On G-reg what would be proportionate for an SEP which might have the occasional qualified PPL as a no equity syndicate member, and named on the insurance policy?
Snoopy wrote:
In the case of eg a SEP, that’s precisely the case. For SEPs, a CAMO is an optional „service“ that can be enjoyed by willing buyers.
Whether it’s optional or not is indeed important, now that it is optional, but I would suggest that the government involvement and regulation of the CAMO system should now be dismantled (made not an option) for light aircraft. Then, those who may want to utilize a CAMO style maintenance planning organization can do it on their own terms, one-on-one with the service provider, without perpetuating any of the regulatory burden or fear driven customer coercion that comes with government regulated maintenance planning.
There’s obviously been a lot of damage done, and I think it obvious that misinformation on the part of everybody currently profiting financially from the CAMO option will mean that 10 years from now there will
still be aircraft owners who have never learned it isn’t required. The best way to stop that ongoing damage would be to explicitly end it. And of course that would also make life easier for e.g. the half dozen people who would continue to contract their maintenance planning for a typical SEP aircraft, a machine about as complicated as a simple motorcycle.
due to brexit, G-regs will not be able to enjoy Part-ML.
Nonsense. Do a google e.g here
Part-ML allows maintenance (owner, mechanic) and ARC issue by persons, no organizations required anymore.
In theory, but most European pilots can’t use that, for reasons already posted.
On G-reg what would be proportionate for an SEP which might have the occasional qualified PPL as a no equity syndicate member, and named on the insurance policy?
Would you mean legally, or what maintenance should be carried out for it to be safe?
Would you mean legally, or what maintenance should be carried out for it to be safe?
The assumption is always to have a program that keeps the aircraft well maintained. It is more the legal context of tracking maintenance for an aircraft which might be flown by someone else occasionally.
Nonsense. Do a google e.g here
At 23:00 on 31 December 2020 the UK leaves the European Union aviation system, and as such is no longer part of European Union aviation institutions, including the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). Some CAA website pages, publications and application forms will continue to refer to EU law or provide links to EU law websites, including the European Union and EASA. Where references to EU law are made, they now relate to those laws as retained (and amended in UK domestic law) under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. There is a rolling programme of updates underway to replace these references.
Please note that EU law no longer applies to the UK, and links to any EU web pages will not be an accurate description of your obligations or rights under UK law.
G-reg is non EASA.
You may call it whatever, but it’s not EASA Part-ML. It’s a national UK thing with copy paste designations remaining initially from before Brexit in a now „UKCAA-Part-ML“. Wait a few years and the chaos will be perfect when the UKCAA starts „customizing“ the ruleset ;) and not following EASA anymore.
Peter wrote:
In theory, but most European pilots can’t use that, for reasons already posted.
Yawn…
Every owner pilot of an EASA registered Airplane who wants to can use it.
It’s also no issue to go SDAMP Part-ML and use a CAMO/CAO or Pt. 145 shop for ARC renewal. The owner of a mx shop recently said on a german board that 80% of business is for planes without CAMO controlled environment.
RobertL18C wrote:
It is more the legal context of tracking maintenance for an aircraft which might be flown by someone else occasionally.
Liability! If someone gets hurt and it turns out some maintenance hasn’t been done the operator is on the hook.
G-reg CoFA fore hire that would be NCO, PartML on CAMO books and the mandatory 50h check (the last two are liability protection than legality of the hire)
Some will say G-reg CoFA non-equity is public transport, everything “commercial & hire” has to go to Part145 shops or CAA will come the next day clamping the wings, meanwhile, you can hire an LAA permit under owner maintenance (with unqualified engineers sign-off), you can also hire N-reg operated under NCO (they are rented non-equity and they can have owner maintenance with a friendly I&A, although being high end N-reg SR22 they tend to end up in high end shops at 20k£ per year)
Silvaire wrote:
Whether it’s optional or not is indeed important, now that it is optional, but I would suggest that the government involvement and regulation of the CAMO system should now be dismantled (made not an option) for light aircraft. Then, those who may want to utilize a CAMO style maintenance planning organization can do it on their own terms, one-on-one with the service provider, without perpetuating any of the regulatory burden or fear driven customer coercion that comes with government regulated maintenance planning.
@Silvaire, and how a customer can be sure that their plane is maintained to the right maintenance program?
CAMO should provide an independent assessment of how your aircraft is maintained.
I’d call it an external auditor that you can use if you wanted.
arj1 wrote:
CAMO should provide an independent assessment of how your aircraft is maintained.
I’d call it an external auditor that you can use if you wanted.
It’s how things are done in UK & EU, everything for hire goes to CAMO but it’s simply not how the US does it: if hiring an N-reg in the US under 14 CFR § 91.409 all you need is annual AND 100h checks
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.409
In UK, I have seen few CAMO aircrafts that I would not jump in more than 1h, in the other hand I have rented “non-CAMO aircraft” where it seems there was a lot of money that have been forked on the aircraft…
arj1 wrote:
how a customer can be sure that their plane is maintained to the right maintenance program?
No need to see any documents, it’s easy to spot by looking from the outside and how regularly the aircraft flies divided by how many people fly it? I would blindly trust an owner who maintain his aircraft Part-ML outside CAMO and fly it himself 100h per year and I will jump inside without looking at anything, I would not get anywhere near an aircraft maintained in Part-145 org and flown 30h per year by 30 people ;)
