Level 1 vs Level 2 findings in EASA audits

What it means in practice

The distinction is about safety significance and regulatory response. A Level 1 finding points to a breakdown serious enough to justify immediate authority action, including limitation, suspension, or other urgent restriction if required. A Level 2 finding still matters. It identifies non-compliance that requires corrective action within the period set by the authority, but it normally allows a managed correction window.

In practice, the organisation should not read Level 2 as "minor". A repeated Level 2 in the same area, or a Level 2 that reveals a wider systemic weakness, may show that the management system is not controlling the risk. What matters is the actual safety and compliance significance of the non-compliance, not the comfort value of the label.

Who it applies to

The finding logic applies to approved organisations and the competent authorities that oversee them, including Part-145 and Part-CAMO approvals. Quality managers, accountable managers, compliance monitoring staff, and nominated persons all need to understand the difference because the classification drives the urgency, escalation path, and recovery plan.

It also affects how root cause and corrective action are managed. The organisation must show not only that it closed the symptom, but that it understood the systemic cause where one exists.

What EASA says

The competent authority finding system in the continuing airworthiness rules distinguishes between serious and less serious non-compliance and links that distinction to corrective action and approval status. The current consolidated text places the CAMO finding rule at CAMO.B.350 and the Part-145 authority finding provisions in Section B of Annex II. The core regulatory logic is that the more the non-compliance degrades the safety standard, the more urgent and restrictive the authority response may be.

Common mistakes

The most common mistake is treating Level 2 findings as cosmetic. They are not. A Level 2 still shows the approval is not fully compliant and still requires disciplined corrective action.

Another mistake is responding only with a correction and no real root cause analysis. Authorities look for sustainable corrective action, not only a cleaned-up record or late form completion. Repeated findings in the same area are often evidence that the first response addressed the symptom rather than the system.