28 August 2007Switzerland NPA 2007-08 Amendment to Part-M for aircraft not used in Commercial Air Transport Juan Anton Frederic Knecht

28 August 2007 Switzerland

NPA 2007-08

Amendment to Part-M for aircraft not used in Commercial Air Transport

Juan AntonFrederic Knecht

28 August 2007 Revised Part-M for aircraft not used in Commercial Air Transport Slide 2

European Aviation Safety Agency

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.



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.



Part-M Regulatory Impact Assessment and NPA 07/2005

Article 7(6) of (EC) No 2042/2003 required the Agency to make an evaluation of the implications of the provisions of Part-M.

Such evaluation was performed through NPA 07/2005, and the resulting CRD 07/2005 was published on April 30th, 2007.



Further changes to those proposed by NPA 07/2005

Since Industry and NAAs had requested further changes to Part-M (in addition to those from NPA 07/2005) in order to alleviate the requirements imposed in non-commercial air transport operations, especially on light aircraft, and since it was necessary to develop Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMCs) and Guidance Material, the Agency created Working Group M.017. This group was also tasked to evaluate the comments received through NPA 07/2005 and to develop CRD 07/2005, as well as to evaluate maintenance related comments received from MDM.032 “A better concept for General Aviation”.




In addition to Working Group M.017, Working Group M.005 was also created in order to address the issue of “Pilot Owner Maintenance” and to produce a revised Appendix VIII that would better adapt the needs of non-complex aircraft not involved in commercial air transport. The concept of “jointly owning” an aircraft has also been addressed.

THE RESULT OF THE WORK PERFORMED BY M.017 AND M.005 IS THE NPA 2007-08 THAT HAS BEEN PUBLISHED AT THE END OF JUNE 2007.




During the work performed by Working Groups M.017 and MDM.032, it was found necessary to study the possibility of creating an aircraft maintenance licence specific for light aircraft, the so-called "B3 aircraft maintenance licence".

This task (called 66.022) has been undertaken by a sub-group of M.017 and is currently under discussion.



Envisaged calendar

NPA 2007-08 has been published on 25 June 2007.

The comment period for CRD 07/2005 finished on 26 June 2007.However, since some of the changes introduced have been further developed by NPA 2007-08 (ARC issuance conditions, Pilot Owner Maintenance….), it is the intention of the Agency not to publish an Opinion following CRD 07/2005, and publish a single Opinion by the 1st quarter 2008 covering both CRD 07/2005 and NPA 2007-08.

Consultation for NPA 2007-08 finishes by on 13 October 2007.

CRD expected to be published by December 2007, ending the consultation period by February 2008.

Opinion (for CRD 07/2005 and NPA 2007-08) by March 2008.

Approval by the Commission hoped before June 2008, with Decision on AMC and Guidance Material adopted immediately.



Transitional measures

In view of the envisaged schedule:

Organisations will likely withhold their application for M.A. Subpart F, Subpart G and Subpart I approval until the envisaged changes are approved by the Commission.Competent Authorities will probably not be able to complete the corresponding investigations and issue the approval certificates before 28 September 2008.There will be a need to consider some transitional arrangements which may include: Possible grandfathering measure to facilitate issuing of

approvals to organisations already performing similar tasks under national regulations, and/or

Postponing the entry into force of those provisions that can not be reasonably implemented before 28 September 2008.

Such arrangements can not be elaborated until there is a better view of the implementation difficulties.




As a consequence, the Agency has strongly encouraged the Competent Authorities not to introduce provisions in their national regulations that force the organisations to comply with current Part-M requirements that are very likely to be amended.

This is further supported by the fact that both CRD 07/2005 and NPA 2007-08 envisage the removal of the “12 month in a controlled environment” requirement before a CAMO can issue an ARC (after a full airworthiness review).




It is not the intention of EASA to propose postponing the entry into force of the whole Part-M as a block as it is likely that more proportionate measures may be a better way to address the necessary transition from the national systems to Part M;

Such measures may include a phased introduction of particular provisions of Part-M, based on supporting evidence from the analysis of the comments received during the consultation of NPA 2007-08;

They may also include grand-fathering provisions such as the grant of Part M Subpart F (maintenance organisation) and/or Subpart G (CAMO) and/or Subpart I (ARC privileges) approvals to all organisations that have been granted a similar approval under national rules, subject to some transitional conditions (see the precedents in Regulations 1702/2003 and 2042/2003).




