I recently learned that my club says it has to raise the price of our CAP10 because under “EASA”, it was no longer allowed to extend the engine TBO for planes that are used for aerobatics. So instead of changing the engine after 2200 to 2300 hours, it will have to go out after 1800 hours, which results in a higher hourly cost. I found this AMC for Part-M which says:
l) TBO extensions in accordance with this AMC2 should not be considered for components:
i. installed in aircraft used in commercial air transport
ii. installed in aircraft used for ‘ab initio’ training activities,
iii. linked to IFR operations, and
iv. for which their normal serviceable condition could be affected because of the aircraft’s utilisation (e.g. engine on an aircraft used for aerobatic flights).
I already told our mechanic a few months ago that it should be possible to put the plane under the ELA1 maintenance regime since it has a MTOW < 1200 kg, and that should facilitate many things if we can write our own maintenance program. But obviously it is now going in the other direction. Maybe I have missed something and ELA1 is not applicable to that plane? Or is there some guidance to which I can point them on how to get the plane under ELA1? It would be a shame if they raised the price for nothing.
The Cap 10 is a ELA-1 aircraft. So the MIP programme would apply.
So somebody needs to have word with the maintenance company..
This is taken from the UK CAA website..
Notice that it’s an AMC and there is “should,” not “shall” (they could have made a mistake, I suppose, but it’s just an AMC). And it’s ELA1, as was already stated.
trevor_s wrote:
So somebody needs to have word with the maintenance company.
It’s not a company, our mechanic is employed directly by the club.
I also found this information in French, which states that GM and AMC are to be published in September, and that they basically recommend waiting until then before changing the maintenance regime. Does anyone know if this has been published and where to find it? Is it available in French?
Or does anyone know someone that has been through the process of putting a plane on a MIP (preferably in France), whom our mechanic could maybe call to discuss this? Has anyone here done it?
Guillaume wrote:
This is AMC 10.
It was cancelled by AMC 11 two months later
Interesting. So even if the plane stays on Part-M, there is no longer a limitation on TBO extension for aerobatic use?
Rwy20 wrote:
Does anyone know if this has been published and where to find it? Is it available in French?
I think that AMC’s and GM’s are English Only.
However, the hard law (Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1088 of 3 July 2015 amending Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014 as regards alleviations for maintenance procedures for general aviation aircraft) is available in French
I discussed with our mechanic again yesterday. It seems that the holder of the type certificate had put this restriction of engine overhaul after 1600 hours into the maintenance manual about one year ago, and is now defunct. Is it actually necessary on a MIP to follow the maintenance manual? What do you need if you want to deviate from it?
I got the impression that they discounted the ELA1 rule changes as being for pilot owners only. After all, I’m not going to imply myself more and let them change the engine when they want. It’s just a pity that the plane will become more expensive, it’s already the most expensive plane in our club’s fleet.
Rwy20 wrote:
Is it actually necessary on a MIP to follow the maintenance manual?
If you had to follow MM to the letter, there wouldn’t be any benefit, would there. Don’t know how it works with clubs.
Martin wrote:
If you had to follow MM to the letter, there wouldn’t be any benefit, would there.
There is a difference between following it to the letter, or don’t follow it at all. Even if you want a minimal inspection program, you can not neglict airworthiness limitation items or certification maintenance requirements. So it well be, that even under a MIP you can not do that.
