Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Sky Gods

To disprove a proposition one needs to disprove just a part of it, so let’s take the easy one:

Or people being prosecuted for airspace infringements.

CAA Prosecutions

Anyway, we did this before – here is one of several threads. I suggest posting this stuff there.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

LeSving wrote:

I can’t remember anyone actually posted a reference to any specific paragraph in Part M, ever

I’m sure there are more, but off the top of my bookmark list:

one
two

and for reference, part-m itself

(added quote for context)

Last Edited by tmo at 23 Nov 17:51
tmo
EPKP - Kraków, Poland

Peter wrote:

To disprove a proposition one needs to disprove just a part of it, so let’s take the easy one:

Or people being prosecuted for airspace infringements.

CAA Prosecutions

Anyway, we did this before – here is one of several threads. I suggest posting this stuff there.

But the point is that it is a rare event in exceptional circumstances, not part of the everyday response of the CAA that some ill-informed people insist that it is. The efforts that the CAA go to to help and educate pilots (and their clubs, schools and aerodromes) eclipses the tiny number of prosecutions, but some people just won’t hear that.

EGKB Biggin Hill

I don’t get what you are getting at Timothy. Anybody can look up the CAA prosecutions. It took me 10 secs to google it. And I have posted that URL here many times. It is also very easy to find out the total # of CAS busts (depending on criteria, it is up in the hundreds per year). I don’t recall anybody saying they prosecute everybody, and I don’t recall anybody saying they prosecute nobody. Can you find such a post(s) here?

Obviously, these are attempts to have a swipe at EuroGA or at some individual, and on past history of the posters it is prob90 me, but you guys need to do a lot better.

Or just read peoples’ posts more carefully, perhaps? Reading is an art these days, it seems. I’ve just got off the phone to the local road maintenance dept, telling them to read more than the first 2 lines of my email (their reply was basically they don’t have time for that).

On insurance, it is a grey area and will remain so; it depends on the level of vigilance and the size of the claim. I could fly a plane with no PPL and crash it due to the crankshaft breaking. So the insurance will pay out, or not? You are suggesting that it will, because the paperwork was not relevant. The CAA will bust you for sure (read through the PDFs I linked above).

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

It’s over a thousand a year, and I am getting at no-one in particular. There are plenty of people who keep churning the same stuff, regardless of evidence.

EGKB Biggin Hill

I’m sure there are more, but off the top of my bookmark list

It’s all in the “look in Part M” category, and completely useless in adiscussion. No one is going to dive into that on a mobile phone or a pad. What I was aiming at was real quotes from someone that know where to look.

My conclusion is that no one actually knows. They have only read somewhere that things are like this or like that based on some reference to Part M.

Not that I doubt that a pilot-owner is allowed to empty the ash tray, inflate the wheels and similar stuff. It’s just that maintenance is the process of keeping the aircraft airworthy, year after year after year.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

Look up Part M pilot maintenance privileges, Le Sving. They are actually very similar to N-reg ones.

Not the same as for homebuilts or ultralights, of course, but that’s not the discussion.

Whoops, I have dug myself a hole. Google finds it in seconds but I have no idea where to find them on that page

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

Not the same as for homebuilts or ultralights, of course, but that’s not the discussion.

Maybe not the discussion here (this thread), but certainly one of the major points of all points when discussing these things. I’m finally back to my PC (Chromebook ) so let’s see.

Proposals of amendments is what I can see in those links, but anyway:

Tasks
The Pilot-owner may carry out simple visual inspections or operations to check for
general condition and obvious damage and normal operation of the airframe, engines,
systems and components.
Maintenance tasks shall not be carried out by the Pilot-owner when the task:
1 is critically safety related, whose incorrect performance will drastically affect the
airworthiness of the aircraft or is a flight safety sensitive maintenance task as
specified in M.A.402(a) and/or;
2 requires the removal of major components or major assembly and/or;
3 is carried out in compliance with an Airworthiness Directive or an Airworthiness
Limitation Item, unless specifically allowed in the AD or the ALI and/or;
4 requires the use of special tools, calibrated tools (except torque wrench and
crimping tool) and/or;
5 requires the use of test equipments or special testing (e.g. NDT, system tests or
operational checks for avionic equipment) and/or
6 is composed of any unscheduled special inspections (e.g. heavy landing check)
and/or;
7 is effecting systems essential for the IFR operations and or;
8 is listed in Appendix VII or is a component maintenance task in accordance with
M.A.502.
The criteria listed above can not be overridden by less restrictive instructions issued in
accordance with “M.A.302(d) Maintenance Programme”.
Any task described in the aircraft flight manual as preparing the aircraft for flight
(Example: assembling the glider wings or pre-flight), is considered to be a pilot task
and is not considered a Pilot-owner maintenance task and therefore does not require a
Certificate of Release to Service.

