CAMO software buyer's guideTen questions to ask any CAMO software vendor.
A buyer's checklist for continuing airworthiness software in 2026: ten questions to put to any vendor, including us, and what a good answer sounds like. Each question says why it matters, what to ask in the demo, and how AerSynx answers it — so you can hold every vendor to the same standard.
What to ask in the demo
How does the system keep airworthiness directives current?
Directives are revised and superseded continuously. A library that is updated by hand, or that replaces a superseded directive silently, is how an aircraft ends up compliant with a directive that no longer applies and unaware of the one that does.
Ask the vendor. Ask whether the directive library is synchronised automatically, from which authority, and what happens when a directive is revised or superseded: is the change raised for an analyst, or applied without anyone deciding?
How AerSynx answersThe EASA library is synchronised every morning and revisions and supersedures are detected automatically. A directive that supersedes another does not quietly replace it — the change is raised so an analyst decides what it means for each aircraft. CAMO workspace →
Are life-limited parts tracked against the physical part or the installation?
A life limit belongs to the part, and parts move between aircraft. If the record belongs to the installation, a removed and refitted part starts a new history and its consumed life has to be carried across by hand.
Ask the vendor. Ask the vendor to remove a component from one aircraft and fit it to another in the demo, and check that its history and remaining life follow it. Ask where hours and cycles come from, and whether a correction to a past flight flows through to every counter.
How AerSynx answersAerSynx keeps a row per physical part, not per installation, so a component fitted elsewhere keeps its history. Counters are derived from the flight timeline and recomputed after each leg; overhaul does not reset a life limit. Assets and horizon →
Does the maintenance programme reach the hangar as work?
A programme that ends as a printed work pack has to be retyped by whoever does the work, and the compliance record has to be retyped again when the work comes back. Each retyping is a place where a task can be lost.
Ask the vendor. Ask how a programme task becomes a work order, and how the sign-off returns to the CAMO record. If the answer involves exporting a file, ask who reconciles it.
How AerSynx answersMaintenance programme tasks and directive requirements arrive in a package inbox as work, not as a PDF to re-enter. The planner turns the package into work orders and cards, and the closure returns to CAMO when the work is signed off. Production workspace →
Are deferred defects in the same horizon as everything else that falls due?
The next thing due is often not the one in the module somebody opened this week. When deferred defects, directives, life limits and programme tasks live on separate screens, the fleet-wide picture is assembled by hand.
Ask the vendor. Ask to see one screen with everything due in the next thirty days across the fleet. Ask how a task due today is shown: as due, or as overdue.
How AerSynx answersDirectives, life limits, hard-time components, programme tasks, certificates and deferred defects all report into one deadline horizon. Overdue means strictly before today; a task due today is due, not late. Assets and horizon →
Can a scanned record be used as evidence, or only stored?
Storing a document is easy; showing an auditor that it belongs to a specific aircraft and proves a specific event is not. A records system is tested by whether the right document can be found and trusted during an audit.
Ask the vendor. Ask what the system does with a scanned document after upload, whether data extracted from it can change a master record without a person approving it, and what makes a document count as evidence for closing an event.
How AerSynx answersEvery upload goes through OCR and an AI pass that suggests a summary and a classification. Extracted data reaches master records only when an analyst commits it, and a record must resolve to the same aircraft before it can close a critical event. Technical records →
Is Part-145 production on the same aircraft record as CAMO?
When the hangar and the CAMO work in separate systems, the same aircraft can have two sets of counters and two lists of open work. The work is done in one place and the evidence of it lives in another.
Ask the vendor. Ask whether work orders and work cards are created against the same aircraft record the CAMO uses, how a signer's authorisation is checked at sign-off, and how booked labour reaches an invoice.
How AerSynx answersWork orders and work cards run against the same aircraft record the CAMO maintains. A card closes only when the signer is authorised on the day, and hours booked against a work order become the customer labour invoice. Production workspace →
Can a lessor see redelivery gaps before the inspection?
