UK and EU Ink Aviation Manufacturing Deal, Formalizing Acceptance of New Parts

Today, the UK CAA and EU’s EASA signed a Technical Implementation Procedure (TIP).

The purpose of the TIP is to establish the rules for UK and EU acceptance of articles and products produced under the production authority of the other authority. There are correlative agreements regarding design approvals issued by each authority, and the acceptance of each by the other.

This TIP will be important because it affects parts transactions involving third parties. For example, if a US-based distributor has Airbus parts in its US inventory, and those parts were produced under (and tagged under) the authority of EASA, then the sale of those parts for installation on a UK-registered aircraft will be subject to the UK-EASA TIP.

Under the Agreement, the importing authority will expect the following documentation to accompany aircraft parts:

  • For import into the EASA system: an Authorized Release Certificate (CAA Form 1) issued by an authorized UK CAA production organization approval holder [in other words, a UK CAA Form 1 properly signed on the left side]
  • For import into the UK CAA system: an Authorized Release Certificate (EASA Form 1) issued by (a) a production organization approval holder authorized to engage in such activity by an EASA Member State, or (b) a production organization approval holder authorized to engage in such activity by EASA [in other words, an EASA Form 1 properly signed on the left side]

One interesting point is a requirement that instructions for continued airworthiness and other maintenance manuals must be provided for articles to be acceptable for import into each authority. The language specifically states:

“The following documentation will be provided as a condition of acceptance of the civil aeronautical product being imported … ICA and maintenance manuals which include airworthiness limitation sections”

Technical Implementation Procedures for Airworthiness and Environmental Certification Between The Civil Aviation Authority of the United Kingdom And The European Union Aviation Safety Agency, section 6.5.1 (May 17, 2021)

The TIP does not address maintained parts. The authorities are expected to conclude a separate set of procedures for acceptance of maintenance.

EU To Accept UK Production Releases Under EU-UK Trade Agreement

We’ve examined the Trade Agreement between the UK and EU and it provides some useful guidance on aviation safety matters. The Agreement includes an Annex that details the scope of cooperation between the UK and EU in this subject area.

UK CAA Form 1 authorized release certificates signed on the left side by the approved production organization will be accepted in the EU

Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the EU and the UK, Annex AvSaf-1 Art. 21 (31 Dec 2020).

Under the Trade Agreement, the UK and EU each agree:

  • To accept certain approvals without validation (AvSaf 3-4; Annex AvSaf-1 Art. 13):
    • Non-significant supplemental type certificates, non-significant major changes and technical standard order authorizations issued by the EU
    • Minor change / minor repair approvals issued by the UK or EU;
  • To accept through a validation process (AvSaf 3-4; Annex AvSaf-1 Art. 10):
    • EU and UK type certificates;
    • EU significant supplemental type certificates and approvals for significant major changes;
    • UK supplemental type certificates, approvals for major changes, major repairs and technical standard order authorizations
  • To accept the production approval systems of the other (AvSaf 3-4; Annex AvSaf-1 Arts. 21-23);
    • This is limited to the categories of civil aeronautical products that were already subject to that system on 31 December 2020 – later-approved categories must be subject to negotiation;
    • Within these limits, UK CAA Form 1 authorized release certificates signed on the left side by the approved production organization will be accepted in the EU;
  • To limit fees and charges to those “commensurate with the services provided” (AvSaf 13);
  • To exchange accident/incident information (AvSaf 9);
  • When one of them takes immediate measure in response to a safety threat (such as through issue of an airworthiness directive) it will inform the other within 15 days (Article AvSaf 6).

One type of approval that is noticeably absent from this list is maintenance approvals. To address this, EASA issued third-country maintenance approvals to repair stations located in the UK that had previously applied. So maintenance releases from UK-based repair stations will need to be signed under EASA authority to be acceptable in the EU.

We should expect an EU-UK implementation agreement that further explains the mechanisms for acceptance and validation between the two jurisdictions.

There are some remaining issues, especially with respect to multi-country transactions. For example, nations outside of the EU, Canada, Japan and the US will need to decide whether to accept UK approvals. This could make things tricky when dealing with other jurisdictions: China comes to mind as a significant market for which a decision about acceptance of UK releases will need to be made.

