EASA part M......... Q & A

[vee-tail-1]

IO540 Click on Access our TBM online documents at click here
Then on the page that comes up, under Tech publications status you will see TBM700 TBM850 TB RALLYE
Click on TB and you should see the list of Flight manuals and option to click on ME-MM for maintenance manuals.
Hope it works on your PC as it's ok on mine.

[IO540]

Doesn't work here. That TB link just loads an Excel spreadsheet, listing the manuals in various languages, by part numbers. Are you saying you can download the maintenance manual itself?

[vee-tail-1]

Sorry for the misunderstanding, no, only SBs & SLs are free to download. The list is of maintenance manuals which are available to buy, presumably by subscription to EADS / SOCATA.

[Yankee]

Yes, but the AMC for MA803 states.

1. The pilot–owner should hold a valid pilot license issued or validated by a member state for the aircraft type being maintained.

Now my understanding of that is as the NPPL is issued by the CAA then it should be OK, but the potential CAMO I spoke with is not sure that is how EASA will see it.

A very nice site for getting to grips with part M which is much clearer than the EASA or CAA web site can be found at easyEASA home page, english, EASA part-M regulations in an easier to read format there is a version there incorporating the proposed NPA 2007-8 changes.

[IO540]

OK, Vee-tail, so I thought. The MM is free via socata.org but only in English. It appears that Socata sell the MM otherwise, and I guess they also still sell it via ATP. Very pricey stuff, especially if you are legally obliged to have a current copy, despite the aircraft having left production years previously.

Having said that, I know that much maintenance is done by firms who don't have current MM subscriptions. At the ATP prices, it isn't worth their while.

[EGBKFLYER]

Beware not having up to date MM subscriptions - our surveyor pulled us up for it... And you're right, it is expensive to maintain all those manuals.

[IO540]

Is there a law saying that a maintenance organisation must have its own MM subscription, and must not refer to somebody else's?

I know about the ATP copyright statement but that is a separate issue. Also not everybody uses ATP.

[Yankee]

Whilst talking about MM's if any Grumman AA5 owner wants to know the latest version it's revision 5 dated March 1, 2004. Most if not all out there are revision 4, June 1 1983. If you need a copy send me a PM.

[IO540]

It's similar to Socata. The main MM is c. 1988 unless you have the GT in which case it is 2001. The latest pages I have seen are c. 2005 but they don't contain anything relevant. Production ceased 2002. The requirement for the $1000/year ATP subscription, just to get an exactly identical CD every month, therefore seems silly. And the SBs and ADs can be found separately, at no charge.

As I mentioned. socata.org carries the MM free anyway but the principle applies equally to other, long obsolete, types.

[EGBKFLYER]

There is no law stating the MM must belong to the maintenance organisation, only that up to date data must be accessible and used - M.A. 401

[vee-tail-1]

Regarding MM and Maintenance schedules. In the present French system only the type-specific maintenance programme (which is usually part of the MM) is approved and up-dated by GSAC. The rest of the MM is there for guidance, but is up-dated by the manufacturer not the GSAC (NAA)
I find the most effective way of servicing is with a copy of the parts manual (lots of pictures) and the schedule/programme to hand.
But I guess in the real World where insurers use any excuse not to pay out, an out of date MM might not be good.

[vee-tail-1]

Having opened a pandoras box by suggesting DIY pilot/owner maintenance, the nightmare of someone totally non-tech trying to service an aeroplane comes up.
EASA has not yet properly defined pilot/owner maintenance competance, and that surely needs to be sorted soon. My thoughts are that someone with an engineering qualification, or with proven technical skills would be suitable. Perhaps the LAA maintenance courses would be one way to aquire the skills. As a minimum, the ability to change the brake pads/shoes on a car, and remove/replace an alternator, plus the ability to rewire an electricplug ?? Any thoughts?

[IO540]

IMHO, most maintenance is really easy, and some is pretty hard because it needs special tools or knowledge/techniques.

So I would not remove the prop (a 2 man job anyway) or do anything on the retractable gear.

However, it's perhaps true that the biggest cost savings come not from doing pretty coarse machinery maintenance (like changing the vacuum pump, skinning your fingers in the process) but from doing avionics or electrical work. This work is traditionally very expensive and generally a big hassle, because avionics shops most of all hate doing small jobs, like replacing a single instrument, and don't even return calls if remotely busy unless you are a big regular spender. Also there are not many of them around, especially if you are looking for one with some level of competence.

