved organisation, which keep detailed records of their qualifications and are audited by the authority. Their authorised scope of activity is then stated on Terms of Reference provided to the instructors, as well as on the instructor/ examiners/ assessors approved list.
For any further questions, we advise you to contact the training organisation Quality Assurance Dept. and/ or the Competent Authority (the one who granted the approval), in order to enquire about the possibility to be nominated as an instructor.
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:
- an independent audit function to monitor training standards, the integrity of knowledge examinations and practical assessments, compliance with and adequacy of the procedures, and
- 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 inspections.
Air Operations
In case the answer you were looking for in this FAQ section is not available: you might submit your enquiry here
Air Operations - General
In the definition of ‘commercial operation’ published in Art. 2 of Regulation (EU) 965/2012 (introduced by the amending Reg. (EU) 2018/1975), what is the meaning of the term “control”?
Reference: Reg. (EU) 965/2012, Article 2:
‘“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.’
Pursuant to Article 140(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 (the New Basic Regulation), ‘commercial operation’ shall still be understood as a reference to point (i) of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008. This is a transitional provision until not later than 12 September 2023, when the implementing rules adopted on the basis of Regulations (EC) No 216/2008 and (EC) No 552/2004 shall be adapted to this Regulation. The same definition of ‘commercial operation’ has already been transposed in Article 2 of Reg. (EU) No 965/2012 on air operations and is applicable as of 9 July 2019.
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.
What are the essential requirements?
Reference: Regulation (EU) 2018/1139, Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations
Essential requirements are high-level safety objectives and obligations put on persons and organisations undertaking aviation activities under Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 (the Basic Regulation). Detailed rules are then adopted by the European Commission based on technical advice from EASA to further detail how to achieve these objectives and obligations. For example, the implementing rules for air operations (i.e. Reg. (EU) No 965/2012) have been developed in order to ensure uniform implementation of essential requirements related to air operations.
The Basic Regulation has annexes containing essential requirements for:
- airworthiness (Annex II),
- environmental compatibility related to products (Annex III)
- aircrew (Annex IV),
- air operations (Annex V),
- qualified entities (Annex VI),
- aerodromes (Annex VII),
- ATM/ANS and air traffic controllers (Annex VIII), and
- unmanned aircraft (Annex IX).
The Essential Requirements can be amended by the European Commission where necessary for reasons of technical, operational or scientific developments or evidence.
What do 'grandfathering', 'transition measure' and 'opt-out' mean?
Reference: Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011, Regulation (EU) No 965/2012
These terms refer to certain legal concepts used in aviation safety regulations, in particular Reg. (EU) No 1178/2011 on aircrew and Reg. (EU) No 965/2012 on air operations.
'Grandfathering' designates the legal recognition and acceptance of certificates issued on the basis of national legislation by national authorities prior to the entry into force of a specific regulation. For example, in Reg. (EU) No 1178/2011, the conditions for the grandfathering of JAR-compliant and non-JAR-compliant pilot licences and medical certificates are set forth in its Articles 4 and 5. In Reg. (EU) No 965/2012, the conditions for grandfathering of EU-OPS AOCs are set forth in Article 7(1).
Grandfathering measures are included in the Cover Regulation to assist Member States in the transition from national rules to unified EU rules. In the case of aircrew licensing, provisions on grandfathering consider some national certificates issued in compliance with given regulations and by a certain date as being in compliance with the new Aircrew Regulation (i.e. Reg. (EU) No 1178/2011).
A 'transition measure' is a provision helping the national competent authorities and regulated entities to gradually adapt to the new EU rules. Several examples can be found in the Aircrew Regulation, such as in Article 11c (in relation to the obligation of Member States regarding the transfer of records and certification processes of those organisations for which the Agency is the competent authority) and in Article 4 (1) — the obligation of Member States to adapt grandfathered pilot licences to the new format by a certain date.
The 'opt-out' is a form of transition measure applicable to Member States. Opt-out provisions allowed Member States to decide not to implement an EU regulation or certain provisions thereof for a certain period of time, delaying the date of application of the new regulation (or certain provisions thereof) within that Member State. For example, the opt-out provisions contained in the Aircrew and Air Ops regulations required the Member State to notify the European Commission and EASA of the 'opt-out', describing the reasons for such derogation and the programme for the phasing out of the opt-out and achieving full implementation of the common requirements.
Read more on opt-in and opt-out.
What is the difference between 'entry into force' and 'date of applicability' in the Cover Regulations?
Many Commission Regulations adopted in EASA domains contain two different dates, usually under the heading “entry into force”. The example below is from Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on air operations:
Article 10
Entry into force
1. This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
It shall apply from 28 October 2012.
The entry into force of an EU regulation represents the date when the regulation has legal existence in the EU legal order and in the national legal order of each Member State.
It is common practice that the regulation enters into force 20 days after its publication in the Official Journal of the EU. That is the case when the legislator simply uses the expression “This Regulation enters into force on the 20th day after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.” Shorter periods are also used, as was the case in the example above.
Sometimes the date of entry into force is also the date of applicability of a regulation, meaning that from the date when it enters into force, the regulation is also applicable; it can be fully invoked by its addressees and is fully enforceable.
However, due to the complexity of the domains that are regulated, a period of time may be needed between the date the regulation enters into force, i.e. it legally exists, and the date it can actually be applied, i.e. the date when it is enforceable and the legal rights and obligations can be effectively exercised.
This period of time (vacatio legis) is deliberately introduced for Member States, competent authorities, operators, organisations, licence holders and any other addressees or beneficiaries of the regulations to prepare their systems, processes, procedures, documentation, etc. for compliance with the new rules.
Vacatio legis is also a period given for the addressees of the regulation to adjust to the upcoming rights and obligations and take the necessary measures to benefit from the legal effects of the regulation, namely for the purposes of mutual recognition of certificates and approvals in the aviation internal market.
In those cases, it is common practice of the legislator to establish two different dates under the article on entry into force. One date establishes the legal existence of the act (entry into force); the second date establishes the date when it becomes applicable (applicability).
The date of applicability therefore represents the date from which the regulation can produce rights and obligations on the addressees and can be directly enforced towards the courts, administrations, national governments, etc. This means that before the date of applicability, obligations or privileges can neither be exercised nor enforced.
The same understanding is shared by the Legal Service of the Commission, which has also clarified in EASA Committee that the privileges provided for in a regulation can only be exercised as of the applicability date chosen by the legislator. Persons subject to the relevant regulation (including national aviation authorities) may prepare themselves for such an effective date (adapting their procedures and practices), but can neither enjoy the privileges nor enforce the obligations.
Legal consequences
This means that Member States cannot start delivering authorisations, approvals, certificates, etc. issued in accordance with the new regulations and at the same time producing all the legal effects of the regulation from the date of entry into force of the regulation, but only from the date of its applicability. However, during the gap period existing between the date of entry into force and the date of applicability, Member States and competent authorities can prepare the process towards the issuance of such authorisations, approvals, and any other certificates in accordance with the new provisions.
In addition, during the period of vacatio legis, an option that Member States and competent authorities can consider, in order to avoid issuing certificates on the last day before the date of applicability, is to issue the new certificates in accordance with the new regulation while clearly indicating in those certificates that they are only valid as of a certain date that would coincide with the date of applicability of the regulation on the basis of which those certificates are issued. This means that those new certificates may be issued, but are not yet effective and cannot be mutually recognised among Member States until the common date of applicability established by the regulation. Until they become effective, licence holders, organisations and operators should still retain and use the certificates already issued under the previous regime. Competent authorities are only obliged to accept the new certificates once the regulation has become applicable.
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.
What is the comitology procedure?
Please refer to the information provided by the European Commission on comitology.
Why can't I find EU-OPS on the EASA website?
Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations, associated Decisions (AMC/GM)
EU-OPS was the basis for the creation of Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on air operations, which is the currently applicable regulation in the field of air operations with aeroplanes and helicopters.
EU-OPS is published in the Official Journal of the EU as Regulation (EC) No 859/2008 of 20 August 2008 amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 as regards common technical requirements and administrative procedures applicable to commercial transportation by aeroplane.
What is the status of 'Implementing Rules', 'Acceptable Means of Compliance' (AMC), ‘Certification Specifications’ (CS), Alternative Means of Compliance (AltMOC), 'Guidance Material' (GM), ‘Special Conditions’ and 'Frequently Asked Questions'(FAQ)?
Implementing rules (IRs) are binding in their entirety and used to specify a high and uniform level of safety and uniform conformity and compliance. They detail how to comply with the essential requirements of the Basic Regulation and regulate the subject matters included in its scope. The IRs are adopted by the European Commission in the form of Regulations. EU law is directly applicable (full part of Member States' legal order).
Detailed implementation aspects are included as Certification Specifications (CS) or Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC).
Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC) are non-binding. The AMC serves as a means by which the requirements contained in the Basic Regulation and the IRs can be met. The AMC illustrate a means, but not the only means, by which a requirement of an implementing rule can be met. Satisfactory demonstration of compliance using a published AMC shall provide for presumption of compliance with the related requirement; it is a way to facilitate certification tasks for the applicant and the competent authority. However, NAAs and organisations may decide to show compliance with the requirements using other means. Both NAAs and the organisations may propose alternative means of compliance (AltMoCs). ‘Alternative Means of Compliance’ are those that propose an alternative to an existing AMC. Those AltMoC proposals must be accompanied by evidence of their ability to meet the intent of the IR. Use of an existing AMC gives the user the benefit of compliance with the IR.
Read more on the difference between AMC and AltMoC.
Certification Specifications (CS) are non-binding technical standards adopted by EASA to meet the essential requirements of the Basic Regulation. CSs are used to establish the certification basis (CB) as described below. Should an aerodrome operator not meet the recommendation of the CS, they may propose an Equivalent Level of Safety (ELOS) that demonstrates how they meet the intent of the CS. As part of an agreed CB, the CS become binding on an individual basis to the applicant.
Special Conditions (SC) are non-binding special detailed technical specifications determined by the NAA for an aerodrome if the certification specifications established by EASA are not adequate or are inappropriate to ensure conformity of the aerodrome with the essential requirements of Annex VII to the Basic Regulation. Such inadequacy or inappropriateness may be due to:
- the design features of the aerodrome; or
- where experience in the operation of that or other aerodromes, having similar design features, has shown that safety may be compromised.
SCs, like CSs, become binding on an individual basis to the applicant as part of an agreed CB.
Guidance Material (GM) is non-binding explanatory and interpretation material on how to achieve the requirements contained in the Basic Regulation, the IRs, the AMCs and the CSs. It contains information, including examples, to assist the user in the correct understanding and application of the Basic Regulation, its IRs, AMCs and the CSs.
Frequently Asked Questions: FAQs are published on the EASA website and cover a wide range of material. Although the information contained in the FAQs is a summary of existing law or procedures, it may contain the results of a more complex interpretation of IR or other rules of law. In such cases there is always an internal quality consultation within the Agency prior to the publication of the FAQ on the website. The EASA FAQs are necessary to share information and enable to get a common understanding.
The FAQs are not additional GM.
Does Reg. (EU) No 965/2012 on air operations also apply to non-commercial operations?
References: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on air operations as amended by Regulation (EU) No 800/2013; Reg. (EC) No 216/2008
Yes, non-commercial operations with aeroplanes and helicopters are covered by Reg. (EU) No 965/2012 on air operations. The applicable rules are determined by the complexity of the aircraft being used: Annex VI (Part–NCC) applies to non-commercial operations with complex motor-powered aircraft) and Annex VII (Part–NCO) applies to non-commercial operations with other-than-complex motor-powered aircraft.
The definition of complex motor-powered aircraft is found in Article 3 of Reg. (EC) No 216/2008. Pursuant to Article 140(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 (the New Basic Regulation), ‘complex motor-powered aircraft’ shall still be understood as a reference to point (j) of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008. This is a transitional provision until not later than 12 September 2023, when the implementing rules adopted on the basis of Regulations (EC) No 216/2008 and (EC) No 552/2004 shall be adapted to this Regulation. The definition is as follows:
“complex motor-powered aircraft' shall mean:
(i) an aeroplane:
- with a maximum certificated take-off mass exceeding 5 700 kg, or
- certificated for a maximum passenger seating configuration of more than nineteen, or
- certificated for operation with a minimum crew of at least two pilots, or
- equipped with (a) turbojet engine(s) or more than one turboprop engine, or
(ii) a helicopter certificated:
- for a maximum take-off mass exceeding 3 175 kg, or
- for a maximum passenger seating configuration of more than nine, or
- for operation with a minimum crew of at least two pilots,
or
(iii) a tilt rotor aircraft”.
The definition for 'commercial operation' is in Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 965/2012:
“(1)(d) 'commercial operation' means any operation of an aircraft, in return for remuneration or other valuable consideration, which is available to the public or, when not made available to the public, which is performed under a contract between an operator and customer, where the latter has no control over the operator”.
Training flights fall under either Part-NCC or Part-NCO, depending on the complexity of the aircraft used for the non-commercial operations.
In addition, Part-SPA applies to any operation requiring a specific approval (e.g. low visibility operations, transport of dangerous goods, performance-based navigation and more).
Finally, Annexes II (Part-ARO) and III (Part-ORO) contain the authority requirements and respectively the organisation requirements. Annex III applies to operators of complex motor-powered aircraft, both commercial and non-commercial.
I am not familiar with the Air ops rules’ structure. Which parts apply to which operators?
Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations and the associated Decisions
This is determined by the nature of your flight, and in the case of non-commercial operations, by the type of aircraft used. The following diagram indicates under which requirements your flight should be operating.
Commercial operations |
Commercial air transport (CAT) operations |
Technical rules: Part-CAT |
|
Operator rules: Part-ORO |
|||
Specialised operations (aerial work) |
Technical rules: Part-SPO |
||
Operator rules: Part-ORO |
|||
Non-commercial operations |
Non-commercial operations other than SPO |
With CMPA: |
Technical rules: Part-NCC |
With Ot-CMPA: |
Technical rules: Part-NCO |
||
Specialised operations |
With CMPA: |
Technical rules: Part-SPO |
|
With Ot-CMPA |
Technical rules: Part-NCO |
Part-SPA (specific approvals) applies to all types of operations, as the case may be.
CMPA = complex motor-powered aircraft
Ot-CMPA = other-than complex motor-powered aircraft
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 EASA 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.
Which operational requirements (EU/EASA Parts) apply to flight activities carried out by an aircraft designer or aircraft manufacturer?
Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations
At the present stage no EU operational 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 of this Regulation and without prejudice to point (b) of Article 18(2) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 and to Subpart P of Annex I to Commission Regulation (EU) No 748/2012 concerning the permit to fly, the following flights shall continue to be operated under the requirements specified in the national law of the Member State in which the operator has its principal place of business, or, where the operator has no principal place of business, the place where the operator is established or resides:
(a) flights related to the introduction or modification of aeroplane or helicopter types conducted by design or production organisations within the scope of their privileges; (…)”
Where can I find a list of alternative means of compliance that have been adopted by operators and NAAs in the EU?
In the Information on Alternative Means of Compliance notified to the Agency page there is a list with all the AltMoCs adopted by the Member States.
Definitions
What are critical phases of flight?
Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012, Annex I Definitions
Annex I (Definitions) of the Regulation (EU) 965/2012 on air operations contains definitions for critical phases of flight for aeroplanes 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
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, landing, etc.), during taxiing and below 10 000 feet (except for cruise flight).
The sterile flight deck procedures were published in Regulation (EU) 2015/140 as an amending regulation to (EU) No 965/2012 on air operations. EASA published the associated AMC and GM with ED Decision 2015/005/R.
What is the difference between 'commercial operation' and 'commercial air transport (CAT) operation'?
Reference: Regulation (EC) No 216/2008, Regulation (EU) No 965/2012
The term 'commercial operation' is now defined in Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 as follows (previously in Reg. (EC) No 216/2008):
“'Commercial operation' means any operation of an aircraft, in return for remuneration or other valuable consideration, which is available to the public or, when not made available to the public, which is performed under a contract between an operator and a customer, where the latter has no control over the operator.”
The term 'commercial air transport (CAT) operation' is defined in Article 3 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 as follows:
“'Commercial air transport' 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'. Specialised operations (SPO) are another type of commercial operations. They are also defined in Article 2 of Reg. (EU) No 965/2012.
Part-ARO
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.
How do the provisions on wet-leasing articulate with Regulation (EU) No 452/2014 on Third Country Operators (TCO)?
Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012, 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 of Reg. (EU) No 1321/2014 and (3) the aircraft has a standard Certificate of Airworthiness (CofA) issued in accordance with ICAO Annex 8.
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.
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.
How do the provisions on code-sharing articulate with the Regulation applying to Third Country Operators (Part TCO)?
Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012, 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.
Part-ORO
ORO.GEN
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 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.
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 (EU) No 1321/2014 on continuing airworthiness, Part-M
1. Continuing airworthiness management
The EU licensed air carrier hereafter referred to as ‘the operator’, needs to consider both the relevant Part-ORO rules that will become fully applicable on 29 October 2014 and the applicable Part-M requirements. For these operators, the Part-M Subpart-G approval is an integral part of the AOC (as defined in Part-M, M.A.201(h)).
The Part-M requirements have not yet been amended to align with the management system framework adopted for air operations. However the operator should ‘scrutinise’ all its activities under its hazard identification and risk management processes, including the continuing airworthiness activities. It is the operator’s responsibility to ensure that hazards entailed by any continuing airworthiness management task are subject to the applicable hazard identification procedures and that related risks are managed as part of the operator’s management system procedures.
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 licensed 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
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.
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 Basic Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2018/1139) and these refer to ‘management system’, cf. the essential requirements for air operations (Annex V, point 8.1 (c)):
“(…) the aircraft operator must implement and maintain a management system to ensure compliance with the essential requirements set out in this Annex, manage safety risks and aim for continuous improvement of this system;” (…)
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.
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.”
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).
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.
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.
ORO.FTL
Status of the EASA FAQ: What is the legal status of the EASA FAQ? My own understanding of this document is that it has no legal standing at all, insofar as it is neither an Implementing Rule (IR), Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC), Alternative Means of Compliance (AltMoc) nor even Guidance Material (GM).
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. Therefore any information included in these FAQs shall be considered as EASA's understanding on a specific matter, and cannot be considered in any way as legally binding.
The answers provided represent EASA’s technical opinion and also indicate the manner how EASA is evaluating, as part of its standardisation continuous monitoring activities, the application by national competent authorities of the respective regulatory provisions.
In the margins of its future rulemaking activities, EASA will consider the opportunity to include some of these FAQ in Subpart FTL as GM.
Applicability of FTL requirements of Regulation (EU) No 965/2012: Why should we comply with the FTL requirements of Regulation (EU) No 965/2012, since we have a policy in our company that says otherwise?
Regulation (EU) No 965/2012, including Subpart FTL, is mandatory in all Member States (MS).
This means that an operator cannot maintain a ‘policy’ it has had before the date of application of Subpart FTL of Regulation (EU) No 965/2012, unless the policy has been found compliant with that Regulation.
The competent authority of the operator is responsible for checking for compliance and for taking enforcement measure when a non-compliance is found.
Applicability of Regulation (EU) No 965/2012: What is the meaning of "applicable national flight time limitation legislation" in Article 8 (4) of Regulation 965/2012?
Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 as amended by Regulation (EU) No 83/2014
Topic: Applicability of Regulation (EU) No 965/2012
Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 stipulates that specialised operators continue to comply with applicable national flight time limitation legislation until EU implementing rules are adopted and apply.
‘Applicable national flight time limitation legislation’ is understood to mean the national law of the Member State in which the operator has its principal place of business, or, where the operator has no principal place of business, the place where the operator is established or resides.
Collective Labour Agreements (CLA) - Regulation (EU) No 83/2014: Our company has a Collective Labour Agreement (CLA) and an approved IFTSS. Both contain rules about FPD’s, DP’s and rostering. Which one is leading?
Recital (4) of Regulation (EU) No 83/2014 stipulates that: ‘The provisions of this Regulation do not preclude and should be without prejudice to more protective national social legislation and CLA concerning working conditions and health and safety at work.’
This means that more protective measures concerning FDP, DP and rostering, agreed under a CLA, are ‘leading’.
Applicability of Subpart FTL (see also ORO.AOC.125): Does Subpart FTL apply in relation to non-revenue flights (ferry flights)?
Any flight conducted by an AOC holder falls under Subpart FTL with the exception of:
- some non-revenue flights such as: non-commercial, test, training, delivery, ferry and demonstration flights;
- air taxi, single pilot and emergency medical services operations by aeroplane; and
- CAT operations by helicopter, including HEMS.
However, aircraft positioning conducted by an AOC holder, immediately before or after a CAT sector counts as FDP and sector.
Acclimatisation ORO.FTL.105(1): How should we determine the state of crew member acclimatisation in complex rotations?
Acclimatised crew members
A crew member is considered to be acclimatised to the time zone of the reference time for the first 48 hours.
In the following example there are 4 departure places: A, B, C and D and the crew member is in a known state of acclimatisation all the time.
- between A and B there is a 2-hour time difference
- between A and C – a 4 hour-time difference
- between A and D – a 6-hour time difference
Day 1: The crew member starts acclimatised at A and finishes at B. The reference time is the local time at A, because the crew member is acclimatised at A and reports at A. The time difference between A and B is 2 hours. That means that after resting at B, the crew will be considered acclimatised at B.
Day 2: The crew member reports at B acclimatised to the local time at B for an FDP to C. At C the crew member has a rest period and becomes acclimatised to C. He/she has now covered 4-hour time difference, but in 2 days.
Day 3: The crew member reports at C acclimatised to the local time at C for an FDP to D. At D the crew member has a rest period and becomes acclimatised to D. He/she has now covered 6-hour time difference.
