A total rip off
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: sandyland
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A total rip off
Has anyone else been subjected to an invoice for "Continued Airworthy Management Services" ? This unannounced invoice in respect of a Public Cat. PA28 that only one month ago had an invoice of over £4000 for its annual, arrived in the post today. No warning just pay £460 for allowing us, the maintenance organisation, to carryout works through the year on your aircraft, for which of course you will be invoiced additionally and seperately!!! Has the world of light aviation gone completely mad, are the authorities with their new maintenance contracts encouraging what is without doubt a total rip off. Am I alone in thinking the time is near when it will just be too costly to own an aircraft that has been subjected to constant care and attention over past years, is it time to cut and run?
The invoice states the following are the maintenance organisations responsibilities and for these they are demanding £400 (convenient lump figure) plus VAT total £460 The narrative states "To carry out continued airworthy management for the period 15/5/09 to 14/5/10".
It is worthy of note that since the 15th of May I have paid the organisation £3614 plus a further £130 for the radio work on the aircraft and am mindful that a check is shortly due, the average cost of which is normally around £500.
Justification for the "bolt from the blue" is given as below
1 Aircraft to be within the scope of approval . 2 Organisation to apply all the requirements for continuing airworthiness. 3 Aircraft to be maintained to lamp and provide a copy to owner. 4 To advise the owner when maintenance is due. 5 To comply with all airworthy directives and service bulletins. 6 Rectify all defects reported by owner or discovered during maintenance. 7 Comply with requirements of Life Limited parts or inspections of component parts. 8 Maintain all technical records, log books and worksheets. 9 Comply with EASA part 21 in respect of modifications and repairs. 10 Inform the CAA when aircraft is not presented for the required scheduled maintenance or if the contracted arrangement is not respected. 11 Comply with CAP 393 in respect of reportable occurences. 12 Carry out airworthiness review of craft and its records and issue ARC with copy to CAA. 13 Advise CAA whenever the arrangement is denounced by either party.
I feel most folk will agree that 99% of this list is the format against which all aircraft servicing has been handled for the past God knows how many years. It is of course listed as a justification for the presentation of an invoice that requires no additional input from the maintenance company outside of their normal remit when servicing aircraft.
The invoice states the following are the maintenance organisations responsibilities and for these they are demanding £400 (convenient lump figure) plus VAT total £460 The narrative states "To carry out continued airworthy management for the period 15/5/09 to 14/5/10".
It is worthy of note that since the 15th of May I have paid the organisation £3614 plus a further £130 for the radio work on the aircraft and am mindful that a check is shortly due, the average cost of which is normally around £500.
Justification for the "bolt from the blue" is given as below
1 Aircraft to be within the scope of approval . 2 Organisation to apply all the requirements for continuing airworthiness. 3 Aircraft to be maintained to lamp and provide a copy to owner. 4 To advise the owner when maintenance is due. 5 To comply with all airworthy directives and service bulletins. 6 Rectify all defects reported by owner or discovered during maintenance. 7 Comply with requirements of Life Limited parts or inspections of component parts. 8 Maintain all technical records, log books and worksheets. 9 Comply with EASA part 21 in respect of modifications and repairs. 10 Inform the CAA when aircraft is not presented for the required scheduled maintenance or if the contracted arrangement is not respected. 11 Comply with CAP 393 in respect of reportable occurences. 12 Carry out airworthiness review of craft and its records and issue ARC with copy to CAA. 13 Advise CAA whenever the arrangement is denounced by either party.
I feel most folk will agree that 99% of this list is the format against which all aircraft servicing has been handled for the past God knows how many years. It is of course listed as a justification for the presentation of an invoice that requires no additional input from the maintenance company outside of their normal remit when servicing aircraft.
Last edited by thesandfly; 31st Jul 2009 at 22:42.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Kent, UK
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am assuming that it is a typo that the agreement runs for minus 1 day, and is actually for 12 months. So the amount payable equals £33.33 per month, a not unreasonable amount for you to retain their services for.
Would you rather have it that every bill had 5% or whatever added? Much more transparent to pay a known fee so the maintenance organisation can cover the costs of the new legislation.
