In the risk assessment table, what is the risk level for an aircraft operated under instrument flight rules (IFR)?

Instrument flight rules (IFR) are classified as HIGHER RISK.

According to the table, how is the risk level of an aircraft weighing more than ELA1 classified?

An aircraft other than ELA1 is classified as HIGHER RISK.

What risk level is assigned to an aircraft whose airworthiness is managed by the owner versus a CAMO/CAO?

When the owner manages airworthiness, it is HIGHER RISK; when a CAMO/CAO manages it, it is LOWER RISK.

How is the risk level of an aircraft maintained by a pilot-owner compared to one maintained by a maintenance organisation?

Pilot-owner maintenance is HIGHER RISK, while maintenance by a maintenance organisation is LOWER RISK.

What risk level is associated with an aircraft that has a very high number of flight hours or years in service?

A very high number of hours or years in service is classified as HIGHER RISK.

For aircraft utilisation, what is the risk level if the aircraft flies less than 50 hours per year?

Less than 50 hours per year is classified as HIGHER RISK.

What risk level is given to an aircraft with numerous findings in ACAM or ramp inspections?

Numerous findings in ACAM or ramp inspections are classified as HIGHER RISK.

How is system redundancy for components like engine or propeller reflected in the risk table?

Single-engined aircraft are HIGHER RISK, while multi-engined aircraft are LOWER RISK.

What is the risk level if no supplementary maintenance measures are in place?

No supplementary measures are classified as HIGHER RISK.

According to the table, what is the risk factor of an engine failure on a helicopter compared to an aeroplane?

Engine failure on a helicopter is HIGHER RISK, while engine failure on an aeroplane is MEDIUM RISK.

Who may find the risk-based information useful when developing and approving maintenance programmes?

CAMOs and CAOs may find it useful when developing and approving maintenance programmes, and AR staff performing ARs and reviewing the effectiveness of the declared maintenance programme.

What is the risk level for an aircraft operated under visual flight rules (VFR) at night?

VFR at night is classified as MEDIUM RISK.

Which aircraft types are considered LOWER RISK in the weight category?

LSA, VLA, sailplanes and powered sailplanes are considered LOWER RISK.

What is the risk level for an aircraft with a medium number of hours or years in service?

A medium number of hours or years in service is classified as MEDIUM RISK.

What is the risk level for an aircraft with around 200 flight hours per year?

Around 200 hours per year is classified as MEDIUM RISK.

What is the risk level for an aircraft with rare findings in ACAM inspections?

Rare findings in ACAM inspections are classified as LOWER RISK.

What is the risk level for a sailplane or powered sailplane in the context of component failure risk?

For a sailplane or powered sailplane, the risk factor of component failure is LOWER RISK.

AMC1 ML.A.302(c) Aircraft maintenance programme

Q: What risk-based approach should be taken when evaluating an alternative to a maintenance task issued or recommended by the DAH, such as extending TBO intervals?

A risk-based approach should be taken, considering aspects such as the operation of aircraft, type of aircraft, hours and years in service, maintenance of the aircraft, compensating measures, redundancy of components, etc.

Q: Which factors are listed as examples to consider when deciding not to include a maintenance task recommended by the DAH?

The factors include operation of aircraft, type of aircraft, hours and years in service, maintenance of the aircraft, compensating measures, and redundancy of components.

Navigate / EASA

Ask question Discover more Add to collection

AMC1 ML.A.302(c) Aircraft maintenance programme

ED Decision 2023/013/R

When evaluating an alternative to a maintenance task issued or recommended by the DAH or the declarant of a declaration of design compliance, such as the extension of TBO intervals, or when considering not to include a maintenance task issued or recommended by the DAH or the declarant of a declaration of design compliance, a risk-based approach should be taken, considering aspects such as the operation of aircraft, type of aircraft, hours and years in service, maintenance of the aircraft, compensating measures, redundancy of components, etc.

The following table provides more details of aspects that should be considered:

	Examples
OPS approval	HIGHER RISK: commercial operation, commercial flight training MEDIUM RISK: flight training by an association, non-commercial specialised operations (SPO) LOWER RISK: private
Flight rules	HIGHER RISK: instrument flight rules (IFR) MEDIUM RISK: visual flight rules (VFR) at night LOWER RISK: VFR by day
Aircraft weight	HIGHER RISK: Other than ELA1 MEDIUM RISK: ELA1 aircraft other than light sport aeroplanes (LSA), very light aircraft (VLA), sailplanes and powered sailplanes LOWER RISK: LSA, VLA, sailplanes and powered sailplanes
Who manages the airworthiness of the aircraft?	HIGHER RISK: owner LOWER RISK: CAMO/CAO
Who maintains the aircraft?	HIGHER RISK: pilot-owner MEDIUM RISK: independent certifying staff LOWER RISK: maintenance organisation
Time in service (flight hours, years)	HIGHER RISK: very high number of hours or years MEDIUM RISK: medium number of hours or years LOWER RISK: low number of hours or years
Aircraft utilisation	HIGHER RISK: less than 50 h per year MEDIUM RISK: around 200 h per year LOWER RISK: more than 400 h per year
ACAM findings	HIGHER RISK: numerous findings in ACAM or ramp inspections MEDIUM RISK: few findings in ACAM inspections LOWER RISK: rare findings in ACAM inspections
System redundancy (for components such as engine/propeller)	HIGHER RISK: single-engined aircraft LOWER RISK: multi-engined aircraft
Supplementary maintenance measures	HIGHER RISK: no supplementary measures LOWER RISK: supplementary measures (such as oil analysis, engine data monitoring, boroscope inspections, corrosion inspections, etc.)
Risk factor of the component failure	HIGHER RISK: engine failure on a helicopter MEDIUM RISK: engine failure on an aeroplane LOWER RISK: sailplane, or powered sailplane

The above information may be useful for CAMOs and CAOs when developing and approving maintenance programmes, and for the AR staff performing ARs and reviewing the effectiveness of the declared maintenance programme. It may also be useful for the owner in order to take an informed decision before introducing deviations from the recommendations issued by the DAH or the declarant of a declaration of design compliance. Nevertheless, as allowed by ML.A.302(c)(7) and explained in GM ML.A.302, when the owner issues a declaration for the maintenance programme, it does not need to justify such deviations.

Details

Source-Title: AMC1 ML.A.302(c) Aircraft maintenance programme View latest amendments

Erulesid: ERULES-1963177438-15971 Compare versions

Domain: Continuing airworthiness

Applicabilitydate: 21 October, 2023

Entryintoforcedate: 21 October, 2023

Regulatorysource: ED Decision 2023/013/R Navigate

Regulatorysubject: Part-ML

Typeofcontent: AMC to IR (Acceptable means of compliance to implementing rule)

Parentir: ML.A.302 Aircraft maintenance programme

Origin: EASA

Category: EAR