He/she is allowed to do a visual inspection and check that the aircraft is in functional order before risking his butt in it (wow ) Can’t find MA402 in those documents, and it also looks like this is old stuff from 10 years back. Searching for this MA402, and I find this. But this MA402 only say:

GM M.A.402 (a) Performance of maintenance
In the case of limited Pilot-owner maintenance, as specified in M.A.803, any person maintaining an
aircraft which they own individually or jointly, provided they hold a valid pilot licence with the
appropriate type or class rating, may perform the limited Pilot-owner maintenance tasks in accordance
with Appendix VIII to Annex I (Part-M) to Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014.’

Searching for this 1321/2013 (here), and looking in Appendix VII and I find this:

(b) Tasks
The Pilot-owner may carry out simple visual inspections or operations to check for general condition and obvious
damage and normal operation of the airframe, engines, systems and components.
Maintenance tasks shall not be carried out by the Pilot-owner when the task:
1. is critically safety related, whose incorrect performance will drastically affect the airworthiness of the aircraft or is
a flight safety sensitive maintenance task as specified in point M.A.402(a) and/or;
2. requires the removal of major components or major assembly and/or;
3. is carried out in compliance with an Airworthiness Directive or an Airworthiness Limitation Item, unless specifically
allowed in the AD or the ALI and/or;
4. requires the use of special tools, calibrated tools (except torque wrench and crimping tool) and/or;
5. requires the use of test equipments or special testing (e.g. NDT, system tests or operational checks for avionic
equipment) and/or;
6. is composed of any unscheduled special inspections (e.g. heavy landing check) and/or;
7. is effecting systems essential for the IFR operations and/or;
8. is listed in Appendix VII to this Annex or is a component maintenance task in accordance with points
M.A.502(a), (b), (c) or (d).
The criteria 1 to 8 listed above can not be overridden by less restrictive instructions issued in accordance with
‘M.A.302(d) Maintenance Programme’.
Any task described in the aircraft flight manual as preparing the aircraft for flight (Example: assembling the glider
wings or pre-flight), is considered to be a pilot task and is not considered a Pilot-owner maintenance task and therefore
does not require a Certificate of Release to Service.

Hmm, didn’t I just read that? Looking for this MA803 then. Found it, and this is what it says:

AMC M.A.803 Pilot-owner authorisation
1. Privately operated means the aircraft is not operated pursuant to M.A.201(h) and (i).
2. A Pilot-owner may only issue a CRS for maintenance he/she has performed.
3. In the case of a jointly-owned aircraft, the maintenance programme should list:
— The names of all Pilot-owners competent and designated to perform Pilot-owner
maintenance in accordance with the basic principles described in Appendix VIII of Part-M.
An alternative would be the maintenance programme to contain a procedure to ensure
how such a list of competent Pilot-owners should be managed separately and kept current.
— The limited maintenance tasks they may perform.
4. An equivalent valid pilot license may be any document attesting a pilot qualification recognised
by the Member State. It does not have to be necessarily issued by the competent authority, but
it should in any case be issued in accordance with the particular Member State’s system. In such
a case, the equivalent certificate or qualification number should be used instead of the pilot’s
licence number for the purpose of the M.A.801(b)3 (certificate of release to service).
5. Not holding a valid medical examination does not invalidate the pilot licence (or equivalent)
required under M.A.803(a)1 for the purpose of the Pilot-owner authorisation.

To me this is infinite circles of – what exactly? I don’t know, but what about those basic principles? The “(b) Tasks …” are the basic principles (plus a and c in that appendix). Yet another loop. One has to wonder what EASA is trying to do here, is all this just a joke to them?

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

It basically means the pilot can do the standard 50hr service, unless it involves AD checks and such like, and in a syndicate the pilot needs to be authorised by the syndicate.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

It basically means the pilot can do the standard 50hr service, unless it involves AD checks and such like

Yes, and everybody knows that. So it’s back to the definition of maintenance. What does each poster actually mean? and in what context? Am I doing maintenance when checking the oil or fastening a loose screw in some non-structural panel? hardly. Maintenance is the prosess of keeping the aircraft continuously airworthy. A pilot-owner cannot do that – period.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway
60 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top