I do think that they should have discussed this with you in advance, so you knew what it covered and why it was being charged.
Would you rather have it that every bill had 5% or whatever added? Much more transparent to pay a known fee so the maintenance organisation can cover the costs of the new legislation.
I do think that they should have discussed this with you in advance, so you knew what it covered and why it was being charged.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last week I had to build a new exhaust system for my LAA Permit, self maintained bug squasher, £20, utterly shocking.
Sorry, couldn't help it.
Sorry, couldn't help it.
Last edited by Crash one; 31st Jul 2009 at 16:28.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the amount payable equals £33.33 per month, a not unreasonable amount for you to retain their services for.
Would you rather have it that every bill had 5% or whatever added? Much more transparent to pay a known fee so the maintenance organisation can cover the costs of the new legislation.
I do think that they should have discussed this with you in advance, so you knew what it covered and why it was being charged.
Would you rather have it that every bill had 5% or whatever added? Much more transparent to pay a known fee so the maintenance organisation can cover the costs of the new legislation.
I do think that they should have discussed this with you in advance, so you knew what it covered and why it was being charged.
Ours is going to be around £800 per year.
I'm a bit torn on the subject. On the one hand this is £800 per year extra for doing something they were already doing. They are asking me to send them my flight hours so that they can write and tell me when to book in for the 50 hour - pointless stuff.
ON the other hand, they have, thanks to Part M, had to lay out wadges of cash to the Belgrano for approvals - when even the Belgrano didn't know how to issue them - and to employ more staff for the paperwork. They have to find a new revenue stream for this investment.
So don't blame your CAMO - blame the CAA's interpretation and early implementation of half-*rsed legislation.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: MIA
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bear in mind that you have the option of doing the maintenance management yourself and avoiding the CAMO cost. However, if you do, then you will need to get an airworthiness review done every year instead of every three years. Neverthleless, for owners that are prepared to do the maintenance management themselves this 'uncontrolled' environment may be a better deal.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Pembrokeshire UK
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If your aircraft is an ELA1 type in the uncontrolled environment then the ARC has to be done by a CAMO every three years. With two extensions by a part 66 engineer.
Part M works like this:
Sub part F wields the spanners & spare parts,doing the actual and real work on the aircraft.
Sub part G wields a pen and manages paperwork relating to ADs, SBs, life limited items, maintenance manual, logbooks, contracts with owners, and fees for work that has no real safety value whatsoever.
Sub part I checks the paperwork done by sub part G and generates it's own pile of new paperwork including fees for owners.
The CAA charge all of them fees for doing the paperwork, and fees for giving them approval to do the paperwork. The CAA also generate their own paperwork which they require all the other organisations to use, and of course the CAA charge them all a fee for using the paperwork which it has generated.
this system stinks!
Part M works like this:
Sub part F wields the spanners & spare parts,doing the actual and real work on the aircraft.
Sub part G wields a pen and manages paperwork relating to ADs, SBs, life limited items, maintenance manual, logbooks, contracts with owners, and fees for work that has no real safety value whatsoever.
Sub part I checks the paperwork done by sub part G and generates it's own pile of new paperwork including fees for owners.
The CAA charge all of them fees for doing the paperwork, and fees for giving them approval to do the paperwork. The CAA also generate their own paperwork which they require all the other organisations to use, and of course the CAA charge them all a fee for using the paperwork which it has generated.
this system stinks!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My advice is to shop around for a CAMO that isn't ripping you off.
We are simply dividing the increased cost of maintaining our Part M approvals (over that of the previous M3) and increased required maintenance data between our customers. Our CAMO fee charge is set at £200 per year with the maintenance same as before: Star Annual (ARC issue) followed by two Annuals (ARC revalidation), then it's back to a Star Annual etc.
As has been said, we aren't actually doing much more than we ever did (few extra sheets of paper to fill out) but the approvals do cost more. We don't need any more staff - loads of overtime setting up the approvals initially and getting to grips with the new paperwork, but next year should be much easier.
