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

“Of course you have to get a maintenance programme developed and approved”

Yes you have to get the programme developed but there is no approval process. The whole idea is that you as the owner approve it – that’s why it’s called a Self-Declared Maintenance Programme. The main condition is that it’s no less restrictive than the EASA MIP. The only time an issue could arise is when an ARC is being performed, at which the Pt66/145/CAMO may object to the programme as being non-compliant with Part M, in which case it could be referred to the NAA.

wigglyamp wrote:

Yes you have to get the programme developed but there is no approval process.

Do you have any examples of such SDMP’s @wigglyamp?

I’m trying to set establish one for my Mooney M20J and have no example to follow.
If you have any examples/recommendations for protocols, I’d be thankful for your insight.

M20J is over 1.2 tons MTOW, hence no ELA1, hence no SDMP (yet)!

wigglyamp wrote:

“Of course you have to get a maintenance programme developed and approved”

Yes you have to get the programme developed but there is no approval process. The whole idea is that you as the owner approve it – that’s why it’s called a Self-Declared Maintenance Programme.

My post was not just about the Self-Declared MP, but about any MP. Maybe I should have written

“Of course you have to get a maintenance programme developed and, unless self-declared, approved”

But I thought that would be clear from what I wrote further down.

“For ELA1 aircraft, of course, you can self-declare without an approval.”

Indeed, there is a difference between SDMP and OMP…

I bangled the two…

I’m after an OMP, but in the end, I’m just giving into this insane process and hiring a CAMO. I hate to do this, but I don’t have the time to F* with all the details.
It bothers me to do it, but I don’t want to lose any more hair spending hours trying to do so.

So… anyone know a good CAMO they can recommend?
I’m in Austria, so if they’re nearby, it would be better, logistically speaking.

Thanks.

@AF I sent you a PM

Speaking of CAMO, is there any benefit to a CAMO being under the same NAA as the plane (eg. German CAMO for D-reg, Polish for SP-reg) or is EASA common enough?

AF wrote:

Will someone help them get up to speed on this?

At the moment I do not think that I would recommend Savvy to become an EASA CAMO. Simpy because of two reasons:

1. A CAMO will not be required by Part-M Light for any aircraft up to 2730 kg(up to a Cessna 340)
2. For a CAMO to renew the ARC he should make some kind of visual inspection of the aircraft, this would be very unpractical for them and they will have to depend on local people in Europe

I think they should continue with what they are doing and once Part-M Light comes into force they should probably focus helping the aircraft owners more without having any approvals and as such avoid the legal involvement in aircraft airworthiness.

Peter wrote:

SR22 based in Germany and it is G-reg and he uses a UK firm (a Cirrus dealer) as his CAMO. […] AFAIK his actual maintenance is done in Germany.

Yes, I think I know the guy and the plane, I guess I can ask him why he went with a UK CAMO. But this only supports my thesis that if one decides to contract a CAMO it is best to contract one from the plane’s state of registry. The differences in treating Cessna SIDs, some seatbelt stuff, between different EASA countries still probably exist, as unfortunate (and contrary to the whole idea) as it may seem.

Which, in a way, brings us back to this – three years later, almost to the day…

And yes, I agree it would be foolish for SAAVY to put in the effort to become a CAMO, the EASA landscape seems too fragmented for it to work well.