Aircraft Maintenance Programme under Part-M

The EASA aircraft maintenance programme under Part-M (M.A.302): what it contains, how it is approved, and how it stays current.

Dionysis Kefalas12 Jun 2026Updated 21 Oct 202610 min readFor CAMO and Part-145 staff

Part 2 of 12 in EASA Continuing Airworthiness Show parts

Quotes checked on 24 Sep 2026 against EASA Easy Access Rules for Continuing Airworthiness (Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014) — 2 Sep 2025 revision.

On this page

The document the work is organised around

The work card for MSN-EXAMPLE-014 gives an interval. That interval is an entry in the aircraft maintenance programme. M.A.302 is the rule for the programme under Part-M: content, approval, the derogation, the reliability programme, and the review.

The overview quotes who is responsible, and which aircraft are in Part-ML. This page does not restate either.

M.A.302

M.A.302Aircraft maintenance programme

(a)Maintenance of each aircraft shall be organised in accordance with an AMP.
(b)The AMP and any subsequent amendments thereto shall be approved by the competent authority.
(c)When the continuing airworthiness of aircraft is managed by a CAMO or CAO, or when there is a limited contract between the owner and a CAMO or CAO concluded in accordance with point M.A.201(i)(3), the AMP and its amendments may be approved through an indirect approval procedure.
In that case, the indirect approval procedure shall be established by the CAMO or CAO concerned as part of the continuing airworthiness management exposition (‘CAME’) referred to in point CAMO.A.300 of Annex Vc or point M.A.704 of this Annex, or as part of the combined airworthiness exposition (‘CAE’) referred to in point CAO.A.025 of Annex Vd and shall be approved by the competent authority responsible for that CAMO or CAO.
The indirect approval procedure shall only be used when the CAMO or CAO concerned is under the oversight of the Member State of registry of aircraft, unless a written contract has been concluded in accordance with point 3 of point M.1 transferring responsibility for the approval of the aircraft maintenance programme to the competent authority responsible for the CAMO or CAO.
(d)The AMP shall demonstrate compliance with:
(1)the instructions issued by the competent authority;
(2)the instructions for continuing airworthiness:
(i)issued by the holders of the type certificate, restricted type certificate, supplemental type certificate, major repair design approval, ETSO authorisation or the declarant of a declaration of design compliance or the holder of any other relevant approval issued under Annex I (Part 21) or, as applicable, Annex Ib (Part 21 Light), to Regulation (EU) No 748/2012;
(ii)included in the certification specifications referred to in points 21.A.90B or 21.A.431B of Annex I (Part 21) to Regulation (EU) No 748/2012, if applicable;
(iii)included in the certification specifications referred to in points 21L.A.62, 21L.A.102, 21L.A.202 or 21L.A.222 of Annex Ib (Part 21 Light) to Regulation (EU) No 748/2012, if applicable;
(3)the applicable provisions of Annex I (Part-26) to Regulation (EU) 2015/640;
(e)By derogation to point (d), the owner or the organisation managing the continuing airworthiness of the aircraft may deviate from the instruction referred to in point (d)(2) and propose escalated intervals in the AMP, based on data obtained from sufficient reviews carried out in accordance with point (h). Indirect approval is not permitted for the escalation of safety-related tasks. The owner or the organisation managing the continuing airworthiness of the aircraft may also propose additional instructions in the AMP.
(f)The AMP shall contain details of all maintenance to be carried out, including frequency and any specific tasks linked to the type and specificity of operations.
(g)For complex motor-powered aircraft, when the AMP is based on maintenance steering group logic or on condition monitoring, the AMP shall include a reliability programme.
(h)The AMP shall be subject to periodic reviews and be amended accordingly when necessary. Those reviews shall ensure that the AMP continues to be up to date and valid in light of the operating experience and instructions from the competent authority, while taking into account new or modified maintenance instructions issued by the type-certificate and supplemental type-certificate holders, declarant of a declaration of design compliance and any other organisation that publishes such data in accordance with Annex I (Part 21) or, as applicable, Annex Ib (Part 21 Light) to Regulation (EU) No 748/2012.