The maintenance company will be JAR145 or Part M Subpart F - they do the actual work, the CAMO is a Part M Subpart G organisation (with 'I privileges' if they can issue ARCs in house). The Subpart F and G organisations may be the same company or they may be different ones.
We are simply dividing the increased cost of maintaining our Part M approvals (over that of the previous M3) and increased required maintenance data between our customers. Our CAMO fee charge is set at £200 per year with the maintenance same as before: Star Annual (ARC issue) followed by two Annuals (ARC revalidation), then it's back to a Star Annual etc.
As has been said, we aren't actually doing much more than we ever did (few extra sheets of paper to fill out) but the approvals do cost more. We don't need any more staff - loads of overtime setting up the approvals initially and getting to grips with the new paperwork, but next year should be much easier.
The maintenance company will be JAR145 or Part M Subpart F - they do the actual work, the CAMO is a Part M Subpart G organisation (with 'I privileges' if they can issue ARCs in house). The Subpart F and G organisations may be the same company or they may be different ones.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Cirencester UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the discussion points I had with the EU Commission top aviation people recently was the urgent need for an early (post-implementation) review - by the Commission or an independent body (not EASA) - of Part M.
I pointed out that if this is left too late, there could be little left to review.
Fortunately in the gliding world we have been able to take advantage of the revised version of Part M incorporating the ELA 1 concept, the uncontrolled environment, owner maintenance, volunteer inspectors, use of the BGA set-up, derogations, co-operation from the CAA etc, such that the impact should be less severe than it appears to be in the power flying world. Part M is still by no means perfect for the gliding sector, it was never needed (but was imported into EASA thinking from France, as a solution looking for a problem), and it will certainly need to prove its benefits. In the meantime we are all suffering, some more than others, from the cost escalation generated by the additional bureaucracy, with everyone in the food chain charging their bit. The difference in France is that (a) they have had this sytem for a while - pre EASA (b) they have worked out how to adapt to it economically and made it generally more efficient (c) they have a much more pragmatic approach (d) their cost structures and processes are well tuned (e) they are French.....
The point was taken by the Commission and I shall be followng up after the summer break. We need to continue to hold EASA's feet to the fire on this, as Europe Air Sports began to do in 2004.
DGR
President, Europe Air Sports (which represents light aeroplane owners / pilots as well as glider / balloon / microlight / helicopter owners and pilots etc, in case anyone is in doubt)
I pointed out that if this is left too late, there could be little left to review.
Fortunately in the gliding world we have been able to take advantage of the revised version of Part M incorporating the ELA 1 concept, the uncontrolled environment, owner maintenance, volunteer inspectors, use of the BGA set-up, derogations, co-operation from the CAA etc, such that the impact should be less severe than it appears to be in the power flying world. Part M is still by no means perfect for the gliding sector, it was never needed (but was imported into EASA thinking from France, as a solution looking for a problem), and it will certainly need to prove its benefits. In the meantime we are all suffering, some more than others, from the cost escalation generated by the additional bureaucracy, with everyone in the food chain charging their bit. The difference in France is that (a) they have had this sytem for a while - pre EASA (b) they have worked out how to adapt to it economically and made it generally more efficient (c) they have a much more pragmatic approach (d) their cost structures and processes are well tuned (e) they are French.....
The point was taken by the Commission and I shall be followng up after the summer break. We need to continue to hold EASA's feet to the fire on this, as Europe Air Sports began to do in 2004.
DGR
President, Europe Air Sports (which represents light aeroplane owners / pilots as well as glider / balloon / microlight / helicopter owners and pilots etc, in case anyone is in doubt)
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"bolt from the blue"
another case of head in sand regarding this half arsed part m fiasco?
Surely, as you would have entered into a contract for these camo services the costs would have been presented and agreed prior to signing?
The figures quoted are taking leg lifting to a new level, but we are stuck with it until the CAA change their mind (yet) again.
£800/year for you to tell the camo you've flown 50 hours so they can tell you you need a 50 hour check
Get the maintence manuals and SBs and do it yourself!
