New Guidance on Completing 8130-3

November 2, 2025 by 1 Comment

The FAA has new instructions on how to complete 8130-3 tags.

FAA Order 8130.21J is the new guidance on how a manufacturer or an FAA designee completes the FAA Form 8130-3. It becomes effective on November 24, 2025. This order includes instructions for a designee who issues the form for parts at a distributor’s facility:

When issued at a distributor, a 14 CFR part 121 or 14 CFR part 135 certificate holder, or a 14 CFR part 145 certificated repair station, enter the following statement: “The product or article shipped under this approval was produced by [insert PAH’s name and CM project number].”

The order also includes instructions for splitting bulk shipments:

8.f.(2) Splitting a bulk shipment. Any person may split a bulk shipment that the person owns or controls. When splitting bulk shipments, PAHs, PAH associate facilities, distributors, PAH-approved suppliers having direct shipment authorizations shall have procedures in place to control products or articles. Previously shipped bulk shipments of new products or articles may be split as many times as the original quantity listed in block 9 permits. Products or articles received without an FAA Form 8130-3 must not be mixed with those received with FAA Form 8130-3. To split a bulk shipment associated with a form, copy the form and either:

(a) Indicate on each copy of the form (front or back side) the number of aircraft engines, propellers, or articles being shipped, tracking number for the portion being shipped, and the name, physical address, date, and contact information of the person splitting the shipment, or;

(b) Make a statement on a separate document accompanying each copy that includes: the tracking number of the original form, tracking number for the portion being shipped (tracking number assigned to the new statement by the person responsible for splitting the bulk shipment), number of aircraft engines, propellers, or articles being shipped (under this new statement), and the name, physical address, date, and contact information of the person splitting the shipment.

Note: Retain a copy of the form or the separate document used to split a bulk shipment
according to paragraph 8.d. This note only applies to paragraph 8.f.(2)

FAA Advisory Circular 43-9D is the new guidance on how a repair station or other maintenance provider completes the FAA Form 8130-3 as an approval for return to service and maintenance release. Rebuilds performed under 14 C.F.R. 43.3(j) and approved under 14 C.F.R. 43.7(d) ARE NOT part of this guidance (they are covered under Order 8120.18A).

Resources

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , ,

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 , , , , , , ,

FAA Proposed to Apply Drug Testing Rules to Foreign Repair Stations

December 8, 2023 by Leave a comment

The FAA has published a proposed rule that would apply FAA drug-and-alcohol testing rules to foreign (non-US) repair stations.

Statutory Authority

49 U.S.C. 45102 directs the FAA to prescribe drug-and-alcohol testing regulations for air carriers and foreign air carriers. Section 308 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (the Act), 49 U.S.C. 44733(d)(2), requires the FAA to “promulgate a proposed rule requiring that all part 145 repair station employees responsible for safety-sensitive maintenance functions on part 121 air carrier aircraft [be] subject to an alcohol and controlled substances testing program determined acceptable by the [FAA] Administrator and consistent with the applicable laws of the country in which the repair station is located.” Section 2112 of the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016 directed the FAA to finalize the drug-and-alcohol provisions.

Regulatory Actions

The FAA published an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on this subject on March 17, 2014.

Opponents of this provision suggested that this could be considered an imposition on the sovereignty of the foreign government. Commenters to the ANPRM suggested that the FAA shouldn’t impose regulations on persons outside the territory of the U.S. where those regulations conflict with the laws of sovereign nations.

The FAA determined that it might be true that extra-territorial application of FAA drug-and-alcohol testing regulations might violate national and international law “and might exceed generally recognized limits to extraterritorial jurisdiction.” Nonetheless, the FAA reasoned that if an FAA testing rule was contrary to the applicable laws of a country in which a repair station was located, then the appropriate remedy would be for the repair station to apply for an exemption from the FAA’s drug-and-alcohol testing regulations.

Comments are due February 5, 2024.



Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , ,

SMS Rumors – SMS For Part 145 May Meet Obstacles

December 9, 2022 by Leave a comment

The aviation industry has anxiously awaited the FAA’s Safety Management Systems (SMS) rulemaking. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) had been scheduled for September, 2022, and was then delayed until December of this year. It appears that the proposed SMS rule may have hit another snag.

Industry rumors are suggesting that the SMS rule may have been inadequate to meet the requirements reviewed by the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). This is based in part on an industry critique that was filed with OIRA; the critique accused the rule of offering inadequate options to small businesses.

If these rumors are true, then it is likely that the SMS rule could be cleaved in half – with the manufacturing portion going forward (but only applying to large manufacturers) and the repair station half being held back.

Regulatory historians will recall that in 1999, the FAA proposed to add quality assurance system requirements to repair stations. That rule was scaled back to just a quality manual. The present SMS proposal for repair stations appears to suffer from some of the same issues that impacted the quality assurance systems rule about twenty years ago. The easiest way for the FAA to deal with this would be to simply go forward with the manufacturing SMS rule but remove the repair station SMS requirements until the FAA could rethink the technical evaluation.

This does not mean that SMS won’t apply to repair stations. EASA has already passed an SMS requirement (EU repair stations entered the two-year implementation period a week ago) and there are air carriers who are talking about flowing down their SMS requirements to their maintenance providers. ASA members with repair station certificates will still need to pay careful attention to their SMS obligations. But those same companies may find that they have more options to meet customer SMS requirements, including voluntary SMS programs.

This is a developing story, and we expect to have more news on SMS developments in 2023!

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , ,

Protecting Your Right to Get Paid Vol. 3: Filing Security Interests For Work or Materials on a Specific Aircraft

June 22, 2022 by Leave a comment

In my last blog, I discussed how to establish and “perfect” a security interest related to an aircraft parts sale. I refer to such agreements as liens-by-agreement because they are typically founded upon a security agreement that establishes the rights and responsibilities associated with the secured transaction.

In today’s blog post, we will discuss how to establish a “lien-by-law.” Many states have laws that permit someone who adds value to an aircraft to assert a lien against that aircraft.

The name of these liens varies by state. In some states, the appropriate law might be called an artisan’s lien. It can also be called a mechanic’s lien but be careful of laws with this name because the term “mechanic’s lien” can also refer to a type of construction lien that does not apply to aircraft parts.

The scope of these liens can also vary. Some of the laws are limited to cases where labor is performed on the aircraft (e.g. repair station work), while others include provision of materials. Some of the materials-based lien laws could permit a distributor to establish a lien on an aircraft where a part was sold with the specific intent of it being installed on an an identified aircraft (depending on the state, you may need the signature of the owner/operator on a document in order to assert the lien). For example, Missouri law permits someone who furnishes materials for an aircraft to obtain a lien on the aircraft if he obtains:

  • a memorandum describing the material furnished, or to be furnished; that is,
  • signed by the owner, authorized agent of the owner, or person in lawful possession of the aircraft (such as the operator)

Such liens can be asserted over an aircraft, or they can be asserted over an aircraft part or assembly if that is what is being worked-on.

Possessory Liens

Some states have laws that allow someone who provides goods or services to retain a possessory lien in the aircraft. This means that the lien exists as long as the provider retains possession of the aircraft. California is one jurisdiction that has a possessory lien law. Typically, where there is a pure possessory lien law, the lien holder may lose the lien upon relinquishing possession of the aircraft. Such possessory lien laws are usually coupled with the right to retain the aircraft subject to the lien (to clarify that retaining possession is permitted). They may also provide a specific protocol for using the aircraft to enforce the lien (California lets the lien holder sell the aircraft after the debt becomes delinquent by ten days).