Day 4: The crew member reports again considered to be acclimatised at D. The local time at D is the reference time. The FDP between D and A covers 6-hour time difference. Crossing 6-hour time difference in one day (one FDP) induces time zone de-synchronisation. If the rotation finishes at A, the rest requirements in CS FTL.1.235 (b)(3)(i) are applicable.
Unknown state of acclimatisation
After the first 48 hours of the rotation have elapsed, the crew member is considered to be in an unknown state of acclimatisation.
The crew member only becomes acclimatised to the destination time zone, if he/she remains in that destination time zone for the time established in the table in ORO.FTL.105 (1).
During that time the crew member may have the rest in accordance with CS FTL.1.235(b)(3) and/or take other duties that end in different time zones than the first arrival destination, until he/she becomes acclimatised in accordance with the values in the table in ORO.FTL.105(1). In the case of duties to different time zones, the state of acclimatisation should be determined in accordance with GM1 ORO.FTL.105(1) (d)(3).
Where the rotation continues with duties to/from subsequent destinations, the greatest time difference from the reference time should be used for the purpose of rest in accordance with CS FTL.1.235(b)(3)(i).
Time elapsed since reporting (h) in the tables ORO.FTL.105 (1) and CS FTL.1.235 (b)(3)(i) is the time that runs from first reporting at home base to the reporting at destination and includes the FDP from home base to destination plus layover time.
Accommodation ORO.FTL.105 (3): Can the airport crew lounge be considered as “accommodation” for the purpose of standby or split duty? Can a hotel room for several crew members of the same gender be considered as “accommodation” for the purpose of standby and split duty?
As long as an airport crew lounge or a shared hotel room fulfils all criteria of ORO.FTL.105 (3) it could be used as accommodation.
Disruptive schedule ORO.FTL.105(8): Which criteria should be applied to determine a duty as disruptive if there is a time zone difference between the reporting point and the place where the duty finishes?
The criteria to be applied is the reference time e.g. the local time (LT) where the crew member reported for duty.
Example with “Late type” of Disruptive schedule:
LT in A = LT in B + 1 hour.
Day 1: The crew member starts the FDP acclimatised to A. He/she reports at 15:00 (LT-A) and finishes FDP in B at 23:30 (LT-B). It is a ‘Late finish’ because he/she is acclimatised to A, and FDP finishes at 00:30 (LT-A).
Rest in B. After resting in B, which is within two hours’ time difference from A, the crew member gets acclimatised to B.
Day 2: The crew member reports in B at 15:00 (LT-B) and finishes FDP in A at 00:30 (LT-A). It is not a late finish, because he/she is acclimatised to B, and the FDP finishes at 23:30 (LT-B).
Definition of duty and duty period, ORO.FTL.105 (10), ORO FTL 105 (11): Must the time for self-preparation (e.g. preparing for the checks associated with initial or recurrent training) be entered in the schedule of the crew members and recorded?
The time needed for self-preparation, is not a duty and is not recorded.
Single day free of duty ORO FTL 105 (23): A ‘single day free of duty’ consists of one day and two local nights. Does the last day of several consecutive days free of duty need to contain at least one day and two nights?
Whenever one of the local days prescribed by Clause 9, Directive No 2000/79/EC, is assigned as a single day, it must contain two local nights. Whenever consecutive local days are assigned, the last day may not contain a local night. However, from a fatigue management perspective, planning the last day to end at midnight, reduces the restorative effect of that last day to a minimum. Rising before midnight to report at 00:01 on the last day could generate sleep debt.
The term ‘single day free of duty’ has been included in Regulation No 965/2012 in order to enable the implementation of Directive No 2000/79/EC, in particular its Clause 9:
‘Clause 9
Without prejudice to Clause 3, mobile staff in civil aviation shall be given days free of all duty and standby, which are notified in advance, as follows:
(a) at least seven local days in each calendar month, which may include any rest periods required by law; and
(b) at least 96 local days in each calendar year, which may include any rest periods required by law.’
Clause 9 above employs the term ‘local day’ i.e. a period of 24 hours finishing at 00:00 LT. At the same time, a ‘single day free of duty’ is a period of one day, including two local nights, that may finish between 06:00 and 08:00 LT, depending on the local night start and end times.
Sector ORO.FTL.105 (24), (see also ORO.FTL.205 (f)(6)): In an abnormal or emergency situation a take-off might not be executed meaning that a sector was not completed. Such situation is likely to increase flight crew workload and fatigue. How could this be mitigated?
In such cases, in order to mitigate the increased workload and fatigue, the commander has the possibility to exercise commander’s discretion and decide on reducing the maximum daily FDP or increasing the minimum rest period.
ORO.FTL.205 (f)(6) requires operators to implement a non-punitive process for the use of commander’s discretion.
Also, if as a result of such situation a flight crew member feels unfit dues to fatigue, he/she may discontinue his duties on the aircraft for the day.
Regulation (EU) No 376/2014 on the reporting, analysis and follow-up of occurrences in civil aviation, requires the ability for crew members to report fatigue.
Changes to a published roster: Is it possible to make changes to a published roster?
Yes, provided that the changes do not breach the limitations of the operator’s Individual Flight Time Specification Scheme (IFTSS).
All changes must be notified to the crew member before the pre-flight rest period commences so that the crew member is able to plan adequate rest as required by ORO.FTL.110 (a).
In support of this requirement the minimum period of time for notification of changes should be established by the operator and available in the Operations manual
Change of FDP after reporting: Can a rostered FDP be changed (re-planned) after crew members have reported?
There are no specific provisions and conditions for such changes except in unforeseen circumstances, where, on the day, a Commander may use the provisions of Commander’s Discretion:
- to continue with an FDP which exceeds the maximum FDP that the crew will operate or reduces the minimum rest period, or
- to reduce the actual FDP and/or increase the rest period, in case of unforeseen circumstances which could lead to severe fatigue.
The operator may not plan or change an FDP at any time such that it exceeds the maximum applicable FDP.
FTL rules build upon the predictability of rosters so that crews can plan and achieve adequate rest (ORO.FTL.110 (a) and (g)). Operators are expected to plan sufficient capacity, at their operating bases, to deal with disruptions normally expected in daily operations using the specific FTL provisions (e.g. stand-by, reserve). Therefore, FDP changes after reporting should be an infrequent event as such changes can create roster instability and may generate fatigue. An aircrew member remains at all times under the responsibilities set out in CAT.GEN.MPA.100 (c)(5) to report unfit to fly, if s/he suspects fatigue which may endanger flight safety.
If changes to planned duties are to be made on the day of operation, all applicable limits apply: in particular the limits established pursuant to ORO.FTL. 205(b), (d), (e) or ORO.FTL.220. If a duty has not been planned with an operator’s extension under ORO.FTL. 205(d), it cannot be changed into a duty with such extension on the day of operation.
In addition, the operator must ensure that the impact on forward duties and days off, and importantly on cumulative limits, is accounted for.
EASA recommends that changes made on the day of operation to duties and FDP’s are monitored through appropriate performance indicators that operators use to demonstrate they fulfil all the required elements within ORO.FTL.110. The 33% exceedance threshold on the max FDP as set out in ORO.FTL.110 (j) may not always be adequate to capture negative trends.
EASA also recommends that appropriate performance indicators for FDP changes after reporting be part of the operator’s approved IFTSS to ensure that any resulting fatigue hazards are properly identified and mitigated.
Roster publication, (see also AMC1 ORO.FTL.110(a) and ORO.GEN.120): Are airline operators allowed to publish monthly rosters in less than 14 days in advance?
According to AMC1 ORO.FTL.110 (a), rosters should be published 14 days in advance.
This requirement is an acceptable means of compliance (AMC). The AMC is one example of how operators could demonstrate compliance with this rule.
In accordance with ORO.GEN.120, an operator may use an alternative means of compliance.
It is therefore possible to use an alternative means of compliance (AltMoc) for the publication of rosters, provided the operator has demonstrated that the requirements of ORO.FTL.110 (a) are met.
An alternative means of compliance requires prior approval from the competent authority.
The competent authority must notify all approved alternative means of compliance to EASA.
Reporting times ORO.FTL.110(c), (see also ORO.FTL.205(c)): Can the pre-flight reporting time for non-augmented flight crew members reporting for the same FDP be different?
No. The pre-flight reporting time for all non-augmented flight crew members reporting for the same FDP is the same.
The minimum reporting times, which have been defined by the operator in the Operations manual for different types of aircraft, operations and airport conditions, shall always apply to all flight crew.
Reporting time for the same FDP may be different between flight crew and cabin crew in accordance with ORO.FTL.205(c).
Operational robustness ORO.FTL.110(j): How should operational robustness be assessed?
The operator is required to have measures in place to protect the integrity of schedules and of individual duty patterns.
The operator must monitor for exceedances to the planned flight duty periods and if the planned flight duty periods in a schedule are being exceeded more than 33% during a scheduled seasonal period, change a schedule and/or crew arrangements.
Operational robustness should be measured through performance indicators to determine if the planning is realistic and the rosters are stable.
The operator may measure the cases where a rostered crew pairing for a duty period is achieved within the planned duration of that duty period.
Performance indicators may also be established to measure the following:
- difference between planned and actual flight hours;
- difference between planned and actual duty hours;
- difference between planned and actual number of days off;
- number of unscheduled overnights;
- number of roster changes per scheduled seasonal period;
- use of commander’s discretion;
- changes of schedule carried out after published roster
With regard to operator’s responsibilities, in particular operational robustness of rosters, we also recommend guidance material to ORO.FTL.110 developed by UK CAA.
Flying activities outside an AOC (see also ORO.FC.100): How will activities as an instructor or an examiner performed by an operating crew member in their free time be considered for the purpose of duty time and rest periods?
The purpose of Subpart-FTL is to ensure that crew members in commercial air transport operations are able to operate with an adequate level of alertness. It does not regulate the activities performed by crew members in their free time.
Nonetheless, it is the responsibility of crew members to make optimal use of the rest periods and to be properly rested so they will not perform duties when unfit due to fatigue.
A crew member in commercial air transport operations may be required to report to the operator his/her professional flying activities outside the commercial air transport operation to allow the operator to discharge its responsibilities (ORO.FTL.110) appropriately.
An operator should establish its policy with regard to crew members conducting these kinds of activities.
Deviation from the applicable CS ORO.FTL.125 (c) (see also ARO.OPS.235): What does a deviation from the applicable CS mean or derogation from an implementing rule?
The flight time specification schemes of an individual operator (IFTSS) may differ from the applicable CS / IRs under strict conditions.
The operator has a number of steps to follow before implementing a deviation/derogation.
Additionally, the competent authority has a number of steps to follow before approving a deviating/derogating IFTSS.
All the steps are described in this Evaluation Form (link) developed by EASA to facilitate NAAs and operators in this process.
Flight time specification scheme for air taxi operations, (see also Articles 2 (6) and 8(2) of Regulation (EU) no 965/2012): An air taxi operator has both an aeroplane with less than 19 seats and one aeroplane with more than 20 seats. What FTL regulation shall the crew who is flying both types follow?
The operator implements Subpart ORO.FTL for its operations with aeroplanes of 20 seats or more.
For air taxi operations with aeroplanes of 19 seats or less, the operator complies with EU OPS, Subpart Q.
However, the aim of the requirements is to ensure that crew members are able to operate at a satisfactory level of alertness. Fatigue accrued during an operation in one fleet might impact on the performance of a crew member when conducting a following flight in the other fleet.
Therefore, from a fatigue management perspective, it makes sense to apply a common FTL scheme under Subpart ORO.FTL consistently to pilots in such operations.
Approval of Individual Flight Time Specification Schemes (IFTSS), (see also ARO.OPS.235):
May a competent authority give ONE approval for an individual flight specification scheme to be used by three different operators with three AOCs?
No. Each operator needs its own approved individual flight time specification scheme.
Unknown state of acclimatisation GM1 ORO.FTL.205(b)(1): If the crew member is in an unknown state of acclimatisation, what is the reference time?
In that case, there is no reference time. For crew members in an unknown state of acclimatisation Table 3 in ORO.FTL.205 (b)(2) or Table 4 ibidem applies. These Tables do not contain any reference time.
Unknown state of acclimatisation ORO.FTL.205(b)(3): What are the daily FDP limits when crew members are in an unknown state of acclimatisation under fatigue risk management (FRM)?
Table 4 in ORO.FTL.205 (b)(3) establishes the limits of the maximum daily FDP when crew members are in unknown state of acclimatisation and the operator has implemented FRM.
Mixing FDPs extended without in-flight rest and FDP’s extended due to in-flight rest ORO.FTL.205 (d) ORO.FTL.205 (e): Is it possible to roster two extended FDPs without in-flight rest and one extended FDP with in-flight rest in 7 consecutive days?
Yes. The limit of two extensions of up to 1 hour in 7 consecutive days specified in ORO.FTL.205 (d) (1) only applies to the use of extensions without in-flight rest by an individual crew member.
Planned FDP extensions ORO.FTL.205(d): Must planned extensions be included in the operator’s roster?
Published duty rosters may or may not include extended FDPs.
However, FDPs extended in accordance with ORO.FTL.205 (d) must be planned and notified to crew members in advance i.e. allowing each crew member to plan adequate rest.
The time limit for notification of a planned extended FDP to an individual crew member need to be established by the operator in line with ORO.FTL.110 and specified in the OM-A.
Planned FDP extensions ORO.FTL.205(d) (see also ORO.FTL.105(1)): Can a crew member acclimatised to the local time of the departure time zone (‘B’ state), but not acclimatised to the local time where he/she starts the next duty (‘D’ state), be assigned a planned extended flight?
While it may be legal to roster an extended FDP (no in-flight rest) to a crew member who is not acclimatised to the local time where the actual duty starts, the actual operational environment may be such that it would be very fatiguing for a particular crew member to perform that FDP.
Although operations on an extended FDP are possible under ORO FTL.1.205(d), the operator still needs to comply with the fatigue management obligations stemming from ORO.FTL.110 and especially to ensure that the crew members are sufficiently rested to operate.
Commander’s discretion ORO.FTL.205(f): Do we need to use Commander’s discretion if actual FDP is going to last more than planned but less than the maximum daily FDP allowed?
No. If the actual FDP is less than the maximum allowed, commander’s discretion is not needed.
Commander’s discretion ORO.FTL.205(f): When should commander’s discretion be used?
Commander’s discretion may be used to modify the limits on the maximum daily FDP (basic or with extension due to in-flight rest), duty and rest periods in the case of unforeseen circumstances in flight operations beyond the operator’s control, which start at or after the reporting time.
Considering the ICAO definition of ‘unexpected conditions’, unforeseen circumstances in flight operations for the purpose of ORO.FTL.205(f) are events that could not reasonably have been predicted and accommodated, such as adverse weather, equipment malfunction or air traffic delay, which may result in necessary on-the-day operational adjustments.
Commanders cannot be expected to exercise discretion without an understanding of the events that constitute unforeseen circumstances. It is therefore necessary that they receive appropriate training on the use of commander’s discretion along with how to recognize the symptoms of fatigue and to evaluate the risks associated with their own mental and physical state and that of the whole crew.
Operators should ensure that sufficient margins are included in schedule design so that commanders are not expected to exercise discretion as a matter of routine
Commander’s discretion ORO.FTL.205(f), (see also ORO.FTL.205 (d)): 1. What is the maximum FDP extension allowed under commander’s discretion? 2. How would commander’s discretion apply when the FDP of a non-augmented crew has already been extended in accordance with ORO.FTL.205 (d))?
1. Up to 2 hours for two pilot crew and up to 3 hours for augmented crew.
2. For a two pilot extended FDP operation, the use of commander’s discretion is always based on the maximum daily FDP table ORO.FTL.205 (b) (1).
For example, when 1 hour has already been added to the maximum daily FDP in accordance with ORO.FTL.205 (d), then only 1 hour is left for commander’s discretion.
Commander’s discretion ORO.FTL.205(f): Referring to commander’s discretion, do I need to consider the reporting time and number of sectors?
Yes. The commander needs to consider the actual number of sectors that the crew members will complete as this may be different from the plan. This FDP calculation would be based on the time the crew member actually reported.
Conversion/line checks Post flight duty ORO.FTL.210: How should briefings and debriefings during conversion/line checks be accounted for?
In accordance with the definition of duty, conversion/line training is duty.
Any duty (including the briefing and debriefing for training purposes) after reporting for a duty that includes a sector or a series of sectors until the aircraft finally comes to rest and the engines are shut down, at the end of the last sector on which the crew member acts as an operating crew member, is considered flight duty period.
Post flight duties, on the other hand (including debriefings also for training purposes), are considered as duty period.
Post-flight duty AMC1 ORO.FTL.210(c): What should the operator do if the actual post flight duty time is longer than the established time in the OM?
The operator needs to implement a monitoring system to ensure that the minimum time period for post-flight duties is adequate since rest or shortened rest could potentially impact fatigue.
The commander or a cabin crew member should inform the operator where the post-flight duties have taken longer than planned and this is then accounted for in duty and rest periods.
Positioning for purposes other than operating ORO.FTL.215 (b): How should time spent to travel from the place of rest or home base to a simulator (when outside the base) be taken into account?
The time spent to travel from a place of rest or home base to a simulator, at the request of the operator, counts as a duty period.
Any transfer of a non-operating crew member from one place to the other at the request of the operator is called positioning and is counted as a duty period.
Travel from a crew member’s private place of rest to the reporting point at home base and vice versa, and local transfers from a place of rest to the commencement of duty and vice versa are travelling, but not positioning, and so not counted as duty period.
Positioning ORO.FTL.215: Does positioning begin when the crew member arrives at the airport/train station or when the aeroplane/train leaves?
Positioning begins after reporting at the designated reporting point.
The operator should publish reporting times taking into account the time necessary for completing the travelling procedures depending on the mode of transportation (e.g. registration of passengers and baggage, security checks, etc.).
First example: Crewmember 1 is required to position from A to B on the commercial flight of an airline other than the airline which Crewmember 1 is flying for. This commercial flight is departing at 10:00, but airport A is an international airport and the time necessary for passenger and baggage registration and security checks is 2h before departure time. In this case, the positioning begins 2h before departure time.
Second example: Crewmember 2 is required to position from A to B on a high speed train. This train is departing at 10:00 and the time necessary for passenger and baggage registration and security checks is 15 minutes before departure time. In this case, the positioning begins 15min before departure time.
Positioning ORO.FTL.215: Shall a positioning between active sectors count as a sector for a pilot or cabin crew?
No, any positioning within an FDP does not count for the sector calculation of the FDP limit but counts towards the FDP.
Split duty ORO.FTL. 220: Is it possible to have more than one split duty within one FDP?
No. ORO.FTL.220 provides for a break on the ground which implies a single break on the ground, for the purpose of extending the basic daily FDP.
A Member State can propose an amendment to ORO.FTL.220, in particular, and to the implementing rules, in general, in accordance with Article 71 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1139.
Standby ORO.FTL.225(a) (see also CS FTL.1.225 and GM1 CS FTL.1.225(a)): Can a standby be finished before the planned “end time notified in advance”, after a notification during the standby (saying that there will be no assignment) and the rest period be initiated at the time of the notification of the new standby end?
Yes. According to ORO.FTL.225 (a), a time period with a start and end time, during which a crew member must be available to be contacted to receive an assignment, must be defined.
A crew member may, during the standby period, be notified that standby has ceased. CS FTL.1.225 establishes further conditions.
GM1 CS FTL.1.225 (a) explains that a minimum rest period according to ORO.FTL.235 should be provided after the notification of the revised end of the standby period.
Reserve ORO.FTL.230: Can a reserve, during which no flight was assigned, be considered as a day off afterwards?
No, a reserve period may not retrospectively be considered as part of a recurrent extended recovery rest period.
Rest prior to an FDP ORO.FTL.235 (a): If a crew member with office duties spends one day in the office, what should be the duration of the rest before his/her reporting for an FDP?
The minimum rest period at home base before undertaking an FDP shall be in accordance with ORO.FTL.235 (a) (1) and (2).
Time spent at the office is duty time in accordance with ORO.FTL.105 (10).
Rest prior to a duty other than FDP ORO.FTL.235 (a): What is the duration of the rest period prior to a duty without FDP?
The term ‘minimum rest period’ under the Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 is only used for the recovery period before an FDP.
Otherwise, it is an off-duty period. The Regulation does not contain requirements for off-duty periods prior to a duty without FDP.
Example: FDP1 – off duty – DP1 – off duty – DP2 – rest – FDP2.
Nevertheless, the operator needs to be able to demonstrate they have considered the fatiguing nature and cumulative effects of these duty periods under their operator responsibilities as they can generate fatigue that could affect crew member’s ability to rest prior to his/her next FDP.
Also, the national law of the Member State regarding working time (as required by Council Directive 2000/79/EC) would be applicable and should be reviewed as it may contain minimum rest periods for crew members based in that Member State.
Reduction of recurrent extended recovery rest by commander’s discretion ORO.FTL.235(d) (see also ORO.FTL.205(f)): Can the extended recovery rest period be reduced with commander’s discretion?
No, commander’s discretion cannot be applied to an extended recovery rest period
Increase of interval between two recurrent extended recovery rest periods by commander’s discretion ORO.FTL.235(d) (see also ORO.FTL.205(f)): May the crew member exercise his/her discretion to finish back at home base exceeding the 168 hours’ time between two extended recovery rest periods? For example, a crew member is planned to finish his last FDP flying back to home base, two hours prior to reaching 168 hours. There is a departure delay which occurred after reporting. As a result, the crew member would exceed the 168 hours by 1 hour.
No. Extension of the 168 hours between two recurrent extended recovery rest periods is not allowed.
The operator must better plan duties and rest times. The Regulation does not say that exactly 168 h must be reached; they are not a target, they are a maximum threshold.
