Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Huge simplifications in EASA ELA-1 maintenance, maybe?

EASA has actually decided that huge simplifications will be done in maintenance of ELA-1 (MTOW 1200 kg) will be done. They will be effectuated next year. This is all in Norwegian, but it says (translated by me as best I can ) I am a Experimental and microlight dude, so I am not sure what exactly these simplifications will do, but they looks good to me. Lots of “aircraft shops” there though.

EASA reports that simplifications in maintenance of small aircraft now is decided and will be effectuated January next year. This means an aircraft shop can do yearly inspection of airworthiness and write an ARC. (is this a simplification?)

ROME: The EASA-committee have decided to go through with these simplifications in the meeting in October, and since all EASA states have decided to support the simplifications, everything is laid out for them to be effectuated within January next year. The news were released at the EASA Safety Conference in Rome, ”Towards simpler, lighter and better rules for general aviation” and bla bla where EASA wishes to show that the organization is determined to put a large pressure to start a whole new approach towards GA and recreational/sport air activities.

It is in particular owners of ELA-1 (MTOW 1200 kg) who will see these simplifications. These simplifications are (ELA-1):

1) The owner can make his/hers own maintenance program and can proclaim himself that it is in accordance with the rules. In other words, it is no longer a requirement that CAMO or CAA approves the maintenance program.

2) EASA has announced a concept called “minimum inspection program”. This program program can be used as a “foundation” for maintenance as an alternative to the aircraft producers “foundation”. This will greatly simplify maintenance, but the owners must be thorough in verifying what steps eventually will be simplified.

3) ARC will be done by aircraft shop instead of CAMO or independent airworthiness personnel. The “aircraft shop” can do this while doing a yearly.

For ELA-2 (MTOW 2000 kg) the aircraft shop can create and approve maintenance programs.

These rules will under normal circumstances take effect approximately 3 months later in Norway than the rest of EASA (so it say)

I’m a bit confused about the word “flyverksted” which I have translated to “aircraft shop”. A “flyverksted” is according to definition, approved according to JAR-145 or JAA. To me it is not clear what these simplifications actually will do, if an approved maintenance organization is still needed.

For me the interesting part is 1). The CAA has to approve the maintenance program for experimentals, but when this go into effect it seems a bit strange that for certified aircraft, no approval is necessary, while it is necessary for experimentals. New regulations are coming for experimentals (here in Norway) as well any time now (Night VFR and IFR will be forever be “saved”, but I know very little else).

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

I found this 8 page proposed amendment (in English) to the EASA regulations here

It describes the relaxations for both ELA-1 (up to 1200kg) and ELA-2 (up to 2000 kg).

This is a proposal rather than a fait-accompli but extremely promising!

There are also other changes in there, including one about certified parts (“Release of Parts and Appliances for Installation”). I can’t claim to fully understand the implications, but believe this affects both sourcing common parts and perhaps even some aspects of equipment changes/installation using STCs. Repairs for damage that don’t require design activity (e.g. replacing parts etc.) are considered maintenance work.

If someone more knowledgeable can interpret this document and explain the benefits/consequences, that would be extremely helpful.

DavidC

FlyerDavidUK, PPL & IR Instructor
EGBJ, United Kingdom

Are all (single engine, I guess) aircraft types with MTOM 1200/2000 kg automatically ELA-1/2, or do they have to be certified as such?

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

I found this 8 page proposed amendment (in English) to the EASA regulations here

I think that is something else. The writer of the “article” was here

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

This could be a step in the right direction. Could this perhaps be the actual proposal we are talking about?

NPA 2014-24

The complete list of EASA proposed amendments can be found here:

Noitces of Proposed Amendments

EHLE

More documents are popping up.

Link

Lots of links to documents from panel debates of the working group half way down:

Link

But, as the editor from “Flynytt” asked the panel: “You promised changes in 2006, in 2009 and in 2012, why should we believe you now?”

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

Are all (single engine, I guess) aircraft types with MTOM 1200/2000 kg automatically ELA-1/2, or do they have to be certified as such?

An ELA 1 or 2 has to be “non-complex” – using EASA’s definition for “complex” of which there are a number of conditions. One condition is not twin turboprop. Another is single crew.

A light piston twin is an ELA, a JetProp could be an ELA – but I’m not sure there are any on an EASA register

ELA status is automatic, but I say this from practical experience of communicating with EASA rather than seeing it written.

I’m interested in EASA Part-M and ELA1 simplified maintenance. Any good resources to read you can share? Owner pilot maintenance? Who can sign off maintenance?

Rules before „simplification“:

1 As the owner, you can manage the continuing airworthiness of your air- craft. No certified aircraft maintenance organisation is needed (CAMO). Managing the continuing airworthiness includes, for example, planning what and when maintenance has to be performed, deciding which AD (Aiworthiness Directives) are applicable and keeping the maintenance records updated.

2 The maintenance can be done by independent mechanics. There is no need for a maintenance organisation, other than in exceptional cases.
a. If you have an ELA 1 aeroplane

3 As the owner, you can also do certain maintenance tasks such as re- placement of seats, brakes, batteries etc. (More can be found in AMC to Appendix VIII to Part-M).

4 The Maintenance Program needs to be approved by the national avia- tion authority of the state of registry. The Maintenance Program is de- veloped on the basis of manufacturer instructions and customised to the particular aircraft.

5 A periodic Airworthiness Review is needed (every 1 to 3 years depend- ing on who manages and maintains the aircraft) to ensure the aircraft is in an airworthy condition and renew the airworthiness review certificate (ARC). This can be done either by the NAA of the State of Registry or by a CAMO.

Below the „New rules“ → in effect now or not?

The Maintenance Pro-
gram for ELA 1 aircraft (not
used for commercial opera-
tions) does not need to be ap-
proved by a national aviation au-
thority. You as the owner can declare
the maintenance program. You can use
Minimum Inspection Programmes (annu-
al / 100 hour inspection) published by EASA.
The Maintenance program is customised to the particular aircraft using a template published by EASA.

A periodic Airworthiness Review is still needed,but for ELA 1 not commercial it can also be done by the maintenance organisation performing the annual /100 hour inspection.

What does ELA 1 and „new Part-M“ mean in terms of engine calendar time (12 years) and hours? Does it alleviate these limits or are they still binding?

always learning
LO__, Austria

Snoopy wrote:

Below the „New rules“ → in effect now or not?

They have been in effect for some years now.

What does ELA 1 and „new Part-M“ mean in terms of engine calendar time (12 years) and hours? Does it alleviate these limits or are they still binding?

The limits have never been binding in themselves. The limits in the maintenance programme are binding. If you have an approved maintenance programme, this will depend on the opinion of your national aviation authority. Different NAAs have viewed this differently. With a owner-declared maintenance programme you decide this for yourself.

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.)

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Thank you AA

Airborne_Again wrote:

With a owner-declared maintenance programme you decide this for yourself.

What happens when buying a plane. Can the maintenance program the plane is on be changed easily?

Last Edited by Snoopy at 11 Jul 13:34
always learning
LO__, Austria
21 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top