Part M is here. So is greed, stupidity, and ignorance.

MikeGodsell · Post by **MikeGodsell** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 1:15 pm

Part M is very similar to the French system of maintenance.
I own a French registered Robin ATL which has had four airworthiness reviews (for CDN/ARC issue/renewal)during my ownership. Until part M these reviews were done by my local GSAC surveyor who flew over from Lille every three years. Now under part M a UK CAMO with G & I can do the same airworthiness reviews. I have an ARC checklist of all the items that need to be done, and the review normally takes less than a mornings paperwork, with a short afternoon inspection of the aircraft.
So having looked at the CAA list of G&I organisations, I started to phone round to book my aeroplane in for its first UK ARC renewal. The response has quite frankly sickened me!! Eg: " We can't work on 'foreign' aircraft" "If you let us do an annual as well as the ARC review, we might get it back to you in a month. But it will cost around £2000" "We have to have all the documents and logbooks and check the records back to birth, and it will take at least a week and we work at £48 per hour"
"We don't have that aircraft on our approval but we can apply to the CAA and that will cost £500 plus our costs, and we don't know how long it will take" "We don't use type-specific maintenance programs here, you will have to get it checked out using LAMP"
I will probably fly over to Lille and get the French surveyor to renew my ARC at his usual fee of around 200 euros!
The CAA and most of the UK GA engineering organisations are quite simply using part M to print money, and the whole thing stinks

bertdeleporte · Post by **bertdeleporte** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:25 pm

Hello,

we French blame our burocratic system, I'm very sad to read you English are reaching our level...

Do not hesitate to tell me when you come to Lille (do you fly to LFQO or LFQQ?), I would be very pleased to see you.

Bertrand

G.Dawes · Post by **G.Dawes** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 9:03 pm

You must remember that the CAA is a QUANGO and it is charged by the government to make a percentage of revenue as a repayment to them, it is millions of pounds a year. The other thing is it also an organisation of thousands of warm bodies which all want their salaries and pensions paid.
They must make a profit to do that and you must also justify your worth to the organisation by making charges and rules to keep the money rolling in. It is our DUTY to keep the money going to them after all the licenced companies have to pay charges to the CAA and a licence is a paid for authority from the CAA.
Vested interest is the name of the game.

MikeGodsell · Post by **MikeGodsell** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 11:06 pm

Thanks Paul you make my point very well. Sub part F wields the spanners & spare parts,doing the actual and real work on the aircraft.
Sub part G wields a pen and manages paperwork relating to ADs, SBs, life limited items, maintenance manual, logbooks, contracts with owners, and fees for work that has no real safety value whatsoever.
Sub part I checks the paperwork done by sub part G and generates it's own pile of new paperwork including fees for owners.
The CAA charge all of them fees for doing the paperwork, and fees for giving them approval to do the paperwork. The CAA also generate their own paperwork which they require all the other organisations to use, and of course the CAA charge them all a fee for using the paperwork which it has generated.
Like I say this system stinks!

MikeGodsell · Post by **MikeGodsell** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 11:10 pm

bertdeleporte
Merci, LFQQ

merlin · Post by **merlin** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 12:15 am

Oh dear having just seen that the passport agency have had to increase prices because of reduced demand I do hope for the future of GA that the CAA don't adopt the same approach if/as the UK fleet contracts.

Brian Hope · Post by **Brian Hope** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 5:26 am

I did hear, secondhand admittedly, that the documents check requirement had now been pegged at post 2000. Anybody know if that's true?

Rod1 · Post by **Rod1** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:12 am

Mike,

There is this really interesting organisation called the LAA. They allow aircraft to be maintained by the owner an inspected by a really good group of volunteers. Could save you a fortune old chap, you should try it.

Rod1

MikeGodsell · Post by **MikeGodsell** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:34 am

Rod if only my little ATL was eligible for the LAA benefits. The old French system is/was not too disimilar to what you get in the LAA..The French answer to part M for simple EASA ELA1 aircraft is to give owners who do their own maintenance a restricted part 66 licence under 'grandfather rights' I am hoping to qualify for that. If not my ATL may become an ornament in my barn.

Incidentally what happened to the idea of the LAA becoming a CAMO? Too expensive or too much hassle??

Brian Hope · Post by **Brian Hope** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 4:58 pm

Mike, the CAMO idea is still extant, hopefully some news soon.

MikeGodsell · Post by **MikeGodsell** » Sat Jul 11, 2009 8:46 am

Went flying yesterday, and no problems pulling my aeroplane out of the usually crowded hangar. Mine is the only C of A aircraft left, the rest have gone, and the guys on permits are looking just a bit smug.
For me and probably others the extra paperwork can be tolerated, but the huge increases in fees for that paperwork is not on. I am retired and have a budget for my flying, that budget has been well exceeded (even under the French system)and so yet another C of A aircraft will cease to fly. And will not require servicing to help keep already stressed engineers in a job. This highly administratively led system probably works well for the airlines, but it sure as hell puts a nail in the coffin for GA.