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.