1 / 72

Opinion 02/2008 Amendment to Part-M for aircraft not used in Commercial Air Transport

Opinion 02/2008 Amendment to Part-M for aircraft not used in Commercial Air Transport. Juan Anton Rulemaking Directorate EASA. Current requirements.

keren
Download Presentation

Opinion 02/2008 Amendment to Part-M for aircraft not used in Commercial Air Transport

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Opinion 02/2008Amendment to Part-M for aircraft not used in Commercial Air Transport Juan Anton Rulemaking Directorate EASA Cologne: Part-M workshop (Opinion 02/2008)

  2. Current requirements • On 20 November 2003 the European Commission adopted Regulation (EC) 2042/2003, on the continuing airworthiness of aircraft and aeronautical products, parts and appliances, and on the approval of organisations and personnel involved in these tasks. • This Regulation includes Implementing Rules (Part-M, 145, 66 and 147). In particular, Part-M introduces measures to be taken to ensure that airworthiness is maintained, included maintenance. Cologne: Part-M workshop (Opinion 02/2008)

  3. Current requirements • For aircraft involved in Commercial Air Transport, most of the Part-M requirements have been mandatory since 28 September 2005. • For aircraft not involved in commercial air transport, Part-M requirements are not applicable yet (for countries that have opted-out), but its implementation can not be postponed further than 28 September 2008. Cologne: Part-M workshop (Opinion 02/2008)

  4. Part-M Regulatory Impact Assessment and Consultation Process • Article 7(6) of (EC) No 2042/2003 required the Agency to make an evaluation of the implications of the provisions of Part-M, and propose changes if it was found necessary. • The final result is the opinion 02/2008 issued on 16 May 2008. • This opinion contains only proposed changes to the rules. The associated AMC and guidance material was described in CRD 2007-08, and will be issued by EASA as soon as the opinion is approved by the Commission. Cologne: Part-M workshop (Opinion 02/2008)

  5. Part-M Regulatory Impact Assessment and Consultation Process • This opinion 02/2008 is the result of a long process that includes: • NPA07/2005, published in June 2005, as a result of the Regulatory Impact Assessment performed by Air EuroSafe. • This resulted in CRD 07/2005, published in April 2007. • Further changes resulting from tasks M.017 and M.005, published as NPA 2007-08 in June 2007. • This resulted in CRD 2007-08, published in March 2008. Reactions to both CRDs were taken into account before issuing the final opinion 02/2008. Cologne: Part-M workshop (Opinion 02/2008)

  6. Envisaged calendar • Opinion 02/2008 was published on 16 May 2008. • This opinion will be debated at the EASA Committee to be held in Brussels on 16 July 2008 (including the Commission, EASA and representatives of all Member States). • Approval by the Commission expected before 28 September 2008 following an accelerated commitology process, with a Decision issued by EASA immediately after containing the AMC material. • This AMC and guidance material may differ slightly from the one published in the CRD 2007-08 due to the reactions received during the CRD consultation process and due to any possible changes incorporated during the EASA Committee of 16 July. Cologne: Part-M workshop (Opinion 02/2008)

  7. Transitional measures • Due to the fact that the new requirements will not be approved until just before the end of the current deadline of 28 September 2008, and as it was already announced in NPA 2007-08, transitional measures have been proposed. Cologne: Part-M workshop (Opinion 02/2008)

  8. For non-large aircraft not used in commercial air transport (until 28 September 2009) • Article 3.4 (2042/2003): • National continuing airworthiness management organisations may perform: • Continuing airworthiness management tasks • Airworthiness reviews • Issuance and extension of airworthiness review certificates (ARC) • Article 3.6 (2042/2003): • The following documents are deemed as approved maintenance programmes: • A maintenance programme approved or accepted by the competent authority, or • A recommended schedule issued by the TC holder, or • A maintenance programme issued by the competent authority. These documents shall be supplemented by the corresponding M.A.803 Pilot-owner maintenance. Cologne: Part-M workshop (Opinion 02/2008)

  9. For non-large aircraft not used in commercial air transport (until 28 September 2009) • Article 4.4 (2042/2003): • National maintenance organisations may perform maintenance and issue certificates of release to service for aircraft and components. • Certificates of release to service issued by these national maintenance organisations on or before 28 September 2009 are deemed equivalent to those required by M.A.801 and M.A.802. AMC M.A.501(a) will also be amended for consistency. • Article 5.1 (2042/2003): • Certifying staff may be qualified in accordance with national rules. Cologne: Part-M workshop (Opinion 02/2008)

