GM1 CAMO.B.310(e)(1)

• ED Decision 2020/002/R found in: Continuing Airworthiness (1321/2014) Part-M Part-145 Part-66 Part-147 Part-T Part-ML Part-CAMO Part-CAO (Jul 2024)

GM1 CAMO.B.310(e)(1); CAMO.B.330 Initial certification procedure and changes ED Decision 2020/002/R TERMS OF APPROVAL The table shown for the terms of approval in [EASA Form 14](#_DxCrossRefBm1518544887) 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](#_DxCrossRefBm1518544870)) 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](#_DxCrossRefBm1518544887), 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](#_DxCrossRefBm1518544887). 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](#_DxCrossRefBm1518544887), may be considered as not affecting the approval and not subject to point [CAMO.A.130](#_DxCrossRefBm1518545998)(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](#_DxCrossRefBm1518545998)(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](#_DxCrossRefBm1518545998)(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](#_DxCrossRefBm1518544887): - 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](#_DxCrossRefBm1518544887), 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. ##### GM1 CAMO.B.310(e)(1); CAMO.B.330 Initial certification procedure and changes *ED Decision 2020/002/R* **TERMS OF APPROVAL** The table shown for the terms of approval in [EASA Form 14](#_DxCrossRefBm1203439774) 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](#_DxCrossRefBm1203439757)) 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](#_DxCrossRefBm1203439774), 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](#_DxCrossRefBm1203439774). 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](#_DxCrossRefBm1203439774), may be considered as not affecting the approval and not subject to point [CAMO.A.130](#_DxCrossRefBm1203440885)(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](#_DxCrossRefBm1203440885)(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](#_DxCrossRefBm1203440885)(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](#_DxCrossRefBm1203439774): - 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](#_DxCrossRefBm1203439774), 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.