AMC to Part M — Amendment 13

Annex I to ED Decision 2015/024/R

Annex I (Acceptable Means of Compliance to Part-M), to Decision 2003/19/RM is amended as follows: The text of the amendment is arranged to show deleted text, new or amended text as shown below: (a) deleted text is marked with strikethrough; (b) new or amended text is highlighted in grey; (c) an ellipsis (…) indicates that the remaining text is unchanged in front of or following the reflected amendment.

AMC M.A.201(e) is amended as follows:

AMC M.A.201(e) Responsibilities

The limited contract for the development and, when applicable, processing of the approval of the aircraft maintenance programme should cover the responsibilities related to M.A.302(d), M.A.302(e) and M.A.302(g). This contract may also entitle the M.A. Subpart G organisation to use the indirect approval procedure described in M.A.302(c). In the case of ELA1 aircraft not involved in commercial operations, the limited contract between the owner and the CAMO/maintenance organisation should cover the following aspects: — Whether the maintenance programme will be based on the ‘Minimum Inspection Programme’ described in M.A.302(i); — The obligation for the CAMO/maintenance organisation to develop and propose to the owner a maintenance programme which:  identifies the owner and the specific aircraft, engine, and propeller (as applicable);  includes all mandatory maintenance information and any additional tasks derived from the evaluation of the recommendations issued by the Design Approval Holder;  does not go below the requirements of the Minimum Inspection Programme; and  is customised to the particular aircraft type, configuration and operation, in accordance with M.A.302(h)3. — Whether the maintenance programme is going to be approved by the competent authority or the owner is going to issue a declaration for the maintenance programme.  In the case of approval by the competent authority, whether indirect approval by the CAMO is permitted or not.  In the case of declaration by the owner, a statement in the contract making clear that the owner assumes full responsibility for any deviations introduced to the maintenance programme proposed by the CAMO/maintenance organisation.

AMC M.A.302 is amended as follows:

AMC M.A.302 Aircraft maintenance programme

NOTE: This AMC is not applicable to those ELA1 aircraft not involved in commercial operations for which the owner has elected to apply the provisions of M.A.302(h). For those cases, refer to AMC M.A.302(h). …

AMC M.A.302(d) is amended as follows:

AMC M.A.302(d) Aircraft maintenance programme compliance

…

A new AMC M.A.302(e) is introduced as follows:

AMC M.A.302(e) Aircraft maintenance programme

Except for complex motor-powered aircraft, the aircraft maintenance programme may take the format of the following standard template:

Aircraft Maintenance Programme (for aircraft other than ‘complex motor-powered aircraft’)

AMC M.A.302(f) is amended as follows:

AMC M.A.302(f) Aircraft maintenance programme – reliability programmes

…

A new AMC M.A.302(h) is introduced as follows:

AMC M.A.302(h) Aircraft maintenance programme

NOTE: This AMC is applicable to those ELA1 aircraft not involved in commercial operations for which the owner has elected to apply the provisions of M.A.302(h).

1. The aircraft should only be maintained according to one maintenance programme at a given point in time. Where an owner wishes to change from one programme to another because of a change in the type of operation, a transfer check or inspection may need to be performed to implement the change.

2. The maintenance programme may take the format of the standard template provided in AMC M.A.302(e).

3. During the annual review of the maintenance programme, the following should be taken into consideration: — The results of the maintenance performed during that year, which may reveal that the current maintenance programme is not adequate. — The results of the airworthiness review performed on the aircraft, which may reveal that the current maintenance programme is not adequate. — Revisions introduced in the documents affecting the programme basis, such as the M.A.302(i) ‘Minimum Inspection Programme’ or the Design Approval Holder data. — Applicable mandatory requirements for compliance with Part-21, such as Airworthiness Directives, Airworthiness Limitations, Certification Maintenance Requirements and specific maintenance requirements contained in the TCDS. For the purpose of reviewing the results of the maintenance performed during that year, the airworthiness review staff should request the owner/CAMO to provide the records of all the maintenance performed during that year, including unscheduled maintenance. When reviewing the results of the maintenance performed during that year and the results of the airworthiness review, attention should be paid as to whether the defects found may have been prevented by introducing in the maintenance programme certain recommendations from the Design Approval Holder which were initially disregarded by the owner.

