CAMO.B.310 Initial certification procedure

VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE

(a)In order to verify the organisation’s compliance with the applicable requirements, the competent authority should conduct an audit of the organisation, including interviews of the personnel, and inspections carried out at the organisation’s facilities.

(b)The competent authority should only conduct such an audit if it is satisfied that the application and the supporting documentation, including the results of the pre-audit performed by the organisation, are in compliance with the applicable requirements.

(c)The audit should focus on the following areas:

(1)the detailed management structure, including the names and qualifications of personnel required by points CAMO.A.305(a) and (b)(2), and the adequacy of the organisation and its management structure;

(2)the personnel:

(i)the adequacy of the number of staff, and of their qualifications and experience with regard to the intended terms of approval and the associated privileges;

(ii)the validity of licences and/or authorisations, as applicable;

(3)the processes for safety risk management and compliance monitoring;

(4)the facilities and their adequacy regarding the organisation’s scope of work;

(5)The documentation based on which the certificate should be granted (i.e. the documentation required by Part-CAMO), including the continuing airworthiness management contract when point M.A.201(ea) is applied:

(i)verification that the procedures specified in the CAME comply with the applicable requirements; and

(ii)verification that the accountable manager has signed the exposition statement.

(d)If an application for an organisation certificate is refused, the applicant should be informed of the right of appeal that exists under national law.

In relation to point M.A.201(ea), if an application, submission, receipt, certificate, or other document is submitted to a competent authority in a language different from the official language of the Member State of that authority, that authority may request a translation.

AUDIT

(a)The competent authority should determine how and by whom the audit shall be conducted. For example, it will be necessary to determine whether one large team audit, a short series of small team audits, or a long series of single inspector audits is most appropriate for the particular situation.

(b)The audit may be structured so as to verify the organisation’s processes related to a product line. For example, in the case of an organisation with Airbus A320 and Airbus A310 ratings, the audit should concentrate on the continuing airworthiness management processes of one type only for a full compliance check, and depending upon the result, the second type may only require a sample check against those aspects that were seen to be weak regarding compliance for the first type.

(c)In determining the scope of the audit and which activities of the organisation will be assessed during the audit, the privileges of the approved organisation should be taken into account, e.g. their approval to carry out airworthiness reviews.

(d)The competent authority auditing inspector should always ensure that he or she is accompanied throughout the audit by a senior member of the organisation, who is normally the compliance monitoring manager. The reason for being accompanied is to ensure that the organisation is fully aware of any findings raised during the audit.

(e)At the end of the audit, the auditing inspector should inform the senior member of the organisation of all the findings that were raised during the audit.

(a)There may be occasions when the competent authority inspector is unsure about the compliance of some aspects of the applicant's organisation. If this occurs, the inspector should inform the organisation about the possible non-compliance at the time, and about the fact that the situation will be reviewed within the competent authority before a decision is made. If the review concludes that there is no finding, then a verbal confirmation to the organisation should suffice.

(b)Findings should be recorded on the audit report form, each with a provisional categorisation as a level 1 or 2 finding. Subsequent to the on-site audit that identified the particular findings, the competent authority should review the provisional finding levels, adjusting them if necessary, and should change the categorisation from ‘provisional’ to ‘confirmed’.

(a)The audit should be recorded using the audit report EASA Form 13-CAMO (Appendix V to AMC2 CAMO.B.310(c)).

(b)A review of the EASA Form 13-CAMO audit report should be carried out by a competent independent person nominated by the competent authority. The review should take into account the relevant points of Part-CAMO, the categorisation of the finding levels and the closure action that was taken. A satisfactory review of the audit report should be indicated by a signature on EASA Form 13-CAMO.

(c)The audit reports should include the date when each finding was closed, together with a reference to the competent authority report or letter that confirmed the closure.

All findings should be confirmed in writing to the applicant organisation within 2 weeks of the on-site audit.

TERMS OF APPROVAL The table shown for the terms of approval in EASA Form 14 includes a field designated as ‘Aircraft type/series/group’. The intention is to give maximum flexibility to the competent authority 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 340-211 or Cessna 172R. A type rating (or series) as listed in Part-66 Appendix I to AMC, which may be further subdivided, such as Boeing 737-600/700/800, Boeing 737-600, Cessna 172 Series. An aircraft group such as, for example, ‘all sailplanes and powered sailplanes’ or ‘Cessna single piston engine 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 terms of approval defined in EASA Form 14 is further limited to the scope of work defined in the 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 competent authority to endorse in EASA 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 competent authority should be satisfied that the organisation has the capability of managing the types/groups/series endorsed in EASA 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 EASA Form 14, may be considered as not affecting the approval and not subject to point CAMO.A.130(a). As a consequence, for these changes, the competent authority may allow the use by the CAMO of the procedure referred to in point CAMO.A.130(c) for changes not requiring prior approval. Since, as mentioned above, the competent authority 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. In such case, if later on 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 procedure referred to in point CAMO.A.130(c).

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 EASA 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 EASA Form 14, the competent authority 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.

(a)The competent authority should indicate its approval of the CAME in writing.

(b)Contracts for subcontracting continuing airworthiness management tasks by CAMOs should be included in the continuing airworthiness organisation exposition. The competent authorities should verify that the standards set forth in AMC1 CAMO.A.125(d)(3) have been met when approving the exposition.

(c)The competent authority while investigating the acceptability of the proposed subcontracted continuing airworthiness management tasks arrangements should take into account, in the subcontracted organisation, all other such contracts that are in place irrespective of state of registry in terms of sufficiency of resources, expertise, management structure, facilities and liaison between the CAMO, the subcontracted organisation and, where applicable, the contracted maintenance organisation(s).

(d)Approval of the CAME constitutes formal acceptance of personnel specified in points CAMO.A.305(a), CAMO.A.305(b)(2), CAMO.A.305(e) and CAMO.A.305(f).

(e)The competent authority may reject an accountable manager if there is clear evidence that this person previously held a senior position in any organisation that was approved in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 and its delegated and implementing acts, and that the person abused that position by not complying with the applicable requirements.

(e)For CAT, commercial specialised operations and commercial ATO or commercial DTO operations, the initial approval of the aircraft technical log system required by M.A.306(b) and M.B.305 may be done by approving the CAME in which this system should be described.