Another Reason for Distributors to Pay Attention to Safety Management Systems (SMS)

The Aviation Suppliers Association (ASA) has been promoting the adoption of risk management systems that would integrate with Safety Management Systems. One reason for this is because SMS can be a useful tool for managing safety; but another reason is because the business partners of distributors are expected to adopt SMS and distributors need to be able to work with their business partners’ SMS mechanisms.

An important driver for the ASA recommendations is the knowledge that SMS is coming. ICAO recommneded SMS almost 20 years ago, and ten years ago ICAO consolidated its SMS recommendations into one resource: Annex 19. The world’s aviation authorities have been seriously studying SMS for years, now; several have already implemented SMS for certain industry sectors and more SMS regulations are on the way.

EASA has taken the next step toward implementing a Safety Management Systems (SMS) rule for manufacturers and repair stations. Today, EASA proposed EASA SMS Opinion 04/2020. That Opinion was submitted to the European Commission for implementation.

Under that opinion. EASA proposes to modify the EU aviation manufacturing regulation, and the EU aviation maintenance regulation, to incorporate SMS. The proposed changes would also accomplish other objectives, like better alignment with other regulatory structures.

Air carriers in many countries have already adopted SMS programs. For distributors, this EASA proposal means that both the source of parts (the manufacturers) and the customers (the air carriers and repair stations) will be adopting Safety Management Systems. Past experience has shown that when the rest of aviation adopts a common approach to safety, that tends to result in application of the common approach to distribution, either through flow-down or through indirect pressure. With this in mind, it is likely that SMS will find its way into the aircraft parts distribution world and in support of this eventuality ASA has been offering SMS resources to its members for a number of years.

The next step is for the European Commission to adopt those changes. We do not yet know the precise timeline for that implementation, but the proposal has suggested implementation in the third quarter of 2021 (this timeline is not binding on the European Commission). Once the proposal is adopted by the Commission, EASA proposes that the amending regulations become applicable one year after adoption by the Commission.

The most notable SMS changes to the European aviation regulations are meant to:

  • Incorporate safety risk management, safety performance and continuous improvement elements into the EU regulations;
  • Foster an organizational safety culture in repair stations, design organizations, and production organizations; and
  • Streamline the oversight requirements for government agencies.

One of the key features of SMS for regulated parties is the identification of hazards – including future hazards – and the current mitigation of the risks posed by those predicted hazards. EASA notes that during the COVID-19 pandemic, they’ve noticed that an organization’s ability to effectively identify and manage emerging risks has proven to be an efficient tool for returning to normal operations. This is offered as a support for the value proposition associated with the introduction of SMS regulations.

EASA also posted its Comment-Response Document (CRD) for the SMS rule on its website, today. That document explains a number of the decisions that were made in the development of the SMS proposal.

The New UK: What Does Brexit mean for Aviation?

Part One: Brexit’s Legal Landscape Affecting Aviation

Everyone knows that the UK left the EU earlier this year, and that the UK and EU have been in the Withdrawal transition period since January 31. The Withdrawal period is governed by the Withdrawal Agreement signed by the UK and the EU last year. The last day of the current transition period is scheduled to be December 31, 2020. Part of the rationale behind the nearly-one-year-long transition period was to permit the UK and EU to negotiate a trade agreement that would reflect their long-term relationship.

There is little time for the UK and EU to complete negotiations. The negotiation were already very difficult due to the differing opinion on political issues like the Irish border; those negotiations have been hampered as each deals with the issues surrounding Covid-19. Trade deal negotiations restarted this past weekend, but it may be too little, too late. It is looking like there may not be an agreement by December 31 – most particularly not an agreement that permits the UK CAA to remain as a part of EASA.

So what does this mean for the aircraft parts market? First let’s examine some of the general agreements and basic principals that are likely to affect aircraft parts transactions (in the next article, we will examine some more specific scenarios and rules).

Generally speaking, a nation remains responsible for the airworthiness of the aircraft on its national registry. This means that an aircraft on the German registry can be maintained under the EU (EASA) regulations, and the rules about what parts can be installed on that aircraft are gong to be the EU rules. The EU has entered into agreements with other authorities to share certain oversight duties; for example, new parts produced under US FAA certificates/approvals are typically legal to install on EU aircraft when they meet the terms of the agreements between the EU and the US. But the EU does not have a comparable agreement with Mexico, so an aircraft parts produced under production approval issued by the Mexican DGAC would not be directly accepted into the EU system (note that EASA has a working arrangement that permits Mexico to validate and/or accept certain EASA certificates and approvals).