Increase of interval between two recurrent extended recovery rest periods ORO.FTL.235(d): Can the 168h limit between two extended recovery rest periods be extended? For example, a crew member reports at Paris on Monday at 7am and ends a series of flights in Singapore, on Sunday, at 8 pm; he/she should be given his/her extended recovery rest period in Singapore, but might be willing to come back to his/her base, hence infringing the 168h limit through positioning.
No. The 168h limit between two extended recovery rest periods can only be extended through an amendment of ORO.FTL.235 (d).
A Member State can propose an amendment to ORO.FTL.235 (d), in particular, and to the implementing rules, in general, in accordance with Article 71 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1139.
Re-planning of recurrent extended recovery rest period ORO.FTL.235 (d): Is re-planning of a recurrent extended recovery rest period allowed and when?
Yes. This is provided that re-planning of rest is completed and notified before the rest period has started and the re-planning practices do not conflict with a crew member’s opportunity to plan adequate rest as required by ORO.FTL.110 (a).
In any case, the time between the end of one recurrent extended recovery rest period and the beginning of the next recurrent extended recovery rest period cannot be more than 168 hours.
Operator’s procedures for re-planning should describe by which means the opportunity for crew members to plan adequate rest is provided in the case of re-planning.
Record keeping ORO.FTL.245: Do records required in ORO.FTL.245 have to reflect planned or actual FDP, DP and rest?
Planned rosters may differ substantially from achieved rosters.
In order to ensure appropriate oversight of FTL by the competent authority, operators need to maintain (for a period of 24 months) records of the actual values of flight times, FDP, rest periods and days free of all duties.
According to AMC1 ORO.FTL.110 (j) on operational robustness operators should establish and monitor performance indicators for operational robustness rosters.
This can only be done if operators keep records of both, planned and achieved rosters.
Home base change CS FTL.1.200(b): Is it correct to understand that if a crew member is asked to report for an FDP at a reporting point other than his/her home base without extension of his/her recurrent extended recovery to 72h incl. 3 local nights, immediately prior to that FDP, the home base has not been changed for the purpose of Subpart FTL?
Yes. In such case, the requirements for reporting out of home base apply.
Consecutive night duties CS FTL.1.205(a)(1): What does ‘consecutive’ mean in the context of the requirements and limits of CS FTL.1.205?
‘Consecutive’ is referring to two night duties only separated by a rest period.
Two night duties would not be considered as ‘consecutive’, if there is a recurrent extended recovery rest period between them or if they are separated by rest periods surrounding a non-night duty
Night duties CS FTL.1.205(a)(2), (see also GM1 CS FTL1.205 (a)(2)): Is it necessary to have an ‘approved’ FRM to operate long night duties (FDP over 10hrs)?
No, for night duties of over 10 hours an appropriate fatigue risk management applies. Guidance for that is provided in GM1 CS FTL1.205 (a) (2).
A FRM compliant with ORO.FTL.120 is only required in two cases: reduced rest and crew members in unknown state of acclimatisation on a longer FDP.
Additionally, the approval of FRM is not a stand-alone approval. FRM, if required, is approved as a constituent part of the IFTSS approval.
In-flight rest CS FTL.1.205(c) : Is it possible to extend the FDP, if not all pilots get an in-flight rest?
CS FTL.1.205(c)(1)(ii) specifies that, for the purpose of FDP extension, each crew member needs to have an in-flight rest period.
First example where an extension of the FDP due to in-flight rest is possible:
Pilot 1 and Pilot 2 commence a FDP from A to B (1:30 h sector). When arriving at B, a third pilot (Pilot 3) joins the crew and they fly from B to C (11 h sector).
The length of the flight from B to C allows each crew member on board (pilots 1, 2 & 3) to have the minimum in-flight rest period during cruise phase: 2 consecutive hours for the flight crew members at control during landing and consecutive 90-minute period for the third pilot.
Second example, where an extension of the FDP due to in-flight rest is not possible:
Pilot 1 and Pilot 2 commence a FDP from A to B (7 h sector). When arriving at B, a third pilot (Pilot 3) joins the crew and they fly from B to C (5 h sector).
The length of the flight from B to C does not allow each crew member on board (pilots 1, 2 & 3) to have the minimum in-flight rest period during cruise phase: 2 consecutive hours for the flight crew members at control during landing and consecutive 90-minute period for the third pilot.
Maximum daily FDP with the use of extensions due to in flight rest CS FTL.1.205(c)(2): Why does the ‘maximum daily FDP with the use of extensions due to in flight rest’ not take into account the start of FDP at reference time?
An extended duty period will usually involve operating during the WOCL. The in-flight rest opportunity during the WOCL mitigates the absence of reduction of the FDP based on the reference time.
The limits of CS FTL.1.205(c) (2) are therefore irrespective of the WOCL of crew members, on the condition that the minimum flight crew is augmented and in-flight rest facilities, meeting certain standards, are available to provide recuperative sleep
Delayed reporting CS FTL.1.205(d)(1): Is it possible to inform crew members of a delay without giving the new reporting time?
No. An actual reporting time must be given when the crew member is informed that the delayed reporting procedure is activated.
If an operator does not have a delayed reporting procedure, then it can’t be used.
Delayed reporting CS FTL.1.205(d)(1)(iii): Why does delayed reporting with a delay of less than 4 hours not account for the WOCL? Is there any scientific evidence for this?
- If the delay is less than 4 hours – the maximum FDP as originally planned, remains the same.
- If the delay is more than 4 hours – the maximum FDP will be shorter than the originally planned FDP, because the delayed reporting time has a limiting effect on it.
Split duty (see also ORO.FTL.205 (b)(2) and ORO.FTL.220): Can split duty be scheduled when crew members are in an unknown state of acclimatisation?
Yes, but any extension of the FDPs limits in Table 3 of ORO.FTL.205 (b)(2) falls under the requirement for a FRM.
Split duty CS FTL.1.220 (b): Are the 30 minutes for post and pre-flight duties as well as travelling counted in total or 30 min for post flight duties, 30 min for travelling after post flight duties, 30 min for travelling before pre-flight duties and 30 min for pre-flight duties?
CS FTL.1.220 (b) instructs the operator to specify actual times for post and pre-flight duties and for travelling in its operations manual. The minimum for the total is 30 minutes.
The operator must demonstrate how travelling in both directions, and post and pre-flight duties are accomplished in the time defined in the OM.
Split duty CS FTL.1.220(d): Should suitable accommodation be provided for a split duty?
CS FTL.1.220 (b) instructs the operator to specify actual times for post and pre-flight duties and for travelling in its operations manual. The minimum for the total is 30 minutes.
The operator must demonstrate how travelling in both directions, and post and pre-flight duties are accomplished in the time defined in the OM.
Suitable accommodation as defined in ORO FTL 105 (4) is required to be provided for a break of 6 hours or more or for a break that encroaches the WOCL.
Rest after airport standby or other-standby CS FTL.1.225 (a)(1)& CS FTL.1.225 (b)(4): What is the basis for rest calculation after a standby followed by an FDP? Is it the reporting time for standby or the “actual reporting time” for the assigned FDP?
The minimum rest period depends on the length of previous duty.
Airport standby counts as duty for the purpose of ORO.FTL.235. Therefore the rest calculation after airport standby followed by an FDP is based on the reporting time for that standby. This also applies to airport duty.
Other standby does not count as duty for the purpose of rest (it counts partly as duty for the purpose of ORO.FTL.210 only). Therefore the rest calculation after other-standby followed by an FDP is based on the reporting time for the assigned FDP
Airport standby CS FTL.1.225 (a)(2)(ii): Why does CS FTL.1.225 (a)(2)(ii) not stipulate the maximum duration of airport standby?
The maximum duration of airport standby is defined indirectly by the limits of the combined duration of airport standby and FDP.
Airport standby CS FTL 1.225(a)(2)(ii), (see also ORO.FTL.205 (b)&(d); CS FTL 1.205 (a) (2)): We understand that the limit of 16 hours is not applicable when airport standby is followed by a FDP with in-flight rest. Does that mean that there is no limit for that kind of situation?
Yes, there is no limit.
The limit of 16 hours only applies to basic maximum daily FDPs without in-flight rest under ORO.FTL.205 (b) and to extended daily FDPs without in-flight rest under ORO.FTL.205 (d).
Furthermore, the operator applies appropriate fatigue risk management to actively manage the fatiguing effect of night duties of more than 10 hours in relation to the surrounding duties and rest periods
Other-standby followed by an FDP CS FTL.1.225(b)(2): How shall an operator expect a crew member to use whole or part of a standby for sleep when there are disturbance factors like difficulty to fall asleep, disturbed sleep due to sick children, waking-up by external noise, etc.?
According to CS FTL.1.225 (b)(2), the operator designs its standby procedures in a certain way. The expectation is on the design of the procedure by the operator, not on the individual crew member.
The expectation on the crew member is to follow the procedure to the best of his/her abilities and in good faith at all times.
Awake time CS FTL 1 225 (b)(2): Who is responsible for making sure that the 18h are not exceeded? The crew member or the operator? Can the operator fully transfer the responsibility to the crew member?
The operator is only required to have established such procedures (control mechanisms) so as to prevent situations where the combination of standby and FDP would lead to more than 18 hours awake time.
18 hours awake time is mentioned in the context of the combination of other-standby prior to an FDP and the FDP itself. A simple mathematical equation between the sum of the standby time and FDP, on the one hand, and the time awake on the other, is not possible to do, because the start time of the awake period is an unknown value i.e. the operator may be unable to verify how long a crew member has been awake.
It is reasonable for the operator to expect crew members to manage their rest and sleep opportunities during pre-duty rest periods and while on standby in order to be able to perform FDP.
The procedure and expectation for the crew to rest appropriately during their standby should also be included when training crew on FTL and fatigue management.
The following are examples of what an operator should consider when designing procedures:
- the duties and rest periods prior to the scheduled standby;
- the time of the day in which the rest period prior to the scheduled standby occurs;
- a minimum of 8 hours’ sleep opportunity before or within the scheduled standby, during which the crew member is not disturbed;
- the length of the standby and the subsequent FDP;
- the time for post flight duties and for travelling to the suitable accommodation if away from home base;
- provision of training and advice to crew members
The NAAs are responsible for verifying that the above procedures have been established and are effective.
Other-standby CS FTL.1.225(b)(2), (see also CAT.OP.MPA.210(a)(3)): Would using a controlled rest procedure while the flight crew member is at his/her assigned station break the 18-hour awake time?
No. Controlled rest procedure is a countermeasure to manage unexpected fatigue, whilst the 18-hour awake time target is part of the operator roster planning procedures.
According to CAT.OP.MPA.210 (a)(3) controlled rest organised by the commander, if workload permits, shall not be considered to be part of a rest period for purposes of calculating flight time limitations nor used to justify any extension of the duty period.
Under CS FTL.1.225 (b)(2), the operator designs standby procedures in a way that makes unexpected fatigue unlikely by avoiding excessive awake times.
The frequent use of controlled rest after having been called from other-standby could indicate that the standby procedure does not fulfil the expectation to avoid excessive awake times.
Controlled rest procedure to manage unexpected fatigue should be described in the operations manual. (ref. AMC3 ORO.MLR.100).
The operator should be able to monitor the use of controlled rest to evaluate effectiveness of mitigation strategies.
Other-standby CS FTL.1.225(b)(3): How is the time spent on other-standby before an assignment accounted for?
According to CS FTL.1.225 (b) (3), 25% of time spent on other-standby counts as cumulative duty.
Other-standby CS FTL.1.225 (b), (see also ORO.FTL.105 (25)): Is it possible during other-standby to assign an FDP with a reporting time after the rostered end of that standby period has elapsed?
It is possible during other-standby to assign a duty that will start after the rostered end of the standby period.
Duties assigned during other-standby should in principle start within the operator’s defined response time from the call. For example, a cabin crew while on home standby between 08:00h and 14:00h (as planned in the roster) receives a call at 13:55 h to report for duty at 14:55 h since the operator’s response time is 60 min. The response time between the call and reporting is considered a continuation of the standby, notwithstanding the rostered end of the standby; this time also includes travelling to the reporting point.
Operators describe their procedures and practices regarding standby, including reporting after the rostered standby period ends, in the OM-A. In doing so, they take into account that the Regulation provides a number of cumulative protections to crew member from excessive periods of combined standby and duty:
- Operators shall only use the rostered standby availability period to place their call for duty. ORO.FTL.105 (25) defines standby as the period of time during which a crew member is required by the operator to be available to receive an assignment for a flight;
- The maximum duration of other-standby is 16 hours. In its OM-A however, the operator may specify shorter periods considering its type of operation and the impact of the time spent on standby on the duty that may be assigned. Under the obligations of ORO.FTL.110 (b & e), operators must carefully evaluate what duration of standby is safely allowable within their particular operation;
- The combination of standby and FDP do not lead to more than 18 hours awake time (see FAQ # 60);
- The maximum FDP is reduced, if the standby period ceases after the first 6 hours (or 8 hours in case of extended FDP);
- A crew member is always able to consider whether his/her duties on board an aircraft will be performed with the necessary level of alertness (CAT.GEN.MPA.100(c))
If no duty has been assigned during the rostered standby availability period, other-standby is followed by a rest period in accordance with ORO.FTL.235.
Other-standby modified to airport standby CS FTL.1.225, (see also ORO.FTL.105 (25)): Can other-standby be modified to airport standby during the standby? For example, can a pilot on home standby be required to go to the airport to continue on airport standby? What limits must be used?
Yes. During a standby period any duty may be assigned (ORO.FTL.105 (25)). That includes airport standby or duty at the airport.
Limits for assignment of airport standby after home standby are not explicitly mentioned in CS FTL.1.225.
The assignment of airport standby is considered as airport duty and the subsequent FDP counts from the airport reporting time as stated in ORO.FTL.225 (d).
If the other-standby lasts less than 6 hours, the maximum FDP counts from reporting for the airport standby. If the other-standby lasts more than 6 hours, a reduction is applicable to the subsequent FDP.
If an FDP is assigned during the airport standby, the combination of home standby and FDP does not lead to more than 18 hours awake time.
Reserve and other-standby CS FTL.1.230: While a crew member is on reserve, can his/her assignment be changed and continue as a home standby?
No, but the crew member can be assigned a home standby after the end of the reserve period.
Reserve CS FTL 1.230(b): Is there any rest requirement after a reserve period, if there is no assignment of duty period during the reserve?
Reserve times do not count as duty period for the purpose of ORO.FTL.210 and ORO.FTL.235.
That means that there is no requirement for a minimum rest period after reserve, if no duty has been assigned.
Reserve CS FTL.1.230 (d): Is it necessary to have an FRM to protect an 8-hour sleep opportunity during reserve?
No. Operators are however encouraged to apply appropriate fatigue risk management techniques to be able to fulfil their responsibilities under ORO.FTL.110.
The techniques described in the ICAO Fatigue Management Guide for Airline Operators may be useful reference to assist operators developing their approach.
Reserve CS FTL 1.230(d): Should the period of 8 hours run consecutively or is it possible to break it in two different periods?
The period of 8 hours consists of 8 consecutive hours.
Rest between disruptive schedules CS FTL.1.235(a)(1), (see also ORO.FTL.105(8)): The rule for transition between late finish/night duty and early start says that the rest between the FDPs needs to include a local night. Does this mean that the rule only applies if the late finish/night duty and the early duty are FDP’s?
It depends on the type of the early duty following a late or night duty.
If an early duty is a standby or a duty at the airport that leads to an FDP, then the rest period before that early duty must include a local night.
Otherwise, the rest period between the 2 other duties or between a FDP and other duty (e.g. night training in a simulator) does not need to include 1 local night.
Nevertheless, Subpart FTL provides a system of measures which jointly act to reduce the risk of increased fatigue and reduced alertness and performance levels of crew members, and to mitigate the acute disruption of the sleep pattern in the case of disruptive schedules.
For example, the operator must avoid practices that cause a serious disruption of an established sleep/work pattern, such as alternating day/night duties (ORO.FTL.110).
Rest compensation for time zone differences CS FTL.1.235(b)(3)(i): How should we count the time elapsed (h) since reporting for the first FDP in a rotation involving at least 4 hour time difference to the reference time?
Elapsed time (h) should be counted from the first FDP including at least 4 hour time difference to the reference time, as the rest compensation for time zone differences is given when the crew becomes affected by the time zone differences.
Reduced rest CS FTL.1.235(b)(3)(ii), (see also ORO.FTL.235 (c) and (e)): Is it possible to reduce the 14h rest away from home base following an FDP involving a 4-hour time difference or more?
No. CS FTL.1.235 (b)(3)(ii) does not foresee a reduction of the 14h rest away from home base to compensate for time zone crossing.
ORO.FTL.235 (c) describes the conditions under which the minimum rest periods according to ORO.FTL.235 (a) and (b) may be reduced.
ORO.FTL.235 (e) establishes the rest periods to compensate the effects of time zone crossing.
Additional rest periods to compensate the effects of time zone crossing shall be specified in flight time specification schemes.
Rest to compensate for time zone differences CS FTL.1.235(b)(4): What does Eastward-Westward or Westward-Eastward transition mean?
For the purpose of CS FTL.1.235 (b) (4), ‘Eastward-Westward and Westward-Eastward transition’ means the transition at home base between a rotation in one direction and a rotation in the opposite direction, each involving a 4-hour time difference or more.
At least 3 local nights of rest at home base are provided between such alternating rotations.
However, irrespective of where the transition occurs - at home base or away from home base, the operator, using safety risk management processes, should monitor rotations in opposite directions in terms of their impact on crew members’ circadian rhythm and fatigue, and provide sufficient rest to crew members between such rotations.
Monitoring Time Zone Differences CS FTL.1.235(b)(5): Does the requirement to monitor combinations of rotations require FRM in accordance with ORO.FTL.120?
No. FRM is not required. However, CS FTL.1.235 (b)(5) requires that fatigue risks arising from combinations of rotations be monitored under the operator’s management system.
The techniques described in the ICAO Fatigue Management Guide for Airline Operators (associated to ICAO Doc 9966) may be useful reference to assist operators developing their approach.
Reduced rest CS FTL.1.235(c)(5): Is it possible to apply reduced rest to two consecutive rest periods?
Yes. Up to 2 reduced rest periods in any 168 hours are allowed. They may be consecutive.
Reduced rest is only possible under FRM, as part of an approved IFTSS.
Nutrition ORO.FTL.240: Are nutrition provisions subject to a specific NAA's approval and can they be documented elsewhere in the OM-A, not necessarily Chapter 7.
Nutrition is part of the operator’s individual flight time specification scheme (IFTSS) which is subject to approval by the competent authority under ARO.OPS.235 (a).
Chapter 7 of the OM-A is the place where the operator describes its IFTSS. Nutrition opportunities during duty periods are therefore to be included under that Chapter.
In cases where nutrition provisions are documented elsewhere in the OM-A, the operator should provide references in Chapter 7 to those nutrition provisions to enable aircrew to easily trace and read about the applicable nutrition arrangements. Irrespective of the place where nutrition opportunities are described in detail, they are part of the IFTSS and subject to NAA’s approval.
IFTSS is customised to the operator’s specific operating conditions e.g. routes and airports served, specific rest requirements and duty length. The later in turn impacts nutrition opportunities – timing, duration and other arrangements.
The content of the OM need be presented in a form that can be used without difficulty by cre members. The same applies to the operator’s IFTSS.
Fatigue management training ORO.FTL.250 AMC1 ORO.FTL.250: What should be the minimum requirements for a fatigue management instructor? Is a CRMi course enough? Is a safety manager ready and without other training to deliver a course? Can someone that has received a few hours course in accordance with AMC1 ORO.FTL.250 repeat the course to others?
Although ORO.FTL does not contain prescriptive requirements determining the qualification of fatigue management instructors, those instructors are an operator’s personnel and hence, need to acquire at least the knowledge specified in AMC1 ORO.FTL.250.
Any operator needs to demonstrate to the competent authority that their personnel has acquired at least the knowledge as per the syllabus in AMC1 ORO.FTL.250.
In essence, the fatigue management training is a competency-based training. The operator should identify what training and competences are needed for each personnel group: aircrew, instructors, rostering and management staff to perform their roles effectively, and what means of measuring the level of competency attained by each person who receives the training is available.
For example, a fatigue management instructor must have the training required by AMC1 ORO.FTL.250. The operator may, in addition to that, require that the instructor also complete training normally required for FRM inspectors in accordance with AMC5 ARO.GEN 200(a) (2).
Recommended fatigue management training topics for specific groups of employees can be found in the ICAO Doc 9966 Manual for the Oversight of Fatigue Management Approaches/Second Edition 2016.
Operators who aim to establish a system for fatigue risk management (FRM), should consider including the following additional subjects, for aircrew, FSAG members, FRM instructors, FRM auditors, managers, according to their functions:
- the science behind FRM;
- requirements of Part-ORO with respect to FRM;
- components of the FRM of that particular operator and its functioning;
- FRM predictive, reactive and proactive processes
- roster fatigue metrics
- fatigue safety performance indicators
- employees’ responsibilities with respect to the FRM;
- use of fatigue reporting systems and implementing mitigations;
- collection of fatigue data (both subjective and objective) to feed the FRM system.
The content and frequency of fatigue management training should be proportional to the operator’s fatigue risk exposure. For example, a scheduled airline and an on-demand night cargo operator are likely to establish different syllabus and frequency for their aircrew training. Also, an airline with crew members commuting long hours to/from their home base, should particularly focus on the use of company’s airport or hotel crew rooms for fatigue mitigation of disruptive schedules when providing fatigue management training.
Reporting point ORO.FTL.105 (2): The global COVID-19 pandemic necessitated, on a number of occasions, a change to the typical aircrew reporting point. How should the operators address this change?
Aircrew typically used to report for duty at a crew room, at their home base or at outstation. The global COVID-19 pandemic caused disruptions in flight operations and necessitated, on a number of occasions, a change to the typical aircrew reporting point. Here below are some considerations that operators and aircrew should account for when addressing such change.
