One would have expected that an AOPA committee member to have been thoroughly au fait with Part M.
Not my area so why would I. My expertise is IFR and FCL that is why I leave engineering to my engineers as a rule......
When your Annex 1 a/c was last in for an annual in April 2008 it would have been issued with a 1 (not 3) Yr C of A, (or an Annual) to take it beyond 5.1.09 when Part M became mandatory.
It was issued with a 2 year CofA actually and was issued with an ARC in 2008.
CofA / Permit: EASA Certificate of Airworthiness Validity Expiry: 06/04/2009
ARC Issue Date: 07/04/2008 ARC Reference: 051371/005/001
I am not sure why so many people seem to think that this about not maintaining the aircraft properly nor is it about what I may or may not earn or the type of car that I drive.
It is about the fact that highly skilled and trained engineers who have worked hard towards the licences they hold are being told that they are no longer trusted to apply safe judgement to what work is required. This is placing a further burden of expense on GA which in my opinion a number of engineering companies are taking advantage of. There is no need to enter into a controlled environment which severely restricts your choice of engineering and pretty much would allow the unscrupulous engineer to rape you as they see fit. It is also worth owners actually sitting down and looking at the maintenance manual for their specific aircraft and seeing what needs doing REALLY. I have had an interesting eye opener on that front this week.
As I pointed out earlier (but which I assume you ignored in order to have a pop at my income, car etc.) that I have found a Part M company.
I do not expect to cut corners on any aspect of the maintenance of my aircraft, I expect my engineers to be allowed to use their discretion and gve me correct guidance on the work that needs doing. I expect them to give me good advice rather than just advice that is easy for them.
Tell me Yakker, how many ways and at what cost is their to replace the seat belts in a Cessna? Which story are you going to give me?
If an Annex 1 a/c is contracted with a CAMO then ARCs are issued as above. If it is not it must go to a CAMO who, after a full inspection, can recommend the CAA issue an ARC The CAA will then go to the organisation's premises in their own time and carry out their own inspection and review of paperwork etc. at c.£160 per hour + vat. This will be on top of the subpart F organisation and the engineer’s fees
Really? This strikes me as another example of an engineering organisation using careful wording. Must and will are my highlights. Perhaps you would care to clarify that statement and provide evidence of the must and will.....