UK Part 145 Deadline Approaching: Make Sure You Have the Right Maintenance Release Documentation

December 4, 2024 by Leave a comment

If you have a US-based repair station or if you use US-based repair stations to provide MRO services, then you should carefully look at the approaching UK deadline. The UK has been accepting EASA 145 maintenance approval certificates (EASA Form 1) but will insist on UK CAA 145 maintenance releases (or comparable maintenance release documents accepted under a bilateral agreement) after December 31, 2024.

This means that distributors who sell overhauled components to UK operators and MROs will need those components to be overhauled under standards acceptable to the UK if the maintenance release is dated January 1, 2025 or later. Acceptable maintenance release documents in the UK will include:

  • UK CAA Form 1
  • FAA 8130-3 if signed as a dual-release under UK 145 privileges
  • TCCA Form One

UK CAA Part 145 Repair Station Certification

The practical deadline for U.S.-based repair stations to obtain UK CAA Part 145 maintenance organization approval is December 31, 2024. This certification is part of the UK’s transition following its withdrawal from the European Union (EU).

The new UK CAA approval process replaces the previous recognition of EASA certificates for repair stations servicing UK aircraft. The deadline does not affect maintenance approvals that were issued before the current deadline, so already-maintained parts with EASA Form 1 (issued by or before December 31, 2024) will still be acceptable for installation on UK-registered aircraft. However, parts subject to maintenance release dated after January 1, 2025, will require acceptable release documentation.

As of March 2024, the UK CAA had received about 150 applications from U.S.-based maintenance providers. As of late November 2024, over 700 U.S. entities had applied, with 300 receiving approvals. The UK CAA anticipates more applications in the final weeks of 2024.

Application Process and Deadlines

Applications for UK CAA Part 145 approval opened in January 2023. The agreed application deadline is September 30, 2024, allowing 90 days for approvals before the transition period ends. However, recent statements encourage anyone who hasn’t yet applied to come forward and submit applications as soon as possible, even if the September deadline was missed. New applications may not be approved by January 2025, but shops that have not yet applied should still submit their paperwork. The CAA aims to make the approval process accessible and let the market determine business placements.

Requirements and Eligibility

Applicants must hold a valid FAR 145 Repair Station Certificate issued by the FAA. Evidence of need for UK approval is required, but the bar is not set high; an expression of interest from a potential UK customer is sufficient.

While the UK CAA believes most commercial operator needs have been addressed, they recognize that some gaps in general aviation support may remain. The UK CAA is prepared to work with affected stakeholders and has workarounds in place to minimize disruptions for small GA operators.

Application Procedure

Submit a completed application form to the UK CAA.

Provide necessary documentation, including:

  • Copy of the FAA Air Agency approval certificate
  • Federal Tax Identifier Number
  • Payment of the relevant fee

Upon receipt of the UK Part 145 approval number, submit required documentation to the FAA. The FAA National Coordinator and CAA National Coordinator will keep a record and share the status of applications for UK Part 145 repair stations located in the US to monitor approvals granted by the CAA.

Costs and Validity

The Initial approval fee for organizations holding a FAR 145 Repair Station Certificate is £1,0822.

The Annual fee to maintain approval is £646.

Approvals are valid for 24 months and require renewal.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , , ,

What Does it Mean if a Component has “a Negligible Safety Effect on the Product”? And Does it Change the Documentation Requirements?

September 6, 2022 by Leave a comment

Has your aircraft or engine manufacturer designated certain parts as having “a negligible safety effect on the product.” What does this mean? And what sort of documentation should you expect on these parts?

A European rule permits manufacturers to designate certain parts that do not need production approval and do not need EASA Form 1. This is not a novel concept – we have the same rule in the United States. Under the FAA regulations, these components are called “Commercial Parts.” 14 C.F.R. §§ 21.1(b)(3), 21.50(c). 

For roughly 15 years, FAA rules have permitted manufacturers to designate parts as “commercial” by demonstrating two facts:

  • The failure of the commercial part, as installed in the product, would not degrade the level of safety of the product; and
  • The part is produced only under the commercial part manufacturer’s specification and marked only with the commercial part manufacturer’s markings

After making an engineering demonstration to show these facts, the design approval holder would then publish the commercial parts in a list that was an element of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA).

Very few design approval holders (DAHs) have chosen to take advantage of this opportunity. There are legal liability reasons for being cautious about this, but in addition to increased legal liability, this would also mean that the DAH lose quality control of the transaction. Many production approval holders (PAHs) would prefer to offer direct ship authority to suppliers (or rely on other traditional legal constructs like ‘licensed PMA’) so that the manufacturer (DAH/PAH) can continue to control the quality assurance as well as having contractual provisions limiting the DAH/PAH’s liability in the event of an issue.

I wrote about this EASA proposal in December 2019:

No EASA Form 1 for Certain EU Parts?

ASA raised a number of concerns when this was proposed.  A few of these concerns were addressed by EASA but not all of them.

The new EASA rule requires the design-approval holder to identify the parts as having “a negligible safety effect on the product.”  This is comparable to the United States’ “commercial parts” rule (14 C.F.R. §§ 21.1(b)(3), 21.50(c)).  So the first problem that we can see with this rule is that the same DAHs who did not designate parts in response to the US rule change are probably not going to designate parts now that EASA has added a comparable rule. 

Right now my biggest concern is that this rule-change will not be useful to most of the industry because of a lack of participation among the DAHs.  The fact that it may not be useful means that any safety-negatives associated with the rule are particularly bitter pills.

The rule change creates new complexity in the system, by permitting parts that previously used the EASA Form 1 to be sold under certificates of conformity, instead. The existing variety of certificates of conformity for standard parts has already created confusion in the industry. Distributors are an important link in the chain of commerce, and they play a vital role in scrutinizing documentation to detect and address problems before those problems can be passed on to an installer.

The rule change creates an opportunity for counterfeit parts to enter the system, because the exempted parts are described only in the ICAs.  Distributors typically do not have access to the ICAs.  This means that distributors will not be able to distinguish a part that is exempt under 21.307(b)(3) from one that is fraudulently claimed to be exempt; and the industry could lose the ability to easily read the new C of Cs for parts that were previously subject to EASA Form 1 but now are being moved to C of Cs.  Fraud is already difficult enough to detect, but the regulatory authorities may no longer have jurisdiction over frauds that do not rely on regulatory authority documentation (like the EASA Form 1), which will diminish some of the front-line response opportunities.

One way to help industry mitigate risks would be for the rule to require publication of the list of “negligible safety parts” (“commercial parts” in the FAA system) to anyone in the industry. This would permit distributors to be able to see who is eligible to produce such parts. When they receive a questionable certificate of conformity for a “negligible safety” part, they would be able to review the list of qualified producers to identify whether that producer was authorized to produce “negligible safety” parts.