  10. For large aircraft used by a third country operator (until 28 September 2009) These are aircraft registered in an EU Member State, which are used by a third country operator, and for which the Member State of registry has not transferred the airworthiness responsibilities to the third country. The provisions applicable to commercial air transport do not apply to them, since they are not licensed air carriers as defined by Community Law (Article 1.3 of 2042/2003) • Article 7.3(a) (2042/2003): • No obligation to contract a CAMO:This is an opt-out that the Member State of registry may select to apply, in which case the continuing airworthiness can be managed in accordance with national rules. NOTE: Large aircraft not used in commercial air transport but used by an EU operator (or private person) are not eligible for this opt-out. Cologne: Part-M workshop (Opinion 02/2008)

  11. For aircraft not used in commercial air transport which are subject to M.A.201(i) (until 28 September 2009) These are aircraft for which the Member State requires to have a certificate for commercial operations other than commercial air transport. • Article 7.3(a) (2042/2003): • No obligation to contract a CAMO or an approved maintenance organisation: This is an opt-out that the Member State of registry may select to apply, in which case the continuing airworthiness can be managed in accordance with national rules and there is no need to make a contract with an approved maintenance organisation. Cologne: Part-M workshop (Opinion 02/2008)

  12. For all aircraft not used in commercial air transport (Issuance/extension of ARC following national rules) (new Article 3.5 of EC n°2042/2003 ) 28 Sept 2008 28 Sept 2009 28 Sept 2010 28 Sept 2011 • Re-issuance or extension by: • a national CAMO or, • the NAA Expiration of current ARC Re-issuance or extension by the NAA PART M / ARC fully implemented 28 Sept 2009 28 Sept 2010 28 Sept 2008 28 Sept 2011 Cologne: Part-M workshop (Opinion 02/2008)

  13. Requirements adapted to the aircraft size This opinion covers all aircraft not used in commercial air transport. However, in order to adapt the requirements to the associated risks, different requirements have been established for: • Large aircraft • Aircraft above 2730 Kg MTOM other than balloons • Aircraft equal or below 2730 Kg MTOM and all balloons • ELA1 aircraft • CS-VLA, CS-22 and LSA aircraft Cologne: Part-M workshop (Opinion 02/2008)

  14. Requirements adapted to the aircraft size The following definitions apply: • Large aircraft: aeroplanes above 5700 Kg MTOM and multi-engine helicopters. • ELA1 aircraft (European Light Aircraft) as proposed by NPA2008-07: • Aeroplanes, sailplanes and powered sailplanes below 1000 Kg MTOM (except complex motor-powered aircraft) • Balloons up to: • 3400m3 (hot-air), 1050 m3 (gas), 300m3 (tethered gas) • Airships with a maximum of 2 occupants and up to: • 2500m3 (hot-air), 1000m3 (gas) Cologne: Part-M workshop (Opinion 02/2008)

  15. Requirements adapted to the aircraft size • LSA aircraft (Light Sport Aeroplane) as proposed by NPA2008-07: • Not more than 600 Kg MTOM, and • Maximum stall speed in landing configuration of 45 knots (CAS) at the maximum certificated TOM and most critical centre of gravity, and • No more than 2 persons, including the pilot, and • A single, non-turbine engine with propeller, and • A non-pressurized cabin Cologne: Part-M workshop (Opinion 02/2008)

  16. Alignment with new Basic Regulation 216/2008 The new Basic Regulation introduces two new concepts: Complex motor-powered aircraft: • an aeroplane: • Above 5700 kg MTOM, or • With more than 19 passangers, or • A minimum crew of 2 pilots, or • Equipped with (a) turbojet engine(s) or more than one turboprop engine, or • a helicopter: • Above 3175 Kg MTOM, or • With more than 9 passengers, or • A minimum crew of 2 pilots • a tilt rotor aircraft Cologne: Part-M workshop (Opinion 02/2008)

  17. Alignment with new Basic Regulation 216/2008 Commercial operations: • shall mean any operation of an aircraft, in return for remuneration or other valuable consideration, which is available to the public or, when not made available to the public, which is performed under a contract between an operator and a customer, where the latter has no control over the operator; Cologne: Part-M workshop (Opinion 02/2008)

  18. Alignment with new Basic Regulation 216/2008 In this opinion, reference to "complex motor-powered aircraft" has been made only in: • 2042/2003, Article 2, item (k): definition of ELA1 aircraft. • M.A.803(b): Pilot-owner maintenance. However, future rulemaking action may further extend this term since the new Basic Regulation does not refer to “large aircraft”. Cologne: Part-M workshop (Opinion 02/2008)

