EASA approvals
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
From: UK
EASA approvals
My CAA surveyor tells me that the implementation date for EASA sub part F & G approvals has been extended from 28th Sept 2008 to 28th Sept 2009.
Does this mean GA maintenance companies are reluctant to comply (bearing in mind it is an expensive & pointless waste of time).
I would be interested to know what others think.
Pete.
Does this mean GA maintenance companies are reluctant to comply (bearing in mind it is an expensive & pointless waste of time).
I would be interested to know what others think.
Pete.
Pilots' Pal
Joined: Nov 1998
Posts: 1,158
Likes: 0
From: USA
I heard a rumour of this - but nothing official - while delivering a course for the CAA a few weeks ago. Apparently it has more to do with Subpart G issues (like the ARC) affecting non-commercial <2730 kg. NPA 2007-8 has already proposed changes to some of the requirements that were quite onerous compared with old national requirements. It is still in an extended CRD so wait and see.
Gizajob
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
From: uk
I'm helping two GA engineering companies to get Part F and G approvals.
At present, one company has got G and we're carrying on with the other applications, albeit on a longer timescale. That's because it appears that although we won't be using the approvals in anger before Sept 09, we may still have to pay the renewal fees next April!!! Thank you CAA.
I've been advised that it's worth carrying on with the process for now because the surveyors are trying to spread out applications to avoid a last-minute rush. I'm aiming to get to a stage where manuals are approved and audits have been completed, with just the Form 14 to go, at a stage where we will actually use the approval we're paying for (say to get approved by mid-09).
As usual with European legislation, Part M seems to be a half-finished, bureaucratic monster that is relying on the end-users to sort it out while paying for it and attempting to run around finding the ever-changing position of the goalposts. Not impressed.
At present, one company has got G and we're carrying on with the other applications, albeit on a longer timescale. That's because it appears that although we won't be using the approvals in anger before Sept 09, we may still have to pay the renewal fees next April!!! Thank you CAA.
I've been advised that it's worth carrying on with the process for now because the surveyors are trying to spread out applications to avoid a last-minute rush. I'm aiming to get to a stage where manuals are approved and audits have been completed, with just the Form 14 to go, at a stage where we will actually use the approval we're paying for (say to get approved by mid-09).
As usual with European legislation, Part M seems to be a half-finished, bureaucratic monster that is relying on the end-users to sort it out while paying for it and attempting to run around finding the ever-changing position of the goalposts. Not impressed.
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
From: UK
EASA approvals
As I thought, no one is prepared to stick their neck out & go for it because it might all change in the next few months.
I think the beauracrats have been persuaded that there IS a difference between the airline & GA ( Helloooo!), but too late for some who have already decided to throw in the towel.
The trouble with EASA is it is a political animal, the EU commission said you must be open for business on 28th Sept. 2003 they had neither the staff or expertise & are still making it up as they go along.
The CAA, for all its faults , had years of experience behind it, you cannot replace it with an untried & tested system, it's no way to manage aircraft safety.
Whilst I'm on the rant, another thing. I calculated my company approval fees would be about 250% more than they are at the moment with the CAA. I wrote to my MEP & told him, he asked a question in the EU parliament & had a reply from the deputy commissioner no less. The gist was that these fees fund the certification operations of EASA, the shortfall was covered by community subsidy. By 2008 however it will (should) be funded entirely by fees.
My question is, how come the CAA could fund itself & make a 7%? profit (written into its constitution) without subsidy yet EASA has to charge over double with no mention of profit.
Even if it did make a profit we would not know because our dear EU commission is run like the politburo ( an MEP's words not mine), has not been audited for over 10 years.
Pete.
I think the beauracrats have been persuaded that there IS a difference between the airline & GA ( Helloooo!), but too late for some who have already decided to throw in the towel.
The trouble with EASA is it is a political animal, the EU commission said you must be open for business on 28th Sept. 2003 they had neither the staff or expertise & are still making it up as they go along.
The CAA, for all its faults , had years of experience behind it, you cannot replace it with an untried & tested system, it's no way to manage aircraft safety.
Whilst I'm on the rant, another thing. I calculated my company approval fees would be about 250% more than they are at the moment with the CAA. I wrote to my MEP & told him, he asked a question in the EU parliament & had a reply from the deputy commissioner no less. The gist was that these fees fund the certification operations of EASA, the shortfall was covered by community subsidy. By 2008 however it will (should) be funded entirely by fees.
My question is, how come the CAA could fund itself & make a 7%? profit (written into its constitution) without subsidy yet EASA has to charge over double with no mention of profit.
Even if it did make a profit we would not know because our dear EU commission is run like the politburo ( an MEP's words not mine), has not been audited for over 10 years.
Pete.
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
From: Milton Keynes-on-sea
EASA Approvals
I have been asked if I'm interested in the CAME system for owner/operators in respect of repesenting them in respect of their maintenance obligations to the 145 maintenance operation. It's all laid out in the AppII to M.A201(h)
I cant find anything that details the technical qualifications/requirements to be able to do this work. Surely one would have to have some sort of CAA 'approval' for this position? You certainly have to if its an AOC operation.
Can anybody advise me on this please?
I cant find anything that details the technical qualifications/requirements to be able to do this work. Surely one would have to have some sort of CAA 'approval' for this position? You certainly have to if its an AOC operation.
Can anybody advise me on this please?
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
From: UK
You will need an EASA Sub part G approval. This will enable you to carry out CAMO for owners who are contracted to you. (all EASA aircraft will have to be contracted to an EASA Sub part G CAMO by 28-09-09).
As far as I understand (as I say, they make it up as they go along) you do not have to be an approved maintenance organisation (part 145 or Subpart f) to hold one of these. But I suppose you will have to demonstrate that you have all the required literature, maintenance manuals & the like, to support the types which are contracted to you.
As far as I understand (as I say, they make it up as they go along) you do not have to be an approved maintenance organisation (part 145 or Subpart f) to hold one of these. But I suppose you will have to demonstrate that you have all the required literature, maintenance manuals & the like, to support the types which are contracted to you.
Last edited by cessnarepairman; 19th June 2008 at 19:18.
Pilots' Pal
Joined: Nov 1998
Posts: 1,158
Likes: 0
From: USA
Part M Subpart G lays out the requirements for a CAMO. AOCs have to have one, owners (non-commercial and non-"large") can have one or standalones exist to which AOCs can sub-contract some tasks and non-AOCs can contract entirely.
Have a read of EASA Opinion 02/2008; this outlines some changes that will affect non-commercial, non-large owners.
When I say non-large, I mean <5700 kg or not twin helicopters. I'm confusing myself. Opinion 02/2008 seeks - at behest of UK CAA - to redefine large aircraft as complex motor-powered aircraft.
Have a read of EASA Opinion 02/2008; this outlines some changes that will affect non-commercial, non-large owners.
When I say non-large, I mean <5700 kg or not twin helicopters. I'm confusing myself. Opinion 02/2008 seeks - at behest of UK CAA - to redefine large aircraft as complex motor-powered aircraft.
