Requirement for annual radio equipment test?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Faversham
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Requirement for annual radio equipment test?
Since I went to SDMP I am using MIP and there is no mention of radio testing. As I have a shiny new 8.33, and I know it works fine, and I know my ILS takes me to the runway, and people with radar will tell me if my mode C is out of tolerance, is there any need for an annual radio check? And is there a legal requirement for any? If so, does anyone know where I find it?
I've asked the CAA by email, and they "hope to come back within 21 days"........
I've asked the CAA by email, and they "hope to come back within 21 days"........
I am in a similar situation with my aircraft. It's fully IFR equipped and under LAMP's I had a radio annual done by a licenced radio engineer. The situation as far as I know is that you are now free to designate within your SDMP what checks you wish to do on your radios. With mine I merely state a security and function check of radios and transponder each annual, however in diligence of the IFR status my SDMP also calls for the encoder to be tested every two years and frequency stability of the radios every three. I still use my avionics man to do those.
For VFR flying it seems it's down to you to specify what you want, however having spent the last year or more compiling a very comprehensive SDMP/CAP543 for my Archer it is evident that EASA have granted us the ability to achieve a high standard of maintenance without any of the tools to do so unless we employ a licenced engineer to do all the hard work. Try finding one with enough time to do that! The MIP in its basic form is not really fit for purpose and most owners should take the time to draw up their own variation of it and specify exactly what they want done on each check.
Good Luck.
For VFR flying it seems it's down to you to specify what you want, however having spent the last year or more compiling a very comprehensive SDMP/CAP543 for my Archer it is evident that EASA have granted us the ability to achieve a high standard of maintenance without any of the tools to do so unless we employ a licenced engineer to do all the hard work. Try finding one with enough time to do that! The MIP in its basic form is not really fit for purpose and most owners should take the time to draw up their own variation of it and specify exactly what they want done on each check.
Good Luck.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Faversham
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good comments!
I take all your points (and indeed, my own SDMP has lots of items added to the MIP where sensible). I'm officially VFR, but often fly using privileges of my IMC(R). I can understand the need for transponder encoder check if I was routing airways, but cannot do that with my licence, and when my encoder has been errant, I've been told quickly if it was out of tolerance.
Perhaps I may decide to ask for a check every 3 years or so, just to be sensible. At least that way I could save a couple of years fees - it's one of the few ways I can see any advantage of the SDMP scheme generally......
Perhaps I may decide to ask for a check every 3 years or so, just to be sensible. At least that way I could save a couple of years fees - it's one of the few ways I can see any advantage of the SDMP scheme generally......
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Faversham
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No - it's EASA specific for ELA1 aircraft (so far...)
Hi Jan. SDMP is self-declared maintenance programme, which if you have an EASA aircraft that is non-complex and under 1200kg, you should have created by now. That's an ELA1 aircraft by definition. You can create it using manufacturers maintenance docs, or you can conform by using the EASA MIP - minimum inspection programme. There are templates for this - and you then have to add additional items that are needed such as ADS etc and lifed components. It transfers the responsibility to the aircraft owner, but still requires licensed engineers to do most of the work and sign it off each year.
No doubt the heavier ELA2 aircraft will be next.....
No doubt the heavier ELA2 aircraft will be next.....
Thanks, @Curlytips, al clear now. I am looking on from a little distance, flying/owning a 3-axis microlight which is sub-EASA anyway - which explains my unfamiliarity with these acronyms. Still it would be nice if posters would explain the codes/acronyms they must apply.
Last edited by Jan Olieslagers; 3rd Jun 2018 at 20:03.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Glasgow Scotland
Age: 64
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No doubt the heavier ELA2 aircraft will be next.....[/QUOTE]
@Curlytips - I've taken it that our Arrow 4, approx - I don't have the books with me at the moment - 1300kg mtow is an ELA2 aircraft, and as such, we don't have to change the maintenance programme yet.
I'm getting conflicting messages form the engineers, which is now giving me a bit of a concern that I may have misunderstood the changes.
Help me out here please!
@Curlytips - I've taken it that our Arrow 4, approx - I don't have the books with me at the moment - 1300kg mtow is an ELA2 aircraft, and as such, we don't have to change the maintenance programme yet.
I'm getting conflicting messages form the engineers, which is now giving me a bit of a concern that I may have misunderstood the changes.
Help me out here please!
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Faversham
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll try....
I'm not the expert, but everything I've read suggests that only "simple" aircraft will migrate to SDMP next. My buddy's Arrow is 1202kg, and becase he has wobbly prop and retractable Dunlops, his remains with existing programme, and may do so for the foreseeable future. Don't think you will see any change for a while, if at all.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Glasgow Scotland
Age: 64
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Curlytips.
I did a bit of further digging myself after I posted the question, and came up with the same answer from documents on the EASA and CAA websites.
It looks like the problem is EASA's definition of a complex aircraft is not the same as we would define it, and does not include the exotic end of the spamcan fleet. It needs to be turbine powered, over 5 tonnes and carry at least 19 people to be classed as complex in EASA land. I guess the Arrow falls short on a couple of these points!
Now if only I could get that damned undercarriage fixed, I could actually go flying!?!?
I did a bit of further digging myself after I posted the question, and came up with the same answer from documents on the EASA and CAA websites.
It looks like the problem is EASA's definition of a complex aircraft is not the same as we would define it, and does not include the exotic end of the spamcan fleet. It needs to be turbine powered, over 5 tonnes and carry at least 19 people to be classed as complex in EASA land. I guess the Arrow falls short on a couple of these points!
Now if only I could get that damned undercarriage fixed, I could actually go flying!?!?
