What's viewed as "Mandatory" maintenance on EASA reg GA aircraft?

[irish seaplane]

Real can of worms here. As a private owner operator of a G Reg certified aircraft, I'm just wondering how others view the various levels of maintenance instructions as mandatory or not. Take for example AD's.....

FAA AD's
EASA AD's
CAA AD's
CAA Pre 78 AD's

Then CAA Notices are they mandatory? Leads nicely onto manufacturers...

Service Bulletins
Service Letters

And then sub component publications like engine/prop/battery/vac pump manufacturers they also issue

Service Letters (Eg Rapco for pumps)
Service Bulletins (Eg Lycoming for engines)
Maintenance Manuals (Eg Gill for batteries)

It can be a little bit confusing. I know that one must comply with the items listed in LAMP, and then the time life items as per the manufacturers maintenance manual but it's hard to know where one draws the line in terms of compliance. Engineers aren't even sure themselves - I've asked. If it's written somewhere just do it is the common opinion. One simply couldn't phone the CAA and ask for fear you could be told if it's written anywhere you should comply with same. The above makes a strong case for permit or Pt 91 N reg aircraft, but if you simply had to fly the EU flag then where does one draw the line? The smart answer might be it's as per the approved maintenance program for that particular aircraft. Lots of aircraft on G info have no maintenance program approved if you check it out. It's only when you sit down to work the whole aircraft into a spreadsheet that you can really see what's what - and when you do that you even begin to have some sympathy for aircraft engineers. Never thought I'd come around to that way of thinking, but it must be like herding cats on the motorway trying to keep a fleet of customers aircraft fully complied with all of the above....

:ouch:

[jxk]

In other words a real buqqers muddle!

And did you know it cost around £6000 to obtain all the maintenance manuals associated with the Cessna singles. EASA have really caused the CAA to go totally overboard with authorising maintenance organisations. Is there any proof that aircraft maintained to the LAMS were any less safe than those maintained to EASA/LAMP/.?

The simple way would be to make anything which involves a definite safety issue an AD then there would no ambiguity. But then EASA would have to bear some responsibility rather than the maintenance organisation.

[dirkdj]

I has a serious discussion with our local CAA recently regarding compulsory maintenance items.
After two hours it was agreed (for private GA only):

1.ADs are compulsory;
2.Maintenance procedures/time limits in ICA (Instructions for Continued Airworthiness) are compulsory
3.Time limits as published in the TCS (limitations section of the POH) are compulsory.

Some clarification is coming from EASA later this year.
Note: time limits in the usual Maintenance Manual are not compulsory.

[Barcli]

not forgetting that anything not legally mandatory may or may b einsisted on by the particular licenced engineer who is blackmailing you at the time :=

[irish seaplane]

Hi DirkDJ and others,
If you examine closely the wording from your discussion, it poses more in the way of questions than answers.

1.ADs are compulsory
There are lots of different types as per original post, so is it all AD's or only FAA and EASA or do we include the CAA and Pre 78 AD's too?

2.Maintenance procedures/time limits in ICA (Instructions for Continued Airworthiness) are compulsory
ICA is only something that came about in 1980 via FAA CFR 14, long after many GA types were certified. So there will be no ICA for say a Cessna 150 AFIK.

3.Time limits as published in the TCS (limitations section of the POH) are compulsory.
There are very few aircraft I've ever handled or flown that had any maintenance/airworthiness limitations published in the POH.

I've often thought that only adherence to LAMP07/A and FAA & EASA AD's were the only requirements that you could make a genuine case for. I know the system is crazy. I just saved my business partner the price of a good airplane (see rotorheads discussion on seatbelts) where his engineer was trying to convince him of the need to part with £13K for new seatbelts. Its a crazy business, and even if you look at the maintenance records for big twin turbo props coming out of big brand maintenance firms, the records and adherence to the Manufacturers MM Chapter 5 is well selective at best. So it's not just the C150 that may have overkill in some area's and lacking in others, it goes right throughout the fleet.

I will say the logbook entries of old, are fantastic reading where engineers typed in perfect detail each part changed and repaired. Over the years they ended up getting less and less care. There must have been an era in UK GA in the 60's and 70's when maintenance was performed with great care and pride. After all these were new airplanes, and like a new car you'd invest in minding it. After all the years go by, the costs represent a greater proportion of the value of the aircraft and nobody feels so good about throwing money at an aircraft nearing the end of her days. While I'm a big believer in having an oil can in one hand, and a rag in the other - now that I've turned my attention to the paperwork side it is more than a little confusing.