Through the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018, all European Union aviation laws were adopted into UK law upon Brexit (deferred to the end of the transition period).  This means that the same EASA regulations under which the UK has been operating will continue to apply to UK transactions, but new EU regulations will no longer apply directly to the UK after the end of the transition period.

Because the UK is withdrawing completely from the EASA system as of January 1, 2021, the UK CAA will undertake all of the aviation safety regulatory functions. UK CAA has been preparing for this for years, and they appear to be ready.

The UK will no longer be included in EU-level Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreements. New UK agreements have already been negotiated and will come into effect on January 1, 2021. These agreements will be substantially the same as the correlative agreements between the ‘third-country’ and the EU. These include agreements with the following ‘third countries:’

Until and unless something changes in the EU law or in the negotiations between UK and EU, there appears to be no agreement between the EU and the UK for aviation approvals and certificates.

The EU promulgated a regulation (Regulation (EU) 2019/494 (25 March 2019)) that permitted recognition of certain documents, like copies of Form 1, during a continuing transition period; however that recognition did not come into effect because Article 10(3) explains that the regulation will not come into effect if a withdrawal agreement is signed before Brexit. Such a Withdrawal Agreement entered into force in 2019. This means that the primary EU legal authority permitting acceptance of approvals issued in the UK before January 1, 2021 did not come into effect. This does not mean that the EU cannot accept any new or maintained aircraft parts from the UK – there is an important exception that may apply from Article 41 of the Withdrawal Agreement – and we will address this important exception in our next blog article.

In the next blog post, we will look more specifically about how all of this affects aircraft parts transactions.

#aviation #brexit

100 Days Until the End of the Brexit Transition

Brexit has occurred. The UK is no longer part of the EU. But the effect of Brexit was softened with a year-long transition period during which the UK and EU were supposed to negotiate their future relationship.

The last day of the current transition period is scheduled to be December 31, 2020. That leave little time for the UK and EU to complete their negotiations; negotiations that have been hampered as each deals with the issues surrounding Covid-19.

Unfortunately, the precise future for aircraft parts manufactured under UK CAA production approval or maintained under UK CAA maintenance approval remains a little unclear.

State of Negotiations

Last year, the UK and EU signed a Withdrawal Agreement that included a one year transition period. During this transition period, the EU treated the United Kingdom as if it were a Member State, with the exception of participation in the EU institutions and governance structures. This notably meant that the UK continued to enjoy the privileges of the EASA bilateral agreements and the world treated certificates in the UK as if they were still issued under EASA processes. Thus, an EASA Form One issued by a UK CAA repair station on January 2, 2020 had the same legal effect as one issued on December 30, 2019.

The Withdrawal Agreement also included an Irish Protocol that guaranteed no hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, but in return required a customs border to be established between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. Recently, Prime Minister Boris Johnson has pledged to renege on the Irish Protocol; which would mean that there would be no customs border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK; but that implies that there would be a customs border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. This pledge has been criticized as a potential violation of international law. Subsequent British efforts to provide a legislative support for the pledge have been called “lamentable” by prominent figures like UK Government Special Envoy (and human rights activist) Amal Clooney.

A clause that permitted extension of the Withdrawal Agreement had a deadline of July 1, 2020 and that deadline seems to have passed without the extension being invoked. This doesn’t really prevent the parties from agreeing to an extension – but it makes it a little less likely.

It is also worth noting that under the EU’s Brexit Regulation, certain certificates, like UK type certificates become invalid for EU purposes nine months after the Withdrawal Date (January 31, 2020), which means that they could become invalid. Contrast this with a provision in Article 10 of the same regulation that invalidates that Regulation if a Withdrawal Agreement is reached pursuant to Article 50(2) (the EU provision that permits a withdrawal agreement with a withdrawing member of the EU). The current EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement cites Article 50(2) as part of its basis, but it does not actually address how aviation will be covered. Instead, the EU and UK agreed to “explore the possibility of cooperation” with respect to EASA-UK CAA relations, but nothing has been passed in Europe to address certificates from the UK. The current EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement appears to render the EU Brexit Regulation moot, but if that is true then it means that there is no clear guidance on what happens after the transition period, particularly if the EU withdraws its offer to exetend US aviation regulations to the UK.