Notification to crew members. The operator must inform the crew about any change of the reporting point prior to operating as this is part of operator’s responsibilities under ORO.FTL.110.
Travelling time to the reporting point. Due to the change of reporting point, the otherwise duty time may turn into travelling time, thus extending the usual travelling time that a crew member is accustomed or prepared for. Therefore, the operator should make sure that the impact of the change of reporting point on traveling time and consequently on crew fatigue is not significant. The operator’ SMS has to manage the change of reporting point by assessing the potential negative impact on aircrew fatigue levels, based on evidence of adequate time frames and/or a comparison between the time necessary to report to the new point and the typical reporting point. In assessing the impact, the operator should account for additional operational factors e.g. standby call out times. The operator should address reporting at a place other than a crew room in the OM.
Commencement of duty. Duty starts from reporting for duty at the reporting point designated by the operator e.g. when the crew member checks-in in a crew room. In cases where the crew member is required by the operator to commence an activity prior to entering a crew room or a non-public area of an airport, so as to obtain flight documents at a check-in counter or ticket office, pass a security checkpoint or update the EFB, the duty starts at the point of commencing this activity. At airports where the crew members can access the non-public area or reach the departing gate through more than one security checkpoints, the operator should make sure that commencement time is the same for the same duty.
Aircrew briefing. The time for aircrew briefing is a duty time no matter where it takes place. If the briefing takes place at the gate where other people are also present, the operator should arrange for a secluded place considering security matters among other things. The size of the crew should not prevent crew members from talking to each other without disturbing and being disturbed. If the briefing takes place on board the aircraft, the operator should ensure that certain conditions are present, such as running APU/GPU, no disturbance from ground personnel or cleaning staff. Where the operator provides EFB, the briefing material should already be uploaded to it or if, new material is to be downloaded, the crew must be provided with means to do so.
Reporting times. The operator should specify in the OM reporting times that account for the type of operation, ground duties, size and type of the aircraft and the airport conditions (GM1 ORO.FTL.205(a)(1)). Ground duties include pre-flight duties (briefings; provision of documentation; transport to the aircraft parking stand, etc.).
Individual crew members’ records of flight time and duty periods ORO.FTL.245, (see also ORO.FTL.105):
Our employer does not provide individual records of the time spent for e-learning and for certain administrative tasks such as visa renewal.
The purpose of subpart FTL is to mitigate the risks related to fatigue. Therefore, maintaining crew member's records is to ensure compliance with the requirements of that subpart.
A proper implementation of ORO.FTL.245 would fully account for the term ‘duty’ i.e. any task assigned by the operator must be recorded in crew members’ individual records.
The time required for crew training at the behest of the operator and when required by Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 is a duty.
For example, the time needed to complete an e-learning task, if assigned by the operator, is to be notified in advance and recorded as duty time.
The same applies to some ground activities, such as administrative tasks, (including the visa renewal, a second passport when required) or training (briefing or debriefing when required).
Tasks that are part of pilot’s individual responsibility such as renewal of the medical certificate need not be rostered or registered.
In accordance with ORO.FTL.245 records of duties are maintained for a period of 24 months. Moreover, in accordance with ORO.MLR.115, records of crew member training, checking & qualifications must be retained for 3 years.
These records are necessary for the operator and crew member to be able to not only account for a particular duty, but also for the cumulative limits stipulated in ORO.FTL.210 (a).
Must the time for all training at the behest of the operator be entered in the schedule of the crew members and recorded?
To any training at the behest of the operator regardless of the method (e-learning1) or self-study or otherwise) that an aircrew member is assigned to by the operator the following applies:
- It is a duty and the time spent on training task constitutes a duty period.
- It cannot be considered a rest period or a day free of all duty or an annual leave period (ORO.FTL.105).
E-learning1 or self-study may be included as a single duty period in the CM roster with start and end times or assigned as a number of hours to be used over certain time (week(s) or month(s)), by the crew member to study the training material, in parts or at once, at the crew member discretion.
When assigning a number of hours, the operator should notify the crew member concerned in advance, specifying the allocated hours and time period for completion of the training. The training methods described above should comply with all daily or cumulative duty limits and rest requirements of Commission Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 and of Council Directive 2000/79/EC of 27 November 2000 (WTD), considering the period allocated for completion2. The policy and description on how these training methods are managed should be clearly documented in the operations manual (OM). As part of their shared responsibilities with regard to crew fatigue, the crew members should manage their time and tasks considering other assigned duties and rest requirements as per ORO.FTL.115 (b).
As part of their shared responsibilities with regard to crew fatigue, the operator should ensure that the training duties are assigned in a way that enables crew members to fulfil their flight duties to a satisfactory level of safety under all circumstances. The operator should in particular provide rest periods of sufficient time prior to the next flight duty/duties and an adequate number of hours and period of time to enable a successful fulfilment.
1 ICAO Circular 356 definition: E-Learning – is the delivery of a learning, training or education programme by electronic means.
2 ORO.FTL.205; ORO.FTL.210; ORO.FTL.235; CS FTL.1.235; WTD Annex Clause 8 & 9.
Passenger Safety
Use of baby bassinets on board
Use of baby bassinets on board
Reference: Certification Specifications and Acceptable Means of Compliance for Large Aeroplanes CS-25 (ED Decision 2012/008/R) is available on EASA website.
Provision of a baby bassinet is a cabin service provided by an airline to a parent travelling with a baby for the purpose of relieving the parent from holding the lap-held baby for a long period of time, especially on long-haul and ultra-long-haul flights.
Baby bassinets are included in the certification process of the aircraft in which they will be installed. They are not certified as separate devices, therefore an aircraft may not have a baby bassinet at all. The choice is up to the airline. The airline may choose to have a permanently installed ‘baby bed’ on its aircraft and its use during taxi, take-off, landing and turbulence will be described in the attached placards.
If baby bassinets are available on board, their number in the cabin depends on the cabin arrangement of the aircraft and locations where the bassinets can be safely attached/positioned. The number of baby bassinets at one location, usually at a bulkhead, depends on the available space, the weight the bulkhead can hold and the number of oxygen masks for the adults and babies located in that individual row.
Baby bassinet is not a child restraint device. Baby bassinets are not certified for taxi, take-off, landing and turbulent weather conditions. They may swing up and down and are not stable during turbulence, therefore the baby must be removed from the baby bassinet during turbulence and secured as instructed by your cabin crew members.
Airlines carrying baby bassinets on board may have varying policies on their use, therefore it is necessary to check the airline’s website or get in contact with the airline. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) may also be able to provide more information.
Certification placarding requirements
Placards advising on the stowage of baby bassinets during taxi, take-off, landing and turbulence are required either at the location where baby bassinets will be fixed to the aircraft structure (e.g. bulkhead) or a clearly visible instruction advising on the same must be placed on the baby bassinet itself.
The placarding requirements are related to the general certification requirements on placarding and intended function in accordance with Certifications Specifications and Acceptable Means of Compliance for Large Aeroplanes CS-25 (ED Decision 2012/008/R) and the marking requirements as specified in the approval of the equipment. For any questions on certification matters, please contact the EASA Certification directorate.
Use of Child Seats on Board
Can I use a child seat on board for my baby/child? What about a rear-facing child seat?
EASA cares for the safe transport of babies and children by air and encourages the use of child seats on board an aircraft.
Having a child seat on board an aircraft requires an assessment of several aspects, such as the aircraft seat itself, if the aircraft seat is forward-facing or rear-facing, how the child seat can be safely secured on the aircraft seat, the distance between seat rows where the child seat is intended to be placed, etc. Practically all child seats allowed on board are those that have been tested and certified for the use in cars. There may be limitations for their use in cars and there are also limitations for their use in an aircraft cabin. Depending on the specifics of the child seat, but also on the specifics of the aircraft seats and of the aircraft cabin arrangement, the operator decides which child seats are accepted on board its aircraft and which ones cannot be accepted due to safety reasons.
Rear-facing child seats are recommended for the use in cars for babies and children up until the age of 4. The use of a rear-facing (also referred to as ‘aft-facing’) child seat on board an aircraft may however be limited due to the distance between passenger seat rows (so-called ‘seat pitch’). Airlines are free to order from an aircraft manufacturer an aircraft with a cabin arrangement of their choice (including the distance between seat rows) provided it is compliant with the existing aircraft certification rules. Each cabin arrangement must be approved by EASA and must comply with the applicable safety standards including emergency evacuation. EU legislation however does not specify a prescriptive figure related to the minimum distance between seats (i.e. seat rows), aircraft designers comply with the standards using a range of biometrics.
It is the operator’s responsibility to establish procedures for its operation which are subject to the approval or acceptance by the National Aviation Authority of that EU Member State. Please, contact your airline for information on types of child seats and their use on board the airline’s aircraft. You may also wish to visit the EASA webpage ‘Travelling with children’.
Extract from the EU rules on air operations related to the acceptance of child seats on board:
CAT.IDE.A.205 Seats, seat safety belts, restraint systems and child restraint devices
(a) Aeroplanes shall be equipped with:
(1) a seat or berth for each person on board who is aged 24 months or more;
(2) a seat belt on each passenger seat and restraining belts for each berth except as specified in (3);
(3) a seat belt with upper torso restraint system on each passenger seat and restraining belts on each berth in the case of aeroplanes with an MCTOM of 5 700 kg or less and with an MOPSC of nine or less, having an individual CofA first issued on or after 8 April 2015;
(4) a child restraint device (CRD) for each person on board younger than 24 months;
(5) …
AMC1 CAT.IDE.A.205 Seats, seat safety belts, restraint systems and child restraint devices
CHILD RESTRAINT DEVICES (CRDs)
(a) A CRD is considered to be acceptable if:
(1) it is a ‘supplementary loop belt’ manufactured with the same techniques and the same materials as the approved safety belts; or
(2) it complies with (b).
(b) Provided the CRD can be installed properly on the respective aircraft seat, the following CRDs are considered acceptable:
(1) CRDs approved for use in aircraft according to the European Technical Standard Order ETSO-C100c on Aviation Child Safety Device (ACSD);
(2) CRDs approved by EASA through a Type Certificate or Supplemental Type Certificate;
(3) Child seats approved for use in motor vehicles on the basis of the technical standard specified in point (i) below. The child seat must be also approved for use in aircraft on the basis of the technical standard specified in either point
(ii) or point (iii):
(i) UN Standard ECE R44-04 (or 03), or ECE R129 bearing the respective ‘ECE R’ label; and
(ii) German ‘Qualification Procedure for Child Restraint Systems for Use in Aircraft’ (TÜV/958-01/2001) bearing the label ‘For Use in Aircraft’; or
(iii) Other technical standard acceptable to the competent authority. The child seat should hold a qualification sign that it can be used in aircraft.
(4) Child seats approved for use in motor vehicles and aircraft according to Canadian CMVSS 213/213.1 bearing the respective label;
(5) Child seats approved for use in motor vehicles and aircraft according to US FMVSS No 213 and bearing one or two labels displaying the following two sentences:
(i) ‘THIS CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEM CONFORMS TO ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS’; and
(ii) in red letters ‘THIS RESTRAINT IS CERTIFIED FOR USE IN MOTOR VEHICLES AND AIRCRAFT’;
(6) Child seats approved for use in motor vehicles and aircraft according to Australia/New Zealand’s technical standard AS/NZS 1754:2013 bearing the green part on the label displaying ‘For Use in Aircraft’; and
(7) CRDs manufactured and tested according to other technical standards equivalent to those listed above. The devices should be marked with an associated qualification sign, which shows the name of the qualification organisation and a specific identification number, related to the associated qualification project. The qualifying organisation should be a competent and independent organisation that is acceptable to the competent authority.
(c) Location
(1) Forward-facing child seats may be installed on both forward-and rearward-facing passenger seats, but only when fitted in the same direction as the passenger seat on which they are positioned. Rearward-facing child seats should only be installed on forward-facing passenger seats. A child seat should not be installed within the radius of action of an airbag unless it is obvious that the airbag is de-activated or it can be demonstrated that there is no negative impact from the airbag.
(2) An infant/child in a CRD should be located in the vicinity of a floor level exit.
(3) An infant/child in a CRD should not hinder evacuation for any passenger.
(4) An infant/child in a CRD should neither be located in the row (where rows are existing) leading to an emergency exit nor located in a row immediately forward or aft of an emergency exit. A window passenger seat is the preferred location. An aisle passenger seat or a cross aisle passenger seat that forms part of the evacuation route to exits is not recommended. Other locations may be acceptable provided the access of neighbour passengers to the nearest aisle is not obstructed by the CRD.
(5) In general, only one CRD per row segment is recommended. More than one CRD per row segment is allowed if the infants/children are from the same family or travelling group provided the infants/children are accompanied by a responsible adult sitting next to them in the same row segment.
(6) A row segment is one or more seats side-by-side separated from the next row segment by an aisle.
(d) Installation
(1) CRDs tested and approved for use in aircraft should only be installed on a suitable passenger seat by the method shown in the manufacturer’s instructions provided with each CRD and with the type of connecting device they are approved for the installation in aircraft. CRDs designed to be installed only by means of rigid bar lower anchorages (ISOFIX or equivalent) should only be used on passenger seats equipped with such connecting devices and should not be secured by passenger seat lap belt.
(2) All safety and installation instructions should be followed carefully by the responsible adult accompanying the infant/child. Operators should prohibit the use of a CRD not installed on the passenger seat according to the manufacturer's instructions or not approved for use in aircraft.
(3) If a forward-facing child seat with a rigid backrest is to be fastened by a seat lap belt, the restraint device should be fastened when the backrest of the passenger seat on which it rests is in a reclined position. Thereafter, the backrest is to be positioned upright. This procedure ensures better tightening of the child seat on the aircraft seat if the aircraft seat is reclinable.
(4) The buckle of the adult safety belt must be easily accessible for both opening and closing, and must be in line with the seat belt halves (not canted) after tightening.
(5) Forward-facing restraint devices with an integral harness must not be installed such that the adult safety belt is secured over the infant.
(e) Operation
(1) Each CRD should remain secured to a passenger seat during all phases of flight unless it is properly stowed when not in use.
(2) Where a child seat is adjustable in recline, it must be in an upright position for all occasions when passenger restraint devices are required.
Extract from the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) guidance on the approval and use of child restraint systems (ICAO Document 10049):
2.4.3 The seat pitch or the available space between two rows of seats may also be an issue and particularly significant for aft-facing CRS as they are further reclined and take up more horizontal space. The inability to be effectively installed using existing aircraft seat belts may also render motor vehicle CRS ineffective on board. The location of anchor points can also be problematic. This includes the location of the aircraft seat belt attachment to the aircraft seat, as a CRS must translate forward until the belt path angle allows for belt tension forces to restrain the device.
Note: CRS stands for ‘child restraint system’ and means the same as ‘child restraint device’.
Passenger safety briefing
Is there any requirement on what language(s) should be used for information provided to passengers via safety briefings and announcements?
Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 Air Operations, Annex III: Part-ORO is available on EASA website. ICAO Doc 10086 Manual on information and instructions for passenger safety is available on ICAO website.
Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 mandates the operator to ensure that briefings and demonstrations related to safety are provided to passengers in a form that facilitates the application of the procedures applicable in case of an emergency and that passengers are provided with a safety briefing card on which picture type-instructions indicate the operation of emergency equipment and exits likely to be used by passengers. It is therefore the operator’s responsibility to choose the languages to be used on its flights, which may vary depending on the destination or a known passenger profile. It is indeed difficult, if not impossible, to accommodate every ‘required’ language on board as this differs on daily basis from a flight to flight. For example, a German airline has a flight departing from Frankfurt to Rome and it is assumed that the most required languages on this flight will be German and Italian. The passenger profile may, however, be such that these languages are not ‘desired’ on this flight as passengers do not necessarily speak or understand any of the two languages (passengers may be e.g. Irish, Canadian, Russian, Chinese, Iranian, Egyptian, Pakistani, Latvian, Finnish, Croatian, Hungarian, Bulgarian, Czech, Slovak, etc., or there is a large group of e.g. Japanese tourists). It is therefore a practice of some operators to employ ‘language speakers’, i.e. cabin crew members speaking certain languages, who mainly operate their language-desired route(s). The aircraft may also have an option of a multi-language pre-recorded set of public announcements, the operator may choose this feature when modifying the cabin systems on its aircraft configuration.
ICAO Doc 10086 recommends that information provided to passengers via safety briefings, announcements and safety demonstrations should be transmitted in the language of the operator and in English to promote appropriate communication with passengers. Further, that in order to cover the largest percentage of passengers on board on international flights, the operator should consider the use of English and the use of the official language of the State of departure and destination. In addition, the operator should consider the language(s) of the passengers on board and assign language-qualified cabin crew members or interpreters on board the aircraft, on specific routes. The operator should verify that emergency exit-row occupants comprehend the language spoken by the crew.
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”.
Referring to Annex II - AMC 20-6 rev.2, on ETOPS Applicability, is an ETOPS operational approval required or not for aircraft with a seating configuration of 19 or less and not exceeding 180 minutes at the approved one-engine-inoperative (OEI) speed (in still air) from an adequate aerodrome?
“The acceptable means of compliance for operators seeking an ETOPS operational approval to operate aeroplanes with a maximum passenger seating configuration of 19 or less, in excess of 180 minutes at the approved one-engine-inoperative (OEI) speed (in still air) from an adequate aerodrome is AMC 20-6. For operations in excess of 120 minutes at the approved OEI, refer to the below’’
Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations, Annex IV (Part CAT)
Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 must be considered, especially point CAT.OP.MPA.140, which states:
“(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 the appropriate distance for the given type of aeroplane among the following:
[...].
for performance class A aeroplanes with an MOPSC of 19 or less, the distance flown in 120 minutes or, subject to approval by the competent authority, up to 180 minutes for turbojet 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 minutes 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 minutes from an adequate aerodrome.
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.”
What is the meaning of ‘where applicable’ in relation to the data link recording requirements in 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 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 ATS;
- 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 ATS;
- 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 ATS.
Note:
Commission Regulation (EU) 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 some data link services by February 2020 , except for older aircraft and State aircraft.
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).
Does the operator need an exemption to CAT.OP.MPA.160 to use the passenger cabin as a cargo compartment?
The passenger cabin is not approved for as a cargo compartment and it does not meet the applicable requirements for the transportation of cargo. This is in accordance with the type certification of the large aeroplanes certified for passenger transport. The carriage of cargo in the cabin beyond already approved stowage areas is therefore neither covered by the approval of the aircraft nor by the approval of the seats and that is the reason why an exemption is needed. Additionally, limitations and/or procedures must be introduced to compensate for the non-compliance related to smoke detection or fire suppression means.
The details as to what extent cargo can be carried in a passenger compartment without additional certification are also provided by the relevant EASA Special Condition on this subject, recognized by both Boeing MOM-MOM-20-0239-02B and Airbus FOT 999.0028/20.
AMC2 CAT.OP.MPA.160 (b) (2) specifies the need for approved restraint equipment to secure the intended cargo. However, the term “cargo” in this AMC refers to anything that belongs to the passenger traveling in the adjacent seat but it is not a piece of luggage (e.g., a musical instrument that may have to be restrained to the seat). Thus, the AMC was never intended to facilitate the use of the cabin as a cargo compartment.
Is there any regulatory statement by which it is required for all European aeroplanes to carry a defibrillator on board?
By means of the ED Decision 2021/005/R the AMC/GM to CAT.IDE.A.220 and CAT.IDE.A.225 have been updated in line with the existing evidence and expert opinion. The use of automated external defibrillators (AED) is essential to increase the chances of survival in case of a cardiac arrythmias such as ventricular fibrillation (VF) and non-perfusing ventricular tachycardia (VT) when used in the first 10 minutes.
AMC1 CAT.IDE.A.220 (b) (4) stipulates that the aircraft operators should carry automated external defibrillator (AED) on board all aircraft equipped with a first-aid kit and required to carry at least one cabin crew. When operating multi-deck aircraft, operators should assess if additional equipment is needed on each deck.
What are the obligations when carrying AED’s (Automated Emergency Defibrillators) on board as per CAT.IDE.A.220 and CAT.IDE.A.225?
AED (Automated Emergency Defibrillators) can be considered as carry on board medical equipment. The provision where the AED will be stowed should be certified (capable to carry the load and placarded accordingly). If the AED is stowed in a stowage as for passenger luggage we would not necessarily ask for full 25.853 compliance especially when considered as carry on board equipment. If you want to certify it (being part of the modification) then compliance to the applicable CS requirements must be demonstrated.
In addition, you should have a look into the guidance material to Part CAT 140. Here you will find some information related to the electro mechanical interference of medical equipment.
If the AED is considered as carry on board medical equipment, there is no need for a certified installation. The operator is however obliged to conduct an assessment as per AMC1 CAT.GEN.MPA.140.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Which operators have to establish and maintain dangerous goods training programmes? Which training programmes should be approved by the authority?
The rule reference is ORO.GEN.110 (j). All operators subject to ORO.GEN.005 must establish and maintain dg training programmes in all cases. The approval, however, is only necessary if:
- It is a CAT operation
- The operator is transporting dangerous goods and performing:
- Commercial specialised operations:
- Non-commercial operations with complex motor-powered aircraft; or
- Non-commercial specialised operations with complex motor-powered aircraft.
There is also an alleviation in ORO.GEN.110 (k) for operators of sailplanes, balloons, and certain single-engined propeller-driven airplanes and single-engined other-than motor-powered helicopters of 5700 Kg or less of MCTM and an MOPSC of 5 or less operating in a flight taking off and landing at the same aerodrome/operating site under VFR by day, where the requirement is that operators shall ensure that the flight crew has received an appropriate training or briefing to enable them to recognise undeclared dangerous goods brought on-board by passengers or as cargo (refer to the rule for more information).
