EASA Part M NPA - more issues

[Mike Cross]

Whatever happened to the season of goodwill to all men?

EASA's NPA on Part M contains all sorts of buried detail. For a run-down on some of it see the AOPA UK news item here. (http://www.joinaopa.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=297:easa-proposal-to-change-part-m&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=247)

One of the more bizarre proposals is that an FTO in say Florida, wishing to train for the EASA PPL will have to have his (N Reg) aircraft maintained in compliance with Part M.

It will not be possible for an EASA approved FTO to provide training in a foreign registered aircraft within EU territory. This could be interesting for airlines wanting to do type ratings on leased in aircraft.

While we'd be delighted for you to continually look at the AOPA UK site you can subscribe to our news feed if you wish by clicking here. (http://www.aopa.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=1&Itemid=247&format=feed&type=rss) Google Chrome does not support RSS Feeds "out of the box" so if you're using it you may need to install their add-on (https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/nlbjncdgjeocebhnmkbbbdekmmmcbfjd) before you can subscribe.

[IO540]

2010-10 is "old news" now... AOPA needs to wake up a bit quicker :)

It contains some inconsistencies (copy/paste typos) which took only minutes of speed-reading to find (I wonder if the legislators will find them). I see AOPA haven't spotted them yet.

The good news is that foreign regs will have no long term parking restrictions, which sweeps away some half c0cked rules contrived in Denmark and possibly 1 or 2 other "European" countries. Such restrictions don't work anyway. (Well, you could apply them against a plane parked in a museum :) ).

Other good news is that SE ME pistons and SE turboprops will not have any additional maintenance requirements, over their State of Registry requirements (e.g. FAA Part 91).

ME turboprops and jets will have to get a Part M signoff, which in practice will be just a bigger cheque because - in most though not all cases - any company capable of working on these will be EASA 145 anyway. This will upset King Air operators, and will upset the maintenance companies which work on bizjets and which are not EASA 145. These will, I guess, need to enter into an alliance with an EASA 145 company. This is all just a fundraising sham and a nod to the EASA CAMO axe grinders, most of whom work on N-regs already and charge them the full Part M rates, citing "insurance costs" ;) ;) ;)

That's my understanding - feel free to correct me :)

[Malcom]

Who cares - I'm off to Greece to get my Part 66 Helicopter ticket on the current level playing field rule while I still can. Never worked on one, so bit over-qualified perhaps - just like the other guy.

Jammie Dodger anyone?

[IO540]

Enjoy Greece :) :ok:

Not that warm though....

LGKR 151520Z 36004KT 9999 FEW025 SCT080 BKN180 08/M08 Q1010 NOSIG
LGAV 151520Z 01008KT 9999 FEW015 BKN020 BKN060 07/03 Q1012 NOSIG
LGIR 151520Z 20003KT 9999 FEW018 BKN035 15/09 Q1008 NOSIG

[A and C]

Please tell me more, it seems like a good way to fill in some of he gaps in my engineers licence!

[Malcom]

A&C, - http://www.chirp.co.uk/downloads/ATFB/ATFB96.pdf

1st item. EASA level playing field - my lower cheeks.

Please also note its the employers fault if this guy gets employed on the basis of this ticket - nothing to do with anyone else issuing the licence.

IO540, thanks for the weather - I might as well stay here & get a cold! No challenge in getting a cornflake packet licence anyway. I've eaten all the biscuits instead.

[tdbristol]

Write comments back to EASA about this NPA by all means, to point out how poor these proposals are, but time and again EASA has shown contempt for the well-reasoned arguments given against their proposals.

I feel it is absoulely VITAL that all those affected by this - and previous EASA Part M silliness - write to their MEPs and the members of the EU Parliamentary Transport Committee.

There has been plenty of EU lobbying over the "N-reg IR" issue, but I would expect that the MEP Transport committee members and MEPs in general have heard little other criticism of EASA, so may well think it is doing an OK job.
This as we all know could not be further from the truth - but I would expect that the MEPs have little idea how really bad the situation is with EASA.

The MEPs are the only ones who have a reasonable chance of changing the direction of the EASA but it will take a lot more complaints on the basis of the many other EASA mistakes than just from the "N-reg lobby".

Writing to your MEPs on Part M is particularly important, as it should strike a greater chord with MEPs than the N-Reg issue, because Part M is clearly having a destructive effect on the maintenance of European registered aircraft.

If Part M has already caused you or the company you work for inconvenience and cost, tell the MEPs how much and why. And if you think there has been no safety benefit (and the costs are unjustified), point this out.

The link below
Your MEPs | UK Office of the European Parliament (http://www.europarl.org.uk/section/your-meps/your-meps)
allows you to search by UK region and members of the Transport & Tourism committee.

For finding out names of MEPs in other countries click on the link:
Your MEPs : By country and political group (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/expert/groupAndCountry.do?language=EN)
All the countries are listed by their flags. Select 'Advanced search' on the left menu to find who are the members of the Transport & Tourism committee from all countries.

Please, do not leave it to others. It is only by MEPs receiving - in every postbag - yet more letters of complaint about EASA and the detrimental effect EASA's current approach is having on European aviation on many many issues, that we have any chance of changing this.