EASA Part M proposed revision

[David Roberts]

EASA published today the CRD (Comment Response Document) to the last NPA, setting out all the responses to consultation, EASA's comments to those responses, and the proposed text of a revised Part M. It is a 457 page pfd file at:

http://easa.europa.eu/doc/Rulemaking/CRD%20to%20NPA-2007-08.pdf

To help forumites avoid reading all of it, here is the summary of what is in there:

pages 4 to 344 are all the comments made together with EASA's response to each (standarised in many cases). So you do not have to read those.

pages 346 to 352 are EASA's comments under the heading 'General Issues' - recommended reading

pages 353 to 356 are EASA's comments under the heading 'Specific issues' - recommended reading but less so than 'General Issues'

pages 357 to 358 is 'Guidance to Owners of Private Aircraft of 2730 kg MTOM and below' - worth reading

pages 359 to 393 is the resultant proposed text of Part M, with all changes highlighted, as applicable to owners, operators, maintenance organisations and continuing airworthiness management organisations (CAMOs)

pages 393 to 411 is the resultant proposed text of Part M as is applicable to the Competent Authority (i.e. CAA) in each Member State, with changes highlighted - not necessary to read

pages 412 to 413 is a list of complex maintenance tasks (can't be done by pilot-owners) with changes highlighted

pages 414 to 416 is a list of maintenance tasks which the pilot-owner can do, with changes highlighted - well worth reading

pages 417 is Part 145 Organisational approval class and rating system

pages 418 to 457 is the AMC (Acceptable Means of Compliance) proposed text, with changes highlighted - this is worth reading, particularly the detail of allowed pilot-owner maintenance (pages 435 to 448)

Note in particular AMC M.1 page 418. This point has been accepted (at this stage!) following considerable representations from the sports and recreational aviation community across Europe.

[LH2]

Hi there,

just to say cheers for taking the trouble of posting your summary, that's very considerate of you. It'll come in very useful when I get around to reading the PDF a bit latter.

[robin]

Do we assume that the CAA will now be sending out LTOs explaining the new rules?

I'm just off to my Maintenance Organisation to see what is going to be the effect for us.

[David Roberts]

The CAA is well aware, in principle, of the proposed changes in the piepline, but is constrained by the fact that the only legally binding game in town is the current Part M. This has the effect of wanting applications from industry for the various approvals for sub part F, G and I under the present rules, but knowing that the rules almost certainly will change!

I and others are in contact with senior people at the CAA and DfT on this issue, to try and ensure the minimum of what might be nugatory effort and cost in the period of 'suspended animation' whilst the EASA process runs its course. It is not expected that the revised Part M will become official with the blessing of the EU Commission until around June / July, with implementation to be complete by 28 September 2008!! That is why those of us representing GA interests in Europe have pressed not only for the changes, but also for a transition period so that applications for approvals, and all the required changes organisationally, can be done in a reasonable timescale. Hence the words in the CRD about transitional arrangements from 28 Sept 08 to 28 sept 09.

[vee-tail-1]

Many thanks David, your summary helps a lot. :ok:

The "Guidance for owners of Private aircraft of 2730 kgs & below" (pages 357 & 358) is very useful as it points to the places to look for information.

But there now seems a bewildering number of new aircraft categories:
CS-VLA, CS-22, LSA, ELA1, and ELA2. :bored:
Do you have any info on these?

[David Roberts]

The following are not new categories, per se:

CS-VLA (CS = Certification Specification which replaced the 'JAR' design codes, VLA = Very Light Aircraft, I think!)
CS-22 is the certification specification for gliders / sailplanes and has been in existence for decades as JAR-22 and is now called CS-22 under EASA
LSA = (US) Light Sports Aircraft (which is the USA nomenclature), up to 600kgs MTOM

ELA1 and ELA2 are the two new, soon to be proposed officially by EASA, 'categoies' of aircraft - actually more a process - that can be designed and built using industry acceptable standards for certification by EASA. ELA = European Light Aircraft. ELA 1 is < 1000kg MTOM and ELA2 is < 2000 kg MTOM. Details of this development are on the EASA website (look at the bottom on the front page, under MDM.032 announcement). The official NPA (Notice of Proposed Amendment) for this will be published in about a month on the EASA website.

[giloc]

ELA1 and ELA2 are the two new, soon to be proposed officially by EASA, 'categoies' of aircraft - actually more a process - that can be designed and built using industry acceptable standards for certification by EASA. ELA = European Light Aircraft. ELA 1 is < 1000kg MTOM...