Part-NCC/NCO
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 Regulation (EC) 216/2008 and Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on air operations.
Differences generated by Reg. (EC) 216/2008:
- 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 Reg. (EU) No 965/2012 on air operations:
- List of specific approvals: European rules exceed ICAO standards; ICAO may require this list by November 2018.
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.
My operations manual (OM) uses a template provided by a recognised industry standard. Is this sufficient for me to be compliant with the rules?
An OM template helps an operator to organise its procedures and information that the personnel need in order to accomplish their safety tasks. However, the operator has to make sure that its OM reflects the specificity of its operation – be it commercial or non-commercial. At the same time, the manual should cover the areas described in Subpart ORO.MLR.
In parallel with that, the operator has to ensure also that the operation itself – not just the manual – is compliant with the applicable rules. The requirements related to the operations manual are only a part of the applicable rules.
What is the intent of the declaration?
The intent of the declaration is to:
- have the operator acknowledge its responsibilities under the applicable safety regulations and that it holds all necessary approvals;
- inform the competent authority of the existence of an NCC or an SPO operator; and
- 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(13) of the Basic Regulation (EU) 2018/1139, 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 2(1)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 965/2012.
How can an NCC operator establish if its organisation is complex or non-complex?
AMC1 ORO.GEN.200(b) ‘Management system. Size, nature and complexity of the activity’ provides criteria to determine if an operator belongs to the group of complex organisations or the one of non-complex organisations. These criteria are based on the assessment of the size, nature and complexity of the operator’s activity.
At the same time, AMC1 ORO.GEN.200(b) does not include any overly detailed complexity criteria. This is because it is impossible to address all cases and, more importantly, it is not the intent that the AMC be used as a substitute for the operator’s own risk assessment.
The main ‘alleviations’ for a non-complex operator are the following:
- The operator may use simple procedures and tools for its safety risk management process (e.g. checklists), and safety performance monitoring and measurement (no need to perform extensive safety studies, surveys, etc.).
- The accountable manager or a person with an operational role in the organisation may fulfil the role of safety manager.
- The organisation does not need to have a safety review board.
- The accountable manager may also be the compliance-monitoring manager if he or she has demonstrated to have the required competence and that the independence of the internal audits is maintained.
- Simple checklists may be used to document compliance monitoring audits and inspections.
Before the operator decides which AMCs to follow, it should demonstrate proper understanding of the risks entailed by its activities. Upon initial implementation of the EASA management system framework, the organisation will normally start describing and analysing its activity and processes, to determine not only how best to implement the management system framework, but also where to focus the risk management efforts. Not investing in this step will lead to inefficient/costly management system implementation and require subsequent rework.
Such system description and related analysis will be an effective means for identifying hazards proactively. It will also create a baseline for the management of changes and will allow identifying safety performance requirements for safety relevant processes, as well as related performance indicators and controls in order to manage the defined performance goals.
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.
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, the essential requirements established in Annex V of Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 (the “Basic Regulation”) must be complied with. For airworthiness, the elements required in Annex V point 6 must be ensured by an organisation as required in point 8.8.
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 Annex V of Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 (the "Basic Regulation"). 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.
Please also see FAQ 47404.
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.
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.
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 2(1)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on air operations (previously in Reg. (EC) No 216/2008).
Which is the competent authority responsible for the oversight of the NCC operations in Europe?
NCC.GEN.100 specifies the following: “The competent authority shall be the authority designated by the Member State in which the operator has its principal place of business or is residing”.
This means that the State of the Operator (SoO) designates the competent authority for NCC operators. Here are some examples:
- For a European NCC operator with aircraft registered in a Member State, the Competent Authority is designated by the State of the Operator.
- For a European NCC operator with third-country registered aircraft, the Competent Authority is designated by the State of the Operator. These operators may also have to comply with rules of the third-country State of Registry (SoR) if this State has not delegated its responsibilities to the European State of the Operator.
- For a third-country NCC operator having its principal place of business in a third country and performing operations with aircraft registered in a Member State, the Competent Authority is designated by the State of the Operator (the third country SoO). However, these operators may also have to comply with rules of the EU Member State (State of Registry) related to the aircraft if the State of Registry has not delegated its responsibilities to the State of the Operator.
For cases under (2) and (3), the State of Registry and the State of the Operator need to coordinate their safety and security oversight actions in accordance with ICAO SARPs (3.4.2.1.2 of ICAO Annex 6 Part II).
To avoid interferences with the responsibility of a third-country State of Registry for specific approvals, Part-SPA SPA.GEN.100 specifies that the European competent authority shall not issue operational approvals when they are required by Annex 6 and issued by the third-country State of Registry.
EASA has published a draft Guidance Material (GM) related to this topic, in order to make it easier for declared operators (NCC and SPO) to determine which their competent authority is. The GM can be found in the draft AMC&GM related to Opinion 04/2017, published for information 'draft GM proposed to Annex I Definitions'.
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.
May a European NCC or NCO operator use third-country registered aircraft?
Yes, this is permitted.
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.
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.
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’.
How should I start building my SMS if I have a very small organisation (up to 2-3 persons) and I operate a complex aeroplane or helicopter?
A good starting point would be to describe your regular operation, the daily business. The description of your operation will give direction to your organisation’s effective SMS and will become its foundation.
This description should simply be a checklist containing the day-to-day activities, as it provides the understanding necessary to identify and manage the risks associated with the operation.
The analysis of your daily operation should consider the following aspects (this list is not exhaustive):
- What is the frequency of your flights?
- What aircraft type(s) do you have in your fleet?
- What are your departure & destination points?
- What is specific to the aerodromes you use?
- Which are the routes on which you fly – more or less the same routes or very different routes?
- Do you carry passengers?
- What type of operation do you perform on those routes? Be as specific as you can.
- Do you have a system that helps you prepare your flight?
- How do you plan and calculate the necessary fuel supply?
- Do you have any specific approvals (e.g., LVO, PBN, etc.)?
- Are your pilots’ training and qualifications compliant with the requirements? How about the other employees involved in operation?
- Are the operational procedures and any flight documents current and available to all the personnel involved in operation?
- How do you ensure that the necessary information is communicated to the right persons involved in operation?
- How do you ensure aircraft maintenance?
- What do you do if any of the elements above changes for one reason or another? Are you prepared to cope with that change and minimise its effects in your daily operation? How do you deal with such changes?
- Make sure you include the aspect of disruptive changes in your analysis.
- Have you set up the minimum levels of acceptance to which every key operational activity (e.g. scheduling, planning, flight execution, fuel consumption, training, aircraft maintenance) can go? In other words, have you set up your performance expectations?
The last two questions will lead to the second step in building your SMS:
- What could be the main potential risks associated to each of the elements above – what could go wrong with these daily variables?
Identifying the key elements of risk in this day-to-day operation will help you to spot more easily the strengths and weaknesses in your regular business, the errors, as well as the good practices.
The third step is then to choose/apply adequate mitigation measures to reduce the risks inherent to your daily operation:
- Make a list of solutions to reduce each risk to an acceptable level. Consider to use the Risk register checklist proposed in GM3 ORO.GEN.200(a)(3) for your safety risk management/assessment.
A fourth step is to assess whether the mitigation measures that you have prepared are effective and help you to achieve the required level of safety.
- Keep evidence of any occurrence, identify their cause, and see if they are repetitive and if they have anything in common.
- Find ways to prevent them from reoccurring by addressing the “root cause”.
- Check how well your solutions helped in preventing the reoccurrence of that event.
A fifth step ensures that the whole process becomes cyclic, and that you learn from your previous experience in order to make your operation safer and more efficient.
- Run this check once a year or after an event or change in the aspects mentioned above.
Does this scheme address your needs and help you to have a safe operation?
We are an aero-club authorised by Member State X to perform skydiving operations. We operate a non-complex aircraft dry-leased from an operator registered in Member State Y. Our skydivers and the tandem passengers are registered members of the aero-club; there is no profit distributed outside our organisation. Which Parts of Regulation (EU) 965/2012 apply to us? Which is our competent authority?
As an organisation (aero club) approved under the national legislation of Member State X, the national legislation of State X applies to you, to the skydivers, to the tandem passengers and all other registered members. Reg. (EU) No 1178/2011 on aircrew is not applicable to aero clubs that do not provide training for one of the Part-FCL licences and ratings — LAPL, PPL, CPL or ATPL.
The operation of the aircraft must be performed in accordance with Part-NCO of Reg. (EU) No 965/2012 on air operations, as the aircraft you operate is a non-complex aircraft.
The competent authority for the oversight of your dry-leased aircraft is the State of registry, that is, the state where your aircraft is registered (see Reg. (EU) No 965/2012, NCO.GEN.100 ‘Competent authority’). However, the competent authority of Member State Y may delegate its oversight tasks to the competent authority of Member State X.
Does an NCO operator established in an EU Member State and operating an aircraft registered in a third country need to comply with the Airworthiness Directives (AD) issued by EASA, in addition to the ADs issued by the State of Registry?
Reg. (EU) No 965/2012 NCO.GEN.145 point (b) states: ‘The operator shall implement […] (b) any relevant mandatory safety information issued by the Agency, including airworthiness directives.’
For NCO operations in the EU of a third country-registered aircraft, only the ADs mandated by the State of Registry apply — not the EASA ADs.
The word ‘relevant’ in point (b) of NCO.GEN.145 should be understood as ‘if applicable’ and allows to distinguish the different situation of an aircraft registered in an EASA Member State (ADs issued by EASA are relevant to these aircraft) as opposed to third-country registered aircraft, on which ADs mandated by the third-country State of Registry should be applied (refer to Annex 8 to the Chicago Convention).
It is common that ADs first issued by the State of Design are identically (or very similarly) issued or adopted by all States of Registry concerned. By European law (article 77 of Reg. (EU) 2018/1139, the so-called Basic Regulation (BR)), EASA performs State of Design functions on behalf of the EASA Member States.
Note 1: In accordance with Article 83-bis of the Chicago Convention, if agreed, the country where an aircraft is registered may transfer the oversight functions (including airworthiness) to the country of the aircraft operator. If, in such case, the operator is established or resides in an EASA Member State, EASA ADs are relevant to this aircraft.
Note 2: In accordance with article 77 of the BR, aircraft registered in an EASA Member State are required to comply with EASA-issued or adopted ADs. As per ED Decision No. 2/2003, EASA adopts ADs issued by the State of Design unless the Agency decides differently. Read more about ADs applicable to EASA Member State-registered aircraft in the EASA FAQ page on ADs.
Part-SPO
How to distinguish between a ‘commercial’ SPO operator and a ‘non-commercial’ SPO operator?
‘Commercial’ or ’non-commercial’ operation - Reference: Reg. (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations: Article 5
A commercial SPO operator is an operator who performs or intends to perform commercial non-transport operation such as specialised operations by receiving remuneration or other valuable consideration against those services.
Sometimes the distinction between ‘commercial’ and ‘non-commercial’ is not easily evident, especially when the remuneration or another way of compensation is not formalised e.g. a farmer comes with its own aircraft to spray crops to another farmer, against some compensation agreed verbally between the parties.
A clear example of non-commercial SPO operator is a farmer spraying his crops with his plane.
Competent authorities responsible for the oversight of SPO operators and operations should assess carefully each individual case to establish if there is a commercial operation, resorting if necessary to information otherwise available to social security or taxation bodies.
Specialised operations (SPO) are not commercial air transport (CAT) operation; hence, passengers cannot be transported during a SPO mission flight. However, task specialists may be carried during such a flight.
Are we a ‘complex’ or ‘non-complex’ operator considering the fact that we have five FTEs and four types of non-complex helicopters?
Size and complexity of the operator - Reference: Reg. (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations: ORO.GEN.200 (b)
AMC1 ORO.GEN.200 (b) paragraph (a) defines how to assess if an operator is complex or non-complex:
The operator is non-complex if its workforce is less than 20 full time equivalents (FTEs). However, point AMC1 ORO.GEN.200 (b) paragraph (b) indicates that an operator with less than 20 FTEs may also be considered complex if, for example, it performs high-risk commercial SPO or operates in a challenging environment (offshore, mountainous area, etc.).
Prior to sending a declaration an operator should check with the competent authority, if their assessment of complexity is correct.
Can I use third-country registered aircraft for my SPO operations?
Third country registered aircraft - References: Reg. (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations; Reg. (EU) No 748/2012 on initial airworthiness
In accordance with ORO.SPO.100 (b), the aircraft used in commercial SPO (SPO-COM) shall have a certificate of airworthiness (CofA) issued by an EU Member State in accordance with Reg. (EU) No 748/2012 or shall be leased-in in accordance with ORO.SPO.100 (c). This means that operators conducting SPO-COM must operate aircraft registered in an EU MS or, alternatively, leased-in aircraft registered outside the EU.
In non-commercial SPO operations (SPO-NCC and SPO-NCO), there is no requirement with regard to the State of registration of aircraft.
For operations, such as parachute dropping, sailplane towing or aerobatic flights with non-complex motor powered aircraft, eligible for the exemption under SPO.GEN.005 (c), there is no requirement with regard to the registration of aircraft either.
We operate a helicopter that is Annex II aircraft according to the Basic Regulation. How should we continue to conduct SPO now? Do we need any exemption?
Annex II aircraft - Reference: Reg. (EU) 2018/1139 (The Basic Regulation): Annex I
The use of Annex I aircraft in SPO activities is not regulated at EU level. You may be allowed to continue carrying out SPO with you Annex I helicopter or aeroplane, if this is permitted under your country national regulation. Please ask your competent authority what conditions apply to SPO operations with Annex I aircraft in your country.
Note, however, that any authorisation or certificate required by your national legislation may not be recognised by other Member States.
Why may a SPO operator not carry on board passengers on an aerobatic flight?
Passengers - Reference: Reg. (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations: Article 5(7)
Except for crew members, persons other than those indispensable to the mission shall not be carried on board of flights, which take place immediately before, during or immediately after specialized operations and are directly connected to those operations.
When SPO related rules apply to a flight or a number of flights, passengers (fare paying or not) cannot be carried on board such flights. In some SPO operations, the concept of “passenger” and “task specialist” do blend into each other. Therefore, for regulatory and risk mitigation purposes persons carried on board are considered task specialists, even if their “task” is to enjoy 0-G flight, a tandem jump, or a looping. The rules call for task specialists to be instructed on their tasks, including the risks connected to those tasks of which they are not sufficiently or at all informed.
If passengers are being transported, the flight has to be performed in accordance with Part-CAT or Part-NCC or Part-NCO, as applicable.
Now, thanks to Art. 6 (8) of Reg. (EU) 965/2012, I operate non-commercially a twin turbo-propeller aircraft below 5.7 t MCTOM in accordance with Part-NCO. May I also carry out non-commercial specialised operations with the same aircraft under Part-NCO?
Twin turboprops at or below 5.7 t MCTOM - Reference: Reg. (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations: Article 6(8)
The derogation of Art 6(8) of Regulation 965/2012 does not apply to non-commercial specialised operations or to commercial operations. It is only applicable to ‘pure’ non-commercial operations of complex motor-powered aeroplanes with a maximum certificated take-off mass (MCTOM) at or below 5 700 kg, equipped with turboprop engines. When operating such aircraft the operators shall comply with Part-NCO, instead of Part-NCC and Part-ORO.
Is it permissible for me to determine myself whether the operations I conduct are eligible for the alleviation of SPO.GEN.005 (c)?
Limited operations - Reference: Reg. (EU) No 965/2012 on air operations: SPO.GEN.005 (c)
The purpose of SPO.GEN.005 (c) is to alleviate certain flights that might otherwise be qualified as commercial (where compliance with Part-SPO is required) to comply with the less demanding rules of Part-NCO.
The operator must check with the competent authority whether the operations it conducts are eligible for the alleviation of SPO.GEN.005 (c). The competent authority makes the final determination.
What do the terms ‘marginal activity’, ‘direct cost’, ‘annual cost’ and ‘organisation created with the aim of promoting aerial sport or leisure aviation’ mean?
‘Marginal activity’, ‘Direct cost’… - Reference: Reg. (EU) No 965/2012 on air operations: SPO.GEN.005 (c)
These terms are used in SPO.GEN.005 (c) as well as in Article 6, paragraph 4a of Reg. (EU) No 965/2012.
Their meaning, in the context of Reg. (EU) No 965/2012, can be found in the guidance material placed under Article 6, paragraph 4a. The same meaning is also applicable for the purpose SPO.GEN.005 (c).
As regards ‘marginal activity’, AMC1 ARO.OPS.300 also applies in the case of parachute dropping, sailplane towing or aerobatic flights. This is because whenever a competent authority publishes criteria specifying to which extent it considers an activity marginal and how this is being overseen, the nature of flight (introductory, parachute dropping, sailplane towing or aerobatic flights) has little importance.
Are we high-risk or non-high-risk commercial specialised operator?
Reference: Reg. (EU) No 965/2012 on air operations: Article 2 (8)
Each competent authority may decide for their territory which commercial SPO operation poses a high risk, in particular to third parties on the ground. If you operate in the Member State where you are residing or your organisation is established or has its principal place of business, this is your competent authority; if you operate in another Member State, this is the competent authority designated by that Member State.
Even if the competent authority has not established its list of high-risk commercial SPO operations, the operator must determine through a risk assessment whether a particular operation is posing high risk to third parties on the ground in the event of an emergency.
The competent authority should publish and regularly update the list of high-risk SPO for their territory.
For more information, please refer to various publications about the high-risk SPO operations in the Member States available on this webpage, including the Guidelines for cross-border high-risk commercial SPO.
Do I need two authorisations, if the lists of high-risk commercial SPO of different Member States differ?
Reference: Reg. (EU) No 965/2012 on air operations: ARO.OPS.150 (f)
No, you do not. Where the cross-border SPO operation you are planning to carry out is on the list of high-risk SPO established by the competent authority of the place of operation, you shall seek authorisation from your own competent authority, irrespective of whether that authority considers this particular operation ‘high risk’ or not. This is because in the EU the HR authorisation issued by your competent authority under Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 is recognised as valid by the competent authority of another Members State.
For that purpose, the competent authorities involved will coordinate the validation process. The safety considerations of the competent authority of the place where the operation will be conducted need to be accounted for; both competent authorities need to be satisfied with the operator’s risk assessment and standard operating procedures - SOPs.
For more information, please refer to various publications about the high-risk SPO operations in the Member States available on this webpage, including the Guidelines for cross-border high-risk commercial SPO.
What is the meaning of "applicable national flight time limitation legislation" in Article 8 (4) of regulation 965/2012?
Cross-border commercial SPO - Reference: Reg. (EU) No 965/2012 on air operations: Art. 8(4)
Article 8 (4) of Regulation 965/2012 foresees that specialised operators continue to comply with applicable national flight time limitation legislation until EU implementing rules are adopted and apply.
In the context of Part-SPO, the intent of ‘applicable national flight time limitation legislation’ with regard to specialised operators is understood to mean the national law of the Member State in which the operator has its principal place of business, or, where the operator has no principal place of business, the place where the operator is established or resides.
My SPO operations fall under Part-SPO. What type of certification shall I expect from my competent authority – AOC or other type?
AOC or other certification - Reference: Reg. (EU) No 965/2012 on air operations: Part-ORO and Part-SPO
You are not required to obtain an air operator certificate (AOC). You are however required to submit a declaration to your competent authority. Please make sure that the Declaration is properly completed.
In addition, depending on the operations you conduct, you might need a specific approval for one or more of these: RVSM, MNPS, RNP AR APCH, LVO and DG.
In some cases of high-risk commercial SPO, an authorisation may be required.
Who must submit a declaration?
Declaration - Reference: Reg. (EU) No 965/2012 on air operations: ORO.DEC.100
Every SPO operator (commercial and non-commercial), except NCO-SPO, submits a declaration.
An operator may perform both commercial and non-commercial flights with complex motor-powered aircraft based on one declaration.
Operators are not required to submit a declaration before each flight, but must submit a new declaration in the case of changes.
Is the skydiving activity itself under the scope of Regulation (EU) No 965/2012?
Skydiving/parachute dropping
Parachutes are completely outside Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 (the Basic Regulation), on account that they are not an aircraft.
In addition, the way people do skydiving (parachute jumps/tandem jumps) does not belong to the scope of Regulation 965/2012.
Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 applies to the flight operation of bringing parachutists at the required level for the execution of the jumps.
Can I fly an aeroplane for commercial parachute dropping operation with my PPL (A)?
Parachute dropping - Reference: Reg. (EU) No 965/2012 on air operations: Art. 6(4a); Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 on Aircrew: Art. 3(2)
The holder of an LAPL or a PPL may conduct parachute-dropping flights, only if the conditions stipulated in Art 6 (4a) of Reg. (EU) No 965/2012 are met.
In all other cases, only pilots who hold at least a CPL can conduct SPO flights in accordance with Part-SPO.
Holders of a PPL (A) with instructor/examiner ratings may receive remuneration for providing training, testing and checking related to LAPL (A) and PPL (A), as well as associated ratings and certificates.
The PPL holder cannot receive remuneration for conducting operations other than those listed in FCL.205.A of Reg. (EU) No 1178/2011, as well as for any of the flights mentioned in Article 6 (4a) of Reg. (EU) No 965/2012.
Is 'MOPSC' (Maximum Operational Passenger Seating Configuration') applicable in case of parachute dropping, where only task specialists are carried?
MOPSC - Reference: Reg. (EU) No 965/2012 on air operations: SPO.IDE.A.130
For the purpose of SPO.IDE.A.130, only one of the two values is used: either MCTOM of more than 5 700 kg or MOPSC of more than nine.
MOPSC is established for operational purposes. Where MOPSC is not established or is not relevant for a particular operation, the value of MCTOM should be used.
How is a ramp inspector supposed to know the nature of a particular SPO flight (commercial or non-commercial)?
