Putting gliders under Part M must have really damaged that scene.
It did. It added a whole lot of pointless expense. The UK system (which was devolved by the CAA to the BGA) had been working smoothly for decades and in came EASA with a wrecking ball and made life a lot more difficult with no benefit (when it was put into place ELA1/2 didn’t exist).
It’s made little or no difference here. Our gliding club is doing better than ever, despite Covid.
Introduction of Part M / Part ML for gliders / light GA helped (savvy) clubs a LOT. Now, Part 66 updates make another big difference.
@airborne_again wrote
It is possible for new installations, but you still need some kind of approval for the installation itself.
How does it work in practice?
The owner can „certify“ the part for installation without form 1, and then who installs it and issues the approval?
Part-145 issues “serviceable” tag . After that the part can be used for installation according to STC or under CS-STAN.
Part-145 issues “serviceable” tag
AFAIK the point of this concession is that you don’t need any “tag” or other documentation; especially not from a part-145 company which – in Europe – would jack up the price massively. The aircraft owner takes responsibility for identification and authenticity of the part. Frankly, this is not exactly rocket science; who will be making a counterfeit starter motor for example?
This concession enables the sourcing of parts, avionics, etc, from e.g. US Ebay.
Peter wrote:
AFAIK the point of this concession is that you don’t need any “tag” or other documentation;
yeah, perhaps if you are good enough that you can keep all the documentation yourself and defend it when the annual comes.
I’m also using it to order parts from US ,sometimes without any paperwork, but still prefer to use 145 and CAMO.
I’m paying 50EUR per actual work hour to my 145, i think its entirely reasonable amount.
Well, yes, as we have discussed many times before, if you use a company for your maintenance and they don’t like this concession, or just refuse to even read the text, then you can’t do it.
This is one example of a response I got from a “well known UK company” (nobody present on EuroGA currently) when referring them to one regulation:
Accordingly, there is substantial disagreement on what % of owners can make use of it.
The owner can „certify“ the part for installation without form 1, and then who installs it and issues the approval?
Yes. The owner-approval qualifies the part, just as the Form 1 does. The work itself (removal of old parts and Installation of new parts) needs a release to service by the pilot-owner or a Part-66 mechanic.