Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

SDMP (self declared maintenance programme) and why some can and some cannot operate it

For my airplane a 50 hour check (which is essentially an oil change) is part of the mandiatory checks. However, you get a tolerance of 10 hours in which you can do it. In fact most of the time, we do a 100 hours check yearly with the annual with usually between 50 and 60 flight hours.

We have done 50 hour checks when necessary and they were non-events, usually 2 hours with oil change and a few minor items. Any shop who knows an O360 should be able to do it.

As the airplane is in a CAMO (which it needs as it is used by a flight school for advanced training and revalidations e.t.c) which is co-located with the maintenance organisation who care for it, we have always been able to plan well around such things so we never needed to do one off base. But as long as there is a shop around they can do it with a work order by the CAMO.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

Multiple SDMP threads merged. Not all since some were mixed-up.

Some interesting stuff to read if you go further back, relating to the “profit” status of some “clubs” notably an assertion that German ones are not “non profit” and can’t use SDMP… No idea where this stands now.

So we should not tolerate it.

I agree 100% with that one and that should not surprise anybody here since I am constantly p1ssing off people in the trade by banging on about what I call “restrictive practices”.

The big Q is what can one do about it? At many airports, there is only one maintenance company and often there is a “close relationship” between it and the airport ownership/management, and the ability to operate an SDMP is closely (not exclusively, but “realpolitik-closely”) tied to the ability to do DIY maintenance inside one’s hangar.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

Some interesting stuff to read if you go further back, relating to the “profit” status of some “clubs” notably an assertion that German ones are not “non profit” and can’t use SDMP… No idea where this stands now.

A German EV (Verein) Club can use Part-ML owner declared AMPs.

Peter wrote:

The big Q is what can one do about it? At many airports, there is only one maintenance company and often there is a “close relationship” between it and the airport ownership/management, and the ability to operate an SDMP is closely (not exclusively, but “realpolitik-closely”) tied to the ability to do DIY maintenance inside one’s hangar.

I have a SD AMP under Part-ML and use shops, no problem.

always learning
LO__, Austria

I have a SD AMP under Part-ML and use shops, no problem.

What plane is that on?

As I posted above, if I did an SDMP on a Socata TB, it would be as long as your arm, and any maintenance company would absolutely love me In fact, it would be exactly what they do on a TBM, whose MM list is in a similar format, and I know this because I was hangared in one for 10 years.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I understand that there are very different views on SDMP here on this forum, just as there is out there among the maintenance shops.

Peter wrote:

the ability to operate an SDMP is closely (not exclusively, but “realpolitik-closely”) tied to the ability to do DIY maintenance inside one’s hangar

The SDMP has very little to do with “DIY maintenance” or Pilot-Owner Maintenance as EASA likes to call it. You can more or less do the same PO Maintenance on a CAMO AMP as you can on an SDMP, no more, no less. We have aircraft on an SDMP and we still do all of our maintenance at our closest maintenance shop, at this we do no Pilot-Owner Maintenance at all.

If one is happy with the maintenance then there is no point in doing any changes at all. The stuff where you can potentially save some money is extending TBO for expensive components as engines and propellers. Many SDMPs would follow all the other recommendations from the manufacturer except that they are running the engine on condition as long as it is good. Many countries previously required engine overhauls at 12 years and many others did not. There is plenty of data to support skipping the calendar TBO and just keep it going. That is just one example but maybe the most obvious reason to move over to an SDMP.

Of you are in an area where you only have one grumpy CAMO, then maybe you would like to check the options before trying this route. Or just stop thinking about it and keep the system your CAMO is used to, supply and demand is not always to our benefit.

ESSZ, Sweden

Is SDMP required to go past 12 years on the engine?

That would be a new one.

Avoiding the UK 6 year prop overhaul, that needs an SDMP.

My comment about “DIY” were relating to this: if work is not allowed in your hangar, then the hangar owner won’t like you doing work, and equally won’t like a freelance engineer doing work – because both are reducing revenue for some maintenance company (which is 100% certain to be complaining and putting pressure on airport management to block this).

Obviously if there is no maintenance company based at your airport, then the reasons for banning work are a lot thinner.

I know one airport banned it because somebody was soldering something, left the iron on, and nearly set fire to the hangar. So in that case it was an “insurance worry”… It is a real problem though. I nearly managed to buy a hangar in 2005 and was going through this stuff. There are various issues which need sorting out. Hangar rash is one of them. Certainly, 24/7 video surveillance was going to be needed. I know of another case where a hangar (about 20 planes in it, plus a maint company) was sold and the new owner found that > 100 people had keys to the doors. Nobody knew who they were. So he changed the locks and banned everybody going in there unsupervised. These are real-world issues and god knows how they are dealt with in the cases where people (above) say they can do everything they want. I guess they must live in an “alternate society” where everybody is nice and nobody ever tries anything on

These topics are mixed up in that e.g. owner maintenance is not related to SDMP, but both are revenue-reducing for a based maintenance company.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

Is SDMP required to go past 12 years on the engine?

That would be a new one.

In some countries it was most likely the case before Part-ML. Other countries had national policys regarding it that allowed CAMOs to disregard certain requirements regarding TBO and so on.

ESSZ, Sweden

Peter wrote:

As I posted above, if I did an SDMP on a Socata TB, it would be as long as your arm, and any maintenance company would absolutely love me In fact, it would be exactly what they do on a TBM, whose MM list is in a similar format, and I know this because I was hangared in one for 10 years.

Not under EASA Part-ML. You could even use the MIP.

A TBM needs to be maintained acc. Part-M on a Maintenance Program created by a CAO/CAMO and approved by the authority.

A TB20 must be maintained acc. Part-ML, on an AMP either declared by the owner or voluntarily approved by a CAO/CAMO.

The difference between those two cases is massive on all levels. Just the management fee of the TBM CAO (2000-15000€ p.a.) will be around what a TB20 average annual inspection costs.
Obviously, with Part-M the DAH AMP will be followed so everything will be done exactly as prescribed, costing magnitudes more than for a TB20 on an owner declared AMP, where only the airworthiness limitations + ADs need to be followed.

Is SDMP required to go past 12 years on the engine?

No.
You can also use a CAMO (contract) and let them approve an AMP incl. extension of components.

You’re welcome to list my article on EuroGA.

Last Edited by Snoopy at 19 May 16:55
always learning
LO__, Austria

Snoopy wrote:

You’re welcome to list my article on EuroGA.

Nice writeup.

ESSZ, Sweden

“Avoiding the UK 6 year prop overhaul, that needs an SDMP.”

Managed to get that one written out of my AMP. Wasn’t able to get anything on the 2000 hours sadly.

Sign in to add your message

Back to Top