The new EASA rule is a manufacturing rule; so how does it intersect with repair station obligations? As we all know, EASA 145.A.42 requires the repair station to obtain an EASA Form 1 or equivalent with each received part. The repair station rules were updated to include an exception for parts that are on one of these “negligible safety” parts lists. Commission Implementing Regulation 2021/700 (EU), Annex II (26 March 2021). Such parts will NOT need an EASA Form 1 or equivalent under the published exception.

Distributors should be especially careful with parts from Europe that are alleged to be subject to the “negligible safety parts” standard. Where possible, reach out to the DAH/PAH and obtain a copy of its “negligible safety parts” list so you can confirm that the European supplier is permitted to produce parts without a Production Organization Approval (POA) and without issuing an EASA Form One.

Also, distributors will want to carefully watch the bilateral agreements to assess when these sorts of parts will be permitted. The current version of the US-EU Technical Implementation Agreement is the April 2019 version, and that version requires EASA form 1 for all parts accepted into the United States. There is an exception for standard parts but there is not yet an exception for “negligible safety parts.” Because these parts woudl not have EASA FOrm 1 (and would appear to be ineligible for such a tag) they would not be eligible for import into the United States under the US-EU agreements. In summary, this means that such parts could be eligible for installation under EASA rules but they would not be eligible for import and installation under FAA rules (e.g. on FAA-registered aircraft) unless the DAH also compiled a commercial parts list under FAA rules.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , ,

UK CAA FAQ: UK CAA Documentation Requirements for Parts

March 1, 2022 by Leave a comment

QUESTION:

UK CAA accepts 8130-3 tags but not EASA Form 1.  Is it possible for an EU based Part 145 organization who has both EASA and FAA approval to provide only a FAA single release certificate and only present this certificate to the UK based organizations as long as the UK based organizations are accepting of a single release certification for a part.  

SHORT ANSWER:

No.  If you ask an EU-based repair station that has both US and EU repair station credentials to maintain an aircraft part and to issue an 8130-3 to document the work it performed, and then subsequently proffer that 8130-3 as the basis for airworthiness determinations prior to installation on a UK-registered aircraft, then the work may be rejected by the UK on the grounds that it does not meet current UK regulatory requirements.

LONGER ANSWER:

Under the new UK CAA standards that go into effect April 1, 2022, the UK CAA will accept maintenance approved on an 8130-3 tag but will no longer accept maintenance released on an EASA Form 1 when issued after April 1.  The questioner offers a clever approach to the impending UK CAA limits.  Unfortunately, this approach puts form over substance.  The root issue is the governmental oversight of the work – not the way that the work is documented.  Therefore, using a clever approach to change the documentation will not be an acceptable way to circumvent UK CAA maintenance controls. 

There are several inherent problems with this clever approach.  First, it undermines the intent of the regulations.  The current intent of UK CAA is that they will no longer accept maintenance performed by EU repair stations.  Second, because the UK CAA intent is to reject maintenance performed by EU repair stations (except when they obtain UK CAA certification), the UK CAA’s established protocols will not permit the UK to rely on maintenance performed by EU-based repair stations (no matter what documentation they use) [NOTE: EU-based repair stations may apply for UK 145 certification, and then their work becomes acceptable under the UK system].  Third, even if it was not undermining UK CAA intent, it is not currently an available process under the existing bilateral agreements because it does not meet their plain language.

To understand why the clever approach does not work, it is important to understand the basis of aviation maintenance regulation.  Under ICAO standards, the country of registry for an aircraft is responsible for the applicable maintenance standards.  This means that the UK CAA is responsible for the continued airworthiness of aircraft on the UK registry.  The UK CAA issues repair station certificates and provides ongoing oversight to those facilities in order to help manage the continued airworthiness processes.

Under normal bilateral airworthiness relationships, one country may agree to accept maintenance performed by repair stations located in the other.  This can be accomplished through “reciprocal acceptance” or through “dual-certification.”

Under a reciprocal acceptance paradigm, the accepting country (which will be the country of registry with the applicable airworthiness responsibilities) would treat maintenance performed by the maintaining country (which will be the country that issued the repair station certificate) as if it had been performed by a repair station subject to the accepting country’s certificates.  Typically, under a reciprocal acceptance paradigm, the repair station only needs one certificate (from its home government) and that certificate is acceptable for work performed for operators from both jurisdictions.  An example of this can be found in the Canada-US relationship, where each country’s operators are permitted to rely on maintenance performed by the repair stations in the other.  A reciprocal acceptance relationship seems easy, but it requires a tremendous level of trust between the aviation safety authorities.  As a consequence, it is more common to see dual-certification relationships described in bilateral aviation safety agreements.

Under dual-certification relationship, the foreign nation issues foreign repair station certificates in collaboration with the home government.  For example, the EU-US agreements have recognized that the repair station oversight systems of both FAA and EASA are very similar and achieve substantially similar goals.  They have also identified a small number of critical differences between the two repair station certification schemes (these differences are known as “Special Conditions”).  Repair stations in the United States that want to get EASA 145 credentials need to create a manual and a system that addresses those Special Conditions.  An FAA Flight Standards maintenance inspector will inspect the EASA-145 applicant who is locate in the United States to confirm that (1) the repair station meets all of the FAA regulations and (2) the repair station complies with the EASA Special Conditions.  If the repair station meets all of the requirements, then the FAA will recommend to EASA that it issue an EASA 145 certificate and EASA may issue such a certificate.

The FAA and EASA maintain a dual-certification relationship with respect to aviation maintenance.  Repair stations must follow the requirements under that relationship to maintain their repair station credentials.  Under the EU-US bilateral agreement, an EU-based repair station that has both sets of repair station credentials must issue an EASA Form 1 as a release document for maintenance.  It does not have an option to issue an 8130-3 tag.  In the event it must release work that is acceptable in the US but not in the EU, the repair station must release the work on an EASA Form 1 that is annotated with the phrase:

The work identified in Block 11 and described herein has been accomplished in accordance with 14 C.F.R. part 43 and in respect to that work, the items are approved for return to service under certificate no.________.

This product/article meets 145.A.50 requirements, except for the following items, and therefore is “not” eligible to be installed on an EU-registered aircraft:

[** LIST THE DIVERGENCES **]

US-EU Maintenance Annex Guidance, Section C: Appendix 1, para. 7.5 (March 19, 2021).

So the first problem with the clever solution is that an EU-based dual certificated repair station is required to issue an EASA Form 1 under the FAA-EASA Maintenance Annex Guidance.

