ARC and EASA

[NutLoose]

Robin,
2) How many engineers have actually ceased trading as a result of Part M

I know of 4 Licenced on the Airport I work at alone decided to kick it into touch and stop working on Aircraft as they could get more pay without the grief and heartache of having to jump through another set of hurdles and exams simply to carry on what they had been doing for years....... one or two now work on trains!

[jxk]

A & C

Thanks for reply re oil filter adapters but I've tried just about everywhere to find a suitable one; the only one that will fit and is approved is the firewall mounted Air Wolf, but it's still a tight fit and I don't like the way that the connecting pipes fit. And your right about the Robin HRs they have the same problem.

Vee Tail

The 100 hr check is straight out of the POH and is quite comprehensive; perhaps more so than the 100hr LAMP. However, it was what the manufacturer recommended at the time and I'm curious about whether or how simple it would be to move to this rather than following the LAMP because it is type specific.

[Malcom]

How many engineers have actually ceased trading as a result of Part M

Last years single all encompassing Part 145 approval has blossomed into Part 145,Part M(GI), A8-15, and A8-20, each has its own MOE, audit plan and appropriate fee, just so I can to do the same jobs this year.

Library costs just gone through the roof because of Piper & Avantext, constant earache and backtracking or goal post shifting from owners, EASA, and CAA, I reckon a lot will give it up as a bad job imminently.

[robin]

... so will some of us owners, or we'll move to the Permit route. That should give us a few years before Part M comes to the Annexe II fleet.

[Rod1]

“so will some of us owners, or we'll move to the Permit route.”

Just completed my annual permit renewal. Bits, inspection and LAA paperwork came to about £300 all in and the LAA turned the paperwork around in 2 working days.

Is it true that aircraft which qualify for ELA 1 / EASA permit will have a very light touch Part M with extensive user maintenance and the LAA inspectors signing the work off? The first factory built aircraft conforming to the new rules are just arriving, so it will be interesting to see how it all works.

Rod1

[robin]

Rod1

That may well be true, but remember who implements the legislation and their well-earned reputation for gold-plating....

[vee-tail-1]

The French are sorting it already!
Under the present French system some competent owners of below 5,7 T aircraft can do most of the maintenance and issue a CRS for their work. They must have an approved & personalised type-specific maintenance programme, and sign a declaration of responsibility for the maintenance of their aircraft. However Part M will severely restrict this arrangement, reducing it to the small number of pilot owner permitted tasks list in Part M annex VIII. So to fix this problem owners are being encouraged by GSAC to apply for a restricted part 66 licence under 'grandfather rights' They will not have to sit any exams, but need to provide a declaration of experience relevant to their aircraft and the work done on it. This results in a part 66 licence in category B1/B2 for less than 5,7 tonne aircraft, and restricted to the owners actual aircraft type. Creative interpretation of EASA rules by the GSAC. Could anyone imagine our CAA being as proactively helpful