4.
For line maintenance, the actual layout of the contract the IATA Standard Ground Handling Agreement may be used as a basis, but this does not preclude the compe-tent authority of operator from ensuring that the content of the contract is accept-able to them, and especially that the contract allows the operator to properly exer-cise its maintenance responsibility. Those parts of a contract that have no bearing on the technical or operational aspects of airworthiness are outside the scope of this paragraph.
5.
It is possible to contract another operator that is not directly approved under Part-
145. In this case the operator’s continuing airworthiness management exposition should include appropriate procedures to ensure that all this contracted mainte-nance is ultimately performed on time by organisations approved under Part-145 in accordance with the contracting operator’s data. In particular the quality system pro-cedures should place great emphasis on monitoring compliance with the above. The list of Part-145 approved contractors, or a reference to this list, should be included in the operator’s continuing airworthiness management exposition.
6.
Such a maintenance arrangement does not absolve the operator from its overall con-tinuing airworthiness responsibility. Specifically, in order to accept the maintenance arrangement, the competent authority should be satisfied that such an arrange-ment allows the operator to ensure full compliance with responsibilities pursuant to
M.A.201.
ED 2007/001/R
Section A
PART-M
Subpart G
* see Appendices to Part M – Appendix IX to AMC M.A.708(c)
ED 2010/002/R
7. The purpose of M.A.708(c) is to ensure that all maintenance is carried out by properly approved Part-145 organisations. This does not preclude a primary maintenance arrangement with an operator that is not such an organisation, when it proves that such an arrangement is in the interest of the operator by simplifying the management of its maintenance, and the operator keeps an appropriate control of it. Such an arrangement should not preclude the operator from ensuring that all maintenance is performed by a Part-145 approved organisation and complying with the M.A.201 continuing airworthiness responsibility requirements. Typical examples of such arrangements follow:
—
Component maintenance: The operator may find it more appropriate to have a primary contractor, that would despatch the components to appropriately approved organisations, rather than sending himself different types of components to various maintenance organisations approved under Part-145. The benefit for the operator is that the management of maintenance is simplified by having a single contact point for component maintenance. The operator remains responsible for ensuring that all maintenance is performed by maintenance organisations approved under Part-145 and in accordance with the approved standard.
—
Aircraft, engine and component maintenance: The operator may wish to have a maintenance contract with another operator of the same type of aircraft not approved under Part-145. A typical case is that of a dry-leased aeroplane between operators where the parties, for consistency or continuity reasons (especially for short term lease agreements), find it appropriate to keep the aeroplane under the current maintenance arrangement. Where this arrangement involves various Part-145 approved contractors, it might be more manageable for the lessee operator to have a single contract with the lessor operator. Such an arrangement should not be understood as a transfer of responsibility to the lessor operator: the lessee operator, being the approved operator of the aircraft, remains responsible for the continuing airworthiness of the aircraft in performing the M.A.708 functions, and employing the M.A.706 continuing airworthiness management group of persons and staff.
中国航空网 www.aero.cn
航空翻译 www.aviation.cn
本文链接地址：CONTINUING AIRWORTHINESS REQUIREMENTS – PART M 1(59)
