I [possibly unintelligently] bought a Norway registered Super Cub and operate it in EASA land for private use, flown only by me. It is not in a CAMO. I know a lot about Cub and Super Cub maintenance and restoration (in the US, at least).
I am aware I will need a 100 hour inspection coming up, as I will hit 100 hours before the annual inspection and have a post-Soviet EASA mechanic coming into town when the time comes. In the meantime, I am sitting a hair over 50 hours since annual and I came across this invention in Europe called a “50 hour inspection.” My questions:
Needless to say, the PA-18 will be moved to the N register when I can, though I have been told with the death of one of the more reasonable DARs, there are no DARs in Europe that are not a) difficult or b) easy to deal with and therefore totally subsumed by airliners and business jets.
Thanks!
Have you checked these threads. There may be somebody mentioned.
hypoxiacub wrote:
stumbled across some AMP nonsense. Do I really need to formally declare a written maintenance program for my own airplane (other than the law, ADs, etc)?
I believe you do, but it doesn’t have to contain anything more than “the law, ADs, etc”.
hypoxiacub wrote:
If so, are there any suggestions for some basic help to write up the most strategically advantageous approach?
As a starting point, you:
I guess you will prefer the second approach. See pages 869 and following (in particular page 881-885) of https://www.easa.europa.eu/downloads/95788/en
The “hard law” (page 869) says (the rest, e.g. pages 881-885 is “soft law”; you can do something else than what the soft law says, if you justify of an equivalent level of safety; operating as non-commercial with non-complex aircraft, you don’t have to register your justification or get prior approval, but the justification can be inspected on request of the CAA):
A MIP:
Note that a Super Cub is not an EASA aircraft. That means that the national regulations of the state of registry apply – in this case Norwegian regulations. Part-ML is not applicable unless the national regulation refers to it – so unfortunately you may not be helped by lionel’s post.
Thank you to everyone! I am checking with the Norwegians and will report back.
hypoxiacub wrote:
possibly unintelligently
For sure unintelligently
As AA said, a Cub has nothing to do with EASA, as it is NOT an “EASA aircraft”. New regulations came into place last summer, here.
In essence it simply say that maintenance according to EASA Part-ML is to be done unless it is a jet or some other complex aircraft, used commercially etc. You need a Part 66 technician, but you can also use a non EASA technician after an approval.
I’m not very familiar with Part-ML though, but others here are.
Haven‘t MOST countries decided, in many cases years ago now, that non-EASA aircraft shall be maintained according to Part-M, now Part-ML?
boscomantico wrote:
Haven‘t MOST countries decided, in many cases years ago now, that non-EASA aircraft shall be maintained according to Part-M, now Part-ML?
You would have hoped so. The Swedish authority has proposed a completely unreasonable set of rules where they, among other things, require a separate approval, with associated fees, for CAO, part-145 etc. to work on nationally regulated aircraft even if they were already approved for EASA aircraft. It has of course met with heavy criticism, so we’ll see… (Look, look, I’m criticising my own country and it’s not the UK!)
If non commercial operation, I thought in most states 50 hour was a pilot inspection.
Haven‘t MOST countries decided, in many cases years ago now, that non-EASA aircraft shall be maintained according to Part-M, now Part-ML?
I don’t understand this. In general, non-certs can be pilot-maintained, surely?