David

Does this mean that existing certified types (with qualifying MTOM) will automatically fall into these categories e.g. a Cessna 150 will be an ELA1 type? Or are the categories only for newly designed types? Or will there be a process for transferring an existing certified type to ELA1 or ELA2?

Many thanks.

g

[David Roberts]

My recollection (and I haven't got time right now to check the mountain of documents generated in MDM.032) is that existing aircraft - for non-commercial use - if within the MTOM limits, will be regarded as ELA 1 or ELA 2 even though, in the case of a Cessna 152 it was designed and produced before the new EASA process comes into effect. The Cessna is a certified aircraft (i.e. has a C of A) and to achieve that under the present system the designer and producer had to jump through a lot of expenseive hoops.

However, EASA is introducing a change in process whereby design and production criteria using industry standards (such as ASTM which is a consensus process) form the basis of EASA considering granting a C of A to the TC holder for the aircraft.

The Cessna has been accepted through the full blown Design Approval and Production approval routes, at the core of Part 21, which EASA recognise can be overly burdensone for light aircraft < 2000kg. So ELA1 and ELA2 are not a new category of aircraft, even though it looks like that because of the MTOM limits in the headlines. They represent a process change which will hopefully provide a better economic basis for light aircraft design and production in the future. In a way it is recognising what has been happening in several countries (USA and the Czech Republic are examples) for some years in the heavier microlight sector. EASA think that these principles and processes can be extended to aircraft up to 2000kg.

The related significance of this development is in relation to pilot licensing and, hopefully, operations in due course, where EASA is developing what they hope will be the 'light touch', though the jury is still out on that, partly because the light touch can only be achieved if the Member States' NAAs implement the rules in the way EASA intend. Remember, EASA is a rulemaking body that makes recommendations to the EU political system for adoption in law; it does not oversee the implementation of the rules, except directly for original airworthiness (i.e. new aircraft and modifications). That is down to each Member State with EASA playing a standardisation oversight role to ensure a level playing field.

In all the debates I get involved in at Cologne I have detected a genuine desire, with a few notable exceptions, to make regulation of our sector more proportionate to the risks involved. The difficulty is when the ideas are translated (and not just into other languages, which is a problem in itself, because of all the nuances in the English language) into EU law, when the lawyers get involved. 'Nuff said!

[giloc]

David

Thanks - that's useful. I'm interested because the newly proposed Part M includes a few alleviations for ELA 1 and ELA 2 which it seems are applicable to existing certified aircraft by virtue of their MTOM.

[David Roberts]

Giloc -

I think that is the right conclusion you reached, but not hold me to it, yet!

[robin]

>>>Remember, EASA is a rulemaking body that makes recommendations to the EU political system for adoption in law; it does not oversee the implementation of the rules, except directly for original airworthiness (i.e. new aircraft and modifications). That is down to each Member State with EASA playing a standardisation oversight role to ensure a level playing field.<<<<

That looks to be a potential issue if EASA make a decision based on a CRD but our dear friends at the Belgrano opt to take a UK-specific rule.

[David Roberts]

Yes, this is going to be 'interesting' when Member States start implementing the EU legally based rules on continuing airworthiness (and in due course pilot licensing and operations). I know from many discussions in Cologne that the wording of implementing rules, which are drafted in English and are EU law in English, contain phrases and 'messages' that quite often leave the scope for interpretation deliberately wide. The rationale for this is quite logical - to allow for reasonable flexibility depending on the Member State responsible for implementation. I have fallen into the trap myself on a number of occasions of interpreting the words in one way only to be told politely that there are other ways of interpreting it.

EU law in this area is drafted in English and becomes law in English (for which we should be grateful I suppose, knowing how good we Brits are at other languages). In certain areas there is less risk of mis-interpretation because the subject matter is measurable, quantifiable etc. But much is also to do with process, structures, relationships and complex linkages and cross references, where the scope for differing interpretations is greater.

So, we shall have to watch very carefully when the 'translations' are done, even from English to English!!

But, here is the rub. The Member States will interpret the rules so as to implement them. If we don't like the way something is being interpreted, then EASA has a standardisation function (one of the four main directorates) whose job it is to monitor implementation across the EU and therefore interpretation of the rules by Member States.;)

[IO540]

Can anybody work out a summary of what this means for a 1400kg SE plane?

I am on the N-reg but in this business it keeps to keep one's eyes open.

Are there any proposals on acceptance (or lack of acceptance) of FAA documentation like 8130-3, 8130-4 with Class 1 parts?