EASA Part M presentations
 

here

Quite interesting, well to the point, and hard-hitting input from GA representatives, along the lines of automatic acceptance of FAA STCs, stopping of the EASA-1-form money-making scam, re-wording regs which few people can understand and plenty of aviation businesses interpret to make extra money, etc.

Not that Eric Sivel seems to be taking much notice, in his final conclusion presentation, but time will tell... it's not as if nobody has told him that EASA is strangling GA.

I particularly liked the Swiss presentation.

What seems strange is that Part M is being implemented by the UK CAA when there are still so many outstanding issues.
And, what happens if some of these proposals come to fruition and negate the hard work to comply with Part M with regard to the money and effort already outlaid by maintenance organisations?


Bah Humbug

I am sure the maintenance business will lobby for the maximum gold plating, as I would fully expect most of them to do.

But one can forget who one is ultimately serving: the customer.

If the customers chuck it in, which they are in big numbers, the game is over anyway.

If one could install stuff based on a US STC (which BTW will IMHO never happen; just look at how EASA hates AML STCs, which would result in mass unemployment in EASA and part 21 companies) that would take out a lot of approval business (which most avionics shops don't benefit from anyway because they buy in the paperwork packs from some of the bigger ones) but it would generate a lot of business on the actual installation work.

IO540
 

I am sure that some in the maintenance business will try to gold plate Part M but as the Chief Engineer of a small maintenance company I see this attitude as a little short sighted.
It may bring profits in the short term but over regulation will soon cripple the industry and eventually the golden goose will die.

I for one would would far prefer to get out of the paper pushing and spend more time on the hangar floor supervising the work on aircraft, I think it would have a far better effect on flight safety than ticking boxes on EASA forms.

I see the reduction in paperwork as reducing the cost to aircraft owners and increasing the phisical safety oversight, from the business point of view the cost reduction will increase the volume of business and assure a long term future for GA and more importantly for me the company that I have a large slice of !

Must agree with A and C.
It used to be that surveyors would know about aircraft structures and would check things like ADs had been complied with etc. All they seem to do now is to check that there is accountable manager, quality monitor and that the MOM has got the right indexing. In other words paperwork is God not safety!