We therefore encourage regulated persons and competent authorities to provide comments in relation to the particular areas that may pose an implementation problem, together with substantiation and proposals.

In order to accelerate the process, the Agency will review all comments received as soon as possible, so the areas requiring appropriate transitioning can be identified before the end of 2007.

We will also examine with National Aviation Authorities the possibility to incorporate under national regulations provisions of Part-M, Subparts F, G and I, together with the changes proposed by NPA 2007-08, permitting voluntary organisations to start the transition process without waiting for publication of the amended regulation in the official journal.



NPA/CRD 07/2005NPA2007-08 (related to M.017)

Changes introduced in:

NPA/CRD 07/2005, and NPA 2007-08 (related to M.017)



Revision of Part-M versus “Light Part-M”

Feedback from Industry showed a preference for a separate “Light Part-M”.However, EASA did not find enough justification in doing so because of the following reasons:

Most of the paragraphs of the current Part-M remain unchanged. There is no need for duplication.This duplication would have meant more inconsistencies and duplicated work when keeping both documents updated (including approval from the Commission).Owners/operators trying to move from non commercial air transport to commercial air transport would have needed to learn two separate regulations, trying to identify the differences between each other. This difference is much more evident having a single regulation with some articles split in commercial and non-commercial air transport (with an appropriate weight limit).



Changes not adopted (FAA AC 43-13)

Acceptance of FAA AC 43-13:

AC 43-13 states that its material can only be used for minor repairs (no major repairs).However, the decision (minor / major) has to be adopted by a Part-21 design organisation (the outcome of MDM.032 may facilitate it)As a consequence, currently there is no legal basis to accept the proposal.A rulemaking task is going to start in 2008 to develop and approve a document similar to AC 43-13.



Changes not adopted (FAA 8130-3 issued by non-Part-145 Repair Stations)

Acceptance of FAA 8130-3 issued by FAA Repair Stations not approved in accordance with Part-145:

Components maintained prior to 28 September 2008 may be issued a Form 1 (under the conditions of AMC M.A.613(a)).Components maintained afterwards are not acceptable (not allowed by the corresponding bilateral agreements).The following considerations may reduce the impact: Reduce the number of components requiring a Form 1 or

equivalent, and also allow the owner to fabricate certain non critical parts (under study by MDM.032).

Such maintenance may also be performed by Part-145 organisations (which in many cases already exist).

FAA repair stations may see a business case with the new General Aviation market and get the Part-145 approval. It is fairly easy and inexpensive (bilateral agreement)



What is a "competent authority"

New AMC M.1:

A competent authority may be a ministry, an aviation national authority or any aviation body designated by the Member State.A Member State may designate more than one competent authority to cover different areas of responsibility (no overlap of responsibilities).



"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.

CRD 07/2005 clarifies what is an "indirect approval procedure" (M.A.302(b):

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, the maintenance programme and its amendments are formally approved by the CAMO (no need for competent authority endorsement).



"Indirect Approval Procedure" of maintenance programmes

NPA 2007-08 addresses the case where the State of Registry is not the State responsible for the oversight of the CAMO. (M.1 and M.A.302(b)):

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 they are different Member States, the responsibility falls on the State of Registry, unless there is an agreement between both countries. If there is no agreement, the "indirect approval procedure" can not be used on that particular aircraft.



Maintenance programmes not linked to an operator (independent CAMOs)

NPA 2007-08 introduces in M.A.302(c) the concept of BASELINE and GENERIC maintenance programmes:

Purpose: permit the approval of the CAMO without having any customer.

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.



Maintenance programmes not linked to an operator (independent CAMOs)

AMC M.A.302 revised to include:

UK-LAMS is an example of "Generic" maintenance programme.

"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 Form 14.

After the approval of the CAMO, these programmes shall be revised to include specific tasks for each customer (for each registration mark).

May be revised through the "indirect approval procedure".



