EASA to FAA transition
EASA to FAA maintenance program records transition review
This review reads an aircraft's EASA-side maintenance program records and asks whether they will answer the questions an FAA operator and its principal inspector will raise on import. It is run for the receiving side, or the party selling into it, before the program history is handed over. The work traces each approved program revision, task escalation, and bridging analysis back to its source document and checks that the current program status is defensible on its own. You receive an evidence map keyed to the import questions, a gap list, and a targeted request set for the documents still missing.
When this review is needed
- An aircraft managed under an EASA CAMO is being placed with an FAA operator and its program history has to travel with it.
- A buyer wants the program record set read before it commits to bridging the tail onto its own FAA program.
- The receiving side needs to know which EASA task escalations rest on approvals its inspector will not recognize.
- A redelivery is imminent and the program status has to stand up without the outgoing CAMO in the room.
The problem
An EASA maintenance program is built on approvals, escalation studies, and revision history that make sense inside the CAMO that ran it. Once the aircraft moves to an FAA operator, that context does not come along automatically. Task intervals justified by a reliability program, revisions approved under one authority, and bridging done at a prior transfer all have to be legible to a reader who was never part of that history, and the person answering for it at import is usually not the person who built it.
What gets reviewed
- Each approved program revision traced to the approval that authorized it
- Task escalations checked against the reliability or engineering basis claimed for them
- Bridging analyses from any prior transfer read for whether they still hold
- Current task status reconciled to the revision the aircraft is actually flying
- Source-document references confirmed to resolve to a retrievable document
- Program status expressed in terms an FAA reader can evaluate without the CAMO
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
- Every task interval in the current status maps to an approved revision, not an unapproved working copy
- Each escalation cites a study or authority basis that is present in the record set
- Bridging carried over from an earlier transfer reconciles to the intervals now in force
- The current program status figures agree with the utilization and check history
- Source references behind program lines resolve to documents rather than dead citations
Evidence normally required
- The current approved maintenance program and its revision history
- Escalation studies and any reliability program output behind extended intervals
- Bridging analyses from prior program transfers on this tail
- The current task status or program status report
- Check package history showing what was accomplished against the program
Common discrepancies
- An escalated interval whose supporting study is referenced but not in the file
- A program revision applied to the aircraft that was never formally approved
- Bridging from an earlier transfer that no longer matches the intervals now flown
- Task status figures that disagree with the last recorded check accomplishment
What is at stake
If the program history cannot be reconstructed from the records alone, the receiving operator inherits intervals it cannot defend and escalations it may have to walk back to a conservative baseline. That means unplanned tasks at the first check, a program that reads as unsupported to the principal inspector, and a bridging exercise that stalls while someone chases the study behind an escalated interval.
How the work runs
Assemble the program spine
Pull the current approved program, its revision history, and the status the aircraft is flying against.
Trace approvals and escalations
Tie each revision to its approval and each escalated interval to the study behind it.
Test the bridging
Check any prior bridging analysis against the intervals now in force and flag drift.
Map to import questions
Express the program status in terms an FAA reader can evaluate and list what is still missing.
What the buyer receives
- An evidence map linking each program element to the import question it answers
- A gap list of program elements that will not survive the move as recorded
- A document request set naming the studies and approvals still to be retrieved
Who uses the output
- Continuing-airworthiness teams deciding how to bridge the tail onto their FAA program
- Asset managers judging how much program rework the transition will cost
- Records staff assembling the program package the receiving side will accept
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The review runs ahead of the bridging exercise the receiving operator will perform, so the program history is legible before anyone tries to map it onto an FAA program. Its gap list feeds the document chase, and its evidence map becomes the spine of the program section in the import package.
Start with a single asset
Confirm the status list matches the underlying evidence.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
An EASA program leans on CAMO-approved revisions and a reliability program that an FAA operator organizes differently. The review flags where an EASA construct, such as an escalation approved on a CAMO basis, will need a fresh justification the receiving operator can own rather than a translated version of the original.
Regulatory limits
The review reports what the program records support and where they fall short. It does not approve a maintenance program, authorize any task interval, or make an airworthiness determination. Bridging and acceptance of the program remain with the receiving operator and its authority.
What this review does not cover
- Authoring or revising the receiving operator's maintenance program
- Performing the reliability analysis behind a task escalation
- Any airworthiness or acceptance decision on the aircraft or its program
Specific to this review
- The weakest link is usually an escalated interval: the number is in the status but the study that earned it never made it into the file.
- Bridging done at an earlier transfer can silently drift out of date, so an old analysis is checked against the intervals actually flown today.
- A program revision can be in daily use yet lack a formal approval record, which turns up only when a new reader asks for the approval behind it.
Sources
U.S. Government (eCFR). Air carrier maintenance recordkeeping and retention requirements under Part 121.
U.S. Government (eCFR). Maintenance recordkeeping and retention requirements for Part 135 operators.
European Union / EASA. Continuing airworthiness, maintenance records, CAMO responsibilities, and the airworthiness review process in the EASA system.
International Civil Aviation Organization. International standards for aircraft operation, including maintenance program and recordkeeping expectations.
U.S. Government (eCFR). Export airworthiness approval requirements and special requirements of an importing authority.
Frequently asked questions
Do you bridge the aircraft onto the receiving FAA program?
No. The review makes the EASA-side program history legible and complete so the receiving operator's team can bridge it with confidence. The bridging decision, and its acceptance, stay with that operator and its principal inspector.
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.
Talk through the aircraft, records, evidence, deadline, and next useful step.