There is an additional technical impediment.  The US-UK Maintenance Implementation Procedures (MIP) do not blindly rely on the 8130-3 tag.  Under that US-UK MIP agreement, the UK CAA accepts approvals “for return to service by an AMO located in the United States under the FAA’s oversight.”  The US-UK MIP does not accept work performed in the EU.  So there is no legal basis for acceptance in the UK of an 8130-3 that documents work performed in the EU.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

UK will Stop Accepting Some EASA Form 1s When Signed on the Right Side

February 8, 2022 by 1 Comment

We all know that UK-CAA is currently accepting EASA Form 1. Last year’s guidance on owner operator acceptance, though, is causing some confusion in the parts community.

For new parts, UK-CAA will accept EASA Form 1. But the story for maintained/overhauled parts is more complicated; these are the parts for which the EASA Form 1 is signed on the right side.

Under UK-CAA provisions, owners and operators will soon be limited in their acceptance of maintenance releases from EASA 145 repair stations (i.e., EASA Form 1). These are going to be maintenance releases for work accomplished.

From 1 April 2022, UK owners/operators can only accept an EASA Form 1 from an EU/EASA approved maintenance organisation that has applied for a UK approval by 31 March 2022.

CAA briefing – Changes to recognition of EASA Form 1, CAP2287 (UK CAA Nov 9, 2021)

The reason for this limit is that the EU-UK trade agreement does not directly permit sharing of aircraft maintenance. instead it draws reference to other agreements like the bilateral agreements. No Maintenance Agreement has yet been concluded between UK-CAA and EASA. Without a maintenance annex between UK-CAA and EASA, there is no continuing legal basis for the acceptance (in the UK) of maintenance performed under EASA 145 certificates.

NOTE: under current plans, UK-CAA expects that the EU-based repair station would issue a UK-CAA Form 1 after it is approved. This plan may change, but if it does not change then EU-based repair stations with UK-CAA Part 145 credentials would no longer issue EASA Form 1 for maintained / overhauled parts. This seems to suggest that an EASA Form 1 issued by an EU-based repair station after it was issued UK-CAA Part 145 credentials would become unacceptable in the UK. This varies from international norms so it is possible that this plan may change.

The UK-CAA’s current position is that EU-based repair stations will need to obtain UK-CAA Part 145 certificates. The deadline for beginning this process is March 31, 2022 but EU repair stations that have applied for UK credentials before April 1, 2022.

This means that distributors who want to sell EU-maintained/overhauled parts into the UK (for installation on UK-registered aircraft) will need to make sure that (1) the EASA Form One was dated March 31, 2022 or earlier OR (2) the repair station that issued the EASA Form One applied for UK-CAA Part 145 credentials by March 31, 2022 (but did not yet obtain that credential). If the planned UK-CAA approach does not change (and they continue to expect dual-certificated repair stations in the EU to issue UK CAA Form 1 instead of EASA Form 1) then EASA Form 1 from these same repair stations would no longer be acceptable in the UK if it that form was issued after the UK-CAA Part 145 certificate was issued.

To aid in understanding what the UK-CAA will accept, I have compiled the table, below. Each reference (except the UK-CAA’s own certificates) includes a link to the applicable document that addresses the relationship vis-a-vis that use of that document. There is a limit to the details that I can fit into a table so please be sure to click through to review any special requirements:

What will the UK CAA Accept as Airworthiness Documentation for Aircraft Parts intended for Installation on UK-Registered Aircraft?
Properly
Completed
Document 		New Parts (certification)Maintained Parts (maintenance release)
EASA Form 1YESRules Will Change on April 1, 2022
UK Form 1YESYES
FAA Form 8130-3YESYES, when issued as a dual FAA-EASA certificate
TCCA Form OneYESYES
ANAC Form F-100-01YESYES, when issued as a dual ANAC-UK CAA certificate

This following table is taken directly from the UK-CAA guidance and it explains the details concerning acceptability of EASA Form 1 as a maintenance release, when the Form 1 was issued after March 31, 2022:

Status of EU/EASA OrgAcceptabilityComments
Application made to CAAAcceptableDetails provided on CAA website or application receipt
No Application made to
CAA		Not AcceptableNo application has been made and therefore outside
exemption requirements
CAA Approval Granted to
EU/EASA Org		Not AcceptablePost issuance of CAA UK approval therefore org needs
to issue CAA Form 1.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , ,

The New UK: Post-Brexit EU-UK Aircraft Parts Transactions Are Still Up-in-the-Air (but some post-transition options remain)

December 17, 2020 by Leave a comment

With two weeks left before the end of the year – and the end of the Brexit Withdrawal Transition period – there is still no trade deal between the UK and the EU. With no trade deal, we have no basis for a continued relationship between the UK CAA and EASA.

This raises questions about what aircraft parts can be accepted between the UK CAA and EU EASA systems after December 31, 2020. This article provides preliminary advice, but this advice is current as of the time of publication. Trade negotiations between the UK and the EU are ongoing, and a concluded trade deal could either render this analysis obsolete, or it could authorize EASA and UK CAA to negotiate an obsolescence to this analysis.

UK Position

Under the UK’s EU Withdrawal Act, as amended, all EU regulations (including EASA regulations) that are active upon withdrawal will become UK regulations. This means that the EASA regulations will be adopted in the UK, so the UK will have a robust and familiar regulatory structure upon withdrawal.

The UK CAA has made it clear that they do not want to inhibit operations over legal technicalities, but instead they would like to remain laser-focused on airworthiness. With this in mind, the UK CAA has stated repeatedly that it will recognize EASA certificates, approvals and licenses for use in the UK aviation system and on UK-registered aircraft for up to two years after the exit date. This provides a cushion for UK-registered aircraft to be able to rely on EASA-approved parts, maintenance providers, and other certificates, for an extended period of time while trade negotiations continue between the UK and the EU.

EU Position

The EU has not been as generous in its acceptance of UK certificate, but it has made provision for acceptance of certain certificates and approvals as long as they are for goods put into the market before the end of the transition period.

EASA is likely to accept EASA Form 1s that are issued by certificate holders in the UK before the end of the transition period (before January 1, 2021) to support transactions in accordance with Article 41 of the Withdrawal Agreement (note that this is a different instrument from the previously-mentioned Withdrawal Act). Article 41 explains that goods “placed on the market” before the end of the transition period will continue to be considered “valid” under the laws of both parties until those goods (1) reach their end-user, or (2) are put into service (e.g. installed on a registered aircraft).