A new AMC M.A.302(i) is introduced as follows:

AMC M.A.302(i) Aircraft maintenance programme

This AMC contains an acceptable ‘Minimum Inspection Programme’ for the following categories of ELA1 aircraft not involved in commercial operations: — ELA1 aeroplanes; — ELA1 sailplanes and ELA1 powered sailplanes; and — ELA1 hot-air balloons. Although this AMC does not contain an acceptable ‘Minimum Inspection Programme’ for gas balloons, the use of a ‘Minimum Inspection Programme’ is still possible as long as it complies with the requirements established in M.A.302(i). The ‘Minimum Inspection Programmes’ defined in this AMC already comply with the requirements established in M.A.302(i) and may be used in order to define the basic information for the

maintenance programme as required by M.A.302(h)2. However, the maintenance programme must be customised as required by M.A.302(h)3, which may be done by using the standard template contained in AMC M.A.302(e).

It must be noted that using the ‘1-month’ tolerance permitted by M.A.302(i)1 for the annual inspection may result in an expired ARC.

Minimum Inspection Programme for ELA1 aeroplanes not involved in commercial operations

To be performed every annual/100 h interval, whichever comes first.

A tolerance of one month or 10 h may be applied. However, the next interval shall be calculated from the date/hours originally scheduled (without the tolerance).

Note 1: Use the manufacturer’s maintenance manual to accomplish each task/inspection.

Note 2: Proper operation of backup or secondary systems and components should be included for every instance where a check is performed for improper installation/operation.

Minimum Inspection Programme for ELA1 sailplanes and ELA1 powered sailplanes not involved in commercial operations

To be performed:

— every annual/100 h interval (for Touring Motor Gliders (TMG)), whichever comes first; or

— every annual interval (for other than TMGs).

A tolerance of one month or 10 h, as applicable, may be applied. However, the next interval shall be calculated from the date/hours originally scheduled (without the tolerance).

Note 1: Use the manufacturer’s maintenance manual to accomplish each task/inspection.

Note 2: In the case of TMGs, it is acceptable to control the hours of use of the aircraft, engine and propeller as separate entities. Any maintenance check to be done between two consecutive annual/100 h inspections may be performed separately on the aircraft, engine and propeller depending on when each element reaches the corresponding hours. However, at the time of the annual/100 h inspection, all the elements must be covered.

Note 3: Proper operation of backup or secondary systems and components should be included for every instance where a check is performed for improper installation/operation.

Minimum Inspection Programme for ELA1 hot-air balloons not involved in commercial operations

To be performed every annual interval.

A tolerance of one month may be applied. However, the next interval shall be calculated from the date originally scheduled (without the tolerance).

Note 1: Use the manufacturer’s maintenance manual to accomplish each task/inspection.

Note 2: Proper operation of backup or secondary systems and components should be included for every instance where a check is performed for improper installation/operation.

1. Envelope

2. Burner

3. Basket

4. Fuel tanks

5. Additional equipment

AMC M.A.605(a) is amended as follows:

AMC M.A.605(a) Facilities

1. Where a hangar is not owned by the M.A. Subpart F organisation, it may be necessary to establish proof of tenancy. In addition, sufficiency of hangar space to carry out planned maintenance should be demonstrated by the preparation of a projected aircraft hangar visit plan relative to the aircraft maintenance programme. The aircraft hangar visit plan should be updated on a regular basis. 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. Depending on the scope of work of the maintenance organisation, it may not be necessary to have a hangar available. For example, an organisation maintaining ELA2 aircraft (when not performing major repairs) may perform the work in alternative suitable facilities (and possibly at remote locations) as agreed by the competent authority. 2. … 3. ...

4. Special case for ELA2 aircraft

For ELA2 aircraft, it is acceptable not to have access to a hangar or dedicated workshops. Depending on the scope of work, other facilities are acceptable as long as protection is ensured from inclement weather and contamination. This may include, for example, working in the field or in non-aviation premises (closed or not).

These facilities do not need to be individually approved by the competent authority as long as the maintenance organisation manual describes for each type of facility the scope of work, the tooling and equipment available, and the permitted environmental conditions (weather, contamination). The organisation should include, as part of the periodic internal organisational review, a sampling of the compliance with these conditions during certain maintenance events.

