Frequently asked questions

• In the inspection process, the following documents are mainly generated:
  • Order of action: AESA appoints inspectors and actuary staff, authorising them to carry out inspections of certain facilities during the current year.
  • Communication on the opening of inspection activities (CIAI): The inspected person is informed of the type of inspection, dates and regulations governing the inspection.
  • Designation of inspection team (DES): The inspected person is informed of both the inspection activities to be carried out and the staff responsible for carrying out the inspection and each action.
  • Submission of Request for Documentation (CSD): AESA requests the inspected party to send certain documentation for the purpose of carrying out the inspection.
  • Response of documents requested by the inspected party at the beginning of the inspection in response to the Request for Documentation Communication (CSD) sent by AESA.
  • Following the documentary or on-the-spot audit, EASA issues the Diligence of Inspection Actions for Claims (DAI), which establishes the non-conformities or observations found, and urges the inspected person to express their agreement or disagreement with the inspection measures carried out, and may, if deemed appropriate, make any relevant observations or allegations.
  • Reply of allegations to DAI. The inspected person expresses his or her agreement or dissatisfaction with the inspection measures carried out and, if he deems it appropriate, makes any relevant observations or allegations.
  • Following the receipt and examination of the statements of the inspected person, EASA issues the report terminating the inspection phase, which includes the assessment by EASA of the allegations made by the inspected person, and which, where appropriate, finds a series of non-conformities or observations and requests the inspected person, in order to correct them, to draw up a “Proposal of Corrector Action Plan” (PPAC) that includes the measures to be taken to remedy these non-conformities or observations, in addition to the deadline for implementation and the person responsible for complying with it.

In the image, in green the documents issued by EASA, in orange, which must be prepared, where appropriate, by the inspected.

The CAP Agreement generates these documents:

• Proposal of the corrective action plan (PPAC)
  • Prepared by the inspected party and including the measures to be taken to remedy the non-conformities or observations, deadline for implementation and responsible for compliance with that remedy.
• PPAC Assessment Report ( IVPPAC)
  • Prepared by EASA, where the CAP proposal sent by the inspected party is analysed and if necessary amended.
• Submissions to IVVPAC
  The inspected party may, if deemed appropriate, submit any relevant observations or allegations.
• Corrective Action Plan ( CAP)
  It is issued by EASA, once the final CAP document has been agreed with the inspected party, which sets out the measures, deadline for implementation and responsible for compliance with the corrections of the non-conformities or observations found during the inspection.

  
  On the image, in green the documents issued by EASA, in orange, which, where appropriate, must be drawn up by the inspected

With the issuance of the CAP, the remediation agreement phase ends and the remediation follow-up phase begins, in which, once the non-conformities or observations detected, which must comply with the dates laid down in the CAP, have been remedied, the inspected party must notify EASA of this remediation by means of reliable communication.

• During the remediation follow-up phase, these documents are generated by the inspected person:
  • Verifiable communication of remediation
    • The inspected person sends documentary evidence to correct the corresponding corrective action.
  • Notification of request for amendment
    • The inspected person requests a modification of some aspect related to corrective action, motivated by various causes.
• In the follow-up phase of remediation, these documents are generated by EASA:
  • Stage of remediation status
  • Failure to rectify
  • Closure of the remediation phase

In the image, in green the documents issued by AESA, in orange those prepared by the inspected.

The inspected person has the following deadlines for sending the various documents:

• Submission of documentation requested at the beginning of the inspection, in response to the Request for Documentation Communication (CSD): 10 working days, from the day following receipt of the request.
• Submission of arguments to DAI: 10 working days, from the day following receipt of the ICD.
• Submission of the PPAC: 20 working days from the day following receipt of the Minutes.
• Submission of submissions to IVPPAC: 10 working days from the day following IVPPAC reception.
• Sending of verifiable notice of remediation: maximum 15 calendar days from the date set out in the CAP for each corrective action.
• Submission of application for amendment of CAP: always before the expiry of the date set out in the CAP; in any event, in order for EASA to carry out the assessment of the amendment and notify the inspected person of its acceptance or refusal before the expiry of the CAP date, such communication should be made at least 20 calendar days before that date, except in exceptional cases.