I'd welcome any EASA clarification. Might be no harm if they publish it somewhere more prominent than buried in some www dot eu.gov hideyhole.

:*

[dirkdj]

1. If the original aircraft is certificated under FAA rules, then FAA ADs are compulsory as well as EASA ADs if you are under EASA-Reg, or any national ADs applicable to national Reg.

2. Not all aircraft have ICAs yet, they are coming sooner or later (unfortunately) until then, enjoy.

3. These time limits (in Limitations Section) are the only ones that are compulsory. Full stop.

Mind you: only for non-commercial GA.

[A and C]

As I understand the regulations the aircraft has to be maintained IAW the aircraft maintenance manual.this is the starting point and AD's are in addition to the MM requirements.

This debate is rather interesting as the UK industry is trying to find a way to pretend that the Cessna SID' s checks are not mandatory.

As Cessna has included the SID's into the maintenance manual I can't see how these checks can be avoided (and would you want to ?).

I guess if the UK CAA fails to take action to enforce the compliance with the MM requirements it is likely that the lawers for the estate of the first person killed in a Cessna that has not had the SID's done will go after the aircraft operator and CAMO who are responsible for the maintenance of the aircraft.

[dirkdj]

I had a long conversation with the responsible people at our CAA, they agreed with my reasoning and said EASA clarification is forthcoming later this year. Watch this space.

[peterh337]

As I understand the regulations the aircraft has to be maintained IAW the aircraft maintenance manual.this is the starting point and AD's are in addition to the MM requirements.Not necessarily correct; on N-reg the only mandatory maintenance is

- ADs

- lifed items listed in the Airworthiness section of the aircraft MM (which includes the Annual, etc)

Everything else can be done "on condition".

That is how Part 91 maintenance has been operated in the US GA fleet which is far bigger than all the rest of GA put together, and their safety record is the best.

Aircraft MMs have subsequently been written with that in mind i.e. most of what is in them are recommendations.

Unfortunately JAA and then EASA came along and decided to take the MM literally. Very good for revenue generation!

[A and C]

Peter I agree with your general view of the situation but unfortunately the whole industry is operating in fear of the lawyers who once they get their teeth into a case will go after the biggest fish they can find.

So a Cessna crashes because if a CFIT, the next thing you know is the lawyers are into the aircraft records and find that the seat belts are time expired ( according to the MM) and they decide that this invalidates the C of A.

So the CAMO is now in the dock for letting an aircraft fly without a valid C of A and issuing an invalid ARC. However this is not the end of it because the CAMO is a small one the Lawyers also go after EASA for lack of oversight.

With the lawyers on one side and EASA on the other all the common sense decision making is squeezed out of the maintenance hangar because all your options for a little engineers discretion are taken away.

The aircraft manufacturers publish very tight limits on things for much the same reason.

EASA has not helped by trying to impose a one size fits all approach to maintenance by enforcing airline standard oversight on simple light aircraft but even they are regulating with one eye on the lawyers.

Unfortunately it is a fact of life that we are now living in a society that is governed by a bunch of parasitic ambulance chasers who know the law well and how to bend it in a way that was never intended, know nothing of morality and will do anything for money.

[Saab Dastard]

Unfortunately it is a fact of life that we are now living in a society that is governed by a bunch of parasitic ambulance chasers who know the law well and how to bend it in a way that was never intended, know nothing of morality and will do anything for money.

Elegantly and succinctly expressed.

I would say "shaped" or "manipulated" rather than "governed", but otherwise spot-on.

SD

[ohmygodnotmorework]

I agree with the sentiments expressed re lawyers, one of my engineering friends once said that if you take the EASA requirements and replace the word 'safety' with 'liability' then they actually begin to make sense!!!!

I wish the authority had some faith in the discretion of the people they approved to do maintenance i.e. the licensed engineers, but i suppose this attitude is spoiled by a small number of engineers who are more interested in money than safety (change for liability if you wish, it's the same result!) who then take on work beyond their level of approval and then illegally certify for money.
Of course a number of so called operators also muscle in to threaten engineers jobs if they won't comply!

It is down to human nature and individual conscience to decide ultimately what work on any aircraft will be done, just because an item is certified as being done does not mean it actually has been.

At the end of the day it is down to the manufacturers to mandate what work is required to be done as a minimum to keep their aircraft safe and then down to the responsible authority to ensure that these are carried out fairly and correctly.

I have been in aviation for 30 years and since the start all I have heard is that the bosses of maintenance companies want a level playing field.

[peterh337]

So a Cessna crashes because if a CFIT, the next thing you know is the lawyers are into the aircraft records and find that the seat belts are time expired ( according to the MM) and they decide that this invalidates the C of A.