Declaration - Reference: Reg. (EU) No 965/2012 on air operations: ORO.DEC.100
A declaration is not meant to provide information about the nature of a flight at a particular moment. The ATS flight plan, if applicable, and/or the Journey log contain information on the nature of a particular flight.
If I hold an AOC and want to perform SPO activities (commercial and non-commercial) with the same aircraft registered on my AOC, do I have to submit a declaration too?
Mixed operations - Reference: Reg. (EU) No 965/2012 on air operations: ORO.DEC.100
Yes. SPO operations are not covered by the AOC certification process. Therefore, an AOC holder when conducting SPO missions will have to comply fully with Part-SPO and its associated procedures. This means that the AOC holder must submit a declaration, as well as apply for a high-risk authorisation, if it performs high-risk commercial SPO activities. The aircraft used for the SPO activities are listed on the declaration and in the operations manual.
However, you do not have to submit a declaration, if you operate NCO-SPO i.e. non-commercial specialised operations with other-than complex motor-powered aircraft.
Must an operator holding specific approvals (SPAs) for its CAT operations apply for the same SPAs when it also conducts specialised operations?
Specific approvals (SPA) for mixed operations - Reference: Reg. (EU) No 965/2012 on air operations: ARO.OPS.200(b)
Duplications should be avoided whenever possible. However, a separate SPA approval might be needed if:
(a) for its specialised operations the operator has a different training programme or has different operating procedures;
(b) the validity of the SPA included in the OPSSPECS has expired; or
(c) for its specialised operations the operator will use aircraft that are not included in its AOC and for which it does not have any SPA yet.
The operator does not have to duplicate in its operations manuals the procedures and training for the SPA used for SPO when they are the same as the ones used for CAT operations; a cross-reference, specified in its operations manual, to the place where the training and operating procedures are already detailed, is enough.
Is it allowed to perform specialised operations with a permit-to-fly or is a CofA mandatory at all times?
Permit-to-fly - Reference: Reg. (EU) No 965/2012: ORO.SPO.100 (b); SPO.GEN.140; and NCO.GEN.135
Aircraft used in commercial specialised operations that fall under Part-SPO, must have a certificate of airworthiness (CofA) in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 748/2012 or may be wet leased-in from a third country operator or dry leased-in by an EU operator while being registered in a third country.
For commercial specialised operations as well as for any other specialised operation that fall under Part-SPO, the original certificate of airworthiness (CofA) need to be carried on each SPO flight (SPO.GEN.140 (a) (3)).
According to AMC1 SPO.GEN.140(a)(3) a permit to fly may (PtF) be used in SPO operations, if issued in accordance with the applicable airworthiness requirements and subject to compliance with the flight conditions established by the competent authority.
The applicable airworthiness requirements are those contained in Commission Regulation (EU) No 748/2012 (Part-21 thereof). Part-21 contains a list of purposes for which a PtF may be issued under certain conditions. For example, a mission for air racing may be possible with PtF. Please check with your competent authority if the purpose of the SPO mission complies with that list and those conditions.
For non-commercial specialised operations falling under Part-NCO, NCO.GEN.135 (a) (3) requires the original certificate of airworthiness (CofA) be carried on each flight.
According to AMC1 NCO.GEN.135 (a) (3) a PtF may be used in NCO operations, if issued in accordance with the applicable airworthiness requirements and subject to compliance with the flight conditions established by the competent authority.
The applicable airworthiness requirements are those contained in Part-21. Part-21 contains a list of purposes for which a PtF may be issued under certain conditions. For example, a non-commercial flying activity on individual non-complex aircraft or types for which a certificate of airworthiness or restricted certificate of airworthiness is not appropriate (mainly, but not limited to, the so-called ‘orphan’ aircraft) may be possible with PtF. Please check with your competent authority if the purpose of the SPO mission complies with that list and those conditions.
Can we integrate the processes for a permission under Part-SERA and with high-risk authorisation (HRA) under Part-ARO?
Yes, it is possible, but this decision belongs to the competent authority. Competent authorities may, for example, consider the following option:
- for flights over the congested areas of cities, towns or settlements or over an open-air assembly of persons, issuing only HRA. If such flights are to be operated below 300m, the HRA may integrate the permission under Part-SERA, without a separate procedure; and
- for flights elsewhere and not over an open-air assembly of persons,
- below 150 m, issuing permission under Part-SERA only. This permission may integrate potential risks under Part-SPO;
- above 150 m, requiring neither HRA nor permission.
Can we integrate the processes for a permission under Part-SERA and with high-risk authorisation (HRA) under Part-ARO?
Yes, it is possible, but this decision belongs to the competent authority. Competent authorities may, for example, consider the following option:
- for flights over the congested areas of cities, towns or settlements or over an open-air assembly of persons, issuing only HRA. If such flights are to be operated below 300m, the HRA may integrate the permission under Part-SERA, without a separate procedure; and
- for flights elsewhere and not over an open-air assembly of persons,
- below 150 m, issuing permission under Part-SERA only. This permission may integrate potential risks under Part-SPO;
- above 150 m, requiring neither HRA nor permission.
Can I carry out ‘limited operations’ with aircraft having FC/PtF for NCO ?
Reference: Reg. (EU) No 965/2012 on air operations, Article 6 (4a) and SPO.GEN.005(c)
The term ‘Limited operations’ (used in Regulation (EU) No 2015/1536) refers to certain specialised operations of other-than-complex motor-powered aircraft (SPO-NCO), such as competition flights, flying displays, parachute dropping, sailplane towing and aerobatic flights. Under strict conditions specified in Article 6 (4a) and SPO.GEN.005(c) of Reg. (EU) No 965/2012, those operations may be conducted in accordance with Part-NCO, and in particular subpart E thereof.
AMC1 NCO.GEN.135 (a) (3) specifies that an aircraft may be operated with a permit to fly issued in accordance with the applicable airworthiness requirements.
Thus, in the case of aircraft registered in an EU Member State and used in SPO-NCO, the permit to fly (PtF) is issued in accordance with Commission Regulation (EU) 748/2012 (Part-21 thereof) depending of the purpose.
If the above conditions are met, it is possible to perform the so called ‘Limited operations’ under Part-NCO and its subpart E as long as the aircraft have a PtF for non-commercial flying under Part-21 and the operation is compatible with or is covered by the corresponding flight conditions (FC).
For aircraft registered in a third country, the same applies, except that the PtF/FC must be issued in accordance with that third country legislation.
Does Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 also apply to third-country operators that conduct specialised operations in an EU Member State?
Third country operators – non-EU countries and non-EEE countries - Reference: Reg. (EU) No 965/2012 on air operations
Specialised operations (SPO) performed by third-country operators into, within, or out of the EASA Member States are not subject to Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 (Part-SPO) or Commission Regulation (EU) No 452/2014 (Part-TCO), unless conducted under an approved wet lease-in agreement signed by an EU commercial SPO operator (ORO.SPO.100). For stand-alone third-country SPO, EU law does not require prior safety authorisation for such operations, however those operations (and their aircrew and aircraft) must comply, as per Article 59 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1139, with the applicable ICAO standard – or to the extent that there are no such standards with the essential requirements of the above-mentioned Regulation – as well as EU requirements regarding use of the airspace when operating in the Single European Sky.
In addition, in case the aircraft performing such operations is registered in an EASA Member State, the crew must comply with the EU aircrew requirements, unless responsibilities for the regulatory oversight of the aircraft has been transferred by the EASA Member State to the third country concerned. For further details concerning conditions for conducting SPO by a TCO in EASA Member States, including eventual need for obtaining permits for conducting this type of professional activity, please contact the Member State of the intended operations, as EASA is not responsible for oversight of these type of operations.
Helicopter operations
Do additional equipment for HEC (ropes, harnesses) now require an airworthiness approval?
How do I train the pilots if I plan to operate HEC with a video camera and no mirrors / bubble window?
Which standards are applicable to Helicopter terrain awareness systems (HTAWS)?
Reference: SPA.HOFO.160(c)
HTAWS are currently mandated under SPA.HOFO.160(c), which requires HTAWS to ‘meet the requirements for class A equipment as specified in an acceptable standard’.
The only defined standards for H-TAWS are TSO-C194 and ETSO-C194, which both refer to Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA) document DO-309. Any H-TAWS meeting these standards, or coming with improved features, is acceptable.
UK CAP 1519 specifications are considered to introduce improvements to the existing standards. They are designed to reduce false warnings. They also introduce Helicopter Flight Envelope Warnings (H-FEWs) in addition to basic HTAWS functions. A CAP 1519 compliant HTAWS is therefore acceptable.
The HTAWS rulemaking task (RMT.708) may change the requirements for HTAWS in the future.
Special Categories of Passengers (SCPs)
Who is an SCP?
References: Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 is available on EUR-Lex website. Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 and Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 and the study EASA 2008.C.25 are available on EASA website.
SCPs are passengers who, when carried on a flight, require special conditions, assistance and/or devices and their situation needs appropriate attention and adaptation to their particular needs. These passengers shall not be allocated, nor occupy, seats that permit direct access to emergency exits or where their presence could impede crew members in their duties, obstruct access to emergency equipment or impede evacuation of the aircraft.
Under the EU law, aircraft operators are ultimately responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft and for the safety of passengers on board. Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on air operations mandates the operator (airline) to establish procedures for its air operation. The operator’s procedures, and the operator’s activities overall, are under the oversight of the Competent Authority (CA) of the individual EU Member State. The CA has the necessary powers and allocated responsibilities for the certification and oversight of persons and organisations subject to Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 and its implementing rules.
The EU rule on SCPs states the following:
The rule is complemented by Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC) and Guidance Material (GM) which address aspects such as the factors the operator should take into account when establishing procedures for carriage of SCPs, information provided to SCPs, conditions for safe carriage of unaccompanied children, a passenger capable of assisting in case of an emergency, seating allocation, etc. The EU provisions are available on EASA website (the link ‘Easy Access Rules for Air Operations’ contains the rule and the AMCs and GMs in one document):
https://www.easa.europa.eu/regulations#regulations-air-operations
The rules for air operations on SCPs have been developed under the EASA rulemaking tasks RMT.0269/0270 involving a rulemaking group. The track of this rulemaking activity is available on EASA website:
Terms of Reference (ToR) MDM.072 (a) & (b) (RMT.0269 & RMT.0270):
https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-library/terms-of-reference-and-group-compositions/tor-mdm072-b-rmt0269-rmt0270
Notice of Proposed Amendment NPA 2014-01
https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-library/rulemaking-subjects/carriage-special-categories-passengers-scps
Comment Response Document CRD 2014-01
https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-library/comment-response-documents/crd-2014-01
ED Decision 2016/004/R
https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-library/agency-decisions/ed-decision-2016004r
Study on Carriage by Air of Special Categories of Passengers (SCPs), EASA 2008.C.25:
https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-library/research-projects/easa2008c25
Additional information
Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Union Aviation Safety Agency specifies the mandate entrusted to EASA by the European Parliament and by the Council:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32018R1139
Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council contains the European provisions on rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility (PRMs) when travelling by air: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM:l24132 . Questions on this regulation should be addressed to the European Commission.
I am tall or have other circumstances. Do I belong to the group of SCPs?
References: Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 is available on EUR-Lex website. Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 and the study EASA 2008.C.25 are available on EASA website.
Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility (PRMs) when travelling by air does not include the height of an individual in the definition of ‘disability or a person with reduced mobility’. Hence, the EU rules on air operations - Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 - do not include a height of an individual (i.e. a tall passenger) in the ‘special categories of passengers (SCPs)’.
Air operators are free to order from an aircraft manufacturer an aircraft cabin/seat configuration they wish, provided that such cabin/seat configuration meets the certification safety requirements. The space between seat rows (so-called ‘seat-pitch’) is a matter of aircraft certification process*. *Questions on aircraft certification matters should be addressed to EASA Certification Directorate.
EASA has conducted a study on Carriage by air of special categories of passengers, reference EASA 2008.C.25, which, amongst others, concludes that aircraft designers must take into account the increasing percentage of tall passengers. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32018R1139
There may be passengers who do not fall into the category specified by the EU regulations on PRMs and SCPs referenced above, however they may have certain individual circumstances where intervention of the air operator or the Competent Authority may be beneficial or required. Most airlines offer various forms of assistance to passengers with certain requirements. For example, persons suffering from certain specific allergies (not necessarily food-related) are not considered disabled and do not fall into the SCP category either. However, passengers with any such circumstances may contact the operator, or the Competent Authority, to seek a solution prior to their travel.
Level of Involvement (LOI)
What is the expected timeframe for the introduction of the level of involvement concept at the Agency?
In March 2015, EASA issued the first Notice of Proposed Amendment, which is the document issued by EASA to propose a change to the regulation and get the feedback from all stakeholders.
The Agency received 350 comments, that are now being analysed and taken into account in drafting the final Opinion that will go to the European Commission
Early 2016, EASA expects to issue an Opinion, which is a formal proposal made to the European Commission, the body entitled to change the impacted regulation.
The European Commission has its own review process, hence an update of regulation EU 748/2012 and its annex (Part-21) in order to introduce the level of involvement concept is not foreseen before 2017.
Airspace Usage requirements
Airspace Usage requirement (ACAS II v7.1)
What does the Commission Regulation (EU) No 1332/2011 require by 01 December 2015?
By 01 December 2015 aircraft with an individual certificate of airworthiness issued before the 1st of March 2012 shall be equipped with collision avoidance logic version 7.1 (ACAS II V7.1) .
Is it possible to be exempt from the requirement to be equipped with collision avoidance logic version 7.1 ( ACAS II V7.1) for a limited period of time, for only one flight, for the execution of a ferry flight per maintenance purposes, for the execution of a non-commercial air transport flight (i.e. general aviation flight) or for a State flight? And what if I have technical difficulties to upgrade my aircraft before 01/12/2015?
Compliance with Commission Regulation (EU) No 1332/2011 is required by 01 December 2015 and no general exemptions provisions were included in the regulation that would permit continued operations or for the execution of a single flight, for whatever reason. Furthermore, the regulation does not distinguish the nature of the flight, therefore all flight with aircraft above 5700 kg or authorise to carry more than 19 passengers are within the scope of the regulation.
However, if operation within European Airspace with a non-compliant aircraft after the 01/12/2015 is necessary and an upgrade to ACAS II version 7.1 has been planned, it may be possible, based on Article 71 of the Basic Regulation for an exemption to be issued for a limited duration of time. Dependent upon the aircraft registration and the authority responsible for its operations will dictate from whom the exemption has to be requested.
- If the aircraft is registered in an EU member state or is registered in a third country and an EU member state is responsible for the operations, an Article 71 exemption from the national aviation authority responsible for the operation should be requested.
- If the aircraft is not on a European register or a non EU state is responsible the operational approval, exemptions need to be requested from each European State in whose airspace the aircraft is intended to be operated.
In both cases no Permit to Fly is necessary. Finally, operators should be aware that the likelihood of receiving such an exemption from each and every member state is very limited. However, in accordance with Article 3(2) of the regulation, states shall ensure that operation of state aircraft comply with the objective of regulation, therefore states may introduce specific measures to meet these objectives.
I voluntarily installed ACAS II V7.0 on my aircraft even it was not required to. Do I have to upgrade to ACAS II V7.1?
Operators that have voluntarily installed TCAS II 7.0 prior to the applicable effective dates of the Commission Regulation 1332/2011 are not affected. They do not need to upgrade their aircraft to ACAS II V7.1, but any 'new' voluntary installations must install ACAS II V7.1.
Airspace Usage requirements – DLS/CPDLC (controller-pilot data link communication)
Where do I find a copy of the Commission Regulation (EC) No 29/2009 known as the DLS IR?
The Commission Regulation (EC) No 29/2009 can be found on the EASA website on the ‘Regulations’ page under:
The latest consolidated version can be found on EUR-Lex:
What is the DLS IR applicability?
The DLS IR is applicable to all IFR (Instrument flight rule) GAT (general air traffic) flights operating above FL 285 within airspace as identified in Annex I of the regulation.
What is the DLS IR mandating for operators?
The DLS IR mandates CPDLC (controller pilot data link communication) capability for aircraft operating above FL 285. Aircraft capability is understood as the aircraft being properly equipped and fight crew appropriately trained as agreed with the operator’s Competent Authority.
Note: CPDLC operation does not require a specific approval in accordance with Part-SPA of the Commission Regulation (EU) 965/2012.
If my aircraft installation is compliant with the DLS IR requirements, however the flight crew is not trained, what do I indicate in the flight plan?
As CPDLC capability requires both aircraft equipage and appropriately trained flight crew, if one of these conditions is not fulfilled, operators should not indicate CPDLC ATN (Aeronautical Telecommunication Network) VDL (Very High Frequency Data Link) Mode 2 capability in the flight plan. Furthermore, in that case operators should not plan flights above FL285 in the applicable airspace.
If I am not compliant with the DLS IR requirements, may I file the flight plan above FL 285?
DLS IR mandates CPDLC capability for aircraft operating above FL 285. If such capability does not exist (aircraft is not equipped or crew is not trained) and if the aircraft is not exempted, flight plan should indicate flight profiles below FL 285 within the airspace where the DLS IR is applicable.
Is the CPDLC equipage requirement mandatory only for EU operators?
The DLS IR is an airspace requirement and is applicable for all IFR GAT flights operating above FL285. This includes all flights operated by EU and Non EU operators within the airspace defined in Annex I, regardless the State of registration.
Is there specific technology I need to use to demonstrate compliance with the DLS IR?
The performance required by the DLS IR is that defined in the Eurocae standard ED-120 - ‘Safety and Performance Requirements Standard for Air Traffic Data Link Services in Continental Airspace’). The technology currently and consistently deployed in Europe to meet this required performance is ATN VDL Mode 2 (as defined in the ICAO Annex 10 — Aeronautical Telecommunications — Volume III, Part I (Digital Data Communication Systems).
If I use CPDLC via FANS-1/A am I compliant with the DLS IR?
CPDLC via FANS-1/A cannot ensure the performance requirements mandated through the DLS IR, the only system currently capable to achieve this is ATNVDL Mode 2. Additionally, the FANS 1/A versus ATN B1 CPDLC message set may be different (i.e. certain messages not used) within a certain operational context.
Note 1: FANS-1/A are CPDLC capable installation designed in accordance with the relevant interoperability specifications in Eurocae standard ED-100/ED-100A.
Note 2: Aircraft with a first CofA prior to 1 January 2018 and equipped with FANS 1/A data link prior to this date are exempted from compliance.
Do I need to indicate my ATN VDL Mode 2 CPDLC capability in the flight plan?
If the aircraft has ATN VDL Mode 2 CPDLC capability and the crew are appropriately trained, the operator should enter the J1 designator in item 10 of the flight plan in accordance with the provisions of the ICAO PANS-ATM (ICAO Doc 4444 ‘Procedures for Air Navigation Services (PANS-ATM)’, Sixteen Edition 2016), as transposed by the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1033/2006 on ‘requirements on procedures for flight plans in the pre-flight phase for the single European sky’.
How do I demonstrate my aircraft’s compliance with the DLS IR?
One means to demonstrate compliance with the DLS IR is to have evidence that the aircraft design is compliant with CS-ACNS (Certification Specifications and acceptance means of compliance - Airborne Communications, Navigation and Surveillance).
Such evidence of compliance can normally be found in the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM)
CS-ACNS is a means, however not the only means to comply with the DLS IR.
If there is no relevant statement in the AFM, operators should check with the type certificate holders (TCHs) or the supplemental type certificate holders (STCHs) as to the CPDLC installation compliance details.
- Link to CS-ACNS
Is there a requirement for operators to ensure that their aircraft’s CPDLC installation is multi-frequency capable?
Airborne multi-frequency capability is a requirement as stated in Article 6 ‘Obligations of operators for data link communications’ of the DLS IR through reference to ICAO Annex 10 Volume III, where the need for “auto-tune” capability (also known as multi-frequency) is addressed.
EASA SIB 2019-13 ‘Controller Pilot Data Link Communications over Very High Frequency Data Link Mode 2 – Airborne Multi-Frequency Capability’, provides more information and recommendations on this topic.
- Link to EASA SIB 2018-13
How can I determine if my aircraft is CPDLC multi-frequency capable?
Operators can check:
- the AFM, which should contain a statement such as “The aircraft ATC Data Link system does support multi-frequency operation as defined in ARINC Specification 631-5.” or
- directly with the type certificate holder (TCH) or with the supplemental type certificate holder (STCH) if the system was installed by an STCH. or
- check the aircraft documentation for the indication that the system supports CPDLC multi-frequency operation (e.g. ARINC Specification 631-5 or higher)
Does my aircraft need to be listed on the aircraft CPDLC ‘white list’ or ‘log-on list’ to be compliant with the DLS IR?
An aircraft is technically compliant with the DLS IR if it has been demonstrated that the aircraft datalink installation is compliant with CS-ACNS, no further demonstration of compliance is required. Being included in the so-called ‘white list’ or ‘log-on list’ is not a regulatory requirement.
Is my aircraft supposed to be able to record CPDLC communications?
On board recording of CPDLC messages is required, however, this depends upon age and operations undertaken.
For European operators, compliance with the communication recording capability in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 is required for newly manufactured aircraft as follows:
- on or after 08 April 2014 for CAT operations
- on or after 01 January 2016 for other-than-CAT operations
For Third Country Operators (TCO), compliance with the requirements of ICAO Annex 6 is required (i.e. newly manufactured aircraft on or after 01 January 2016 and new CPDLC installations).
Are there any exemptions available for operators through the regulatory framework of the DLS IR?
The DLS IR provides operators with a number of conditions under which permanent exemptions (where applicable) from the requirement to equip with data link capability are possible.
These conditions can be summarised as follows:
- operator/aircraft falls under one of the criteria listed in Article 3(3) of the DLS IR, or
- the aircraft type/model is listed EC Implementing Decision 2019/2012
Even if the DLS IR equipage requirements are not applicable for some operators, they may still choose to comply with the DLS IR. In this case, compliance with all applicable parts of the DLS IR is expected.
