EASA to TCCA import
EASA to TCCA repair approval data transition review
This review determines whether the repair and alteration records on an EASA-registered aircraft will stand up to Transport Canada's examination on import. A records specialist runs it before the acceptance package is submitted, from the importing side. It works through each structural repair from its damage report to its disposition, the approved data that authorized it, and the return-to-service entry that closed it, then isolates the repairs a Canadian reviewer will question. You receive a repair map tied to approval data, a gap list built around the import questions, and a document request set for the substantiation that is missing.
When this review is needed
- An EASA aircraft with a repair history is being imported to Canada and each repair's basis has to satisfy the receiving authority.
- Structural repairs were embodied under European approvals whose data a Canadian reviewer will want to see.
- The repair map and the airframe survey disagree on where repairs actually sit on the structure.
- A repair was accomplished on data that has since been superseded and its current status needs confirming.
The problem
A structural repair is only as portable as the data behind it, and repairs accumulate over an airframe's life on a mix of manual data, design-organization approvals, and one-off authorizations that were filed at the time and rarely revisited. When the aircraft imports to Canada, Transport Canada looks at the repair map and asks whether each repair rests on data it can accept and whether the return-to-service entry follows from that data. A repair perfectly valid under EASA can still open an import question if its approval basis was European-specific and never assembled for a receiving authority.
What gets reviewed
- Each recorded repair traced from its damage report through disposition to return-to-service
- The approved data behind every structural repair confirmed present and applicable
- Repairs embodied under design-organization approval checked for portable substantiation
- The repair map reconciled to the airframe location where each repair actually sits
- Repairs on superseded data flagged for re-evaluation against the current basis
- The repair records structured so a Canadian reviewer can follow each repair to its data
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 structural repair is supported by approved data appropriate to the damage and location
- Each return-to-service entry follows from the disposition and the data it cites
- Repairs approved under a design organization carry substantiation the receiving authority can follow
- The repair map matches the locations and extents recorded in the damage reports
- No repair on the airframe is left without a traceable approval basis in the file
Evidence normally required
- The repair map and structural repair history for the airframe
- Damage reports, repair dispositions, and approved data for each repair
- Return-to-service entries closing each repair
- Design-organization approvals and substantiation where relied on
- Any airframe survey or inspection findings bearing on repair locations
Common discrepancies
- A structural repair whose approved data is not in the file
- A repair accomplished on data that has since been superseded
- A repair map location that does not match the damage report on file
- A design-organization approval whose substantiation does not travel with the aircraft
What is at stake
A repair whose approved data cannot be produced becomes an open item that has to be substantiated before acceptance, and a repair on superseded data may need re-evaluation against the current basis. If substantiation cannot be assembled, the importer faces re-engineering the repair or, in the worst case, a structural rework, either of which is far costlier once the aircraft has repositioned than it would have been to confirm the data up front.
How the work runs
Walk each repair
Trace every repair from its damage report through disposition to return-to-service.
Confirm the data
Check that the approved data behind each repair is present and applicable.
Reconcile the map
Match the repair map to the locations recorded in the damage reports.
Build the gap and request set
Log each unsupported repair and name the substantiation that closes it.
What the buyer receives
- A repair map tied to the approved data behind each repair
- A gap list organized around the repair questions the Canadian import raises
- A document request set for the substantiation to recover
Who uses the output
- Importers assembling the repair evidence in the TCCA acceptance package
- Engineering deciding how to treat a repair whose data cannot be produced
- Asset managers pricing the exposure of any repair that may need re-evaluation
How the work fits into the transaction or program
Repair-approval review runs alongside the modification-status and configuration work in the import sequence, since a repair and a modification can both alter the structure the same reviewer examines. Its repair map becomes the alteration evidence Transport Canada reviews, and its gap list drives the substantiation chase that has to close before the aircraft can be accepted.
Start with a single asset
Confirm the status list matches the underlying evidence.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
A repair embodied under a European design-organization approval carries an approval basis that Transport Canada evaluates on import rather than accepting outright, so the substantiation behind it has to be assembled in a portable form. The physical repair does not change, but the receiving authority's acceptance turns on whether it can follow the approved data, which is often exactly what a European-specific approval never packaged for export.
Regulatory limits
This review confirms and assembles the data behind each repair for examination. It does not approve a repair, issue or validate repair data, or determine that a repaired structure is airworthy, which remain decisions for Transport Canada and the responsible design organization.
What this review does not cover
- Performing, re-performing, or inspecting any structural repair
- Developing or approving new repair or substantiation data
- Any airworthiness determination on the repaired structure
Specific to this review
- Design-organization approvals are where imported repairs most often stall, because their substantiation was assembled for the European system and never packaged to travel.
- A repair on superseded data is not automatically invalid, but it has to be re-evaluated against the current basis, and that evaluation is what the import forces into the open.
- The gap between where the repair map says a repair sits and where the airframe survey finds it is a recurring source of import questions.
Sources
U.S. Government (eCFR). Maintenance recordkeeping content and approval-for-return-to-service requirements, including 43.9, 43.11, and Appendix B.
U.S. Government (eCFR). Records an owner or operator must keep, including total time in service, current status of life-limited parts, and AD compliance.
European Union / EASA. Continuing airworthiness, maintenance records, CAMO responsibilities, and the airworthiness review process in the EASA system.
U.S. Government (eCFR). Export airworthiness approval requirements and special requirements of an importing authority.
European Union / EASA. EASA design and production certification, STCs, ETSO authorizations, and EASA Form 1 release.
Frequently asked questions
Does a repair approved under EASA need anything more for a TCCA import?
The repair itself does not change, but Transport Canada evaluates the approval basis rather than accepting it outright. Repairs embodied under a design-organization approval often need their substantiation assembled in a portable form, since it was packaged for the European system and not for export.
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.