In accordance with the bilateral agreement INTER the EU and the United States (BASA) (see here), you can only import an engine with “rebuild” status in Block 11 if it has been released by the original engine manufacturer on Form 8130-3 with blocks 13a. to 13th (left). In accordance with the bilateral agreement BETWEEN the EU and the United States (BASA) (see below), a DUAL authorization is required for the acceptance of used engines/components of a US-based repair station. Finally, Transport Canada is developing guidelines for the adoption of work by duly certified maintenance organizations outside the geographic boundaries of the United States or Canada (or another country that does not have a maintenance agreement with Canada). The theory is that if Transport Canada or the FAA accepted the work of a duly certified organization within the United States or Canada, why would they not recognize the same interview if it was done by an FAA or TCCA certificate holder outside one of the two countries? The problem is due to the geographical restrictions inherent in most bilateral agreements, although it is possible to address this problem if the authorities are prepared to do so. The FAA and EASA have issued many “foreign” AMO certificates compared to a much smaller number for Canada and Brazil. For example, if a maintenance organization in Mexico has an EASA Part 145 certificate but wishes to work on items of U.S. registration status, the FAA would require it to obtain an FAA certificate for foreign repair stations instead of recognizing its EASA certificate. THE AESA would do the same. Perhaps both authorities should reconsider this issue.
As this article indicates, how many bilateral aviation security agreements exist between and between the four AUTHORITIes participating in the MMT? Keep reading to see the tally. For countries that do not have bilateral aircraft maintenance agreements with Brazil or do not have technical agreements between civil aviation authorities, the certification procedure for the civil aviation authority of the AMO`s country of origin should be followed. These agreements will ensure the continuity of agreements with the United States, Canada, Brazil and Japan when the United Kingdom leaves the European Union. Bilateral agreements and agreements allow the sharing of the airworthiness certificate for civil aviation products between two countries. Unsurprisingly, the documentation in part was re-discussed – the participating groups (excluding Transport Canada) addressed an informal meeting in June 2016 under the auspices of the FAA-EASA Joint Maintenance Coordination Board, according to the International Agency Security Conference on this topic – including the Standard Commercial and Commercial Parties (COTS) and the current requirement in the Maintenance Quality Guide (MAG) to be accompanied by Form 1 or 8130-3, if they are installed in the maintenance of the contract. Although EAS is issuing an Amendment Communication (NPA) to reduce the number of parts required by Form 1) (perhaps the definition of conditions for future MAG amendments), the settlement process will take longer and present uncertainties. The industry has asked the mmt authorities to work towards the full mutual recognition of each other`s food organizations, preferably on a multilateral basis. The authorities have been sensitive to the idea and are considering working towards this goal (EASA and TCCA are already sensitive to this goal). However, formal agreements will also be negotiated in the near future on a bilateral basis. The Commission authorities stressed that industry could still benefit from the benefits of mutual recognition, even if they were applied individually to the six bilateral maintenance pairs that exist between the four authorities (FAA-TCCA, FAA-EASA, FAA-ANAC, EASA-TCCA, EASA-ANAC and TCCA-ANAC). On November 6-9, the Maintenance Management Team (MMT) met in Brasilia, Brazil, to discuss a wide range of international issues related to their respective bilateral maintenance agreements. The MMT, sometimes referred to as a “four-page group”, is made up of representatives of the National Civil Aviation Agency of Brazil (ANAC), the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), the