EASA vs FAA: A Part-by-Part Comparison

Two systems, one job

The EASA and FAA systems regulate the same physical reality — aircraft that must be designed, maintained, crewed and operated safely — and they descend from the same ICAO root, which is why their part numbers so often rhyme. But they distribute responsibility differently, and the differences surface exactly where working professionals feel them: who may sign a release, what a licence lets you do personally, and which piece of paper travels with a component. This guide walks the comparison at the level where you work — with the rule text from both sides, quoted from the current consolidations.

How the rulebooks are built

The structural comparison is covered in depth in guide one of this series; the short version matters here. EASA rules arrive in layers: binding implementing rules in annex "Parts" hanging off several domain regulations, surrounded by the Agency's non-binding AMC and GM, with a formal alternative-means-of-compliance mechanism when you want to deviate. The FAA writes one layer: Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. There is no AMC tier — guidance comes as separate Advisory Circulars — and the airworthiness design standards that EASA publishes as soft-law CS codes are, in the American system, regulations themselves (14 CFR Parts 25, 23, 33 and their siblings).

The licence: Part-66 versus the A&P mechanic

Nothing separates the two systems more visibly than the maintenance engineer's paperwork. EASA's Part-66 licence is built on categories — A, B1, B2, B2L, B3, L and C — each defining what the holder may certify. Here is the workhorse:

Two features deserve attention. First, the category boundaries in the quote run along systems — the B1 privilege is structure, powerplant, mechanical and electrical systems, plus avionic work limited to simple tests. Second, the release quoted in the next section is issued by certifying staff on behalf of the organisation, inside that organisation's approval and procedures.

The FAA's counterpart lives in 14 CFR Part 65, and it reads from the opposite philosophy:

The FAA mechanic holds ratings, not categories — Airframe and Powerplant (§§ 65.85 and 65.87), the combination known everywhere as the A&P — and the privileges are personal: within them, a mechanic can maintain and approve for return to service without an organisation standing behind the signature. The senior tier is not a category C licence but an inspection authorization. Section 65.91 is the application and the eligibility rule. It does not confer the privileges. Those are in § 65.95:

Where the EASA reader looks for type ratings endorsed on the licence, the A&P has none — the guard rails are the "performed the work concerned at an earlier date" test and the current-data requirement quoted above.

Releasing the work: CRS versus approval for return to service

The same philosophical split runs through the release paperwork. EASA's release is an organisational act:

The certifying staff sign on behalf of the organisation, against the organisation's procedures, and the component release document is the EASA Form 1. The FAA's release rule is shorter and person-centred:

"No person may approve for return to service … unless" — the rule addresses the individual, and the release is a record entry made by an authorized person, whether that person works in a Part 145 repair station or under an A&P certificate in a hangar. The component document on the American side is FAA Form 8130-3 — designated in FAA guidance as the Authorized Release Certificate, Airworthiness Approval Tag.

Design, operations, and the rest of the crosswalk

The same pattern — familiar subject, different centre of gravity — repeats across the other domains. Design organisations certify large aeroplanes against EASA's CS-25 (Agency soft law) or the FAA's Part 25 (federal regulation); both systems issue type certificates and supplemental type certificates, and the CS codes have their own guide. Commercial operators hold an AOC applied for under ORO.AOC.100 in Europe, and an air carrier certificate with operations specifications under Part 119 in the United States. Flight and duty limits live in ORO.FTL on one side and Part 117 on the other.

The bilateral bridge: BASA and the MAG

The framework for a repair station in the United States that wants an EASA Part-145 approval, and for an EU organisation that wants an FAA repair-station certificate, is the EU–US bilateral aviation safety agreement. The FAA's guidance for that work is Advisory Circular 145-11A, Repair Station Guidance for Compliance with the Safety Agreement between the United States and the European Union. The working document is named in the circular:

The quoted line is the name of the working document. If your organisation touches both registries, that is the document the circular points to.

Reading across the fence

For an EASA-trained professional, the FAA system rewards three adjustments. Read the regulation itself, not a consolidated IR-plus-AMC document — the eCFR text is the whole binding story, with ACs as separate advisory reading. Expect privileges to attach to people rather than organisations, and look for the responsible person in every rule the way you would look for the responsible organisation in an EASA Part. And when numbers rhyme — Part 145, Part 21, Part 147 — treat the rhyme as a table of contents, not an equivalence: the content differs enough that the bilateral agreement devotes an entire guidance volume to bridging one pair of them.

Where to read it yourself

Every EASA citation in this guide was checked against the Easy Access Rules for Continuing Airworthiness (2025-09-02 revision). The FAA quotations were checked against 14 CFR Part 65 and Part 43 in the library consolidation of 2026-05-18, and against Advisory Circulars 145-11A and 43-9D (2026-05-20). This page has no quotation from the air operations rules. For the EASA side in depth, see the Part-66 licence and Part-145 guides; for how each system's rulebook is built, start at how to read EASA regulations and the EASA regulatory map. The next guide in this series covers the UK's post-Brexit mirror of the EASA system.