For the purposes of these provisions, “placing on the market” means the first supply of a good for distribution, consumption or use in the course of a commercial activity, whether in return or payment or free of charge.  ‘Supply of a good for distribution, consumption or use’ means that ‘an existing and individually identifiable good, after the stage of manufacturing has taken place, is the subject matter of a written or verbal agreement between two or more legal or natural persons for the transfer of ownership, any other property right, or possession concerning the good in question, or is the subject matter of an offer to a legal or natural person or persons to conclude such an agreement.”  ”Putting into service” means “the first use of a good within the Union or the United Kingdom by the end user for the purposes for which it was intended […].’

Notice to Stakeholders: Withdrawal of the United Kingdom and EU Aviation Safety Rules, Para 3.1 (Rev. 2: March 16, 2020).

You can see from this quote that an aircraft part need only be the subject of an offer of sale (or an actual sale) before January 1, 2021 to be protected under Article 41.

The end user has a burden to show that the goods were put into commerce before the end of the transition period (Under Article 42), so expect to see EU customers asking for such proof. Note that you can have goods that are subject to a sales agreement before the end of the transition period, and this may be sufficient for the goods to have been “placed on the market” under the rules. Thus, items of proof could include purchase orders, sales orders, invoices, or other commercial documents showing that the transaction was sufficiently contemplated to meet the definitions before the end of the transition period.

But aircraft parts produced under a UK production approval after December 31, 2020 will not be considered valid for installation on an EU-registered aircraft unless (1) EU promulgates a regulation or other enforceable standard permitting such installation, or (2) EU and UK conclude an agreement – like a bilateral airworthiness safety agreement – permitting such reliance. A precursor to such an aviation safety agreement may be the successful conclusion of a trade agreement between the UK and the EU (and these negotiations are still ongoing). The same issue applies to maintenance performed on an aircraft part and released by a UK CAA 145 after the end of the transition period.

To address this issue, many UK production organization approval holders have sought EASA production organization approval, and many UK maintenance providers have sought EASA maintenance organization approval. EASA plans to issue these approvals at midnight, as the transition period ends. Owners of EU-registered aircraft will be able to accept articles released under these UK-based EASA certificates just like they can accept articles released by any other EASA certificate holder.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , ,

EASA Form 1 Has Changed – What Does this Mean for You?

April 30, 2020 by 1 Comment

The EASA Form 1 has changed!  Despite the change, though, this should have relatively little impact on those who are relying on the EASA Form 1 in conjunction with aircraft parts transactions.  In particular, the changes are limited to EASA Form 1 for articles from simple general aviation aircraft, which means that the change will have very little effect on the commercial aviation community.

The text on the new Form 1 remains nearly identical to the old text. The only change was to the footer, which has been changed as follows:

Old Footer: EASA Form 1 — MF/145 Issue 2

New Footer: EASA Form 1 — MF/CAO/145 Issue 3

It is important to recognize that other than the footer, the text on the form has not changed at all.

Why is the Footer Important?

The text in the footer of the EASA Form 1 is important because it links you back to the instructions that were used for completing the form.

EASA actually maintains two different versions of the EASA Form 1 – a version published in Part M for maintenance purposes and a version published in Part 21 for production purposes.  The Part 21 version of the form has a footer that reads “EASA Form 1-21 Issue 2,” and this footer indicates that the form was completed under the Part 21, Annex I, Appendix I instructions.

EASA Form 1 with the new footer (“EASA Form 1 — MF/CAO/145 Issue 3”) means that the form has been completed using the new changed instructions.  Thus, we need to look at those changes to understand how to respond to this new version of the Form 1.

What are the Changes?

The instruction changes associated with Issue 3 of the EASA Form 1 are minimal.  Only the instructions for completing block 12 and block 14a have been changed.  The instructions for completing block 12 and block 14a have been amended (1) to include reference to the Part CAO regulations and (2) to abbreviate “Certificate of Release to Service” as “CRS.”

EASA has established rules for a “combined airworthiness organisation,” or CAO, which is an organization that has both CAMO privileges and also maintenance privileges.  CAOs are authorized to work on non-complex aircraft that are not operated by an air carrier (i.e. simple general aviation aircraft).

In summary, the only substantive change to the EASA Form 1 instructions in issue 3 is conforming instructions that permit CAOs (under the CAO regulations) to issue the Form 1.

The new text for the block 12 instructions is here – with additions underlined and deletions shown with strike-through:

For maintenance organisations approved in accordance with Subpart F of Annex I (Part-M) or Annex Vd (Part-CAO, the component CRS certificate of release to service statement referred to in point M.A.613 and CAO.A.070, as applicable:

“Certifies that, unless otherwise specified in this block, the work identified in block 11 and described in this block was accomplished in accordance with the requirements of Section A, Subpart F of Annex I (Part-M) ) or Annex Vd (Part-CAO) to Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014 and in respect to that work the item is considered ready for release to service. THIS IS NOT A RELEASE UNDER ANNEX II (PART-145) TO REGULATION (EU) No 1321/2014”

 

The new text for the block 14a instructions is here – with additions underlined and deletions shown with strike-through:

Mark the appropriate box(es) indicating which regulations apply to the completed work. If the box “other regulations specified in block 12” is marked, then the regulations of the other airworthiness authority(ies) must be identified in block 12. At least one box must be marked, or both boxes may be marked, as appropriate.

For all maintenance carried out by maintenance organisations approved in accordance with Section A, Subpart F of Annex I (Part M) or Annex Vd (Part-CAO) to Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014, the box “other regulation specified in block 12” shall be ticked and the CRS certificate of release to service statement be entered made in block 12. In that case, the certification statement “unless otherwise specified in this block” is intended to address the following cases:

(a) where maintenance could not be completed;

(b) where maintenance deviated from the standard required by Annex I (Part-M) or Annex Vd (Part-CAO);

(c) where maintenance was carried out in accordance with a requirement other than that specified in Annex I (Part-M) or Annex Vd (Part-CAO); in this case, block 12 shall specify the particular national regulation.

For all maintenance carried out by maintenance organisations approved in accordance with Section A of Annex II (Part-145) to Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014, the certification statement “unless otherwise specified in block 12” is intended to address the following cases:

(a) where maintenance could not be completed;

(b) where maintenance deviated from the standard required by Annex II (Part-145);

(c) where maintenance was carried out in accordance with a requirement other than that specified in Annex II (Part-145); in this case, block 12 shall specify the particular national regulation.’;

Where Can I Find the New Form 1 Instructions?

EASA publishes Easy Access Rules for Continuing Airworthiness.  Many people in the industry have relied on the Easy Access Rules to identify the relevant EASA standards.  EASA is transitioning to the eRules on Continuing Airworthiness.  The eRules represent a comprehensive, single system for the drafting, sharing and storing of EASA rules.  Like the Easy Access Rules, it is an unofficial statement of the rules (the official version is the version found in the EU Implementing Regulations.