While the UK CAA is quite competent to support its own airworthiness needs, if the EU will not recognize UK CAA certificates after December 31, 2020 then this becomes a problem in terms of being able to support the EU-registered fleet. It potentially devalues aircraft components or complicates the compliance path in uncertain ways.

During the 2020 transition period, EASA continues to process applications from existing UK CAA approval holder within the context of the early application process; EASA expects to issue EASA certificates to many businesses who currently hold UK CAA certificates. 

What Comes Next?

A “Hard Brexit” scenario is still a very real possibility. This is because the UK is setting early deadlines for concluding a long-term agreement (October 15) and the UK Prime Minister has indicated that he’s prepared to walk away from trade talks rather than compromise on what he regards as core principles of Brexit. The “Irish Backstop” concerns reflect a very delicate point because of the competing concerns between fully withdrawing from the EU Common Market and retaining a “soft border” between Ireland and Northern Ireland.

Because of the lack of clarity on “what happens next,” anything is possible but it is highly likely that the EU will simply reissue the EU Brexit Regulation, or possibly rule that it became once again “live” upon the expiration of the transitional Withdrawal Agreement. If this happens then it would create a new transition during which UK parties could decide whether they needed EU recognition or whether UK recognition was sufficient (the UK already has a number of bilateral agreements ready-to-go in order to facilitate international recognition of UK certifications).  This means that it is likely that (1) the EU would recognize the validity of components already on EU aircraft [components would not have to be removed from aircraft], and (2) components with a EASA Form 1 certificates of release issued by UK-registered businesses prior to the end of the transition period would very likely be recognized as airworthy after the transition period.

For the UK CAA, it has already announced that anything certified under EASA’s authority that was considered preemptively airworthy before the end of the transition period would continue to be recognized in the UK for at least two years after the transition period ends..

An ‘even harder Brexit‘ is also a possibility, in which the EU simply stops recognizing all UK-CAA certificates (including EASA Form 1) after December 31, 2020. While possible, this is unlikely because of the adverse effect it would have on maintaining the technical airworthiness of EU-registered aircraft. If this happened, then In such a case, distributors holding parts with UK CAA Certificates might not be able to sell them for installation on EU-registered aircraft, but they could still be installed on UK-registered aircraft and on the aircraft registered in the nations with which the UK CAA has appropriate bilateral agreements (like Canada, Japan and the United States).

But there are about four weeks remaining before the current UK negotiation deadline, so a “soft Brexit” – in which UK CAA either participates as a third-country member of EASA or otherwise enters into a deal with EASA for mutual recognition – still remains a real possibility. In such a case, distributors holding parts with UK CAA Certificates would enjoy a “status-quo” situation.

EASA still is restrained from publicly commenting on Brexit; they are waiting for the high-level political negotiations to conclude before they can start to expending resources and take an official position.  Nonetheless, EASA contacts have privately assured us that EASA is ready for any direction in which Brexit may go, and EASA hopes to be able to to implement some form of mutual reliance with the UK CAA.

EASA Moving to Digital Certificates

EASA is going digital!

As the entire world seeks to move to digital communications in order to reduce unnecessary use of paper, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) is once again in a leadership role.  EASA has committed to move all of its paper certificates and approvals to a digital format.

EASA will begin this process with a stage one effort that is limited to certain product approvals.  In stage one, EASA will issue some product approvals and will gather data about the program. They will use this data to improve their processes before entering stage two. In stage two, EASA will begin issuing all other product and organization approvals in digital format.

The first stage of this program take effect tomorrow (June 22). Stage 1 of this transition is explained here, in this EASA table:

Stage 1
  • EASA will issue some product approvals only as PDFs and will no longer systematically print and dispatch wet signed versions.
  • The applicant receives a high resolution, printable version of the certificate with the look and feel of the paper version.
  • EASA publishes selected approval data on its website to allow third parties to verify the data if necessary.
    The list of approvals included in stage 1 can be consulted here:
  • The initial scope is limited to some product approvals. The remaining product and organisation approvals will follow in stage 2, taking into consideration feedback from this first stage.
  • The long-term goal remains a fully digital approval process.
  • As a transition measure, until the end of August 2020, EASA will provide a printed version of the approval free of charge upon request.
  • You should address any queries relating to this initiative to

The primary purpose of this effort is to streamline procedures and reduce cost.  As a security measure, data can be cross checked against valid approvals on the EASA website.