  19. Alignment with new Basic Regulation 216/2008 In this opinion, reference to "commercial operations" has been made only in: • M.A.201(i): operators other than commercial air transport. • M.A.305(b): use of operator´s technical log. • M.A.606(h): certifying staff. Future rulemaking action will likely introduce wider requirements for aircraft used in commercial operations other than commercial air transport. Cologne: Part-M workshop (Opinion 02/2008)

  20. Who is the "competent authority” • New AMC M.1: A competent authority may be a ministry, a national aviation authority or any aviation body designated by the Member State and located within that Member State. A Member State may designate more than one competent authority to cover different areas of responsibility, as long as the designation decision contains a list of the competencies of each authority and there is only one competent authority responsible for each given area of responsibility. Cologne: Part-M workshop (Opinion 02/2008)

  21. "Indirect Approval Procedure" of maintenance programmes • Current Rule M.A.302(e): The maintenance programme and its amendments may be approved through an "indirect approval procedure" established by the CAMO responsible for the management of the aircraft. • Opinion 02/2008 clarifies what is an "indirect approval procedure" (M.A.302(c)): • It is a procedure established by the CAMO, included in the exposition and approved by the competent authority (the one responsible for the oversight of the CAMO). • In this case, there is no need for competent authority endorsement. Cologne: Part-M workshop (Opinion 02/2008)

  22. "Indirect Approval Procedure" of maintenance programmes • Opinion 02/2008 addresses the case where the State of Registry is not the State responsible for the oversight of the CAMO. (M.1, paragraph 4(iii), and M.A.302(c)): • Usually, the Member State of Registry is responsible for the approval of Maintenance Programmes. • The "indirect approval procedure" is a procedure approved by the competent authority responsible for the CAMO. • If the competent authority responsible for the CAMO is not the one from the Member State of Registry, the responsibility falls on the one from the State of Registry, unless there is an agreement. If there is no agreement, the "indirect approval procedure" can not be used on that particular aircraft. Cologne: Part-M workshop (Opinion 02/2008)

  23. Maintenance programmes not linked to an operator (independent CAMOs) • Opinion 02/2008 introduces in M.A.709 the concept of BASELINE and GENERIC maintenance programmes: • Purpose: permit the approval of the CAMO without having any customer. They are not real maintenance programmes because they are not applicable to any particular aircraft (need customization). • Only for aircraft not involved in commercial air transport. • Based on the maintenance programme recommended by the TC holder. • "Baseline": for a particular aircraft type. • "Generic": to cover several similar aircraft types. Cologne: Part-M workshop (Opinion 02/2008)

  24. Maintenance programmes not linked to an operator (independent CAMOs) • AMC M.A.709 will be amended to show examples of "generic" maintenance programmes and to include: • "Baseline" and/or "generic" maintenance programmes are not applicable to a particular "registration mark". • Should be available to the competent authority prior to the CAMO approval and will be listed in the exposition (not in the Form 14). • After the approval of the CAMO, these programmes shall be revised to include specific tasks for each contracted customer (for each registration mark), unless the customer already has an approved maintenance programme fot that aircraft. • May be revised through the "indirect approval procedure". Cologne: Part-M workshop (Opinion 02/2008)

  25. Reliability Programmes • Opinion 02/2008 clarifies in M.A.302(f) that a Reliability Programme is not required for non-large aircraft. Cologne: Part-M workshop (Opinion 02/2008)

  26. Operator´s Technical Log • Opinion 02/2008 clarifies in M.A.305(b) that the Operator´s Technical Log is only required for commercial air transport and when required by the Member State for commercial operations other than commercial air transport. Cologne: Part-M workshop (Opinion 02/2008)

  27. Use of FAA ACs 43-13 for repairs and modifications FAA ACs 43-13 can not be considered an acceptable document in the EASA system since it can only be applied to minor repairs and, according to Part-21, classifying a repair as minor or major is a privilege of approved design organisations. This situation has nothing to do with whether Part-M or national rules apply, since the approval of repairs and modifications is regulated by Part-21, which is already applicable to aircraft not involved in commercial air transport since 28 September 2003. Task MDM.032 (NPA2008-07) is envisaging creating CS (Certification Specifications) to include material similar to the ACs 43-13. In the meantime, ACs 43-13 can be used when the TC holder specify it in their maintenance data and, also, as a basis to propose repairs that will be subject to the approval of EASA or of an approved design organisation. Cologne: Part-M workshop (Opinion 02/2008)