Is there any case law supporting that?

If you ask most lawyers "is there a liability" they will say Yes - a) because they are not specialists in that field and b) because they want to make money drafting some contract.

[A and C]

I know of a collision between a glider and a light aircraft, evidence showed that the glider pilot had been incapacitated by the collision and would have been unable to deploy a parachute.

The gliding club gossip had it that the parachute had not been serviced in IAW the BGA recommendations.

Despite the state of the parachute having no effect on the glider pilots ability to use it the lawyers for the pilots estate went after the owners of the gliding club, the clubs lawyers advice was that under the circumstances the owners of the club had an unlimited libility due to the parachute situation.

Fortunately the parachute paperwork had been lost in the office when it was found and the lawyers for the pilots estate dropped the libility case against the Gliding club.

I also know that during the case of inappropriate behavior on an airliner by a major pop star the stars lawyers went through the airlines technical paperwork in the hope of discovering something that they could use as leverage in court despite this having nothing to do with the disruptive behavior of the star in question that had landed him in court in the first place.

[peterh337]

i.e. no case law.

There is no limit to pub speculation, but it doesn't mean anything.

[giloc]

An amendment to Part-M is going through the rule making process at the moment. The EASA Part-M GA Task Force issued an NPA (2012-17) last year and the Comment Response period closed at the end of January 2013. The NPA describes a number of Phase I alleviations and clarifications, mostly in the area of maintenance programmes and airworthiness reviews for ELA1 aircraft. Dave Roberts from Europe Air Sports was on the Task Force so he may be along to provide his insight. IAOPA and GAMA were also represented.

The NPA includes 7 proposals, but the two I find most interesting apply to ELA1 aircraft used for 'non-commercial operations':

- the option for an owner, rather than having to get his maintenance program approved, to simply declare the validity of the maintenance programme himself. His maintenance programme can deviate from the design approval holder's recommendations. The owner is supposed to evaluate these recommendations, but he can decide to deviate from them, and accept full responsibility for doing so. So, for example, my interpretation of this is that an owner could evaluate a manufacturer SB, SI, or any other recommendation, decide that he's not going to implement it, and then document this in his maintenance program.

- the option for an owner to create his maintenance programme based on a new 'Minimum Inspection Programme' (MIP). I thought they might have based these on the LAMP/LAMS, but in fact the MIPs have been proposed by IAOPA based on US FAR Part 43 Appendix D. The proposed minimum inspection schedule is annual/100 hours.

How much of this will make it through to the Regulation remains to be seen, but for me, so far it's a step in the right direction.

[wigglyamp]

One of the problems with the new NPA in permitting an owner to approve his own maintenance schedule is that when the ARC is due for renewal, the Part M CAMO doing the ARC is responsible for ensuring the maintenance programme is correct. What do they check for correctness against? Also, if the Agency or its delegated NAA have no oversight of the maintenance programme, who addresses the disputes when the CAMO disagrees with the owner on what is the programme?

[giloc]

who addresses the disputes when the CAMO disagrees with the owner on what is the programme?
Yes, it appears from reading the NPA that there has already been lots of debate about this, and I expect it will be a hot topic in the responses. The NAAs obviously don't want any responsibility for owner declared maint programmes.

However, I think under the new proposals, especially with the template MIPs, there is already less room for varying interpretations. For example, the owner-declared MP explicitly does not have to establish compliance with all the stuff in M.A.302(d); it only has to show that 'consideration has been taken' of the various CA information - the MP can then deviate from the non-mandatory aspects.

[Silvaire1]

Living as I do I the land of the opportunist attorney it's interesting to learn that mandatory sea belt replacement intervals (and other such nonsense) are supposedly driven by fear of lawsuits... all the while secure (literally and figuratively) in the knowledge that the belts on my C of A aircraft were rewebbed 32 years ago. They are still just fine and it gets through annual inspection with no issue.

That said, the best solution for 'maintenance programs' for light aircraft is to get rid of them and free the mechanic and owner to figure it out real time, based on physical inspection, protecting their own real time interest in safety. Part 91 does just fine that way, and always will.

What you're describing is disconnected, inexperienced bureaucrats desperately justifying their role by creating and enforcing unnecessary law. That's the beginning and end of the situation.

[Yankee]

.

As I understand the regulations the aircraft has to be maintained IAW the aircraft maintenance manual.this is the starting point and AD's are in addition to the MM requirements

Which when the MM is outdated and the TC holder doesn't want to update, it doesn't help.

