EASA to FAA transition
EASA to FAA aircraft records transition
An EASA to FAA records transition prepares an aircraft's records for placement on the U.S. register after a history in the EASA system. It is run by or for the lessor, airline, or acquisition team ahead of the move. It reconciles the AD status from EASA mandatory continuing-airworthiness information onto the FAA directive set, tests whether EASA Form 1 releases are acceptable for installed components, and assembles the records the FAA import path under Order 8130.21 will draw on. You receive an FAA-side AD view, a release-acceptance map, and a gap list against what the import requires.
When this review is needed
- An EASA-registered aircraft is moving onto the U.S. register and the records have to support the FAA import path.
- An export certificate of airworthiness from the EASA member state has been issued and its exceptions need working against the records.
- EASA Form 1 releases are installed and their acceptance for U.S. registration needs confirming.
- AD status was tracked under EASA mandatory continuing-airworthiness information and has to be restated against the FAA directive set.
The problem
The continuing-airworthiness file was built for a CAMO, and the FAA import reads it against a different rulebook. The AD status references the EASA mandatory set, the releases follow EASA Form 1, and the maintenance program was managed under Part-CAMO rather than a U.S. operator's program. The exporting member state issues an export certificate of airworthiness, and any exceptions it carries become the importing side's problem. These differences are easy to miss until the FAA-side import work begins, at which point the aircraft is already committed to a register change.
What gets reviewed
- AD status restated from EASA mandatory continuing-airworthiness information onto the FAA directive set
- EASA Form 1 release acceptance for components remaining installed under FAA registration
- Configuration and modification status against an FAA-acceptable approval basis
- The export certificate of airworthiness and the exceptions it carries to the importing side
- Maintenance records reconciled toward FAA recordkeeping expectations
- Time and cycle continuity across the change of system
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 EASA mandatory item is mapped to its FAA AD equivalent or shown to have no FAA applicability
- Each EASA Form 1 release carries the dual-release statement the FAA path relies on where acceptance depends on it
- Modifications installed under EASA STCs carry an approval basis the FAA accepts or a path to FAA approval is identified
- The export certificate of airworthiness is present and its exceptions are identified and addressed
- Maintenance records meet the content the FAA import will draw on without unexplained gaps
- Life-limited part status and releases support the figures carried onto the FAA register
Evidence normally required
- AD and mandatory continuing-airworthiness status from the outgoing EASA register
- Component release certificates, including EASA Form 1 with any dual-release statements
- The export certificate of airworthiness from the exporting member state
- Modification and STC status from the EASA system with approval references
- Airframe, engine, and APU records showing time and cycle history
- The CAMO-managed maintenance program records
Common discrepancies
- Mandatory EASA items with no clean FAA AD mapping, leaving applicability open
- Releases on EASA Form 1 without the dual-release statement the FAA path expects
- Modifications under EASA STCs with no FAA approval or acceptable equivalent for U.S. registration
- An export certificate of airworthiness carrying exceptions the importing side must clear
- CAMO program records that do not align with the recordkeeping the FAA import draws on
- Time and cycle figures that disagree between the EASA status report and the logbooks
What is at stake
An import that cannot proceed leaves the aircraft unable to receive a U.S. airworthiness certificate and unable to operate. Directives mandatory on the FAA side that were not tracked under the EASA list can require accomplishment before the aircraft flies, and an EASA Form 1 the FAA path will not accept can force re-release or replacement of the component.
How the work runs
Restate the AD status
Map each EASA mandatory continuing-airworthiness item to its FAA Airworthiness Directive equivalent and resolve items with no clean match.
Test release acceptance
Check installed EASA Form 1 releases for the dual-release statements the FAA path relies on and flag those that fall short.
Work the export exceptions
Identify the exceptions on the export certificate of airworthiness and the evidence each one needs on the importing side.
What the buyer receives
Who uses the output
- Importing owners and lessors planning the U.S. placement
- Acquisition teams timing the import against the delivery date
- Records teams clearing exceptions before the FAA import work begins
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The transition review runs before the FAA import work starts so AD bridging and release acceptance are settled while the exporting member state can still issue or amend evidence. It pairs with the export certificate of airworthiness and feeds the FAA import package.
Start with a single asset
Start with a single tail and expand once the workflow is proven.
Aircraft-specific considerations
Modifications approved under the EASA system draw the most scrutiny on import. An aircraft carrying EASA STCs needs each modification's approval basis examined against what the FAA will accept, so the review concentrates on the modification and repair record rather than routine line entries.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
An EASA Form 1 is not automatically acceptable for U.S. registration. Acceptance for components generally depends on a dual-release statement under the FAA-EASA bilateral, and an EASA STC carries no FAA standing until it is approved or an acceptable equivalent is established.
Regulatory limits
The review reports records readiness for the FAA import. It does not file the import, issue a U.S. airworthiness certificate, determine AD applicability for the FAA, or replace the exporting authority's export certificate. Those acts remain with the authorities.
What this review does not cover
Specific to this review
- FAA acceptance of an EASA Form 1 for installed components generally rests on a dual-release statement under the FAA-EASA bilateral, not on the EASA release alone.
- The exporting member state issues an export certificate of airworthiness, and the exceptions it carries become the importing side's open items on the FAA path.
- An EASA STC has no FAA standing until approved, so EASA-modified airframes carry the heaviest configuration work into a U.S. registration.
Sources
U.S. Government (eCFR). Export airworthiness approval requirements and special requirements of an importing authority.
Federal Aviation Administration. Completion and use of FAA Form 8130-3, Authorized Release Certificate, for new and used parts.
U.S. Government (eCFR). The legal basis for issuing and enforcing Airworthiness Directives on U.S.-registered products.
European Union Aviation Safety Agency. EASA authorised release certificate for components, equivalent in function to FAA Form 8130-3.
European Union / EASA. Continuing airworthiness, maintenance records, CAMO responsibilities, and the airworthiness review process in the EASA system.
Frequently asked questions
Is the export certificate of airworthiness enough for the FAA import?
No. The export certificate is the exporting member state's statement. The FAA decides acceptance on its own basis, and any exceptions on the export side become open items the records have to clear before the import can proceed.
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.