Part M - Owners and Subpart G/F companies watch out
Gizajob
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: uk
Age: 49
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Part M - Owners and Subpart G/F companies watch out
Dear All
I was getting into the swing of Part M and even thinking it's not so bad - then this...
Subpart G and F organisations are approved by the CAA and have approval certificates which list the scope of the approval. In this case, it's an A2 organisation, which means the scope of approval lists which types we can work on.
Due to my crystal ball being a bit cloudy, I didn't foresee the need to have a particular French type on that list and now there's one that the owners want us to look after. No problem say I - will just have our approval certificate amended to include that type.
No problem say the CAA - that'll be £1380!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Apparently every time you want another type/ group etc adding to the approval, that's the fee. No negotiation. If you're lucky, you can add 2 or three types at the same time for that fee but if it's just one you want, it's the same charge.
The CAA need do no more than ascertain you have the necessary resources to work on that type. In this case, it's another Lycoming-engine GA non-complex single, so how hard will that be?
So here we are - either pay up, make the owners pay up or turn the business away - just fantastic in this climate.
Take this as a warning - if you're an aircraft owner, make sure your maintenance company has your type on their approval certificate. If you're an organisation, put every type you think you might ever need on the application form, or face limiting the business you can do in the future.
Thanks a bunch EASA.
PS I've been back and forth with our surveyor (who has tried his best) and the CAA Approvals Dept. So far there is no option but to pay or turn the business away ultimately.
I was getting into the swing of Part M and even thinking it's not so bad - then this...
Subpart G and F organisations are approved by the CAA and have approval certificates which list the scope of the approval. In this case, it's an A2 organisation, which means the scope of approval lists which types we can work on.
Due to my crystal ball being a bit cloudy, I didn't foresee the need to have a particular French type on that list and now there's one that the owners want us to look after. No problem say I - will just have our approval certificate amended to include that type.
No problem say the CAA - that'll be £1380!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Apparently every time you want another type/ group etc adding to the approval, that's the fee. No negotiation. If you're lucky, you can add 2 or three types at the same time for that fee but if it's just one you want, it's the same charge.
The CAA need do no more than ascertain you have the necessary resources to work on that type. In this case, it's another Lycoming-engine GA non-complex single, so how hard will that be?
So here we are - either pay up, make the owners pay up or turn the business away - just fantastic in this climate.
Take this as a warning - if you're an aircraft owner, make sure your maintenance company has your type on their approval certificate. If you're an organisation, put every type you think you might ever need on the application form, or face limiting the business you can do in the future.
Thanks a bunch EASA.
PS I've been back and forth with our surveyor (who has tried his best) and the CAA Approvals Dept. So far there is no option but to pay or turn the business away ultimately.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We're just completing our Subpart G and F approvals and have been warned about this. The situation already existed for JAR145 companies.
I've had to change my Subpart G CAME from 'Piper Single Engines' to individual models (not even 'PA28 Series') due to different engines (PA28-140, 180, 151, 161, 181, 201 etc etc)
We are still up against a very unlevel playing field with some companies already holding Subpart G approvals for 60+ aircraft types (and a type on one company's list is 'PA28 Series'...!). Bet they really hold up to date maintenance data for all those types that we're being told we now have to have if we want the type on our approval. I've been assured things will change at their next audit.
Still far too much individual CAA airworthiness surveyor interpretation of the rules coming into it.
I've had to change my Subpart G CAME from 'Piper Single Engines' to individual models (not even 'PA28 Series') due to different engines (PA28-140, 180, 151, 161, 181, 201 etc etc)
We are still up against a very unlevel playing field with some companies already holding Subpart G approvals for 60+ aircraft types (and a type on one company's list is 'PA28 Series'...!). Bet they really hold up to date maintenance data for all those types that we're being told we now have to have if we want the type on our approval. I've been assured things will change at their next audit.
Still far too much individual CAA airworthiness surveyor interpretation of the rules coming into it.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SE England
Age: 70
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We've just been contacted by our MO to be told that the CAA are insisting that the maintenance manuals should be on site for our old aircraft. According to the leader of our group the CAA are insisting these manuals have to be in English, although the only versions available are in French or German.
We have contacted EASA and they say there is nothing in the regs to say that the manuals have to be there at all. All that is required is a tailored maintenance programme.
Looks like the old joke
EU Regulations
Drafted in Brussels
Read in Germany
Smiled at by the French
Laughed at by the Italians
and
Gold plated and vigourously enforced by the British
We have contacted EASA and they say there is nothing in the regs to say that the manuals have to be there at all. All that is required is a tailored maintenance programme.
Looks like the old joke
EU Regulations
Drafted in Brussels
Read in Germany
Smiled at by the French
Laughed at by the Italians
and
Gold plated and vigourously enforced by the British
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is it that every time I see the acronym EASA I get a violent headache, depression and want to emigrate?
EU Regulations
Drafted in Brussels
Read in Germany
Smiled at by the French
Laughed at by the Italians
and
Gold plated and vigourously enforced by the British
Drafted in Brussels
Read in Germany
Smiled at by the French
Laughed at by the Italians
and
Gold plated and vigourously enforced by the British
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cilboldentune, Britannia
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have concluded that the CAA don't know anything (zero) about GA or light aircraft and are making a complete mess of the industry. Complain to your politician. What good would that be they don't even understand the economy let alone the aircraft world.