The ERules have been updated to reflect the four EU Commission Implementing Regulations that took effect since the April 2019 publication of the Easy Access Rules (the most recent publication):

  • (EU) 2018/1142 (14 August 2018);
  • (EU) 2019/1383 (8 July 2019);
  • (EU) 2018/1142 (14 August 2018);
  • (EU) 2020/270 (25 February 2020).

This means that the 2019 version of the Easy Access Rules does not include the new revision of the EASA Form 1, but the eRules do include the new form (and its new completion instructions).  It can be found in Annex I, Appendix II of Part M.

 

FAQ: Can I Receive the Old Version of the Form 1 (for EU-registered aircraft)?

When receiving satisfactory-condition aircraft parts under EASA 145.A.42, the receiver typically must obtain them with an EASA Form 1 or equivalent.

Unless EASA does something (in the future) to invalidate an old EASA Form 1, properly completed prior versions of the EASA Form 1 remain acceptable.  One reason for this is because the EASA regulations specify receipt of an EASA Form 1, but they do not specify a specific version or revision level for receipt.  Before issue 3 became live, maintenance would have been required to be documented on issue 2.

So yes, if you are receiving aircraft parts with an EASA Form 1 and want to confirm that the documentation meets the requirements of EASA Form 1, then the mere fact that the EASA Form 1 is the old version (issue 2) does not invalidate the documentation.

But be careful, because if an aircraft part was approved for release to service by an EU repair station on or after March 24, 2020, then it should be have been relased on issue 3 of the EASA Form 1.  EASA has not yet released guidance on what to do if an EU repair station uses issue 2 of the EASA Form 1 after that date, but if it is considered to be an error then the repair station shold be able to issue a replacement on the issue 3 version of the Form pursuant to Part M, Appendix II, Paragraph 4.

Also note that there is no change to the EASA Form 1 for new parts (the Part 21 footer remains valid).

 

FAQ: If My Business is a Repair Station with EASA Credentials then Can We Issue the Old Version of the Form 1?

After maintenance on a component, a repair station holding Part 145 certification in the EU issues a certificate of release to service (“CRS”).  The regulations typically require the CRS to be issued on the EASA Form 1 referred to in Appendix II of Annex I (Part-M).  As of March 24, 2020, the new version of the EASA Form 1 (issue 3) is the current version found in Appendix II of Annex I (Part-M).  Therefore EU repair stations should now be using the issue 3 version of the EASA Form 1.

This may require a change to the Maintenance Organization’s Exposition (MOE) for the 145 organization if the MOE specified use of EASA Form 1 issue 2 (e.g. in the forms section of the MOE).  If your Maintenance Organization’s Exposition has not been updated to permit use of EASA Form 1 issue 3, then you should coordinate with your local CAA.

 

FAQ: Can I Receive the New Version of the Form 1 (for US-registered aircraft)?

In the United States, a dual-release EASA Form 1 is accepted under the Maintenance Implementation Procedures (MIP) of the Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement.  Neither the MIP, nor the Mainenance Annex Guidance (which interprets the MIP), specifices the issue version of the EASA Form 1, so any issue should be equally acceptable under those agreements.

Yes, if the EASA Form 1 is properly completed as a dual release, then either the issue 2 version or the issue 3 version should be acceptable to allow a part to be received for ultimate installation on a US-registered aircraft.

 

FAQ: What About New Parts?

This change only affects maintenance releases.  It does not apply to EASA Form 1 for release of new production parts from a POA holder’s system.

If you look at the footers on your EASA Form 1s, you should see two different types of footers.  The EASA Form 1 for new production parts should say:

EASA Form 1-21 Issue 2

But if you look at your maintenance release EASA Form 1, it will say one of these two things in the footer:

Old Footer before March 24, 2020: EASA Form 1 — MF/145 Issue 2

New Footer as of March 24, 2020: EASA Form 1 — MF/CAO/145 Issue 3

EASA has two different sets of instructions for completing EASA Form 1, and the version of the instructions used to complete the form correlates to the footer on the form.  The new instructions (and the new footer) are only associated with the maintenance instructions and they are related to the new privileges for CAOs to issue EASA Form 1 as a maintenance release.  Nothing has changed for the production release; and production releases continue to be documented on the same version of the form that has been used.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , ,

No EASA Form 1 for Certain EU Parts?

December 19, 2019 by 1 Comment

EASA has published the comment respond document (CRD) and Opinion for its rule concerning “Installation of parts and appliances that are released without an EASA Form 1 or equivalent.”

ASA has been talking about this proposal a lot, so many of our members are already familiar with the proposal.  It would allow the design approval holder (DAH) to classify articles, and to permit certain articles to be exempted from the regulations (so that the regulator would have no production oversight over the article).  This would be performed in the context of preparation of the ICAs, as a privilege of the design approval holder.  The reason for classifying articles is to define a class of articles that do not need production approval, and that do not need EASA Form 1.

The DAH could choose to classify parts into two categories.  The categories would be distinguished based on the safety effect of the article as installed on the aircraft

  • Category One would reflect the norm, under which articles are produced under production organization approval (POA) and bear an EASA Form 1. This will be the default in cases where the manufacturer does not classify articles.
  • Category Two would reflect articles with a negligible safety effect. The regulators would not regulate the production of such parts.  Such articles would not require EASA Form 1 to be received by a Part 145 organization.  This would allow the DAH to de-regulate an article.

Classifying parts into category two would be a voluntary activity.  The DAH would determine the safety effect and would publish the list of category two parts in the instructions for continuing airworthiness (ICA).

The proposed language in the regulation that EASA is proposing to the European Commission for the rules would state:

“1. An organisation responsible for the manufacture of products, parts and appliances shall demonstrate its capability in accordance with the provisions of Annex I (Part 21). This demonstration of capability is not required for the parts or appliances that an organisation manufactures which, in accordance with the provisions of Annex I (Part21), are eligible for installation in a type-certified product without the need to be accompanied by an authorised release certificate (i.e. EASA Form 1).’;”

Corollary language in the annex, section 21.A.307, would explain thatit is not necessary to obtain production approval for:

“a part or appliance for which the consequences of a non-conformity with its approved design data has a negligible safety effect on the product and which is identified as such by the holder of the design approval in the instructions for continued airworthiness. In order to determine the safety effects of a non-conforming part or appliance, the design approval holder may establish in the instructions for continued airworthiness specific verification activities to be conducted by the installer of the part or appliance on the product;”

This language would provide a regulatory (“hard law”) basis for the EASA proposal.

