"I need to send the SIGRAC" is a sentence that means two completely different things depending on who says it. And that is where the problem starts.
The portal receives reports from two types of regulated entity, with distinct obligations: the maintenance shop, under RBAC 145 (Brazil's counterpart to FAR Part 145), and the operator, under RBAC 135 or 121. Different deadlines, different contents, different scope. Treating them as one is the shortest path to missing the deadline for one while thinking you met the other — or to worrying about a report that does not even apply to your operation.
This article separates the two tracks.
Track 1 — Maintenance shop, under RBAC 145
Whoever holds a maintenance organization certificate has two recurring deliverables.
Monthly report of services performed. Under RBAC 145.221-I, the shop reports the services it performed in the month. The deadline is by the last business day of the following month.
The detail that most often slips: a month with no services is not a month with no report. If the shop performed no services in the period, it declares so — the absence of activity must be declared, not silenced.
Quarterly report of technical personnel. The roster of those authorized to perform and release services, with the function exercised.
The structure of both is well defined in the SiGRAC User Guide (3rd edition, March 2023): the monthly file has 19 columns and the quarterly one, 6. ANAC's vocabularies are also standardized — the technical personnel functions and the service types — and this is where most filling-in errors appear.
What blocks filling it in, in practice
The ANAC function is not the internal job title. The portal works with its own acronyms — IMA, SMA, CTM, MMA — and the mapping from the shop's job titles is direct for some and ambiguous for others. Who holds APRS prerogatives, in particular, cannot be deduced from the job title: it is information that someone needs to affirm.
The personnel report filters by hire date. It seems a detail until the time comes to build the file and you find out the internal system never stored that date. Deducing the hire date from "when the record was created" is the kind of shortcut that puts wrong information in a report to the authority — worse than an empty field.
The pair of service type and category must be valid. Not every combination exists in ANAC's vocabulary. Finding this out at upload time, with the deadline running, is the worst possible moment.
Track 2 — Operator, under RBAC 135 or 121
Here everything changes: deadline, content and — most important — who is subject.
Under §135.417, the operator submits, within the first 10 business days of each month, a summary report of the previous month with two blocks:
(a) Interruptions and deviations. Flight interruption, unplanned change of aircraft en route, unplanned stop or diversion due to known or suspected failure — as long as the event did not generate an RDS (§135.415, Resolution No. 714/2023). What has already become an RDS is not counted again here.
(b) In-flight propeller feathering. By propeller type, engine and aircraft. Excluding training, demonstration and checkride — feathering induced during training is not a reportable occurrence.
Who is exempt — and this matters more than the rest
This report is not for every air taxi. It applies to RBAC 121 and to RBAC 135 with aircraft of more than 9 seats (§135.411(a)(2)). The small operator, under §135.411(a)(1), has no mandatory PMAC — and, along with it, does not carry this deliverable.
It is worth insisting because the confusion costs dearly in both directions: the operator of a light aircraft may spend months thinking it is delinquent on a report that was never its own; and the operator that crossed the 9-seat line may think it is still exempt.
If your operation fits the Operador Simples profile, the category created in March 2026 already limits the fleet to one aircraft of up to 9 seats — which, in practice, puts you outside this specific report.
Why the two get confused
Three reasons, and all have the same remedy: separate the tracks before discussing deadlines.
- The acronym is the same. "Send the SIGRAC" does not say which report.
- The deadlines are almost opposite. The shop closes at the end of the following month; the operator submits within the first 10 business days. Whoever remembers "the SIGRAC deadline" as a single date will get one of the two wrong.
- The scope of the operator's report depends on seats, not on the type of certificate. Two companies with the same RBAC 135 can have different obligations.
Errors that show up often
Treating an idle month as a month with no obligation. At the shop, the month without services has its own declaration.
Deducing what should be affirmed. Hire date, APRS prerogative, "was this a flight interruption?" — these are the judgments of whoever operates. A system that infers them to fill in the field is generating risk, not productivity.
Reporting what has already become an RDS. Block (a) of §135.417 covers precisely what did not generate an RDS.
Counting training feathering. The exclusion is explicit.
Discovering the vocabulary on the day of submission. Classifying service by service the day before is how the deadline gets lost.
How Alis handles this
The shop track is ready: classification of the service by ANAC's vocabulary throughout the month — and not the day before —, validation of the type/category pair before saving, a technical personnel roster with the ANAC function derived from the record, and generation of the monthly and quarterly files in the Guide's format.
The operator track has its own screen, not a tab inside the shop module — same acronym, different report, different routine. The event is entered by hand on purpose: "flight interruption" is the operator's judgment, not a state that can be inferred from a discrepancy. The system calculates the scope (whether the aircraft exceeds 9 seats) and separates what does not count — training, demonstration, checkride and what became an RDS.
One point of transparency: for the operator track, the submission file format is not yet settled on our side, and the screen says so to whoever uses it instead of pretending it is. The tracking and the summary exist; the final packaging remains pending confirmation.
If your operation also maintains its own fleet, it is worth seeing how this connects to maintenance tracking and to the electronic logbook — the report gets much simpler when the data was born structured.
This article is informational and does not replace consulting current ANAC regulations or the formal guidance applicable to your operation. Deadlines and formats must be confirmed in the current version of the SiGRAC User Guide and in the cited regulations.