Are anyone here using the owner self declared EASA MIP for non commercial ELA1 airplane?
How is your experience, so far?
G
Hi,
Today there is an option for ELA1 aircraft owner in private ops to declare their AMP. When the new Part-ML enters into force we will see this include a larger scope of airplanes. This puts a lot of responsibility on the owners who decide to go for this. What are your feelings about it?
It will, for example, give you the benefit of running engines, propellers and components past TBO. Will you do it on your aircraft?
When you say for private ops does it not actually mean non commercial ops.
And under EASA aircraft operated by flying schools are regarded as non commercial ops
That is correct. Let’s make it simple: The new alleviations will be available for all Part-NCO operations. Private, flight training, sailplane towing etc.
In the non-certified world we are responsible for mainrenance all the time as owners, so I would do that with a certified aircraft as well, if I had the opportunity.
Fly310, most of the world’s light aircraft have no declared maintenance program, by anybody. It works fine and those on N-registration wouldn’t know what you meant by your question, or need to know.
Great @Silvaire, I am aware that this is just returning to a “normal state” for many of us. I think this is really good for european GA but I know that there are a lot of people who are pretty negative about it, a majority of them are people working in maintenance. I am not sure if they are because of less business for them or because there is a real safety concern.
Just wanted to hear what you people here think about it.
Most existing US built light aircraft were designed to be operated by normal people and their mechanics, in the field, in real time, based on condition, without much oversight and without modern communications or infrastructure. They are better for it. Maintenance manuals (used as a guide, to a greater or lesser degree of importance depending on type), a periodic inspection by a competent mechanic (who might be owner) and an attentive owner/pilot is all that’s required to determine what needs to be done and when.
There are two basic problems with an excess of rules and regulations. 
The obvious one is that inflexibility means we waste a lot of time doing things that are potentially unnecessary. The second and I think more corrosive one is that we waste time debating the exact scope of the unnecessary rules, and that becomes a normal part of life. It is the latter waste of time that is generally overlooked by those looking to central planning to guide their daily lives and the maintenance of their property.
For sure, if I had to maintain my planes within the whole CAMO nonsense they’d be sold without delay. So obviously I think anything moving towards the intent of the people who designed the aircraft is an improvement.
What will this actually mean in practice? Presumably you’ll still need to have a full Annual inspection and 50 hour checks as now. But will the 150 hour check (I believe a UK anomaly and almost as rigorous as an Annual) no longer be required, if the owner chooses?
How extreme could an owner go? Decide not to have any Annnual check, or defer avionic checks to once every 5 years etc?
It’s really quite unclear to me what the impact would likely be and thus where the cost savings would be found.
Previous threads have covered European authority accepting FAA A.D.s for US manufactured planes without review or issue by the European authority. Why then wouldn’t the overall maintenance of the FAA certified plane under US law be acceptable?
For Part 91 private use that would typically mean no declared maintenance program, an annual inspection (only) performed by reference to the simple FAR requirement, overhaul and repair (of everything) on condition, and transponder/static checks every two years, as applicable. No 50 hr or other hour based inspection, no overall avionics check.