The proposed rule still has problems.  ASA pointed out in comments that the ICA is typically not made available to distributors, and therefore it could become impossible for distributors to know the compliance obligations for articles, due to the fact that it would be impossible for distributors to know whether the articles were placed into category one or category two.  If a third party produced the parts under a claim that they were category two, then this claim would not be verifiable because the verification data would not be publicly available (thus a manufacturer could fabricate unapproved parts, erroneously call them category two, and introduce them into the system without EASA Form 1; and a distributor would have no way to verify whether the articles are category 1 or 2).  This opens to the door to introduction of unapproved parts, and undermines the systems that distributors have used to help protect air carriers from bad parts.

EASA has also discussed possibly using CS-STAN to identify articles that are considered to have ‘negligible safety effect’ and which can, therefore, be installed without an EASA Form 1.  This would be for articles that EASA feels generally have a negligible safety effect.

In comments, Rolls Royce Deutschland, the FAA, MARPA and ASA all suggested that this might be inconsistent with state duties under ICAO norms.  ASA suggested that the proposal might be inconsistent with European obligations under the Chicago Convention, Annex 8, Part II, section 2.2.1.

There is a possibility that this rule may change nothing,.  A comparable rule in the U.S., the commercial parts rule, was ill-formed and did not get used the way it was expected to be used.  So too, this new EASA rule might not be used and the industry may find itself unchanged after this rule.

 

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , ,

Change 7 to the FAA-EASA Maintenance Annex Guidance

December 2, 2019 by Leave a comment

Change seven to the FAA-EASA Maintenance Annex Guidance has been published.  The 171 page document was effective on its publication date (November 18, 2019) and must be implemented within 90 days of the issue date (February 16 is a Sunday, so that means February 17, 2020).

The latest draft appears to correct the prior omission of third parties authorities – like Brazil – by drawing reference to the third-party bilateral agreements.

ASA will publish more about how this affects distributors, soon, and this will be a topic of discussion at the Quality Committee Meeting on Friday December 6, 2019, in Dallas.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , ,

Brexit is Coming – How Will It Affect Aircraft Parts?

November 13, 2018 by Leave a comment

Brexit – the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union – will occur at 11 pm on Friday, March 29, 2019 (known as the withdrawal date).  In the past few weeks, we’ve met with representatives from the UK CAA, EASA and the FAA.  We’ve had a chance to talk about post-Brexit expectations.  It is clear that there are still a lot of unknowns.

One of the most significant unknowns revolves around the uncertainty in the future of UK-EU relations.  The UK CAA feels that there are generally two possible options.

The Two Options for Brexit

Option one is a Brexit that is reflected by an agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU. The EU and the UK negotiators have a draft of such an agreement, but early statements suggest that it may face some difficulty being ratified by the UK Parliament.

If there is a broad agreement between the two parties before the withdrawal date, then there is a reasonable chance that EU will permit UK CAA to participate in EASA.  EASA already has several non-EU participants that participate in EASA – like Norway and Switzerland – and the EU could permit the United Kingdom to join EASA as a non-EU member state.  In such a case, UK could continue to issue certificates recognized by EASA and certificate holders could continue to issue the EASA Form 1.  This option could make things simple, but as each day passes without a ratified high-level UK-EU agreement, the likelihood of this happening diminishes.

In addition, UK CAA has suggested that EASA may be unable to negotiate with UK CAA at any level under after the withdrawal date (because UK remains a part of the EU until then); so even if the plan is for UK CAA to participate in EASA, there may be a gap between the withdrawal date and UK CAA’s subsequent participation in EASA.

Option two arises if there is no deal between the United Kingdom and the European Union.  In such a case, UK CAA believes that EASA will not be permitted to negotiate with UK CAA on a formal basis. UK CAA would have to rebuild its own independent regulatory framework; it is already hiring additional qualified staff to be prepared to do this.

Under option two, and even under some versions of option one, there may be no aviation safety agreement between UK and EU.  If there is no agreement, then the European Commission published a Notice to Stakeholders detailing the consequences of the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union’s aviation safety rules.  The Notice to Stakeholders paints a bleak picture of the near future between the UK CAA and EASA.

European Union Treatment of Parts Produced or Maintain in the UK

The European Notice to Stakeholders explains that when the UK leaves the European Union (EU), then from an EU perspective, this action will (1) invalidate all certificates issued by the UK CAA, and (2) invalidate all certificates issued by the UK CAA certificate holders.  Certificates will be invalid as of the withdrawal date, which is currently set for 11pm (UK time) on March 29, 2019.

The Notice explains that “[t]he products, parts and appliances concerned will no longer be considered as certified in accordance with Article 5 of the Basic Regulation.”  Article 5 of the Basic Regulation provides the legal foundation for the issue of an EASA Form 1 for a part or appliance.

This means that UK production approvals will become invalid, as far as the EU is concerned.  But this does not just apply to parts made after March 29.  It also applies to parts made before the withdrawal date.

Under European regulations, acceptable parts are required to bear appropriate documentation (such as EASA Form 1).  EASA Forms 1 issued before the withdrawal date under UK CAA authority become invalid as of the withdrawal date.  This means that parts in your inventory today – parts that are perfectly acceptable for installation on European-registered aircraft, today – will no longer be acceptable, after withdrawal, under EASA documentation rules because the UK CAA certificates will become invalid after the withdrawal.

After March 29, one may not install a part that is documented solely under a UK CAA EASA Form 1 into an EU-registered aircraft.  It would appear likely that this also would apply to aircraft registered in non-EU nations (like Norway) that have agreed to follow EASA regulations.  This would include:

  • New parts with UK CAA EASA Form 1
  • Maintained parts released to service on a UK CAA EASA Form 1

In a practical sense, if you have an EASA Form 1 for a new part, and it was issued in the UK, then the EU will no longer recognize it as a valid document after Brexit.  This means that parts in your inventory that bear EASA Form 1 may have to be segregated and identified as “UK” and “EU,” in order to ensure that if they are still in inventory after Brexit, then they can be directed to customers who are legally able to use those parts.

How does a distributor tell if its EASA Form 1 certificates are affected?  Check block 1 of the form.  This is the block with the name of the regulatory authority.  If it says “UK CAA” in block one, then the EU will no longer recognize it as a valid tag after the withdrawal date (unless there is an agreement that changes the circumstances).  As an example, here is a link to a form issued under the legal authority granted by France’s DGAC; and here is a link to an overhaul tag issued under the legal authority granted by the UK CAA.

Some people might wonder about dual-certificated parts from the UK.  About 200 repair station in the UK have FAA Part 145 certifications, and they historically have been released to service, following maintenance, on a UK CAA EASA Form 1 that also indicates compliance with FAA Part 145 regulations.  The EU has a bilateral agreement with the United States … does this permit acceptance of the work because it was performed under US FAA standards (too)?  The answer is “no.”  The EU only accepts maintenance from the United States’ system when it also approved under the EASA 145 standards.  Because UK’s EASA 145 certificates (and all other certificates issued by the repair stations) will become invalid upon withdrawal, a dual US-UK approval will not be acceptable for introduction into the EASA system.

