CAMO

[146fixer]

Out of interest or call it market research what are the owners of C of A aircraft doing with regard to continued airworthiness management of their aircraft. What I'm interested in knowing are owners who have the aircraft managed by a CAMO feel they are tied in to their CAMO's maintenance company as well or are they happy to shop around for their maintenance.I only ask as I'm thinking of starting an aircraft management company with subpart G approval. If the consensus of opinion is that its better for your CAMO and maintenance company to be under one roof then I will revise my plans

[jxk]

I think most people with Cessna 172, PA28 type aircraft choose to manage their own maintnance. Larger aircraft with the possibility of public transport type operation probably elect to have their aircraft managed by a CAMO.
In the early days quite a few people registered to start a Part G as this was a shuffling paper operation.
In my opinion I would opt for a co-located Part G & F as this is probably cheaper option for an owner..

[146fixer]

Hi JXK so what your say is after the initial rush when subpart G was launched owners are now managing their aircraft them selfs.So these aircraft are being maintained outside the controlled environment and are requiring their ARC's to be issued yearly by the CAA or a CAMO.Isnt the ARC fee's every year a bit of a pain.

[robin]

Really?

As far as I know most engineers seem to be tied to CAMos. I certainly am not on a position to take on that role

[DeltaV]

Isnt the ARC fee's every year a bit of a pain.
Yes it is.

[Ultranomad]

I'm operating a G-reg aircraft from a home base in Czech Republic, so my CAMO is in the UK and the maintenance facility is here in Prague.

[jxk]

Hi JXK so what your say is after the initial rush when subpart G was launched owners are now managing their aircraft them selfs.So these aircraft are being maintained outside the controlled environment and are requiring their ARC's to be issued yearly by the CAA or a CAMO.Isnt the ARC fee's every year a bit of a pain. Correct - Owners keep their logbooks up together and at the specified maintenance times contact their MO to schedule the necessary work. A part G organisation with sub part I can then issue the ARC after the part F has done the work.

In the case of a MO with both G & F the whole operation is synchronised and there doesn't have to be 2 way communication between the different organisations.

[A and C]

I think that JXK is a bit wide of the mark, some technically adept owners may manage their own maintenance but most dont have the time of or
technical knowlage to do so and so have a CAMO to do this for them.

I doubt of there is the demand in the market in the UK for another independent CAMO.

[vee-tail-1]

For my simple single engine EASA aircraft I managed to get the cost of part M as low as possible:
I follow the approved maintenance programme as my own CAMO, then as the owner carry out and release all maintenance tasks permitted under annex VIII. (Pretty well all the work required for 50 hr checks and annuals)
Any other maintenance which I carry out has to be supervised and released by a LAE. This guy issues the ARC each year, gets a fee for supervising my maintenance, and admits that it's not a problem since my in depth knowledge of the aircraft is considerably greater than his.
Constructive interpretation of the regulations helps reduce costs.
Essential however to be able to work on your aircraft where it is hangared ... any restrictions on DIY maintenance by airfield owners is a no no & should be challenged.

[Dg800]

Isnt the ARC fee's every year a bit of a pain. Isn't every fee, by definition, a pain in the proverbial? :E
Seriously, it all comes down to whether operating within the requirements of a managed environment is too much of a hassle, making the yearly renewal the most attractive option. I guess also many owners would feel a bit uneasy about having their aircraft inspected by qualified personnel only once every three years.

I wouldn't be happy with it myself and prefer to have it fully inspected every year, like I've always done before the whole CAMO thingy started, and I only fly a relatively simple self-launcher.

Ciao,

Dg800

[146fixer]

Thanks for the replays guys. At present I'm working on business jets and most of our customers only come to us for maintenance and not our CAMO services.This pretty much gives them the flexibility to get the best deals on their maintenance.
Having an independent CAMO gives you the flexibility to find a maintenance provider that gives you the best price or turn around time. Also you can have the flexibility described by vee tail and ultranomad.
This is all good feedback as getting the subpart G approval isn't a cheap process

[Sam Rutherford]

... any more feedback on experiences with CAMO?

New to the whole subject (just gone from N to F) and struggling to work out what the options are (let alone which to choose). :sad:

Fly safe, Sam.

[Bob Upanddown]

In my humble experience, most light GA owners in the UK hand their aircraft to the maintenance company on the airfield where they are based for both maintenance and CAMO services.

I believe EASA did not think it would be this way but envisaged the CAMO system would work in the way it does for light jets for all aircraft. I know people who looked at offering stand-alone CAMO services to to light GA maintenance companies and owners but, in the end, every man and his dog applied for Part M Subpart G to get the "Subpart I" privilege to issue ARCs.
What UK is left with is a system almost as it used to be. Before Part M light aircraft engineers were approved to make a recommendation to the CAA to renew a C of A for another 3 years. All the CAA have done is give those same people the privilege to issue ARC's.

As in the old days, when an owner takes his aircraft somewhere else for maintenance, the log books follow to go into the office of the maintenance company. I know very few owners who, like me, keep their log books themselves (which is why so many aircraft have incomplete history because log books fail to be transferred, 8130s and Form 1s are lost.....) and even fewer who are competent enough to understand what is required.