As an example, if you are asking a dual-certificated repair station to perform maintenance, the repair station will no longer get a paper certificate (in stage two).  Instead, the repair station will get a digital certificate that can be verified on the EASA website.

UK Aviation Remains Subject to the EASA Standards and Bilaterals Through the End of the Year

Good news!  The UK and EU have taken the position that EASA regulations will continue to apply to the UK (and in the UK) during the transition period (post-Brexit).  The transition period will last from Februrary 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020.

The EU and UK have both signed the Withdrawal Agreement.  The EU issued a formal notice announcing the Withdrawal Agreement, earlier today.  Article 127(1) of the Withdrawal Agreement states:

“Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement, Union law shall be applicable to and in the United Kingdom during the transition period.”

This means that the Regulation (EU) 2019/494 (which had originally been expected to control aviation safety between EU and UK) will not come into effect.

The UK CAA updated their Brexit microsite, this morning, to reflect the application of EU law during the transition period.

This is a significant relief to many; as late as January 15, the EU had published plans that stated that the UK would have no recourse to EASA rules after Brexit, explaining that for the UK aviation community:

“All current EU law-based rights, obligations and benefits cease”

The industry is breathing a collective sigh of relief that this is not coming to pass (at least not yet).

International Response

In order for this to be truly effective, the rest of the world will need to allow the UK to be covered under the EU agreements, like bilateral aviation safety agreements and working arrangements.  If they refuse to allow the EU agreements to be extended to the UK (which will no longer be a part of the EU, tomorrow) then this could cause significant issues in accepting UK-sourced aviation goods and services.  The US has taken a leadership role in this regard by announcing its acceptance of the transition-period relationship.

Earlier today, the FAA circulated a letter from FAA Associate Administrator Ali Bahrami announcing that the United States will treat the UK as remaining subject to the US-EU aviation safety agreements during the transition period.

We expect other countries to continue to honor this relationship during the transition period (as of this morning, no analogous announcements had been made by Brazil, Canada or Japan – the other three nations to have negotiated post-Brexit airworthiness agreements with the UK – but this dearth of guidance is likely due to the short timing).

The fact that other countries are likely to honor this arrangement would make aircraft parts transactions smoother for the coming year, but it is not 100% good news.   The UK-Canada bilateral aviation safety agreement (BASA) was expected to permit reciprocal acceptance of component maintenance – a dramatic leap forward in international aviation safety comity.  Transport Canada has not issued any formal statement concerning the effect of the Withdrawal Agreement, but if they do treat the UK as part of the EU for bilateral aviation safety agreement purposes (during the transition period), it may delay to an important advance.


No EASA Form 1 for Certain EU Parts?

EASA has published the comment respond document (CRD) and Opinion for its rule concerning “Installation of parts and appliances that are released without an EASA Form 1 or equivalent.”

ASA has been talking about this proposal a lot, so many of our members are already familiar with the proposal.  It would allow the design approval holder (DAH) to classify articles, and to permit certain articles to be exempted from the regulations (so that the regulator would have no production oversight over the article).  This would be performed in the context of preparation of the ICAs, as a privilege of the design approval holder.  The reason for classifying articles is to define a class of articles that do not need production approval, and that do not need EASA Form 1.

The DAH could choose to classify parts into two categories.  The categories would be distinguished based on the safety effect of the article as installed on the aircraft

  • Category One would reflect the norm, under which articles are produced under production organization approval (POA) and bear an EASA Form 1. This will be the default in cases where the manufacturer does not classify articles.
  • Category Two would reflect articles with a negligible safety effect. The regulators would not regulate the production of such parts.  Such articles would not require EASA Form 1 to be received by a Part 145 organization.  This would allow the DAH to de-regulate an article.

Classifying parts into category two would be a voluntary activity.  The DAH would determine the safety effect and would publish the list of category two parts in the instructions for continuing airworthiness (ICA).