I put this question the the TC holder about the AA5 MM " A UK CAA inspector has picked up on the fact that the AA5 Maintenance Manual recommends replacement of mags at 800 hrs. You and I know that it probably refers to the old Slick 4050/4051's but as recommendations in the manuals are at the present time being taken as gospel by EASA can you confirm that the recommendation does not apply to present day 4370/4371 mags."

The reply I got back was "I ran your request by our Legal Department and was told that it was not advisable to authorize any action that was contrary to the Maintenance Manual. We would need to make the change to magneto inspection and replacement at the next revision of the manual and I’m not sure when that will occur. I wish I could be of better assistance with your request but that’s the way it is with liability issues.":ugh::ugh:

[Silvaire1]

If a government directs compliance with the manufacturer's maintenance manual to be a legal requirement, including updates, it is allowing a commercial organization to write law. Not a good idea.

The basic principle of government certification of aircraft is that in certifying the aircraft, government takes the manufacturer out of the loop in determining airworthiness and replaces it with a direct relationship between itself and the owner. If an airworthiness issue comes up after certification, then government should issue an A.D. Service bulletins and maintenance manual updates should be advisory, and are in fact written in a legally defensive manner by commercial organizations with the intent of them being only advisory, not mandatory. Maintenance should be controlled by government certificated mechanics, making reference to government requirements, and also (at their discretion) to the maintenance manual and other available data. At no time should a commercial organization such as the original manufacturer of a certified aircraft (or current type certificate holder, if there is one) be a position of regulatory power over the owner - that is an intrinsically governmental function.

The European approach to certification and ongoing airworthiness, as exemplified by the posts above in which even CAAs don't know what is required to maintain airworthiness, is a tragically muddled mess. Apparently the CAAs don't even understand the basic principles, or (more likely) are motivated to outsource their responsibilities and instead spend the tax payers money on maintaining themselves.

[dirkdj]

If both the FAA and EASA say the same, why do NAA add gold plating?

Direct from EASA regarding Cessna SID:

"Our below response addresses the case of non-large aircraft not used
in commercial air transport.


We can confirm that the Cessna Supplemental Inspection Documents (SIDs) for 100/200 series are not included in the airworthiness limitations sections of the Cessna instructions for continuing airworthiness (ICA), and at this point they are also not covered by an AD. Hence, the Cessna SIDs for 100/200 series qualify as non-mandatory inspections in terms of ICA, even if they are designated "mandatory" in the revisions to the Cessna maintenance documentation.
The position of the Agency is that compliance with SID for Cessna
series aircraft should generally be recommended to aircraft
owners/operators in line with the principles set out in M.A.302 and the related AMCs (cf. in particular Appendix I to AMC M.A.302 and AMC M.B.301(b) "Content of the Maintenance Programme", item 1.1.13a). If the owner/operator then decides not to include the optional modification/ inspections in the maintenance programme, he/she takes full responsibility for this decision. "

[Bob Upanddown]

We can confirm that the Cessna Supplemental Inspection Documents (SIDs) for 100/200 series are not included in the airworthiness limitations sections of the Cessna instructions for continuing airworthiness (ICA), and at this point they are also not covered by an AD. Hence, the Cessna SIDs for 100/200 series qualify as non-mandatory inspections in terms of ICA, even if they are designated "mandatory" in the revisions to the Cessna maintenance documentation.
The position of the Agency is that compliance with SID for Cessna
series aircraft should generally be recommended to aircraft
owners/operators in line with the principles set out in M.A.302 and the related AMCs (cf. in particular Appendix I to AMC M.A.302 and AMC M.B.301(b) "Content of the Maintenance Programme", item 1.1.13a). If the owner/operator then decides not to include the optional modification/ inspections in the maintenance programme, he/she takes full responsibility for this decision. "

The above has, in my experience, always been the position.

M.A.201 - The owner is responsible for the continuing airworthiness of an aircraft and shall ensure that no flight takes place unless:
4. the maintenance of the aircraft is performed in accordance with the approved maintenance programme as specified in M.A.302.

A&C, the AMP is not the MM. You can add or subtract what you like from the AMP if you can get it approved by the NAA.

Of course, most light aircraft are on a generic programme or on a programme submitted to the NAA for approval. It is the NAA (or individual surveyors) who gold-plate the rules and insist on SIDs or whatever before they approve the MP.
The extension of the privilege to the CAMO to approved their own MP's is a blessing but, as has been said, it is a legal issue at the end of the day when someone dies in an "under-maintained" aircraft. The owner and the CAMO will be in the dock, not EASA, because the responsibilities under Part M are clear.