Quoted word for word from Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014, Easy Access Rules for Continuing Airworthiness, 2 Sep 2025 revision.

Points (d) and (f) are the content. A working list of when each interval next falls due is a separate thing from the approved programme; Aviation Tracking Spreadsheet: Free Template and Registers covers that list.

Point (e)

Quoted above in full. The reliability guide does not restate it.

Approval

Point (b) and point (c) are the approval routes. Read (c) to the end, including point M.A.704 and point 3 of point M.1. The CAMO and CAO guide quotes the exposition. It does not restate this approval rule.

Where the overview keeps an aircraft in Part-M rather than Part-ML, that listing condition is quoted there. It is not restated here.

From a change request to an amendment or task variation

Keep three decisions distinct: proposing a change, issuing a controlled programme amendment, and varying a particular task period through the applicable permission. The forms below record those decisions; completing one does not confer permission to change an interval. For an SB that may introduce or alter recurring work, start with the service bulletin evaluation.

Why the change request asks what it asks

Use the Maintenance programme change request when new instructions, operating experience or a technical proposal need an engineering decision. Programme, revision and task references locate the change; its source, proposed wording and supporting evidence explain the need under M.A.302(h) and Appendix I to AMC M.A.302, point 3. The timing question is a practical planning aid. A planner or engineer records the proposal, including requests received from outside the workspace; the continuing airworthiness manager records the engineering conclusion and intended amendment route. Accepting the request starts that process rather than changing the programme.

Why the amendment asks what it asks

Use the Maintenance programme amendment (indirect approval) to bring the accepted changes into a controlled issue. Current and proposed revisions distinguish the document in use from the proposal. Task changes, source data and included request references preserve the technical reasoning and connect the amendment to the instructions and review evidence in M.A.302(d), (e) and (h). The route and safety-task questions check the limits of the approval process in M.A.302(b)–(c). Despite the form’s title, it also records referral for direct authority approval. Apply the safety-related task escalation restriction in point (e), quoted above. Engineering review records technical acceptance; the compliance monitoring manager records the applicable route and decision evidence; close-out records distribution and planning changes. An internal acceptance is not a substitute for the approval route.

Why the task variation asks what it asks

Use the Maintenance programme task variation for a proposed departure from a particular task period. The programme, aircraft and task identify the obligation. The interval, last accomplishment, existing and proposed limits, and previous variations show the size and cumulative effect of the request. Its operational reason and supporting evidence let reviewers assess alternatives. These are practical evidence groups, not a generic percentage allowance.

Appendix I to AMC M.A.302, point 4, says programme periods may be varied only with competent authority approval or through a procedure developed in the programme and approved by that authority. Point 1.1.17 calls for cross-references to mandatory life and inspection limitations, certification maintenance requirements (CMRs) and ADs, with their mandatory status specifically identified to prevent inadvertent variations. That is why the form asks about both the permitted route and mandatory-task constraints. Check the actual source limits; an internal decision cannot alter the requirements of an applicable AD under M.A.303.

Engineering review considers the evidence and requested limit. The compliance monitoring manager records the procedure and delegated decision, or the authority’s approval reference, before the varied limit is used. Planning close-out records accomplishment, the variation log and the next due limit under the applicable procedure and task source. A requested limit and an accepted engineering recommendation remain distinct from the permission to use that limit.

Review and the reliability programme

The next guide quotes (g) and (h) again, and quotes the AMC. It does not restate point (e).

Part-ML

Which aircraft are in Part-ML is quoted in the overview. The list is not repeated here. For an aircraft that is in Part-ML, the programme rule is ML.A.302.