The proposed language in the regulation that EASA is proposing to the European Commission for the rules would state:

“1. An organisation responsible for the manufacture of products, parts and appliances shall demonstrate its capability in accordance with the provisions of Annex I (Part 21). This demonstration of capability is not required for the parts or appliances that an organisation manufactures which, in accordance with the provisions of Annex I (Part21), are eligible for installation in a type-certified product without the need to be accompanied by an authorised release certificate (i.e. EASA Form 1).’;”

Corollary language in the annex, section 21.A.307, would explain thatit is not necessary to obtain production approval for:

“a part or appliance for which the consequences of a non-conformity with its approved design data has a negligible safety effect on the product and which is identified as such by the holder of the design approval in the instructions for continued airworthiness. In order to determine the safety effects of a non-conforming part or appliance, the design approval holder may establish in the instructions for continued airworthiness specific verification activities to be conducted by the installer of the part or appliance on the product;”

This language would provide a regulatory (“hard law”) basis for the EASA proposal.

The proposed rule still has problems.  ASA pointed out in comments that the ICA is typically not made available to distributors, and therefore it could become impossible for distributors to know the compliance obligations for articles, due to the fact that it would be impossible for distributors to know whether the articles were placed into category one or category two.  If a third party produced the parts under a claim that they were category two, then this claim would not be verifiable because the verification data would not be publicly available (thus a manufacturer could fabricate unapproved parts, erroneously call them category two, and introduce them into the system without EASA Form 1; and a distributor would have no way to verify whether the articles are category 1 or 2).  This opens to the door to introduction of unapproved parts, and undermines the systems that distributors have used to help protect air carriers from bad parts.

EASA has also discussed possibly using CS-STAN to identify articles that are considered to have ‘negligible safety effect’ and which can, therefore, be installed without an EASA Form 1.  This would be for articles that EASA feels generally have a negligible safety effect.

In comments, Rolls Royce Deutschland, the FAA, MARPA and ASA all suggested that this might be inconsistent with state duties under ICAO norms.  ASA suggested that the proposal might be inconsistent with European obligations under the Chicago Convention, Annex 8, Part II, section 2.2.1.

There is a possibility that this rule may change nothing,.  A comparable rule in the U.S., the commercial parts rule, was ill-formed and did not get used the way it was expected to be used.  So too, this new EASA rule might not be used and the industry may find itself unchanged after this rule.


Change 7 to the FAA-EASA Maintenance Annex Guidance

Change seven to the FAA-EASA Maintenance Annex Guidance has been published.  The 171 page document was effective on its publication date (November 18, 2019) and must be implemented within 90 days of the issue date (February 16 is a Sunday, so that means February 17, 2020).

The latest draft appears to correct the prior omission of third parties authorities – like Brazil – by drawing reference to the third-party bilateral agreements.

ASA will publish more about how this affects distributors, soon, and this will be a topic of discussion at the Quality Committee Meeting on Friday December 6, 2019, in Dallas.

Relevant Language from EASA’s Supplier Control Mechanisms

In an earlier post, we reported on EASA’s formal endorsement of FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 00-56 and the ASA-100 quality standard (endorsing them as an acceptable mechanism for ensuring that a supplier’s quality assurance system meets EASA expectations).

These two documents form an important part of EASA’s recent publication on supplier control mechanisms.

Some of the readers have asked me to provide the relevant language of EASA’s endorsement; they’ve noted that the entire Decision includes six annexes in addition to the actual EASA decision (and is thus too long to navigate).   In response to these inquiries, I have put together a short (five page) set of excerpts that show the supplier control implementation in the recently-published EASA AMCs and GMs.

You can find a copy of the excerpts here, at this link: ED Decision 2019-009-R – Supplier Control Mechanisms Added to European Law (excerpts).

In summary:

  • EASA AMC1 145.A.42(b)(i) provides that the procedures for the acceptance of components, standard parts and materials should include supplier evaluation procedures;
  • EASA GM2 145.A.42(b)(i) explains what a supplier is, in order to assess who must be controlled (find out more in our earlier article on supplier definition);
  • EASA GM3 145.A.42(b)(i) describes the elements that should be considered when evaluating a supplier’s quality system, and it explains that suppliers accredited to ASA-100 an AC 00-56 are acceptable;


%d bloggers like this: