why don’t they use a €10 bolt, in stainless steel, wirelocked, which doesn’t corrode?
You bet that was the first question i asked! But when i look at some details at those engines and compare them with the Mercedes truck engines we sell …
Like the “flapper bolt” in the induction system. It has happened that these corrode and break becasue of vibration and if the parts of the bolt get sucked into the cylinders/s the engine will probably suffer catastrophic failiure. The bolt is under 5 Euros.
I read about that somewhere… why don’t they use a €10 bolt, in stainless steel, wirelocked, which doesn’t corrode?
Wasn’t there a well known pilot here who flies a G-reg SR22 and who used a US maintenance management firm (Savvy) to tell his UK maintenance organisation (probably the CAMO) what to change? I can’t find his post now but he has not logged in for a few months.
that it is totally crazy to have somebody at the other end of the continent indicate what items have to be replaced/overhauled.
That’s correct, but it’s the law with G-reg that these parts cannot be changed on condition … ,and I rather have somebody keep track of it, because i have enough other things to care about. So, although it’s expensive, I just do it … as long as i can afford it anway
OTOH, some stuff is not even that stupid. Like the “flapper bolt” in the induction system. It has happened that these corrode and break becasue of vibration and if the parts of the bolt get sucked into the cylinders/s the engine will probably suffer catastrophic failiure. The bolt is under 5 Euros.
Other stuff is crazy, i know … but what can I do about it? I could go to D-reg and have an idividual maintenance program, I know.
BTW: At this annual, a week ago, no parts were due, nothing had to be changed/overhauled. In some years it’s bad though …
mh wrote:
there is no “maintenance” in an airworthiness review certificate and it says nothing about ongoing maintenance or defects
That is not the way I would see it. Airworthiness Management is (should be) all about maintenance management (including what is required and what is recommended), not just managing the date when the next ARC is due. Unfortunately, too many involved in “Airworthiness” have become office-bound and the ARC is based almost entirely on paperwork, as has CAA/EASA oversight, and owners have perhaps come to expect that the ARC is just an automatic “paperwork exercise” (which is probably why I am not asked to sign them much now (and why I haven’t in a few cases)).
Alexis,
I guess what people are trying to say here is (and you will have to agree) that it is totally crazy to have somebody at the other end of the continent indicate what items have to be replaced/overhauled. That should rather be determined by condition, not by some time or hours in service schedule.
But then again, that is not really a critique of the CAMO / NO CAMO decision, but rather of the way EASA and national CAAs cover their a$$es with very exaggerated and inappropriate maintenance requirements, making pilots slaves of the manufacturer recommendations…
I get a copy of everything as a PDF … and keep all that in my Dropbox
Regarding back ups and copies, even with CAMO, simplest thing is to arrange and pop one day at their office and take simple digital pictures of each single page layed flat on a table. You keep the record somewhere safe at home if ever needed. You repeat this once every year/few months with updates.
Same for pilot logbook.
Digital pictures are not legal documents per se but its something from nothing in case of a building fire or whatever disaster.
mmgreve wrote:
I am getting up the learning curve on ownership and have a conflict of interest over the record keeping with our CAMO.
Hi there,
when dealing with maintenance and CAMO, you must keep in mind, that a CAMO stands for “Continuing Airworthiness Management Organisation”. You won’t find any maintenance in the name and thus the CAMO does not do any maintenance. (Yes, there are shops with a CAMO AND and Maintenance Organization, but the guy you will be working with wears a different shirt if acting as a CAMO or as your mechanic).
Airwothiness hat nothing to do with maintenance. The system was developed for more complex aircraft with way more cycle, flight time or time based maintenance items. The CAMO would monitor the logs and airworthiness directives applicable and advise the owner or the maintenance organisation to perform scheduled maintenance. Once a year it will scan the logs and see if all maintenance was done and released by someone who has had the license to release it and a new airworthiness review certificate is issued. Again, there is no “maintenance” in an airwothiness review certificate and it says nothing about ongoing maintenance or defects.
For a normal non complex SEP (or even MEP) there is little to do for a CAMO. However, clever used it can help the owner in monitoring all times, scheduled maintenance and monitor airworthiness directives including checking the applicability. If they even send the required parts to the maintenance organisation (like Alexis mentioned) it can be a real service to the owner. However, one does not need a CAMO, especially if you are involved into the maintenance of your aircraft and have many on condition parts.
No, in southern Germany, but my plane is G-reg
You are very lucky Flyer, but you are not UK based?
