C172 - PA28 Owners ALERT - GMP is coming!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jxk asked about promulgation of this change.
I certainly got it sent to my email inbox - surely I am not the only aircraft owner who knows how these things work? The CAA has moved to electronic document distribution of all things - from airspace proposals to maintenance programs to GASIL - some time ago. You register on their web site, select what you want to receive, and they mail them out to you. It's really interesting stuff - and also pretty much vital for anyone who owns and maintains and aircraft.
You DID all know that, didn't you?
I certainly got it sent to my email inbox - surely I am not the only aircraft owner who knows how these things work? The CAA has moved to electronic document distribution of all things - from airspace proposals to maintenance programs to GASIL - some time ago. You register on their web site, select what you want to receive, and they mail them out to you. It's really interesting stuff - and also pretty much vital for anyone who owns and maintains and aircraft.
You DID all know that, didn't you?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jxk
I think you are being a bit unfair on the CAA, if a company exposition is clearly a rip-off of another companies exposition it is unlikely to reflect the nature and scope of the work that is to be carried out.
Given these circumstances it is not surprising the CAA are unlikely to have the wool pulled over their eyes as an inspection of the company facility's will soon show the scope of work that a company is capable of.
Given these circumstances it is not surprising the CAA are unlikely to have the wool pulled over their eyes as an inspection of the company facility's will soon show the scope of work that a company is capable of.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jxk
I am not sure what your the thrust of your thoughts are, if it is that the change a way from LAMP is expensive then in the long run I don't think that it will be.
If it is that the CAA have not kept the industry informed than that is clearly not the case as I was told about this in July last year, what has changes is that things are not moving at the usual CAA snails pace. This is due to LAMP being found non compliant with EASA regulations and as the CAA is now no more than the UK EASA regional office the bosses expect them to get their act together quickly.
Over the last few years the CAA has gone over to electronic data promulgating and so unlike the good old days when Airwothiness Notices dropped onto the doormat of each licenced engineer if you are not on the electronic system you won't get the data.
I feel that the reason the word did not get on the street is that with the economic squeez hitting the industry so hard most maintenance company's are working so hard that this sort of thing is getting missed, part of this should be seen as a human factors issue as a result of having to work so hard to pay the CAA/EASA fees that are out of step with the economic realitys of general aviation.
If it is that the CAA have not kept the industry informed than that is clearly not the case as I was told about this in July last year, what has changes is that things are not moving at the usual CAA snails pace. This is due to LAMP being found non compliant with EASA regulations and as the CAA is now no more than the UK EASA regional office the bosses expect them to get their act together quickly.
Over the last few years the CAA has gone over to electronic data promulgating and so unlike the good old days when Airwothiness Notices dropped onto the doormat of each licenced engineer if you are not on the electronic system you won't get the data.
I feel that the reason the word did not get on the street is that with the economic squeez hitting the industry so hard most maintenance company's are working so hard that this sort of thing is getting missed, part of this should be seen as a human factors issue as a result of having to work so hard to pay the CAA/EASA fees that are out of step with the economic realitys of general aviation.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Pembrokeshire UK
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It might help some of us to actually see part of an EASA approved type specific manufacturers maintenance programme. This is for a Robin ATL 'L'
Note: the ATA100 numbering system.
The checks are both calendar (Annual, 3 year, 6 year) and hourly (50H, 100H, 500H, 1000H, 2000H).
There is a column to show Appendix VIII tasks (Pilot/owner permitted)
The top left box is for the owners name which personalises the document in a legal sense.
https://viewer.zoho.com/docs/aV1aW
Note: the ATA100 numbering system.
The checks are both calendar (Annual, 3 year, 6 year) and hourly (50H, 100H, 500H, 1000H, 2000H).
There is a column to show Appendix VIII tasks (Pilot/owner permitted)
The top left box is for the owners name which personalises the document in a legal sense.
https://viewer.zoho.com/docs/aV1aW
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Too close to EASA
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting maintenance programme for the Robin ATL. I wonder what the response would be if I quoted an inspection to a customer with a PA28 which included the complete removal of the flying control cables for detailed inspection? Perhaps GMP based on a manufacturer's programme isn't best and LAMP +AD & SB is actually OK!
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Pembrokeshire UK
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You mean you DON'T check all the flying control cables at 1000 flying hours!?
It's actually not too difficult to remove the cables on an ATL so the requirement is a reasonable one.
Every French registered PA 28 is maintained using an EASA type specific programme similar in form to the example shown. But of course it will list tasks as appropriate to the aircraft design & equipment.
As I posted before, these fully updated and approved PA28 EASA maintenance programmes exist now in the French language. It is surely easier & cheaper to translate one into English rather than develop another one from scratch. Or do people enjoy reinventing the wheel?
It's actually not too difficult to remove the cables on an ATL so the requirement is a reasonable one.
Every French registered PA 28 is maintained using an EASA type specific programme similar in form to the example shown. But of course it will list tasks as appropriate to the aircraft design & equipment.
As I posted before, these fully updated and approved PA28 EASA maintenance programmes exist now in the French language. It is surely easier & cheaper to translate one into English rather than develop another one from scratch. Or do people enjoy reinventing the wheel?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Too close to EASA
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The French maintenance programmes will have been approved by the DGAC acting as it does on behalf of EASA. What view have the DGAC taken in respect of life's-items specified by the manufacturer but not mandated by FAA or EASA? Many posters have made clear their view that such items are just 'recommendations' but our surveyor has made clear that in getting a programme approved, manufacturer-stated component lives and inspection requirements must be respected and cannot be altered without specific justification and the same will apply to SBs.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Welcome to Europe, Silvaire 
That Robin schedule looks similar to the TB20 one. Mine is here - taken out of the Feb 2006 MM/IPC CD which is fairly freely available. Actual aircraft production ceased in 2002.
