Overflying a check

[paco]

In Canada, if you are flying when a check runs out you are allowed to complete a flight to a sensible place, that is, not in the middle of nowhere where an engineer cannot get to you.

Leaving aside the argument as to whether the pilot should have checked the hours, sometimes it could happen if you get a real strong headwind. What are the rules in Europe?

[tonytales]

You could get an extension of a check in the USA too. Diversions and re-routings played their part in requiring one. Of course if extensions became too common, your FAA PMI would take an interest. Extensions were a part of the Airline's Approved Maintenance Program.
Certainly at Eastern Air Lines and others I worked for, pilots had no way of knowing the check status of an aircraft. It was not recorded in the aircraft log book but was tracked by the Planning Department who administered it and scheduled checks. Quality Control oversaw it. Flight Crews relied on a current Airworthiness Release in the Aircraft Maintenance logbook as proof the aircraft was serviceable.

[tdracer]

That's a major difference between an MPD required task, and an AD or CMR required task. It's relatively easy to get an extension to a letter check or other MPD required task. If it's an AD or CMR, it's next to impossible and you're going to be AOG.

[Mr @ Spotty M]

Things have changed a little since you retired tdracer.
You can now get variations/extensions to CMR's.
The B787 CMR's are no longer given a Star Rating of 1 or 2 Stars and you can now get variations if needed. :ok:

[yotty]

From a major UK airline. "Variations of up to 10% for a non
-mandatory task can be authorised by Engineering Quality.

Variations of more than 10% for a non
-mandatory task must be authorised by the CAA.
Authorised Maintrol staff can within authorised limits,
grant a Maintenance Period Time variation to ramp

check, daily/weekly checks and life controlled items.

Any variations outside AMP specified limits, or to
a mandatory requirement, may only be granted by the
CAA.
Variations for other operators aircraft that are ma
intained by XX, must be approved by the operator of
that aircraft."

[DaveReidUK]

Certainly at Eastern Air Lines and others I worked for, pilots had no way of knowing the check status of an aircraft.

Ditto for pretty well any airline.

Maybe for a bush operator where the Chief Pilot is Chief Everything Else too ...

[yotty]

Afore mentioned airline has a "next check due sheet" in the Tech Report Part 1 detailing checks that will be required and their NEP. The pilots are well aware of this information.

[Mr @ Spotty M]

I think you will find it is the operators quality that approves the variation to the AMP as they are the CAMO. :ok:

[yotty]

I think you will find it is the operators quality that approves the variation to the AMP as they are the CAMO. :ok: Not wishing to contradict your good self but I found this in our CAMO heirachy section. Amendments require justification similar to AMI amendments and require a proposal detailing the justification.

•For Minor changes the programme is raised in Revision.

•For Major changes the programme is raised in Issue.

•All Revisions or Raise in Issue of the XX AMPs require regulatory authority agreement.

•The proposal to change the AMP is presented at the MTCM, before regulatory authority agreement is sought. :)

[yotty]

None of us are perfect, it happens.
No criticism intended TangoAlphad. :ok:

[tdracer]

Things have changed a little since you retired tdracer.
You can now get variations/extensions to CMR's.
The B787 CMR's are no longer given a Star Rating of 1 or 2 Stars and you can now get variations if needed. :ok:
Thanks for the update - sounds like the regulators had a moment of sanity and did something reasonable.:D
I distinctly remember an operator berating Boeing for CMRs during a 'Working Together Team (WTT) Meeting for the very reason I outlined. Basically said CMRs were a Band-Aid for bad engineering design :sad: But the FAA insisted on CMRs for certain maintenance tasks because they couldn't prevent local authorities from 'escalating' (extending) MPD intervals.

[Mr @ Spotty M]

Yotty you correct in what you are saying, what l was trying to point out that it is the airline quality department and not the engineering quality department that carry out the following.
Any variation under the 10% is approved by them and over 10% is has to be approved by the regulatory authority.
Some airlines have what is referred to as indirect approval, in that they can approve the AMP revision without waiting for the authority to approve it.
Any thing outside of a normal MPD driven revision or a brand new a/c being added within an AMP revision has to be approved by the authority.
You are correct in any AMP revision has to be cleared or as above approved by the airlines QA beforehand and then if required sent to the authority for approval. :ok: