H. I wonder, is the way for owner to declare the parts without Form1 valid only for replacement parts for an existing installation or is it also possible to do a new installation? For example replacing a broken engine monitor screen (monitor already exists) with a replacement screen vs buying a used engine monitor setup on Ebay and installing?
By9468840 wrote:
H. I wonder, is the way for owner to declare the parts without Form1 valid only for replacement parts for an existing installation or is it also possible to do a new installation? For example replacing a broken engine monitor screen (monitor already exists) with a replacement screen vs buying a used engine monitor setup on Ebay and installing?
It is possible for new installations, but you still need some kind of approval for the installation itself.
I’ve just got an email from EASA on “Guidance Material to Annex I (Part 21) to Regulation (EU) No 748/2012” and this incidentally led me to this PDF from 2012 which already contains the subject matter:
It’s amazing how long this has been kicking around! Almost a decade, and still almost no owner is aware of it, and even fewer people in the maintenance business are talking about it openly.
The email itself has a subject line of “Publication of the final deliverable ‘Regular update of the Acceptable Means of Compliance and Guidance Material to Annex I (Part 21) to Regulation (EU) No 748/2012’ and the related CRD to NPA 2020-04.” but there is no URL and I can’t find it on their website (but that is normal). No idea if it has anything new.
It’s talked about pretty widely by the BGA (British Gliding Association).
And…
Well, it’s one part of the maintenance business where it is being talked about openly and even promoted. The BGA’s CTO is making sure inspectors (in other words, the BGA’s EASA 66 people) are all up to date with knowing this stuff.
I could have it tattooed on my forehead but my maintenance company with there annual 20K+ approval fees aren’t going to go for it.
Ah ok now I get you. They are aware of the non-easa-1" bit. I thought you meant my 2nd paragraph. But isn’t the BGA exempt from the EASA-1 form requirement anyway? Like the 8130-3 it is a traceability document (it says nothing about the part being suitable for aviation) which IMHO has no meaning outside the Part 23 (or higher) scene.
my maintenance company with there annual 20K+ approval fees aren’t going to go for it.
That seems normal.
Peter wrote:
But isn’t the BGA exempt from the EASA-1 form requirement anyway?
Nope. Part M and now Part-ML apply.
Yes EASA gliders are maintained under BGA CAMO & Part-M (now Part-ML)
I guess non-EASA gliders can get away without Form1
