Really not the case here. We have a maintenance company at Mannheim and it is absolutely no problem to do what ever you want in your hangar.
If you go to airfields in the UK which are predominantly populated by the types of people who are in the LAA, maintenance goes on in hangars all the time, even in the communal hangars. I even know of EASA 66 freelancers at such places. “No maintenance in hangars” seems to be a rule in the more corporate airfields.
Yes I think ultimately it is greed which drives most restrictive practices. If everybody is flush with cash, everybody (well, most) is relaxed and happy. Similarly if the cost of doing whatever one is doing is not too high, people tend to be happier. But in GA lots of people desperately try to hang in there, on the margins, and this is true for both suppliers (maintenance companies, etc) and the consumers (schools, aircraft owners).
And UK is not the only place where GA is on the edge. Much of southern Europe is like that. So, GA there has either almost died out or moved under the radar, to UL.
Peter wrote:
However, I think you will find it is similar in most places
I think that your problem is that you try to explain to yourself and acknowledge bad conditions (no maint in hangar) instead of doing something about it.
I can tell you what would happen in Poland for example. All the owners would move onto the grass, and very soon later, the hangar owners being without income would cancel their stupid philosophy.
Speaking of templates, the Swedish CAA just released a new template for Part-ML:
mall_amp_enligt_annex_vb_del_ml_pdf
It is available here in word format(swedish website):
https://www.transportstyrelsen.se/sv/luftfart/Luftfartyg-och-luftvardighet/Luftvardighet/Fortsatt-luftvardighet/Manualexempel-och-checklistor/
The recently published AMC/GM to part-ML clarifies the “commercial/non-commercial” ATO/DTO distinction.
GL1 to ML.A.201(e):
COMMERCIAL ATO/DTO
According to industry practice, the following are examples of aircraft not considered to be operated by a commercial ATO or a commercial DTO:
(a) Aircraft operated by an organisation holding an ATO certificate or a DTO declaration, created with the aim of promoting aerial sport or leisure aviation, on the conditions that:
…(1) the aircraft is operated by the organisation on the basis of ownership or dry lease;
…(2) the ATO/DTO is a non-profit organisation; and
…(3) whenever non-members of the organisation are involved, such flights represent only a marginal activity of the organisation.
(b) Aircraft operated under Part-NCO by its owner together with an ATO or a DTO flight instructor for the purpose of training, when the contract between the owner and the training organisation and the procedures of the training organisation allow it. The continuing airworthiness of such aircraft remains under the responsibility of the owner, or of the CAMO or CAO contracted by the owner, if the owner has elected to contract a CAMO or CAO in accordance with ML.A.201(f).
(c) Aircraft used for very limited training flights due to the specific configuration of the aircraft and limited need for such flights
Back to square 1, pretty much. Many (even small) flying schools in say Germany aren‘t non-profit organisations.
These will still have to follow Part-M then.
Can you translate that into laymans terms?
boscomantico wrote:
These will still have to follow Part-M then.
No! Part-ML is also applicable to commercial operations as long as it isn’t CAT and commercial flight training isn’t CAT! To be precise, the aircraft must not be on an AOC.
The commercial/non-commercial distinction decides whether you can manage the airworthiness yourself or if you have to use a CAMO/CAO.
