PetitCessnaVoyageur wrote:
Is it for full testing ? (All Avionics plus pitot static ?)In this case, at (620 + 220) 840€ + VAT for both tests (C182 G1000)
As the full test “test global” includes the pitot-static check you shouldn’t have to pay for both tests (unless you get ripped off) !
As said earlier, I paid 575€ + VAT 6 months ago. It was 475 + VAT 2,5 years ago.
I’ve had quotes > 1000 € + VAT for this job.
Despite paying for the tests, 2 months later I climbed for the first time to FL150 and the altitude encoder was showing FL145 (while it was spot-on at FL140)…
It seriously makes you wonder if the tests were really done…
Anyway, the real “issue” I see is that so far we had a two year periodicity and now it’s being reduced from two years to one year.
I’m far from convinced that this change of periodicity was triggered by a too high number of safety events .
So it goes totally against the EASA GA objectives which says “Work towards a simpler and more proportionate framework for aircraft maintenance…”
I’m not against making the rules regarding GA more strict if it’s necessary. But a new maintenance rule should be based on a necessity to fix a safety issue.
But from here, it looks like they just put a 1 year / 100h periodicity because this is the periodicity of the MIP.
Jesse wrote:
I don’t understand, do you care to explain.
The MIP says you should do operational checks on the pitot-static system and transponder every 100 hrs.
Guillaume wrote:
Despite paying for the tests, 2 months later I climbed for the first time to FL150 and the altitude encoder was showing FL145 (while it was spot-on at FL140)…
It seriously makes you wonder if the tests were really done…
Such a big error, in such a small altitude difference is not likely to be caused by an out of tolerance / adjustment issue. It could very well be an failure on the encoder or wiring.
Guillaume wrote:
Anyway, the real “issue” I see is that so far we had a two year periodicity and now it’s being reduced from two years to one year.
You don’t have to go the MIP route? Sometimes the MIP can be more strict than current national regulations.I really fail to see the real benefits, and I think they are often over exaggerated.
One other example, was where AOPA-NL published, that AOPA had won the lobby against the AD2006-0265 encoder AD, and that the revoke of this AD would save owners lots of money. I responded to this as well, as it didn’t make sense. This AD required testing of the altitude encoder. Testing of the altitude encoder was allready part of testing on Dutch aircraft, before the AD, and still is afterwards, just like UK, Belgium, France, Germany and I guess most others. As the actual testing was allready done, the AD didn’t add cost when it came into force, and didn’t lower cost when it was revoked.
Altitude encoder issue should be sorted before the next flight. As indicated before, there is a good reason that all new transponder show the flight level, it is part of transponder design. Now you can at least check altimeter and flight level (remember 1013,25 mB) and recognize issues.
Airborne_Again wrote:
The MIP says you should do operational checks on the pitot-static system and transponder every 100 hrs.
In that case it is more strict then national regulations. The are other points as well. As in previouse post, I sometimes wonder what true benefits are for MIP, especially in those countries where national regulations allow on condition. I think all these regulations are much closer then often indicated. Similair as that testing between different countries isn’t that different.
Jesse wrote:
Such a big error, in such a small altitude difference is not likely to be caused by an out of tolerance / adjustment issue. It could very well be an failure on the encoder or wiring.
Jesse wrote:
You don’t have to go the MIP route?
Jesse wrote:
As the actual testing was allready done, the AD didn’t add cost when it came into force, and didn’t lower cost when it was revoked.
Peter wrote:
Could it be related to this?
That is what I thought that could be likely, it can not be the case however as Guillaume indicates he uses serial RS-232 instead of parallel gray code / Gillham code.
All the SSD120 encoders produce gray code output even if they also provide RS232 output. Depending on the transponder, it may or may not accept RS232 as input and may require the gray code parallel interface.
I am doing IR training and want to fly IFR in my F-reg and I’m going through the regulations. I have an approved maintenance program and it’s managed through a CAMO and is not ELA1 (1243 kg MTOW).
Regarding the bi-annual IFR checks, I believe this makes me fall outside the applicable aircraft given in P-14-15 of the DGAC document translated below. Can anyone confirm this is correct?:
Applicability:
All aircraft other than balloons not subject to a reliability program (*) and:
operated in commercial air transport.
operated in IFR.
(*) Reliability program as provided for in M.A.302 (f), developed and implemented by
Part M under Part G which manages the airworthiness of the aircraft
you wrote:
The MIP says you should do operational checks on the pitot-static system and transponder every 100 hrs.
I am puzzled about that too, as it seems far more restrictive than what is currently done in most countries, and that cannot be the intent of a MIP.
I am a layman, and maybe I’m being ‘too creative‘, but here’s an idea:
AFAIUI, the MIP defines two types of checks. An ‘operational’ and a ‘functional’ one. Operational means it needs to work (as in a light bulb works or not), functional means it needs to pass a number of quantitative parameters.
Funnily enough the MIP uses the term ‘operational’ for the the TXP test, and not ‘functional’ which is what one would expect. So, how about doing an ‘operational’ test every 100 hrs, by just checking with ATC during a flight, and making a log entry? But in order to be safe, add a proper functional test every 2 calendar years. So you are doing better than the MIP