That Robin schedule looks similar to the TB20 one. Mine is here - taken out of the Feb 2006 MM/IPC CD which is fairly freely available. Actual aircraft production ceased in 2002.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Pembrokeshire UK
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.regles-osac.com/OSAC/fascicules.nsf
wigglyamp.
I don't have an EASA/OSAC approved PA28 maintenance programme to hand, but it's not all gloom & doom ... for example it is still possible to run Lycosaurus engines beyond manufacturers TBO under OSAC/part M rules.
See: Partie 4, P-41-40 Moteur a pistons, temps de fonctionnement.
Beware CAA surveyors 'gold plating' when reinventing the wheel by 'developing' yet another quite unnecessary maintenance programme.
wigglyamp.
I don't have an EASA/OSAC approved PA28 maintenance programme to hand, but it's not all gloom & doom ... for example it is still possible to run Lycosaurus engines beyond manufacturers TBO under OSAC/part M rules.
See: Partie 4, P-41-40 Moteur a pistons, temps de fonctionnement.
Beware CAA surveyors 'gold plating' when reinventing the wheel by 'developing' yet another quite unnecessary maintenance programme.
Last edited by vee-tail-1; 13th Mar 2012 at 10:56.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Too close to EASA
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peter337
In your Socata programme, one item (37.00 item 5) is replacement of the standby vac pump at 500 hours use or 10 years. Do you consider this a recommendation or a mandatory item?
In your Socata programme, one item (37.00 item 5) is replacement of the standby vac pump at 500 hours use or 10 years. Do you consider this a recommendation or a mandatory item?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't have one.
But...
A standby vac pump is just a normal vac pump screwed onto the end of a DC brush motor, and the lot is flogged for a few thousand quid. There is no time-based degradation mechanism in a standard dry pump, or in the motor.
So a visual inspection (assuming one is possible) should suffice.
Replacing at 500hrs flight time is outrageous. That could be 3 years for a "busy" private owner. 10 years... depends on the inspection possibility.
But...
A standby vac pump is just a normal vac pump screwed onto the end of a DC brush motor, and the lot is flogged for a few thousand quid. There is no time-based degradation mechanism in a standard dry pump, or in the motor.
So a visual inspection (assuming one is possible) should suffice.
Replacing at 500hrs flight time is outrageous. That could be 3 years for a "busy" private owner. 10 years... depends on the inspection possibility.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Too close to EASA
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pump life of 500 hrs is based on it's operating time and on some aircraft it's measured by a Hobbs meter connected to the motor. It doesn't relate to flight hours.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, but who will run that motor for 500hrs?
A standby vac pump unit
gets turned on only if the main vac pump fails, which happens almost never. It should never reach 500hrs of running time.
If you want a second vac pump, and running all the time, screw it on the back of the engine (most engines have a spare vac pump mounting point) and save yourself the considerable weight of the electric motor, not to mention the impact on CofG of that weight so far forward.
Otherwise, in a plane which is used routinely for flight in IMC, replacing a vac pump every 500hrs is a reasonable policy. That's what I do, more or less. They cost a few hundred bucks, and cost less if you buy a whole box of them from the USA with an 8130-3 - just like the UK aviation shops who then flog them off with an EASA-1 form tucked in the box
But a pilot should not be compelled to do this - the wisdom of it depends on whether he flies significantly in IMC. The vast majority of private pilots don't, and in any case aircraft certification is not controlled by the privileges of the pilot flying it.
I make the decision based on the value I place on its failure, which is significantly affected by the fact that if the pump goes, so does the KI256 horizon, and then the KFC225 autopilot is lost too Many/most IFR pilots do not have such a weakness in their systems, and also most don't do the long trips which I do where I really do not want things to pack up.
Incidentally, I carry a spare vac pump, spare filters, and all tools needed to change it, in the boot, all the time The ~ 1kg extra weight is very cheap insurance.
You have got good value here out of your two 1-liners, wigglyamp
A standby vac pump unit
gets turned on only if the main vac pump fails, which happens almost never. It should never reach 500hrs of running time.
If you want a second vac pump, and running all the time, screw it on the back of the engine (most engines have a spare vac pump mounting point) and save yourself the considerable weight of the electric motor, not to mention the impact on CofG of that weight so far forward.
Otherwise, in a plane which is used routinely for flight in IMC, replacing a vac pump every 500hrs is a reasonable policy. That's what I do, more or less. They cost a few hundred bucks, and cost less if you buy a whole box of them from the USA with an 8130-3 - just like the UK aviation shops who then flog them off with an EASA-1 form tucked in the box
But a pilot should not be compelled to do this - the wisdom of it depends on whether he flies significantly in IMC. The vast majority of private pilots don't, and in any case aircraft certification is not controlled by the privileges of the pilot flying it.
I make the decision based on the value I place on its failure, which is significantly affected by the fact that if the pump goes, so does the KI256 horizon, and then the KFC225 autopilot is lost too
Many/most IFR pilots do not have such a weakness in their systems, and also most don't do the long trips which I do where I really do not want things to pack up.Incidentally, I carry a spare vac pump, spare filters, and all tools needed to change it, in the boot, all the time
The ~ 1kg extra weight is very cheap insurance.You have got good value here out of your two 1-liners, wigglyamp