AMC M.A.607 is amended as follows:

AMC M.A.607 Certifying staff and airworthiness review staff

…

AMC M.A.607(c) is amended as follows:

AMC M.A.607(c) Certifying staff and airworthiness review staff

1. … 2. The following minimum information, as applicable, should be kept on record in respect of each airworthiness review person: (a) name; (b) date of birth; (c) certifying staff authorisation; (d) experience as certifying staff on ELA1 aircraft; (e) qualifications relevant to the approval (knowledge of relevant parts of Part-M and knowledge of the relevant airworthiness review procedures); (f) scope of the airworthiness review authorisation and personal authorisation reference; (g) date of the first issue of the airworthiness review authorisation; and (h) if appropriate, expiry date of the airworthiness review authorisation. 2.3. Persons authorised to access the system should be maintained at a minimum to ensure that records cannot be altered in an unauthorised manner or that such confidential records become accessible to unauthorised persons. 3.4. The competent authority should be granted access to the records upon request.

AMC M.A.614(a) is amended as follows:

AMC M.A.614(a) Maintenance and airworthiness review records

…

AMC M.A.614(c) is amended as follows:

AMC M.A.614(c) Maintenance and airworthiness review records

…

AMC M.A.707(b) is amended as follows:

AMC M.A.707(b) Airworthiness review staff

The formal acceptance by the competent authority of the airworthiness review staff is granted through the corresponding EASA Form 4. An airworthiness review ‘under supervision’ means under the supervision of the competent authority. If the organisation has already properly authorised airworthiness review staff, the competent authority may accept that the supervision be performed by the existing airworthiness review staff in accordance with an approved procedure. In such case,If the airworthiness review is performed under the supervision of existing airworthiness review staff, evidence of the airworthiness review performed under supervision should be provided to the competent authority together with the EASA Form 4. If satisfied, the competent authority will issue the formal acceptance through the EASA Form 4. Once the airworthiness review staff has been accepted by the competent authority, the inclusion of their name in the exposition (refer to M.A.704(a)5) constitutes the formal authorisation by the organisation.

A new AMC M.A.710(ga) is introduced as follows:

AMC M.A.710(ga) Airworthiness review

This review of the maintenance programme is performed by the person who performed the airworthiness review, who could belong to the competent authority, an M.A. Subpart G organisation or a maintenance organisation or could also be independent certifying staff in accordance with M.A.901(g). During the annual review of the maintenance programme, the following should be taken into consideration: — The results of the maintenance performed during that year, which may reveal that the current maintenance programme is not adequate. — The results of the airworthiness review performed on the aircraft, which may reveal that the current maintenance programme is not adequate. — Revisions introduced in the documents affecting the programme basis, such as the M.A.302(i) ‘Minimum Inspection Programme’ or the Design Approval Holder data. — Applicable mandatory requirements for compliance with Part-21, such as Airworthiness Directives, Airworthiness Limitations, Certification Maintenance Requirements and specific maintenance requirements contained in the TCDS. For the purpose of reviewing the results of the maintenance performed during that year, the airworthiness review staff should request the owner/CAMO to provide the records of all the maintenance performed during that year, including unscheduled maintenance.

When reviewing the results of the maintenance performed during that year and the results of the airworthiness review, attention should be paid as to whether the defects found may have been prevented by introducing in the maintenance programme certain recommendations from the Design Approval Holder which were initially disregarded by the owner.

AMC M.A.803 is amended as follows:

AMC M.A.803 Pilot-owner authorisation

… 5. Not holding a valid medical examination does not invalidate the pilot licence (or equivalent) required under M.A.803(a)1 for the purpose of the Pilot-owner authorisation.

AMC M.A.901(a) is amended as follows:

AMC M.A.901(a) Aircraft airworthiness review

EASA Form 15a is issued by competent authorities while EASA Form 15b is issued by an M.A. Subpart G organisation and EASA Form 15c is issued by a Part-145 or an M.A. Subpart F maintenance organisation.

