Whether or not to have a contact with a CAMO (part M subpart G)

[hugh flung_dung]

I'm getting conflicting advice about whether or not it's a good idea to have a contract with a CAMO. What experiences have other owners had? Does anyone here really understand the ins and outs?

HFD

(edited to fix typo in title)

[A and C]

It rather depends if you have access to all the manuals, SB's and AD's for your aircraft and then want to do all the paperwork.

Some owners like to but mostly owners prefer to use a CAMO.

[S-Works]

I use a CAMO but am not under a 'contract' and do not pay any CAMO 'fees'.

There are some who will post on here with eye watering stories of CAMO 'fees' and restrictive contracts...........

[hugh flung_dung]

The maintenance outfit I've been using has given me 2 options: a contract at £400/year for the part M management, or if I self-manage they will charge me £25 to issue each workpack. Another parts 145 & M company has said they don't charge anything for part M management. A much smaller 145 organisation has said it's cheaper and easier for GA maintenance to "operate in an uncontrolled environment and use a 145 organisation that has a relationship with an organisation that will issue the ARC".
I confess to having had my head in the sand over maintenance until now, and have just written the cheques - but I need to understand what my options really are. Is there anything which clearly explains the options? Does "controlled environment" necessarily equate to "contract"?

HFD

[A and C]

The first thing to remember is that no one will do any thing for free and those who say they are not charging a CAMO fee are hiding the cost of the CAMO work in the total bill some how (be it with extra hours or a higher hourly rate).

£400 sounds a not unreasonable CAMO fee as does the £25 per workpack, you can also go down the uncontroled route but on the whole what ever you do it is best to build a relationship with your maintenance providor as it is cheaper in the long run.

What ever way you go make sure that the company you deal with has a number of your type of aircraft on the books, this will keep the costs down.

[S-Works]

You will find that A and C and I will never agree on this one. Probably something to do with him being involved in maintenance.....

A CAMO is doing nothing more than the job they should have been doing in the past but with structure around it. There are many maintenance organisations who have take it as an opportunity to rape the customers for that bit extra forgetting that they are killing the golden goose.

Thankfully there are a number of maintenance companies who prefer the honest approach. I pay nothing more than I did before Part M. I suggest you hunt around for a company that are not going to rape you.

[robin]

I'm not sure that I'd agree with the above posts

The problem is that although the CAMOs are doing what they always did, the separation of roles means that a new company needs to be set up and that costs of gaining approvals need to be funded.

Thanks to the changing requirements and the fact that the CAA rushed its implementation before the rules were set, the CAMOs incurred massive and unnecessary cost whic they are having to recoup from owners.

That said, it is clear that maintaining a CofA aircraft is becoming uneconomic. My a/c is one model adrift from a permit so components are costing between 50% and upwards more for the Form 1 paperwork than an almost identical aircraft. Some components are not available at all.

We having been holding on for the Part M lite or ELA1 but as with all things Euopean/CAA it has been delayed indefinitely.

Personally I would recommend avoiding signing up with a CAMO for as long as possible. Once signed up you are in the hands of an organisation with a vested interest in ripping you off and you have absolutely no defence.

If they say something needs to be done, it gets done and at the facility the CAMO specifies (usually somewhere they control. My CAMO has just said that at annual, the aircraft will go to one of their subsidiaries for maintenance that I've been told is not necessary at the moment.

Consequently we are moving to a new facility but this will incur the cost of the 'back to birth' inspection

Nice one CAA

[IO540]

That said, it is clear that maintaining a CofA aircraft is becoming uneconomic. My a/c is one model adrift from a permit so components are costing between 50% and upwards more for the Form 1 paperwork than an almost identical aircraft. Some components are not available at all.

You don't need a Form 1 for parts for a CofA private plane. Any documentation showing batch traceability is OK. The FAA 8130-3 is a popular option.

[A and C]

As usual BOSE-X is using hype to push his opinion of how things work but he fails to see that some one has to pay for the CAMO thing that EASA have forced on the industry.

I very much doubt if he has ever got his paperwork done for free, in the past the paperwork cost was hidden in the bill for labour.

With the advent of EASA part M things have become clearer in the fact that you can see what the CAMO is charging you. CAMO fees have reflected the costs of the set up of the new paperwork trail and the staff that have to be employed to do the work and now the system is up and running fees are leveling out if not falling a little.

The bottom line is that any one who works on the Bose-X business plan will not be in business for very long or is cutting corners with something.

As bose-X says I have a vested interest as I am part of a maintenance company, the company has been in business for 38 years and if I took the bose-x business plan at face value I doubt if the company would see year 40!

I just can't see Robin's idea that we have a vested interest in ripping people off, however if something has a life emposed apon it by the manufacturer the we have to change that part no matter how stupid that might seem after all how do I tell the CAA (EASA) that I have just chosen to extend the life of a part? Even worse if that aircraft has an accident that is unconnected with that part I have "life extended" the lawers for the depedants of the dead will be all over me for negligence. The big problem with these forums is that people fail to see that each time an engineer puts his name to a CRS he puts his life, house and fredom on the line if he fails to do the job properly.

No one in GA maintenance is getting rich, I only wish I was making 10% of the money that Bose-X thinks I make, but perhaps we should just take up the offer to cover the airfield in solar panels and sod off to a villa in the south of France.........