  28. Installation of components • Current M.A.501(a) requires that all components have an EASA Form 1 or equivalent prior to installation, unless otherwise specified in Part-145 and Subpart F. • Opinion 02/2008 proposes an amendment in M.A.501(a) to deviate from this rule also in those cases where Part-21 allows it. The objective is to allow the fabrication of a certain range of parts by the owner without issuance of a Form 1, as currently envisaged for ELA1 aircraft in NPA2008-07 (task MDM.032). Cologne: Part-M workshop (Opinion 02/2008)

  29. Installation of components (acceptance of USA and Canada maintenance release) • EASA will amend AMC M.A.613(a), paragraph 2.8, to allow an approved maintenance organisation (Subpart F or Part-145) to issue a Form 1 for components maintained in the USA and Canada by maintenance organisations not approved in accordance with Subpart F or Part-145. The following conditions apply: • Availability of an FAA 8130-3 or TCCA 24-0078 release, and • Verification of compliance with all applicable ADs, and • Verification that the component does not contain repairs or modification not approved in accordance with Part-21, and • Inspection for satisfactory condition, and • Issuance of a Form 1 in compliance with paragraphs 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 of this AMC. The maintenance organisation issuing the Form 1 does not need to have the rating for the component. It is enough with the rating for the aircraft type in which the component is installed. Cologne: Part-M workshop (Opinion 02/2008)

  30. Component maintenance (M.A.502) • The normal requirement is that component maintenance must be performed by approved organisations (C rated organisations). An EASA Form 1 must be issued. • Nevertheless, component maintenance may be performed by independent certifying staff or A rated organisations when: • Maintenance in the component is performed in accordance with aircraft maintenance data, and • The component stays installed on the aircraft or it is temporarily removed. The competent authority may specifically agree that independent certifying staff or A rated organisations perform component maintenance in accordance with component maintenance data (AMC will clarify that this is limited to simple component maintenance). Under this paragraph, the component can not be released with an EASA Form 1, but in accordance with the aircraft release procedures. Cologne: Part-M workshop (Opinion 02/2008)

  31. Component maintenance (M.A.502) In addition, maintenance on a component while installed or temporarily removed from the aircraft and performed in accordance with component maintenance data may be performed by independent certifying staff in the following cases: • For ELA1 aircraft (including CS-VLA, CS-22 and LSA): • Component maintenance other than overhaul. • Component complex maintenance tasks (Appendix VII) if the aircraft owner has agreed a programme of work with the competent authority. • In addition, for CS-VLA, CS-22 and LSA: • Overhaul of engines and propellers if the aircraft owner has agreed a programme of work with the competent authority. Cologne: Part-M workshop (Opinion 02/2008)

  32. Component maintenance (M.A.502) Component removal and installation from an aircraft is considered to be aircraft maintenance and not component maintenance. As a consequence, M.A.502 requirements do not apply in this case (AMC M.A.502) Cologne: Part-M workshop (Opinion 02/2008)

  33. Control of unserviceable components (M.A.504(b)) • Current Rule M.A.504(b) and AMC material: Unserviceable components shall be identified and stored in a secure location under the control of the M.A.502 approved maintenance organisation until a decision is made on the future status of the component. M.A.801(b)(2) certifying staff performing aircraft maintenance should send, with the agreement of the aircraft owner/lessee, any unserviceable component to an approve maintenance organisation for controlled storage. Cologne: Part-M workshop (Opinion 02/2008)

  34. Control of unserviceable components (M.A.504(b)) Opinion 02/2008: M.A.504(b) has been amended to allow storage of unserviceable components in a secure location under the control of an approved maintenance organisation. For aircraft not used in commercial air transport, other than large aircraft, the person or organisation that declared the component unserviceable may transfer its custody, after identifying it as unserviceable, to the aircraft owner provided that such transfer is reflected in the aircraft/engine/component log book. Cologne: Part-M workshop (Opinion 02/2008)

  35. Facilities (for Subpart F organisations maintaining balloons and airships) • AMC M.A.605(a) will read: “For balloons and airships a hangar may not be required where maintenance of the envelope and bottom end equipment can more appropriately be performed outside, providing all necessary maintenance can be accomplished in accordance with M.A.402. For complex repairs or component maintenance requiring an EASA Form 1, suitable approved workshops should be provided. The facilities and environmental conditions required for inspection and maintenance should be defined in the Maintenance Organisation Manual” Cologne: Part-M workshop (Opinion 02/2008)

