Aircraft on a foreign register, leased into a Brazilian operator
A Brazilian air transport operator leases a 14-year-old twin-turbine regional aircraft from an owner in another State. The aircraft remains on the lessor State's register, but the operator intends to use it on domestic revenue flights under RBAC 121 while the lease runs for 18 months. The maintenance tracking is currently managed by the lessor's CAMO, which holds an EASA Part-M approval. The operator's own continuing airworthiness management is approved under RBAC 135/145 arrangements and has never managed a foreign-registered aircraft. The ANAC inspector finds that the aircraft's maintenance program is approved by the lessor State's authority, that the operator has not filed any arrangement describing who is responsible for airworthiness, and that the aircraft has flown 40 hours since the last scheduled check with no evidence the operator verified compliance. The operator argues that because the aircraft is foreign-registered, ANAC has no jurisdiction over its maintenance.
1. Who is responsible for the continuing airworthiness of this aircraft while it is operated by the Brazilian operator, and what regulatory arrangement must exist before revenue flights?
Read the worked answer
The operator's argument is wrong. Under the Brazilian regulation aligned with ICAO Annex 6 Part I and Annex 8, the State of the Operator has obligations over aircraft it operates even when the aircraft is on a foreign register, and the operator must be able to show that airworthiness is continuously managed.
The correct structure is a written arrangement between the operator and the lessor's CAMO defining who performs each continuing airworthiness management task. The operator cannot simply delegate responsibility; it must retain oversight and acceptance of the arrangement. The arrangement must identify the maintenance program basis, the approved maintenance organisation(s), the person or organisation responsible for airworthiness review, and the defect reporting path back to the operator.
Before revenue flights, the operator must submit the arrangement to ANAC for acceptance and demonstrate that the foreign maintenance program meets an equivalent standard to the applicable RBAC requirement. The 40 hours flown without verification is a finding: the operator failed to establish the arrangement before operating. The corrective action is to suspend operation of that aircraft until the arrangement is accepted, the maintenance program equivalence is documented, and the operator's own quality system has audited the lessor CAMO.
2. The lessor's CAMO holds an EASA Part-M approval. What must the ANAC inspector verify to accept it as equivalent, and what would make it unacceptable?
Read the worked answer
The inspector should verify scope, not just the existence of the approval. Key checks:
- Scope covers the aircraft type and the tasks actually required (program development, airworthiness review, defect control).
- The CAMO has a documented quality system with independent audits.
- Airworthiness review or equivalent periodic recommendation is performed by a person with appropriate qualifications and independence.
- The maintenance program is approved by the foreign authority and is at least equivalent to the RBAC requirement for the type and utilization.
- There is a clear reporting channel to the operator and to ANAC for occurrences and unairworthy conditions.
It becomes unacceptable if the approval excludes the type, if the CAMO is not independent of the maintenance organisation doing the work, if there is no equivalent airworthiness review process, or if the foreign authority does not have a bilateral or working arrangement with Brazil covering this activity. A common failure is accepting a certificate at face value without confirming that the approved scope actually covers the aircraft and the tasks.
3. What should the inspector require in terms of occurrence reporting and defect control for this leased aircraft?
Read the worked answer
The operator remains the reporting entity to ANAC for occurrences involving its flights. The arrangement must therefore specify:
- How defects and occurrences are reported from the maintenance organisation to the operator without delay.
- Who decides whether an occurrence is reportable under the applicable RBAC occurrence reporting requirements.
- That the operator reports to ANAC and to the State of Registry as required, and that the lessor CAMO receives the information needed for continued airworthiness.
- Retention of records accessible to ANAC.
The inspector should test this by sampling recent defects and asking the operator to show the path from detection to report. If the operator cannot demonstrate that it would have known about a serious defect found by the lessor's organisation, the arrangement is deficient. The finding should require a documented interface, named responsible persons, and evidence of at least one test of the reporting path before the aircraft returns to service.