A new AMC M.A.901(l)1 is introduced as follows:

AMC M.A.901(l)1 Aircraft airworthiness review

Independence from the continuing airworthiness management process of the aircraft means being authorised to perform airworthiness reviews only on aircraft for which the person has not participated in their continuing airworthiness management. This may not be relevant for most maintenance organisations (Part-145 or Part-M Subpart F). Since these organisations cannot perform the continuing airworthiness management of aircraft (this is a privilege of CAMOs), it needs to be considered by those maintenance organisations (Part-145 or Part- M Subpart F) intending to nominate as airworthiness review staff certifying staff who are also employed/contracted by a CAMO and who have been involved in the continuing airworthiness management of the aircraft being reviewed. Nevertheless, such independence is not necessary if these airworthiness review staff (who are also employed/contracted by the CAMO) can show ‘overall authority on the continuing airworthiness management process of the complete aircraft’. This may be achieved, among other ways, if this person is: — the accountable manager or the nominated postholder of the CAMO. — responsible for the complete continuing airworthiness management process of the aircraft being reviewed. — the only person employed by an one-man CAMO.

AMC M.A.904(a)(2) is amended as follows:

AMC M.A.904(a)(2) Airworthiness review of aircraft imported into the EU

… 3. If there is no M.A. Subpart G organisation or maintenance organisation approved for the airworthiness review of the specific aircraft type available, the competent authority may carry out the airworthiness review in accordance with this paragraph and the provisions of M.A.901(h) and M.B.902. In this case, the airworthiness review should be requested to the competent authority with a 30-day notice.

AMC M.B.301(c) is amended as follows:

AMC M.B.301(c) Maintenance programme

… 3. When the competent authority requests it, the organisation should make provision for the attendance of a representative of the competent authority representative at meetings held to consider maintenance implications arising from reviews of the above provisions.

AMC M.B.603(a) is amended as follows:

AMC M.B.603(a) Issue of approval

1. … 2. …

3. Special case for ELA1 aircraft:

In order to promote standardisation, for this category of aircraft the following approach is recommended: — Possible ratings to be endorsed in EASA Form 3:  ELA1 sailplanes;  ELA1 powered sailplanes and ELA1 aeroplanes;  ELA1 balloons;  ELA1 airships. — Before endorsing any of those ratings (for example, ELA1 sailplanes) in EASA Form 3, the competent authority should audit that the organisation is capable of maintaining at least one aircraft type (for example, one type of sailplanes within the ELA1 category), including the availability of the necessary facilities, equipment, tooling, material, maintenance data, and certifying staff. — It is acceptable that the detailed scope of work in the Maintenance Organisation Manual (MOM) contains the same ratings endorsed in EASA Form 3 (for example, ELA1 sailplanes),

without a need to further limit them. However, the maintenance organisation will only be able to maintain a certain aircraft type when all the necessary facilities, equipment, tooling, material, maintenance data, and certifying staff are available.

AMC M.B.703 is amended as follows:

AMC M.B.703 Issue of approval

The table shown for the Approval Schedule in EASA Form 14 includes a field designated as ‘Aircraft type/series/group’ The intention is to give maximum flexibility to the competent authority to customise the approval to a particular organisation. Possible alternatives to be included in this field are the following: — A specific type designation that is part of a type certificate, such as Airbus 340-211 or Cessna 172R. — A type rating (or series) as listed in Part-66 Appendix I to AMC, which may be further subdivided, such as Boeing 737-600/700/800, Boeing 737-600, Cessna 172 Series. — An aircraft group such as, for example, ‘all sailplanes and powered sailplanes’ or ‘Cessna single piston engined aircraft’ or ‘Group 3 aircraft’ (as defined in 66.A.5) or ‘aircraft below 2 730 kg MTOM’. Reference to the engine type installed in the aircraft may or may not be included, as necessary. It is important to note that the scope of work defined in EASA Form 14 is further limited to the one defined in the Continuing Airworthiness Management Exposition (CAME). It is this scope of work in the CAME which ultimately defines the approval of the organisation. As a consequence, it is possible for a competent authority to endorse in EASA Form 14, for example, a scope of work for Group 3 aircraft while the detailed scope of work defined in the CAME does not include all Group 3 aircraft. Nevertheless, in all cases, the competent authority should be satisfied that the organisation has the capability to manage the requested types/groups/series endorsed in the EASA Form 14. Since the activities linked to continuing airworthiness management are mainly process-oriented rather than facility/tooling-oriented, changes to the detailed scope of work defined in the CAME (either directly or through a capability list), within the limits already included in EASA Form 14, may be considered as not affecting the approval and not subject to M.A.713. As a consequence, for these changes the competent authority may allow the use by the M.A. Subpart G organisation of the indirect approval procedure defined in M.A.704(c). In the example mentioned above, before endorsing the Group 3 in EASA Form 14 for the first time, the competent authority should make sure that the organisation is capable of managing this category of aircraft as a whole. In particular, the competent authority should ensure that Baseline/Generic Maintenance Programmes (see M.A.709) or individual maintenance programmes (for contracted customers) are available for all the aircraft which are intended to be initially included in the scope of work detailed in the CAME. Later on, if changes need to be introduced in the detailed scope of work detailed in the CAME to include new aircraft types (within Group 3), this may be done by the M.A. Subpart G organisation through the use of the indirect approval procedure.

