Airworthiness Review | EASA - European Union

Skip to main content

The Agency

• The Agency
  • Annual Programmes & Reports
  • Agency Organisation Structure
    • The Executive Director
    • Executive Committee
    • Certification Directorate
      • Certification Director (acting)
      • Technical Organigram
    • Flight Standards Directorate
      • Flight Standards Director
    • Safety Management, Sustainability and Global Outreach Directorate
      • Safety Management, Sustainability and Global Outreach Director
    • Resources and Support Directorate
      • Resources and Support Director
    • Chief Experts
• EASA Member states
• Management Board
  • Management Board Members
  • Management Board Observers
  • Management Board Meetings
  • Management Board Decisions
• Advisory Bodies
• Board of Appeal
• Events impacting aviation
  • Brexit
    • Brexit - Early applications
  • COVID-19
    • Aviation Industry Charter for COVID-19
    • EASA COVID-19 Resources
    • COVID-19 Travel Information
    • References
  • Restrictive measures – Russia
    • Notice to Stakeholders
• EASA Digital Services
  • EASA Connect
  • EASA Service Portal
  • Organisation Approvals Tool
• Careers
• Procurement
  • Calls for expression of interest
    • Aviation training on innovative domains
    • Development of Safety Promotion Content
    • Independent External Experts
  • Calls for tender
  • Market consultations
• Accreditation of Qualified Entities
• Frequently Asked Questions
  • Using the FAQ
  • The Agency
  • EU restrictive measures against Russia
    • Common Issues
    • Design certificates and design organisation approvals
    • Production organisations
    • Aircraft maintenance and continuing airworthiness
    • Training and licensing of maintenance personnel
    • Aircrew training and licensing
    • Aircraft operations
    • EASA TCO authorisations
    • Operation of unmanned aircraft
    • ATM/ANS
  • Brexit
  • Regulations
    • Basic Regulation
    • Initial Airworthiness
      • Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA)
    • Additional Airworthiness specifications
    • Continuing Airworthiness
      • COVID-19 - Continuing Airworthiness
      • Interpretation and policy papers
      • Continuing airworthiness - General
      • Bilateral Agreement (BASA)
      • Part-M
      • Part-145
      • Part-147
    • Air Operations
      • Air Operations - General
      • Dangerous Goods
      • Definitions
      • Helicopter operations
      • Part-ARO
      • Part-CAT
      • Part-NCC/NCO
      • Part-ORO
        • ORO.GEN
        • ORO.MLR
        • ORO.FTL
      • Part-SPA
      • Part-SPO
      • Passenger Safety
      • Special Categories of Passengers (SCPs)
    • Aircrew
      • Operational Suitability Data (OSD) for flight crew (FC)
      • Licensing
      • Upset Prevention and Recovery Training
      • Performance-based Navigation applicability
      • Cabin Crew
    • Medical
    • Flight Simulation Training Devices (FSTD)
    • ATCO Licensing
    • Air traffic management (ATM) / Air Navigation Services (ANS)
      • ATM Basics
      • ATM/ANS Specifics
      • DAT
    • 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
    • Airspace Usage requirements
      • Airspace Usage Requirement (ACAS II v7.1)
      • Airspace Usage requirements – DLS/CPDLC
      • Airspace requirements – SPI
      • Airspace Usage Requirements (PBN)
    • Aerodromes (ADR)
    • Drones (UAS)
      • Provisions applicable to both ‘open’ and ’specific’ category
      • Open category
      • Specific category
      • Drones with class identification label C0-C6
      • Model aircraft
    • Third-Country Operators (TCO)
      • Third Country Operators - General
      • Applications for TCO a Authorisation
      • Applicability
      • One-off notification flights
      • Technical Issues
    • Level of Involvement
    • Information Security (Part-IS)
  • Airworthiness Directives (ADs)
  • Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC) and Alternative Means of Compliance (AltMoC)
  • Alternative Method of Compliance (AMOC) to an Airworthiness Directive (AD)
  • Certification Support for Validation (CSV)
  • Design Organisations
  • Direct accreditation of Qualified Entities
  • ETSO
  • EWIS ICA requirements
  • ADS-B certification
  • Automatic Dependent Surveillance — Light (ADS-L)
    • Introduction to ADS-L
    • Regulatory Framework and Recognition
    • Technical Aspects and Interoperability
    • Implementation and Integration
    • Safety and Situational Awareness
  • Fees & charges
  • General Aviation
  • International cooperation
  • Recruitment
  • Certification of products and organisations
  • Cybersecurity (General)
  • Rotorcraft
  • Safety Publications (SP) Tool
  • Occurrence Reporting
  • Confidential Safety Reporting
  • Cargo Tracking Devices
  • Passengers
  • Supplemental Type Certificates
  • EASA Air Operator Certificate (AOC)
• Contacts & Locations

You are here

• Home
• The Agency
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Using the FAQ
• Airworthiness review

PDF

Expand all questions

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.

View

Was this helpful?

Yes No

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.

View

Was this helpful?

Yes No

Can airworthiness review staff (ARS) qualified under point CAMO.A.310 perform an airworthiness review of an aircraft on which they have previously released maintenance as certifying staff?

Point CAMO.A.310(a)(4) of Annex Vc (Part-CAMO) to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014 establishes that airworthiness review staff (ARS) in a Part-CAMO organisation must have a position within the approved organisation with appropriate responsibilities.

According to point (e) of AMC1 CAMO.A.310(a), an acceptable means to show compliance in respect of such position is to demonstrate independence from the airworthiness management process of the affected aircraft (this is to avoid possible conflict of interest). In the case where ARS qualified in accordance with point CAMO.A.310 is employed by an organisation holding both CAMO and maintenance organisation (Part-145 or Part-CAO) approvals, the second bullet point under point (e) of AMC1 CAMO.A.310(a) further specifies that this person should not have been involved in the release of the maintenance for the aircraft intended to undergo the airworthiness review, except in one of the following cases:

1. such maintenance has been released as required during the airworthiness review’s physical survey of the aircraft (e.g. release necessary after visual inspections requiring panel opening); or
2. such maintenance has been released as a result of findings discovered during the physical survey of the aircraft (defect rectification).

In other cases where the CAMO ARS happens to be employed as certifying staff (CS) at another maintenance organisation, or happens to work as independent CS, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) recommends the CAMO ARS to ensure absence of conflict of interest before allowing them to conduct the airworthiness review on aircraft on which they have previously released maintenance.

RemarkPoint M.A.901(l) or point ML.A.903(b) of Annex I (Part-M) to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014: When the ARS is not qualified as CS, they must be assisted by CS in case maintenance needs to be released during the physical survey of the aircraft.

View

Was this helpful?

Yes No

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:

1. the conditions established for controlled environment (M.A.901 (b)) are met. This means:
   1. continuously managed during the previous 12 months by a unique CAMO or CAO, and
   2. maintained for the previous 12 months by Part-145, Part-M Subpart F or Part-CAO organisations.

AND

2. 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.

View

Was this helpful?

Yes No

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.

View

Was this helpful?

Yes No

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.

View

Was this helpful?

Yes No