CS-25 Amendment 26

The objective of this Decision is to:

1. improve the availability and the quality of data recorded by flight recorders in order to better support safety investigations of large aeroplane accidents and incidents;
2. decrease the risk of a hazardous or catastrophic tyre failure of a large aeroplane that is caused by inadequate tyre inflation pressure;
3. reflect the state of the art of large aeroplane certification and improve the harmonisation of CS-25 with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations; and
4. make editorial corrections.

This Decision amends CS-25 to:

1. provide certification specifications (CS) and acceptable means of compliance (AMC) for flight recorders performing the data link recording function; introduce into AMCs for flight recorder installations new sections explaining the expectations in terms of instructions for continued airworthiness (ICA); introduce into AMC 25.1457 a new section explaining how to perform evaluations of cockpit voice recorder (CVR) recordings; and amend CS 25.1457 for CVRs to allow the use of more than four channels;
2. require a means to minimise the risk that a tyre is below its minimum serviceable inflation pressure during operation;
3. introduce amendments addressing various selected non-complex, non-controversial, and mature subjects: Go-around handling qualities and performance; Minimum control speeds; Fuel tank and system lightning protection; Cabin safety; Electronic AFMs – computation of misleading primary information; On-board weight and balance systems; Air conditioning systems; Flight guidance systems; Primary flight displays during unusual attitude and declutter modes; Lightning protection and electrical bonding and protection against static electricity; and Operation without normal electrical power; and
4. make editorial corrections in CS 25.807, Emergency exits.

The amendments are expected to increase safety without any significant economic impact, and with no environmental or social impact. This will also support large aeroplane operators in ensuring the serviceability of flight recorders, and streamline the CS-25 certification process, thereby providing an economic benefit for operators, CS-25 certification applicants, and EASA.

The objective of this Opinion, with reference to ICAO Annex 19 ‘Safety Management’ as regards civil aviation and in particular the initial and continuing airworthiness domains, is to establish a safety management system (SMS) framework for design and production (Part 21) as well as maintenance organisations (Part-145), which are the remaining two domains for which ICAO Annex 19 has not been fully transposed yet into the European Union regulatory framework. In addition, Annex II ‘Essential requirements for airworthiness’ to Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 explicitly calls for design, production and maintenance organisations to implement and maintain a management system (MS), including the management of safety risks, and aim for its continuous improvement, supported by the establishment of an occurrence-reporting system.

By establishing such an MS framework, aviation safety will be enhanced through:

• the establishment of safety policies and objectives associated with sufficient resources;
• the systematic identification of hazards and a risk management system;
• safety assurance systems, giving consideration to the safety performance of organisations; and
• safety promotion and communication.

The proposal of this Opinion is in line with the regulatory concept of MS established for other domains, such as Air Operations or Aerodromes, or for continuing airworthiness management organisations (Part-CAMO).

By aligning the MS provisions across all aviation domains, it will be ensured that the organisations which have to comply with several MS requirements in different domains can implement a single MS, and that competent authorities that oversee different organisations in different domains can plan and organise their oversight activities on the basis of the same regulatory principles.

It may happen that some differences in the numbering or the contents or even in the terminology used may still exist but, all in all, the same principles are intended to apply in all domains consistently. The main rationales behind these differences are that the Part 21 requirements for design and production are more product-centric whereas the requirements in other domains, such as Part-145, are more organisation-centric, and that the amount of regulatory amendments has been kept as low as possible.