Reliability Programmes

CRD 07/2005 clarifies in M.A.302(e) that a Reliability Programme is not required for other than large aircraft.



Operator´s Technical Log

CRD 07/2005 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 in accordance with M.A.201(i).



What is a work card / worksheet

Current Rule M.A.401(c):

The person or organisation maintaining an aircraft shall establish a work card or worksheet system to be used and shall either transcribe accurately the maintenance data onto such work cards or worksheets or make precise reference to the particular maintenance task or tasks contained in such maintenance data.

NPA 2007-08 amends AMC M.A.401(c):

For aircraft 2730 Kg MTOM and below these systems may take the form of:

A format where the mechanic writes the defect, action and maintenance data used,An aircraft log book with the defect, action and maintenance data used,For maintenance checks, the checklist issued by the manufacturer (i.e. 100h checklist).



Component maintenance

NPA 2007-08 modifies M.A.502(b) and introduces new AMC M.A.502 and AMC M.A.502(b) to clarify the following:

Component removal and installation from an aircraft is not considered component maintenance, but aircraft maintenance.The normal requirement is that component maintenance must be performed by approved organisations (C rated organisations).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 the

aircraft maintenance data describes or permits the removal of such component.

In this case, the component can not be released with a Form 1, but in accordance with the aircraft release procedures.



Control of unserviceable components

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.

NPA 2007-08 amends AMC M.A.504(b) to clarify that:A secure location may be any location described in the procedures of the approved maintenance organisation for which the organisation is responsible, and may include locations away from the main maintenance facilities.The purpose is to facilitate access to those locations to the M.A.801(b)(2) certifying staff removing the component.



Requirements for continued experience of certifying staff

For certifying staff in Subpart F maintenance organisations, the 6 months experience requirement in every 2 years period has been changed to refer to the experience requirements of Part-66, which in the case of sailplanes and balloons refer to national rules.

This change also aligns with the requirement of M.A.801(b)(2) that requires independent certifying staff to be in compliance with the requirements of Part-66.



What is a work order

Current Rule M.A.610:

Before the commencement of maintenance a written work order shall be agreed between the organisation and the customer to clearly establish the maintenance to be carried out.

M.A.610 has been revised in CRD 07/2005 to replace "customer" by "the organisation requesting maintenance". "Organisation" includes natural persons.

A new AMC M.A.610 has been added in NPA 2007-08 to clarify that a "written work order " may be a formal document or a form specifying the work to be carried out. This form may be provided by the CAMO managing the aircraft, by the maintenance organisation undertaking the work or by the owner/operator himself.An entry in the aircraft log book specifying the defect that needs to be corrected also qualifies as a work order.



Subcontracting of specialised services (for Subpart F organisations)

Current Rule: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.

NPA 2007-08 introduces in M.A.615 and associated AMC 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”.



Qualification requirements of CAMO nominated persons (and competent authority personnel)

NPA 2007-08 amends AMC M.A.706 to clarify that the training on aircraft types for the nominated persons in a CAMO should be at least at Level 1 “General Familiarization” as specified in Part-66, Appendix III and should cover at least one aircraft type for each subcategory (i.e. helicopter piston, helicopter turbine, aeroplane piston, aeroplane turbine) and for each type of turbine propulsion system (turbofan, turboprop).

NOTE: Similar provision has been included in AMC M.B.102 for the staff involved in Part-M activities within the Competent Authority.



Airworthiness Review Staff qualification requirements for CAMOs (and Competent Authorities)

NPA 2007-08 introduces in M.A.707 alleviated requirements for organisations managing 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 provision has been included in M.B.902 for the staff involved in Airworthiness Reviews within the Competent Authority.




NPA 2007-08 introduces AMC material in order 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.




“Experience in continuing airworthiness” means: (AMC M.A.707(a))

Experience in tasks related to aircraft maintenance and/or maintenance management (engineering) and/or surveillance of such tasks, which may be combined.

NOTE: Similar provision has been included in AMC M.B.902(b) for the staff involved in Airworthiness Reviews within the Competent Authority.



