AMC M.B.603(a) Issue of approval    

CAA ORS9 Decision No. 1

1. The approval should be based upon the organisational capability relative to M.A. Subpart F compliance and not limited by reference to individual CAA certificated products.

For example, if the organisation is capable of maintaining within the limitation of M.A. Subpart F the Cessna 100 series aircraft the approval schedule should state A2 Cessna 100 series and not Cessna 172RG which is a particular designator for one of many Cessna 100 series.

2. 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 3:

— 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 3, the CAA should audit that the organisation is capable of maintaining at least one aircraft type (for example, one type of sailplanes within the ELA1 category), including the availability of the necessary facilities, equipment, tooling, material, maintenance data, and certifying staff.

— It is acceptable that the detailed scope of work in the Maintenance Organisation Manual (MOM) contains the same ratings endorsed in CAA Form 3 (for example, ELA1 sailplanes), without a need to further limit them. However, the maintenance organisation will only be able to maintain a certain aircraft type when all the necessary facilities, equipment, tooling, material, maintenance data, and certifying staff are available.