My sympathies to all who are trying to get to grips with Part M.
My sympathies to all who are trying to get to grips with Part M.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was getting into the swing of Part M and even thinking it's not so bad -
Its all downhill from here - last EASA GA company out turn out the light at the end of the tunnel since there is absolutely no future in EASA GA.
No problem say the CAA - that'll be £1380!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now, if the CAA had not jumped the gun and made 5/1/09 the deadline for part m, we could have had another year or two to get a system working that would be to everyones benefit owners/mo/caa. But no, they just had to leap in and f*** it up for everyone, including themselves!
I now need 3 new additional EASA/CAA approvals just to carry on as before, I cant see it being sustainable for very long.
EU Regulations
Drafted in Brussels
Read in Germany
Smiled at by the French
Laughed at by the Italians
and
Gold plated and vigourously enforced by the British
N reg - how tempting is that!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this not going to force more people the "N" registration route. The point has been made in the past the the maintenance costs advantage of the N reg is small. Now that maintenance organisations are going to be forced to pass the huge extra costs of Part M on to their customers the cost benefit must surely be increasing.
I am sure that IO540 could comment on this!
I am sure that IO540 could comment on this!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is that maintenance organisations will spread any extra overhead costs over all their customers - G-reg and N-reg. That is what I have so far found.
Most owners have no option but to use a company, and they all do both G and N.
Only the very few fortunate enough to have a hangar in which they are allowed to do work will be able to get a freelance A&P/IA to do their maintenance. The bigger stuff cannot be done outdoors. I did a 50hr check the other day, wrapped up like an Eskimo, and froze my ***** off in -3C freezing fog
Also the treatment of foreign reg planes in years to come is not known. Some degree of local supervision is likely; this is fine (every decent owner maintains to the regs, and one cannot simply maintain an N-reg to EASA regs because that would probably breach its airworthiness, among other issues) but the big Q is how much somebody is going to charge for the "oversight"
How much does a Subpart F company charge?
Most owners have no option but to use a company, and they all do both G and N.
Only the very few fortunate enough to have a hangar in which they are allowed to do work will be able to get a freelance A&P/IA to do their maintenance. The bigger stuff cannot be done outdoors. I did a 50hr check the other day, wrapped up like an Eskimo, and froze my ***** off in -3C freezing fog
Also the treatment of foreign reg planes in years to come is not known. Some degree of local supervision is likely; this is fine (every decent owner maintains to the regs, and one cannot simply maintain an N-reg to EASA regs because that would probably breach its airworthiness, among other issues) but the big Q is how much somebody is going to charge for the "oversight"
How much does a Subpart F company charge?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'I did a 50hr check the other day, wrapped up like an Eskimo, and froze my ***** off in -3C freezing fog'
Ideal conditions to carry out a proper, thorough inspection of an aircraft. Still saved you some money....
Ideal conditions to carry out a proper, thorough inspection of an aircraft. Still saved you some money....
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ideal conditions to carry out a proper, thorough inspection of an aircraft. Still saved you some money....
).There should be good business in renting out hangar space, for owners who need temporary space for maintenance.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going back to the first post, if APEX/Robin TC approvals are withdrawn/suspended, as may happen if no-one takes them up, and if you have just paid your £1380 to add it to your CAMO approval as an EASA type, will it cost another £1380 to remove it as a non-EASA type?
It is, after all a variation to the approval!
It is, after all a variation to the approval!
Gizajob
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: uk
Age: 49
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Malcolm - I think that either the NZ CAA or EASA would have to take over the TCs if APEX/ Robin lost them - they couldn't just leave them homeless. It's effectively what's been done with the Beagle Pup at the mo. That said, who am I to comment - I believed the CAA would be reasonable about a business trying to expand in the currnt climate...
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EGKB,
I think the Beaglies have limited type support from DHSL, so thats how they qualify for their SAS TC.
If no-one takes up the Robin TCs,there would be no support for them at the end of the month, and that would mean Annex II status? From what I've read, Alpha cant/wont be interested, and if the CAA cant be a design authority surely the DGAC cant be either!
But, as you say - who are we to comment!
I think the Beaglies have limited type support from DHSL, so thats how they qualify for their SAS TC.
If no-one takes up the Robin TCs,there would be no support for them at the end of the month, and that would mean Annex II status? From what I've read, Alpha cant/wont be interested, and if the CAA cant be a design authority surely the DGAC cant be either!
But, as you say - who are we to comment!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No.. but as mentioned elsewhere, the problem with Robins is that so many are in commercial use.
If they need to be used for instruction, for example, and given the size of the fleet they are bound to find someone willing to take it on. Also, M Pellissier is bound to appeal against anyone trying to take his business away from him before the courts have made their decision.
This looks to be a case of brinkmanship which may not be decided for some weeks or even months....
If they need to be used for instruction, for example, and given the size of the fleet they are bound to find someone willing to take it on. Also, M Pellissier is bound to appeal against anyone trying to take his business away from him before the courts have made their decision.
This looks to be a case of brinkmanship which may not be decided for some weeks or even months....