Do I need to communicate to EASA or any other organisation that my aircraft is meeting the criteria for exemptions and is hence exempted?
There is no formal reporting requirement for an operator if their aircraft meet one of the exemption conditions as defined in Article 3(3) of the DLS IR, or the aircraft type/model is listed EC Implementing Decision 2019/2012. However, it is recommended that operators advise their National Aviation Authority where the aircraft is registered.
Operators should reflect the CPDLC exemption status in the flight plan as detailed in EASA SIB 2020-03.
How should I reflect the CPDLC exempted status in the flight plan?
The operator should declare its CPDLC exempt status when filling the flight plan by including letter “Z” in item 10 and the indicator “DAT/CPDLCX” in item 18 of each flight plan.
For further details on how to reflect the CPDLC exempt status in the flight plan please check the EASA SIB 2020-03.
If I have CPDLC equipment, which is temporarily inoperative, can I benefit from a DLS IR temporary exemptions?
In accordance with Article 3(3) flights with equipment temporarily inoperative may continue to operate within the applicable airspace. However, these operations are to be within the limits and conditions of the MEL (Minimum Equipment List), and the flight plan should also reflect that the aircraft is exempt during this temporary inoperative period.
If the operator decides to declare its CPDLC exempt status, flight plan should reflect that the aircraft is exempted by including letter “Z” in item 10 and the indicator “DAT/CPDLCX” in item 18 of each flight plan.
For further details on how to reflect the CPDLC exempt status in the flight plan please check the EASA SIB 2020-03.
Where can I find more information on MEL for CPDLC?
Conditions for operation and rectification interval should be in accordance with the operator’s MEL that is approved by the operators National Aviation Authority. As such, we recommend you initially contact your National Aviation Authority. Note that the MEL is based on the MMEL specific for the aircraft/model and cannot be less restrictive.
Specific information regarding the MMEL for aircraft type/model can be obtained from the aircraft Type Certificate Holder (TCH) or Supplemental Type Certificate Holder (STCH)
For any further information on MMEL please send your request to mmel [at] easa.europa.eu.
I have a delivery flight from an aircraft manufacturer and I will fly through the airspace where CPDLC equipage is mandated. Is my flight restricted below FL285 within the airspace affected or can I benefit from exemption?
Delivery flights are exempted in accordance with Article 3(3) of the DLS IR. You may operate above FL 285, however, your flight plan should reflect that the aircraft is exempted by including letter “Z” in item 10 and the indicator “DAT/CPDLCX” in item 18 of each flight plan.
For further details on how to reflect the CPDLC exempt status in the flight plan please check the EASA SIB 2020-03.
If my aircraft is compliant with the DLS IR and the flight crew trained, however my aircraft also qualifies for CPDLC exemptions, what shall I insert in the flight plan?
If the operator voluntarily decides to comply with DLS IR (aircraft capable + crew trained), J1 designator should be used in item 10 of the flight plan in accordance with ICAO PANS-ATM. In this case, even of the aircraft is eligible for CPDLC exemption, the flight plan should not reflect CPDLC exempt status.
If the operator decides to declare its CPDLC exempt status, flight plan should reflect that the aircraft is exempted by including letter “Z” in item 10 and the indicator “DAT/CPDLCX” in item 18 of each flight plan.
In this case, J1 designator should not be used in the flight plan even if the aircraft is technically capable. Nonetheless, if properly equipped and compliant with the DLS IR, operators are encouraged to use the CPDLC capability on board.
For further details on how to reflect the CPDLC exempt status in the flight plan please check the EASA SIB 2020-03.
Airspace requirements – SPI (Surveillance performance and interoperability)
Where do I find a copy of the Commission Regulation (EU) No 1207/2011 laying down requirements for the performance and the interoperability of surveillance for the Single European Sky (SES) which is known as the SPI IR?
A copy of the regulation and its amendments can be found on the EASA website on the ‘Regulations’ page under:
The latest consolidated copy of the SPI IR can be found on EUR-Lex:
Are there any acceptable means of compliance (AMC) and guidance material (GM) to the SPI IR?
AMC and GM to the SPI IR can be found on EASA website on the ‘Regulations’ page under ATM/ANS interoperability - Air Traffic Management/Air Navigation Services.
Link to the AMC/GM to the SPI IR:
What is the scope of the SPI IR with regards to airspace users?
The SPI IR is applicable to all operators, operating as general air traffic (GAT) under instrument flight rules (IFR), that are conducting flights in the Single European Sky (SES) airspace.
It is also applicable to all other operators, operating as GAT in the SES airspace, whose aircraft are equipped with Mode S transponders.
What is the deadline to equip my aircraft with a Mode S transponder?
Operators operating as general air traffic under instrument flight rules are required to equip their aircraft with Mode S transponders, in accordance with the SPI IR requirements by the following deadlines:
Aircraft with a first CofA issued prior to 7 June 1995:
- Aircraft with a first CofA issued prior to 7 June 1995, have to be:
- ELS capable prior to 7 December 2020
Aircraft with a first CofA issued on or after 7 June 1995:
- Aircraft with a MTOM of 5700 kg or less and with a maximum cruising TAS 250 kts or less have to be:
- ELS capable prior to 7 December 2020
- Rotorcraft (e.g. helicopters) with a MTOM exceeding 5700 kg or with a maximum cruising TAS greater than 250 kts have to be:
- ELS capable prior to 7 December 2020,
and - ADS-B out capable prior to 7 December 2020 or 7 June 2023 (where there is a retrofit programme in place prior to 7 December 2020)
- ELS capable prior to 7 December 2020,
- Fixed wing aircraft (aeroplanes) with a MTOM exceeding 5700 kg or with a maximum cruising TAS greater than 250 kts have to be :
- ELS capable prior to 7 December 2020,
and - ADS-B out capable prior to 7 December 2020 or 7 June 2023 (where there is a retrofit programme in place prior to 7 December 2020)
and - EHS capable prior to 7 December 2020 or 7 June 2023 (where there is a retrofit programme in place prior to 7 December 2020)
- ELS capable prior to 7 December 2020,
CofA means certificate of airworthiness.
ELS means Mode S elementary surveillance capability.
EHS means Mode S enhanced surveillance capability.
MTOM means maximum certified take-off mass.
TAS means true air speed.
Further information can be found in the AMC and GM to the SPI IR.
Does the SPI IR mandate only ADS-B out capability?
The SPI IR does not only mandate ADS-B out capability, but also requires Mode S elementary surveillance (‘ELS’) equipage, and depending on the aircraft characteristics ‘Mode S enhanced surveillance (‘EHS’) equipage. (see previous question on implementation deadlines)
The equipage requirements as defined in Article 5(5) (a), (b) and (c) provide a progressively more demanding installation requirements depending upon aircraft characteristics. Details of these requirements can be found in Annex II Part A, Part B and Part C of the SPI IR.
For further information, please consult AMC2 of Article 5.
Is the SPI IR equipage requirements mandatory only for EU operators?
The SPI IR is an airspace requirement that is applicable to all GAT operations undertaken by EU and Non EU operators, within the Single European Sky (SES) airspace, regardless of the State of operator.
How do I demonstrate my aircraft is in compliance with the SPI IR?
The aircraft capability is to be compliant with the requirements defined in points (5) (a), (b) and (c) of Article 5 and in particular in Part A, Part B and Part C of Annex II.
AMC2 of Article 5 on ‘Interoperability requirements’ contains further information on how to comply with these requirements.
Evidence of compliance can normally be found in the Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM) or as a Flight Manual Supplement.
If there is no relevant statement in the AFM, operators should contact with the type certificate holders (TCHs) or the supplemental type certificate holders (STCHs).
Does the SPI IR allow operators to postpone implementation?
The SPI IR permits a deferral of the compliance deadline, through transitional arrangements, to 7 June 2023, for aircraft with a first Certificate of Airworthiness issued prior to 7 December 2020 for the installation of ADS-B out or ADS-B out and Mode S Enhanced Surveillance (EHS) only.
These transitional arrangement are:
- a retrofit programme is established prior to 7 December 2020 , that demonstrates compliance with the ADS-B out or ADS-B out and EHS requirements;
- aircraft operators have not benefitted from any Union funding granted to bring such aircraft in compliance with the ADS-B out or EHS and ADS-B out requirements.
For further information, please consult AMC3 of Article 5.
Does the SPI IR allow for any exemptions from the mandatory equipage requirements?
There are no exemptions possibilities provided for in the SPI IR.
Although some stakeholders would refer to them as equipage ‘exemptions’, Article 5(5) provides some relief from compliance with the ADS-B out and with ADS-B out and EHS (for fixed wing aircraft) requirements for aircraft with a maximum certified take-off mass exceeding 5700 kg or with a max cruising true air speed greater than 250 kts, when the aircraft meets at least one of the following conditions:
- aircraft received their first CofA prior to 7 June 1995,
- aircraft are flown to undergo maintenance,
- aircraft are flown for export,
- aircraft operation ceases in the Single European Sky by 31 October 2025.
It should be noted that for all the above cases, compliance with Mode S ELS equipage is required, in accordance with Article 5(5) (a).
Further details are provided in the GM4 Article 5 Interoperability requirements.
Do I need to submit my retrofit programme to EASA or my competent authority for approval?
SPI IR does not require operators to submit their retrofit programmes to EASA or their competent authority for approval, in order to benefit from a deferred compliance in accordance with the conditions specified in Article 5(5).
For further details, please see AMC 3 Article 5 on transitional arrangements.
However, operators should have the retrofit programme and required evidence in place prior to 7 December 2020 and make it available upon request to their competent authority.
Do I need to notify EASA that my aircraft benefits from retrofit programme implementation deferral or is ‘exempt’?
SPI IR does not require operators to notify EASA, or any other entity, that their aircraft benefit from the transitional arrangements (retrofit programme).
Also notification is not required in the cases where the certain equipage requirements of the SPI IR are not applicable (e.g. aircraft flown to undergo maintenance, for export or when operation ceases in the Single European Sky by 31 October 2025).
Nonetheless, the appropriate equipage and operational status, including the correct designator for the functioning surveillance systems, should be indicated in the flight plan.
How should I reflect in the flight plan the status of my aircraft that are benefiting from the transitional arrangements?
The appropriate equipage and operational status, including the correct designator for the functioning surveillance systems, should be inserted in items 10b and 18 of the flight plan accordingly.
Operators of aircraft, which are not equipped with Mode S EHS and/or ADS-B out, making use of the retrofit programme deferral provision, should insert the designators SUR/EUADSBX or SUR/EUEHSX or a combination thereof, in Item 18 of the flight plan.
For information on the correct designators to be used for the functioning surveillance systems, to be indicated in item 10b of the flight plan, please refer to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1033/2006.
For further information, please check AMC1 Article 14a Flight Plans.
If I have a transponder function, which is temporarily inoperative, may I continue to operate?
Article 5(5) of the SPI IR defines the conditions to allow limited operations in Single European Sky airspace, where the required capability is temporary inoperative.
The specific relief of 3 consecutive days is only applicable for the ADS-B out or ADS-B out and Mode S EHS capability being inoperative. No relief is provided for inoperative Mode S ELS systems. Operations are to be within these limits and under the conditions specific in the operators MEL (Minimum Equipment List).
The flight plan shall reflect that the aircraft is not compliant during this temporary inoperative period by inserting SUR/EUADSBX or SUR/EUEHSX or a combination of thereof, as necessary, in Item 18 of the flight plan. The remaining functioning surveillance capability should be indicated in the flight plan field 10b as appropriate.
For further information, please see AMC1 Article 14a Flight Plans.
Is there any more information on MEL for the SPI IR?
Conditions for operations in the Single European Sky airspace with temporarily inoperative transponder function can be found in Article 5(5) of the SPI IR. Such conditions could be potentially supplemented by conditions for operation and rectification interval as required by the operators’ Competent Authority (CA). We recommend you initially contact your CA. It should also be noted that the MEL is based on the Master Minimum Equipment LIST (MMEL) specific for the aircraft/model and cannot be less restrictive.
You can find specific information regarding the MMEL for your aircraft type/model from the aircraft Type Certificate Holder (TCH).
If your surveillance equipment (transponder) has been installed using a Supplemental Type Certificate (STC), you should contact the STC holder (STCH) to obtain the relevant information and documentation.
With regards to EASA documentation, CS-MMEL Issue 2 (Certification Specifications and guidance material for Master Minimum Equipment List), includes the references to the changes introduced by the amendment to the SPI IR.
For any further information on MMEL please send your request to mmel [at] easa.europa.eu.
Airspace Usage Requirements - PBN (Performance-based navigation)
What is the geographical scope of the PBN IR? In what airspace does the Regulation apply?
The PBN IR introduces the gradual implementation of PBN flight procedures to support safer, greener, and more efficient aircraft operations. The Regulation is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all European Union (EU) Member States. More concretely, it applies in the airspace described in points (a) and (b) of Article 1(2), i.e.:
- over the territory where the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) applies;
- in any other airspace where Member States are responsible for the provision of air traffic services (ATS) within the ICAO EUR and AFI regions.
Member States may also apply the PBN IR in other ICAO regions, on condition that they inform the Commission and the other Member States.
The PBN IR may already apply or become applicable in other States with which the EU has signed binding agreements that require compliance with EU legislation in the field of civil aviation or its transposition into national law, e.g., European Economic Area (EEA), European Free Trade Area (EFTA), and the European Common Aviation Area (ECAA) Agreements. In this regard, the PBN is already binding in all EASA Member States and will equally apply in the Western Balkans, i.e., Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Kosovo (without prejudice to positions on status, which is in line with UN Security Council Resolution 1244(1999) and the International Court of Justice Opinion on the Kosovo Declaration of Independence).
In addition, the PBN IR applies in several overseas territories (see the TFEU) and in a number of other overseas territories where special arrangements for association apply. To find out more about the status of applicability in a particular airspace, it is recommended to contact the Aviation Authorities of the State concerned.
Can conventional navigation procedures be used after 6 June 2030?
The PBN IR expressly excludes the use of conventional navigation procedures as from 6 June of 2030, except in the event of PBN contingencies, i.e., situations where, for unexpected reasons beyond the control of ATM/ANS service providers, GNSS or other methods used for performance-based navigation are no longer available.
From 6 June 2030, PBN will be the normal means of navigation, supplemented with navigation supported by CAT II/III landing systems, where necessary.
Is EGNOS the only SBAS to be considered for the implementation of RNP APCH procedures down to LPV minima?
The PBN IR requires implementation of approach procedures to LPV minima on condition that they are within an appropriate SBAS coverage provided by a certified service provider.
European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service (EGNOS) is mentioned as a possibility, as the SBAS coverage may be available through other augmentation systems due to geographical considerations. In this regard, Recital (5) states the following: “the use of satellite-based augmentation systems (SBAS), in particular in the form of the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service (EGNOS), should be promoted”.
Since the PBN IR requirements are generic, they do not limit the deployment to areas where EGNOS coverage exists.
The guidance material published by EASA (Annex II to ED Decision 2018/013/R) refers to EGNOS, as the navigation service provider has been certified by EASA and the service covers most of the locations where the PBN IR applies.
Does the PBN IR require the publication of SBAS approach procedures down to CAT I minima (LPV-200)? Are higher LPV minima acceptable?
The PBN IR requires the publication of localiser performance with vertical guidance (LPV) minima, without an explicit reference to category I (CAT I) minima.
The publication of 3D approach procedures based on SBAS may not enable precision approach operations down to CAT I minima at all locations. In this regard, the actual LPV minima will depend on the performance of the SBAS service around the aerodrome (i.e., availability of the EGNOS APV-I or LPV-200 service level), the aerodrome infrastructure, and the application of the flight procedure design criteria.
Are CAT I approach procedures to be based solely on SBAS as from 6 June 2030? Can landing systems (ILS/GLS) still be used to enable CAT I approach operations after the deadline?
As the PBN IR requires exclusive use of PBN after 6 June 2030, SBAS will be the normal means to enable approach operations to CAT I minima. A minimum number of the existing instrument landing systems (ILS) will continue to enable operations to CAT I minima in the event of PBN contingencies, which, in this case, refer to situations where, for unexpected reasons beyond the control of ATM/ANS service providers, SBAS approaches are no longer available.
GBAS landing systems (GLS) CAT I procedures are out of the scope of the PBN IR, since they are neither PBN nor conventional approach procedures; hence, GLS CAT I procedures can be used in normal conditions and without limitations after 6 June 2030.
Are helicopter-only procedures required at heliports?
Landing surfaces other than instrument runways are not addressed by the PBN IR. In this regard, heliports having their own landing areas to operate, i.e., FATO and TLOF, rather than runways, are not within scope of the PBN IR. Instrument approach procedures, standard instrument departures (SID) and standard arrival routes (STAR) at heliports are excluded from the PBN IR, and, therefore, there are no specific requirements for CAT H procedures at locations where there are no instrument runways, i.e., locations dedicated to helicopter-only operations.
Are specific approach procedures for helicopters (CAT H approach procedures) required by the PBN IR?
It should be noted that helicopters may approach down to instrument runways by using instrument approach procedures designed for CAT A aeroplanes. Additionally, at the same runway where aeroplanes operate, specific procedures designed for helicopters and designated as CAT H may be available. Where helicopter-only procedures (CAT H) are available to approach a runway, these are normally designed and authorised for airspeeds lower than those established for Category A aeroplanes to take advantage of helicopter capabilities. In those cases, Category H procedures should not be promulgated on the same charts as joint helicopter/aeroplane procedures.
When helicopters operate down to the same instrument runways as aeroplanes, the corresponding flight procedures (CAT A or CAT H) are addressed by the PBN IR and should be compliant by the 2020 or the 2024 deadline, as applicable.
How does the repeal of COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 716/2014 impact the implementation of PBN in the single European sky?
The repeal of Regulation (EU) No 716/2014 (the ‘PCP Regulation’) resulted in the deletion of the ATM functionality No1 (AF#1) with a view to avoiding inconsistencies and duplication of PBN requirements in the European Union’s legislation. Consequently, the PBN IR has become the only PBN regulatory reference in the EU.
The repeal brings additional flexibility for planning purposes, as implementers of standard instrument departures (SID) and standard arrival routes (STAR) in terminal manoeuvring areas (TMA), previously referred to in the PCP Regulation, can now choose between RNP 1 routes and RNAV 1 routes, depending on local performance needs. In addition, the implementation of arrival and departure routes within the terminal airspace of the airports referred to in point 1.2.1 of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 716/2014 (known as PCP airports) is subject to the same deadlines as any other aerodrome targeted by the PBN IR. Hence, the implementation of SID and STAR at PCP airports can take place gradually, i.e., it should also start with the replacement of, at least, one established arrival/departure route by 25 January 2024 and finish with the replacement of all routes with RNAV 1 or RNP 1 routes by 6 June 2030, except if retained in support of PBN contingencies, i.e., except in situations where, for unexpected reasons beyond their control, PBN SID and STAR are no longer available.
As for PBN approaches at PCP airports runways, implementation of procedures in accordance with the requirements of the RNP approach (RNP APCH) specification can be postponed until 25 January 2024.
Third Country Operators (TCO)
In case the answer you were looking for in this FAQ section is not available: you might submit your enquiry here.
Third Country Operators - General
Are approvals obtained in the field of aviation security (e.g., ACC3) considered in the TCO authorisation process?
No. TCO is a flight safety (not an 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 (reinforced cockpit door, security training programs, etc.). ACC3 is subject to a separate EU regulation that is unrelated to the TCO Regulation.
How long should we expect the process to take for the initial TCO authorisation?
Although article TCO.300 (b)(1) of the TCO Regulation requires operators to submit their application at least 30 days before the intended starting date of operation, it is highly recommended to submit the application well in advance of the intended operation in order to allow for sufficient lead time for the technical assessment. Pursuant to article ART.200(b), EASA shall complete the assessment within 30 days, after the operator has submitted a complete application and has submitted all relevant material requested by the Agency. . Where EASA decides to conduct further assessments, to invite operators for a meeting or to perform an on-site audit, the timeline of 30 days does not apply and the TCO authorisation process can take several months, especially where the technical assessment results in findings that must be closed before EASA can issue the authorisation.
How is the economic aspect of the approval (commercial traffic rights - air services agreement) split from the EASA Safety oversight element?
EASA TCO only takes over the safety-related part of foreign operator assessment, whereas operating permits (commercial traffic rights) will continue to be issued by individual Member States. EASA does not (and cannot) issue operating permits and these remain an area of national responsibility. A valid TCO Authorisation is a prerequisite before a Member State can issue an operating permit.
Does EASA collect any fees or charges to operators under Part-TCO?
For the vast majority of Third Country Operators (TCOs), the process to obtain an EASA TCO authorisation remains entirely free of charge. Flat fees apply for specific activities performed in the context of the initial authorisation and continuous monitoring of TCOs. In 2023 the following charges apply. The amounts are subject to annual update in accordance with EASA’ Fees and Charges Regulation (EU) 2019/2153.
- 11.060 Euro (flat fee) for technical meetings held at EASA’s headquarters in Cologne, and
- 21.014 Euro (flat fee) plus staff travel costs for on-site visits to third country operators.
EASA organizes technical meetings and on-site visits only when deemed necessary, according to the criteria set in the TCO Regulation and following a risk-based approach.
Applications for TCO a Authorisation
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 your organisation’s Master User for the TCO web-interface. This Master User may register and manage additional Users within your organisation.. EASA recommends that for redundancy reasons at least two users are registered for each operator.
What is the responsibility of the operator’s focal point the so-called TCO Master User?
The Master User (MU) is the User EASA’s primary point of contact and shall be an agent or employee of the organisation, duly authorised/empowered by senior management to represent the operator. He/she should have direct access to technical information. Therefore, remotely located personnel (e.g. station managers) or lawyers/consultants are not ideal candidates to act as MU and often cause delays in the process.
