Cost of manuals

[jxk]

Just noticed that the Piper manuals will now be published on CDs and for instance the single engine series is approximately 2200 dollars. By my reckoning this will cost my current maintenance organisation £315 (2200/(1.4*5)) per year for each of the 5 owners. Does this seem reasonable and is there anyway that this cost could better amortised??
And on top of this there are additional cost for all of the other manuals for engines and accessories.
As anyone calculated the amount of money per aircraft per year that should be charged in the annual bill for maintenance?

[born1987]

why dont you copy the cds and photostate the hard copyies that will save lot of money .that what i do with my manuals .

[jxk]

Born1987

Who's CD should they copy (someone has to buy it)? It's illegal to copy CDs (jail for pirating)! They wouldn't need to photostat things if they had the CD!

[Miles Gustaph]

Jxk

"[H]as anyone calculated the amount of money per aircraft per year that should be charged in the annual bill for maintenance?"

If you’re operating an approved maintenance facility, part of the approval for an aircraft type is that the organisation has the necessary publications necessary to carry out the work in the scope of work.

While it is one option to pass the direct cost onto the customer I would suggest that most maintenance organisations have one or more general categories of billing, for example, “general cleaning materials” covering the cost of polish etc, or “administration” and it may be better to up the amount the billing people allocate to some sort of general billable category.

In my experience most customers don’t actually know what it really costs to run an aircraft and putting a number next to subscriptions on a bill could cause you all sorts of headaches. There’s bound to be one cleaver chap who wants his books when he goes to another maintenance facility, or as noted above wriggles a finger saying it’s your job to have these books anyway.

[jxk]

Miles
I agree with your analysis of the situation - but I was trying to subtlety point out the higher costs incurred to maintenance organisations due to the move from microfiche to CD and lack in some small way to Part M.

I really think that the bureaucrats believe that all small aircraft owners are millionaires.

[Malcom]

If you’re operating an approved maintenance facility, part of the approval for an aircraft type is that the organisation has the necessary publications necessary to carry out the work in the scope of work.

Thats not necessarily true - In the case of the Part M controlled environment for easa types, the MO only has to have it available when doing the job. the CAMO must hold the manuals, and tells the MO what to do, and gives the MO the required data. Thus in this case the cost of the manuals would be met by the CAMO, who would retrieve the costs in their CAMO charges.

:ugh:

[jxk]

Malcolm

Indeed! The bottom line is us poor owners have to pay more AND there doesn't appear to be any competition to the CD supplier.

[cessnarepairman]

I am afraid this is another cost to the aircraft owner brought about by Part M.

As has been said, the CAMO has to have up to date manuals for all the types it has on its approval, all the time.

Technically we cannot borrow the manuals from another company for the time we are doing the job. Cessna manuals on CD are extortionate because of copyrite etc. A CD from avantext with the 182 on it is over $2000. Granted there are a host of other types on it but if its just 182's you need you cannot justify it for one aircraft.

[NutLoose]

And then as I have the Cessna range, the piper range, the engines, the FAA and the EASA AD ones it goes through the roof.

I do my own Camo's BTW

[cessnarepairman]

Yes Likewise, but it does make you wonder if you should limit the types one covers & so be able to justify the cost of the manuals.

My annual subs for manuals are over £5000. If I have to buy another disc
for the sake of one aircraft it would have to be a case of the owner forking out for it or he takes it elsewhere.

[NutLoose]

Ours too, one Company I know were told they do not have to hold all the mainuals, simply have access to the ones they need when the case arises, so you could always tie up with a company close buy to cover each other if and when needed.

[jxk]

cessnarepairman

My annual subs for manuals are over £5000. If I have to buy another disc
for the sake of one aircraft it would have to be a case of the owner forking out for it or he takes it elsewhere. This was my point.

My Part F & G organisation is relatively small and have to spread the cost (>£5000) over a small number of aircraft which obviously predicates against them. It's a catch 22 situation; if they limit the number of types and hence the number of manuals then they restrict their business and the ability to make it pay.

[smarthawke]

We found ourselves in the same boat. Whilst the Avantext system is good to use and it's nice to have everything there (maintenance and parts manuals, SBs etc) it isn't cheap and will force Subpart F & G companies to specialise in types like manufacturer franchised car garages.

We look after 25 Pipers or so so the cost of the Avantext system can be split between them. Mooney SBs are available free on line, all Diamond info is available likewise. The cost of Cessna and Socata manuals are ridiculous - even Cessna through Avantext is far more expensive than the Piper stuff. Then there's the CDs for Lycoming and Continental...

If a 'rare to us' type comes to us then the owner purchases the data which we look after whilst the aircraft is under contract to us. If the owner moved away or the aircraft sold, the manuals go with the aircraft/owner.

I was told by my surveyor that the Subpart G part of the organisation must have up to dat data for the aircraft in manages at all times - no sharing between companies. Subpart F must have the appropriate current data when actually working on the aircraft.

As far as the approvals go how come a company at Sturgate got: 'Cirrus single & twin piston engine series below 2730kg' on their Subpart G. Anyone else got the manuals for a Cirrus Twin. Or even a picture of one...?!

Good old EASA!

[Malcom]

My surveyor told me as MG, I need up-to-date manuals for approval issue, but they only need to be kept up-to date if the type is actually being managed.

Nice to see some consistency in applying the rule, isn't it! I chuckled at the twin cirrus too, there one in Lincolnshire as well apparantly. I also wonder how many CAMOs do actually have these books to hand!

As an aside, the FAA have suggested I only need a manual revised to the date of build, and also under the FAA, the lifed items saga is dealt with in a more practical way, so it begs the question is that euro reg cessna 172 any better maintained / safer / cheaper than the N reg one sitting next to it on the ramp here in easa-land? What is easa trying to achieve here?

