Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

EASA-reg owners using Savvy maintenance? (also: EASA CAMO)

One SEP pilot in Germany asked me this question.

How well does this work?

I vaguely recall one poster here saying he uses them on an EASA-reg Cirrus, a long time ago.

I would think the CAMO would be very unhappy about it.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

I would think the CAMO would be very unhappy about it.

Why ?

At any rate, since EASA countries pretty much impose TBOs and MSBs, there really is not much lee-way for “on condition”.

That said, I would consider SAVVY to be very good at troubleshooting, and that’s where CAMO’s generally are pretty useless.

FAA A&P/IA
LFPN

SAVVY really is a CAMO done right – they manage the airworthiness of the aircraft according to the regs and a programme agreed with the owner and give the actual maintenance work to maintenance organisations.

It would be fantastic if they got EASA CAMO approval somehow…

Biggin Hill

The UK guy who used Savvy posted about it here

I don’t know if he was G-reg or N-reg, however. His avatar is too small to see but it looks like N…

He left here a long time ago…

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I have been using Savvy for the past year. They are helpful but European shops seem to be quite afraid of them. They don’t treat Savvy as part of the team but as an opponent. There is a cultural difference to phrase it like that.

Savvy has created a new plan which is mainly consulting instead of managing the maintenance. So one can use their expertise in the background without them getting in touch with anyone from the shop.

Frequent travels around Europe

Cobalt wrote:

It would be fantastic if they got EASA CAMO approval somehow…

On many aircraft the owners can do the CAMO work. If you thank responsbility for what they do, you could have them as a “CAMO”

The difference between CAMO and pre-CAMO is that most companies did perform CAMO work, with the owner being responsible. With CAMO this responsibility shifted towards the CAMO (within limits)

JP-Avionics
EHMZ

Except that without a CAMO, your full airworthiness review is once per year, not once every three years.

Biggin Hill

Cobalt wrote:

Except that without a CAMO, your full airworthiness review is once per year, not once every three years.

That isn’t an issue is it?

I also would say that the three year full review is very liberal as well.

While EASA isn’t perfect it isn’t as bad as suggest by many.

JP-Avionics
EHMZ

Savvy has created a new plan which is mainly consulting instead of managing the maintenance. So one can use their expertise in the background without them getting in touch with anyone from the shop.

I didn’t know they offered this option. Is it for European customers mainly?

I think this is how one would have to work it, with any maintenance company I have ever dealt with.

However the company might get a bit suspicious about where you get those expert inputs from

One company I used didn’t like my landing gear lubrication requirements and I had to use them for the official Annual and then fly the plane to another company – Airtime in Bournemouth – to get the gear lubed.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I use SAVVY extensively for the uploading, storing and viewing of engine monitor data. And my shop really appreciates. I am also considering using them for consulting, but only later, when we have all injectors properly balanced (just installed GAMI, will probably swap one or two for even better ballance), just to double-check that we have the engine set-up correctly. I very much like their “exhaust valve failure” early warning feature.

CenturionFlyer
LKLT
37 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top