Since, as mentioned above, the competent authority should make sure that the organisation is capable of managing the requested category as a whole, it is not reasonable to grant a full Group 3 approval based on an intended scope of work which is limited to, for example, a Cessna 172 aircraft. However, it may be reasonable to grant such full Group 3 approval, after showing appropriate capability, for an intended scope of work covering several aircraft types or series of different complexity and which are representative of the full Group 3.

Special case for ELA1 aircraft:

In order to promote standardisation, for this category of aircraft the following approach is recommended: — Possible ratings to be endorsed in EASA Form 14:  ELA1 sailplanes;  ELA1 powered sailplanes and ELA1 aeroplanes;  ELA1 balloons;  ELA1 airships. — Before endorsing any of those ratings (for example, ELA1 sailplanes) in EASA Form 14, the competent authority should audit that the organisation is capable of managing at least one aircraft type (for example, one type of sailplanes within the ELA1 category), including the availability of the necessary facilities, data, maintenance programmes, and staff. — It is acceptable that the detailed scope of work in the CAME contains the same ratings endorsed in EASA Form 14 (for example, ELA1 sailplanes), without a need to further limit them. However, the CAMO will only be able to manage a certain aircraft type when all the necessary facilities, data, maintenance programmes and staff are available.  Appendix IV to AMC M.A.604 is amended as follows:

Appendix IV to AMC M.A.604 Maintenance organisation manual

1. Purpose

…

2. Content

… Part A — General

— Table of contents

… Part B — Description

…

— Certifying staff and airworthiness review staff

 Minimum qualification and experience

 List of authorised certifying staff and airworthiness review staff, their scope of qualification and the personal authorisation reference … Part C — General Procedures … Part D — Working Procedures

…

— Records

— Airworthiness review procedures and records for ELA1 aircraft not involved in commercial operations

— Development and approval processing for maintenance programmes for ELA2 aircraft not involved in commercial operations

— Special procedures

Such as specialised tasks, disposal of unsalvageable components, re-certification of parts not having an EASA Form 1, etc. … Part E – Appendices …

3. Approval

…

4. Continuous compliance with Part-M

…

5. Distribution

…

Appendix VI to AMC M.B.602(f) is amended as follows:

Appendix VI to AMC M.B.602(f) EASA Form 6F

M.A. SUBPART F APPROVAL RECOMMENDATION REPORT EASA FORM 6F

Part 1: General

Name of organisation: Approval reference: Requested approval rating/ EASA Form 3 dated*: Other approvals held (If app.) Address of facility audited:

Audit period: from to : Date(s) of audit(s): Audit reference(s): Persons interviewed: Competent authority surveyor: Signature(s): Competent authority office: Date of EASA Form 6F part 1 completion:

