C.A.M.O.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: h.b
Age: 59
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C.A.M.O.
Sorry if this one has already been done to death, but I'm researching the charges made by maintenance organisations for ongoing charges under the C.A.M.O. scheme. As usual, there seem to be wild differences between them.
By the way, I understand that the value of Permit aircraft has increased significantly since the start of the scheme, as owners finally get fed up with the costs involved in running aircraft that require a C of A.
By the way, I understand that the value of Permit aircraft has increased significantly since the start of the scheme, as owners finally get fed up with the costs involved in running aircraft that require a C of A.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“By the way, I understand that the value of Permit aircraft has increased significantly since the start of the scheme, as owners finally get fed up with the costs involved in running aircraft that require a C of A.”
I think it is more a case that C of A aircraft have lost value. The exchange rate has also had an impact on second hand value, with some LAA aircraft being snapped up at “silly money” as the Euro value was more than the perceived £ value so European owners came over to the UK to acquire aircraft.
Rod1
I think it is more a case that C of A aircraft have lost value. The exchange rate has also had an impact on second hand value, with some LAA aircraft being snapped up at “silly money” as the Euro value was more than the perceived £ value so European owners came over to the UK to acquire aircraft.
Rod1
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EASA part M should put your annual maintenance bill up by about £700 if it is being done properly.
This charge it made because of the costs involved with employing one more person (at a small company) to do all the extra paperwork.
This charge it made because of the costs involved with employing one more person (at a small company) to do all the extra paperwork.
Upto The Buffers
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Leeds/Bradford
Age: 48
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really don't understand why people get so upset with the CAMO crap. Just go uncontrolled... the whole thing has barely made a difference to us. Sure, we pick up some slightly elevated costs c/o the additional red tape, but it's nowhere near £700.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: h.b
Age: 59
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Guys, keep it coming! I've spoken to 7 different local organisations. The most expensive is 700 quid a year. Some charge a one off figure for the survey, and then nothing. Some have raised their hourly charge by a few pounds to cover it.
It seems that the smaller the organisation, then the more expensive it is. I run a business which has nothing to do with aircraft ( thank God ) and I'd love to have a system which locked customers into me, I can't imagine them wanting to pay me for it though!
It seems that the smaller the organisation, then the more expensive it is. I run a business which has nothing to do with aircraft ( thank God ) and I'd love to have a system which locked customers into me, I can't imagine them wanting to pay me for it though!
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: THE NORTH
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pilotfa90
You still have more homework to do if you think you are locked in to one maintenance organisation!
The only aircraft (fixed wing) which need to be kept in a controlled environment (locked in as you called it) are above 2730 KG MTOM and those used for commercial air transport such as aircraft operated on an air operators certificate.
So your choice if you are not above 2730 or CAT.
1. Non-controlled evironment which means a full airworthiness review (15b) each year, as there are now pleanty of companies doing this this can be done from £300.00. but like anything I'm sure there will be cheaper!
2. The controlled environment means a full review (15b) then the tasks/ maintenance is controlled (hopefully!) for the next 12 months, due to the controlled status off the aircraft this is extended again after 12 months (15a) the same again after another twelve months. At year three a full review is carried out again, simples!
As stated on here previously, charges vary greatly and some do monthly some annual and some do both!
The views on lifed items and service bulletins also vary greatly between companies, engineers and CAA regional offices!
We all want safe reliable aircraft but none of us want to throw away perfectly good aircraft parts!
You still have more homework to do if you think you are locked in to one maintenance organisation!
The only aircraft (fixed wing) which need to be kept in a controlled environment (locked in as you called it) are above 2730 KG MTOM and those used for commercial air transport such as aircraft operated on an air operators certificate.
So your choice if you are not above 2730 or CAT.
1. Non-controlled evironment which means a full airworthiness review (15b) each year, as there are now pleanty of companies doing this this can be done from £300.00. but like anything I'm sure there will be cheaper!
2. The controlled environment means a full review (15b) then the tasks/ maintenance is controlled (hopefully!) for the next 12 months, due to the controlled status off the aircraft this is extended again after 12 months (15a) the same again after another twelve months. At year three a full review is carried out again, simples!
As stated on here previously, charges vary greatly and some do monthly some annual and some do both!
The views on lifed items and service bulletins also vary greatly between companies, engineers and CAA regional offices!