ML.A.302Aircraft maintenance programme

[…]
(b)The AMP and any subsequent amendments thereto shall be, alternatively:
(1)declared by the owner in accordance with point (c)(7) of point ML.A.302, where the continuing airworthiness of the aircraft is not managed by a CAMO or CAO;
(2)approved by the CAMO or CAO responsible for managing the continuing airworthiness of the aircraft.
The owner declaring the AMP in accordance with point (b)(1) or the organisation approving the AMP in accordance with point (b)(2) shall keep the AMP updated.
[…]
(7)when declared by the owner, shall contain a signed statement by which the owner declares that this is the AMP for the particular aircraft registration and that he is fully responsible for its content and, in particular, for any deviations from the DAH’s recommendations;
[…]
(9)shall be reviewed at least annually in order to assess its effectiveness, and this review shall be performed, alternatively:
(a)in conjunction with the airworthiness review of the aircraft by the person who performs such an airworthiness review;
(b)by the CAMO or CAO managing the continuing airworthiness of the aircraft in those cases where the review of the AMP is not performed in conjunction with an airworthiness review.
If the review shows deficiencies of the aircraft linked with deficiencies in the content of the AMP, the AMP shall be amended accordingly. In this case the person performing the review shall inform the competent authority of the Member State of registry if he does not agree with the measures amending the AMP taken by the owner, CAMO or CAO. The competent authority shall decide which amendments to the AMP are necessary, raising the corresponding findings and, if necessary, reacting in accordance with point ML.B.304.
[…]
(e)By derogation from points (b) and (c), a declaration by the owner or an approval by a CAMO or CAO is not required, and an AMP document is not required to be produced when the following conditions are met:
(1)all the ICA issued by the DAH are being followed without any deviations;
(2)all maintenance recommendations, such as TBO intervals, issued through service bulletins, service letters, and other non-mandatory service information, are being followed without any deviations;
(3)there are no additional maintenance tasks to be performed resulting from any of the following:
(a)specific installed equipment and modifications of the aircraft;
(b)repairs carried out in the aircraft;
(c)life-limited components and flight-safety-critical components;
(d)special operational approvals;
(e)use of the aircraft and operational environment.
(4)Pilot-owners are authorised to perform Pilot-owner maintenance.
This derogation is not applicable if the pilot-owner or, in case of jointly-owned aircraft, any of the pilot-owners is not authorised to perform Pilot-owner maintenance because this has to be specified in the declared or approved AMP.
(f)If the conditions provided for in points (e)(1) to (e)(4) are met, the AMP applicable to the aircraft shall consist of the following:
(1)the ICA issued by the DAH;
(2)the maintenance recommendations, such as TBO intervals, issued through service bulletins, service letters, and other non-mandatory service information;
(3)the mandatory continuing airworthiness information, such as repetitive ADs, the ALS of the ICA and specific maintenance requirements contained in the TCDS;
(4)the tasks due to specific operational or airspace directives or requirements in relation to particular instruments and equipment.

Quoted word for word from Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014, Easy Access Rules for Continuing Airworthiness, 2 Sep 2025 revision.

Read (e) and (f) before treating (b) as the only route.

With the programme quoted, the series turns to the reliability guide, the airworthiness review, and the CAMO and CAO. The records for life-limited parts and time-controlled components are in LLP Back-to-Birth Records and Component Tracking (M.A.305).

Where to read it yourself

The programme rules are M.A.302 in Annex I (Part-M) and ML.A.302 in Annex Vb (Part-ML) of Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014, consolidated in the EASA Easy Access Rules for Continuing Airworthiness, free to download. Every citation in this guide was checked against the 2025-09-02 revision.

Forms in this guide

Airworthiness - Maintenance programme change request

Ask for a change to the aircraft maintenance programme and record the engineering decision.

Question	Answer type	Required
Maintenance programme reference	Short answer	Yes
Current issue, revision and date	Short answer	Yes
Aircraft type	Short answer	No
Chapters or tasks affected	Short answer	Yes
Basis for the change	Choice: Type certificate holder revision (MPD/MRBR), Airworthiness directive, Reliability programme result, Repair or modification, Operating experience, Competent authority request, Other	Yes
Timing needed	Choice: Next scheduled amendment, Before the next amendment	No
Proposed change	Long answer	Yes
Justification and supporting data	Long answer	Yes

Once a response is submitted, the form opens these follow-up steps:

Engineering review

Create this form with Metis →

Metis opens with Avioverse in October 2026 · request early access.