*delete where applicable

M.A. SUBPART F APPROVAL RECOMMENDATION REPORT EASA FORM 6F

Part 2: M.A. Subpart F Compliance Audit Review

The five columns may be labelled and used as necessary to record the approval product line or facility, including subcontractor’s, reviewed. Against each column used of the following M.A. Subpart F subparagraphs please either tick () the box if satisfied with compliance or cross (X) the box if not satisfied with compliance and specify the reference of the Part 4 finding next to the box or enter N/A where an item is not applicable, or N/R when applicable but not reviewed. Para Subject M.A.603 Extent of approval M.A.604 Maintenance Organisation Manual (see Part 3) M.A.605 Facilities M.A.606 Personnel requirements M.A.607 Certifying staff and airworthiness review staff M.A.608 Components, Equipment and tools M.A.609 Maintenance data M.A.610 Maintenance work orders M.A.611 Maintenance standards

M.A.612 Aircraft certificate of release to service M.A.613 Component certificate of release to service M.A.614 Maintenance records M.A.615 Privileges of the organisation M.A.616 Organisational review M.A.617 Changes to the approved maintenance organisation M.A.619 Findings Competent authority surveyor(s): Signature(s): Competent authority office: Date of EASA Form 6F part 2 completion:

M.A. SUBPART F APPROVAL RECOMMENDATION REPORT EASA FORM 6F

PART 3: Compliance with M.A. Subpart F maintenance organisation manual (MOM)

Please either tick () the box if satisfied with compliance; or cross (x) if not satisfied with compliance and specify the reference of the Part 4 finding; or enter N/A where an item is not applicable; or N/R when applicable but not reviewed. Part A General 1.1 Table of content 1.2 List of effective pages

1.3 Record of amendments 1.4 Amendment procedure 1.5 Distribution 1.6 Accountable manager’s statement Part B Description 2.1 Organisation’s scope of work 2.2 General presentation of the organisation 2.3 Name and title of management personnel 2.4 Organisation chart 2.5 Certifying staff and airworthiness review staff 2.6 Personnel 2.7 General description of the facility 2.8 Tools, equipment and material 2.9 Maintenance data Part C General procedures 3.1 Organisational review 3.2 Training 3.3 Contracting Subcontracting of specialised services 3.4 One time authorisations

M.A. SUBPART F APPROVAL RECOMMENDATION REPORT EASA FORM 6F

PART 3: Compliance with M.A. Subpart F maintenance organisation manual (MOM)

Part D Working Procedures 4.1 Work order acceptance 4.2 Preparation and issue of work package 4.3 Logistics 4.4 Execution 4.5 Release to service – Certifying staff

4.6 Release to service – Supervision 4.7 Release to service – Certificate of release to service 4.8 Records Airworthiness review procedures and records for ELA1 aircraft not involved in 4.9 commercial operations

Procedures for the development and approval processing for maintenance 4.10 programmes for ELA2 aircraft not involved in commercial operations

4.9 4.11 Special procedures 4.10 4.12 Occurrence reporting 4.11 4.13 Management of indirect approval of the manual Part E Appendices 5.1 Sample of all documents used 5.2 List of subcontractors. 5.3 List of maintenance locations 5.4 List of Part 145 or M.A. Subpart F organisations

MOM reference: MOM amendment: Competent authority audit staff: Signature(s): Competent authority office: Date of EASA Form 6F part 3 completion:

M.A. SUBPART F APPROVAL RECOMMENDATION REPORT EASA FORM 6F

Part 4: Findings regarding M.A. Subpart F compliance status

Each level 1 and 2 finding should be recorded whether it has been rectified or not and should be identified by a simple cross reference to the Part 2 requirement. All non-rectified findings should be copied in writing to the organisation for the necessary corrective action. L Audit reference(s): e Corrective action Part v 2 or 3 Findings e Date Date ref. l Due Closed Reference

M.A. SUBPART F APPROVAL RECOMMENDATION REPORT EASA FORM 6F

Part 5: M.A. Subpart F approval or continued approval or change recommendation

Name of organisation: Approval reference: Audit reference(s): The following M.A. Subpart F scope of approval is recommended for this organisation:

Or, it is recommended that the M.A. Subpart F scope of approval specified in EASA Form 3

Name of recommending competent authority surveyor: Signature of recommending competent authority surveyor: Competent authority office: Date of recommendation: EASA Form 6F review (quality check) : Date:

Appendix VIII to AMC M.A.616 is amended as follows:

Appendix VIII to AMC M.A.616

… Following is a typical example of a simplified organisational review checklist, to be adapted as

necessary to cover the MOM procedures:

1 – Scope of work

Check that: — All aircraft and components under maintenance or under contract are covered in the EASA Form 3. — The scope of work in the MOM does not disagree with the EASA Form 3. — No work has been performed outside the scope of the Form 3 and the MOM.

