Page 82 - UK Continuing Airworthiness Regulations (Consolidated) 201121

ANNEX I - Continuing Airworthiness Requirements

independent person nominated by the CAA. The review should take into account the
relevant paragraphs of M.A. Subpart G, the categorisation of finding levels and the closure
action taken. Satisfactory review of the audit form should be indicated by a signature on
the CAA Form 13.
M.B.702(g) AMC Initial approval
The audit reports should include the date each finding was cleared together with reference to the CAA
report or letter that confirmed the clearance.
M.B.703 Issue of approval
(a) The CAA shall issue to the applicant an CAA Form 14-MG approval certificate (Appendix VI
to this Annex) which includes the extent of approval, when the continuing airworthiness
management organisation is in compliance with Section A, Subpart G of this Annex (Part-
M).
(b) The CAA shall indicate the validity of the approval on the CAA Form 14‐MG approval
certificate.
(c) The reference number shall be included on the Form 14‐MG approval certificate in a
manner specified by the CAA.
(d) In the case of licenced air carriers in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008, the
information contained on a CAA Form 14‐MG will be included on the air operator's
certificate.
M.B.703 AMC Issue of approval
The table shown for the Approval Schedule in CAA Form 14 includes a field designated as ‘Aircraft
type/series/group’
The intention is to give maximum flexibility to the CAA 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 340211 or
Cessna 172R.
- A type rating (or series) as listed in Part66 Appendix I to AMC, which may be further
subdivided, such as Boeing 737600/700/800, Boeing 737600, 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 CAA 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 CAA to endorse in CAA 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 CAA should be satisfied that the organisation has the capability to
manage the types/groups/series endorsed in the CAA 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 CAA Form 14, may be
considered as not affecting the approval and not subject to M.A.713. As a consequence, for these
changes the CAA may allow the use by the CAMO of the indirect approval procedure defined in
M.A.704(c).
In the example mentioned above, before endorsing the Group 3 in CAA Form 14 for the first time, the
CAA should make sure that the organisation is capable of managing this category of aircraft as a
whole. In particular, the CAA 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 CAMO through the use of the indirect approval
procedure.
Since, as mentioned above, the CAA 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 CAA 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 CAA Form 14, the
CAA 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
20 November 2021 82 of 412