Frequently asked questions

The fees to be paid would be according to the following table: TASAS (hyperlink). If the case is not contemplated, contact the CAO mailbox. (New!)  smga.aesa@seguridadaerea.es 

A summary table on the applicability of the payment of fees is included:

Although it is not always mandatory when deferring a defect, a certifying technician must issue a CRS if a previous analysis has been required or a maintenance action has been carried out.

EASA Response "The original intent of the task-trained certification staff was to provide relief to certification personnel requirements for maintenance organizations that have multiple line maintenance stations away from the main base. 

This scenario was particularly adapted to Part-145, which is the type of organisation required for authorised air carriers (and CMPAs), which normally use such line stations. This is why points 66.A.20(a)(1) and 66.A.20(a)(3)(ii) (for task-trained CS) only refer to Part 145. 

And, accordingly, this means that the CAO Party cannot propose qualified certification personnel for such a task.  

However, it should be noted that for general aviation other exemptions are allowed, such as B2L, B3 and L licences.

No, as set out in the EASA-FAA bilateral agreement, only FAA Form8130-3 Rebuilt for engine are acceptable, as set out in point 10.11.1.6 “Engines rebuilt by the PAH can be accepted as specified in the TIP associated with Annex 1 of the Agreement.

“Rebuilt Engine” means an engine that has been disassembled, cleaned, inspected, repaired as necessary, reassembled, and tested to the same tolerances and limits as a new item by the production approval holder in 
accordance with 14 CFR part 43.

No, independent certifiers may certify defects listed in (b)(1) and (b)(2) in addition to those listed in (b)(4)

No, it's one of the reliefs that the CAO part allows.

In any case, the organization's report (CAE) should always reflect the real scope of the organization and the work it performs; no aircraft may be added that are not being managed/maintained even though they fall under the category of their approval. (New!)

EASA reply: “Yes, control and approval by the competent authority is necessary.”

EASA reply: “Generic maintenance programmes are not required for Part-ML aircraft”

Since a CAO organization only has a single approval, regardless of privileges (maintenance only, continued airworthiness only, or both), it cannot be considered simultaneously small and large. That is, if it were small for one privilege and large for the other, the organization would be considered large as a whole.

According to CAO.A.100(e):

• If the scope of the organization only has aircraft listed in Part-ML (CAO.A.100 and (1)) then the CAO can be considered small, regardless of the number of workers (FTE)
• Other options to be considered small, must meet the following two conditions:

1. The organization does not exceed 10 FTEs involved in maintenance, if such privilege is applicable.
2. And the organization does not exceed the 5 FTEs involved in continuing airworthiness management, if such privilege is applicable.

As a CAO organisation will have only a single approval, independent of the number of privileges (only maintenance, only continuing airworthiness or maintenance and continuing airworthiness), it cannot be simultaneous small and big.

Please see below our interpretation of (CAO.A.100(e)):

- If ‘The scope of the CAO does only contain aircraft covered by Part‐ML’(CAO.A.100(e)(1)) Then ‘A CAO shall be considered as a small CAO’ (regardless of the number of FTE)

If the first condition is not valid, then we have to check how many FTE staff are working.

- To still be considered as a small CAO:

• The organisation does not exceed 10 FTE staff involved in maintenance (if privilege is applicable, CAO.A.100(e)(2))
• And the organisation does not exceed 5 FTE staff involved in continuing airworthiness management (if privilege is applicable, CAO.A.100(e)(3)).