We all want safe reliable aircraft but none of us want to throw away perfectly good aircraft parts!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: h.b
Age: 59
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
O.K. J.L., I know that I'm not strictly locked into one organisation; but if I decide to go the controlled route then it's a new survey each time I change which is far from ideal. I want to establish a good working relationship with one organisation, but the one that I'm currently with wants to charge me £700 per. year, which is £700 more than the guys down the road who seem to provide an equally good service.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the maintenance manual of my aircraft there is an Overhaul and Replacement list.
Our CAA now says under Part M this list is compulsory and needs to be followed to the letter.
Most of these items were 'on condition' under the national maintenance regime, now changed to EASA Part M.
One owner on the field was quoted 40000€ to carry out all these items, he owns a 40 year old Bonanza.
The page 1 of the schedule reads (capitals as in the original text) :
" All overhaul and replacement times designated herein are but guidelines, NOT MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS. Climatic conditions, maintenance practices, and other factors may either extend or decrease these times. In the final analysis, adjustments in the overhaul and replacement periods should be determined by inspection findings and servicing experience."
if we have to follow the manual to the letter, how much is this worth? I would like to know how these TBO times are interpreted by various national authorities? This is for non-commercial private category SEP aircraft. Under the national regime we had declared most of these items 'on condition'.
I am speaking about landing gear motors, flap motors, landing gearbox, flap actuators, fuel selector valve, fuel boost pump etc. To me, on condition means fix it when it needs to be fixed, be it at 20 hours or 2000 hours.
Our CAA now says under Part M this list is compulsory and needs to be followed to the letter.
Most of these items were 'on condition' under the national maintenance regime, now changed to EASA Part M.
One owner on the field was quoted 40000€ to carry out all these items, he owns a 40 year old Bonanza.
The page 1 of the schedule reads (capitals as in the original text) :
" All overhaul and replacement times designated herein are but guidelines, NOT MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS. Climatic conditions, maintenance practices, and other factors may either extend or decrease these times. In the final analysis, adjustments in the overhaul and replacement periods should be determined by inspection findings and servicing experience."
if we have to follow the manual to the letter, how much is this worth? I would like to know how these TBO times are interpreted by various national authorities? This is for non-commercial private category SEP aircraft. Under the national regime we had declared most of these items 'on condition'.
I am speaking about landing gear motors, flap motors, landing gearbox, flap actuators, fuel selector valve, fuel boost pump etc. To me, on condition means fix it when it needs to be fixed, be it at 20 hours or 2000 hours.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CAA over a number of years made it clear that the pricing policy was to make the 'controlled environment' cheaper than 'controlled'.
By staying 'controlled' the annual revisit of airworthiness would be minised, so it was equivalent to the old Star - Annual - Annual - Star.
But what actually happened was that there is no benefit. The annual charge equates to the annual review, but by then many of us had signed to to a 3/4-year contract.
Worse, the CAMOs have different views of what they are doing. Ours have told us what we need to do (go to one of their subsidiaries) and when - no discussion. I've had 2 licenced engineers contradict our CAMO's view, but they won't listen, and I can't find another CAMO to take us on. So I'm stuffed. I either do what they say and get the ARC renewed, or I have a worthless pile of metal.
There was supposed to have been a change in rules post-July 2009 which means that sub-1000kg aircraft can have their ARC renewed by suitably qualified engineers. There are very few, as the CAA has made it impossible. The secret is to go Permit, as I wish I'd done
By staying 'controlled' the annual revisit of airworthiness would be minised, so it was equivalent to the old Star - Annual - Annual - Star.
But what actually happened was that there is no benefit. The annual charge equates to the annual review, but by then many of us had signed to to a 3/4-year contract.
Worse, the CAMOs have different views of what they are doing. Ours have told us what we need to do (go to one of their subsidiaries) and when - no discussion. I've had 2 licenced engineers contradict our CAMO's view, but they won't listen, and I can't find another CAMO to take us on. So I'm stuffed. I either do what they say and get the ARC renewed, or I have a worthless pile of metal.
There was supposed to have been a change in rules post-July 2009 which means that sub-1000kg aircraft can have their ARC renewed by suitably qualified engineers. There are very few, as the CAA has made it impossible. The secret is to go Permit, as I wish I'd done
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: MIA
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by robin
There was supposed to have been a change in rules post-July 2009 which means that sub-1000kg aircraft can have their ARC renewed by suitably qualified engineers.There are very few, as the CAA has made it impossible.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What keeps a lot of maintenance firms in business is the fact that there are very few hangars available in which you could put your plane and get a freelance engineer to work on it.