Possible UK Solutions

EASA has a solution.  But it may be a costly and unwieldy solution.

EASA has proposed to issue EASA certificates to businesses in the UK as “third-country.”  In fact, it started accepting applications on October 2.  “Third country” treatment means that the UK certificate holders get treated like any-old foreigners.  They need to pay as if they were foreign applicants.  They need to pay for all of the EASA-time spent in approval and oversight.

By way of comparison, the EU has a working arrangement agreement with Uzbekistan.  It is currently scheduled to have no agreement with the UK.  So the Uzbekistan CAA is scheduled to have a closer relationship with EASA than the UK CAA will have.  This doesn’t mean that the years of trust between EASA and UK CAA disappear.  In the interim between now and March 29 (while UK CAA is still a member of EASA), EASA will be relying on UK CAA to support audits of UK aviation businesses that apply for EASA certificates as third country applicants.

EASA issues a number of foreign certificates, but the two most important for aircraft parts distribution are likely to be production organization approvals and maintenance organization approvals.  Both are potentially available to UK businesses.  An EASA third-country production organization approval would permit a UK manufacturer to produce parts and issue an acceptable EASA Form 1 even after the withdrawal date.  An EASA maintenance organization approval would permit a UK repair station to maintain articles and issue an acceptable EASA Form 1 even after the withdrawal date.

The timing of third-country certificates appears to be uncertain.  It would make the most sense for EASA to issue the certificate on or before March 29 in order to allow seamless operations in support of aviation safety.  The earlier that   EASA is able to issue the certificate before March 29. the better for industry planning (including safety contingency planning).  But it is also possible that the European Union will not permit EASA to issue third-country certificates to businesses in the UK until after the withdrawal date (a lergal justification advanced for this delay is that UK is not a third country until the withdrawal date).

When a distributor looks at an EASA Form 1 certificate issued by a UK-based entity, if block 1 of the form says “EASA” then this is an indication that the relevant certificate was issued by EASA and not by the UK CAA.  If it says “EASA” in block one of the Form 1, then the EU should recognize it as a valid (“third country”) tag after the withdrawal date.

What happens to parts that were maintained or produced in the UK before withdrawal date, by a company that obtains a replacement EASA third country certification?  This would appear to establish a continuity of EASA approval; but the actual legal treatment of the certification is currently unknown.  It is equally possible that EASA could invalidate EVERYTHING with UK CAA in block one (for ease of determination) or it could decide to accept parts from UK certificate holders who subsequently obtain comparable EASA foreign approvals (causing potential complication in cases where there was a hiatus between the withdrawal date and the date on which the EASA foreign approval was issued).

US Acceptance of UK Maintenance and Production

The United States and the United Kingdom have pledged to work things out.  It is likely that there will be some difficulties at first (there always are), but both authorities seem optimistic about their desire to find a way to support safety and keep aviation flying.  They are actively negotiating a new bilateral agreement, with the understanding that they will be ready to use it if the UK CAA is unable to rely on EASA as their agent (and if the EU permits UK CAA to participate in EASA, then some of the following details will likely change).

An important element of the US-UK negotiations is the plan concerning UK-based repair stations.  As previously mentioned, there are about 200 repair stations in the UK that bear FAA credentials as well.  The plan appears to be

  1. Identify the repair stations whose FAA credentials will expire in the first six months after the withdrawal date;
  2. Renew the FAA credentials of those soon-expiring repair stations early, before the withdrawal date, so they can be renewed before March 29 under the EASA provisions;
  3. This early renewal of expiring repair station certificates in the UK allows the FAA to have a cushion of time to work-out the operating procedures with UK CAA without any emergencies forcing rash decisions;
  4. After the withdrawal date, FAA repair stations in the UK will be permitted to issue dual release 8130-3 tags under FAA and UK CAA authority.

Yes, you read that last bit correctly.  Repair stations in the UK would be permitted to issue 8130-3 tags as approval for return to service documents.  This unusual move is permitted, because FAA removed the geographic limitations on 8130-3 tags about a decade ago.  The UK repair stations in question hold FAA Part 145 certificates and are permitted to approve for return to service in accordance with 14 C.F.R. 43.9.  UK CAA is in favor of this solution because the 8130-3 tag is well-recognized internationally.

Other than these details, it is likely that much of the UK-US bilateral will resemble the US-EASA bilateral in order to minimize the differences and mitigate the change management issues associated with Brexit.

Conclusion

It is possible that the EU and the UK will enter into an agreement that permits UK CAA to remain a part of EASA.  It is also possible that Brexit could be reversed.  But, absent some other agreement, the EU will no longer accept UK-based EASA Form 1 for new parts, even if the Form was issued while the UK was still part of the EU, after the withdrawal date.

Distributors need to be prepared by:

  1. Assessing their inventory for susceptibility to Brexit issues based on UK CAA production and/or maintenance, and potentially segregating inventory in a way that eases identification;
    • Segregation could be physical or virtual, e.g. inventory could be managed through software;
    • Remember that we might not know who is willing to accept EASA Form 1 from the UK CAA until very close to the withdrawal date;
  2. Communicating with customers to understand their post-Brexit expectations;
  3. Establishing procedures for proper handling of UK CAA-tagged articles to ensure that they do not go to customers who cannot accept such articles;
  4. Training their personnel on how Brexit impacts the business and the customers;
  5. Communicating with UK-based partners to assess how they plan to deal with the changes.  For example, will your UK-based repair stations apply for EASA 145 under the third-country provisions?  Will your UK-based manufacturers apply for EASA POA under the third-country provisions?

Bear in mind that we’ve dealt here only with the airworthiness acceptance issues in this article.  Commercial relationships will be further complicated by myriad other issues, ranging from import tariffs to continued operations of aircraft.

This is a developing issue.  ASA will be taking steps to keep members informed, and ASA hopes to host discussions about the impact of Brexit in the near future.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , ,

Holy Grail: International Mutual Maintenance Acceptance

November 12, 2018 by Leave a comment

Today, distributors who obtain overhaul services for their rotable aircraft p[arts are well-aware of the value of the tag that accompanies the part.  Depending on the company’s business model, a distributor seeking overhaul services may ask for more than one certification on the Approval for Return To Service (ARTS) documentation.  For example, a common certification is a dual US-EU certification made on either an EASA Form 1 or an FAA Form 8130-3.  This allows the part to ultimately be installed in either a US-registered aircraft of an aircraft registered in one of the EU member nations.  For a distributor that does not yet know which customer will purchase the overhauled component, having multiple certifications approving the component overhaul expands the potential customer pool that might be able to purchase that component.

