Part M: Airliners/Jets/Multi Turbines/others heavier than 2730kg… that’s a minority.
I would think the vast majority of EASA-reg planes under 2730kg in Europe are under the totally full Part M system. This is because most owners don’t have any other option.
This thread seems a self evident support of that.
No. Planes under 2730kg operated Part NCO are legally not able to be maintained acc. Part M.
Saying the CAMO system is aberrant is like saying it is aberrant to pay someone to do your taxes because you’d rather spend your time otherwise.
Obviously, when one spends all his time earning significant money, he has no more choice :-)
Aviation is vast food chain, and as during an approach, each one has to work his numbers :-) I don’t say CAMO is useless, I say I can’t bear at any price, and maybe should valorize now the knowledge developed with ownership.
(If not rude, what are you working in @T28 ?)
PetitCessnaVoyageur wrote:
Airborne_Again wrote:We’ve seen a similar increase (+60%).
Do you expect this to be only this year, or for ever ?
I honestly don’t know.
The Basic Regulation defines a “commercial operation” as “*any operation of an aircraft, in return for remuneration or other valuable consideration, which is available to the public or, when not made available to the public, which is performed under a contract between an operator and a customer, where the latter has no control over the operator*”.
That rather clever definition was changed in the revised basic regulation. Now it says simply
‘commercial air transport’ means an aircraft operation to transport passengers, cargo or mail for remuneration or other valuable consideration;
Snoopy said:
That’s only commercial in a general „business sense“.
And you say Airborn Again differently. Do you have any reference ?
In that case, renting an aircraft to PPL/CPL holders would not be considered as commercial… ? What is your interpretation @Airborne_Again ?
I will inquire the DGAC (in France) to have their position and will report naturally.
PetitCessnaVoyageur wrote:
And you say Airborn Again differently.
I do? I can’t see that I’ve written any opinion about anything in this thread — I just quoted from the revised Basic Regulation.
I mean you point towards a new definition, hence me asking your interpretation.
My CAMO contract costs £ 120 per annum and it is basically my engineer who is my CAMO which I believe happens a lot (perhaps through a Limited Liability Company). It was the same at my last maintenance organisation. At £ 120 per annum I am happy not to do it myself.
On something like a PA28 you just don’t need a CAMO anymore, they are only looking at TBO’s on mags/prop/ engine/AD’s/SB’s etc. All stuff “real” engineers used to do this work before EASA came up with reams of Bureaucracy.
The whole CAMO thing is appropriate for Airliners but for GA is just a way to extract money from customers and in my experience undermines the engineers working on the aircraft.
PetitCessnaVoyageur wrote:
I mean you point towards a new definition, hence me asking your interpretation.
Aha. Ok. Anyway, I was a bit too hasty (sorry), the definition I gave was for CAT, not commercial operation. It turns out the there is no longer any definition at all of “commercial operation” in the Basic Regulation!
The BR does say that references to “commercial operation” in other regulations (e.g. part-FCL) should be understood using the definition of the old Basic Regulation until the other regulations are updated!
So at this point I have no interpretation at all.