The LAE option for ELA1 ARC stuff takes the p*ss too - how many LAEs are going to pay £945 + renewal fees to have the priviledge of doing this for already ungrateful owners? How many "PJs" will it take to recover this cost? Mind you they get infinitely better coverage with all types on licence than a CAMO with specific types for the cost!
Yes, the system stinks.
another case of head in sand regarding this half arsed part m fiasco?
Surely, as you would have entered into a contract for these camo services the costs would have been presented and agreed prior to signing?
The figures quoted are taking leg lifting to a new level, but we are stuck with it until the CAA change their mind (yet) again.
£800/year for you to tell the camo you've flown 50 hours so they can tell you you need a 50 hour check
Get the maintence manuals and SBs and do it yourself!The LAE option for ELA1 ARC stuff takes the p*ss too - how many LAEs are going to pay £945 + renewal fees to have the priviledge of doing this for already ungrateful owners? How many "PJs" will it take to recover this cost? Mind you they get infinitely better coverage with all types on licence than a CAMO with specific types for the cost!
Yes, the system stinks.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: sandyland
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maintenance rip off
M
I did not have my head in the sand but since my maintenance whilst not the cheapest and has ALWAYS INCLUDED 99% of the listing I presented at the start of this thread I had NO IDEA that a charge was on the way and whats more it was never intimated that it would be so!
My invoice is in fact £400, for what I have no true idea. My annual, paid for just over a month ago, included all aspects of the new invoice just as it has for so many years previously. As DR stated along with many others we are being milked and the CAA offer little or no support to an arena of flying that is the birth place of those that keep the wheels of business and vacations oiled. I just hope that EASA is brought to heel before too many of us surrender to the modern day bureaucracy that is crippling all that enjoy flying be they from the training field, the maintenance role or those that like me, just enjoy the pleasure and thrill of flight. DR and those that are fighting for our well being deserve our full support and gratitude.
SF
I did not have my head in the sand but since my maintenance whilst not the cheapest and has ALWAYS INCLUDED 99% of the listing I presented at the start of this thread I had NO IDEA that a charge was on the way and whats more it was never intimated that it would be so!
My invoice is in fact £400, for what I have no true idea. My annual, paid for just over a month ago, included all aspects of the new invoice just as it has for so many years previously. As DR stated along with many others we are being milked and the CAA offer little or no support to an arena of flying that is the birth place of those that keep the wheels of business and vacations oiled. I just hope that EASA is brought to heel before too many of us surrender to the modern day bureaucracy that is crippling all that enjoy flying be they from the training field, the maintenance role or those that like me, just enjoy the pleasure and thrill of flight. DR and those that are fighting for our well being deserve our full support and gratitude.
SF
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, if the charge was not part of the camo discussion, set up and contract, dont pay this unsolicited cost and find another camo who wont lift your leg! (I know, easier said than done, but we owners should do this to ensure camos who try it on are driven away.
Mine has dropped its annual check charge (a bit) and introduced the camo charge (an almost similar bit) so overall its only a little dearer, but I think they are covering a lot of new costs -they need 4 approvals now, when last year one did the same job!
This problem has only arisen because the CAA have jumped feet first into the Part M quagmire, to do what they think is EASAs bidding without any forward planning or risk assessment or thought of the consequences of what is mostly a hobby industry.
Mine has dropped its annual check charge (a bit) and introduced the camo charge (an almost similar bit) so overall its only a little dearer, but I think they are covering a lot of new costs -they need 4 approvals now, when last year one did the same job!
This problem has only arisen because the CAA have jumped feet first into the Part M quagmire, to do what they think is EASAs bidding without any forward planning or risk assessment or thought of the consequences of what is mostly a hobby industry.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Pembrokeshire UK
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
David, as ever many thanks.
