New announcement from UK CAA re: Part-M/ML and equity/non-equity groups

Part-ML gives owners the leeway very similar to Pt. 91 faa regarding maintenance. The drawback is whatever the owner chooses to not do, it’s his responsibility concerning airworthiness.

If, however, the owner contracts a CAO/CAMO, this organization is responsible for the airworthiness.

While renting an airplane to non-equity members does not constitute a commercial operation, and is thus still Part-NCO (allowing Part-ML), the owner is, again, fully responsible for airworthiness. If a non equity member crashes, this can turn into a liability mess, with the owner always having one foot in the pile. Not at last because following up on all items that constitute airworthiness isn’t exactly trivial, and a simple mistake could easily happen to have severe consequences.

That’s my take on what the UKCAA is trying to say.

If the owner decides not to contract a CAMO or CAO, the owner is fully responsible for the proper accomplishment of the corresponding continuing airworthiness management tasks. Therefore, it is expected that the owner properly and realistically self-assesses their own competence to accomplish those tasks or otherwise seeks the necessary expertise.
As a best practice, owners should consider contracting a CAMO or CAO for tasks associated with continuing airworthiness management, particularly in cases where more than one aircraft is included in the ownership scheme.

I read the above UKCAA passage as: „we told you so!“

I am having difficulty working out the practical implications of what the CAA is saying…

Somebody needs to be responsible for maintenance. Are they just reminding people of this?

Part-ML gives owners the leeway very similar to Pt. 91 faa regarding maintenance

AUI, that isn’t actually so; there are really fundamental differences. Under the FAA system, only items in the Airworthiness section of the MM can be made mandatory.

Under EASA Part-ML, your SDMP still has to implement the MM, as the baseline.

For example, under Part 91 only the Annual is mandatory. All other servicing is optional. Yeah, we know what happens to the oil after 50+ hrs, so this is not the practical picture, but legally this is it. The oil changes are under the “on condition” practice. Now try putting this in your SDMP…

The same applies to Part-ML. Only the airworthiness limits are mandatory.

Yes, a part-ml SDMP needs either a MIP (minimum insp. program) or the DAH (manufacturer) MM as a basis for maintenance program, but, again, unless it’s airworthiness limits or ADs, you can deviate from it (not less restrictive than the MIP, which you can „AMC“ yourself too, btw).

A difference? Yes. A fundamental one? I doubt it, because a N-reg sep and EASA-reg sep will see very similar maintenance over the course of a year (50hr inspection/oil check, 100hr inspection/ARC).

The significant difference that under Part 91 there is no documented maintenance program, so the owner can change maintenance practice whenever he thinks it right, without deviation from something that doesn’t exist and didn’t need to be prepared or approved in the first place, and obviously without consideration of telling, documenting or gaining further approval as the case may otherwise be. The legal (minimum) content of an annual inspection is in the FARs, not the MM, and is very basic and universal to all types – it’s just a short list. The type specific MM is therefore a reference document to an A&P IA, particularly on older planes that do not have the ‘limitations’ section or MM in modern format. On my relatively simple plane we don’t really look at the MM annually in relation to inspection practice, having looked it over years ago and found it was riddled with errors – for example valve cover removal and valve adjustment being called for on an O-320, which has hydraulic valves. It was written early in the development of the type, not revised and is often awkward or inapplicable. The most important inspection item for me today is looking for airframe cracks, mainly in areas where experience shows they may occur. My plane was flown hard in the 1970s, display aerobatics.

A free XXL t-shirt (I have no other sizes left) to whoever can produce a readable Executive Summary of the CAA text

Peter wrote:

A free XXL t-shirt (I have no other sizes left) to whoever can produce a readable Executive Summary of the CAA text

I already have a t-shirt (and XXL won’t fit) but here is my summary:

1. You are reminded that someone is responsible for maintanence. Either a CAMO (if you have one), or the owner, or the owners jointly (if applicable).

2. Whilst there are legal structures which technically allow non-equity groups to be treated differently from rental, we view it as rental and suggest you maintain the aircraft via a CAMO as though it were rental. If you choose not to, you should be very sure you know what you’re doing.

That’s it.

Snoopy wrote:

While renting an airplane to non-equity members does not constitute a commercial operation, and is thus still Part-NCO (allowing Part-ML)

Only (light) aircraft used by AOC holders need to be maintained according to part-M. Aircraft used in other kinds of commercial operations are still maintained according to part-ML. (Actually, you don’t even have a choice, you must use part-ML unless the operator has an AOC.)

If you choose not to, you should be very sure you know what you’re doing.

That’s an interesting new regulatory approach