Article 108 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 — Amendments to Regulation (EU) 2018/1139. Official text, practical interpretation, key obligations and compliance implications.
Official Text Summary
Article 108 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (the EU AI Act) introduces targeted amendments to Regulation (EU) 2018/1139, which establishes the common rules for civil aviation safety and creates the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). The purpose of these amendments is to ensure regulatory coherence between the horizontal AI Act framework and the pre-existing sector-specific aviation safety regime.
The article modifies Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 to reflect the definitions, risk classifications, and conformity assessment procedures introduced by the AI Act, thereby preventing conflicts or gaps between the two regulatory instruments. In particular, it clarifies that EASA acts as a competent authority and, where applicable, as a notified body for the purposes of AI Act conformity assessments relating to AI systems deployed in civil aviation. The amendments also ensure that the essential requirements and certification procedures established under aviation law are read consistently with the obligations imposed on high-risk AI systems under the AI Act.
By amending the aviation safety regulation rather than carving aviation out of the AI Act entirely, Article 108 reflects the EU legislature's approach of maintaining a unified AI governance layer while allowing sector-specific bodies to carry out oversight functions with domain expertise. This preserves EASA's technical authority while bringing civil aviation AI within the scope of the AI Act's accountability, transparency, and human oversight requirements.
What This Means in Practice
For organisations operating at the intersection of artificial intelligence and civil aviation, Article 108 has concrete operational implications.
Providers and deployers of AI systems in aviation — including systems used in flight management, autonomous aircraft operations, predictive maintenance, air traffic control assistance, or aerodrome safety — must treat these systems as high-risk AI under the EU AI Act. This triggers the full suite of obligations under Chapter III, Section 2: risk management systems, data governance requirements, technical documentation, logging capabilities, human oversight mechanisms, accuracy and robustness standards, and EU conformity assessments before market placement.
EASA as dual-authority. Following the Article 108 amendments, EASA functions not only as the aviation safety regulator but also as the competent market surveillance authority and potential notified body for AI Act purposes in the aviation domain. Providers seeking certification for AI-enabled avionics or operational AI tools should engage EASA early, as their processes now integrate both aviation airworthiness criteria and AI Act conformity requirements.
Integrated certification pathways. Organisations that already hold EASA type certificates or operational approvals will need to review whether those processes satisfy the AI Act's conformity assessment requirements, or whether supplementary documentation and assessments are needed. Where EASA procedures are deemed equivalent, the AI Act allows for reliance on those existing frameworks, reducing duplication.
Documentation and traceability must be maintained to satisfy both the aviation safety dossier requirements and the technical documentation obligations under Article 11 of the AI Act.
Key Obligations
- Align existing EASA certification processes with the definitions and conformity assessment procedures introduced by the EU AI Act, ensuring that AI systems in civil aviation are assessed consistently under both frameworks.
- Treat AI systems in safety-critical aviation functions as high-risk, requiring providers to implement risk management, data governance, human oversight, and transparency measures before deployment.
- Engage EASA as the competent authority for market surveillance and, where designated, as notified body for conformity assessments of aviation AI systems, replacing or supplementing generic national authorities.
- Maintain dual-compliant technical documentation that satisfies both the AI Act's Article 11 requirements and EASA's existing airworthiness documentation standards.
- Establish logging and record-keeping systems that meet the traceability obligations of the AI Act while remaining compatible with aviation safety reporting and incident investigation frameworks.
- Review and update existing type certificates and operational approvals to assess whether amendments are required to reflect AI Act obligations, particularly for AI-enabled systems introduced or substantially modified after the AI Act's entry into force.
Relationship to Other Articles
Article 108 must be read alongside the broader framework established by the EU AI Act and the sector-specific provisions it interacts with.
Annex I of the AI Act designates civil aviation AI systems as high-risk, making Chapter III, Section 2 obligations directly applicable. Article 6 governs the classification of high-risk AI systems and determines when sector-specific rules apply. Article 9 (risk management), Article 11 (technical documentation), Article 14 (human oversight), and Article 17 (quality management systems) set out the substantive requirements that aviation AI providers must meet.
Article 103 and the other amendment articles in Title XIII (Articles 104–112) follow the same legislative technique, amending pre-existing EU sector regulations — such as those covering machinery, medical devices, and transport — to harmonise them with the AI Act. Reading Article 108 alongside these parallel provisions helps clarify the legislature's consistent approach to cross-sectoral AI governance.