Filing Liens

Some states have lien laws that are not possessory. Typically, if the lien law is not possessory (doesn’t require the service provider to retain the aircraft) then the law will require notice as a means of perfecting the lien. Remember that the purpose of perfection is typically to establish constructive notice, which provides you with a priority relative to later-filed liens. “Notice” means that the lien-statement must be filed with a state agency, and/or the FAA. Which one do you have to file with? That depends on the requirements of state law!

As an example, let’s take a quick look at the current Florida aircraft lien law:

329.51 Liens for labor, services, fuel, or material expended upon aircraft; notice.—Any lien claimed on an aircraft under s. 329.41 [fuel] or s. 713.58 [labor/services] is enforceable when the lienor records a verified lien notice with the clerk of the circuit court in the county where the aircraft was located at the time the labor, services, fuel, or material was last furnished. The lienor is not required to possess the aircraft to perfect such lien. The lienor must record such lien notice within 90 days after the time the labor, services, fuel, or material was last furnished. The notice must state the name of the lienor; the name of the owner; a description of the aircraft upon which the lienor has expended labor, services, fuel, or material; the amount for which the lien is claimed; and the date the expenditure was completed. This section does not affect the priority of competing interests in any aircraft or the lienor’s obligation to record the lien under s. 329.01.

F.S. 329.51 (2022).

This clause explains that the enforceability of the lien is tied to filing a notice “with the clerk of the circuit court.” A separate statute (F.S. 329.01) also requires fling with the FAA in order to extend validity to third parties (perfection of the lien, as we discussed in the last blog post). Courts can read enforceability as being something different from perfection, which suggests that you need to file your lien notice with both the FAA and the circuit court clerk in order to fully secure your rights.

Note that Florida also makes it illegal in some cases to remove the aircraft from the service provider before the payment is tendered (if the removal is performed “with intent to defraud,” which includes situations like paying with a check and the ordering a stop-payment on the check), unless the service provider provides written consent for that removal.

Hybrid Lien Laws

Some states require the repair station to retain possession and also to file a financing statement. Some permit both options. For example, the Missouri law that was mentioned above permits assertion of a possessory lien, but it also allows the person furnishing the labor or material on the aircraft to retain the lien without possession by filing a statement in the office of the county recorder of the county where the owner of the aircraft or part or equipment resides (if this is not known then an alternative filing location would be where the recorder where the labor or material was furnished).

Conclusion

State lien laws vary widely, so it is important to identify the correct state laws that apply. Note that some states might have more than one law that applies (they may provide you with options). Look for both aviation-specific laws and also more general laws that permit providers across many industries to assert liens. It is important to identify all of your options so you can determine which option best-suits your needs.

It is equally important to identify how to perfect the lien, because perfection provides (constructive) notice that your lien has priority over other liens that are later-filed. Is possession sufficient? Do you need to file somewhere? Do you need to file with both the state and the federal government? The answers to these questions can be complex, and it may be worthwhile to employ an aviation attorney to help build an effective system for protecting your commercial rights.

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 , , , , , , , , , ,

European SMS Requirements for Repair Stations; Could Indirectly Affect Distributors

November 10, 2021 by Leave a comment

According to EASA sources, Safety Management Systems (SMS) requirements should be published as a part of the EASA repair station regulations before the end of the year. The part 145 SMS requirements will likely be published by the European Commission this calendar year, with associated AMCs and GMs coming from EASA. 

The EASA SMS rule for repair stations is expected to be applicable 20 days after the publication date (that’s when compliance is permitted).  Compliance with the EASA SMS rule is expected to be required one year later (385 days after the publication date).  The initial one-year period will be for initial implementing of SMS programs.

After initial implementation, the applicable authorities will audit and provide feedback to help get repair stations into full compliance. Each EASA Part 145 organization will have a two-year period for implementing missing elements with the help of the authorities (e.g. for implementing corrective action in response to authority findings). 

This is a new program so we expect that there will be findings issued against the implementers by the authorities.  The two-year transition period is meant to be a period during which all of the authority findings should be closed.

This should not have an immediate effect on US-based EASA 145 organizations because of the way that the US-EU maintenance agreement (and guidance) is structured; but the essence of that agreement is that both regulatory systems are substantially similar, so the addition of SMS to the EU system opens the door to further negotiations. This is somewhat mitigated by the fact that the United States plans to issue an SMS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for repair station SMS in September 2022.

By the end of 2024, the European Community expects that all EASA Part 145 organizations should be in full compliance with SMS.

SMS requires communications with business partners, so distributors, and others, who do business with European repair stations should not be surprised if they start seeing communications seeking hazard data, and asking about mitigation strategies for known (or recently discovered) hazards. ASA has already provided SMS training for the community, and will be providing more. ASA plans to provide more SMS-related resources for its members to support their smooth coordination with customers’ SMS programs.

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 , , , , , ,

Does a Dual-Certificated Part 145 Repair Station Need Documentation for Parts, or Can It Inspect Them, Prior to Installation?

October 15, 2017 by Leave a comment

An ASA member recently asked us to answer a MAG 6 question.  MAG 6 refers to revision 6 of the Maintenance Annex Guidance between the Federal Aviation Administration and the European Aviation Safety Agency.

QUESTION: The ASA member (a dual-certificated repair stations subject to the MAG 6 requirements) asked “Concerning USED replacement parts intended to be fitted to an engine during the maintenance process, does EASA expect every single one of those items installed during the maintenance process to have a dual-release 8130-3, dual-release TC Form One, or dual/tri-release EASA Form one with it assuming it is not a standard part?  (Reference item 10, Section B, Appendix 1 from US-EU Mag, Chang 6)”

ANSWER: The short answer is that a dual-certificated (part 145) repair station in the US generally need specified documentation for used parts intended to be fitted during maintenance, BUT such a repair station can accept a part without the specified documentation if it inspects the part under FAA Notice 8900.429.

First of all, the reader should note that MAG 6 is DIFFERENT from the EASA regulations and therefore an answer under MAG 6 might be different from the answer to a similar question posed purely under EASA regulations.

MAG 6 explains that when a repair station wants to install used components, those components must meet the following conditions before they are fitted during maintenance:

  • Must be in a satisfactory condition for installation;
  • Must be eligible for installation as stated in the PAH parts catalogue or aviation authority (AA) approval document (like a FAA-PMA supplement);
  • Must include one of these authorized release documents (as a maintenance release for a used component) from an appropriately rated maintenance facility:
    • FAA Form 8130-3 from EASA-approved U.S.-based 14 CFR part 145 repair stations;
    • EASA Form 1 from EASA Part-145 approved maintenance organizations not located in the U.S.
    • Canadian Form 1 from a Canadian EASA-approved maintenance organization;
  • In the case of life limited parts, the life used must be appropriately documented.

The FAA recognized that there are significant problems with this language.  It simply doesn’t cover all of the normal situations typically found in the industry.  So the FAA issued FAA Notice 8900.380 (which expired in 2017), followed by FAA Notice 8900.429 (which effectively extended the policy published in Notice 8900.380).  Each of these Notices permits new and used parts to be inspected by a properly rated repair station (notwithstanding the apparent limitations of MAG 6).  The repair station should have appropriate inspection criteria for conducting the inspection.

FAA Notice 8900.429 will expire August 8, 2018, and is expected to be encompassed in permanent guidance before that date.  If this Notice has not been replaced by appropriate guidance by next summer, then ASA will likely petition to have a third Notice issued in order to protect the industry’s ability to accept and use airworthy parts.

So, in summary, a dual-certificated repair station in the U.S. (and subject to MAG 6) receiving used components that are intended to be fitted during maintenance must either (1) receive them with an appropriate 8130-3, EASA Form 1 or TCCA Form 1, or (2) perform an inspection of the parts and find them eligible for installation.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , ,

More FAA Guidance Creates More Confusion

August 31, 2016 by 1 Comment

The FAA has issued new guidance that interprets the Maintenance Annex Guidance (MAG).  At first, it looks like it is going to fix some of the problems.  And just when it looks like the problems might be fixed, it throws us a curve ball with a limitation that appears to once again work to the disadvantage of distributors with new and new surplus parts.

