Definition
Under EASA Regulation (EU) 1321/2014 Part-M M.A.901, the airworthiness of an EU-registered aircraft must be confirmed annually through an Airworthiness Review. The review consists of two parts: (a) a documented review of the aircraft's continuing-airworthiness records, performed by Airworthiness Review Staff authorized by an approved CAMO or by the competent authority directly; and (b) a physical survey of the aircraft to confirm that the records match the actual aircraft and that no obvious airworthiness issues are present.
If the review concludes the aircraft is airworthy, an Airworthiness Review Certificate is issued — Form 15a if issued by an approved CAMO, Form 15b if issued by the competent authority. The ARC is valid for one year from issue. A CAMO with the appropriate approval can extend the ARC for an additional year (up to a maximum of two consecutive extensions before a new full review is required), provided the aircraft has been continuously managed under the CAMO's contract throughout. Aircraft transferring CAMO management mid-cycle generally require a fresh full review rather than extension.
The ARC is distinct from the Certificate of Airworthiness (CofA). The CofA is the original airworthiness certificate issued when the aircraft was first put on the EU register, and it remains valid as long as the aircraft is maintained and operated in accordance with the regulations. The ARC is the recurring, time-limited confirmation that those conditions continue to be met. An aircraft can hold a CofA but lack a current ARC — and in that state it is not legally airworthy for flight.
The FAA system has no direct ARC equivalent. The closest functional analogue is the annual inspection signoff under §91.409(a), in which an authorized A&P/IA mechanic certifies the aircraft as airworthy following a §43 Appendix D inspection. The FAA annual is an inspection of the physical aircraft (with attendant records review); the EASA ARC is a records review with physical survey. They cover similar ground but are structured differently — and a US-registered aircraft transitioning to an EU register requires a fresh ARC issued under EASA processes, not an accepted FAA annual.
Why It Matters for Flight Schools
ARC management is the highest-stakes recurring item on a CAMO's calendar. An ARC that lapses at midnight grounds the aircraft until a new review is completed — and the review cannot be done in 24 hours, especially if findings are discovered during the records review. CAMOs that operate professionally schedule the airworthiness review 30 to 60 days before ARC expiry, so any findings can be rectified and the new ARC issued before the old one lapses.
The failure pattern that most often catches operators is the cascade. An AD that should have been complied with three months ago is missed in the records, the airworthiness review staff find it during the records review, the rectification requires a part on a six-week lead time, and the aircraft is grounded for two months waiting for the part — which would have been on order three months earlier if the underlying continuing-airworthiness function had been managed properly.
How Aviatize Handles This
Aviatize's compliance and auditing module tracks each aircraft's ARC issue date, expiry date, issuing organization (CAMO Form 15a or competent authority Form 15b), and any CAMO-extension that has been applied. Alerts fire 60 and 30 days before ARC expiry so the airworthiness review is scheduled before the grounding window opens. When the review is conducted, every finding is recorded with a corrective-action target date, and the platform tracks rectification through closure — producing the audit trail competent-authority oversight expects to see.
For multi-aircraft fleets, Aviatize aggregates ARC expiries across the fleet so the CAMO can plan reviews against airworthiness-review-staff capacity rather than discovering the third overlapping review window when capacity is already exhausted. The platform also flags aircraft approaching their second consecutive CAMO extension — the point at which a fresh full review is required regardless of in-service status — so the longer review cycle can be planned with adequate lead time.