Ibra wrote:
In EASA land, you will be very “stuck” with an aircraft that is not maintained & equipped like the typical Part141 school aircraft, it need an ADF anyway and the engine has to be less than 12 years…
Not really. Part ML NCO commercial for profit ATO aircraft require a CAO/CAMO maintenance environment, however this doesn’t automatically imply that TBO will be adhered to. Some CAO/CAMO still reference CAP747 in the AMP ;)
Airborne_Again wrote:
Well, I know for certain thatOne of our club aircraft had an owner-declared AMP
It was not approved by the Swedish authority
The Swedish authority happened to make an inspection of the aircraft and its documentation while the owner-declared AMP was in effect. They had no comments on the AMP except that one signature was in the wrong place..
Interesting. Maybe it was derogated to the NAAs and each one had their own way…
Snoopy wrote:
I read a couple of NAAs explaining at the time when ML was issued that…the CAA will no longer be involved in the approval of maintenance programmes for Light aircraft….
Well, I know for certain that
dutch_flyer wrote:
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.
Differences in business culture, I’d say.
In the UK at many/most light aircraft maintenance shops, any attempt to drive the process in the direction you want it to go and not just accept whatever they want to do (and write the cheques) results in a rapid invitation to take your aircraft elsewhere.
Fortunately, not at the two I use.
That’s the beauty, innit !
In EASA land, you will be very “stuck” with an aircraft that is not maintained & equipped like the typical Part141 school aircraft, it need an ADF anyway and the engine has to be less than 12 years…
Yes, of course you can.
IFR versus VFR would by the way be irrelevant to this issue, FAA aircraft maintenance requirements are not in general correlated to whether an IFR flight plan is filed. An exception would be the requirement for pitot static system checks every two years if the plane is operated IFR.
Can you do FAA IFR training & checkride in your own aircraft with engine & propeller running “on condition”?
Light aircraft are maintained on condition as a basic principle, regardless of hours. If you buy one, that’s what you’re buying and certainty in the case of US certified aircraft its what the FAA intended.
The vast majority of light aircraft operating worldwide have no maintenance plan document, and their owners and buyers wouldn’t know or care about what such a thing might be.
That is an interesting question who would buy an aircraft with engine & prop on “condition” and zero SB compliance? (N-reg or UK/EASA-reg)
We could try to do some history research but it had little consequences. Current reality is that owners can declare their maintenance manual by themself and no CAA has to or will approve it. Therefore if the AMP says that all SBs should be followed or doesn’t provide for alternative means to handle the calendar limits, it is self declared will of the owner to do this.
(Sidenote: That much appreciated freedom in part ML does also imply that in case of any liability, insurance, etc. discussions the claim “I complied with the maintenance programme” case become rather useless. Also buyers need to check very carefully now not only that the maintenance was done according to the AMP but also that the AMP made sense).