Missing records are usually discovered at redelivery, when they are most expensive to recover. A lessor who keeps a parallel copy of the operator's records spends the handback reconciling two versions of the same aircraft.
Ask the vendor. Ask how record completeness is measured for a ship-set such as a landing gear, and whether the lessor reads the operator's record or keeps a copy of it.
How AerSynx answersMaster record completeness is derived after every event and reported per position, so a missing document on one landing gear position is visible months before redelivery. The lessor reads the same record the CAMO maintains. Lease management →
Does a life limit open the purchase demand on its own?
A part that reaches its limit without a replacement on the shelf grounds the aircraft. When CAMO and purchasing are separate, the demand depends on somebody remembering to send an email.
Ask the vendor. Ask what happens in purchasing when a life-limited part approaches its limit, and whether the part number is retyped at any step between requirement, quotation, order and receipt.
How AerSynx answersLife-limited part and hard-time thresholds are swept daily, and a part approaching its limit raises a requisition in Supply with the aircraft and the limit attached. The chain runs RFQ to quotation to order to receipt to invoice on one part master. Supply workspace →
Can several legal entities share one system without seeing each other's money?
Groups often run a CAMO, an MRO and a trading company as separate legal entities. A shared workspace becomes a channel between them unless the system decides, record by record, which company owns what.
Ask the vendor. Ask how orders, invoices and stock are tied to a legal entity, what a user with access to only one company sees, and how a total is shown when some records are hidden from that user.
How AerSynx answersPart master data and business partners are shared, while orders, agreements, invoices and stock carry the company that owns them. A user sees only the companies they have access to, and a partial total is reported as partial. Who can see whose money →
Is it one record, or several systems kept in step?
Integration between separate products can work, but every interface is a place where two numbers for the same thing can drift apart. Hosting and certification also decide whether a product passes your IT and procurement review.
Ask the vendor. Ask whether CAMO, maintenance, records and supply share one database or exchange data, where the service is hosted, and which security certifications the vendor holds today.
How AerSynx answersAerSynx is a multi-tenant SaaS platform on one aviation data model: every workspace reads the same aircraft, component, partner and evidence records. AerSynx is not ISO 27001 or SOC 2 certified today. Security and data →
Where AerSynx is not the obvious choice
- AerSynx is not ISO 27001 or SOC 2 certified today. If a certificate is a hard procurement requirement, that rules us out for now.
- AerSynx is built as one operational record for CAMO, Part-145, records, lease and supply. If you need only a standalone tracking tool next to systems you intend to keep, a narrower product may be simpler to adopt.
CAMO software, answered plainly.
Short answers to the questions that come up before a shortlist is written.
What is the difference between CAMO software and MRO software?
CAMO software proves that an aircraft is airworthy: it tracks directives, life-limited parts, the maintenance programme, deferred defects and the evidence behind each. MRO software runs the maintenance work itself: work orders, work cards, labour, parts and tools inside an approved Part-145 organisation. Many organisations need both, and the question is whether the two share one aircraft record or exchange data between separate systems.
Should CAMO and Part-145 maintenance run on the same system?
They do not have to, but every interface between them is a place where the same aircraft can have two answers. When programme tasks reach the hangar as work and the sign-off returns to CAMO on the same record, nobody retypes a work pack and nobody reconciles two counters at audit time. When they are separate systems, ask exactly which data crosses, in which direction and how often.
How should I compare CAMO software vendors fairly?
Ask every vendor the same questions and run the demo on one of your own aircraft rather than a prepared sample. Bring a directive with a supersedure, a life-limited part that has moved between aircraft and a deferred defect that is due today, and watch how each system handles them. A vendor's answer to a real record says more than a feature list.
Bring one tail number and the ten questions.
Forty-five minutes on one of your own aircraft is enough to see how AerSynx answers each question — and where it does not.