Airworthiness Review Staff qualification requirements for CAMOs

“Independence from the airworthiness management process” may be achieved by: (AMC M.A.707(a))

Having authorisation to perform airworthiness reviews only on aircraft which have not been managed by that person. For example, performing airworthiness reviews on a specific model line, while being involved in the management of a different model line.In the case of organisations with Subpart F, Subpart G and Subpart I approval, maintenance personnel from the 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 continuing airworthiness management organisation.




“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.

Having authorisation to perform airworthiness reviews only on those particular aircrafts for which the person is responsible for the complete continuing airworthiness management process.

In the case of one-man organisation, this person has always overall authority. This means that this person can be nominated as airworthiness review staff.




For aircraft used in commercial air transport and aircraft above 2730 kg MTOM, formal aeronautical maintenance training means training (internal or external) supported by evidence on the following subjects: (AMC M.A.707(a)(1))

Relevant parts of continuing airworthiness regulations.The operator’s Operations Specifications when applicable.Relevant parts of the operator’s Operations Manual.Relevant parts of operational requirements and procedures.The organisation’s continuing airworthiness management exposition.Knowledge of a relevant sample of the type(s) of aircraft gained through a formalised training course. These courses should be at least at the Level 1 as specified in Part-66, Appendix III and should cover at least one aircraft type for each subcategory (i.e. helicopter piston, helicopter turbine, aeroplane piston, aeroplane turbine) and for each type of turbine propulsion system (turbofan, turboprop).Maintenance methods.




For 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. This assessment should be recorded.




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.




AMC M.A.707(c):

In order to keep the validity of the airworthiness review staff authorisation, the airworthiness review staff should have either:

been involved in continuing airworthiness management activities for at least six months in every two year period for each subcategory (i.e. helicopter piston, helicopter turbine, rotorcraft, aeroplane piston, aeroplane turbine, gliders and balloons), or,

conducted at least one airworthiness review in the last twelve month period.

In order to restore the validity of the authorisation, the airworthiness review staff should conduct at a satisfactory level an airworthiness review under the supervision of the competent authority or, if accepted by the competent authority, under the supervision of another currently valid authorised airworthiness review staff of the concerned continuing airworthiness management organisation in accordance with an approved procedure.




AMC M.A.707(e):

The minimum content of the airworthiness review staff record should be:

Name,Date of Birth,Basic Education,Experience,Aeronautical Degree and/or part-66-qualification and/or nationally-recognized maintenance personnel qualification,Initial Training received,Type of Training received,Continuation Training received,Experience in continuing airworthiness and within the organisation,Responsibilities of current role in the organisation.



Availability of maintenance data in a CAMO

NPA 2007-08 has revised M.A.709 to indicate:

The approved continuing airworthiness management organisation shall hold and use applicable current M.A.401 maintenance data in the performance of M.A.708 continuing airworthiness tasks. In the case of customer provided maintenance data, it is only necessary to have such data when there is a contract with such a customer, with the exception of the need to comply with M.A.714.



Anticipation of the Airworthiness Review

M.A.710 allows the anticipation of the airworthiness review by a maximum of 90 days without the loss of continuity of the airworthiness review pattern, to allow the physical review to take place during a maintenance check.

NPA 2007-08 has introduced new AMC M.A.710 to clarify that:

“Without loss of continuity of the airworthiness review pattern” means that the new expiration date is set up one year after the previous expiration date.

Renewal of the ARC must be for 1 year at least (even if the ARC was expired)



Privileges of the CAMO (removal of “recommendations”)

M.A.711:

For aircraft of 2730 Kg MTOM and below , which are not used in commercial air transport, CRD 07/2005 has removed the concept of “recommendations” 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.



Need for a Quality System

M.A.712:

The possibility has been added to have organisational reviews even for organisations issuing ARCs for aircraft of 2730 Kg and below. (CRD 07/2005)

M.A.712(f) has been aligned with M.A.712(e), making clear that organisational reviews are not possible when managing aircraft involved in commercial air transport. (NPA 2007-08).

