View Full Version : New French National Licence for Aircraft Maintenance. (LNMA)


vee-tail-1
20th Jan 2010, 18:51
I own a French registered EASA certified Robin ATL. For the last ten years under French regulations I have carried out all the maintenance, including annuals, ADs, SBs, etc, using my manufacturers type-specific approved maintenance programme. The main expense was to fly the GSAC surveyor over from Lille to renew the airworthiness certificate. Apart from that, this system of maintenance was even less costly than the LAA system.
Now under part M this will stop and the only maintenance that I can do is the very simple tasks of annex VIII. Needless to say numerous French owners are incensed by this part M restriction of their long held privileges. The GSAC decided to do something about this situation, since much of the French GA fleet is maintained by owners working in the controlled & non-controlled environments. At first the GSAC proposed to issue restricted part 66 licences to owners under 'grandfather rights', then they had a moment of inspiration and invented the LNMA (Licence Nationale de Maintenance Aeronefs) The idea is that owners can continue to do all the maintenance & ADs etc, as before, but have a nationally recognised licence to make it all legal. Owners who are used to getting their hands dirty, send off details of their qualifications and experience and lists of the tasks they have carried out on their aircraft. They are then issued with a national licence restricted to the aircraft type with which they are familiar.
Thus owners can maintain their simple light aircraft themselves, and can be their own CAMOs & manage airworthiness as well. As yet there are not many sub part G & I organisations in France, but I bet their charges for renewing an ARC are a fraction of those over here in UK.
I have e-mailed some details of this new licence to our CAA for comment, but so far nothing is forthcoming, and I suspect they would rather not know about it!
With an NPPL and a LNMA, flying a certified aircraft might just become affordable again.

Ref: BULLETIN D'INFORMATION GSAC BI 2009/34 et BI 2009/27
et TRANSITION de l'aviation generale VERS LA PARTIE M



bingoboy
20th Jan 2010, 19:03
An interesting move which makes one wonder if such a national exemption can be set up for maintenance, then what is the fuss about the imc.

Is this facility only for Franch built aircraft and do you have to speak French?

I hope the CAA don't see aircraft supported through this system as being similar to permit type aircraft whereby foreign registered aircraft are only allowed to flyin UK airspace for 30 days per yr.

vee-tail-1
20th Jan 2010, 21:04
Reading the bulletin it looks like it applies only to French registered aircraft and French nationals. But any EASA aircraft registered in an EU member state can fly in any other member state without restriction. But the pilot has to have a suitable licence of course.

robin
20th Jan 2010, 21:51
Yet another example of the pragmatic way the French deal with over-bureaucratic matters.

The way the CAA b*ll*xed up Part M (and continue to do so) is a scandal, but because they can blame EASA no-one will be punished for it (except the poor aircraft owners)

The CAA, as with all British agencies, take the 'while we're here let's do this as well' approach and gold-plate regulation. If only they were as supportive of GA as the DGAC

IO540
20th Jan 2010, 22:53
foreign registered aircraft are only allowed to flyin UK airspace for 30 days per yr.

Are they? There is no limit.

But any EASA aircraft registered in an EU member state can fly in any other member state without restriction.

So can any non EASA registered aircraft.

Apologies for being pedantic :) but currently there are no long term "foreign reg" parking limits anywhere in the EU, that I know of. I heard Denmark has such a rule but nobody I know knows how (or if) they enforce it.

But yes the French always get what they want, EASA or no EASA.

The UK CAA is very money motivated; they need to make their 6% return and that is their main driver.

flybymike
20th Jan 2010, 23:38
Think of how much money they could make selling renewable engineer licences to every Tom Dick and Harry with a monkey wrench.

englishal
21st Jan 2010, 00:04
I'd be happy to maintain an aircraft that I fly in....there is a good incentive to do it properly. I would of course ask for a competent aircraft engineer to carry out certain tasks, but because he wouldn't need a calibrated spirit level, then his costs wouldn't be so high....

Yes really, a CAA inspector asked our maintenance org for their calibration certificate of the spirit level in the cupboard. No wonder they have to charge what they do, much of their time is spent fighting off stupid audits.

gasax
21st Jan 2010, 08:33
I hope the CAA don't see aircraft supported through this system as being similar to permit type aircraft whereby foreign registered aircraft are only allowed to flyin UK airspace for 30 days per yr.

This is the present situation for aircraft without a full C of A - i.e. permit or experimentals. As the CAA presently charge these aircraft for visiting the UK for a maximum of up to 30 days this is actually a real possibility - given the CAA is driven by fee revenue oppertunities rather than safety issues

IO540
21st Jan 2010, 08:48
But isn't that simply the default position, for all aircraft without an ICAO CofA?

Without an ICAO CofA, you have zero "right" to fly anywhere in the world whatsoever.

The only reason you can get airborne at all, in your home country, is because your local CAA has the appropriate jurisdiction and allows it. (OK you could argue that in a free country everything not banned is permitted, but you know what I mean...).

To fly to another country, their CAA has to allow it too. Either individually or under some blanket agreement.

Like it or not, this is the price for not having an ICAO CofA.

BillieBob
21st Jan 2010, 11:23
If only they were as supportive of GA as the DGACNo chance! The government has already stated that it supports the recommendation of the Pilling review that the CAA should focus on protecting the public interest rather than promoting the aviation industry.

robin
21st Jan 2010, 11:32
Why am I not surprised at that

gasax
21st Jan 2010, 21:13
The point I was trying to make is similar to theUK CoA Annex II machines which had to transfer to permits.

A source of a lot of resistance from some Auster owners for one.

But if the CAA start to treat French Annex II and EASA CofA aircraft operating under French 'national licenses' under these arrangements it would not surprise me - driven by the ability to charge fees rather than the safety argument