If, during the EASA inspection, it finds non-conformities or observations, in accordance with Article 13 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 736/2006 of 16 May, and pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 139/2014, these are categorised in:

• Non-conformity of Level 1: in the following cases, it is not an exhaustive list of the situations that may involve this type of non-conformities:
  • Significant non-compliance with the certification bases (CB) of the airport, the applicable requirements referred to in Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 and its implementing rules, the procedures and manuals of airport managers or apron management service providers, the terms of the certificate or the content of a declaration, which reduces or poses a serious risk to safety.
  • Not to provide the competent authority with access to the facilities of airports, airport managers or apron management service providers, as defined in point ADR.OR.C.015 of Regulation (EU) No 139/2014, during normal operating hours and following the submission of two written requests.
  • Proof of obtaining or maintaining the validity of a certificate by falsifying the documentary evidence submitted.
  • There is evidence of malpractice or fraudulent use of a certificate or authorisation issued by AESA.
  • The lack of an “Accountable Manager” is evident.
  • The inspected person fails to comply with any of the provisions required by Article 34 of the Aeronautical Inspection Regulation relating to obstruction or resistance to inspection.
  • The inspected person fails to comply with any of the provisions required by Article 33 of the Aviation Safety Act relating to safety obligations.
  • The inspected person fails to comply with any of the provisions laid down in Article 50 of the Aviation Safety Act relating to administrative offences.
• Non-conformity of Level 2: in the following cases, it is not an exhaustive list of the situations that may involve this type of non-conformities:
  • Significant non-compliance with the certification bases (CB) of the airport, the applicable requirements referred to in Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 and its implementing rules, the procedures and manuals of airport operators and apron management service providers, the terms of the certificate, the certificate or the content of a declaration, which could reduce safety or constitute a risk to it.
  • Non-compliance with the procedures and manuals of airport managers at certified airports.
  • Non-compliance with SGS at certified and non-certified airports.
  • Non-compliance with the provisions of the Technical Standards at uncertified airports.
• Remark: in cases that do not require Level 1 or Level 2 non-conformities. A non-exhaustive list of cases that will correspond to an observation is provided:
  • represents a proposed improvement based on future implementing regulations;
  • represents a proposed improvement based on good uses recommended by international standards;
  • it represents a proposed improvement based on previous experience at other airports. 

It is recommended that the “ Communication on changes in EASA ' s categorisation of non-conformities” be read.

EASA’s objective in the field of continuous surveillance involves carrying out annual inspections at airports with more than 10 million passengers per year, and biannual inspections in the rest.

The Agency has also developed a cyclical regulatory control inspection plan that will not exceed 48 months from 2015 in a manner consistent with the entry into force of Regulation (EU) No 139/2014.

The regulatory control inspection programme provides for different types of inspection, general ones whose scope is to obtain an overview of the person concerned/object inspected, and other specific ones focused on areas of importance for operational safety whose mission is to deepen these areas for continuous improvement.

If an inspected data subject establishes another possible mode (or alternative means of compliance) to the permissible mode (or acceptable means of compliance), developed in an ITE or GUI, it shall demonstrate that its alternative has and maintains a level of safety comparable to that of the permissible mode. To this end, it is recommended that the interested party carry out an analysis or risk management, preferably the framework of its Safety Management System (SGS), which demonstrates such equivalence. In the corresponding process, AESA will assess the proposed alternative compliance mode, and if it is finally compliant, it can be implemented. 
 
If express approval by EASA is required, see standard administrative approval procedure.

 Where a provision of the implementing legislation or reference material within the scope of competence of the Airport Inspections Division requires specific approval by EASA, the person concerned must complete the official application model (see Model) and, together with the required documentation in each case, and proceed to its processing at the Agency through official registration.

The following is schematically showing the administrative flow to be followed in these cases: