Part-145 MOE Change-Impact Matrix: Worked Example and Review Worksheet
An amendment does not arrive as a tidy list of changes to your Maintenance Organisation Exposition (MOE). A compliance or quality owner must identify the source text, decide whether it applies to the organisation, find the affected procedure and evidence, and record the decision. Searching the rule and the MOE separately leaves the hardest part—the connection between them—to memory and spreadsheets.
This worked example shows the review method, using public EASA material and fictional company documents. It does not say that every organisation needs the same MOE amendment.
Availability, October 2026: The current legacy beta supports EASA source research and chat. Combined private-document/library review and drafting are planned for V2. The worksheet below can be used manually; it does not demonstrate an available automated review or matrix-maintenance feature.
Start with a specific source change
EASA's Part-145 AMC/GM Amendment 9 includes material associated with occurrence reporting under 145.A.60. A reviewer can use it as a prompt to inspect how their organisation handles relevant safety occurrence information and interfaces with the appropriate design approval holder or declarant. The correct action depends on the official text, the organisation's approval and procedures, and a qualified review. Check the currently applicable edition and any later amendments before using this example for real work.
The point is to avoid jumping straight from “the source changed” to “rewrite the MOE.” First establish what the amendment says, what your current controlled material says, and whether the two are actually connected.
What to bring into one review
For a bounded occurrence-reporting review, the source set might include:
- the official Part-145 rule, AMC/GM and amendment document, with edition and retrieval date;
- the current approved MOE section and amendment history;
- the occurrence-reporting procedure and any reporting/interface instructions;
- related forms, training material, records and previous audit findings;
- the organisation's scope, products and arrangements that determine applicability.
The EASA Easy Access Rules for Continuing Airworthiness are useful for navigation, but the reviewer still needs to check the legal instrument, decision and version behind a conclusion. Do not treat a search result or summary as the final authority.
A small review matrix
The following rows are fictional examples of review questions, not findings of non-compliance or mandatory changes.
| Source to inspect | Company document to inspect | Reviewer question | Evidence or next action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Part-145 occurrence-reporting text and related AMC/GM | MOE occurrence-reporting section | Does the MOE describe the relevant reporting route and point to the current procedure? | Record exact source and MOE references; ask the accountable owner to confirm applicability. |
| Same source, where the design-holder/declarant interface is relevant | Occurrence-reporting procedure and contact list | Is the recipient/interface defined for the organisation's actual work? | Check the current interface agreement or contact record; note uncertainty rather than inventing a recipient. |
| Approved internal procedure | Report form and example closed record | Can a reviewer trace a report from initial identification to the relevant decision and communication? | Sample an authorised record and note any evidence gap. |
| Approved process, if it changed | Training and competence material | Would the accepted procedure change require briefing or training? | Let the training owner decide; do not assume every amendment triggers retraining. |
This structure separates a possible effect from an approved action. It also gives an auditor a clearer trail than a paragraph saying “reviewed, no impact.” If the source is irrelevant to a specific organisation, the matrix should explain why and cite the basis for that decision.
A Completed Fictional Review Record
For one row, go beyond a requirement-to-paragraph match. The following record uses invented organisation documents, not customer data, approved wording or an assessment of compliance. Exact source editions and applicability must be established before real use.
| Field | Completed example |
|---|---|
| Candidate topic | Occurrence-reporting procedure/interface review. |
| Source identity | Part-145 occurrence-reporting provision and related AMC/GM; exact compared editions and passage still to be verified. |
| Manual inspected | Fictional MOE revision 7, section 2.18; OP-04 revision 3. |
| Connection found | MOE references OP-04; OP-04 references a separate interface list. |
| Evidence supplied | MOE paragraph and procedure only. |
| Evidence missing | Controlled interface list, relevant arrangement and authorised report sample. |
| Draft observation | A documented connection exists; the selected material does not substantiate the relevant interface or implementation. |
| Draft action | Obtain the missing records and confirm source editions/applicability; then decide whether wording needs revision. |
| Status and decision | Needs review; no controlled change approved. |
Missing evidence is not a finding of non-implementation. The organisation may have the records elsewhere. Likewise, an AI match is not an accepted compliance route. A reviewer must distinguish what was searched, what was found and what has actually been assessed.
Download The Worksheet And Example
These educational files require no account and are not official authority forms. Keep one candidate impact per row. Use the status vocabulary Needs review, Partial evidence, Evidence missing or Evidence found to describe preparation; none means compliant. Record Not applicable - reviewed only after a human decision and rationale.
The worksheet records source status, publication/application dates, approval scope, manual edition, evidence, owner and review decision. An action due date needs an explicit basis; do not turn publication dates or draft internal targets into regulatory deadlines. Store sensitive records through your organisation's authorised process, not in a public example.
How the planned Aviation.Bot workflow would help
The Aviation.Bot external regulatory library is under construction. The planned web and desktop experience would let a reviewer open the relevant official source in that library, then search it alongside their own controlled documents. A browser user would upload selected files to a workspace; a desktop user could work with a selected local folder. The external library itself is online, and the AI and indexing data path depends on the selected configuration.
A useful task would be:
Compare this identified Part-145 amendment with the selected MOE section and occurrence procedure. Return a table of source references, candidate affected documents, the reason for each match, missing evidence and questions for the human reviewer. Do not assert compliance or edit controlled documents.
The expected benefit is less time moving between official PDFs, MOE versions, forms and spreadsheets, with more of the source trail visible in one review. That is a workflow hypothesis, not a measured time-saving claim. The reviewer must open the cited original text, check applicability and approve any controlled change.
A task-specific AI skill could define the source checks, required inputs and table format for this bounded review. It would prepare a draft artifact, not maintain an approval database, watch every amendment or publish controlled changes. Those additional capabilities need their own implementation and verification.
Make the output useful before using AI
Even a manual version of this process is worth doing. Choose one amendment and one controlled procedure set. Record the edition of every source; use one row per candidate impact; assign an owner and status; and keep “no change needed” decisions with their reasons. This gives the team a concrete review artifact whether or not the planned library is available yet.
For the broader method, see EASA Part-145 MOE review and regulatory change impact review.
Library status: Aviation.Bot's new external-library workflow is being built. Sign up on Aviation.Bot to stay up to date about upcoming releases. The current beta has a different, narrower scope.