@Airborne_Again
“I haven’t studied the new part-M light in detail, but my impression is that for ELA1 aircraft it won’t make a big difference compared to the present rules. The major improvements are for aircraft which are not ELA1. (Someone who has studied part-M light in detail, please correct me and/or provide more detail.)”
Probably not the detail you’re looking for, but currently all aircraft in ATOs require a CAMO (except in club environments in some countries). With Part-M Light all these airplanes will be allowed to be operated without CAMO and even on condition. This could save a lot of money and have a positive effect on GA.
Additionally the new Part-CAO organization (simplified CAMO without SMS) that’s coming with Part-ML and the improved privileges of individual mechanics will also help GA a lot.
So sure, for the ELA1 owner there isn’t a gigantic change thanks to the first part of alleviations that have been in force for a while. But the overall maintenance scheme in GA will change for the better and hopefully lower costs by putting mechanics back to their actual work (getting them out of the overwhelming paperwork of today).
Edit for grammar. Don’t want to lose my level 4 English. :)
One thing which limits the advantages in practice is the poor availability of freelance EASA66 engineers, due to airfield-political and workload reasons. Various previous threads on this one.
As with much else in GA, so much depends on your particular environment.
Snoopy wrote:
Can the maintenance program the plane is on be changed easily?
You can change the maintenance programme at any time. If you’re going for an owner-declared programme, you simply write one (or ask someone to write it for you, e.g. a CAMO)!
Neither your CAMO — if you have one — nor the maintenance facility can question an owner-declared programme. The national authority is not involved either unless there have been issues with the aircraft which are deemed to be caused by shortcomings of the maintenance programme. In that case the authority is notified and you can be told to amend the programme.
ArcticChiller wrote:
Probably not the detail you’re looking for, but currently all aircraft in ATOs require a CAMO (except in club environments in some countries). With Part-M Light all these airplanes will be allowed to be operated without CAMO and even on condition. This could save a lot of money and have a positive effect on GA.
That would indeed be a major improvement!
(But I don’t see the “some countries” part. Part-M is explicit — M.A.201(f) — that the requirement for a CAMO only applies to commercial ATOs. So nonprofit clubs should not need a CAMO in any EASA country.)
Airborne_Again wrote:
Neither your CAMO — if you have one — nor the maintenance facility can question an owner-declared programme.
Isn’t there a stipulation that the SDMP has to be reviewed annually during the ARC issue process?
We have done this before… I don’t know the details (not being G-reg, and being > 1200kg) but it isn’t actually “self declared” otherwise every G-reg owner would take out the ridiculous 150hr check and the 6 year prop overhaul.
If your aircraft is below 1200kg on an SDMP, you CAN ignore the 6 year prop overhaul and you DON’T do the 150 hr inspection anymore. However, the UK CAA LAMP programme of 50/50/150 hour inspections was much better for anyone doing more than 100 hours per year, as now under SDMP, EASA’s MIP requires in effect an annual inspection every 100 hours.
Many thanks for the update, wigglyamp. That’s good news.
Would you be able to fill in some detail on how to support the application? I know of several people (UK) who tried and failed.
for anyone doing more than 100 hours per year
Do you perhaps mean anyone doing 100-149 hours per year? The old 150hr check is practically an Annual. When I used to reach 150hrs (G-reg back then) I just had an earlier Annual done, but that has the effect of increasing the Annual cost in proportion to how earlier one does it, obviously. Plus, it gradually brings the Annual earlier and earlier which is bad because most regular flyers do it in the worst of the winter.
EASA’s MIP requires in effect an annual inspection every 100 hours
Doesn’t that make the SDMP concession useless? Except for the prop overhaul; removing the 6 year requirement is a good thing, for planes which are hangared and generally looked after.
zuutroy wrote:
sn’t there a stipulation that the SDMP has to be reviewed annually during the ARC issue process?
Yes, but a review is not an approval. The purpose of the review is to ensure that the aircraft has had no deficiencies that were due to shortcomings in the maintenance programme. If there hasn’t been any, then the programme stands. If there has, the issue is reported to the competent authority and the programme has to be changed “as agreed” with the competent authority.
That said, there is nothing that forces a CAMO to have you as client and if they don’t like your SDMP they can just cancel your contract.
Peter wrote:
Would you be able to fill in some detail on how to support the application?
What application? For a SDMP? You don’t need any application for a SDMP — you just declare.
Doesn’t that make the SDMP concession useless?
If the UK LAMP approved programmes had 50/50/150 hr inspection intervals, then that could be better — depending on the other provisions of the approved programme. But isn’t the UK unique in that respect?
