OWNERS the LAMPS Replacement consultation has started

[A and C]

Having seen how the new system was intended to work and writing the new maintenance program for my Cessna's based on the Cessna program of 100 hour check intervals that would save me a lot of time and money they now go and withdraw the idea.

I'm not sure if this will be good or bad in the long term but this year I will have to do a lot more faffing about doing things in two checks that could have been done at one big check if we are still using LAMP.

[Duckeggblue]

This is good news as there would be a considerable amount of work involved in preparing maintenance programmes to replace the LAMP and we do not wish to implement any changes that may be required more than once.

May or may not be good news - but many have already made significant efforts to prepare programmes to replace LAMP - because we thought we had to!!

Doh

[robin]

Perhaps a solicitor's letter to the CAA demanding compensation for jumping the gun......?

[Aerials]

Postpone: to delay an event or arrange for it to take place at a later time.

Work done so far therefore will not be entirely wasted in my opinion, for what it's worth!

[Duckeggblue]

Probably not wasted at all Aerials - in fact, I would be prepared to say that it was instructive to compare LAMP requirements with manufacturers requirements.
The " Doh " was more because there was a percieved urgency to understand the process, carry it out and get it approved - and this put other things on the back burner.

Now that EASA is talking of perhaps "unwinding the CAMO system" and retaining registered training facilities, will there be there will be another raft of paperwork to either generate or already generated that will not be required? Whilst this is not always a waste of effort, it is frustrating.....

In general,the message from the CAA seems to be to get your "offering" in early to avoid disappointment! The early bird, in many cases, is not rewarded with the worm because the CAA/EASA have taken it away at the last minute!!

[jxk]

GMP may not be the only boo boo!

I expect this has been posted elsewhere on the forum but just in case it hasn't the below document from AOPA looks like at last there maybe some common-sense coming to the over bureaucratic Part M..

AOPA reports EASA Changes are in the air

Applying Airliner type maintenance to 'puddle - jumpers' is ludicrous especially where typically the MOs are 2-3 man businesses: accountable managers, auditors, record clerks, storekeepers, educators etc..

A French-led team of experts has been tasked to begin planning a clean-sheet approach to GA regulation, and it has been urged by EASA’s Board of Management to “be broad in your thinking” – even to the extent of comparing GA regulation to that of boats and cars, and looking at American systems of regulation for possible guidance.

Sweden supported the French proposal and said that continued airworthiness, Ops and FLC together represented a ‘total system approach’ which was not fully understood. Part M provided no better control than what went before, and there was a need to find a proper balance for GA.

Hooray :-)

[Peter Gristwood]

All this says is that they are beginning to plan something. That is a long way away from having a firm proposal and sounds to me like they are kicking the matter into the long grass

[jxk]

All this says is that they are beginning to plan something. That is a long way away from having a firm proposal and sounds to me like they are kicking the matter into the long grass

YES but at least there's some recognition that the current system ain't right!