Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Super Cub EASA Maintenance (for an American used to the N register)

I [possibly unintelligently] bought a Norway registered Super Cub and operate it in EASA land for private use, flown only by me. It is not in a CAMO. I know a lot about Cub and Super Cub maintenance and restoration (in the US, at least).

I am aware I will need a 100 hour inspection coming up, as I will hit 100 hours before the annual inspection and have a post-Soviet EASA mechanic coming into town when the time comes. In the meantime, I am sitting a hair over 50 hours since annual and I came across this invention in Europe called a “50 hour inspection.” My questions:

  • I cannot find a 50 hour inspection list for a PA-18 anywhere. My instinct says the items consist of an oil change (which I do at 20-22 hours as it has no filter)
  • I stumbled across some AMP nonsense. Do I really need to formally declare a written maintenance program for my own airplane (other than the law, ADs, etc)? If so, are there any suggestions for some basic help to write up the most strategically advantageous approach?

Needless to say, the PA-18 will be moved to the N register when I can, though I have been told with the death of one of the more reasonable DARs, there are no DARs in Europe that are not a) difficult or b) easy to deal with and therefore totally subsumed by airliners and business jets.

Thanks!

Have you checked these threads. There may be somebody mentioned.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

hypoxiacub wrote:

stumbled across some AMP nonsense. Do I really need to formally declare a written maintenance program for my own airplane (other than the law, ADs, etc)?

I believe you do, but it doesn’t have to contain anything more than “the law, ADs, etc”.

hypoxiacub wrote:

If so, are there any suggestions for some basic help to write up the most strategically advantageous approach?

As a starting point, you:

  • Either use the official maintenance program of the design type certificate holder (Piper?), and (with justification) you can remove/change stuff. You don’t have to proactively send the program, nor the justifications for the changes, to anybody, but the CAA can ask for it, and then you have to provide it. Your changes cannot be more liberal than the law’s “Minimal Inspection Program”.
  • Or use the the MIP (Minimal Inspection Program) in the law as a starting point, and add what you decide to add, depending on the needs of the plane.

I guess you will prefer the second approach. See pages 869 and following (in particular page 881-885) of https://www.easa.europa.eu/downloads/95788/en

The “hard law” (page 869) says (the rest, e.g. pages 881-885 is “soft law”; you can do something else than what the soft law says, if you justify of an equivalent level of safety; operating as non-commercial with non-complex aircraft, you don’t have to register your justification or get prior approval, but the justification can be inspected on request of the CAA):

A MIP:

  1. shall contain the following inspection intervals:
    1. for aeroplanes, touring motor gliders (‘TMGs’) and balloons, every annual or 100-h interval, whichever comes first, to which a tolerance of 1 month or 10 h may be applied. The next interval shall be calculated as from the time the inspection takes place;
  1. shall contain the following, as applicable to the aircraft type:
    1. servicing tasks as required by the DAH’s requirements;
    2. inspection of markings;
    3. review of weighing records and weighing in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 965/2012, Regulation (EU) 2018/395 and Regulation (EU) 2018/1976;
    4. operational test of transponder (if installed);
    5. functional test of the pitot-static system;
    6. in the case of aeroplanes:
      1. operational tests for power and revolutions per minute (rpm), magnetos, fuel and oil pressure, engine temperatures;
      2. for engines equipped with automated engine control, the published run-up procedure;
      3. for dry-sump engines, engines with turbochargers and liquid-cooled engines, an operational test for signs of disturbed fluid circulation;
    7. inspection of the condition and attachment of the structural items, systems and components corresponding to the following areas:
      1. for aeroplanes: airframe, cabin and cockpit, landing gear, wing and centre section, flight controls, empennage, avionics and electrics, power plant, clutches and gearboxes, propeller and miscellaneous systems, such as the ballistic rescue system;
Last Edited by lionel at 15 Mar 11:39
ELLX

Note that a Super Cub is not an EASA aircraft. That means that the national regulations of the state of registry apply – in this case Norwegian regulations. Part-ML is not applicable unless the national regulation refers to it – so unfortunately you may not be helped by lionel’s post.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Thank you to everyone! I am checking with the Norwegians and will report back.

hypoxiacub wrote:

possibly unintelligently

For sure unintelligently

As AA said, a Cub has nothing to do with EASA, as it is NOT an “EASA aircraft”. New regulations came into place last summer, here.

In essence it simply say that maintenance according to EASA Part-ML is to be done unless it is a jet or some other complex aircraft, used commercially etc. You need a Part 66 technician, but you can also use a non EASA technician after an approval.

I’m not very familiar with Part-ML though, but others here are.

ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

Haven‘t MOST countries decided, in many cases years ago now, that non-EASA aircraft shall be maintained according to Part-M, now Part-ML?

Mainz (EDFZ), Germany

boscomantico wrote:

Haven‘t MOST countries decided, in many cases years ago now, that non-EASA aircraft shall be maintained according to Part-M, now Part-ML?

You would have hoped so. The Swedish authority has proposed a completely unreasonable set of rules where they, among other things, require a separate approval, with associated fees, for CAO, part-145 etc. to work on nationally regulated aircraft even if they were already approved for EASA aircraft. It has of course met with heavy criticism, so we’ll see… (Look, look, I’m criticising my own country and it’s not the UK!)

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

If non commercial operation, I thought in most states 50 hour was a pilot inspection.

Maoraigh
EGPE, United Kingdom

Haven‘t MOST countries decided, in many cases years ago now, that non-EASA aircraft shall be maintained according to Part-M, now Part-ML?

I don’t understand this. In general, non-certs can be pilot-maintained, surely?

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
30 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top