Part M - CAMO - etc

[S-Works]

Ok, so am sat here trying to get a grip on the EASA stuff.......

If an aircraft holds an EASA CofA and an ARC is it now supposed to be under a CAMO?

An aircraft that had a ARC in April 2008 and the allegedly non expiring CofA expires in April 2009 how do you get the ARC renewed?

[JUST-local]

If it is used for non public transport and under 2730 kgs, it does not need to be in the controlled environment of a camo.

It will however need to have its ARC renewed by a camo with part i (arc renenwal/ extension ability).

If it has been looked after by them for the last 12 months (in controlled environment) they can exend the arc for 12 months.

If it has not they must renew the arc.
All arc processes are similar amount of paperwork to the good old c of a renewal.

All clear as mud and a few changes occured back in December meaning we are not all grounded pending the CAA renewing our arc's!!

When the CAA get the paperwork going, I belive in a month or so the easa class under 1000KG simple aircraft (152's etc.) will be able to avoid camo's and have the work and arc renewed by a part 66 licence holder (with arc renewal ticket). This will be ok for two years then the third year will be done by a camo! sounds aufully like the three year c of a!

If it is a public transport aircraft (on aoc etc. not hire or reward/ flying school) or over 2730 KG or both! then you must be in controlled environment and be under a CAMO with contract etc.

This is only my interpritation of the rules which I have been reading for some time, they have been very slow to come out and the caa web site is not very clear for either owner/ operator or companies doing the work/ approvals for subpart f or g.

So if it is your Cessna 172? (seen in an old post), you take it to your part 145 or part F company who do the annual inspection (and may change lots of lifed items that have been on since new, seatbets etc!) If they are part g as well they will renew your arc as well or may get another company to do it or you could.
Class dismissed

[bookworm]

If it is used for non public transport and under 2730 kgs, it does not need to be in the controlled environment of a camo.

Shouldn't this be "commercial air transportation"? Sounds pedantic, but EASA has a much narrower view of what constitutes "commercial air transportation" than what the CAA classes as "public transport" (which includes rental).

[JUST-local]

bookworm is correct.

They, EASA use the term CAT (commercial air transportation). Was late, again!

Simply operated under an air operators certificate.

[robin]

Typical of the CAA, making changes just after we have been persuaded to sign up to a contract with a CAMO which will cost us around £2500.

[Justiciar]

under 1000KG simple aircraft

What does simple mean? Does this exclude VP/CS prop and retractable gear?

[JUST-local]

Simple or maybe not :-)

The new ELA (European light aircraft) 1 cat:-

A non complex mtom not above 1000kg
hot air balloons not exceeding 3400m3
gas balloons not exceeding 1050 m3
and it goes on about more and more airships etc.

Sure there is more details but I am unsure where they live. anyone?

Don't worry there will be another catogory covering things above 1000 kg for all the 172's, Warriors, bigger Robins etc.

All good but a bit late really

[S-Works]

Thanks for the replies guys. So as my ARC has expired and my engineer is only Part 66 and the company that were doing the ARC stuff have called it a day I am out in the wilderness.

I have to either find an ARC company that will accept my existing engineer or move to another engineering company that will do the work and the ARC?

[peter272]

Hi Bose

I think it might be slighly worse than that.

If understand the rules if the ARC has expired you need to get an engineers and CAA approval to move it to where it can be inspected assuming you don't have facilities on site.

This costs.....

[S-Works]

Yep, the ferry permit side is sorted. It is more the way forward that I am looking at.

At the moment I am considering putting it back on the D reg or the N reg.

[Cows getting bigger]

Bose, have a chat with Brinkleys at Meppershall.

[S-Works]

I have decided to go N reg.

Sorting out a trust now and engineer to issue the CofA.

I fear that under EASA light GA (non permit) is going to be hunted to extinction. Even if I get a few more years out of it on the N Reg it will be worth it.

As a comparison, under EASA I am facing:

Prop Overhaul for a prop that has 700 hours on it from new.
Mag overhauls because they are over 500 hours
Vac pump replacement at 500 hours
Seat belts replacing as they are 10 years
Static lines replacing

None of those items has any problems at all, they all work perfectly on condition. So why do I need to spend nearly £7k to throw perfectly good kit away?

[SergeD]

7k is not soo much. Here http://www.pprune.org/private-flying...000-bonus.html you wrote you would not work for as little as 170,000 GBP. those overhauls you have to do under manufacturer requirements anyway.

[S-Works]

7k is not soo much. Here http://www.pprune.org/private-flying...000-bonus.html you wrote you would not work for as little as 170,000 GBP. those overhauls you have to do under manufacturer requirements anyway.

Not exactly my field of expertise.......

Under FAA those overhauls become on condition items and overhauling a prop at 700hrs is a waste of time and money. Why should I pay out for nothing?

[Justiciar]

non complex

Which means ??

[giloc]

non complex
Which means ??

Complex-motor-powered aircraft is defined in EC 216/2008. In summary it means:

(i) an aeroplane: with a maximum certificated take-off mass exceeding 5,700kg or; certificated for a maximum passenger seating configuration of more than nineteen, or certificated for operation with a minimum crew of at least two pilots, or equipped with (a) turbojet engine (s) or more than one turboprop engine; or

(ii) a helicopter certificated: with a maximum certificated take-off mass exceeding 3,175kg or; for a maximum passenger seating configuration of more than nine or certificated for operation with a minimum crew of at least 2 pilots; or

(iii) a tilt rotor aircraft;

[Justiciar]

That's good, so non-complex still includes vp/ retractable - that makes a huge difference to the GA market

[jxk]

As a comparison, under EASA I am facing:

Prop Overhaul for a prop that has 700 hours on it from new.
Mag overhauls because they are over 500 hours
Vac pump replacement at 500 hours
Seat belts replacing as they are 10 years
Static lines replacing

I believe even under N reg rules all of the above items are still required and it is a US manufacturers specification that demands that they be done. In effect EASA are just implementing what the US manufacturers edict in the first place. It is still within the scope of a part G organisation to extend the life on some of these items although it may not be sensible for them to do so. If your maintenance is based on the LAMP and is an acceptable method of compliance then in some incidences it can give you a little more latitude than working to the manufacturers schedule.
To go back on the N reg should/will require a complete investigation of all your previous maintenance and little things like non standard upholstery will require you to prove that it meets fireproof standards.
Of course if you find a UK based IA who is prepared to overlook some of the above it no different to a dodgy maintenance outfit in the UK.

It would seem to me that the only reason to go on the N reg would be to allow you to fly using an American IR; which would seem a little less daunting to obtain than the UK IR.

[jxk]

If you want to work out your ARC procedure you could try the CAA website below:

Renewals/EASA Transition - Touch It Once | Airworthiness | Safety Regulation

And good luck!

[SergeD]

bosex, is that 700 hours propeler overhaul a 6 year overhaul? Other ways, there is no need to do it.