The savings which can be had from DIY avionics/electrical work are massive. I've just had a vacuum driven AI pack up (a complicated one with a flight director and analog outputs for pitch/roll). This costs an eye watering $11k (mail order from the USA) but would be billed at something like £8k if bought in the UK. I ordered an exchange refurb one (basically rebuilt to new standard) for $3k, popped it in, got it signed off, and off I go. Otherwise I would have had to hassle a load of avionics shops to see if one can do it, fly there (VFR only of course), and spend a whole day on this job. And not many are keen on installing customer issued kit.

Most avionics shops seem really busy doing £10k refits these days.

Whereas any maintenance firm can change a vacuum pump, or brake pads.

[EGBKFLYER]

IO - none of the jobs you mention would be allowed under the Pilot/ Owner Maintenance list (Appendix VIII in Part M). The possible exception is the avionics box replacement but even that is doubtful:

From Appendix VIII:

30. Removing and replacing self-contained, front instrument panel-mounted navigation and communication devices that employ tray-mounted connectors that connect the unit when the unit is installed into the instrument panel,(excluding automatic flight control systems, transponders, and microwave frequency distance measuring equipment (DME)). The approved unit must be designed to be readily and repeatedly removed and replaced, not require specialist test equipment and pertinent instructions must be provided. Prior to the unit's intended use, an operational check must be performed.

To do anything like you mention would mean having a very friendly relationship with a licenced engineer who would be supervising the work being done directly. If the aircraft is in a controlled environment, the Subpart G organisation managing the aircraft would also have to approve of the work being done by you under the engineer's supervision.

Can't see that being a realistic option for most people and the list of Appendix VIII tasks is really pretty clear.

Vee-tail: You're right about competence not being defined. That's left up to the CAMO to decide at the mo. I have a Masters degree in Engineering and reasonable automotive skills but I wouldn't try even simple jobs on a simple aircraft right now - too much of a minefield without some training input from a professional. I think competence needs to be practically assessed case by case by a LAE.

[vee-tail-1]

Finding a licensed engineer with the appropriate avionics certification privileges is like finding hens teeth! We have a guy who turns up occasionally with loads of test equipment to certify a new installation. He is treated like a god, and like god never answers the telephone!

[vee-tail-1]

As regards competance. It does seem to be a catch 22 situation for many people. If maintenance becomes much more expensive some will give up flying and the engineers will have lost customers & income. But if LAEs take pilots under their wings as "apprentices" and allow them to become competant in some permitted tasks, then surely everyone can win.
It maybe that EASA will formally propose a syllabus for a practical pilots maintenance course, conducted at tech college and with an EU diploma award. They can hardly give pilots DIY privileges without ensuring those same pilots are capable of using them.

[EGBKFLYER]

Such a scheme would be great to see but I fear it will never happen... As you mentioned previously, existing LAA courses may be an equally useful route. t's early days yet - I think we'll see clearer by Jan 2010 when everyone has had an ARC renvewal under the Full weight of EASA rules and approvals.

[IO540]

To do anything like you mention would mean having a very friendly relationship with a licenced engineer

Indeed, and I have that in a few key areas - however most of the work is pretty easy. Most of the "circular" instruments are just four screws and the connector in the back; a monkey can change them. Compared to some of the authorised pilot maintenance items, this job is a piece of cake and very safe.

A few years ago, when I was on G, I looked into what is involved in becoming a LAME. I wonder how hard it is today. The financial benefits are pretty substantial.

[robin]

Such a scheme would be great to see but I fear it will never happen... As you mentioned previously, existing LAA courses may be an equally useful route. t's early days yet - I think we'll see clearer by Jan 2010 when everyone has had an ARC renvewal under the Full weight of EASA rules and approvals.

I'd like to be able to do some of the more basic tasks myself, and have a couple of group members who are reasonable at this sort of thing. They don't have a 'ticket' as such, but have some years of experience in mechanical matters.

The idea that we'd have to do a college course to gain accreditation for work we are already doing (and tasks we'd like to do) is tricky as these seem ony to be for professionals.

I'm hoping for the LAA route but so far this is under-resourced and not covering the subjects we'd want to do. But its early days yet.