SAFA Ramp Inspection Findings: Category 1, 2 and 3, Classes of Action and How to Respond
What a Cat 1, 2 or 3 SAFA or SACA finding means, what happens at each class of action, the 15- and 30-day windows, and a reply workflow with a template.
Dionysis Kefalas16 min readFor Air Ops staff
Part 6 of 6 in EASA Air Operations Show parts
- 1EASA Air Operations: Rules, AOC and Duties
- 2Apply for an EASA Air Operator Certificate
- 3Part-ORO Operations Manual and Management System
- 4EASA Flight Time Limitations and Crew Duty
- 5Part-SPA Specific Approvals: LVO, PBN, ETOPS
- 6SAFA Ramp Inspection Findings: Cat 1, 2, 3 and Your Reply
Quotes checked on against 2 sources. Show sourcesHide sources
- EASA Easy Access Rules for Air Operations (Regulation (EU) No 965/2012) — 27 Mar 2026 revision
- EASA Ramp Inspection Manual (RIM), Avioverse library copy of 8 Jun 2026
On this page
A SAFA finding has arrived: what happens next
An ExampleAir aircraft is inspected on the ramp at an EU airport. The Proof of Inspection lists an unserviceable cargo door indicator light and unrecorded speed tape on a wing panel. Later the letter arrives: one category 1 finding, one category 2, and a request for evidence of corrective action.
ARO.RAMP.130 sorts ramp findings by their influence on safety: category 1 is minor, category 2 significant, category 3 major. For a category 2 or 3 finding, ARO.RAMP.135 has the authority write to the operator, ask for evidence of corrective action and inform the competent authority of the State of the operator. Its AMC says the inspecting authority should inform the operator and its competent authority no later than 15 calendar days after the report enters the ramp inspection tool, and give the operator 30 calendar days to reply. A category 3 finding also brings an immediate step at the ramp: a restriction, corrective action before flight, grounding or an operating ban. The reply is evidence of the correction, or a corrective action plan followed by evidence.
Key facts
- Three categories, by influence on safety: minor (category 1), significant (category 2), major (category 3). ARO.RAMP.130.
- Category 2 or 3: a written request for evidence of corrective actions; the competent authority of the State of the operator is informed. ARO.RAMP.135(a).
- Category 3 adds an immediate step: a restriction, immediate corrective actions, grounding or an operating ban. ARO.RAMP.135(b).
- Timing for category 2 or 3: the inspecting authority should inform the operator and its competent authority no later than 15 calendar days after the report enters the ramp inspection tool, and give the operator 30 calendar days to reply; if the operator does not react, a second request allows another 30, copied to its competent authority. AMC1 ARO.RAMP.135(a).
- A corrective action plan can close a finding; the inspecting authority decides. RIM 4.4.9.
- The Proof of Inspection signature is a receipt, not acceptance of the findings. AMC1 ARO.RAMP.125(c).
- An operator can ask, with justification, for a finding it believes was wrongly raised to be discarded. RIM 4.4.10.
SAFA or SACA: which inspection was it?
In EASA Member States, both are ramp inspections under Subpart RAMP of Part-ARO, Annex II to the Air Operations regulation. The EASA Ramp Inspection Manual (RIM) draws the line.
[…]
The new legal framework required EU operated aircraft are to be inspected against EU standards when inspected in EASA Member States (referred to as SACA inspections – Safety Assessment of Community Aircraft), whereas all other aircraft when inspected either by EASA Member States or other Participating States in the programme are to be inspected against international standards (referred to as SAFA inspections – Safety Assessment of Foreign Aircraft). […]
Quoted word for word from EASA Ramp Inspection Manual (RIM), library copy of 8 Jun 2026.
The follow-up rules below apply to both. Subpart RAMP is written as duties of the authority; much of the detail is in the RIM, whose chapters differ in weight.
[…]
The legal status of the core part of the manual (chapters 2 to 7) and the attachment (chapter 9) is guidance only, whilst the Appendices (8.1, 8.2, and 8.3) are considered to have the status of an AMC as they are referred to in AMC to ARO.RAMP as means to comply with the related implementing rule (unless an Alternative Means of Compliance (AltMoC) is established in accordance with ARO.GEN.120, including a notification to the Agency thereof). […]
Quoted word for word from EASA Ramp Inspection Manual (RIM), library copy of 8 Jun 2026.
The chapter 4 passages below are therefore guidance to inspectors.
