I have just got it confirmed that using a “travelling” EASA Part M Subpart G company is 100% legal in the UK.
The CAA do like to see “procedures” written down for working away from base.
The other feedback I got is that this kind of process is usable only by savvy and pro-active owners, which I can understand. For example if you have to rent the hangar, and something is discovered which needs to be replaced, and the part is on a 3 month lead time, what do you do?
For example if you have to rent the hangar, and something is discovered which needs to be replaced, and the part is on a 3 month lead time, what do you do?
What I would do is take the wings off and trailer the plane home, aided by a less than one hour process to prepare my plane. The point about hangar availability is really a good, fundamental one. If planes are more generally stored individually, I think there is more pressure to rationalize maintenance procedures and not treat private property (i.e. light aircraft) like airliners or military aircraft.
A number of European light aircraft have been designed to be readily towed on the road, and the utility of that feature is evident. You could do your annual inspection at home during the annual ‘winterschlaf’, during the Christmas holiday for instance.
Amazing to me how almost every regulatory issue, when reduced to its fundamentals comes back to property ownership and property rights. Those who understood that centuries ago were no less insightful in light of mumbo-jumbo Link 21st century nonsense that would have us in ‘efficient’ group ownership of everything, managed and taxed by a privileged class of regulators.
A little observation on reading the above. I suspect, the primary issue is that the ‘influencers’ in the industry, are the larger CAMOs who initially interrupt the regs, do so for their own benefit. Since the process is one that is largely broken down by a legislative understanding, the small guys (bar the bright sparks mentioned throughout this thread), follow the leader/repeat what they’ve heard.
The number of light aircraft in private hands has likely declined – the stock replaced by those in training organisations that are often maintained in-house. As the client base declines, it is necessary to increase charges per aircraft to cover the necessary overhead of staying in business. As a result, we have €8 screws, aspirations of seeing all work as mandatory and more mechanical than legislative abilities of the people involve (naturally, no disrespect). How does it change? Simple really – replace NAA’s as the final authority for non-commercial aircraft with the respective operator. Until this happens, it is likely the CAMOs will ransom owners (in genuine or other belief) to make ends meat. We live in a country where it constantly rains, fuel is taxed significantly and airspace is tight – let us not expect competition/economies of scale of those in the US – making the ‘critical number’ is their survival.
DMEarc
It have not often seen CAMO’s holding people to ransom but I have seen them stopping death traps getting into the air, yes the owners bank account may have been depleted but ay lease he was alive to enjoy the over draught !
It has now got to the point that we will no longer take on any aircraft without the owners(s) understanding that the first annual check is likely to cost a fortune. The reason for this that a some maintenance company’s don’t do any rectification they just pen off the check and sent the aircraft on its way with an ever expanding list of minor snags that singularly are of little consequence but collectively add up to major neglect.
At some time someone has to call a halt to aircraft flying in this state of disrepair…………….. Usually the company that calls a halt to this and the owner(s) end up in some sort of dispute……….. After the check the aircraft moves to another maintenance provider who does the next annual very cheaply because the first company had sorted the aircraft and the owners while thinking they now have got a bargain slag off the first maintenance company for ripping them off while the aircraft starts another cycle of slow decline.
A and C #54
I have to say that I totally agree with you. This is especially true regarding SIDs and lifed items on Cessnas at the moment where some MOs ask the owner to “sign-off” not doing these items.
That’s a new one on me ! Asking owners to absolve a maintenance company from doing work that the manufacturers consider mandatory.
Let’s look at this …….. A wealthy passenger dies in a an accident and his family’s lawyers get hold of the said document, who will they try to hold responsible ? The aircraft owners for asking for the SID’s not to be done, The maintenance company for not insisting the work was done ? EASA for failing to regulate that the work should be done ?…………….. I can only see one winner from this !
That’s a new one on me !
Huh? That’s what just about every maintenance programme, agreed and signed by the authorities, say.
Mine says approximately EASA AD and swiss LTA are mandatory, “special manufacturer’s instructions” (like SB, SI, SL, SNL) are by agreement between the maintenance organisation or CAMO and the operator.
It’s all a bit of a mess, Cessna will tell you that the SID’s are mandatory, mostly they are just a good maintenance program for ageing aircraft.
The people who don’t like the idea are those who over the years have cut corners on maintenance and are very reluctant to part with money.
The UK CAA have taken the the position that you have in that it is for negotiation between the owner and maintenance company.
Clearly some maintenance company’s are now feeling uncomfortable with owners who don’t want the SID’s done and so feel they need to put some top over in place for when the lawyers come knocking.
It must be remembered that when a lawyer smells money they start actions against anyone who is near the incident just to shake a few trees to see what falls out. It would seem that not doing maintenance that the manufacturer considers mandatory would strike a jury of laymen as being negligence while totally ignoring the fact that almost all aircraft owners refuse to pay to have the SID’s done.
I have only had the time to skim read this thread, but I can appreciate Howards OP. In my group luckily I dont ‘deal’ with the maintenance, but of course when more ££ is wanted, I soon know about the escalating costs ;-) OK, you have a late 1970’s airplane, there might be some surprises when there is a 50 or a annual or a respray. But as a very sweeping generalisation, it seems when you get your car fixed, most garages go on the basis that money is an object and no work is done without confirmation with the customer, and with aviation it seems it is considered money is no object and having to pay for additional stuff is a given.
I’ve yet to hear of any privately owned Cessna in the US having the SID inspection performed. I’m sure there’s an exception somewhere. It’s just guidance in the maintenance manual. When and if individual planes get pulled down for total restoration some day it will provide useful info for owners and mechanics.
