I wonder how many here are EASA-reg and use Savvy with (or without) the knowledge of their maintenance shop?
Just had a look at the Savvy web site. Pretty much most of what your CAMO should be doing.
Do look at setting up a stand alone CAMO for GA aircraft but was told by GA aircraft owners it wasn’t needed and would be as waste of time.
Peter what was wrong with your gear lubs that you had to take it to another company?
They were reluctant to do the dismantling, cleaning and greasing.
They would have done it for extra money but I don’t like to get people to do something they don’t want to do, because I have to fly the plane afterwards.
Hey guys, I contacted Savvy to see if they provide CAMO services.
Mr. Busch wrote the following back:
No, Savvy is not a EASA CAMO. But that’s an interesting thought. Can you direct me to information online that sets forth the requirements and procedures for becoming a CAMO?
I’m the last guy on the block to answer his question. (I’m barely surviving the registration process of an AC myself at the moment… )
Will someone help them get up to speed on this?
If so, will you post links to the info they’ll need and I’ll both forward it to them and refer them to our forum?
Thanks!
There are some posts around here about UK/European owners using Savvy but – reading between the lines – probably all of them are N-reg.
Then there is this thread which near the end does have some owners who appear to be EASA-reg and have found some way around the CAMO requirement, but no real detail was posted on how to do it, especially for different countries. If you could avoid a CAMO easily then almost every owner would be doing it.
Also with ELA1/ELA2 (the 2nd link above) coming in maybe 2017, maybe 2018, the need for a CAMO will disappear below 2.7 tons.
Then, Savvy could perform a liason function like they currently do for N-reg owners anywhere, where they work with the maintenance company and the owner in what I think is best described an “informal capacity”. For an EASA-reg, they would liase with the Part M maintenance company.
But with ELA1/2, every owner who has any mental capacity to get involved in maintenance and has a hangar where maintenance is not prohibited politically, is going to be using a freelance EASA66 engineer and save himself a fair bit of money over using a company, and then he probably won’t feel he needs Savvy’s involvement, but maybe he would appreciate their experience?
What I am getting at is that Savvy becoming a Part M CAMO might be a short-lifetime thing.
Sorry I can’t help with the EASA regs on how to become a CAMO. I do know one guy who does it out of the back of his car, having appointed all his daughters to the various required posts within the company 
Thanks Peter.
I was given the option of handling my own maintenance when I submitted my registration application.
That’s a decision I’m in the process of making. I think I’ll handle it myself, as the engine is time-expired, but has more than 1k hours TBO remaining.
As I understood from reading (but it is like reading underwater on this continent), once the expiration date has been reached, it is up to the CAMO whether or not it is overhauled. I’m not a subscriber to that particular school of monopoly, as I’ve seen too many aircraft with classic engines humming along just fine.
I should have probably bought an N. Learning this stuff the hard way. I can’t believe it is so tedious to go through this process when all the countries here are basically borderless… (except the UK). The maintenance from one EU zone is valid for all the others, and the EU registration can be parked in any member state, but just simply registering an existing EU plane in a different country means going through the whole friggin’ process? Are you kidding me?
No. Apparently not.
Fresh company, fresh paint, fresh inspection and all manner of freshness for the same plane that was legal to fly the same airspace a day before, just with diff papers and a few diff letters on it. Nutters if you ask me.
P.S. Happen to know of a good Mooney mech in the Czech, Bavaria, Austria region?
Peter wrote:
Then there is this thread which near the end does have some owners who appear to be EASA-reg and have found some way around the CAMO requirement, but no real detail was posted on how to do it, especially for different countries. If you could avoid a CAMO easily then almost every owner would be doing it.There is no need for a CAMO for noncommercial operations with noncomplex (in the EASA sense) aircraft. For once, part-M is clear:
M.A.201
(i) For other than complex motor-powered aircraft not included in point (e) or (h), or used for ‘limited operations’, the owner is responsible for ensuring that no flight takes place unless the conditions defined in point (a) are met. To that end, the owner shall:
(1) contract the tasks associated with continuing airworthiness to an approved CAMO though a written contract in accordance with Appendix I, which will transfer the responsibility for the accomplishment of these tasks to the contracted CAMO, or;
(2) manage the continuing airworthiness of the aircraft under its own responsibility, without contracting an approved CAMO, or;
(3) manage the continuing airworthiness of the aircraft under its own responsibility and establish a limited contract for the development of the maintenance programme and for processing its approval in accordance with point M.A.302 with:
an approved CAMO, or
in the case of ELA2 aircraft, a Part-145 or M.A. Subpart F maintenance organisation.
This limited contract transfers the responsibility for the development and, except in the case where a declaration is issued by the owner in accordance with M.A.302(h), processing the approval of the maintenance programme to the contracted organisation
See item (2) above. (“Point (e) or (h)” refers to CAT or SPO — Specialised operations.)
So all you have to do is take on the responsibility yourself for following the maintenance programme and tracking ADs and SBs. No CAMO required.
Of course you have to get a maintenance programme developed and approved. There are various ways of doing this. I believe the options were laid out in another thread recently. Anyway, the easiest way is probably to ask a CAMO to do it for you. This does not mean that the CAMO is involved in the actual maintenance of the aircraft — only that they develop and approve the maintenance programme. But you can also develop the maintenance programme yourself and have it approved by the NAA. For ELA1 aircraft, of course, you can self-declare without an approval.
Also with ELA1/ELA2 (the 2nd link above) coming in maybe 2017, maybe 2018, the need for a CAMO will disappear below 2.7 tons.
I assume that you mean “Part-M light”, not “ELA1/ELA2”. These categories have been in place for some time.
Airborne_Again wrote:
So all you have to do is take on the responsibility yourself for following the maintenance programme and tracking ADs and SBs. No CAMO required.
Thanks for the knowledge dump Airborne_Again. It is incredibly helpful for me!
Airborne_Again wrote:
Of course you have to get a maintenance programme developed and approved. There are various ways of doing this. I believe the options were laid out in another thread recently.
OK, I’ll dig through the threads and try to find the one on creating a maintenance program. Thanks for the tip.
Thankfully, Mooney published a maintenance manual, which I’m guessing means most of the job is done.
Thanks for your help.
Very much appreciated by a first-timer.
AF wrote:
OK, I’ll dig through the threads and try to find the one on creating a maintenance program. Thanks for the tip.
There are useful tables in the Guidance Material to part-M with references to the relevant rules. Look at pages 36 and 38 of this document.
There are useful tables in the Guidance Material to part-M with references to the relevant rules. Look at pages 36 and 38 of this document.
Thanks @Airborne_Again I’ll forward this on to Mike.
