Also, IIRC, if you use a CAMO you need a ARC renewal every three years, and twice it can be signed off by the Part145/Part66 who does the annual, whereas if you don’t use a licensed CAMO, you renew it yearly, with a CAMO or the CAA. This might just pay for the CAMO. That said, I don’t have anything bookmarked that would confirm this, so do your research and report back please.
If you work with a Part 145, I would use them as CAMO. It usually costs very little and it makes things so much easier. I would not bother with this for 200 € a year. If you work with a 145 that is also CAMO, the whole CAMO part becomes completely invisible.
As a Swiss operator, you will most likely go to Germany or France anyway and pay half the costs than what you would pay in Switzerland.
Solaris wrote:
Instead of paying a CAMO, I was thinking of doing this process myself. AFAIU CAMO means the following:
- Creating, maintaining / updating the AMP including Pilot-Owner-Maintenance :D
- Tracking compliance ADs, SBs for Aircraft, Engine, Props
- Tracking the various component life times and limits
- Contracting Part-145 maintenance to effect serviceIf i am not mistaken, this is not rocket science.
Opinions?
I maintain my own plane and indeed these are the steps involved and it’s not too complicated. I drew up my maintenance programme (this was the hardest part), sent it to the Hungarian CAA (not all CAAs require this, but it’s still possible that they will want to see them even for ELA1 private operations), got it back with a stamp, then produced an order for the Part 145 shop to carry out maintenance as per the AMP. The only “tricky” bit is the ARC extension/renewal, since you will need either your CAA or an appropriately authorized CAMO for that. I did not want to deal with the CAA, so contracted a CAMO to deal with the ARC.
Also, the maintenance programme will have to be reviewed every year, and this review is IMO the most practical if done together with the ARC renewal.
All in all, I pay only a bit less to the CAMO doing the ARC renewal than what I would pay for a full CAMO environment, but this way I am much more in control and I like it this way.
There are a number of previous threads, found by a search for “CAMO”. I don’t recall any that contain a step by step set of instructions, and the process does seem to be country-specific and not practical in some countries. Some recent pointers may be found here. I do recall reports here of planes for sale which referenced very high CAMO charges (in the four digits) so I am not surprised you want to do it yourself.
You also should not need a 145 company to maintain it, if it is used privately.
Hi
We’re in the process of acquiring a used DA42 NG. It will be on the Swiss register. Instead of paying a CAMO, I was thinking of doing this process myself. AFAIU CAMO means the following:
- Creating, maintaining / updating the AMP including Pilot-Owner-Maintenance :D
- Tracking compliance ADs, SBs for Aircraft, Engine, Props
- Tracking the various component life times and limits
- Contracting Part-145 maintenance to effect service
If i am not mistaken, this is not rocket science.
Opinions?
Greetings
dom.
For those interested:
I’ve yet to hear of any privately owned Cessna in the US having the SID inspection performed. I’m sure there’s an exception somewhere. It’s just guidance in the maintenance manual. When and if individual planes get pulled down for total restoration some day it will provide useful info for owners and mechanics.
I have only had the time to skim read this thread, but I can appreciate Howards OP. In my group luckily I dont ‘deal’ with the maintenance, but of course when more ££ is wanted, I soon know about the escalating costs ;-) OK, you have a late 1970’s airplane, there might be some surprises when there is a 50 or a annual or a respray. But as a very sweeping generalisation, it seems when you get your car fixed, most garages go on the basis that money is an object and no work is done without confirmation with the customer, and with aviation it seems it is considered money is no object and having to pay for additional stuff is a given.
It’s all a bit of a mess, Cessna will tell you that the SID’s are mandatory, mostly they are just a good maintenance program for ageing aircraft.
The people who don’t like the idea are those who over the years have cut corners on maintenance and are very reluctant to part with money.
The UK CAA have taken the the position that you have in that it is for negotiation between the owner and maintenance company.
Clearly some maintenance company’s are now feeling uncomfortable with owners who don’t want the SID’s done and so feel they need to put some top over in place for when the lawyers come knocking.
It must be remembered that when a lawyer smells money they start actions against anyone who is near the incident just to shake a few trees to see what falls out. It would seem that not doing maintenance that the manufacturer considers mandatory would strike a jury of laymen as being negligence while totally ignoring the fact that almost all aircraft owners refuse to pay to have the SID’s done.
That’s a new one on me !
Huh? That’s what just about every maintenance programme, agreed and signed by the authorities, say.
Mine says approximately EASA AD and swiss LTA are mandatory, “special manufacturer’s instructions” (like SB, SI, SL, SNL) are by agreement between the maintenance organisation or CAMO and the operator.