The answer is, in UK anyway, to take your aircraft to the maintenance company and they will either be the CAMO or the ARC will be issued by them.

[Silvaire1]

I know very few owners who, like me, keep their log books themselves (which is why so many aircraft have incomplete history because log books fail to be transferred, 8130s and Form 1s are lost.....) and even fewer who are competent enough to understand what is required.

Not my experience. In the US, owners of light aircraft create no 'Approved Maintenance Plan' for their aircraft and there are no CAMOs, either... Nobody would have the foggiest concept of why either is necessary, and instead they get involved with their aircraft, getting stuff done as needed in real time. Everybody keeps their own logbooks - I get very nervous if for some reason a mechanic wants to hold mine overnight, although with trusted people I have done it.

[Bob Upanddown]

Silvaire, I agree with everything you say.
I don't agree with the way things are happening here, just saying the way I see it is.
I visited the offices of a maintenance company that had closed down a while ago. You would not believe the number of aircraft log books still in the office that no-one had bothered to claim. Some were probably from aircraft that the maintenance firm hadn't maintained for years but the books had been left and forgotten.

[stevelup]

In the US...

Which, unless we all up sticks and move there, is not relevant!

[maxred]

That would then make those aeroplanes next to worthless. No logs, no value.:E

I come down hard on the maintenance business, due to my experience of aircraft ownership.

My experience is of a system, where a lot of the participants, do not have a clue about what they are required to do. Call it CAMO, call it part M sub group xxx, call it ARC. They just do not know.

The log book, is the written history and evidence of work completed on the particular aircraft. The maintenance manual gives the operator the required guidance, and recommendations, to maintain and keep airworthy their product, which in turn dissolves them of any legal responsibility if it all goes wrong due to a proven maintenance issue.

When A/D'S and SB's are issued, it is then the owner/operators responsibility to make sure these are complied with, and then recorded in the log books. Without that, the asset has little or no value.

Now my experience is of Part M companies, with CAMO priviliges, releasing aircraft back into service, without a diligent check having been completed on logs, without a diligent check being done on past and current AD/SB, and in some cases, without work that was requested, and or stated in the maintenance manual, actually having been done, but certainly being invoiced. The relevent regulator, in this case the CAA, blames the owner/operator when an MOR is raised.

So, why bother with a CAMO, why bother with even with an ARC?? The sooner, and it will probably never happen, the system releases the operator, to have full responsibility, as with the FAA system, the more confident I would be in the UK maintenance system.

Until then, we continue to live with a pretty poor state of aircraft maintenance and compliance within the UK.

And that, I am aware, is a generalisation.

[Bob Upanddown]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silvaire1
In the US...
Which, unless we all up sticks and move there, is not relevant!

It is very relevant as the US system has been working for 100 years or so. EASA has been around a few years but, for light aviation, doesn't work.


I come down hard on the maintenance business, due to my experience of aircraft ownership.

Why?? Log books are abandoned by the owners, not the maintenance organisation.
EASA was forced on the maintenance firms, the old system worked OK. EASA forces us to comply with the Cessna SIDS, forces us to follow the manufacturers "recommended" maintenance program.
Yes, there are some really crap maintenance outfits but EASA has disguised them under a mountain of paperwork so the crap ones can look good and the good ones look ordinary covered in the same paperwork.

The US system works. It isn't perfect (even they lie about AD's being complied with when they haven't) but it looks after most of the world's aircraft.

[stevelup]

It is very relevant as the US system has been working for 100 years or so. EASA has been around a few years but, for light aviation, doesn't work.

I think you're looking at things through rose tinted spectacles. The arrangements in the UK have never been as enlightened as the US, even before EASA.

[maxred]

Why?? Log books are abandoned by the owners, not the maintenance organisation

I think you misunderstood slightly. I was not referring to log books, I was referring to the whole EASA maintenance set up, and the companies that operate within that system. Of course log books are the owners responsibility. As I stated, without them the asset is virtually worthless.

I agree with you that under the EASA system veil, many poorer operators, are protected by the system, whilst genuine, honest maintenance companies, mop up after them.. But that is poor regulation and oversight, in my opinion.

[Silvaire1]

It is very relevant as the US system has been working for 100 years or so. EASA has been around a few years but, for light aviation, doesn't work.

Another point would be that the FAA system applies to all FAA registered aircraft, including all those operating outside the US. Moving house is not required ;)

I think a basic reason for the difference in law is that the US has an ownership based aviation culture. Some people certainly rent, but it is considered a stepping stone to a greater expectation of aircraft sole ownership. People tend to take take better care of their own property, and moreover they expect to be left alone to do it. That's just my generalized observation and point of view though.

[ericferret]

I find myself in the odd position of being a huge fan of the new system.

Under the old sytem our aircraft was often grounded for weeks for the tri-annual C of A.

Now I feel I have more control and the three annual ARC renewels take up less accumulated time than the C of A. While more expensive (not much) I prefer to have an aircraft to fly rather than one sat in a hangar.