Finally, Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 (essential requirements for aviation safety) remains the foundational standard against which aviation AI must be assessed, now read in light of the AI Act's risk-based requirements.
Compliance Timeline
The compliance obligations arising from Article 108 are governed by the EU AI Act's phased application schedule, as supplemented by the aviation sector's own certification cycles.
August 1, 2024 — The EU AI Act entered into force. Article 108 amendments to Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 took effect as part of the overall legislative instrument, though most substantive obligations were not yet applicable.
February 2, 2025 — Prohibitions on unacceptable-risk AI practices became applicable. Aviation AI systems assessed as presenting unacceptable risks would have been prohibited from this date, though no civil aviation AI is expected to fall into this category under normal operations.
August 2, 2025 — GPAI (General-Purpose AI Model) obligations and governance framework provisions became applicable. Aviation organisations using or integrating GPAI models into operational systems needed to assess their obligations under this chapter from this date.
December 2, 2026 — High-risk AI systems listed in Annex I (which includes civil aviation AI) become fully subject to all Chapter III, Section 2 obligations for new systems placed on the market. Providers should have conformity assessments, technical documentation, and registration in the EU database completed before this date for newly deployed systems.
August 2, 2027 — Extended deadline for high-risk AI systems that are components of larger safety systems already subject to third-party conformity assessment under existing EU law. Some EASA-certified aviation systems may qualify for this later deadline if they meet the criteria set out in Article 111(3) of the AI Act.
Organisations should engage with EASA's evolving guidance on AI Act integration — including any EASA opinions, certification memoranda, or acceptable means of compliance documents issued in 2025–2026 — to confirm which pathway applies to their specific systems and certification status.
Official AI Act Compliance Deadline Calendar
Updated · Sources: Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 and the 2026 Digital Omnibus on AI.
| Obligation | Applies to | Original date | New date | Status | Countdown | Legal basis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prohibited Practices (Art. 5) | All providers and deployers | active | — | AI Act Art. 5 | ||
| GPAI Rules (Chapter 5) | GPAI model providers | active | — | AI Act Art. 51-56 | ||
| High-risk AI — Annex III (standalone) | Providers of standalone Annex III systems | deferred | — | AI Omnibus 2026 Art. 6(2) | ||
| High-risk AI — Annex I (embedded) | AI embedded in Annex I regulated products | deferred | — | AI Omnibus 2026 Art. 6(1) | ||
| AI-Generated Content Marking | Providers of generative GPAI systems | active | — | AI Act Art. 50(2) | ||
| Regulatory Sandboxes | National competent authorities | active | — | AI Act Art. 57 |
⬇ Download JSON · CC BY 4.0
AI Act meets DORA and NIS2
Is your organisation subject to both the AI Act and DORA? The two regulations intersect on the operational resilience of financial AI systems. Our sister site regulation-dora.eu covers DORA in depth.
Explore regulation-dora.eu ↗Frequently Asked Questions
Article 108 amends Regulation (EU) 2018/1139, the common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). It integrates AI safety requirements into the existing aviation regulatory framework, ensuring that AI systems used in civil aviation are subject to both the EU AI Act and the aviation-specific safety oversight mechanisms.
Article 108 primarily affects manufacturers, operators, and providers of AI systems used in civil aviation contexts — including aircraft design, airworthiness certification, flight operations, air traffic management, and aerodrome operations — as well as the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) in its role as a competent authority and notified body under the aviation safety framework.
AI systems covered by the amendments introduced under Article 108 will typically fall within the high-risk category under Annex I of the EU AI Act, given their use in safety-critical civil aviation infrastructure. This means providers must comply with the full Chapter III Section 2 obligations, but conformity assessments may be conducted through EASA as the relevant sector-specific authority.
No. Article 108 operates as a coordination mechanism. It amends Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 to align its procedures and definitions with the EU AI Act, avoiding duplication. Where sector-specific aviation rules already provide equivalent or stricter safety requirements, they take precedence or are harmonised so that compliance with one framework supports compliance with the other.
Stay ahead of AI Act changes
Get compliance alerts when deadlines or obligations change.
No spam. One-click unsubscribe.