Category 1, 2 and 3 findings
For each inspection item, three categories of possible non-compliance with the applicable requirements are defined as findings. Such findings shall be categorised as follows:
(1)a category 3 finding is any detected significant non-compliance with the applicable requirements or the terms of a certificate that has a major influence on safety;
(2)a category 2 finding is any detected non-compliance with the applicable requirements or the terms of a certificate that has a significant influence on safety;
(3)a category 1 finding is any detected non-compliance with the applicable requirements or the terms a certificate that has a minor influence on safety.
Quoted word for word from Regulation (EU) No 965/2012, Easy Access Rules for Air Operations, 27 Mar 2026 revision.
Point (3) does read "the terms a certificate"; the missing "of" is in the source. The RIM works through cases.
[…]
• High-speed tape; in many cases, high-speed tape may be applied on the aircraft without detailed information recorded in the technical logbook; in such case, a category 2 finding is appropriate. […]
[…] In the case of a damaged or blocked static pressure port a category 3 finding is justified.
[…]
• Cargo door open/locked indicator (green) light; often this light is found to be unserviceable, as the light itself poses no safety hazard to the flight. A category 1 for raising the issue to the operator should be sufficient.
[…]
Quoted word for word from EASA Ramp Inspection Manual (RIM), library copy of 8 Jun 2026.
Applied to ExampleAir, with fictional findings mirroring those cases:
Classes of action: what the inspectors do at the ramp
The category describes the finding; the class of action is what the authority does about it. The Proof of Inspection (POI) form lists the classes.
[…]
Class of Action ☐ 3d Immediate operating ban ☐ 3c Aircraft grounded by (name of CA) ☐ 3b Corrective actions before flight required ☐ 3a Restriction on aircraft operation ☐ 2 Information to Authority and operator ☐ 1 Information to PIC / operator’s representative ☐ 0 No findings
[…]
Quoted word for word from EASA Ramp Inspection Manual (RIM), library copy of 8 Jun 2026.
ARO.RAMP.135 sets the written follow-up, and the immediate steps only category 3 brings.
(a)For a category 2 or 3 finding the competent authority, or where relevant the Agency, shall:
(1)communicate the finding in writing to the operator, including a request for evidence of corrective actions taken; and
(2)inform the competent authority of the State of the operator and, where relevant, the State in which the aircraft is registered and where the licence of the flight crew was issued. […]
(b)In addition to (a), in the case of a category 3 finding, the competent authority shall take immediate steps by:
(1)imposing a restriction on the aircraft flight operation;
(2)requesting immediate corrective actions;
(3)grounding the aircraft in accordance with ARO.RAMP.140; or
(4)imposing an immediate operating ban in accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005.
[…]
Quoted word for word from Regulation (EU) No 965/2012, Easy Access Rules for Air Operations, 27 Mar 2026 revision.
The AMC says how class 3a and 3b actions are checked, and when an aircraft is grounded.
CLASSES OF ACTIONS FOR CATEGORY 3 FINDINGS
(a)Whenever restrictions on the aircraft flight operation (Class 3a action) have been imposed, the competent authority should conduct appropriate verification of adherence to such restrictions.
(b)Whenever the operator is required to take corrective actions before departure (Class 3b action), inspectors should verify that the operator has taken such actions. Depending on the circumstances, this verification may take place after the departure.
(c)Whenever a category 3 finding is raised, the aircraft should be grounded only (Class 3c action) if the crew refuses to take the necessary corrective actions or to respect imposed restrictions on the aircraft flight operation. However, grounding might be appropriate if an operator refuses to grant access in accordance with ORO.GEN.140 (in case of an EU operator) or contrary to Regulation (EU) 452/2014 (in case of a third country operator). […]
Quoted word for word from Regulation (EU) No 965/2012, Easy Access Rules for Air Operations, 27 Mar 2026 revision.
Written follow-up still comes after a class 3 action: point (b) applies "in addition to (a)".
What reaches the operator, and when
At the ramp, the crew gets the POI under AMC1 ARO.RAMP.125(c).
PROOF OF INSPECTION
[…]
(2)When handing over the POI to the pilot-in-command/commander or operator representative, the inspector should ask him/her to sign the POI whilst explaining that the signature does in no way imply acceptance of the listed findings. The signature only confirms that the POI has been received by the pilot-in-command/operator representative, and that the aircraft has been inspected on the date and at the place indicated. A refusal to sign by the recipient should be recorded in the document.
[…]
Quoted word for word from Regulation (EU) No 965/2012, Easy Access Rules for Air Operations, 27 Mar 2026 revision.
Sign it: it is a receipt. The written follow-up is in AMC1 ARO.RAMP.135(a).
FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS FOR CATEGORY 2 OR 3 FINDINGS
[…]
(b)When communicating findings to the operator, the inspecting authority should:
[…]
(2)request evidence of corrective actions taken, or alternatively the submission of a corrective action plan followed by evidence that planned corrective actions have been taken;
(3)inform the operator’s competent authority and the operator no later than 15 calendar days after the inclusion of the report in the ramp inspection tool in order to permit appropriate action to be taken, as well as to confirm to the operator the findings raised;
(4)upload in the ramp inspection tool information on actions taken and responses provided by the operator following the RAMP inspection and send a communication to the operator only if the operator’s actions have not been satisfactory;
(5)give the operator a period of 30 calendar days to reply. If the operator does not react to the initial communication within this period, a second request should be sent, including a period of another 30 calendar days to reply whilst copying the operator’s competent authority. If the second attempt is also unsuccessful, the operator’s competent authority should be requested to encourage the operator to reply. The inspecting authority should indicate in such request that no reaction from the operator could be interpreted as a ‘lack of ability and/or willingness of an operator to address safety deficiencies’ under Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005.
Quoted word for word from Regulation (EU) No 965/2012, Easy Access Rules for Air Operations, 27 Mar 2026 revision.
The 15 days run from the report's entry into the tool, not from the ramp visit. Start from the POI, not the letter.
How to respond to a SAFA finding: six steps
Worked example: ExampleAir's category 2 speed tape.
- Log each finding on its own line: inspection reference, finding text as written, category, aircraft, date received, reply due.
- Name an owner and an internal date well inside the 30 days, leaving time to review the reply.
- Correct and contain. ExampleAir's contractor assesses the panel against the manufacturer's data and records the repair in the technical log. After a class 3b action, record what was done at the ramp.
- Find the root cause, then the corrective action. Why did tape go on without a log entry? At ExampleAir, a line station task card said nothing about recording temporary repairs. The action: revise the card, brief the stations, and check every aircraft for other unrecorded tape. The method is in root cause analysis and CAPs for EASA findings.
- Collect evidence that matches the finding: the log entry, the release to service, the revised card, the briefing record, the fleet check result. Give any open action a date and an owner.
- Reply, and close your record only when the authority closes the finding. Send evidence of corrective actions taken, or a plan followed by evidence (point (b)(2)). The authority decides.
[…]
In order to close the finding, the reply of from the operator does not necessarily need to contain evidence that the deficiency has already been corrected. The “corrective action taken” by the operator might also be included in the implementation of a corrective action plan. It is the responsibility of the inspecting National Aviation Authority (NAA) to decide, based on the related risk and impact, whether or not a finding can be closed based on future corrective actions, taking into account the severity and recurrence of the detected findings. Depending on the severity and recurrence of the findings detected, the Inspecting NAA may consider the actual closure of the associated report(s) only after having received satisfactory documented evidence of appropriate implementation of preventive actions.
[…]
Quoted word for word from EASA Ramp Inspection Manual (RIM), library copy of 8 Jun 2026.
A plan can close a finding, but for severe or recurring findings the authority may wait for evidence. For writing the plan, see how to prepare an aviation CAP for review.
A reply template you can adapt
A working template, not an EASA or authority form. If you reply in the ramp inspection tool, prepare the text with it.
To: [Inspecting authority, ramp inspection section]
Copy: [Your competent authority, if you copy it in]
From: ExampleAir, [Compliance Monitoring Manager]
Subject: Reply to ramp inspection [report reference], [date],
[registration], finding [number], category [1 / 2 / 3]
1. Finding: [copy the text exactly, with its item]
2. Immediate correction: [what was done, by whom, when]
Evidence: [document names and dates]
3. Root cause: [why it happened, not what happened]
4. Corrective action: [action | owner | target date | status]
Scope: [other aircraft or stations checked]
5. Evidence of implementation: [attached, or the date it will follow]
6. Contact: [name, role, email]
Write one reply per finding. If findings share a root cause, say so and point to the same corrective action.
If you think a finding is wrong
[…]
Any follow-up communication from the operator and its competent authority should be acknowledged, and they should be informed about the closure of findings. […]
Operators who have received findings which in their opinion are incorrectly imposed, they may request to discard them by providing justification. The inspecting authority should thoroughly review the request if a mistake was made. If the request is accepted, the finding should be discarded rather than closed, as a closed finding could continue to have a negative effect on the operator’s ratio.
[…]
When there is no or no satisfactory feedback from the operator within a reasonable time period, the State of Inspection may change the status of a finding to “NO RESPONSE”. In this case, the finding is administratively closed while indicating that no satisfactory action was taken by the operator. […] Generally, a period of one year since the inspection or the operator’s last response (whichever is later) should be considered reasonable.