  36. Certifying staff (for Subpart F organisations) • Opinion 02/2008 introduces in M.A.606 provisions similar to the existing Part-145: • For repetitive preflight ADs and for aircraft operating away from a supported location: The organisation may issue to the commander a limited certifying staff authorisation. Sufficient practical training must be provided. Cologne: Part-M workshop (Opinion 02/2008)

  37. Subcontracting of specialised services (for Subpart F organisations) • Current Rule (M.A.615): Subpart F maintenance organisations do not have the privilege of subcontracting maintenance tasks. May be justified by the fact that they are not formally required to have a Quality System. • Opinion 02/2008 introduces in M.A.615 the privilege of subcontracting but limited to specialised services (NDT, welding, heat treatment....). Conditions: • The specialised service provider must be “appropriately qualified”. • “Under the control of the Subpart F organisation” • Procedures documented in the MOM. • Coverage by the applicable “Organisational Reviews”. Cologne: Part-M workshop (Opinion 02/2008)

  38. Maintenance at any location (for Subpart F organisations) • Current Rule (M.A.615): Allows the Subpart F organisation to maintain any aircraft/component for which it is approved at any location in order to rectify arising defects. • Opinion 02/2008 further extends it to cover occasional maintenance, subject to the conditions specified in the exposition. This provision is similar to the existing Part-145. Cologne: Part-M workshop (Opinion 02/2008)

  39. Approval of a CAMO (Form 14) • The approval of a CAMO is issued on a Form 14 (see M.A.703), as shown in Appendix VI to Part-M • Opinion 02/2008 introduces the following changes in Form 14: • No reference to the maintenance programme in the Form 14. Now the reference must be included in the exposition. In the case of aircraft not involved in commercial air transport, the reference in the exposition should be to the "baseline" or "generic" maintenance programmes. • The conditions specified in Form 14 have been adapted to allow management of aircraft used in commercial air transport (AOC) and management of other aircraft. • AMC M.B.703 will provide acceptable ways of endorsing ratings in the Form 14 (type designations, series, aircraft categories, etc) Cologne: Part-M workshop (Opinion 02/2008)

  40. Privileges of the CAMO (extension of an ARC issued by NAA or another CAMO) New privilege M.A.711(a)4: • Extend an ARC that has been issued by the NAA or by another CAMO. Conditions (described in M.A.901(f): • Can only be done by the CAMO managing the aircraft. • The aircraft must be in controlled environment with that CAMO. A copy must be retained (M.A.714(b)) Typical cases: • An aircraft which is managed by a CAMO with no privileges to issue ARC´s. • An aircraft which has been imported into the EU, for which the NAA has issued the initial ARC, and which is managed by a CAMO. • An aircraft registered in the EU, operated by a third country operator and managed by a foreign CAMO (can not have privileges to issue ARCs) Cologne: Part-M workshop (Opinion 02/2008)

  41. Privileges of the CAMO (extension of an ARC issued by NAA or another CAMO) Personnel requirements associated to M.A.711(a)4: • No need to have airworthiness review staff. It is only necessary to verify that the aircraft stayed in a controlled environment. • The persons that are authorised to extend the ARC under this privilege must be listed in the exposition (see M.A.704(a)3 and M.A.706(c)). • These persons must be formally accepted by the NAA (see M.A.706(c)). • A new AMC M.A.706(c) will be introduced to state that airworthiness review staff are automatically recognised with authority to extend ARCs under M.A.711(a)4. Cologne: Part-M workshop (Opinion 02/2008)

  42. Privileges of the CAMO (removal of “recommendations” for certain aircraft) M.A.711(b)2: • For balloons and any other aircraft of 2730 Kg MTOM and below, which are not used in commercial air transport, the “recommendations” have been removed except for the import of an aircraft. NOTE: For this type of aircraft, changes introduced in M.A.901 allow the CAMO to issue the ARC even if the aircraft has not been in a controlled environment. As a consequence, there is no point to have “recommendations”. Cologne: Part-M workshop (Opinion 02/2008)