But as the number of countries potentially extending jurisdiction over maintenance grows, the number of certifications that one must consider becomes unwieldy.  This can be maddening for a distributor that enjoys a global business model.

The large number of jurisdictions that could exert jurisdiction over maintenance work has resulted in some repair stations experiencing commercial pressure to obtain multiple certificates, and to be prepared to sign-off on maintenance under the rules of multiple different jurisdictions.  One friend of mine has admitted that he is managing over 130 certificates in his maintenance facilities.

Typically, the way that the maintenance is performed doesn’t change from one jurisdiction to the next; what changes are the ancillary matters, like how the maintenance is documented, how employee training is documented, what matters must be communicated to the government that issued the certificate, etc.  Because the way that the maintenance is performed really doesn’t change from one jurisdiction to the next, if one jurisdiction can accept that the neighboring jurisdiction’s government oversight yields the same results as its neighbor, then there may be some room for the governments to extend to one another a mutual recognition of the maintenance performed in the other.

Many people will be familiar with existing examples of this sort of mutual recognition.  One of the longest-standing such relationships exists between the United States and Canada.  Under existing United States laws, maintenance performed by a Transport Canada Authorized Maintenance Organization (AMO) is accepted in the United States as if it had been performed by an FAA-certificated repair station.  See 14 C.F.R. 43.17.  The regulations also recognize certain work signed-off under an Aviation Maintenance Engineer (AME) license from Canada.  In each case, the Canadian does not need an FAA certificate – the US accepts the work done by the Canadian certificate holder because of the trust between the FAA and Transport Canada (trust that is verified and renewed through collaboration and mutual oversight at the government-level).  Canada’s regulations provide for a similar recognition of maintenance performd in the US by FAA certificate-holders.

Recently, the quadrilateral group of airworthiness authorities met in Brazil to discuss a future paradigm in which mutual recognition of maintenance might be possible.  The quadrilateral group is made up of:

  • Brazil (ANAC),
  • Canada (TCCA),
  • European Union (EASA), and
  • United States (FAA).

The essence of such mutual recognition of maintenance is close and careful coordination that allows the authorities to each conclude that the others are performing oversight which yields substantially the same results – that is, a finding that a repair station subject to FAA oversight will yield the same safety results as a repair station subject to EASA oversight.

During the Brazil meeting, industry representatives and the authorities discussed the implementation mechanisms for such a paradigm shift.  Industry would like to see the authorities adopt a multilateral focus.  As part of this, they would like to see the four authorities consider a multilateral agreement in which the four authorities agree to mutual recognition and common standards for maintenance among themselves.

The Multilateral Approach

One reason for this is multilateral approach is because variances in the way that maintenance is accepted could cause problems.  For example, imagine a scenario where where maintenance on a subcomponent X is performed in jurisdiction one.  The maintained subcomponent X is then exported to jurisdiction two, which has an agreement to accept the maintenance performed under the maintenance authority of jurisdiction one. A repair station located in jurisdiction two accepts the maintained subcomponent X and introduces it into component Y, during the course of an overhaul of component Y.  This is permitted under a mutual recognition agreement between jurisdiction one and jurisdiction two.  The problem arises when the component Y is then exported to jurisdiction three.  Under a maintenance mutual recognition agreement between jurisdiction two and three, the repair station in jurisdiction three can accept the work performed in jurisdiction two.  But if there is not yet a bilateral agreement between jurisdictions one and three, then the subcomponent overhaul work on subcomponent X may not be acceptable to jurisdiction three.

But imagine that there is also a bilateral maintenance mutual recognition agreement between jurisdiction two and jurisdiction three.  This still might not solve the problem; because if the documentation requirements differ or if small details differ, then the maintenance documentation/acceptance requirements of jurisdiction two may not be adequate for jurisdiction three.  In such a case, maintenance that would have been acceptable in jurisdiction three if it had come directly from jurisdiction one, becomes unacceptable merely because it went first to jurisdiction two under the “wrong” paperwork.

This causes a problem in smoothly accepting the subcomponent and component work in jurisdiction three.  This problem is less likely to arise if all four of the quadrilateral jurisdictions agree to the same standards for accepting maintenance in a multilateral agreement, instead of a series of six bilateral agreements.

The Bilateral Approach

The authorities on the other hand, have made it clear that they prefer to retain the multilateral coordination, but to act through bilateral agreements.  This means a total of six agreements among the four authorities:

 

Brazil (ANAC) – – – Canada (TCCA)
| \ / |
| X |
| / \ |
European Union (EASA) – – – United States (FAA)

 

One reason for the preference for the bilateral agreement approach is that this is the approach that has historically been used in aviation.

The authorities all agree that there is too much redundancy in maintenance oversight.  They are committed to making strides to reduce unnecessary reduncancy.  But today, they typically approach issues through bilateral relations, so they are not yet comfortable with taking a multilateral-agreement approach to maintenance acceptance.

This is not a task that will happen quickly.  The trust-building among authorities to permit reliance on one-another, alone, is a lengthy process.  But industry proposed a number of ways to faciliate progress, such as using a risk-based approach to allow staged maintenance acceptance.  Under such a scenario, lower-risk maintenance, like non-critical component maintenance, could be accepted first, and acceptance of maintenance work that incorporates a higher level of risk tolerance could be shared among the authorities at a later date, when the authorities become comfortable with sharing maintenance recognition of less-risk-sensitive maintenance.

Another idea that was floated as a model in which third parties could assess compliance to an international standard (a standard encompassing international maintenance norms).  A repair station that was certificated by its home government AND accredited to a third party standard based on international norms could be eligible to issue an internationally-recognized approval for return to service.  AC 00-56B and AS9100 are both examples of accreditation programs that can help to serve as effective models for the government bodies to consider.

The Continuing Efforts

These concepts are being developed by the quadrilateral group in partnership with industry representatives.  They recognize that with finite regulatory resources, the elimination of redundant oversight means more authority resources can be focused on maintaining and improving safety.

At the same time that the quadrilateral group is working with industry on this project, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is also investigating an international model for mutual recognition of maintenance.  If the ICAO effort is successful, then it could lead to international standards and recommended practices (SARPs) that might make it easier for governments to engage in mutual recognition of maintenance activities.

ASA will continue to work with the regulatory authorities to facilitate their trust-building exercises, to support their efforts to eliminate unnecessary redundancy, and to eliminate paperwork and administrative impediments that actually undermine safety by diverting focus away from the true aviation safety concerns.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , ,

← Older posts