One problem of perhaps many that are emerging in part M:
Only five Robin ATLs in UK, so no CAMO has considered it worthwhile to get one on it's approvals list (not enough aircraft to cover the cost). This would make orphans of all Robin ATLs and some other EASA aircraft types. However CAA surveyors are interpreting part M differently, so at least one sub part F & G organisation has approval for ALL Robin aircraft types, and is prepared to recommend an ARC for an ATL. Having obtained approval from the French GSAC for my French registered ATL to have its ARC done here in UK, I contacted the Gloucester based organisation. They in turn registered with the local GSAC office at Lille. So far so good, until GSAC required the Gloucester people to carry out the ARC review according to the French Manual of Specifications for CAMOs (Manuel de specifications de l'organisme de gestion du maintien de la navigabilite MGN) This requires a type-specific maintenance program, as the French do not recognise LAMP. But of course the CAA surveyor requires the aircraft to have been maintained under LAMP in order to recommend an ARC. So stalemate, and the possibility of getting an ARC done in any member state is torpedoed by the CAA's huge approval fees(>£400 per a/c plus docs) & desire to hang onto LAMS / LAMP instead of using type-specific maintenance like everyone else.
I have a feeling that once the French get to grips with part M in September there will be many more anomalies thrown up.
One problem of perhaps many that are emerging in part M:
Only five Robin ATLs in UK, so no CAMO has considered it worthwhile to get one on it's approvals list (not enough aircraft to cover the cost). This would make orphans of all Robin ATLs and some other EASA aircraft types. However CAA surveyors are interpreting part M differently, so at least one sub part F & G organisation has approval for ALL Robin aircraft types, and is prepared to recommend an ARC for an ATL. Having obtained approval from the French GSAC for my French registered ATL to have its ARC done here in UK, I contacted the Gloucester based organisation. They in turn registered with the local GSAC office at Lille. So far so good, until GSAC required the Gloucester people to carry out the ARC review according to the French Manual of Specifications for CAMOs (Manuel de specifications de l'organisme de gestion du maintien de la navigabilite MGN) This requires a type-specific maintenance program, as the French do not recognise LAMP. But of course the CAA surveyor requires the aircraft to have been maintained under LAMP in order to recommend an ARC. So stalemate, and the possibility of getting an ARC done in any member state is torpedoed by the CAA's huge approval fees(>£400 per a/c plus docs) & desire to hang onto LAMS / LAMP instead of using type-specific maintenance like everyone else.
I have a feeling that once the French get to grips with part M in September there will be many more anomalies thrown up.
Last edited by vee-tail-1; 2nd Aug 2009 at 09:57.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who is ripping you off?
Please dont aim your wrath at the wrong target, this Part M has been forced on the Maintenance companys by the CAA (& goverment) who insist that the UK goldplates EU legislation and follows it to the letter.
Someone has to pay for all this extra paper work and approval charges that has been forced on us from on high, the options if you run a maintenance business is to go with the new system and pass the cost on to the customer or to go out of business.
The Maintenance busness is stuck between the CAA who have found a way of charging more for doing less work and the customer who is having to pay for more paperwork that has no benifit whatsoever to him.
Someone has to pay for all this extra paper work and approval charges that has been forced on us from on high, the options if you run a maintenance business is to go with the new system and pass the cost on to the customer or to go out of business.
The Maintenance busness is stuck between the CAA who have found a way of charging more for doing less work and the customer who is having to pay for more paperwork that has no benifit whatsoever to him.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re the Robin ATL: when initially setting up a Subpart F or G organisation, there was no fee for putting any aircraft types on the approval. You only pay for adding a type after gaining the approval.
It would appear no one thought of, the ATL or wanted to put it on their approval when they went for Subpart F or G...
It would appear no one thought of, the ATL or wanted to put it on their approval when they went for Subpart F or G...
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Pembrokeshire UK
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are probably other EASA aircraft types that are in the same situation as the ATL. Personally nothing would please me more than to get my ATL onto an LAA permit because of this part M mess.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Cirencester UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latest from th CAA on Part M:
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/AIRCOM200907.pdf
It doesn't address the approval fees issue, but clarifies other aspects.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/AIRCOM200907.pdf
It doesn't address the approval fees issue, but clarifies other aspects.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: MIA
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by vee-tail-1
If your aircraft is an ELA1 type in the uncontrolled environment then the ARC has to be done by a CAMO every three years. With two extensions by a part 66 engineer.