I am expecting to bring a complex aircraft (pressurised twin turboprop) into Europe. It will remain on the N Registration.
Obviously, not being under European Aviation Safety Agency oversight, I am not obliged to use a Continuing Airworthiness Management Organisation.
However, there are obvious safety and reliability arguments for doing so.
What do the panel think, would you voluntarily submit to the regime, or would you do it in a less bureaucratic way?
No way unless it is free.
there are obvious safety and reliability arguments for doing so
What are those?
A CAMO is the European approach to everything: designate an “approved organisation” and the sun will shine and the birds will sing (and the client pays for it).
Also a CAMO has zero applicability to an N-reg. It is from a totally divorced regulatory system.
An N-reg is maintained by (or under the supervision of) an A&P, and an A&P/IA is required to sign off the Annual. That’s about it, especially below 12500lb (5700kg). I looked into this for a TBM700 for example, to be operated under FAR Part 91. If you can find the right guy with the right skills and tools, you needs just that, to be both legal and safe.
AFAIK, most TPs and jets are on a computer based maintenance programme, where the full manufacturer MM is implemented, not Part 91. It is argued that this preserves their value. When I asked in previous discussions why can’t one carry out the full MM when one is selling the plane, I never got any answer. Also most owners at that level in the food chain don’t want to be involved; they just want to write the cheque, and are easily sold the idea that a 50k service is good value. I think it is a part way towards a complete “rolling maintenance” programme where there is no Annual service as such (big jets are done that way, as I am informed by my A&P/IA who does Airbuses). Your twin TP would still have an Annual. We had some past threads on this but I can’t find them. The personnel doing the work could still be the above A&P/IA (he just ends up doing more work) although AIUI a FAR Part 145 company can also do it all if they can get the type on their approved list. I was hangared at one such for 10 years but the TB20 was never on their approved list so they were happy with me using the freelance guy albeit with the requirement that nothing could be done inside the hangar.
This may also be relevant.
@AdamFrisch should know the twin TP process for the type you are looking at.
JasonC wrote:
No way unless it is free.
Not even if it was free.
You can set-up your own “Time Life” table with Excel or certainly find a free example.
The most time consuming is gathering all the info and getting it in the table or database – a CAMO will NOT do that for you.
PS: If it’s for a Cheyenne II , I have an example already set-up, just add your own PNs & dates.
On my (and most other) part-91 operated aircraft, you have zero items that are really time-limited legally. All the other stuff is recommended and thus a good thing to keep aligned with, but it doesn’t need to be precise. I don’t even bother to keep an excel sheet or something.
I know when the annual is due.
I know I should do a 50-hours about mid-way through the year.
Before the aircraft goes into annual, I look through the logbook to check when the alternators, mangnetos, and a a couple of other things have last been done and then decide what I put on the to-do list for the shop.
They will execute the legally time-limited items anyway (e.g. the line cutters), I don’t even need to worry about that.
“Managing” a Part-91 SEP is really so simple. It doesn’t require anything. Of course everything in life can be made complicated.
I understand it will be a bit more involved in case of a turboprop twin.
On my (and most other) part-91 operated aircraft, you have zero items that are really time-limited legally.
The SR22 parachute and its rocket don’t have their individual 10 year life limits?
Sure, but I was referring to time (flight hours) in service. I mentioned the calendar-time limited items in my post.
On a TP on N-reg, you basically have 3 options:
1. Set up your own maintenance manual and have it approved by FSDO.
2. Subscribe to one already set up for that model, like an STC.
3. Revert to factory or original maintenance manual that’s part of type certificate.
I chose option 3 and although that took me from the previous 150hr checks to having a check done each 100hrs, it came with lower fixed costs and less hassle. I just need to do a few phase inspections and the 100hr, so all in all is pretty much identical to an annual.
Adam, does being a TP prevent Part 91?
Your first two options are probably impossible for a European based owner, especially #1. The 3rd is what TBM an KA owners do over here, EASA-reg or N-reg, i.e. the full MM and lots of €€€.
Peter wrote:
Adam, does being a TP prevent Part 91?Your first two options are probably impossible for a European based owner, especially #1. The 3rd is what TBM an KA owners do over here, EASA-reg or N-reg, i.e. the full MM and lots of €€€.
Peter, of course you can operate Part 91. I do. Jets have a progressive maintenance programme. There are some inspections which get done annually so similar to an annual but others are hobbs time or calendar driven.
I think following the MM is normally done on more expensive aircraft to preserve resale value. But it doesn’t have to cost Socata prices. From what I can see you spend more to maintain a TBM than a CJ4.
