The company mandated by the French CAA to supervise aircraft airworthiness
Isn’t that, ahem, a “CAMO”?
I may be missing something here but whatever terminology we use, the objective in this is to allow a freelance EASA66 engineer, working directly for you and nobody else, to do the whole job.
That’s what you get with an N-reg.
Of course the industry will not want this to happen.
Peter wrote:
Odd that almost nobody does it… hence I reckon there is much more to this story, otherwise every >1200kg owner with a hangar would be doing exactly that!
Why? The CAMO is convenient. I pay 250 € for the annual supervision which is not relevant in the overall scheme and takes care of all the paperwork and documentation and gets me the annual directly issued on site with the CAA only being informed after the fact. I don’t understand why people think that CAMOs are such a terrible thing. It is a workable setup.
Peter wrote:
I may be missing something here but whatever terminology we use, the objective in this is to allow a freelance EASA66 engineer, working directly for you and nobody else, to do the whole job.That’s what you get with an N-reg.
Of course the industry will not want this to happen.
Again why? I do not want to work with a single Part 66 in my hangar (although I have a private hangar with all required tools and can do whatever I like in there). I like to benefit from a large shop with 20 mechanics where I have access to a lot of tools, experience, skills and a pleasant working environment. This gets the job done much better in my view. On top of that, it’s basically an apprenticeship for me, I watch other people do a lot of different things with aircraft and I pester them with questions. That’s how I learn about aircraft maintenance.
I don’t know what this whole aversion against aircraft shops on this forum is. Being on N-reg would make a few things easier but also a few things harder. With the recent and upcoming changes to EASA, the differences between N-reg and EASA-reg maintenance is becoming very very small.
Discussing opposing points of view is a great aspect of a forum 
FWIW, one of the most successful GA maintenance firms here in the UK is one dealer for a well known brand which has a high % of customers who drop off their plane there with a blank signed cheque and a key on the seat. So there is something for everyone.
Peter wrote:
So there is something for everyone.
Yes but why do you then keep on postings things like this?
Peter wrote:
otherwise every >1200kg owner with a hangar would be doing exactly that!
This is just your view that you shouldn’t generalize. And not everybody using a shop is a clueless victim dropping a “blank signed cheque”. I very much object to the notion that smart people use freelance engineers. I do not want to work with one person, the two of us would not possess the knowledge, experience and tools of a workshop with 20 staff and a very senior owner that has seen it all. I am convinced that I can achieve better results this way.
I believe the badmouthing of CAMO among GA pilots is mostly undeserved. In most cases, the shop working on the plane (Part 145) is also a CAMO and the approval holders are the same people in both cases. The CAMO/Part 145 separation is something that does not concern the customer. Everything works the way it used to work — you go to the shop, they work on the plane and you return home with a release to service.
Yes but why do you then keep on postings things like this?
Because it is my view and that of great many others. Just go back a little up this thread – this is one of great many posts describing issues which would be far less common with a system where you have proper accountability.
It is clearly also the view of those driving the regulatory changes which are the subject of this thread. Otherwise we would have more regulation reinforcing the grip of the maintenance industry (which is the obvious tendency in any industry where the suppliers have a much better organised lobby than the customers).
I am very happy with my CAMO, which in my case does only the paperwork and issue the ARC on behalf of the CAA.
My maintenance i do in a big shop that has most parts needed in stock and that has highly qualified mechanics. Two months before the annual i send the shop a list with parts necessary, so they can order what they don’t have. This way my 2017 annual took 1.5 days.
All paperwork i have to do: pay bill and save a copy of the documentation in my Dropbox.
50 h inspections i do at home with the owner of the shop on my field, normally they take three to four hours.
If that’s what a CAMO costs then it seems fine. I thought it might be in the thousands which is why I was a bit worried. I’ll move it to Ireland and let them worry about the translations!
There have been many cases of a CAMO charging €1000/year, but that is just one aspect of this whole issue. And a freelance engineer has to spend some time going through what needs to be done, anyway – see e.g. here for one data point.
The bigger issue is where the buck stops, as discussed above.
The concern I have about using a CAMO is that every one I spoke to wanted to hold the aircraft logbooks on a permanent basis. I don’t like surrendering control of such important documents.
No. My airplane is G-reg and even based im Germany, and I have ALL documents and books at home. The CAMO only has their file on the aircraft, nothing else.