Most hangars are owned by somebody who either runs a maintenance business, or is a mate of somebody who does, and they make sure you don't do any work indoors.
I have been doing my own 50hr checks, occassionally with a freelance A&P/IA when some extra work needs doing, but we have to pick a reasonably non-horrid weather day, and in the winter this means hats, gloves, thermals, the works. It's easier to schedule it with an N-reg because the 50hr check doesn't have to be done on any precise timing, but nobody is going to do an Annual that way because one normally does Annuals during the winter and working outdoors for a week is simply not on; anyway one cannot put a plane on jacks when it's windy, etc.
It's an occassionally depressing manifestation of the ancient rule that property owners rule the roost.
Most hangars are owned by somebody who either runs a maintenance business, or is a mate of somebody who does, and they make sure you don't do any work indoors.
I have been doing my own 50hr checks, occassionally with a freelance A&P/IA when some extra work needs doing, but we have to pick a reasonably non-horrid weather day, and in the winter this means hats, gloves, thermals, the works. It's easier to schedule it with an N-reg because the 50hr check doesn't have to be done on any precise timing, but nobody is going to do an Annual that way because one normally does Annuals during the winter and working outdoors for a week is simply not on; anyway one cannot put a plane on jacks when it's windy, etc.
It's an occassionally depressing manifestation of the ancient rule that property owners rule the roost.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am comfused by this whole CAMO lark...
Our aeroplane is currently maintained on an EASA CofA by a maintenance organisation. We haven't signed any contract or any other stuff. They do the annuals and 50 hr checks.
This time we opted to do the annual in place of a 50hr to move the annual into the winter months, a) because we're going to try and sell and selling with a new annual makes sense, and b) they are giving us a good deal on the work.
But they did mention something about CAMO fee being due in 6 months time...what is all that about and what is it likely to cost?
Tell you what, I can't wait to be shot of the G reg and onto the N reg where everything is so much simpler and the amount saved in CAA fees will probably pay for the annual each year......
IO you can always borrow our hangar for your checks...we have a nice space heater available too and it is big enough for at least 2 aeroplanes
Our aeroplane is currently maintained on an EASA CofA by a maintenance organisation. We haven't signed any contract or any other stuff. They do the annuals and 50 hr checks.
This time we opted to do the annual in place of a 50hr to move the annual into the winter months, a) because we're going to try and sell and selling with a new annual makes sense, and b) they are giving us a good deal on the work.
But they did mention something about CAMO fee being due in 6 months time...what is all that about and what is it likely to cost?
Tell you what, I can't wait to be shot of the G reg and onto the N reg where everything is so much simpler and the amount saved in CAA fees will probably pay for the annual each year......
IO you can always borrow our hangar for your checks...we have a nice space heater available too and it is big enough for at least 2 aeroplanes
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm thinking of moving to another CAMO.
Can anyone tell me who owns the documentation the CAMO holds about our aircraft. The maintenace programme and records of SBs and ADs that form our pack. Given that we've paid for it, can we have it when we transfer? Or does it belong to the CAMO?
Can anyone tell me who owns the documentation the CAMO holds about our aircraft. The maintenace programme and records of SBs and ADs that form our pack. Given that we've paid for it, can we have it when we transfer? Or does it belong to the CAMO?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“Most hangars are owned by somebody who either runs a maintenance business, or is a mate of somebody who does,”
Interesting comment. My strip has 5 hangars and no maintenance business. The surrounding area has a number of similar situations, with just two licensed airfields with maintenance business. Numerically, the Strip hangarage must outnumber the licensed airfields hangarage by 4 to 1 or more. Why not do a deal with a local farm strip to do your maintenance in the dry?
Rod1
Interesting comment. My strip has 5 hangars and no maintenance business. The surrounding area has a number of similar situations, with just two licensed airfields with maintenance business. Numerically, the Strip hangarage must outnumber the licensed airfields hangarage by 4 to 1 or more. Why not do a deal with a local farm strip to do your maintenance in the dry?
Rod1
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of the comments above seem to be about the cost of the CAMO and how to avoid the extra costs that result from EASA part M and the replys seem to indicate that the Maintenance companys are making a lot of money from this.
