Why Doesn't EASA Have DARs?

In the FAA system, the FAA is permitted to delegate certain FAA-specific privileges to the private sector. 49 U.S.C. § 44702(d). One function that is delegated is the issue of 81303 tags for articles that can be shown to be eligible for them. E.g. Designee Management Handbook, FAA Order 8100.8D (Oct. 28, 2011). Such FAA designees are typically known as Designated Airworthiness Representatives, or DARs. I frequently get questions about whether there is an equivalent to the DAR in the EASA regulatory scheme: someone with government authority to examine an article produced by an EU Production Organization Approval (POA) holder and issue an EASA Form 1 for that article. The short answer is no.

Under the US system, aircraft parts are only allowed to be produced in accordance with mechanisms in the FAA regulations. 14 C.F.R. § 21.9. The most prevalent of these mechanisms is production under an FAA production approval (PC, PMA or TSOA). FAA production approvals require production quality assurance systems that meet the requirements of 14 C.F.R. § 21.137.

Under the US system, a part is considered to be airworthy when it is released from the production quality system. The reason for this is because the production approval holder is required to have a quality system that ensures that each product and article conforms to its approved design and is in a condition for safe operation (e.g. 14 C.F.R. § 21.137), and the production approval holder is also required to ensure that the article conforms to its approved design and is in a condition for safe operation (e.g. 14 C.F.R. § 21.146) There is no obligation that the manufacturer issue a document confirming this, although production approval holders are permitted to issue 8130-3 tags on a ‘voluntary basis’ for new parts under 14 C.F.R. § 21.137.

Documentation of an article’s airworthiness or of other related findings is a separate process. This is because US-produced articles are intrinsically airworthy – meaning that they conform to approved design and are in a condition for safe operation. Under the US system, this fact remains is true without regard to whether the airworthiness is documented.

Because an aircraft article can be airworthy even without documentation, it is possible for an authorized person, like a DAR, to inspect an article and its associated evidence and reach a technical conclusion that the article conforms to its approved design and is in a condition for safe operation. For most DARs examining parts in the marketplace, this determination relies on a finding that the article was originally created under an FAA-approved production approval, because such a determination sets a baseline for airworthiness – once this baseline is established, the DAR can examine the part to see if anything has changed to affect this baseline of airworthiness. Such changes affecting airworthiness have frequently been characterized as “damage or degradation,” since I used the phrase in the 1990s to describe the factors that could change airworthiness.

The system in the EU is different from the system in the US. EASA’s system relies upon documentation as an assurance of the determination that the article is acceptable. At the time of production, the Production Organization Approval (POA) holder must determine conformity, before issuing an EASA Form 1 to certify conformity. EASA 21.A.165(c). This form is then used like a birth record for the article. It is the form that the maintenance provider will look for when the maintenance provider receives articles that are acceptable for installation. EASA 145.A.42(a)(i). An EASA Form 1 (or equivalent) is a necessary element for an EASA 145 organization to accept an article as “acceptable” for installation under EASA 145.A.42(a)(i).

Historically, maintenance providers in the EU were able to receive articles that did not have the right document by accepting them as unserviceable. Unserviceable articles did not need any specific documentation to be received, so long as they were received for the purpose of performing maintenance. See EASA 145.A.42(a)(ii). The term “maintenance” includes inspection in the European system. Regulation (EC) No. 216/2008, Article 2(h). Thus, a maintenance provider in the EU could receive an article that lacked proper documentation, inspect it to confirm that it is in an acceptable state, and then issue an EASA Form 1 to document the inspection. The EASA “soft law” anticipates such an investigation, by stating that one of the reasons for an unserviceable component to undergo maintenance is because of the “absence of the necessary information to determine the airworthiness status or eligibility for installation.” EASA GM1 145.A.42(a)(ii) (b)(3).

Recently, a change to the EASA ‘soft law’ may have inhibited the ability of maintenance providers in the EU to receive and validate such parts. EASA has always taken the position that unsalvageable components are forbidden from re-entering the component supply system, unless EASA has approved a repair solution for the unsalvageable condition. EASA 145.A.42(c)(ii). In March 2019, EASA revised the definition of unsalvageable components to include “components for which maintenance records and/or traceability to the manufacturer cannot be retrieved.” EASA AMC1 145.A.42(a)(iii) (g). This suggests that inspections to determine acceptability of parts that are merely missing a document may be forbidden (because the parts are now considered unsalvageable), unless the inspection has been specifically approved.

The intent of the EASA system is that articles are certified by the approved manufacturer, and that initial certification becomes the basis for all subsequent determinations. Without a copy of that original document, the subsequent determinations lack a legally adequate foundation (under the EU system). So one reason for EASA to not have an equivalent to the FAA’s DAR system is because EASA relies on initial conformity certification from the manufacturer. In the US, the DAR’s role is to validate current airworthiness, which is something that can be found external to the manufacturer. The EASA Form 1 on which EASA 145.A.42 relies is a statement from the manufacturer about release from a system. No amount of inspection or validation of an article (alone) can permit an independent party to certify to release from a particular system.

I have witnessed discussions between FAA and EASA employees who have misunderstood the systems of the other – and the fundamental philosophies of those systems – and this has resulted in an occasional mismatch between the systems. As the years have gone by, I find that the executives of FAA and EASA now have a better understanding of each other’s systems. But the difference in the philosophies underlying each system create implementation differences in the systems – the lack of EASA DARs to issue EASA Form 1 is one example of the implementation differences.