1. European Aviation Safety Agency 19 November 2008 Vienna – aircraft registered in a Member state and used by an operator in a third country 1 Aircraft registered in a Member State and used by an operator located in a third country Frederic Knecht Rulemaking Directorate EASA

2. European Aviation Safety Agency 19 November 2008 Vienna – aircraft registered in a Member state and used by an operator in a third country 2 For aircraft registered in a Member State and operated in a third country: EU regulation 2042/2003 applies because of Article 1.1(a) when the State of Registry has not transferred the responsibility per Article 1.2. Article 1.3 states: “the provision of this regulation (2042/2003) related to commercial air transport (CAT) are applicable to licensed air carrier as defined by the Community law”. The provisions of CAT do not apply because the operator in a third country is not a licensed air carrier as defined by the Community law (EEC) No 1008/08 of 24 September 2008 (recast of 2407/92 of 23 July 1992) Aircraft registered in a Member State and used by an operator located in a third country

3. European Aviation Safety Agency 19 November 2008 Vienna – aircraft registered in a Member state and used by an operator in a third country 3 However, according to the legal services of the Commission, even when the provisions of CAT do not apply, those aircraft are still considered as being involved in CAT and the opt-outs for aircraft not involved in CAT cannot be used. As a consequence (assuming that we are talking about large aircraft): since 28 September 2005: the contract with a CAMO approved in accordance with subpart-G. and the maintenance in Part-145 AMO are required. Aircraft registered in a Member State and used by an operator located in a third country

4. European Aviation Safety Agency 19 November 2008 Vienna – aircraft registered in a Member state and used by an operator in a third country 4 Regarding the contract with the CAMO. If it is a CAMO located in a Member State, this CAMO may perform airworthiness review (when it has been granted the additional privilege G+I) and issue the ARC or a recommendation for the authority to issue the ARC. If it is a CAMO located in a third country, it cannot have the privilege to perform airworthiness reviews. One option would be that a CAMO located in a Member State with privileges G+I performs the airworthiness review and issues a recommendation. However, this is not practical because it requires another additional contract. Aircraft registered in a Member State and used by an operator located in a third country

5. European Aviation Safety Agency 19 November 2008 Vienna – aircraft registered in a Member state and used by an operator in a third country 5 A solution has been introduced in the new regulation 1056/2008, in:  For aircraft not involved in CAT (as per the interpretation of the Commission): Paragraph M.A.901(i)1: The authority of the State of Registry may perform the airworthiness review and issue the ARC for aircraft managed by a foreign CAMO. Then, per new M.A.901(f), the foreign CAMO managing the aircraft may extend twice for a period of 1 year each time the ARC.  For aircraft involved in CAT: There would be a need that once every three years an EU CAMO issues a recommendation and the authority issues the ARC. Then, per new M.A.901(f), the foreign CAMO managing the aircraft may extend twice for a period of 1 year each time the ARC. Aircraft registered in a Member State and used by an operator located in a third country