The problem is that the industry has been forced to invest quite a bit of time and effort in implimenting EASA part M so whatever happens to part M the maintenance industry will have to recover that money.
Some of us in the industry had been telling the CAA & EASA that part M was unworkable on cost grounds and was of no safety benifit with some of the EASA practices being downright stupid. The level of oversight required for a two seat light aircraft is more approprate for a corperate jet.
The result has been that the burden of regulation is has encouraged owners to take as they see it the common sense approach to maintenance by fitting parts that have no paperwork trail themselfs and not recording this work in the logbooks when in the past they would have called an LAE to do the job and he would have made sure that the parts fitted had a release note and the job was properly recorded in the aircraft log books.
So far I cant see one thing that EASA has done within GA to improve safety and all the efforts that they make are so pooly implimented as to have the reverse effect from what was intended.
The problem is that the industry has been forced to invest quite a bit of time and effort in implimenting EASA part M so whatever happens to part M the maintenance industry will have to recover that money.
Some of us in the industry had been telling the CAA & EASA that part M was unworkable on cost grounds and was of no safety benifit with some of the EASA practices being downright stupid. The level of oversight required for a two seat light aircraft is more approprate for a corperate jet.
The result has been that the burden of regulation is has encouraged owners to take as they see it the common sense approach to maintenance by fitting parts that have no paperwork trail themselfs and not recording this work in the logbooks when in the past they would have called an LAE to do the job and he would have made sure that the parts fitted had a release note and the job was properly recorded in the aircraft log books.
So far I cant see one thing that EASA has done within GA to improve safety and all the efforts that they make are so pooly implimented as to have the reverse effect from what was intended.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nicely put A & C
I wish we could do as you say. Our replacement prop cost over £500 more than an identical one fitted to a permit a/c thanks to the dreaded Form 1, and it was the CAMO who insisted on changing it.
I've written to the Office of Fair Trading as the current legislation means that our CAMO can insist that we have to have work done (and where) or they won't sign off the ARC. They can refuse to accept any second or third opinion as they say that it is they who are responsible for our continued airworthiness.
Yes the CAMOs faced ludicrous charges from the CAA, but it is a restricted market and costs have gone up for all of us. As I am a hobby flyer I can't justify the cost of Part M and will be selling my beloved baby before the next annual.
Thanks EASA and s*d off CAA....
I wish we could do as you say. Our replacement prop cost over £500 more than an identical one fitted to a permit a/c thanks to the dreaded Form 1, and it was the CAMO who insisted on changing it.
I've written to the Office of Fair Trading as the current legislation means that our CAMO can insist that we have to have work done (and where) or they won't sign off the ARC. They can refuse to accept any second or third opinion as they say that it is they who are responsible for our continued airworthiness.
Yes the CAMOs faced ludicrous charges from the CAA, but it is a restricted market and costs have gone up for all of us. As I am a hobby flyer I can't justify the cost of Part M and will be selling my beloved baby before the next annual.
Thanks EASA and s*d off CAA....
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robin
I have sympathy for your you but your CAMO also has the probelm that if is fails to meet the requirments of part M and the authoritys pick this up they will get the approval pulled and instantly have no business.
The trouble with your Propeller is not a Part M issue even under the BCAR system the prop would have needed a Form 1 or FAA 8130.
In a recent audit we have rasied some issues with the CAA and made it clear that we suspect (but cant prove) that the part M system is resulting in "underground maintenence" being carried out.
We are also have contacted the CAA CSO about a number of issues arising from the requirments for a Form 1 when parts are removed from one aircraft and fitted to another if full tracability is not an issue, we are also working on the full scope of GR24.
On a personal note we do a lot of Robin work and if yours is wooden we might be able to help you.
The trouble with your Propeller is not a Part M issue even under the BCAR system the prop would have needed a Form 1 or FAA 8130.
In a recent audit we have rasied some issues with the CAA and made it clear that we suspect (but cant prove) that the part M system is resulting in "underground maintenence" being carried out.
We are also have contacted the CAA CSO about a number of issues arising from the requirments for a Form 1 when parts are removed from one aircraft and fitted to another if full tracability is not an issue, we are also working on the full scope of GR24.
On a personal note we do a lot of Robin work and if yours is wooden we might be able to help you.