EASA to TCCA airworthiness directive status transition review

When this review is needed

• An EASA aircraft is being imported to Canada and its AD status has to be evidenced for the receiving authority.
• The status list carries directives closed by method of compliance that a Canadian reviewer will want to see substantiated.
• State-of-design and EASA directives both bear on the aircraft and their combined applicability needs sorting for the import.
• A recurring AD's next-due calculation has to be confirmed before the aircraft flies under Canadian oversight.

The problem

An AD status list maintained under EASA oversight tracks European directives and the state-of-design directives behind them, and the record of how each was closed is only as good as the accomplishment evidence sitting under it. On import, Transport Canada looks at the same airplane and asks whether each applicable directive is closed on evidence it can accept, including how a method-of-compliance or alternative was substantiated. Lists that read as fully compliant often rest on accomplishment records that were summarized into the list years ago and never re-checked against the source.

What gets reviewed

• Applicability determined for each directive against this serial number and its configuration
• State-of-design and EASA directives reconciled so combined applicability is clear
• Accomplishment records confirmed present for every directive shown as closed
• Method-of-compliance and alternative-means evidence checked for the directives that rely on it
• Recurring-AD next-due positions recalculated against the current status figures
• The AD status list structured so a Canadian reviewer can follow each line to its evidence

What gets validated

• Every directive on the status list is backed by an accomplishment record, not a summary entry alone
• Applicability for each AD matches the serial number, configuration, and modification status
• Directives closed by method of compliance carry the substantiation that method requires
• Recurring-AD next-due figures agree with the current time and cycle status
• No applicable directive is absent from the list that the type and configuration bring in

Evidence normally required

• The current AD status list for the serial number
• Accomplishment records, work orders, and task cards closing each directive
• Method-of-compliance and alternative-means documentation where relied on
• Current time and cycle status for recurring-AD calculations
• Configuration and modification status affecting applicability

Common discrepancies

• A directive marked complied with in the list but missing its accomplishment record
• A recurring AD whose next-due figure does not agree with the current status
• An alternative method of compliance relied on without the substantiation on file
• A state-of-design directive that applies to the serial number but is absent from the list

What is at stake

A directive shown as complied with but lacking its accomplishment record becomes an open item that has to be substantiated before acceptance, and a recurring AD with a shaky next-due basis can put the aircraft out of service at the first inspection under Canadian oversight. Reconstructing accomplishment evidence after the aircraft has repositioned is slower and more expensive than confirming it while the exporting operator's files are still reachable.

How the work runs

What the buyer receives

• An AD status map tying each directive to the evidence that closes it
• A gap list organized around the AD questions the Canadian import raises
• A document request set for the accomplishment records to recover

Who uses the output

• Importers assembling the AD evidence in the TCCA acceptance package
• Continuing-airworthiness teams confirming recurring-AD positions before first flight under Canadian oversight
• Asset managers pricing the cost of any directive that cannot be substantiated

How the work fits into the transaction or program

AD status review runs early in the import sequence because applicability depends on the configuration and modification records the same review often touches. Its status map becomes the airworthiness-directive evidence Transport Canada examines, and its gap list drives the accomplishment-record chase that has to close before the aircraft can be accepted.

Jurisdiction-specific considerations

Both systems trace back to the state of design for most directives, so the airplane's underlying obligations do not shift on import. What changes is the receiving authority's expectation for how each closure is evidenced, particularly for alternative methods of compliance, so the review assembles substantiation Transport Canada can follow rather than assuming a European closure carries across unexamined.

Regulatory limits

This review confirms and organizes AD compliance evidence for examination. It does not determine compliance on the authority's behalf, approve an alternative method of compliance, or issue an airworthiness determination, which remain decisions for Transport Canada.

What this review does not cover

• Performing or re-performing the maintenance behind a directive
• Approving or endorsing an alternative method of compliance
• Any airworthiness determination on the aircraft

Specific to this review

• Because most directives trace to the state of design, the underlying obligations survive the import; the exposure lives in how each closure is evidenced rather than in the applicability itself.
• Alternative methods of compliance are the most fragile lines on an imported status list, since their substantiation was often filed once and never carried forward.
• A recurring AD with a next-due figure that no longer agrees with current status can ground the aircraft at its first inspection under Canadian oversight.

Sources

Frequently asked questions

Relevant glossary terms

Related pages

Where this fits