Aircraft Management Company Versus CAMO

In recent months, I’ve noticed more and more posts on social media about the role of CAMOs and CAMO Engineers. Thanks to the algorithm, I’ve been connecting with like-minded aviation professionals—sometimes a blessing, sometimes less so—but always an opportunity to share content, thoughts, and experiences with others in the same mindset.

I’m originally from Italy and started my career at a time when aviation was transitioning from national rules to EASA regulations. That shift brought the introduction of the "Continuing Airworthiness Management Organization" (CAMO) concept.

Most of the CAMO-related posts I see aim to explain what a CAMO is and what a CAMO Engineer does. This makes me happy—because when I first entered the field, hardly anyone understood my role or the weight of its responsibilities.

As the industry evolved, we saw the rise of independent CAMOs, which helped bring clarity to the duties and liabilities these organizations carry.

That said, while writing "Introduction to Aircraft Management," I had a realization. Working across different regulatory systems opened my eyes: not everyone sees the industry the way I do. What’s considered standard under one authority can be unfamiliar—or even irrelevant—under another.

Guess what? Aviation doesn’t revolve around EASA. Mind-blowing, I know. EASA rules apply to EASA-registered aircraft—but globally, there are many ways to manage airworthiness.

Still, the core functions of a CAMO Engineer exist in every regulatory system. Whether your aircraft is registered in Europe, North America, or elsewhere, these tasks apply:

• Determining which maintenance tasks are applicable
• Developing a maintenance program
• Tracking and planning task and check intervals
• Reviewing manufacturer and authority-issued information
• Evaluating and managing defects
• Keeping technical records up to date

These are not "CAMO tasks"—they are aircraft management tasks. EASA simply chose to formalize who performs them; other CAAs didn’t. But the responsibility to ensure an aircraft is airworthy exists everywhere.

This is why, when we talk about managing aircraft, we try to avoid using the term CAMO in global conversations. It's a European framework that doesn't always apply elsewhere. In North America, for instance, you’ll hear “Aircraft Management Company” instead. Similar function—different structure.

And the roles differ. In many North American operations, it’s often the maintenance provider or an AME who handles aircraft management duties—not a "CAMO Engineer."

The difference between an AME and a CAMO Engineer is a whole topic in itself—and one I’ll save for another article.

For now, I’ll leave you with this: no matter what terminology you use, the core question remains the same—Is the aircraft airworthy? What needs to be done to make it airworthy, and to keep it that way?

Annalisa - Aviation Specialist - Co-Author of "Introduction to Aircraft Management"