A New Concept for Maintenance
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Escrick York england
Posts: 1,676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
private aircraft owners may not want to reply to this thread as their engineering companys may also be reading
try a mail shot to all owners you can get all the details off ginfo or try a advertisement on pprune
may work may not
i am on the fence
try a mail shot to all owners you can get all the details off ginfo or try a advertisement on pprune
may work may not
i am on the fence
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Midlands
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From The Horses mouth so to speak "It will be possible for us to issue your ARC but to be quite honest we don't want to get involved"
This means that all EASA registered machines flown in the UK will in effect require their own CAM, I will be providing a service that will encompass that role and far more, ensuring that you remain in a "Controlled Environment" For those interested read AMC M.A. 901 (a-d) On the EASA website Part M Acceptable means of compliance.
Suffice to say it will be a minefield for the unitiated.
If anyone wishes to not post a public comment then feel free to PM me and I'll discuss it further.
This means that all EASA registered machines flown in the UK will in effect require their own CAM, I will be providing a service that will encompass that role and far more, ensuring that you remain in a "Controlled Environment" For those interested read AMC M.A. 901 (a-d) On the EASA website Part M Acceptable means of compliance.
Suffice to say it will be a minefield for the unitiated.
If anyone wishes to not post a public comment then feel free to PM me and I'll discuss it further.
Helicopterhelp: It already exists to a cetain extent vis a vie independent audits. We employ a consultant engineer to audit us i.a.w. part M. even though we dont need a CAM in our industry currently as we are exempt.
What you are advocating is the role of an independent auditor with a commercial hat on - yes?
Could work, should work...but only for those who aren't savvy with the business your describing (which tant amounts to all private flyers and small AOC operators - seems to me once you get to a critical size...or use public money....no-one notices the extra 'zero' on the end of the bill
Good luck to you....I think you've found a crack in the system.
What you are advocating is the role of an independent auditor with a commercial hat on - yes?
Could work, should work...but only for those who aren't savvy with the business your describing (which tant amounts to all private flyers and small AOC operators - seems to me once you get to a critical size...or use public money....no-one notices the extra 'zero' on the end of the bill
Good luck to you....I think you've found a crack in the system.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Midlands
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once you reach a critical size then you are bound by AOC rules to at least have a Maintenance Manager in the role of a CAM. For the smaller operations/owners this independant role will ensure that if your maintenance company does not work in conjunction with an AOC and therefore does not hold part M approvals and you yourself as a small flying school or private owner do not hold said part M approvals then you will still remain within the required "Controlled Environment" but you will also have an independant eye on what is going on day to day with the maintenance from a practical point of view and a review of your DOC's with the practical experience of when to go ahead with in depth maintenance and when to keep it airworthy.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North of Soton
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An unservicability is just that, who are you too make a judgement over what another licensed engineer has snagged, who also will over see or oversign your extented check A when you will have no maintenance approval from the MO.
Your idea seems to be an extension of the CAM role and would very possibly cause a great deal of friction between the MO and its customer, the only benefit I can see is that you will earn yourself commision.
No doubt as mentioned earlier you will still expect to be paid even when your own findings agree with that of the MO and as for your out of hours trouble shotting! Well who is to say you've got it right in the middle of the night having just been woken up and not seeing exactly what is going on.
Who also is not to say that you will make the right decision as to repair, overhaul or replace items as required and that you can find a better deal than that already offered.
It seems a path littered with problems, you only need to get it wrong once and the word will spread like wildfire. Damaging what I assume to be a good reputation.
Your idea seems to be an extension of the CAM role and would very possibly cause a great deal of friction between the MO and its customer, the only benefit I can see is that you will earn yourself commision.
No doubt as mentioned earlier you will still expect to be paid even when your own findings agree with that of the MO and as for your out of hours trouble shotting! Well who is to say you've got it right in the middle of the night having just been woken up and not seeing exactly what is going on.
Who also is not to say that you will make the right decision as to repair, overhaul or replace items as required and that you can find a better deal than that already offered.
It seems a path littered with problems, you only need to get it wrong once and the word will spread like wildfire. Damaging what I assume to be a good reputation.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Midlands
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quichemech who do you see as providing the "Extension to the CAM role" ie the part I approval holder in the future then ? The same company that does the maintenance ? Nice one, I'd love a job there .........Licence to print etc. I will point out again that I'm not aiming to slate maintenance comanies or attempt to overturn decisions made by suitably qualified staff and yes, of course I would charge for it .....As for the middle of the night, I am not pretending to offer a knight in shining armour, what i am saying is that I am more than capable of initial fault diagnosis and I will actually answer the phone and react accordingly out of hours leaving the owner to get on with their own business.
I'm sorry to say though "who also will over see or oversign your extented check A when you will have no maintenance approval from the MO." displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the whole system I am aiming to offer.
You need a check "A" for a P/T flight only, correct ?
This machine will then have to be allocated to an AOC, correct ?
In which case the service I would be offering would be covered by the AOC's CAM, correct ?
I'm sure you work for an MO by your comments and username and it is misconceptions like this and fundamental misunderstandings like these that I am going to assist the customers not getting "Nipped" by.
I'm sorry to say though "who also will over see or oversign your extented check A when you will have no maintenance approval from the MO." displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the whole system I am aiming to offer.
You need a check "A" for a P/T flight only, correct ?
This machine will then have to be allocated to an AOC, correct ?
In which case the service I would be offering would be covered by the AOC's CAM, correct ?
I'm sure you work for an MO by your comments and username and it is misconceptions like this and fundamental misunderstandings like these that I am going to assist the customers not getting "Nipped" by.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Midlands
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because I don't want a full time job I would much rather work on a consultancy basis and most places don't really need a full time CAM so I'd get really bored.........