[NutLoose]

MalcomMy surveyor told me as MG, I need up-to-date manuals for approval issue, but they only need to be kept up-to date if the type is actually being managed.

Nice to see some consistency in applying the rule, isn't it! I chuckled at the twin cirrus too, there one in Lincolnshire as well apparantly. I also wonder how many CAMOs do actually have these books to hand!

As an aside, the FAA have suggested I only need a manual revised to the date of build, and also under the FAA, the lifed items saga is dealt with in a more practical way, so it begs the question is that euro reg cessna 172 any better maintained / safer / cheaper than the N reg one sitting next to it on the ramp here in easa-land? What is easa trying to achieve here? I had an owner call me a while back after some information, he had replaced his Engine his 172, 0r 182 if i remember correctly and wanted to fit a Cylinder head temp system to it, Even though the System has been fitted to many already in Europe and an STC in the USA was in place, because his was a Reims built one he was faced with a Major Mod to add it as the STC was issued for US built models of the Identical Aircraft....

How stupid is that?, I see common sense is still lacking in Europe.

As for the Manuals, that is what I was told as well,

I am afraid the whole shoody system implementation has been left up to individual Surveyors without any real guidence hence the differences, I wanted to add Groups to my approval as I was told by a Chief Surveyor that it was based on your licence coverage and that is what I managed eventually to do, but when you look at some companies approvals it lists every single type of Cessna single made, instead of say Cessna Piston Single Metal below XXXXKG.... That is down to the Surveyors.

Every Man and his Dog has Sia Marchetti SF260 on their approval, I used to maintain one and I would like to see them get one, it would soon make them wince!

[smarthawke]

I remember when Sensenich first brought out the C152 propeller it was only STC'd for Cessna 152s not Reims-Cessna F152s and, IIRC not Aerobats. The Reims problem took sometime for them to get sussed.

I know of one operator who operated a mixed fleets of C152, A152, F152 and FA152. If a Reims machine needed a new prop they had to take a McCauley off an American built machine, put that on the Reims and then fit the Sensenich to the American aircraft!

Even stranger was that when McCauley broke the 152 prop blank for making new ones and gave up making 152 props, if you ordered a new McCauley prop (by McCauley part number) through Cessna, a Sensenich turned up on your doorstep!

PS After seeing the Cirrus Twin on the EAE approval when I was getting aggro from my surveyor about what types (models etc) could go on our approval, I requested he allow us to put on Captain Scarlets' Angel Interceptors as I reckon there was better chance of finding maintenance data for those than a Cirrus Twin......

[Malcom]

I requested he allow us to put on Captain Scarlets' Angel Interceptors as I reckon there was better chance of finding maintenance data for those than a Cirrus Twin......

I've got full assembly instructions for them somewhere, not been updated though.:O

[NutLoose]

Well when the CAA first issued the Engineers guidance document for licencing and gave 2 examples for getting a

Cessna Twin Engined Pressurised Metal Piston Engine Aircraft Group Rating.

And the two examples given in the CAA book of words were the

Cessna 500 ( Citation Jet )

and the

Cessna 441 ( Conquest 2 TurboProp )

I knew nothing would suprise me, so a Cirrus twin is about right. :ok:

[Malcom]

Never mind getting approval to manage a non-existant plane (Twin Cirrus) - anybody can do that it seems:=, what about gaining MG approval for Argentine PA25s that easa have not accepted ? How do you gain one for that when they are outside easa's remit then ?:ugh:

[cessnarepairman]

Just going back to approval of mods under the EASA system, has anyone tried to get a low volts light mod approved lately?

Ive been fitting these things for 20 years. £150 for the light 1-2 hours to fit, £1000 for a company with a design approval to clear a mod. It used to be free with a sketch on the back of an A4 sheet of paper.

Luckily I managed to dig out an old approved mod from way back & used that.

But that is an illustration of how silly things are in EASA land

[jxk]

Came across similar problem re low volt light & EASA, fortunately the CAA surveyor managed to find a way of giving approval just using the drawing which comes with the assembly. Don't know how though!
Do you know if this is still a UK requirement only? Seems strange that the CAA can require the fitment of the LV system when the manufacturer doesn't specify it. Sort of runs contrary to the argument that manufacturer's recommendations (seat belts) must now be satisfied and yet they don't recommend this item.

[cessnarepairman]

As far as I know the low volts loght is still only a UK requirement although they have now dropped the starter warning light requirement.

I first ran foul of this about 4 years ago when I was transfering a Dutch registered Seneca to the UK reg. EASA would not allow us to put in a minor mod for the job but required a major mod because it required a change to the flight manual???. The major mod could only be certified by a design approved company & they wanted to charge us £3000.00 (as a favour because we were good customers!). It was the only way we could get it cleared.

I took EASA to task over this & wrote to M.Goudou (grand fromage) to ask why easa were so strict over a mod which was only a CAA requirement. I can't even remember the reply but it was full of references to EASA rule numbers. Surfice to say it got us nowhere.

A little later they relaxed the rule ie not requiring a major mod, but by this time my customer was £3000 lighter with no chance of a refund.

Who said EASA do not make it up as they go along?.

[Malcom]

the CAA surveyor managed to find a way of giving approval just using the drawing which comes with the assembly.

Please, would you research that a bit more and let us know how it was done - inconsistencies like this can work in our favour if we know the hows and whys and wherefores!

[jxk]

Malcolm

I'll do some behind the scenes research and if possible let you know how it was done, providing it doesn't upset the apple-cart of course.