EASA Certification GR10 Charge - Arrow
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: LONDON
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EASA Certification GR10 Charge - Arrow
My plane a Piper Arrow has completed its annual - on the bill I am being asked for the above with a fee of £1035. I am not sure what it relates to - my plane is with a part M organisation last year went onto an ARC and had an annual to CAA/LAMS/A/1999/2. What is the
fee for and is it excessive???
fee for and is it excessive???
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect that the fee is the one charged by the CAA in place of the old C of A renewal fee.
It was quite a neat trick by the CAA to get the maintenance companys to do all the aircraft paperwork under the new part M that was once the responsability of the CAA for C of A renewal but to still keep charging the aircraft owners for the "service" allbeit with a name change!
As usual non of the money stays in GA !
It was quite a neat trick by the CAA to get the maintenance companys to do all the aircraft paperwork under the new part M that was once the responsability of the CAA for C of A renewal but to still keep charging the aircraft owners for the "service" allbeit with a name change!
As usual non of the money stays in GA !
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You'll need to clarify with your MO, not confused.com!
Assuming its the same GR10 that I know of, (see CAP747), it relates to certification of painting jobs. If that is the case, then that really is taking the p***.
It may possibly include the paint-work task itself, but you dont say the content of the annual, or any paint-job you had.
The Annual should have been done to a specific Maintenance Program or to CAA/LAMP/A/2007/1 for acceptance into the Part M regime. LAMS is deemed not suitable for EASA types. Whilst your in CAP747, see GR15 about this.
The one year ARC fee payable to the CAA will be about £80 for an Arrow.
Definitely get this clarified with the MO.
Assuming its the same GR10 that I know of, (see CAP747), it relates to certification of painting jobs. If that is the case, then that really is taking the p***.
It may possibly include the paint-work task itself, but you dont say the content of the annual, or any paint-job you had.
The Annual should have been done to a specific Maintenance Program or to CAA/LAMP/A/2007/1 for acceptance into the Part M regime. LAMS is deemed not suitable for EASA types. Whilst your in CAP747, see GR15 about this.
The one year ARC fee payable to the CAA will be about £80 for an Arrow.
Definitely get this clarified with the MO.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: LONDON
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks - you note was very helpful and you are indeed correct the plane is in for its annual and has also had a full repsray. I haven't had a bill for the annual hours so I suspect that this Certification is for the repsray not sure why it is so high? Why does it need recerticifcation in such a case anyway?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aha !
Now it makes some sort of sence, I could not think how anyone could charge for GR10 just for an annual check and so went off in the wrong direction.
The extra charges are probably to meet the GR10 requirments of re-weighing the aircraft and the duplicate inspection of the flying controls (refitting & re-rigging).
Now it makes some sort of sence, I could not think how anyone could charge for GR10 just for an annual check and so went off in the wrong direction.
The extra charges are probably to meet the GR10 requirments of re-weighing the aircraft and the duplicate inspection of the flying controls (refitting & re-rigging).
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why does it need recerticifcation in such a case anyway?
Its all in GR10. I dont know how your invoice is worked out, but £1000+ purely for certification is not on.
Dont forget to query the LAMP/LAMS issue - an inappropriate Maintenance Programme will invalidate the C of A / ARC,etc. But then your CAMO would know that already
.(GR15)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Malcom
You are quite right about the £1000+ being exccesive just to cover certification however I whould think this is not the whole picture.
We are now seeing the "Ryanair" style of pricing creeping into aircraft maintenance, one well known flight training company has used this policy for years to get new people locked into the system before they know that better all inclusive deals are avalable .
To make the quote look good the very lowest price is quoted for the major work (in this case the paint job) but look at the small print and you find that other work that is not strictly part of the major work but required is not included but has to be paid for.
The problem is that customers will jump at the lowest price without reading the small print or asking questions, the internet has made all consumers instant experts and is forcing companys who would like to offer a fully inclusive price reluctant to do so because they will undercut by a headline price with a sting in the tail.
This practice is not dishonest (just a bit sharp!) but just like flying with a low cost airline leaves you a bit miffed when you find that the cost city centre to city centre once all the "extra" charges for bags,taxes,busses, check in Ect are included and it becomes apparent that you could have flown to an airport that was near the destination with a "real" airline that offers a quality service for the same inclusive price.
We are now seeing the "Ryanair" style of pricing creeping into aircraft maintenance, one well known flight training company has used this policy for years to get new people locked into the system before they know that better all inclusive deals are avalable .
To make the quote look good the very lowest price is quoted for the major work (in this case the paint job) but look at the small print and you find that other work that is not strictly part of the major work but required is not included but has to be paid for.
The problem is that customers will jump at the lowest price without reading the small print or asking questions, the internet has made all consumers instant experts and is forcing companys who would like to offer a fully inclusive price reluctant to do so because they will undercut by a headline price with a sting in the tail.
This practice is not dishonest (just a bit sharp!) but just like flying with a low cost airline leaves you a bit miffed when you find that the cost city centre to city centre once all the "extra" charges for bags,taxes,busses, check in Ect are included and it becomes apparent that you could have flown to an airport that was near the destination with a "real" airline that offers a quality service for the same inclusive price.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Norwich
Age: 54
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Romydog,
If that's just the MO charge for the engineer's work, re-weigh and logbook 'certification', then you got away lightly: I paid £1,800 + VAT for that when my Warrior II was stripped and re-sprayed in 2006
If that's just the MO charge for the engineer's work, re-weigh and logbook 'certification', then you got away lightly: I paid £1,800 + VAT for that when my Warrior II was stripped and re-sprayed in 2006
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: LONDON
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks spoke to the MO -this was included in the paint job quote which was £7.9k incl vat however the costs for GR10 were all the rigging/engineering labour etc but not a reweigh.
