Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Where is your plane registered recommendation? (EASA)

Peter wrote:

Bear in mind, and as per many reports, most maintenance companies refuse to work on a plane which is on an SDMP.

But you no longer need a company to work on it, only for the ARC. If there is some uptake by Part 66 people on ARC issue privileges then you won’t need a company at all.
Mine was managed by a CAMO in one country and worked on by a company in another. I told them I was going to change to SDMP and he basically said he doesn’t mind where the work orders come from and will issue the ARCs too, if necessary.

EIMH, Ireland

@mmgreve
https://translate.google.com/translate?client=safari&client=tw-ob&rls=en&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pilotundflugzeug.de%2Fartikel%2F2016-07-19%2FEASA_Opinion_Part_ML

I would be very interested to see the legal basis for a national aviation authority enforcing TBO on a plane that is subject to an owner/self declared maintenance program.

@airborne_again
Didn’t phrase it well. A camo/cao can do the ARC for Self/Owner DMP planes, but they are responsible to verify the Self/Owner DMP conforms to the MIP as per Part-ML.

always learning
LO__, Austria

PepperJo wrote:

For example if I remember correctly the Swiss CAA (BAZL) will not allow the engine to be on condition (be it years or hours) when flying IFR.

I have not found any reference to this but would need to check with knowledgable people to be sure.

Looking at the relevant texts, ELA1 airplanes are generally exempt from TBO regulations in private operations, as long as they are run via a self declaration of maintenance, something the Swiss FOCA very reluctantly had to admit, albeit with the threat of legal consequences in case of incidents or accidents.

Airplanes which have a EASA part M approved maintenance program will be granted extensions to TBO provided that flanking measures such as oil analysis, engine monitor data or other specified measures are taken and proven. The extensions will be granted on an individual basis and primarily concern calendar based TBO if I read this right, usually up to 24 years but with an absolute hard limit of 36 years.

If I remember right, for IFR ops the hard limit was set to 24 years, but that is not published anywhere.

I have not really taken much notice of this in recent times as both my prop and engine are still within both calendar and time limits for a considerable time, but rereading the documentation I will sooner or later have to do something about it, as flanking measures need to be proven for 3 years or more if a TBO extension is to be considered particularly if one wants to avoid the pulling of cylinders, which otherwise has to be done after regular calendar TBO to allow access to the inner workings of the engine.

The TM also specifies that engine action such as a sudden stoppage inspection will be taken into full consideration when extending TBO limits.

Regarding props, the Swiss TM does generally not allow any extension for hour based TBO for propellers and demand additional controls to allow extension of calendar based TBO. Again, for ELA1 this is quite possible not applicable.

I will ask my maintenance people for details, as my calendar prop limit will be coming up in the next years.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

Mooney_Driver wrote:

Looking at the relevant texts, ELA1 airplanes are generally exempt from TBO regulations in private operations, as long as they are run via a self declaration of maintenance, something the Swiss FOCA very reluctantly had to admit, albeit with the threat of legal consequences in case of incidents or accidents.

The restriction to ELA1 is gone with the new part-ML. Now every aircraft regulated by part-ML (up to 2 730 kg MTOM and not on an AoC) can have an SDMP.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

I can testify that this works well in Germany, and always has, even prior Part ML.
We regularly run engines (including their accessories), Propellers, harnesses, etc. on condition.
This includes palnes used for primary, VFR night and IFR training. Neither the CAMO nor the LBA ever had anything against that. All we did was sit down and discuss sensible means to ensure continuing airworthiness.
I am not involved in dealing with the financial side of things, the only data point I can offer is the isue of a Mode-S-address to an aircraft that did not have one, which is 25€.

EDXN, ETMN, Germany

A search for e.g. “D-reg” (with the quotes) digs up lots of info in various countries’ requirements.

In Europe, generally, the best option is to register in one’s own country. That’s because the various advantages of doing otherwise tend to vary over time.

For example many Germans went G-reg to avoid the Cessna wing spar inspections, but this turned out to be a temporary advantage. And some got caught when the UK CAA found document discrepancies which the LBA had missed (obviously nobody will publish details). Then came brexit

The substantial exception is to go N-reg and a huge amount of discussion exists here on that topic. I have a fairly up to date summary here. Few people are embarking on this route now because of various hassles such as this. It retains big advantages for those who already have the FAA pilot papers. Even the Part M light / ELA2 concession does not come near being N-reg because freelance EASA66 guys are rare.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I think that unless you are running a fairly serious aeroplane, I.e. probably turbine powered, the best authority is the one where you live. All the local difficulties will be less complicated than dealing with an authority in another country. I’m sure there are exceptions but that’s my experience anyway.

Darley Moor, Gamston (UK)

Imagine today or for the foreseeable future having an aircraft registered in a country other than yours, and your engineer flies out and may have to isolate either coming or returning or both!!

Oxford (EGTK), United Kingdom

Neil wrote:

All the local difficulties will be less complicated than dealing with an authority in another country. I’m sure there are exceptions but that’s my experience anyway.

Other than mailing in Form 337s, for which I need no response, and web based registration renewals every three years, I have had no contact with FAA for any reason in relation to 18 years of N-registered certified plane ownership.

RobertL18C wrote:

Imagine today or for the foreseeable future having an aircraft registered in a country other than yours, and your engineer flies out and may have to isolate either coming or returning or both!!

I think the preferred situation would be authorized mechanics in every country worldwide, allowing you to travel without introducing that situation.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 28 May 17:29

Specifically for EASA, any more personal experiences you can share?

Apparently Malta (9H) is quite good. What about the Baltics (good with e-government)? Or eastern countries? Thank you!

always learning
LO__, Austria
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top