ELA 1 Opinion Approved 23 July - Part M Lite - Good news

[Flying John]

On 23rd July 2014 CAA issued IN–2014/124 bulletin.

This contains (amongst other things) the fact that EASA Opinion 10/2013 had been approved.

This opinion http://easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/ ... 0-2013.pdf tells us that for ELA 1 aircraft, the Maintenance program does not have to be developed and overseen by a CAMO and this allows Pt 66 LAE to sign the Aircraft off in Yrs 1 & 2 and for a Pt 145 org to do the initial and Star annual and recommend to the CAA the issue/re-issue of CoFa, and not the CAA.

In France the RSANav are the responsible body allowed to recommend to the DGAC for the initial issue and 3yearly re-issue of the ARC but as it stands the LAA are not the responsible group or organisation that are allowed to do the initial issue and 3yrly review in the UK in the way that RSANav do.

Does this leave the door open to ask if the LAA ( and our inspectors) could become the appropriate authority to recommend issue of the three yearly paperwork.

[Brian Hope]

The Association is currently in discusssion with the CAA about a range of issues, including possibilities connected with Annex 11 CoA aircraft maintenance. As soon as there is more information available on the progress of these discussions we will let members know via the website and the magazine.

[Brian Hope]

Hi John, having contacted the RSA it appears that it is NOT delegated by the DGAC to issue the initial audit, only the annuals and three yearly renewals.
Still well worth consideration though.

[Flying John]

You are correct Brian, its a group called OSAC who do the initial review and make a recommendation for issue of the Airworthiness certificate to DGAC. It is year 2 and 3 that RSANav can do it.

In fact I have had an email from an expat who has just moved to France and taken his G Reg Gardan Horizon with him. He has just spent the afternoon with a guy from OSAC going through the application to go on the F reg. Save for a couple of items to complete - a transponder check and the actual repaint of the registration marks it passed quite smoothly.

The aircraft will still be on an EASA restricted certificate but will be maintained outside of the CAMO system. He says he will be completing the maintenance himself as pilot/owner and under this system those items that he can't sign off himself are performed under the supervision of club member where he is based who is a part 66 mechanic. He says this is pretty much the same as the LAA permit system that his other aircraft has been operating for the last 8 years, so he is able to compare the two regimes.

My hope is that EASA have to relinquish the TC for the GY80 and indeed other types, as they are not really an appropriate entity to do what a manufacturer, spares or technical information supplier would do. If they do relinquish then hopefully the type can get an EASA or National permit to fly and perhaps it would be then that the LAA may be willing to take on the administration of the permit.


John