Quoted word for word from EASA Ramp Inspection Manual (RIM), library copy of 8 Jun 2026.
Silence after your reply is not a closure: the RIM says you should be told when findings close, so keep the item open until you are. Ask for a discard, not a closure, with the evidence attached. Do not go silent: a "NO RESPONSE" closure records that no satisfactory action was taken.
Keeping the replies in Avioverse
Open Trackers, choose New tracker and pick SAFA / SACA responses. Items run from SAFA-001, one per finding, with Ref, Title, Status, Owner and Due, plus Category (Cat 1, Cat 2, Cat 3) and Inspection reference. Owner and due date are optional; set both. Only an item's owner gets Due soon and Overdue notifications, and only while it is Open.
The path is fixed: Open → Response submitted → Closed. Only a manager closes or reopens, and nothing moves from Response submitted back to Open. If the authority asks for more, record it and change the due date; the item stays on the calendar as a Tracker entry.
Invite guest (managers only) brings in someone by email, such as ExampleMRO's engineer at the station that did the repair. They sign in with that address; the one-time link lasts 14 days. With Only rows I grant them, the default, they see only the findings you share. A guest can comment, record actions, attach files and move a finding to Response submitted, but cannot add or edit items.
Each item's Timeline is add-only: Comment and Action entries, plus the system's own entries for status, owner and field changes. Files up to 20 MB each attach to a comment or an action and collect in the Attachments tab. Create task puts a linked task in your Tasks, with the due date copied once. Export gives Tracker (PDF) and Export CSV.
The limits, once. The tracker has no connection to the ramp inspection tool, so the reply goes to the authority the way it asks. The categories are fixed, and there is no screen to remove a guest who has joined. Root cause, corrective action and whether the evidence is enough stay with your accountable people.
Where to read it yourself
Subpart RAMP and its AMC are in the EASA Easy Access Rules for Air Operations, checked here against the 27 March 2026 revision; the linked rule pages carry the same text. RIM passages come from the Avioverse library copy dated 8 June 2026. Its appendix of pre-described findings is not quoted.
This is part six of the air operations series, which starts with the overview. Findings from your own competent authority follow a different scheme: see EASA level 1 and level 2 findings.
Educational content, not regulatory compliance advice. Verify against the current regulation text before relying on it.
In this series
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between a category 1, 2 and 3 SAFA finding?
ARO.RAMP.130 sorts findings by their influence on safety: category 1 is minor, category 2 significant and category 3 major. A category 2 or 3 finding brings a written request for evidence of corrective action, and a category 3 also brings an immediate step at the ramp, such as a restriction, corrective action before flight or grounding.
How long does an operator have to reply to a SAFA finding?
For a category 2 or 3 finding, AMC1 ARO.RAMP.135(a) says the inspecting authority should give the operator 30 calendar days to reply. If the operator does not react within that period, a second request should follow with another 30 calendar days, copied to the operator's competent authority.
Does signing the Proof of Inspection mean the crew accepts the findings?
No. AMC1 ARO.RAMP.125(c) says the signature does not imply acceptance of the listed findings. It confirms that the POI was received and that the aircraft was inspected on the date and at the place shown.
Can a SAFA finding be closed on a corrective action plan instead of a completed fix?
It can. The Ramp Inspection Manual says the reply does not necessarily need evidence that the deficiency is already corrected. The inspecting authority decides, on risk, severity and recurrence, whether a finding can close on future corrective actions.
What can an operator do about a ramp finding it believes is wrong?
Ask the inspecting authority to discard it, with justification. The Ramp Inspection Manual says an accepted request leads to the finding being discarded rather than closed, because a closed finding can still weigh on the operator's ratio.
What is the difference between SAFA and SACA?
The Ramp Inspection Manual describes SACA as the inspection of EU-operated aircraft against EU standards in EASA Member States, and SAFA as the inspection of all other aircraft against international standards. In EASA Member States, the follow-up rules for both come from Subpart RAMP of Part-ARO.
Related
- EASA Air Operations: Rules, AOC and DutiesGuide · 6 min
- Root Cause Analysis and CAPs for EASA Audit FindingsGuide · 16 min
- EASA Level 1 and Level 2 Findings: Rules and DeadlinesGuide · 17 min
- Using AI to Prepare an Aviation CAP for ReviewArticle · 8 min
- Part-ORO Operations Manual and Management SystemGuide · 5 min
Written by Dionysis Kefalas. Retired Hellenic Air Force Captain and founder of Avioverse. About the author
Metis opens with Avioverse in October 2026 · request early access.