what are the specific benefits of the D-reg for sub 1200kg aircraft compared for example with the G-reg?
You can go over TBO on everything basically. No 6 year propeller overhaul, unrestricted engine overtime, unrestricted hose over time, no 150h check etc. It’s the closest you find in Europe to Part 91 operations.
Noted, and agree completely with your observations of the benefits – but surely they are available for all EASA registrations, not just the D-reg?
On a slightly different topic, I see in Part-ML elements of the 150hr check in the proposed 100hr/annual regime. Do I have this right?
Any information yet how much of these concessions will also apply to ELA 2 aircraft?
It’s a bit frustrating to have a 1220 kg aircraft at the moment.
Blueline – as far as I can tell from a quick read, they are all coming with Part M light.
I have no familiarity at all with part-M. There is an understanding in my club than an engine (NA piston) can not run more than 50% beyond TBO, even for purely private (non-training) operations. This means that we will have to replace a C172 engine at 3000 hrs. From the comments above I assume that this requirement has been lifted. Where in part-M can I find this change?
The point is that these things are not in Part-M. These things depend on interpretations and detail regulations from the various national CAAs. This was the case with Part-M and it will be with Part-M light. Like it or not, maintenace is, under practical aspects, still goverened by the national CAAs, not by EASA.
Sir – I disagree
One of the core principles in the doc at the top of this thread is that the owner of an ELA 1 may declare a maintenance programme and there is no requirement for the “competent authority” – otherwise known as a national CAA to be involved.
It is in effect Part 91 for Europe
The other thread relating to Part M light will bring the same opportunity to ELA 2 aircraft and will do so quite soon in my view
That might be the future (though i don’t believe it).
But at present, it’s not the case. We have had many threads here over the time which showed how different maintenance rules are across Europe. Germany, UK, Sweden, France,… you name it.
It is not the future in the case of ELA 1 aircraft. It is law as of last Friday, July 4th.
The whole point is that EASA are as frustrated as we are and are doing everything they can to rectify the situation.
The document linked to this thread is the first in what will be a number of steps to deliver on their GA roadmap and we should be celebrating
I agree with Alan and this is also the view at LBA. I spoke to the people in charge of the maintenance programs (i.e. the ones that allow you to go post TBO) and they confirmed that they will no longer have to make these decisions, it will be up to the owner, no maintenance program needs to be approved and they won’t be swamped by stupid work for small aircraft.
We’ll have to work out how far our discretion will go. I assume it will be up to the Part 145 to decide that can be done which is good because competition will make sure they take a reasonable approach. If my IA believes the electric backup fuel pump in a high wing aircraft needs to be replaced after a calendar interval, then he would be my ex-IA.