Peter wrote:
Still need a CAMO… I have not followed the latest on that.
CAMO is optional for NCO. The advantage of the CAMO is they take responsibility for airworthiness, and the ARC is good for three years instead of one. I don’t care about either of those, but the reason I’m going to try the CAMO is to see if it gets me more responsiveness. If not I’ll be stopping it.
Peter wrote:
So the lack of a maintenance company at your base is a big advantage!
Interesting point I had not considered. I have been trying to locate a freelance mechanic, so I will keep trying. Even on the CAMO he could do work at the hangar. For minor work it’s already possible, as I’ve had my own mechanic come to Rotterdam to fix stuff where I couldn’t fly it.
In any case I got a reply from Mike Busch:
Robert, while we have a handful of Savvy Max clients in Europe and UK, our experience is that SavvyQA is generally a better fit for our overseas clients due to language and timezone issues. I would suggest you enroll the Aircraft and SavvyQA and see how that works for you. You always have the option of upgrading from QA to MX at any time. —Mike
I have no personal experience from Savvy but I would probably use them to analyze engine data if I had a good engine monitor in a bigger engine and also use them for consulting maintenance actions.
But I guess you have no use for them when it comes to talking directly to maintenances companies like they do in the US. There are not enough maintenance companies to make Europe a “free market”.
Then, fly somewhere, and once there, do what I suggested 
It must be possible because 100 people here have been telling everybody that it is possible, how fantastic EASA is etc. I no longer argue the point because EuroGA gets bad-mouthed as “anti European” on certain chat sites and private TG and WA groups (notably in Germany) because the mod/admin flies an N-reg and keeps telling people that it is good.
If you can find a small airfield somewhere, a mechanic to work with you, then you can tick all the boxes. Still need a CAMO… I have not followed the latest on that.
This is what most homebuilders around here have done. They have decamped to “farm strips”. The price paid is substantial: usually the grass is waterlogged for months each year. In your case, you just need to come to an arrangement with some hangar owner. Even if the hangar is owned by a maint company, you are making the approach so you are stronger, whereas if you were approaching a maint company at your base, you would have little power. So the lack of a maintenance company at your base is a big advantage!
For many years I was hangared at a 145 company which didn’t have the TB20 on its scope, and this was perfect!
But we’ve done this all before in so many threads. The trick is: take control over your maintenance and then you can use Savvy as you wish. You will also save roughly 50% over using a company.
Peter wrote:
In recent years it has become possible for a freelance EASA66 mechanic to do the work, and then why would you want Savvy’s formal supervision, when you can seek their advice anyway (for their fee) and then you tell your mechanic what you want done on the basis of that.
I would love to find such a person, but literally no one I know does this. And in my case it’s not airfield politics because there are no maintenance facilities at Rotterdam. Everyone flies somewhere else to get work done, and that’s the biggest annoyance for me.
I’ve only ever come across very few (2 or 3) people who I sort of knew and who were using Savvy for EU-reg planes and AFAIK all of them have actually or de facto stopped flying since. One of them who used Savvy many years ago flew until his SR22 prop came off in flight, but he turned out to be N-reg anyway.
The only info I can offer myself is what I posted above (e.g. here) years ago. Airfield politics dominates GA as ever… The formal Savvy engagement with a maintenance company is almost bound to be fraught with problems – e.g. above and you don’t need a PhD in psychology to see why.
In recent years it has become possible for a freelance EASA66 mechanic to do the work, and then why would you want Savvy’s formal supervision, when you can seek their advice anyway (for their fee) and then you tell your mechanic what you want done on the basis of that. That is how work with a freelance mechanic works, that is one of many reasons why N-reg (with a freelance A&P) is so much better than EASA-reg (subject to much operational detail as usual) so this would work fine. Freelance mechanics work with you. So this is what I would recommend. You can seek advice from Savvy (for $$$), from EuroGA (for free ), from google, etc.
Surely someone has tried them? I will send them an email asking about it.
I want to resurrect this old thread, because I’m interested in the prospect of using Savvy more than just for monitoring my engine data (I currently have the pro plan). I’ve just signed up for CAMO, mostly to remove the yearly ARC inspection, since the CAMO is only a few hundred more per year than paying the inspector. I’m also curious whether my service level will go up or down once I’m officially their responsibility. But I continue to run into challenges that I feel may be improved by having someone watching my back, so the Savvy Mx service is appealing.
Has anyone got recent experience with them under EASA?
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.
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:
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.
In theory, no difference. There is a well known pilot here who owns an SR22 in Germany and it is G-reg and he uses a UK firm (a Cirrus dealer) as his CAMO. I don’t know if he visits them or how often. AFAIK his actual maintenance is done in Germany.
In reality….?
