You’re welcome to list my article on EuroGA.
I will but it is complicated and I need to remember how to do it 
Managed to get that one written out of my AMP. Wasn’t able to get anything on the 2000 hours sadly.
That is for a flying school – correct?
Indeed a nice write-up Snoopy.
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.
I’m not so sure that it is revenue-reducing.
Firstly I don’t think a large proportion of aircraft owners/clubs are all that willing to get their hands dirty. One thing is to tinker with a car or the central heating of your home, but doing work on a device that will likely kill you if you did something wrong is another matter. Besides, the owner maintenance scope is rather limited.
Secondly, shops that see the relaxation of maintenance requirements as revenue-reducing are short-sighted in my opinion. I think that an important effect of these relaxations is that owners may fly more, and equally or even more important, the threshold for potential new owners to get into aviation becomes lower. So in the end it could even increase business. Basic economics, no?
The shop I finally selected to do the maintenance on my Bristell has this view as well. Anything that simplifies maintenance lowers the cost, downtime and hassle and makes GA more attractive, resulting in more activity. They actually suggested me to not have them be my CAMO and to do it myself. Which actually is what I want too, as I like to be involved upto a certain extent. Since there now is only on prop in front of me instead of two I’m rather motivated to be really up to speed what Rotax SB’s are being issued 
. To make life more easy for me and for them, they developed an excellent piece of software to make the whole maintenance planning process and documentation electronic. They are selling it to third parties btw, in case you are interested.. I can input my work orders and there is a parts warehouse for my aircraft. No problem with them signing off the yearly ARC. Just in case they want to double check if I’m not missing anything, I’ve provided access for them into the manufacturers database for maintenance documentation and SB’s etc.
I think making things more attractive for owners and clubs is the way to go rather than clinging to a business model that tries to extort as much as possible from ‘captive customers’. So in any discussions with shops one may use this angle on top of the legal one.
aart wrote:
Firstly I don’t think a large proportion of aircraft owners/clubs are all that willing to get their hands dirty. One thing is to tinker with a car or the central heating of your home, but doing work on a device that will likely kill you if you did something wrong is another matter.
Virtually every aircraft owner in the US I know works on their plane at some level, often in collaboration with an A&P mechanic if legally required, and also if their comfort level for the given job requires it. It can be a cooperative situation when allowed to be, and in fact once the mechanic has the owners trust he is more likely to get work, not less likely, and bigger more expensive projects are taken on. Spending money is not the issue or problem for owners, wasting money is the problem. A lot of e.g. Bonanza owners work on their own planes, and a lot of them spend a lot of money. Which leads me to your next point…
aart wrote:
Secondly, shops that see the relaxation of maintenance requirements as revenue-reducing are short-sighted in my opinion. I think that an important effect of these relaxations is that owners may fly more, and equally or even more important, the threshold for potential new owners to get into aviation becomes lower. So in the end it could even increase business. Basic economics, no?
Very basic, and absolutely true. A rising tide floats all boats.
aart wrote:
I think making things more attractive for owners and clubs is the way to go rather than clinging to a business model that tries to extort as much as possible from ‘captive customers’.
Its hard to say, if and when government has a distaste or distrust of individuals and props up tax paying businesses. But its certainly true that a mechanic who can find a way to be cooperative with his customers will build a loyal customer base.
I agree Aart, and there are people who use a company for a “homebuilt” type, but you have a few things in your favour.
You are in Spain, where the certified scene has almost collapsed, so companies need to be realistic.
You are hanging out in the homebuilder community, which is a completely separate universe to the certified one. A lot of people work “for beer”, which almost never happens in the certified one (it does happen on the US scene, as often mentioned, especially in the “traditional type” scene).
It is normal for the hangars to be run informally, facilitating work to be done. It’s same here in the UK; a lot of people who get say an RV emigrate from their old airfield to some farm strip, free of the politics (they moan about the strip getting waterlogged a few months of the year, and are soon back buying up shares in PA28s and such ).
The whole scene runs “below the radar” of people trying to skim money off it
It is probably similar in France, where the local Chamber of Commerce splashes out a good few hundred k on hangars (which would be a totally unviable project otherwise) which nobody sticks their nose into. The issues start where hangars are owned by a maintenance company, which tends to be the default position at most places (how else will you find the money?), and then everybody is screwed.
Spain – no one cares what you do in a hangar.
France – no one cares what you do in a hangar, and if your maintenance company reports you to the DGAC because your maintenance program lacks the 50h, you wave the EASA document if the DGAC inspector bothers calling and you part good friends. Nothing impresses more l’Administration than a neatly stacked collection of crisp official forms. Know your rights, be ready to defend them.
Switzerland & Germany – no one cares what you do in a hangar as long as you can eat off the floor afterwards.
Austria – same as above, although admittedly it is the only country where i saw neighbors protesting an airshow by hiding planks with nails on the grass runway.
Italy – not much aviation left but for what is left, you could take your plane apart and put it back together in your hangar.
Sweden – no one cares what you do in your hangar, and you might even get help from the odd retired Saab tech crew.
The default position in all these places is that the hangars are not property of the maintenance company.
I think it’s specific to UK where “maintenance+restaurant+school+hangar+fuel” tend to get combined in one bundle on top of some privately owned runway, but you can always choose to fly you aircraft away elsewhere for maintenance, training and fuel/food
Of course there are big airports where you have load of choices, like Bournemouth ;)
T28 wrote:
Austria – same as above, although admittedly it is the only country where i saw neighbors protesting an airshow by hiding planks with nails on the grass runway.
Seriously? I do hope a criminal investigation was initiated? This is major offence, will cause years of prison time.
Austria criminal code
Deliberate threat to aviation safety
§186. (1) Anyone who in such a way that the safety of an aircraft in flight can be endangered,
1.
practices violence or threatens to use violence against a person on board the aircraft,
2.
the aircraft in use is damaged or
3.
Aviation facilities destroyed, damaged or impaired in their operation,
is, if the act is not threatened with a more severe penalty according to another provision, to be punished with imprisonment from one to ten years.
(2) The following shall also be punished
1.
who destroys an aircraft in use or damages it in such a way that it becomes incapable of flight, or
2.
who through a knowingly incorrect notification causes a risk to the safety of an aircraft in flight.
(3) If the act results in the death of a person or serious physical injuries (Section 84 (1)) of a larger number of people, the offender is subject to imprisonment of five to fifteen years, but the death of a larger number of People have to be punished with imprisonment from ten to twenty years or with life imprisonment.
A conviction of minimum 1 year is pretty major for austria and will stick on a public record. Usually even criminal law has provisions for milder sentences, not in this case though.
Which software? Very interested!
Will PM you
@Airborne_Again wrote:
The MIP is EASA’s own Inspection Programme which only has 100 hr/annual inspections.
Do you have reference to the generic MIP ? What is in it if it’s even not type specific ?