Airworthiness - Maintenance programme amendment (indirect approval)

Prepare an amendment to the maintenance programme under your indirect approval procedure and record its review and approval.

Question	Answer type	Required
Maintenance programme reference	Short answer	Yes
Aircraft type	Short answer	No
Current issue, revision and date	Short answer	Yes
Proposed issue and revision	Short answer	Yes
Changes, by chapter or task	Long answer	Yes
Change requests included The change request numbers this amendment answers.	Long answer	No
Source data MPD or MRBR revision, ADs, reliability reports or other data behind the changes.	Long answer	Yes
Safety-related task interval escalation M.A.302(e) does not permit indirect approval for escalation of safety-related tasks. Record direct authority approval in the approval step before implementation.	Choice: Yes, No	Yes
Approval route Indirect approval requires the authority-approved procedure and the oversight or responsibility-transfer conditions in M.A.302(c). Record that basis in the approval step.	Choice: Indirect approval under our procedure, Direct approval by the competent authority	Yes

Once a response is submitted, the form opens these follow-up steps:

Engineering review
Compliance approval
Close-out

Create this form with Metis →

Metis opens with Avioverse in October 2026 · request early access.

Airworthiness - Maintenance programme task variation

Ask for a one-time variation of a task interval within the variations your maintenance programme permits, and record its approval.

Question	Answer type	Required
Maintenance programme reference	Short answer	Yes
Current issue and revision	Short answer	No
Aircraft type	Short answer	Yes
Aircraft registration and serial number	Short answer	Yes
Task reference	Short answer	Yes
Task description	Short answer	Yes
Interval in the programme	Short answer	Yes
Last done (date, FH, FC)	Short answer	No
Next due (date, FH, FC)	Short answer	Yes
Variation requested For example +50 FH or +10 % of the interval.	Short answer	Yes
New due if approved	Short answer	Yes
Within the variations the programme permits Check the authority-approved variation procedure and source limits. A No answer requires the applicable authority approval before the varied limit is used.	Choice: Yes, No – competent authority approval needed	Yes
Mandatory task (airworthiness limitation, CMR or AD) Identify the applicable source and its constraints in the supporting documents. The mandatory status must be considered before approving a variation.	Choice: Yes, No	Yes
Previous variations of this task	Short answer	No
Basis for the requested variation	Long answer	Yes
Supporting documents Reference the variation procedure, task source and technical evidence; include any relevant mandatory limits.	Long answer	Yes

Once a response is submitted, the form opens these follow-up steps:

Engineering review
Compliance approval
Close-out

Create this form with Metis →

Metis opens with Avioverse in October 2026 · request early access.

Educational content, not regulatory compliance advice. Verify against the current regulation text before relying on it.

In this series

Frequently asked questions

What must an aircraft maintenance programme contain?

Under M.A.302(f), an aircraft maintenance programme must detail all maintenance to be carried out, its frequency and any specific tasks linked to the type and nature of operations. M.A.302(d) also requires compliance with the applicable authority instructions, continuing airworthiness instructions and Part-26 provisions.

Can a CAMO approve a Part-M maintenance programme indirectly?

A CAMO or CAO may use an indirect approval procedure in the cases allowed by M.A.302(c), including a limited AMP contract. The procedure must be included in its exposition and approved by its competent authority. The organisation must be overseen by the aircraft's Member State of registry unless the specified written contract transfers AMP approval responsibility.

No. M.A.302(e) expressly excludes safety-related task escalation from indirect approval. The same point allows proposals for escalated intervals based on data from sufficient programme reviews under M.A.302(h), but that evidence does not remove the restriction on the approval route.

When does a Part-M maintenance programme need updating?

A Part-M maintenance programme must be reviewed periodically and amended when necessary under M.A.302(h). Reviews must keep it current and valid in light of operating experience and authority instructions, while taking account of new or modified maintenance instructions from the relevant sources.

Can a maintenance programme task interval be varied without permission?

No. Appendix I to AMC M.A.302 describes varying programme periods only with competent authority approval or through a programme procedure approved by that authority. Mandatory task constraints still need checking, and an internal decision cannot change an applicable airworthiness directive's requirements.