It has been stated that contracting continuing airworthiness management tasks is not possible without a Quality System. (NPA 2007-08)



Need for a Quality System

AMC M.A.712(f):

The criteria to qualify as a small organisation (eligible for organisational reviews) has been changed from managing 5 large aircraft (10 small) to have up to 5 persons in the CAMO (including M.A.706 and M.A.707 personnel). (NPA 2007-08)

A new Appendix XII to the AMC has been created to give guidelines on the content of the organisational reviews. (NPA 2007-08)



Record-keeping

AMC M.A.714:

The M.A. Subpart G organisation should ensure that it always receives a complete CRS from the approved maintenance organisation and/or from the pilot owner such that the required records can be retained. The system to keep the continuing airworthiness records should be described in the organisation continuing airworthiness management exposition. (NPA 2007-08)



Release authorisation in case of AOG

CRD 07/2005 removed this provision from M.A.607 and transferred it, with some modifications, to M.A.801:

In case of AOG, the owner may authorise any person, with not less than 3 years maintenance experience and holding the proper qualifications, to maintain according to the standards set out in subpart D and release the aircraft, provided there is no organisation appropriately approved under this Part or Part 145 at that location.

This is valid for non-large aircraft not used in commercial air transport (those not required to go to a Part-145 organisation).




In the cases mentioned in the previous page, the owner shall:

obtain and keep in the aircraft records details of all the work carried out and of the qualifications held by that person issuing the certification, and

ensure that any such maintenance is rechecked and released by an appropriately authorised M.A.801(b) person or a Subpart F organisation or a Part-145 organisation at the earliest opportunity but within a period not exceeding 7 days, and

notify the contracted CAMO, or the competent authority in the absence of such a contract, within 7 days of the issuance of such certification authorisation.




AMC M.A.801(c):

“3 years maintenance experience” means 3 years working in an aircraft maintenance environment on at least some of the aircraft type systems corresponding to the aircrafts endorsed on the aircraft maintenance license or certifying staff authorisation that the person holds.

“Holding the proper qualifications” means holding either:

a valid ICAO compliant maintenance license for the aircraft type requiring certification, or;

a certifying staff authorisation valid for the work requiring certification, issued by a maintenance organisation approved in accordance with ICAO Annex 6, Part II, paragraph 8.1.3.



M.A.901: Aircraft Airworthiness Review

Revised for aircraft of 2730 Kg MTOM and below which are not used in commercial air transport. (CRD 07/2005 and NPA 2007-08):

Possibility for the owner to choose between a CAMO or the Competent Authority.Any CAMO appropriately approved (Subpart I) may be contracted to issue the ARC (with full airworthiness review), even if the aircraft has not stayed in a controlled environment for the previous 12 months. So: The 12 month requirement has been removed. Maintenance can also be performed by M.A.801(b)(2)

certifying staff (except complex tasks per Appendix VII)However, controlled environment still required for ARC extension (without full airworthiness review).



Part-M, Appendix I “ Continuing Airworthiness Arrangement”

Included in Appendix I “Continuing Airworthiness Arrangement”, the obligation of the owner to inform the CAMO about the flying hours and any other utilization data, as agreed with the CAMO. (CRD 07/2005)



Part-M, Appendix II “ EASA Form 1”

Instructions have been revised to include some missing information regarding the Release to Service (CRD 07/2005)



Part-M, Appendix III “ Airworthiness Review Certificate”

NPA 2007-08

Form 15a has been amended to align with Form 15b.Now, both certificates show:

“is considered to be airworthy at the time of the review”



Part-M, Appendix VII “ Complex Maintenance Tasks”

NPA 2007-08

Appendix VII has been revised to incorporate complex maintenance tasks related to piston engines.

The purpose of Appendix VII is to provide those tasks that need to be performed in an approved maintenance organisation because they are likely to involve the use of special tooling, equipment and facilities.



Other provisions related to Part-M, Section B (Competent Authorities)

NPA 2007-08

AMC material has been created to give flexibility to the competent authority when creating the airworthiness survey programme for aircraft for which it delivers the airworthiness review certificate.

M.B.606, M.B.706 and AMC aligned with Part-145 (145.B.35) regarding “changes”.

Editorial correction in AMC 704(b) regarding the time where back credit for specific item audits can be granted (11 & 12 months replaced by 23 & 24 months).

Documents

28 August 2007Switzerland NPA 2007-08 Amendment to Part-M for aircraft not used in Commercial Air Transport Juan Anton Frederic Knecht