Bathman wrote:
How is that going to work? An aircraft is safe or its not safe.What happens when a club sells an aircraft to a school. Would they be able to use it?
This is already, where the same aircraft, operated under an AOC has to meet different regulations then one not flying on an AOC. Sometimes aircraft have to be brought to AOC standard.
Really, Peter, sometimes your questions are bewildering
My brain works differently from yours perhaps. I try to look behind what I read, for the intent, and for various ways people are going to try to exploit it which might bring about a subsequent change. For example it was obvious that some will abuse the new cost sharing advertising regs (though as I wrote previously I don’t think that anybody will be able to make those booking sites into a viable business) and in this case if you have a “nonprofit club” (which I agree most countries have as a legal structure) then some will set one up to get around what the regulator intended. For example the use of “sporting clubs” is widespread in Italy in some other countries (to get tax concessions for flying clubs) and I am told by Italian pilots is responsible for the avgas non availability issues. The structure is also used to avoid paying luxury goods taxes on aircraft; you need to participate in an air race once a year…..
An aircraft is safe or its not safe
IMHO the slightest exposure to the GA maintenance scene, especially some of the stuff used in UK PPL training, would cure that belief 
Peter wrote:
I try to look behind what I read, for the intent, and for various ways people are going to try to exploit it which might bring about a subsequent change.
Peter, I do too and I’m well aware that people try to play the system. I would just think it’s clear what a nonprofit organisation is.
Peter wrote:
I am told by Italian pilots is responsible for the avgas non availability issues.
I can see how it could be connected but it’s strange. Normally, e.g. not having to pay VAT on fuel for club use wouldn’t preclude selling it AFAIK. You would just have to account for it. It might mean more paperwork and it’s understandable that can be a motivator not to do it. But I suppose it’s possible the rules don’t allow it.
Airborne_Again wrote:
What this means is that a commercial ATO needs to contract a maintenance organisation, but a noncommercial ATO (e.g. an ATO associated with a non-profit club) does not
That’s not what it say. What it say is
as long as they deliver training as an activity with commercial purposes
A non profit organisation also is very much commercial, it’s only the profit from the organisation that is not to be distributed outside the organisation. Besides, a club may very well be non profit, but the instructors may take out salary from the club or directly from the students, hence the training activity has commercial purposes. IMO, this is typical EASA language, they seem to be incapable of expressing the meaning of the text within a context that make sense. The expression “commercial purposes” has no meaning by itself in a society that is based on commerce and trade. The only thing that would fit (no commercial purposes) is the military or some other state own entity that also happen to deliver training (for some “common good” or whatever).
I think Peter has a point. They did not mention “non profit organisation” exactly due to the reasons he mentioned.
One of the conditions of the club concession is that no external sales are allowed, in that case.
Obviously in eg France this is not fully implemented otherwise they would not be able to get PPL training income which is what supports the whole thing in the first place. But the device used then is that to train you have to join the club. Without that there are various legal issues… Same in most places AFAIK although not in the UK.
LeSving wrote:
A non profit organisation also is very much commercial, it’s only the profit from the organisation that is not to be distributed outside the organisation. Besides, a club may very well be non profit, but the instructors may take out salary from the club or directly from the students, hence the training activity has commercial purposes. IMO, this is typical EASA language, they seem to be incapable of expressing the meaning of the text within a context that make sense. The expression “commercial purposes” has no meaning by itself in a society that is based on commerce and trade. The only thing that would fit (no commercial purposes) is the military or some other state own entity that also happen to deliver training (for some “common good” or whatever).
Fortunately, the Swedish CAA consider training facilities operating by clubs to be not commercial.
LeSving wrote:
IMO, this is typical EASA language, they seem to be incapable of expressing the meaning of the text within a context that make sense.
I think the only thing that matters is whether your authorities consider you commercial or not. It might even be sensible as I think such organisations aren’t unified under EU law (although there were some attempts), different countries have different rules with different names for them.
Peter wrote:
But the device used then is that to train you have to join the club.
Even if they can provide services to outsiders, joining is normally required to get the lower rates. And it usually pays to join, even if only for a year. From what I have seen.
Joe-fbs wrote:
I am also working on lists for a programme for my shareoplane (a basic AA5) and a list of what we can do on it as pilot-owners. I’ll share those when done.
New guidance issued by UK CAA:
http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP1454_SDMPforELA1aircraft_OCT16.pdf
Although the wording is as always a bit complicated, it does in the end seem to come quite close to Part 91:
Mandatory Maintenance Tasks
The SDMP must include Airworthiness Directives, tasks contained in the Airworthiness Limitation Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, and any specific maintenance requirements listed in the Type Certificate Data Sheet and required by the Design Approval Holder (DAH) for modifications and repairs installed on the aircraft.
Additional Maintenance Tasks to take into consideration
The SDMP must identify any additional tasks to be performed because of the specific aircraft type, aircraft configuration or type of operation.
The owner may choose to deviate from tasks or intervals contained in ‘Additional Maintenance Tasks’, but the details of any deviation or omission must be included in the SDMP. The owner may include alternative tasks to be performed instead of non-mandatory tasks or decide to omit a task completely. The owner, however, is fully responsible for any deviations from the DAH recommendations.
An owner is not required to justify any deviation to the CAA or to a Continuing Airworthiness Management Organisation (CAMO). If, however, a discrepancy on the aircraft is linked to a deficiency in the content of the maintenance programme, the engineer performing the review has the power to refuse the issue of the Airworthiness Review Certificat.
