Independent Certifying Staff (ICS)
5 Surprising Realities of Independent Aircraft Certification
Imagine a remote, sun-drenched airstrip where a single engineer stands beside a light piston aircraft. With a focused gaze and a final certification entry in the Technical Log System, the engineer clears the pilot for takeoff. There is no sprawling airline infrastructure here, no quality department down the hall, and no team of specialized supervisors. In this moment, the safety of the flight rests entirely upon the professional judgment of a single individual.
This is the world of the Independent Certifying Staff (ICS). While massive maintenance organizations handle the world’s commercial fleets, the ICS serves as the technical backbone of General Aviation, providing the essential oversight that keeps flying clubs and private operators airborne. Within the regulatory frameworks of CAR-ML and CAR-66, the ICS is more than a technician; they are a vital sentinel of the skies, balancing operational flexibility with a rigorous duty to the public interest through Mandatory Occurrence Reporting and strict adherence to approved technical data.
In a traditional maintenance organization, such as those governed by CAR-145, there is an inherent organizational buffer. A technician’s work is often checked by a supervisor, audited by a quality manager, and supported by a corporate legal structure. For the Independent Certifying Staff, this buffer does not exist.
The ICS carries the full weight of the signature. When they issue a Certificate of Release to Service (CRS), they are not merely performing maintenance actions; they are acting as the final safety barrier. This role requires the engineer to coordinate tasks, verify the rectification of defects, and ensure every aspect of the ordered maintenance has been completed according to current, approved technical data. Because they operate outside of a corporate production system, the regulatory framework places the entirety of the professional and legal burden on their shoulders—including the mandatory duty to report any defects or hazards discovered to the authorities.
"Independent Certifying Staff carry absolute personal accountability because they operate without an organisational buffer."
2. The B1/B2 "Unicorn": Why One Signature Isn't Always Enough
It is a common misconception that a highly experienced engineer can certify any work performed on a light aircraft. In reality, the regulatory distinction between B1 (mechanical) and B2 (avionic) privileges is absolute, even in the most remote locations.
If a maintenance event involves tasks that fall under both categories, a single CRS covering the entire event is only possible if the individual holds both a B1 and B2 license—a rare "unicorn" status under the CAR-66 framework. If the engineer holds only one of these licenses, a "Multiple Release System" must be employed: a B1-licensed ICS certifies the mechanical tasks, and a B2-licensed ICS certifies the avionics. Crucially, the ICS must personally assess the complexity of each task before proceeding, ensuring they stay strictly within their license scope. Regulations prohibit an engineer from stepping even "one inch" outside their specific privileges, maintaining the integrity of the certification regardless of the aircraft's location.
3. The 5,700 kg Glass Ceiling
The independence of an ICS is governed by the physical mass and operational complexity of the aircraft. Under CAR-M and CAR-ML, the regulatory "glass ceiling" for independent certification is set at a Maximum Take-Off Mass (MTOM) of 5,700 kg.
Beyond this weight limit—or if an aircraft is classified as "complex" or utilized for Commercial Air Transport—the ICS must step aside. The logic behind this restriction is centered on resource scale. High-complexity maintenance, such as major structural repairs or heavy maintenance checks, requires the collective tools, specialized facilities, and tiered oversight of an Approved Maintenance Organisation (AMO). The ICS is specialized for the agile, non-complex environment of General Aviation, ensuring the practitioner is never overextended into industrial-scale tasks that demand a full organizational infrastructure.
4. The "Released vs. Airworthy" Distinction
A surprising legal nuance in aviation is that a maintenance release is not a blanket guarantee of an aircraft's total airworthiness. According to established EASA and DGCA policies, a Certificate of Release to Service (CRS) only certifies that the ordered maintenance was performed correctly.
This creates a critical division of responsibility recorded within the Technical Log System:
- The ICS is responsible for the quality and completion of the specific work they were contracted to perform.
- The CAMO or Operator is responsible for any "missing maintenance." If an operator fails to order a required Airworthiness Directive or a scheduled inspection, the ICS is not legally liable for that omission, provided the work they did perform was certified correctly.
- The Commander (Pilot) holds the ultimate authority. Even after a CRS is issued, the pilot-in-command is responsible for accepting the aircraft and ensuring it is fit for flight based on the status provided in the technical records.
5. The "Use It or Lose It" Clock: The 6/24 Rule
Technical knowledge in aviation has a short shelf life. To ensure an ICS remains current with evolving technical manuals and safety standards, there is a strict "6/24" recency requirement.
An independent engineer cannot rely on a license earned decades ago without active practice. They must demonstrate at least six months of relevant maintenance experience within the preceding two years. This is a strict condition for exercising privileges; if this clock runs out, their authority to issue a CRS is legally void immediately. This rule ensures that the "Lone Guardian" maintains the necessary muscle memory and technical currency to function as a high-level safety barrier, ensuring their professional judgment remains as sharp as the day they were licensed.
Conclusion: The Future of the Independent Engineer
The role of the Independent Certifying Staff is a masterclass in balancing flexibility with technical rigor. By providing cost-effective and mobile solutions for flying clubs and remote aerodromes, the ICS keeps the spirit of General Aviation alive. They prove that individual expertise, when governed by strict accountability and recency standards, is a vital component of the global aviation safety web.
As aircraft technology becomes more integrated, we must ask: how will the balance between individual accountability and organizational oversight shift in the next decade? For now, the Independent Certifying Staff remains an indispensable, highly regulated sentinel of the skies.
Comments