The MU is the only user that has the privilege to submit technical questionnaires to EASA. An operator can only appoint one MU. The MU is responsible for the administration and management of the organisations’ staff users’ accounts. For redundancy reasons the MU shall appoint at least one staff user.
The MU shall terminate access of staff users to the web-interface upon termination of employment with the current employer when access to the TCO web interface is not needed or following a breach of any of the policies governing the “Terms of Reference” of the web-interface.
When the MU intends to terminate function, he/she shall coordinate the succession with EASA.
The MU shall maintain technical data submitted to EASA current at all times, (e.g., aircraft types, individual airframes, relevant certificates). The MU shall always be attentive to the email notifications received from the TCO web-interface (even after the initial issuance of the authorisation).
The MU is responsible for the follow up of non-compliance findings where applicable.
Furthermore, the MU should ensure that a proper system is put in place to respond/act immediately upon receipt of ‘TCO Alert’ messages, which are triggered when an aircraft submits a flight plan to EU territories for an aircraft that is not (yet) authorised under Part-TCO.
How do we get our EASA TCO authorisation document when the authorisation process is completed?
Once your technical data has been reviewed and processed (and the outcome is positive) you will receive the original EASA TCO authorisation document as hard copy and in pdf format along with the specifications that are associated with the authorisation. Furthermore, the documents will be published on the TCO web-interface..
The authorisation remains valid subject to the conditions specified in the associated technical specifications which are published electronically.
Where can I find the TCO technical specifications associated with my TCO authorisation?
The latest TCO technical specifications associated with your TCO authorisation and the list of authorised aircraft will always be available on-line in the TCO web-interface when you are authorised.
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.
What are the technical requirements needed to access the EASA TCO web interface?
You will need internet access and an internet browser. The EASA TCO web-interface supports the most common 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 computer. This can be downloaded free-of-charge from http://www.adobe.com.
Will Member States or EASA be responsible for the authorisation of special approvals, e.g. for Low Visibility Operations (LVO)?
When an operator receives the TCO authorisation from EASA, the authorisation is accompanied by technical specifications. Normally, EASA will authorise the operator to perform all types of operation for flights to the EU, for which the operator holds an approval from its competent authority (e.g. LVO, EDTO, PBN, DG). Where necessary, EASA will exclude certain operations, by means of a technical limitation. The scope of the TCO authorisation can never exceed the scope of operations approved in the underlying air operator certificate (AOC) (Operations Specifications) issued by the competent authority of the operator.
Whenever there is a difference between the operations specifications associated to AOC and the specification associated to scope and privileges granted in the TCO Authorisation, the more limiting specification one should apply (AMC1 TCO200(b)).
Is there any effect on an operator who applies for a TCO authorisation if an EASA Member State is not ICAO compliant with a specific ICAO standard?
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 has granted an exemption upon application of the operator in accordance with Article 76(4) of the Basic Regulation (EU) No 2018/1139. (GM1 TCO.200(a).
Are EU Member States involved in related processes?
Individual EU Member States no longer perform their own safety assessments of third country operators as part of the process to grant operating permits. However, EASA Member States will continue to take care of the following, as applicable:
- Commercial agreements (traffic rights), operating permits
- Insurance coverage
- Noise-abatement provisions
- Aviation security regulations
- Exemptions from Dangerous Goods Regulations
- Local aerodrome procedures (steep approach, Enhanced Vision Systems (EVS), etc.)
How can we obtain operating permits for commercial operations to EASA Member States?
EU Member States will continue to issue operating permits for commercial air transport operations in accordance with their national regulations. The TCO authorisation issued by EASA is a prerequisite to apply for such operating permits.
Which aircraft should be notified in the TCO Web Interface as part of our TCO application?
You should only notify aircraft listed in Operations Specifications associated to your AOC that are intended to be used for commercial air transport to EU territories. These aircraft must be authorised by your Civil Aviation Authority for flights to EU territories. To give an example, if you were an airline operating a regional turboprop fleet and a long-haul fleet, and you only intended to use your long-haul fleet to the EU, then only enter your long-haul fleet in the TCO web-interface. If your long-haul fleet consisted of sister aircraft A, B and C and you only intend to use aircraft A and B for flights to EU territories, do not notify aircraft C.
Aircraft planned to be added to your fleet in the future should not be notified to us, until they are endorsed in the Operations Specifications of your AOC. Aircraft withdrawn from operations to the EU and/or withdrawn from your fleet should be deleted in the TCO web-interface without undue delay.
You can amend the aircraft list in your Basic Operator Data (BOD) questionnaire in the TCO web-interface any time. It is important that the aircraft list is kept up to date at all times to avoid potential problems, e.g., during ramp inspections.
We have applied for an EASA TCO Authorisation, but it has not yet been granted. Can we operate to the EU before we have received an EASA TCO authorisation?
No. You can only operate to the EU once EASA has issued your TCO Authorisation. Furthermore, EU Member States cannot issue operating permits for your commercial flights as long as you do not hold a TCO authorisation.
For ambulance flights and for flights in the public interest (e.g., humanitarian) the process for one-off notification flights is available (TCO.305).
What is the difference between the EASA TCO Authorisation and an operating permit issued by an EASA member State?
The TCO Authorisation is a safety authorisation issued by EASA following a technical assessment. This technical authorisation issued by EASA is a mandatory prerequisite when applying with any EASA Member State for commercial traffic rights (operating permits), which continue to be issued directly by Member States.
Which information must an air operator provide during the administrative TCO application?
In addition to the application form, which is available on the EASA website, the applicant operator must provide its AOC, the complete set of Operations Specifications and a Certificate of Incorporation or similar document.
Where do I find the TCO application form?
How do I submit my technical data?
Once your application has been accepted EASA 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 information and any related additional information as requested.
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 your nominated TCO contact person by email, together with the link to the EASA TCO web-interface.
Can you explain the steps involved in the TCO application 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 published on the EASA website and submit its administrative TCO application form (TCO.300(a)(b)(c)).
2. Once EASA has received the administrative application and has determined that the operator is eligible to apply, the operator receives log-on credentials to the web-based TCO software application.
3. Once logged-on to the web-based TCO software application, the operator completes an electronic questionnaire and uploads specific operational documents as requested by the Agency (TCO.300(d)).
4. EASA then evaluates all the submitted information and decides if a further in-depth assessment is necessary (ART.200).
5. As soon as the assessment is successfully completed and any non-compliance finding that may have resulted from the assessment has been closed, the operator will receive its TCO authorisation document and associated technical specifications.
How much in advance should an application for TCO authorisation be submitted before the intended starting date of our EU operations?
TCO.300 (b)(1) requires the application at least 30 days before the intended starting date of operation. Therefore, it is highly recommended that you submit the application well in advance of the intended operation.
ART.200 requires EASA to complete its initial assessment within 30 days after all documents pursuant to TCO.300(c) and (d) have been submitted. Furthermore, under ART.200(b), EASA may need to conduct a further assessment, and it may decide to invite operators for a meeting or to perform an on-site audit. In this case, the TCO Authorisation process can take several months, especially when the technical assessment results in findings that have to be closed before EASA can issue the authorisation.
How can I submit my application form?
You can send it
- by email to tco.applications [at] easa.europa.eu (tco[dot]applications[at]easa[dot]europa[dot]eu) with copy to tco [at] easa.europa.eu; or
- by regular mail to the following address:
European Union Aviation Safety Agency Applications and Procurement Services Department Postfach 10 12 53 D-50452 Köln, Germany
Applicability
Is a TCO authorisation issued by EASA required to perform commercial air transport operations to the United Kingdom?
No. As a result of the decision of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union, foreign air operators are no longer required to hold an EASA TCO authorisation to operate to the United Kingdom and EASA does no longer have a mandate to issue authorisations for this purpose.
For further information, you may wish to contact the UK Civil Aviation Authority via TCO [at] caa.co.uk (e-mail) to enquire on UK TCO related issues.
We run a helicopter operation and are contracted for aerial work in the EU. Do I have to apply for a TCO Authorisation?
No. Special operations, such as aerial work is outside the scope of TCO authorisation. For activities which do not fall under commercial air transport, as covered in ICAO Annex 6, third country operators must apply for permission with the concerned Member State.
Our operation is currently subject to an operating ban in accordance with the EU Air Safety List (Reg. (EC) No 2111/2005). Can we nevertheless apply for a TCO authorisation?
Operators that 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 require an audit to 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 the European Commission has lifted the operating ban under the Air Safety List Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005. 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 (ART.205).
We are a non-EU AOC holder with no plans to fly commercially to the EU. However, our maintenance facility is located in the EU. Do 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). These flights shall be designated a non-commercial (General Aviation) flights in the ATS flight plan (GM1 TCO.100).
How will the provisions on code-sharing that are laid down in the EU Rules for Air Operations interact with Part-TCO?
In order to comply with the code-sharing requirements of Regulation (EU) No. 965/2012, it is not sufficient to hold only a TCO authorisation. Code-share provisions apply in addition to the requirements of Part-TCO. Therefore, a third-country operator who shares codes with an EU carrier will be subject to both sets of requirements and their related AMC [ORO.AOC.115/ARO.OPS.105]. In practice, the third-country operator will be obliged to undergo comprehensive audits for the initial and continuous verification of compliance with the applicable ICAO Standards [AMC1 ORO.AOC.115(a)]. The audits can be performed either by the EU operator itself, or by a third-party provider [AMC2 ORO.AOC.115(b)], which includes 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)]. Ensuring that the code-sharing third-country operator continues to comply with the applicable ICAO Standards, will be achieved through a code-share audit programme [AMC1 ORO.AOC.115(b)].
A third country operator that does not intend to perform flights under its own AOC to aerodromes located in an EU territory is not required to hold a TCO authorisation when entering into a code-share agreement with an EU operator (GM1 TCO.100).
Leasing scenario 1. We plan to wet lease-out one of our aircraft to an EU operator. The operations will be performed under our own AOC, with our crew and under our full operational responsibility. Do we need a TCO authorisation?
Yes. A third country operator that leases out aircraft under a wet-lease agreement falls within the scope of TCO.100 and is required to hold a TCO authorisation for aircraft under its air operator certificate (AOC) that are used to fly to the territory subject to the provisions of the Treaties (GM1 TCO.100).
In addition to this, you will need to comply with the European requirements for leasing as laid down in Reg. (EC) No 965/2012.
Leasing, scenario 2. Could you specify if the lessor must have a TCO authorisation in the following situation? 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 (GM1 TCO.100).
Leasing, scenario 3. Could you specify if the lessor must have a TCO authorisation in the following situation? A third country operator (lessee) uses an aircraft for commercial air transport operations to the EU that is dry leased-in from another non-EU or EU operator (lessor).
No. The aircraft lessor does not need a TCO authorisation, but the third country operator (lessee) must hold a TCO authorisation. Rule of thumb: it is always the operating carrier that performs flights under its responsibility with aircraft under its AOC that needs a TCO authorisation (GM1 TCO.100).
Leasing, scenario 4. Please specify which of the two operators must have a TCO authorisation in the following situation: A third country operator (lessee) uses an aircraft wet leased-in from an EU carrier (lessor) operating flights to the EU under the AOC of the lessor, and using the flight number of the third-country operator.
Neither the lessee (TCO) nor the lessor (EU carrier) need a TCO authorisation, because the flights are performed under the responsibility of an operator that does not fall under the definition of a third country operator (GM1 TCO.100).
Which EU operating rules are applicable to third country operators?
(TCO.200) Third country operators intending to perform commercial air transport operations (into, out or within the EU) 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 also other Regulations under the responsibility of the European Commission that need to be followed, including:
- Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1206/2011 of 22 November 2011 (requirements on aircraft identification for surveillance for the Single European Sky), as amended by Regulation (EU) 2020/587
- Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1207/2011 of 22 November 2011 (requirements for the performance and the interoperability of surveillance for the single European sky), as amended by Regulation (EU) No 1028/2014, Regulation (EU) 2017/386, Regulation (EU) 2020/587 and Regulation (EU) 2022/2;
- Commission Regulation (EC) No 29/2009 of 16 January 2009 (requirements on data-link services for the single European sky), as amended by Regulation (EU) No 441/2014, Regulation (EU) No 2015/310, Regulation (EU) 2019/1170 and Regulation (EU) No 2020/208;
- Commission Decision (EU) 2019/2012 of 29 November 2019 (exemptions on data link services requirements);
- Commission Implementing Regulation (EC) No 1079/2012 of 16 November 2012 (requirements on air ground voice channel spacing for the single European sky), as amended by Regulation (EU) No 657/2013, Regulation (EU) 2016/2345 and Regulation (EU) 2017/2160;
- Commission Regulation (EC) No 1332/2011 of 16 December 2011 (common airspace usage requirements and operating procedures for airborne collision avoidance) [ACAS II 7.1], as amended by Regulation (EU) 2016/583.
Do AOC holders certified by an EASA Member State need to apply for a TCO authorisation?
No. AOC holders certified by an EU Member State or an associated State (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland) do not require a TCO authorisation (Article 2 of TCO Regulation (EU) No 452/2014).
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
- French Polynesia
- French Southern & Antarctic Territories
- New Caledonia and Dependencies
- Wallis and Futuna Islands
- Saint Pierre and Miquelon
- Aruba
- Bonaire
- Curaçao
- Saba
- Saint-Barthélemy
- Saint Eustatius
- Sint Maarten (part of the island that forms part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands)
Will the TCO authorisation cover the transport of forbidden Dangerous Goods?
The TCO authorisation does not cover the transport of forbidden DGs. Exemptions issued by each of the concerned states in accordance with paragraph 4.2 of Annex 18 to the Chicago Convention are required for this operation.
For a flight requiring diplomatic clearance, does it need to be performed under a TCO authorisation?
A flight that has been arranged by means of a diplomatic clearance does not fall under the scope of TCO.100 and does not require a TCO authorisation (GM1 TCO.100).
My principle place of business (POB) is in an EU overseas territory which is not listed in the scope of Commission Regulation (EU) No 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 (i.e. an EU overseas territory which is not listed in the scope of Commission Regulation (EU) No 452/2014), unless your air operator certificate has been issued by an EASA Member State (Article 2(4) of TCO Regulation (EU) No 452/2014.
- Greenland and Faroe Islands
- French Polynesia
- French Southern & Antarctic Territories
- New Caledonia and Dependencies
- Wallis and Futuna Islands
- Saint Pierre and Miquelon
- Aruba
- Bonaire
- Curaçao
- Saba
- Saint-Barthélemy
- Saint Eustatius
- Sint Maarten (part of the island that forms part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands)
Is a TCO authorisation required by Business Aviation Operators?
Generally, yes. If you perform commercial air transport under an Air Operator Certificate (AOC) (operating aircraft for hire to transport passengers, cargo or mail) (e.g. under U.S. 14 CFR Part 135) then a TCO authorisation is required. 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 EU territories.
We are a U.S. 14 CFR Part 91 operator. Are we subject to a TCO authorisation?
For operations performed strictly within the classification of Part-91, EASA does not require an authorisation under Part-TCO. These flights shall be designated a non-commercial (General Aviation) flight in the ATS flight plan.
We are a U.S. 14 CFR Part 125 Operator. Do we need a TCO authorisation issued by EASA for operations to EU territories?
U.S. 14 CFR Part 125 Operators are not eligible to apply for a TCO authorisation. 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. United States 14 CFR Part 125 Operators 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).
I plan to overfly EU territories without intending to land. Is a TCO authorisation required?
No. A TCO authorisation is only required for intended landings in EU territories.
I plan a technical fuel stop in EU territories. Is a TCO authorisation required?
Yes. The intended use of an aerodrome located in the territory subject to the provisions of the Treaties as a technical stop (e.g. for the purpose of refuelling or crew change) as part of a Commercial Air Transport operation falls within the scope of TCO.100 and requires a TCO authorisation (GM1 TCO.100).TCO authorisation
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. The selection and use of an aerodrome located in the territory subject to the provisions of the Treaties as an alternate aerodrome for the case of an in-flight diversion does not fall within the scope of TCO.100 and does not require a TCO authorisation. An in-flight diversion may become necessary out of safety considerations on a flight that was initially intended to serve an aerodrome outside the EU (GM1 TCO.100).
After landing at the EU aerodrome, it is permissible for the aircraft to leave the EU to the planned destination or to any other aerodrome outside the EU with the passengers and/or cargo on board. The operator shall however not unload any cargo or passengers at the EU aerodrome and shall not take any additional payload on board.
We are a U.S. 14 CFR Part 135 operator. Do I need to hold an authorisation if I intend flying commercially to Europe?
Yes. Part-TCO is fully applicable to flights conducted under an U.S. 14 CFR Part 135 certificate. Note: The international standards laid down in the ICAO Annexes exceed the requirements of U.S. 14 CFR Part 135 in several aspects, including but not limited to crew training requirements and the implementation of Safety Management Systems.
Do non-scheduled charter operators need a TCO authorisation?
Yes. The TCO authorisation TCO Regulation (EU) No 452/2014 does not differentiate between scheduled and non-scheduled commercial air transport operations. All operators that engage in commercial air transport need to apply for a TCO authorisation.
For air ambulance flights and other urgent flights performed in the public interest where the urgency of the mission justifies bypassing the regular TCO assessment process (e.g. humanitarian missions or disaster relief operations), please consult the section for “One-off” notification flights pursuant to article TCO.305.
One-off notification flights
What type of operations may be performed under a one-off notification?
According to article TCO.305, the following operations may be conducted under a one-off notification:
- Flights that are performed in the public interest, to address an urgent need, such as humanitarian missions and disaster relief operations;
- Air ambulance flights: The use of an aircraft to move sick or injured patients between healthcare facilities and/or deliver patient medical care.
Under which conditions may I apply for a one-off notification?
The following conditions shall be met by an applicant (operator) in order to satisfy the one-off notification requirements:
EASA is notified prior to the intended date of the first flight. The operator will need to file and submit the appropriate ‘One-off notification’ form and provide the necessary supporting documents to EASA; and
The operator provides evidence that the planned operation meets the criteria for “One-off notification flights”; and
The operator is not subject to an operating ban pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council; and
The operator is not subject to rejection, suspension or revocation of a TCO authorisation on safety grounds, and
The operator must not have filed a ‘One-off notification’ with the Agency within the previous 24 months.
Where do I find the One-off notification form?
The One-off notification form may be found here.
What information must an air operator provide with the one-off notification form?
In addition to the one-off notification form, which is available on the EASA website, the applicant operator must provide its AOC, Operations Specifications and the valid certificate of airworthiness of the aircraft intended to be used under the one-off notification. Furthermore, the operator shall provide evidence that the planned operation meets the criteria for “One-off notification flights”.
What is a one-off notification?
Article 3 of the TCO Regulation (EU) No 452/2014 requires all third country operators engaging in commercial air transport operations to EASA Member States to hold an authorisation issued by EASA.
One-off notification is referring to article TCO.305 “One-off notification flights“ of the TCO regulation.
This article provides a way to derogate from Article 3 r to perform air ambulance flights or flights that are performed in the public interest, to address an urgent need, such as humanitarian missions and disaster relief operations ;without first obtaining an authorisation issued by EASA.
How do I apply for a one-off notification?
The dedicated application form may be found here.
The filled form together with the requested supporting documents must be submitted to EASA via the dedicated ‘one-off’ email address.
Upon receipt of the application form and the supporting documents, EASA will send the applicant an automated acknowledgment email. The received acknowledgment email will serve as a proof that EASA has received a ‘one-off notification’ application. This acknowledgement may be used temporarily by operators, in conjunction with the application form and the submitted documents, to support their request for operating permits from the concerned EU Member States.
Within 14 days the operator must apply for a regular TCO authorisation, otherwise EASA will remove the privilege to perform one-off notification flights.
How long is a ‘one-off notification’ valid?
It is important to remember the following critical milestones in the ‘one-off notification’ process:
The operator must formally apply to the Agency for a standard TCO authorisation within 14 days after the date of the ‘one-off notification’; and
Flights may only be performed under the ‘one-off notification’ for a maximum period of twelve (12) consecutive weeks (= 84 calendar days) following the date of the ‘one-off notification’, or until such time as the Agency has taken a final decision on the formal TCO application (see point 1. above).
Under which circumstances may I re-apply for a one-off notification?
A ‘one-off notification’ may be filed only once every 24 months by an operator.
The conditions to be met for a re-application are identical to the ones applicable for the first ‘one-off notification’ filed with EASA.
What happens if I did not apply formally for a TCO authorisation within 14 days following the ‘one-off notification date?
The ‘one-off notification’ privileges will be removed. All commercial air transport operations must stop with immediate effect.
What happens following the submission of the ‘one-off notification’ accompanied with the provided application form and supporting documents?
The concerned EU Member State will review the application form and the submitted documents to evaluate and decide on the request for the operating permits. In case of a refusal, the EU Member State will inform EASA accordingly.
EASA will also review the received application form and the supporting documentation. Should this review be unsatisfactory (e.g. no valid Air Operator Certificate, operations are requested that are not approved on the operations specifications documents, false declaration, etc.) EASA will immediately remove the privileges given under the ‘One-off notification’ and inform the Member States. All commercial air transport operations must then stop with immediate effect.
What happens if EASA has not taken any decision on my formal TCO application for a TCO authorisation within the consecutive twelve (12) weeks (84 calendar days) following the ‘one-off notification date?
The ‘one-off notification’ privileges will be removed until the Agency has come to a final decision concerning the TCO application. All commercial air transport operations must stop with immediate effect until further notice.
What happens if EASA takes a negative decision regarding my formal TCO application for a TCO authorisation within the consecutive twelve (12) weeks (84 calendar days) following the ‘one-off notification date?
The ‘one-off notification’ privileges will be removed. All c