EASA LAMPS Schedule...... Is it Good, Bad or a Pile of Poo?

[NutLoose]

Following on from the thread below, tell us you thoughts on how good or unworkable the system really is...

http://www.pprune.org/engineers-technicians/365092-replacing-cessna-seatbelts-ga.html

My own opinion is it is a Pile of Poo..

It appears to have been hashed about by the CAA to appear to be the good guys in keeping the LAMS Schedule in existants in EASA Laaa Laaa Land without any thought as to its implications.

What are your thoughts?

[cessnarepairman]

I could not agee more, what we have here is a dumbed down system to suit all the countries in the EU.

I have always said that being a licenced engineer is all about making decisions, for instance, yes the MM tells us that the seatbelt has a 10 year life. This however is recommended so it is up to the individual engineer to decide to change or not. The aircraft may only fly 20 hours /year & be kept in a perfectly dry hangar out of direct sunlight etc.
& the belts are in virtually as new condition.

What EASA want is aircraft 100% servicable & airworthy 100% of the time, if they are not you can refuse to issue the ARC & the law is on your side.

I have recently heard of a situation where a maintenance organisation which has maintained an aircraft for several years , signed off annual inspections & no doubt recommended C of A renewal, has now refused to issue an ARC recommendation because the aircraft had a major airframe component changed several years ago by another company & there is no paperwork to prove the origin of the part.

Why has this aircraft suddenly become unairworthy?, Is it because the state of the aircraft has deteriorated or because the certifying engineer
cannot satisfy the terms of Part M ?. I think the latter. I which case be prepared for the vast majority of GA aircraft in the UK over about 25 years old to be grounded.

It is difficult to compare how other countries in EASA land are fairing with all this crap, because until September they do not have to comply. Good old Britain has swallowed Part M hook, line & sinker & become a model for the rest of Europe. Does anyone really expect us all to be doing it the same by this time next year?.

[Doing Whats Needed]

While I may agree with the general thrust of the argument, administration is taking over, I have also seen the other side of the equation; where an unairworthy aircraft was brought to a maintenance facility, and the owner was horrified that his aircraft would not be released without significant re-work. The damage had not "only just appeared"; corrossion to tenths of an inch is not an overnight event! Reviewing his documents it was clear that this aircraft had not been to the same M3/P145 twice, why would that be? Is it per chance that the owner does not want his aircraft maintaining in accordance with procedures and processes? Is it that, he is willing to pay £120 per hour plus parts up front for his car but not £50 per hour for his aircraft?

Do we want him over our head? Do we want those maintenance organisations in our industry, who ask no questions and sign-up as requested?

[papa oscar]

Cessnarepairman

The seat belts are not a recommendation, they have a component life and MUST be changed after this time. The reason is the natural degrading of the webbing used in original seatbelt webbing.
New/improved materials are used when re-webbed, so does the 10 year life still stand or not as the material used is of a better grade than that originally used?

I take the maintenance manual as the procedures to follow for continued airworthiness in accordance with the type certificate.
I agree that there are a lot of items which are total bollocks; i.e. pitot and static pipework to be replaced every 10 years.
As has been proven, my pitot and static lines have been in the aircraft for 35 years so don't suddenly fall to bits after 10 years.

[NutLoose]

papa oscarCessnarepairman

The seat belts are not a recommendation, they have a component life and MUST be changed after this time. The reason is the natural degrading of the webbing used in original seatbelt webbing.
New/improved materials are used when re-webbed, so does the 10 year life still stand or not as the material used is of a better grade than that originally used?

BUT the same belts are installed in both the Cessna 150 and the Cessna 152....... as said in the other thread the 150 are lifed, the 152 are not......
We used to proof test belts, so why is that not the answer?
I have seen and replaced belts that are in a far worse state after a few years, than 10, also if the above statement is true, then why not reweb? as that is as people are saying not allowed.

