An Alternative Viewpoint
All
As one of those approved to sign off the ARCs, I would like to offer an alternative viewpoint to those expressed by the owner/pilot community above. I must be either a graduate engineer or a licensed engineer with at least 5 years experiance in airworthiness management and be at a senior level in the organisation, I can confirm that I have a great deal more experience as a time served apprentice, graduate maintenance manager, at all levels, than the required 5 years. That combined with the cost of approvals soon adds up.
I am currently working in a number of sectors, including private light aircraft, however, I have a strong commercial airline background. I must admit that I am disappointed in the standard to record keeping and adherence to requests to provide information. Simple requests to provide utilisation data to the Part M organisation are met with deaf ears, or questions of why do you want that? How can the Part M plan on effectively nothing? One operator how has not being supplying data for almost three months, not through lack of trying, is now in the position of requiring a variation to their next check, whose falut is that?
I have seen operators state, that they do not want to see any e-mails with airworthiness data, this include FLM amendments and operation changes imposed by the OEM. Out of a supported fleet of 20 private aircraft the vast majority can not respond to simple requests for data, or the aircraft, they do not carry madatory documentation on-board and have no understanding of the basic requirements of airworthiness management regardless of who is providing it. I would have grave doubts of these individuals could manage their aircraft in an "un-controlled" environment.
To blame the service providers is unfair, as it is equally unfair to blame the regulator, the industry, including the owner/operators have to shoulder their share of the responsibility for the position where the regulations were required. I have been present when pilots have requested licensed engineers sign off major defects, thses were structural defects, because that last three maintenance providers have done that, I supported them when they would not. Perhaps a little more inward review is required all round.
I look forwad to the comments and brickbats.