Ensuring air safety: An overview of aviation stakeholders and key regulations

In the aviation industry, nothing is more important to operators and the public alike than continuous air safety.

Ensuring air safety is key to an aviation operator’s commercial viability. Neglecting air safety (often resulting from cost-cutting exercises) risks danger to life, severe sanctions from regulatory authorities (such as the CAA) and damage to public confidence.

With safety in air travel increasingly under the spotlight in the international news cycle, we look behind the headlines to examine some of the key organisations and aviation stakeholders involved in maintaining air safety and the regulations to which they are subject.

International organisations and EASA

In many respects, the aviation industry has been predominant in the development of internationally recognised standards and the enforcement of safety regulations. Much of today’s regulatory architecture originates from the 1944 Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation, which prompted the formation of multiple Regional Safety Oversight Organisations (RSOO) globally. Among the most significant is the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).

Established in 2002, EASA works closely with the European Commission to advance air safety through regulatory measures and stakeholder collaboration. Notable Regulations include:

• EU Regulation 748/2012 – governing the airworthiness and certification of aircraft and related products
• EU Regulation 1321/2014 – establishing requirements for the continuing airworthiness of aircraft and component parts, and the approval of associated organisations and personnel
• EU Regulation 376/2014 – concerning the reporting and analysis of occurrences affecting air safety.

The role of aviation stakeholders

Away from supranational oversight, who ultimately manufactures aircraft and aeronautical parts and ensures their continuing airworthiness?

TC holders

Type Certificate (TC) Holders—such as Boeing and Airbus—play a central role in the design, testing, and certification of aircraft and parts. Many also act as Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), overseeing production.

Within Europe, the approval process is governed by EU Regulation 748/2012 and specifically Annex I: “Part 21”. Under this framework, TC Holders apply to EASA (or another recognised authority such as the CAA in the UK ) for design certification, which is granted upon sufficient demonstration of the design’s capability and safety through testing. Once satisfied, EASA issues a Type Certificate or recognises equivalent foreign certification through reciprocal validation agreements.

TC Holders retain ongoing obligations over the operational lifespan of aircraft and parts, including issuing and updating Aircraft Maintenance Manuals (AMMs) and circulating Service Bulletins (SBs) to operators and maintenance organisations, which are critical in ensuring safe operation and maintenance throughout service.

Owners, operators and CAMOs

Once an aircraft is in use, primary responsibility for its continuous airworthiness and safety (i.e., maintenance, repair, and overhaul or ‘MRO’) passes to the aircraft’s owner and, if the aircraft is leased-out, its operator. The owner or operator will appoint an ‘Accountable Manager’, who is responsible for ensuring the organisation’s compliance with provisions in the ‘Continuing Airworthiness Regulation’ (EU) No 1321/2014, including its Annex I, known as ‘Part M’[1].

Often, owners and operators lack the in-house capability and resources to meet all the stringent MRO requirements of Part M. In such cases, they contract with an external Continuing Airworthiness Management Organisation (CAMO) to manage the aircraft’s MRO. This engagement must follow Appendix I to Part M in EU Regulation 1321/2014[2]. The CAMO itself must be certified and approved by its national aviation authority (termed a ‘Competent Authority’ in the relevant EU Regulation).

Approved maintenance organisations (Part 145 organisations)

Whilst some CAMOs may have internal capability to discharge the MRO obligations required under Part M and otherwise in EU Aviation Regulation, more often than not, the CAMO will arrange for the actual MRO, safety inspections and testing, and any required preservation activities to be undertaken by an Approved Maintenance Organisation (AMO).

The AMO, in turn, needs to be certified and approved by its national Competent Authority and must carry out all MRO activities in strict adherence with the provisions set out in Annex II of the Continuing Airworthiness Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014, known as ‘Part 145‘[3]. AMOs are therefore often referred to as ‘Part 145 Organisations’.

Competent authorities

Competent Authorities (typically national aviation authorities such as the CAA in the U.K.) have general oversight of the continuing airworthiness of aircraft. In many ways, Competent Authorities are the public face and principal drivers of air safety.

Beyond their permissive functions under Part 21[4] (such as approving and issuing Certificates of Airworthiness), Competent Authorities are responsible for investigating any breaches of the relevant EU Regulations, with ultimate recourse to EASA. More typically, they are tasked with investigating and issuing findings or required remedial action in response to Material Occurrence Reports (MORs). The aforementioned organisations must raise MORs under EU Regulation 376/2014 (Article 4 amongst others)[5] for any incident or working practice that has or may materially impact aircraft safety.

Competent Authorities are also responsible for leading and coordinating accident and serious incident investigations, namely in accordance with the Accident Investigation Regulation (EU) No 996/2010, under which the Competent Authority can issue safety recommendations to prevent accidents and improve overall air safety. In the UK, this function is largely overseen by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB).

Conclusions

Aviation safety is governed by a continuously evolving body of regulation designed to adapt to technological innovation and rising stakeholder expectations. Compliance is essential, but air safety is also bolstered by close and pro-active cooperation, and interdependence between stakeholders.

Such interdependency, however, is not immune from tensions, as aviation stakeholders grapple with a series of difficult economic headwinds, ranging from the costs of transitioning to Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF), ever-rising taxation and input costs, and international uncertainty over tariffs. Recent high-profile investigations, such as that by the U.S. Senate into working practices at Boeing and the FAA’s oversight thereof, suggest pockets of regression in air safety culture. In response, larger stakeholders are increasingly consolidating, with some owners/operators diversifying, in the process building MRO facilities and taking maintenance and regulatory compliance in-house.

Yet despite these tensions, aviation stakeholder and end-user confidence in air travel safety and the stakeholders responsible for it remains strong. Indeed, aviation continues to be a key growth sector, with investment in R&D and ESG-driven initiatives ensuring that innovation and safety progress are simultaneous.

How can we help?

At Cripps, we support aviation stakeholders with tailored legal advice on issues arising throughout the lifecycle of aircraft ownership and operation. We routinely advise on and handle disputes arising from regulatory compliance, reporting obligations, aircraft leasing, manufacturing and supply contracts, MRO service agreements, and insurance.

For further help and advice please contact our  Ben Ashworth  and Simon Amos  who will be able to provide the necessary advice and assistance.