Even though the likes of Pacific Scientific do their belts and offer an overhaul service in the UK, I have had lots done by them in the past as they cost 1/2 the new price and they do the inertia belts of the Pa28's as well, indeed in the past I have had a Surveyor ask me where to get them done!

[NutLoose]

Doing Whats Needed,

Whilst I agree with what you are saying in pricipal in real life it won't make a jot of difference, the company that signed out unairworthy aircraft in the past will still continue to do so, loading the system with beaureaucrazy ( spelling deliberate) will not make for a safer world, far from it, you can become so bogged down with the paperwork minefield and cross checks, items that should be addresseed can get missed and it gives those that rubber stamp checks more places to hide....

I still can get no answer from anyone as why we still have a Section L licence, If the one world maintainence plan for Europe was all encompassing, then why Annex 2 ????......
I tell you why, to pay for the CAA's pension pot..

Its ok jumping in feet first before the rest of Europe, but when they see how bad the system is from the UK's experience, I can see it all changing again come September...

[cessnarepairman]

It's all very well getting worked up about seatbelts, a couple of years ago most of the old cessnas did not have lifed belts, so why all the panic now?

I am looking at the bigger picture,why our licences will soon not be worth the paper they are written on because France & Spain are giving away Part 66 licences to anyone who wants one.

And as for the guy who shops around to get the cheapest deal & does not get a servicable aircraft back, that his right. I my experience its the aircraft which have been serviced at the same place year in year out which are in the worst state. There are not many places doing GA maintenance in this country, most owner if they find one they like tend to stick with them. Trying to find a succession of bad companies would be very difficult in my opinion.

[S-Works]

I have talked to the CAA last week about the seat belts issue and have been told that it is within the remit of the PArt M engineers to extend these on condition. They CAA have said that they engineers have the authority to do so but many are taking it to literally and forcing replacement.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

[NutLoose]

I would agree, that is what we used to do, heck we even used to proof test them in the old days, but at the end of the day LAMPS states in accordance with the Manufacturers recommendations and without it stated otherwise in writing you are leaving yourselves hanging out to dry...........

You had as a requirement of LAMPS to add all of the Manufacturers Lifed Items to the Schedule and it states in black and white. And to adhere to it.

I agree the system as it stand is so full of holes a good lawyer would tear it to shreads, but unless it is in writing you are the person liable, so get your surveyor or the CAA to put it in writing, otherwise at the impending court case your "well I was told" will not be backed up.

As an example, say you do not change them, you have a megga falling out with the Owner over Money, the Aircraft subsequently goes to another Company that immediately grounds it under LAMPS and the Owner who needs it yesterday contacts the CAA over it and Sues you for failing to maintain his Aircraft to an approved Airworthy standard............ where do you stand then, I know its a hypothetical and a long shot, but in these times things do happen.

[NutLoose]

I have talked to the CAA last week about the seat belts issue and have been told that it is within the remit of the PArt M engineers to extend these on condition. They CAA have said that they engineers have the authority to do so but many are taking it to literally and forcing replacement.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Forgot to add, you are NO LONGER an Engineer, check your Licence, they removed the E from AMEL.

:mad::mad::mad:

[dg93]

Nutloose
I can only agree with you that LAMPS is an aweful programme to contend with alongside the Type Certificate Holders requirements. When you consider that this is a generic programme to sweep up anything that flies from a DH Moth to the latest spamcan it is bound to be difficult. When I was working some of my customers obtained for themselves their own maintenance programmes which can sometimes simplyfy the maintenance requirements. The first thing that this does is to dispense with LAMPS and rely solely with the TC holders Maintenance manual chapters 4, 5, and 12 along with any additional bits from any STC items fitted. This action made things much easier for me as the maintainer and easier for the owner to understand what he is paying for.

[smarthawke]

Fear not about bose-x, he isn't an AMEL or an AML - just a disgruntled Cessna owner trying to keep his maintenance costs down.

[NutLoose]

??????????????????