I know one club in the South of the UK who lease hangar space to a local UK maintenance organisation that then charges thema fortune for crap maintenence. The club could take control of it's own maintenance and that of many local owners and do a far better job of it than at present. Of course employing people from a country with a highly skilled and well established aircraft design and production industry always makes sense.....but that does not describe the UK anymore unfortunately.
They (the club) are in prime position to think on a wider basis.
A and C,
When I come from there always has been the requirement that a pilot was trained by a qualified on type maintenance engineer in how to do the 50 hour check, had the appropriate manuals and that the maintenance engineer was available for advice or assistance if required. EASA changes nothing there.
To do otherwise would permit the PPL who does not know a spanner from a wrench to do a 50hour check and thus render a serviceable aircraft an unairworthy piece of future aluminium rain.
The engine overhaul periods are applied by the manufacturer. The CAA was permitting "uncertified" engines to be used in "certified" aircraft. EASA was quite right to question that practice.
Of course, while the CAA may think otherwise, EASA does not think that if Lycoming or Continental say that the engine they designed, built and had certified is good for 2000 hours or 12 years whichever is first and then requires an overhaul..........then one can still call the engine a certified engine with 15 years since overhaul.
I would love to have an aviation authority like that. Hi, I would like to certify this aero engine. I can show that a TBO of 2000 hours is appropriate.........CAA response - Yes great we will accept that and give it a TBO of 8000 hours.
in the area of duplicate inspections of flying controls and other critical systems the EASA system is a real errosion of safety standards
Perhaps you would like to explain that one.
Regards,
DFC