The new guidance is FAA Notice 8900.380.  The key language in this new guidance states:

“b. Inspections. For the purposes of this notice, inspections may be performed on:

(1) New parts in inventory prior to October 1, 2016, that are not accompanied by FAA Form 8130-3, a dated certificate of conformance, or similar documentation issued by a U.S. PAH or supplier with direct ship authority in accordance with the notes in MAG CHG 6, Section B, Appendix 1, subparagraph 10k)(1)(a) and Section C, Appendix 1, subparagraph 7c)(1)(a); and
(2) New parts released by a U.S. PAH on and after October 1, 2016, that are not accompanied by FAA Form 8130-3.”

The problem language is the “in inventory” phrase in section (b)(1).  Does it mean parts in a repair station’s inventory?  Or is it broader, applying to parts in anyone’s inventory? If it is limited to parts in a repair station’s inventory prior to October 1, 2016, then this still seems to prevent a distributor from selling a part without an 8130-3 or Form One to a repair station as of October 1, as implied by the MAG.  Repair stations would not be able to accept new parts with manufacturer’s certificate of conformity (but no 8130-3) and inspect them to confirm airworthiness, as they have done for many years in the past.

In essence, aircraft parts that were released by a U.S. PAH before October 1, 2016 (today, this means ALL parts) and that are ‘not in the right inventory’ as of October 1, 2016 would not be eligible to be inspected by a repair station.

On the other hand, if the terminology is broader, and it applies to all inventories, then this would return us to the position that we’ve always been in – where EASA 145 repair stations can accept parts without an 8130-3 as “unserviceable” parts and then inspect them to satisfactory condition (which inspection can be supplemented by review of the PAH certificate of conformity or other PAH documentation).  This interpretation would be much better for the industry.

So which one is it? Unfortunately, this phrase, “in inventory,” was discussed in a June meeting among FAA, EASA and industry.  The meeting was called to discuss the MAG.   ASA raised the term and suggested that it be interpreted to include parts in a distributor’s inventory.  This suggestion was soundly rejected by EASA.  EASA explained that the context of the MAG was that it applied to repair stations and therefore “in inventory” must be read to only include repair station inventories (and not distributor inventories).  ASA explained that such an interpretation closed an important safety valve for parts in distributors’ inventories.  The matter seemed final in the meeting, with the FAA acquiescing to the EASA interpretation.

In recent conversations, an ARSA representative suggested that the term “in inventory” should apply to any inventory, anywhere.  He suggested that the prior EASA interpretation might be ignored for the Notice because the Notice is a separate document.  The problem is, the Notice interprets the MAG (and explicitly states that it will be incorporated into the MAG in the next revision).  It therefore appears to be subject to the same interpretations and limitations as those associated with the MAG.

On the same day that we received a copy of this FAA Notice, ASA made a request for interpretation to the FAA, asking how to interpret the term “in inventory.”  The request remains pending.  We are hoping that the FAA will issue a response explaining that parts in a distributor’s inventory are “in inventory” and can be sent to a dual-certified repair station for purchase and inspection by that repair station.  To do so, though, might require the FAA to exercise some political courage, because such an interpretation would contradict the EASA statements. We also hope for a rapid response from the FAA, because these questions are interfering with commerce in aircraft parts from the United States.

But even if we get the interpretation that we want, there will still be perfectly good aircraft parts that remain ineligible for inspection under the peculiar limitations imposed by the MAG and Order 8900.380.  We continue to hear stories from members about necessary and safe aircraft parts that are excluded from the system by the new rules.  ASA will continue to work with the FAA and the courts to obtain a remedy that returns some sanity to the system.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , ,

← Older posts