I think in the end, assuming the bureaucrats reduction of regulatory burden isn’t as mindlessly over-engineered as the original regulation, the market will sort it out. Providing a consulting service to beat down special interests is a good business initiative in that regard, although one would hope that once the maintenance shops and other vested interests are beaten back by an organized and funded opponent, they will stay that way.
In the EU, it’s probably too much to hope that government itself would engage in the owners interests, versus tacitly supporting tax paying organizational interests, so why not a private fee-for-service lobbying group to enforce rationalized regulations? It’s a good idea and certainly better than the pointless CAMO nonsense.
Peter wrote:
All this stuff is industry revenue reducing, and once you have an airfield-political and EASA-political setup which bends most European owners over a barrel, any attempt to remove that barrel will be resisted.
Is it really? And even if, I don’t think that’s the reason behind it. As Airborne_Again already mentioned, TBO extensions etc.. have been going on for a long time.
Airfield politics… I don’t know, seems like a rather localized issue.
Peter wrote:
SAVVY in EASA-land thread and why most European shops don’t like it
This is probably true in many places, but for cultural reasons seems different in the Netherlands. There’s very much a do-it-yourself mentality with everything, and shops here will often advise against CAMO because they will say it isn’t necessary.
Could you put me in touch with the person?
When it is time, I could.
But I guess that people like you are not the target group. You have read up on a lot of stuff and also gained a bit of ownership experience already, if I am not mistaken. But there are thousands of owners out there who don‘t know anything about airworthiness matters.
Silvaire wrote:
TBO extensions are part of the problem, TBO should not apply in the first place, meaning no extension is necessary.
Which is the case now for EASA NCO / ML („Pt 91 equivalent“) private ops <2730kg 👍
boscomantico wrote:
But I guess that people like you are not the target group. You have read up on a lot of stuff and also gained a bit of ownership experience already, if I am not mistaken. But there are thousands of owners out there who don‘t know anything about airworthiness matters.
I’m thinking more along useful contribution on the producing side, not as an end user. Hence my interest in such a project.
Snoopy wrote:
Under Part-M iirc the AMP was declared by the owner however still also subject to approval by the NAA?!
No!
Snoopy wrote:
Under Part-M iirc the AMP was declared by the owner however still also subject to approval by the NAA?!
That’s right – but I have never heard of a single case where at least the German LBA declined such approval due to the fact that the AMP declared exceptions from calendar limit of prop or engine.
It’s easy to blame the CAMOs (btw.: In total contrast to Boscos experience my Camp was extremely helpful in defining my AMP the way I want/need it). or in general the industry.
Truth to be told it is at least as much the fault of the owners who want to control everything but simply don’t. I’ve seen owners that literally put in their self declared AMPs that they comply with all SBs of the part manufacturers. I’ve seen self declared AMPs that did not say anything about deviations from calendar limits (although it is only one line for prop and one for engine). All of that has been self declared by the owners – but then they complain if a shop wants ti stick with the AMP.
Doing those things yourself is not really complex but still requires some knowledge and some time – AOPA and others offer good trainings for that.
The “I copy something from the internet that I don’t understand and than complain about people who do understand and tell me it doesn’t say what I want”- type of approach doesn’t help
Malibuflyer wrote:
That’s right – but I have never heard of a single case where at least the German LBA declined such approval due to the fact that the AMP declared exceptions from calendar limit of prop or engine.
That’s not what part-M said. Maybe it say so now, after we have part-ML.