2 - Maintenance data

…

3 – Equipment and Tools

…

4 – Stores

…

5 – Certification of maintenance, airworthiness review and development and approval processing of maintenance programmes

— Has maintenance on products and components been properly certified? — Have implementation of modifications/repairs been carried out with appropriate approval of such modifications/repairs (sample check)?. — Have airworthiness reviews been properly performed and the airworthiness review certificate properly been issued? — Have maintenance programmes for ELA2 aircraft not involved in commercial operations been properly developed?

6 – Relations with the owners/operators

…

7 – Personnel

…

8 – Maintenance contracted

— Sample check of maintenance records:  Existence and adequacy of the work order,  Data received from the maintenance organisation:

o Valid CRS including any deferred maintenance, o List of removed and installed equipment and copy of the associated EASA Form 1 or equivalent. — Obtain a copy of the current approval certificate (EASA Form 3) of the maintenance organisations contracted.

9 – Maintenance subcontracted

Check that subcontractors for specialised services are properly controlled by the organisation.

10 – Technical records and record-keeping

— Have the maintenance actions been properly recorded? — Have the certificates (EASA Form 1 and Conformity certificates) been properly collected and recorded? — Perform a sample check of technical records to ensure completeness and storage during the appropriate periods. — Is storage of computerised data properly ensured?

11 – Occurrence reporting procedures

— Check that reporting is properly performed. — Actions taken and recorded.

SCOPE OF APPROVAL AVAILABLE

CLASS RATING LIMITATION BASE LINE

AIRCRAFT A1 Aeroplanes above [Rating reserved to Maintenance [YES/ [YES/ 5 700 kg Organisations approved in NO]* NO]* accordance with Annex II (Part-145)] [State aeroplane manufacturer or group or series or type and/or the maintenance tasks]

Example: Airbus A320 Series

A2 Aeroplanes 5 700 [State aeroplane manufacturer or [YES/ [YES/ kg and below group or series or type and/or the NO]* NO]* maintenance tasks]

Example: DHC-6 Twin Otter Series

State whether the issue of airworthiness review certificates is requested or not (only possible for ELA1 aircraft not involved in commercial operations) A3 Helicopters [State helicopter manufacturer or [YES/ [YES/ group or series or type and/or the NO]* NO]* maintenance task(s)]

Example: Robinson R44

A4 Aircraft other than [State aircraft category (sailplane, [YES/ [YES/ A1, A2 and A3 balloon, airship, etc.), manufacturer NO]* NO]* or group or series or type and/or the maintenance task(s).] State whether the issue of airworthiness review certificates is requested or not (only possible for ELA1 aircraft not involved in commercial operations). ENGINES B1 Turbine [State engine series or type and/or the maintenance task(s)]

Example: PT6A Series

B2 Piston [State engine manufacturer or group or series or type and/or the maintenance task(s)]

B3 APU [State engine manufacturer or series or type and/or the maintenance task(s)]

C1 Air Cond & Press COMPONENTS C2 Auto Flight OTHER THAN C3 Comms and Nav [State aircraft type or aircraft manufacturer or component COMPLETE manufacturer or the particular component and/or cross refer C4 Doors - Hatches

CLASS RATING LIMITATION BASE LINE ENGINES OR to a capability list in the exposition and/or the maintenance C5 Electrical Power & APUs task(s).] Lights C6 Equipment C7 Engine - APU Example: PT6A Fuel Control C8 Flight Controls C9 Fuel C10 Helicopter - Rotors C11 Helicopter - Trans C12 Hydraulic Power C13 Indicating recording system C14 Landing Gear C15 Oxygen C16 Propellers C17 Pneumatic & Vacuum C18 Protection ice/rain/fire C19 Windows C20 Structural C21 Water ballast C22 Propulsion augmentation SPECIALISED D1 Non-Destructive [State particular NDT method(s)] Testing SERVICES * Delete as appropriate. EASA Form 2 Page 2 of 2