I’m not sure that’s right Peter, although I’ve flown planes past 100Hr point myself on that basis. In reality renting is a commercial operation and subject to 100Hr checks
I checked this exhaustively when I used to rent mine out (G-reg and later N-reg). Definitely the 100hr N-reg check is needed only for training people, etc. Renting doesn’t need it. Mind you this was 12+ years ago.
The practice I described is probably not common at the bigger US schools, because they have such a high utilisation. The one I did my IR at was putting 700+ hrs a year on their PA28s. Not many UK schools do that.
The maintenance company get audit by the CAA hence this is how it came to pass
Well that pretty well undermines the SDMP then…
Bathman wrote:
The maintenance company get audit by the CAA hence this is how it came to passYes Peter they have.
But it is entirely your responsibility not theirs. Nothing to do with their audit.
From here
Why does the UK CAA force a 2000hr engine overhaul, and blocks SDMP, for flying schools?
Shame in the UK flying schools are not allowed to move onto the self declared maintenance programme.
I say that as my only engine failure occurred 150 hours post overhaul.
And so it thoroughly annoys me when a perfectly working engine has to be removed at 2000 hours and replaced with one that is less safe.
Bathman wrote:
Shame in the UK flying schools are not allowed to move onto the self declared mantainace programme.
You’re talking about commercial schools, not non-profit ones, I guess?
All. If used for any form of flight training then you cannot move onto a SDMP.
Bathman wrote:
All. If used for any form of flight training then you cannot move onto a SDMP.
Sure you can. Part-M is very clear that for aircraft used by a “non-commercial ATO”, maintenance rules for private flights apply. So my club, which is a non-profit organisation, has one aircraft with an owner-declared maintenance programme which we use for flight training. The Swedish CAA is quite aware of this and has officially said that it is according to the rules.
That may well be the case elsewhere in Europe but not in the UK. Were all aircraft used for instruction have to be on the generic LAMP maintenance programme.
In fact if a school buys an aircraft that is on a SDMP they CAA mandate it has to be moved onto LAMP.
I could go in with more daftness related to this but I’ll save that for another time
Bathman wrote:
That may well be the case elsewhere in Europe but not in the UK.
How can that be when the same EASA rules apply?
(Well, of course I understand how it can be, but why isn’t anyone challenging it by appealing to EASA?)
This debate is probably interminable; we did the “what is non profit” debate exhaustively in several past threads. There is no such thing as “non-profit”; every operation has to make enough return to continue operating, and the impossibility of defining this (short of running a club/school as some form of a Registered Charity like they do in e.g. Italy which then causes other problems e.g. blocking the club/school from selling fuel to foreigners visitors, forcing them to do it under the table, for cash payments) is perhaps what allows the UK to avoid implementation.
UK schools are most definitely not non-profit. They are run to make money for the owner of the school. There is a “members’ club” (or some such) concession in UK accounting rules but few PPL schools are run under that.
What is the exact wording of the regulation?
Most clubs in France are non profit, that doesn’t mean non income jist that amu income from say bar sales or sale of fuel is reinvested within the club, they are more like UK syndicates.
