EASA vs FAA aircraft maintenance regulations
EASA vs FAA aircraft maintenance regulations
(OP)
Hello everyone, my name is matt and im currently studying for a degree in aircraft maintenance. I am about to start writing a paper on the differences in regulations between the EASA and the FAA regarding aircraft maintenance and thought i would get a heads up from some experienced engineers first.
I have briefly studied the EASA part M + 145 + 66 + 147 regulations and also combed through FAR 43 + 145 + 67 + 147 and to be honoust i cant spot any major difference between the two except of course for the difference in engineering personnel licences . Anyone with any experience or knowledge in this field that could point me in the right direction or shed some light on major differences between the two authorities?
Any advice would be much appreciated
I have briefly studied the EASA part M + 145 + 66 + 147 regulations and also combed through FAR 43 + 145 + 67 + 147 and to be honoust i cant spot any major difference between the two except of course for the difference in engineering personnel licences . Anyone with any experience or knowledge in this field that could point me in the right direction or shed some light on major differences between the two authorities?
Any advice would be much appreciated





RE: EASA vs FAA aircraft maintenance regulations
And 14 cfr 67 is "medical standards"
did you mean part 65, which is the certification of Airmen other then Flight Crew?
RE: EASA vs FAA aircraft maintenance regulations
However that aside i would hope that someone working in the field of Aircraft Engineering would most likely have a good understanding of the regulations and be able to point me to any helpfull material or share any experience on it.
RE: EASA vs FAA aircraft maintenance regulations
In the USA, an A&P mechanic, once certified, can work on ANY aircraft, engine, or accessory that he has received training on. (propellers are another thing)This training can be formal factory schools, or on-the-job instruction. Once instructed, that's it. No recurency training is mandated. This covers everything from the smallest Piper Cub to the largest B747. Even though the inspection and maintenance requirements are different between Part 23, & part 25 aircraft, the rules are the same.
This of course is a minimum standard, and companies can, and do provide training on a regular basis for their maintenance staff.
There is another level,the "Inspection Authorization" that requires a minimum time working as an A&P,detailed knowledge testing on the FAR's, and recurrency training (under certain circumstances).
What's odd about the system, is that an Inspection Authorization, (or "IA"), is required to release Cessna 150 after it's annual inspection, but an A&P can perform & release a part 25 Lear 60, under it's continuous factory inspection program.
Apparently EASA's certification of technicians has many levels of expertise and responsibility. Here is a wiki page:
http://en.
anecdotally, I have heard that the Canadian, English, and Australian systems require mechanic certification by aircraft type, with factory schools the only training allowed.