  43. Airworthiness Review Staff qualification requirements for CAMOs and Competent Authorities • Opinion 02/2008 introduces in M.A.707(a) alleviated requirements for organisations managing balloons and other aircraft of 2730 Kg MTOM and below not involved in commercial air transport: • at least three years experience in continuing airworthiness, and; • an appropriate Part 66 licence, or a nationally recognized maintenance personnel qualification appropriate to the aircraft category (when Part-66 refers to national rules) or an aeronautical degree or equivalent, and; • appropriate aeronautical maintenance training, and; • a position within the approved organisation with appropriate responsibilities NOTE: Similar provisions have been included in M.B.902(b) for the staff involved in Airworthiness Reviews within the Competent Authority. Cologne: Part-M workshop (Opinion 02/2008)

  44. Airworthiness Review Staff qualification requirements for CAMOs and Competent Authorities • In addition, persons not meeting the requirement of “an appropriate Part 66 licence......” may replace it by: • For aircraft used in commercial air transport and aircraft above 2730 Kg except balloons: 5 additional years of experience in continuing airworthiness to those already required by M.A.707(a)1(a), which means a total of 10 years. • For balloons and other aircraft of 2730 Kg and bellow, not used in commercial air transport: 4 additional years of experience in continuing airworthiness to those already required by M.A.707(a)2(a), which means a total of 7 years. Cologne: Part-M workshop (Opinion 02/2008)

  45. Airworthiness Review Staff qualification requirements for CAMOs and Competent Authorities • AMC material will be introduced to clarify the following terms: • “experience in continuing airworthiness”; • “to hold a position with the appropriate responsibilities”, including: • Independence from the airworthiness management process; • Overall authority on the airworthiness management process. • “formal aeronautical maintenance training”; • “appropriate aeronautical maintenance training”; • “performance of an airworthiness review under supervision”; • continuing experience needed to keep the validity of an airworthiness review authorisation; • minimum content of the airworthiness review staff records. Cologne: Part-M workshop (Opinion 02/2008)

  46. Airworthiness Review Staff qualification requirements for CAMOs and Competent Authorities • “Experience in continuing airworthiness” means: (AMC M.A.707(a)) • An appropriate combination of experience in tasks related to aircraft maintenance and/or maintenance management (engineering) and/or surveillance of such tasks. NOTE: Similar provision has been included in AMC M.B.902(b) for the staff involved in Airworthiness Reviews within the Competent Authority. Cologne: Part-M workshop (Opinion 02/2008)

  47. Airworthiness Review Staff qualification requirements for CAMOs • “Independence from the airworthiness management process” may be achieved by: (AMC M.A.707(a)) • Being authorised to perform airworthiness reviews only on aircraft for which the person has not participated in their management. For example, performing airworthiness reviews on a specific model line, while being involved in the management of a different model line. • CAMOs with Part-145/Subpart-F approval may nominate personnel from their Part-145/Subpart-F organisation may be nominated as airworthiness review staff, as long as they are only involved in the maintenance of the aircraft but not involved in its maintenance management. • Nominating as airworthiness review staff personnel from the Quality Department of the CAMO. Cologne: Part-M workshop (Opinion 02/2008)

  48. Airworthiness Review Staff qualification requirements for CAMOs • “Overall authority on the airworthiness management process of complete aircraft” may be achieved by: (AMC M.A.707(a)) • Nominating as airworthiness review staff the Accountable Manager or the Maintenance Postholder. • Being authorised to perform airworthiness reviews only on those particular aircraft for which the person is responsible for the complete continuing airworthiness management process. • In the case of one-man organisations, this person has always overall authority. This means that this person can be nominated as airworthiness review staff. Cologne: Part-M workshop (Opinion 02/2008)

  49. Airworthiness Review Staff qualification requirements for CAMOs • For balloons and other aircraft of 2730 Kg MTOM and below, not used in commercial air transport: (AMC M.A.707(a)(2)) • “experience in continuing airworthiness” can be full time or part-time, either as professional or on a voluntary basis. • Appropriate aeronautical maintenance training may be demonstrated by documented evidence or by an assessment performed by the competent authority or by other airworthiness review staff already authorised within the organisation, in accordance with approved procedures. This assessment should be recorded. Cologne: Part-M workshop (Opinion 02/2008)

  50. Airworthiness Review Staff qualification requirements for CAMOs AMC M.A.707(b): • An airworthiness review “under supervision” means under the supervision of the competent authority. If the organisation already has properly authorised airworthiness review staff, the competent authority may accept that the supervision be performed by this existing airworthiness review staff in accordance with an approved procedure. In such case, evidence of the airworthiness review performed under supervision should be provided to the competent authority together with the EASA Form 4. Cologne: Part-M workshop (Opinion 02/2008)

More Related