I agree with Rigga from how I interpret the NPA.
If you read through your past tech logs their are examples of how Part-M companies have been using their interpretation of the legislation to defer maintenance to the 145 organisation until a convenient time. e.g Acceptable Carry Forwards on bird strike inspections etc.
The NPA should rule out the company approved CRS holder. This scenario incorporates that no Part-66 licence is required, just the 145 approved 6 week course passer from the street.
This is the first time I have seen an NPA to oppose the path authorities are undertaking. The regulation of the aircraft since EASA came into affect is becoming more the Airlines responsibility than the NAA. C of As, Part 21 sign offs for out of MM limits damage, Part-147 licence exams to name a few.
A plea to our Flight Crew collegues.
If you do not wish for your damaged aircraft to be assessed from a person in an office 5000 miles away, or an unqualified engineer at the line station; please take a minute to email EASA to back this NPA. This would be gratefully appreciated by your Engineering collegues.
Kind Regards
Beeline