Release acceptance across authorities
Cross-jurisdiction release-document acceptance
Cross-jurisdiction release-document acceptance checks whether the authorized release certificates for installed and spare components will be accepted by a receiving authority during a transition between the FAA, EASA, and TCCA systems. It is run by or for the lessor, airline, or acquisition team ahead of the move. It tests each release against the receiving authority's acceptance criteria, identifies where a dual-release statement is needed, and flags components whose release will not carry. You receive a release-acceptance map, a list of components needing re-release or follow-up, and the path to close each.
When this review is needed
- An aircraft is changing authority and the installed components were released on the outgoing authority's form.
- A spares package is moving with the aircraft and its release documents have to be accepted by the receiving authority.
- A component was released without the dual-release statement the receiving side relies on.
- A transition is being priced and the cost of re-releasing components has to be known in advance.
The problem
Release documents are authority-specific, and a form valid in one system is not automatically accepted in another. A component released on an FAA Form 8130-3 may need a dual-release statement to be accepted in the EASA system, an EASA Form 1 may need the equivalent for the FAA, and the Canadian system reads both against its own acceptance basis. The releases were issued over years by different shops, so the dual-release statements are present on some and absent on others. The gaps are invisible until the receiving authority or its CAMO examines the paperwork.
What gets reviewed
- Authorized release certificates for installed components against the receiving acceptance criteria
- Spare and rotable release documents moving with the aircraft
- Presence and validity of dual-release statements where receiving acceptance depends on them
- Form type and issuing approval against what the receiving authority accepts
- Serialized component history supporting the release at each change of custody
- Life-limited part releases that the transition status list will rely on
Scope this review
Tell us the asset, the event, and the evidence in scope, and we will outline a focused first engagement.
Send a representative, redacted record set and we will scope the review.
What gets validated
- Each installed component carries a release the receiving authority accepts or a documented path to one
- Dual-release statements are present and valid where receiving acceptance relies on them
- The issuing approval on the form is one the receiving authority recognizes
- Form type matches the part category and the nature of the release stated
- Serialized history reconciles with the release at each change of custody
- Life-limited part releases support the life status the transition will carry
Evidence normally required
- Authorized release certificates for installed components
- Release documents for the spares and rotables moving with the aircraft
- Component status list with part and serial numbers
- Shop-visit and removal records linking releases to the installed parts
- Any dual-release correspondence or approvals on file
- The receiving authority's acceptance criteria for component releases
Common discrepancies
- An FAA Form 8130-3 without the dual-release statement EASA acceptance relies on
- An EASA Form 1 lacking the dual-release statement the FAA side expects
- A release issued by an approval the receiving authority does not recognize
- Form type that does not match the part category or the release stated
- A serialized history that does not reconcile with the release on file
- A life-limited part whose release will not carry the life status onto the new register
What is at stake
A component whose release will not be accepted has to be re-released, re-certified, or replaced before the transition can complete. On a high-value rotable or an installed life-limited part, that cost is significant, and discovering it after the move has begun removes the leverage to have the outgoing side correct the paperwork.
How the work runs
Build the component inventory
List installed and spare components with part numbers, serial numbers, and the release on file for each.
Test each release
Check every release against the receiving authority's acceptance criteria, including the dual-release statement where it applies.
Reconcile to history
Confirm the serialized history supports each release at the changes of custody it covers.
Map the closures
Produce the acceptance map and the re-release or follow-up path for each component that will not carry.
What the buyer receives
- A release-acceptance map by component showing receiving-side standing
- A list of components needing re-release, a dual-release statement, or follow-up
- A closure path for each open item with the responsible party identified
Who uses the output
- The receiving CAMO or maintenance organization accepting the components
- Records teams pursuing re-release or dual statements before the move
- Acquisition and asset teams pricing the re-release cost into the deal
How the work fits into the transaction or program
Release acceptance runs with the AD bridging and configuration work in a transition so component paperwork is settled before the receiving side relies on it. It feeds the transition gap list and the component status the receiving register carries.
Start with a single asset
Start with a single tail and expand once the workflow is proven.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
Acceptance of a release across authorities rests on bilateral arrangements, and a dual-release statement is the usual mechanism for a component to be accepted under both the issuing and the receiving system. The FAA, EASA, and TCCA each apply their own acceptance basis, so a release that carries between two of them does not automatically carry to the third.
Regulatory limits
The review reports whether releases meet the receiving authority's acceptance criteria. It does not issue or re-issue a release, certify a component, accept paperwork on the authority's behalf, or determine acceptability for the receiving authority. Those acts stay with approved organizations and the authority.
What this review does not cover
- Issuing or re-issuing any authorized release certificate
- Component testing, overhaul, or re-certification
- Physical inspection of the components
Specific to this review
- A dual-release statement is the usual mechanism by which a component release is accepted under both the issuing and the receiving authority, and its presence is checked release by release.
- Acceptance across the FAA, EASA, and TCCA rests on bilateral arrangements, so a release that carries between two systems does not automatically carry to the third.
- Re-release cost concentrates on installed high-value rotables and life-limited parts, where replacing or re-certifying the component dominates the transition budget if the paperwork falls short.
Sources
Federal Aviation Administration. Completion and use of FAA Form 8130-3, Authorized Release Certificate, for new and used parts.
European Union Aviation Safety Agency. EASA authorised release certificate for components, equivalent in function to FAA Form 8130-3.
Transport Canada. Canadian airworthiness, maintenance records (CAR 605/571), and Airworthiness Directive requirements (CAR 593).
U.S. Government (eCFR). Maintenance recordkeeping content and approval-for-return-to-service requirements, including 43.9, 43.11, and Appendix B.
European Union / EASA. Continuing airworthiness, maintenance records, CAMO responsibilities, and the airworthiness review process in the EASA system.
Frequently asked questions
Is an FAA Form 8130-3 accepted in the EASA system?
Not on its own for many cases. Acceptance commonly depends on a dual-release statement issued under the FAA-EASA bilateral. The review checks each release for that statement and flags the components that need follow-up.
Does a dual-release that covers two authorities cover the third?
No. Acceptance rests on the specific bilateral arrangements, so a release accepted across two systems is checked separately against the third authority's basis before it is relied on there.
Relevant glossary terms
Related pages
Where this fits
Talk to an engineer who has done this work
We will walk through your current state, the records or evidence involved, and a scoped first engagement.
Walk through your situation with an engineer who has done this work.