Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Summary of EASA regulations for GA maintenance (and SDMP)

As Ultranomad said above, you have to compile all the MMs and ADs, and other bulletins that you think relevant.
I found a 172 MM online for instance.

It is a long process…
Unless you know a guy who already did that on the same type :)

I found in a French doc that at each ARC visit (annually, with an inspector I think), you have to review the programme as well as the plane. So this programme have to be approved every year, it is not just declared.

Last Edited by Jujupilote at 03 Apr 10:58
LFOU, France

Test message

Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 03 Apr 13:46
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Jujupilote wrote:

I found in a French doc that at each ARC visit (annually, with an inspector I think), you have to review the programme as well as the plane. So this programme have to be approved every year, it is not just declared.

Not sure about the French particullary, but programme does not have to be approved in e.g. Germany. As a part of a programme there is inspection list of a programme, that should be filled every year as a part of a self-inspection of a programme.

This is meant for example in order to check if you have latest documentation references (MM of engine, prop., aircraft, installed equipment), as well as
for example in order to find out that you’r maintenance, that you have developed is over-planned or under-planned. In practice, that is one A4, checklist that one goes through and check if everything as it should be.

LQVI,LJMB

For Mooneys I think they have basically done the SDMP for you already:

http://www.softoutfit.com/static/refs/100hour.pdf

local copy

Compiling of ADs shouldn’t be difficult as the AMP that preceded the SDMP was presumably complying with them already.

EIMH, Ireland

Jujupilote wrote:

I found in a French doc that at each ARC visit (annually, with an inspector I think), you have to review the programme as well as the plane. So this programme have to be approved every year, it is not just declared.

That’s not quite right. The program does not need to be approved, but it has to be reviewed. The purpose of the review is to ensure that no aircraft defects were caused by deficiencies in the programme. This is what part-M says:

M.A.302(h)(5):

The aircraft maintenance programme shall be reviewed at least annually. This review of the maintenance programme shall be performed either:

* by the person who performs the airworthiness review of the aircraft in accordance with point M.A.710 (ga), or
* by the M.A. Subpart G organisation managing the continuing airworthiness of the aircraft in those cases where the review of the maintenance programme is not performed in conjunction with an airworthiness review.

If the review shows discrepancies on the aircraft linked to deficiencies in the content of the maintenance programme, the person performing the review shall inform the competent authority of the Member State of registry and the owner shall amend the maintenance programme as agreed with such competent authority

Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 03 Apr 13:48
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

The program does not need to be approved, but it has to be reviewed.

Isn’t that a de facto veto by the national CAA, like @bathman has reported in various threads?

We have some people saying you can draw up the SDMP and that’s it. The words “self declared” mean self declared i.e. you decide what to put in there. But if the CAA has to approve it, as some others are reporting, then it is “self declared and then goes backwards and forwards until your CAA is happy with it”

Pretty obviously you can never put a certified aircraft on a truly self declared programme. Take the UK for example. The first thing people would do is drop the Annual, the 150hr check, the 6yr prop overhaul In Germany they would have dropped the Annual and (I know this is historical now) Cessna owners would have dropped the corrosion SIDs (instead of transferring the planes to G-reg and then, with brexit, back to D-reg, by which time the LBA dropped the SIDs). So there has to be a procedure, and some compromise… Presumably an SDMP has to be, at a minimum, the manufacturer’s programme in the MM.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

It has to comply with something called the ‘minimum inspection programme’ which is defined, and cannot be less restrictive.

In terms of the annual review it doesn’t need to have anything to do with the CAA. The review is done by Part M staff. To me it looks like it truly is self declared. I believe you can ditch the mandatory prop overhaul and the IFR avionics checks that some countries mandate.

Last Edited by zuutroy at 03 Apr 14:52
EIMH, Ireland

Sorry, I mixed up, but in France most ARC are given by OSAC which is the voice of the authority. That’s why to me it sounded like it was to be « approved » like Peter mentioned.
Zuutroy, your check-list is great and I guess other type club have done the same (or they should). But are you sure it covers items (SBs, whatever..) that could be mandatory in EU and not in US ?

Last Edited by Jujupilote at 03 Apr 15:22
LFOU, France

Why would anyone put more than requiered by the MIP in his maintenance program?
Just go with the MIP and thats all.

LECU - Madrid, Spain

You can’t, because of ADs, mandatory SBs…..

BTW, there are many kinds of bulletins that I didn’t know.

LFOU, France
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top