Fly310 wrote:
Fly31018-Dec-22 08:5712
What is the reason for having it available to an ATO?
For myself to be able to utilize my own private aircraft, while teaching my own students/clients as a Flight Instructor (FI).
Will you do your own training in it at the ATO?
YES. Flight Training, not ground school
Do you hope that the ATO will rent it? How many hours a year?
NO. I will will be solely the FI on my aircraft. Maybe I will use it 80-100 hours/year for teaching
It does cost a lot extra to have it in the (commercial) ATO environment…
Got it
What are your qualifications for being the airworthiness manager of your aircraft?
Very limited. Though not zero, I do have a reasonable degree of insight from flying managed private jets. Anyways, the plan is CAMO
I am not saying that it is difficult but you must be aware of your responsibility and the things you have to do in order to keep it airworthy. Either you must know it or be willing to learn Part-ML.
I totally agree on that attitude. I´m planning on doing so
Having a CAMO being responsible for the airworthiness is about them taking full responsibility for the airworthiness, as in liability. That’s why they charge quite a bit extra for it. And often the competition from others in the area is non existent.
I appreciate this, and I´m, as you can see, trying to gather information and tap on prior knowledge in here and other places
Many thanks for your clarifying questions and stated opinions, it´s valuable.
In this case “my CAA” would be the CAA in the country where I´ve physically based the aircraft
Yes, if you are looking for a CAMO physically close to the location of your plane. E.g. with a Portugal base, see which CA/M/Os are licensed by the Portuguese CAA. It can off course be any EASA CA/M/O (eg a german one for a EC registered plane based in Portugal) but that physical review is something to keep in mind. A local CA/M/O can see the aircraft every 3 years without complications. On the other hand, if it’s just reasonable travel expenses it might be worth to look further abroad too.
No. Regarding airworthiness matters, „your“ CAA is always the one in whose country the aircraft is registered. The country where the aircraft is „based“ is irrelevant.
Snoopy wrote:
Every 3 years (ARC renewal vs extension) the airplane needs to be present for a physical review at the CAMO or VV the CAMO needs to be at the aircraft.
Got it. That sort of guides the choice of CAMO towards something within the region (in my case Portugal/Spain). Thanks for that detail!
I suppose one could continue for the initial (after taking ownership) 12-36 months with the current (owners) CAMO, and then switch to a regional CAMO at a later stage.
Snoopy wrote:
12 months.
Obtain a list of CA/M/Os from your CAA and contact them all.
In this case “my CAA” would be the CAA in the country where I´ve physically based the aircraft, and not the country of registration, is that correct? Thank you.
Airborne_Again wrote:
SE-FSO?
Yes, that´s the one at your location. Very preliminary.
That “reasonable price” your referring to, would that include CAMO throughout the year (12 months), or just a “one off”. Please feel free to recommend any CAMO with a good reputation for the subject aircraft type (Socata MS 892/MS 893). I want hold you accountable! ;-)
12 months.
Obtain a list of CA/M/Os from your CAA and contact them all.
Again, I´m green as sh@t. Could I eg. maintain/keep CAMO where the current owner has it, and have the actual maintenance done at a local MRO/Shop/Mechanic, or will that CAMO (current owners CAMO) potentially have “issues/concerns” with that?
Yes you can.
It depends on the CAMO.
Essentially, the CAMO is accountable for the airworthiness of the aircraft, however you are the paying customer. So while a CAMO could refuse to issue a workorder for a particular maintenance shop (in opposition to your will) they would lose your business.
In practice the owner tells the CAMO where the work will be done and it issues a workorder as requested.
Every 3 years (ARC renewal vs extension) the airplane needs to be present for a physical review at the CAMO or VV the CAMO needs to be at the aircraft.
I missed this part, and had to re-read it a bit more. I was to trigger happy, sorry.
Well that´s definitely interesting, and actually potentially the most relevant scenario in my personal case. Thanks for specifically pointing that out for me, many thanks.
If it’s a commercial ATO (not a club) then you can be trained by the ATO and no CA/M/O is needed.
If you as FI give training via this ATO, a CA/M/O is required, unless the student is also owner of the airplane eg by obtaining a share. Note: Many ATOs don’t know about ML and don’t want to hear it :).
unless you offer prospective students a temporary % share of your aircraft for sale. Owners need no CAMO/CAO when using their airplane in a [commercial = open to the public] ATO.
If you do, the training organisation is the operator and then, if the rule is to be taken literally, it must have the contract with the CAMO.
Just one data point but the ATOs I’ve worked with simply wanted a confirmation that the aircraft is CAMO/CAO contracted. The ATO itself didn’t have a contract with the CAMO/CAO.
Yeager wrote:
(PS. one of the airplanes that I´m considering is based where you are!)
SE-FSO?
