Here is the response sumitted on behalf of the HAA –
Title Revised Part-M requirements for aircraft not used in Commercial Air Transport and Pilot owner maintenance
NPA Number 2007-08
Armageddon Associates ([email protected]) has placed 4 unique comments on this NPA:
154 A. Explanatory Note – IV. Content of the draft opinions and the draft decision – A) Background information 5 – 6
It is indeed a tragedy that the opportunity to develop a Part M (light) was not taken. We now are faced with, essentially, a watered down version of the requirements for the Part 145 Commercial Air Transport maintenance organisations with the high level of bureaucracy that necessarily entails.
A greater contrast with the situation that prevails in the USA and which safely maintains probably 75% of the world’s general aviation aircraft cannot possibly be imagined. Furthermore there would appear to be no safety case whatsoever for these draconian changes to national regulations, especially those in current use in the UK.
159 A. Explanatory Note – IV. Content of the draft opinions and the draft decision – B) Envisaged changes resulting from Task M-017 7 – 13
a) M.A.302
The proposed changes are both sensible and realistic.
e) M.A.504
It must be remembered that such items may well be the property of the aircraft owner. If he wishes to retain these under his own arrangements this must be allowed. Otherwise he might claim theft or restraint of his own property.
f) M.A.604 to y) Appendix VII (inclusive)
All the proposed changes are seen to be neutral or an improvement on what was originally proposed.
However there would certainly appear to be a huge amount of mindless and needlass bureaucracy involved. This leading to a considerable increase is cost with no real safety benefit. There is no such bureaucracy evident in the FAA maintenance system yet their’s is an acceptably safe one.
An increase in cost for owners will be hard to absorb and might well lead to a marked reduction in pro-active preventive maintenance due to the limits on an owners financial budget. It is this element of maintenance that is so valuable in continuing airworthiness. A very real safety issue. There is an apocryphal tale about the English Civil War in the 17th century which relates that "for want of a nail the kingdom was lost". It also applies to aviation safety in the 21st century.
Additionally a high proportion of existing maintenance organisations approved by their NAA’s are owned and managed by engineers in middle age. Many will certainly throw up their hands in surrender at the prospect of these sweeping changes and elect to retire. With their retirement will go an enormous amount of really valuable expertise. This might well lead to a reduction in safety.
One ridiculous feature of your proposals in the need to separate sub parts (f) and (g) approved organisations. This leading to useless duplication of effort and cost. I fail to see any need to separate these functions especially in the continuing airworthiness approval for non-commercial light aircraft. There are no adverse safety implications in having the two functions combined in a single organisation. However the saving in cost for the organisation also for both the NAA and EASA would be very worthwhile.
Changes rejected
The rejection of FAA AC 43-13 seems to be a ridiculous decision and will lead to considerable nugatory expenditure by EASA to essentially duplicate this time tested publication. The European tendency to reject anything not produced in Europe is a classic case of the "NIH" or Not Invented Here syndrome. Can you really afford to do this since, in the end, it is OUR money, either direct or through taxation, that you are spending. No safety case established.
My comments also apply to the situation with FAA 8130-3 documentation. If it is good enough to fit on a US registered aircraft then why not one registered in the EU. No safety case established.
210 A. Explanatory Note – IV. Content of the draft opinions and the draft decision – C) Envisaged changes resulting from Task M-005 14 – 20
From the point of view of the UK this is, in part, a retrograde step in that an owner was permitted under the LAMS to carry out his own 50 hour checks if he so wished. This will no longer be possible with the Part M requirements.
The extension of tasks permitted under the revisions are welcomed. This will provide a commercial opportunity for associations and maintenance organisations to organise hands on teaching seminars to develop the knowledge level of those owners who choose to attend. The existing JAR-FCL syllabi do not include much at all in respect of pilot/owner maintenance. Although aircraft are relatively simple to maintain there are traps for those without the required level of basic engineering skills and knowledge. I do acknowledge that the agreement of the NAA or CAMO is needed before approval for any task is undertaken but it begs the question of on what basis such approval is granted. An attendance certificate from a recognised association or organisation should assist with this.
527 B. Draft Rules – II. Draft Opinion (EC) No 2042/2003 – M.A.901 Aircraft airworthiness review 54 – 56
There appears to be an anomaly in that MA901(e) states that the NAA shall carry out the airworthiness review for aircraft of less than 2730 kg MTOM not used for commercial air transport. This appears to contradict M901(d) which states that a CAMO can carry out the Airworthiness Review and issue an ARC.
MA901(e) must be changed to permit review and issue of the ARC by the CAMO to remove this anomaly.
212 A. Explanatory Note – III. Comment response document 4
This response to the NPA is from Barry Tempest FRAeS of Armageddon Associates. A General Aviation consultant and a council member of the UK Historic Aircraft Association (HAA).
The HAA council has requested me to make this response on behalf of the membershiip of the association.
It represents the sincere views of myself along with those of a highly experienced aeronautical maintenance engineer with a working lifetime spent in both the Royal Air Force and the civil general aviation world in senior appointments.
My own views have been infuenced by in depth reading of successive drafts, attendance ar seminars in the UK organised by both Europe Air Sports, through the Royal Aero Club of the UK, and EASA itself. Finally I attended the conference at thr Royal Aeronautical Society in September 2007 where the top management of EASA formed a panel to present their views on how their organisation was evolving and to receive questions from those who were there.
The stated intentions from Eric Sival gave me some reason to hope that this NPA consultation process might influence favourably the eventual outcome providing general aviation as a whole made an effective response to the NPA.
I was also appreciative of his statement that suggestions for improvement to the response procedure would be welcome since they wanted it to be as "user friendly" as possible. My initial reaction to that is that I found it to be quite the most "user unfriendly" method of responding I have ever encountered. As I became more adept in the process my views altered, but only by a fraction.
The stated aim of EASA, given at the RAeS conference in London, is to enable all the citizens of the EU to feel able to respond to any aspect of EASA policy or rulemaking published. This if they feel it affects their lives in any shape or form. I submit that the process, as it exists, is going to deter all but the most persevering individual, organisation or association from doing just that. IT MUST CHANGE if EASA is to meet its stated obligations to those of us in the EU.
This is my first opportunity to use the PC internet based common reeponse tool and it will not be my last. If I had been less motivated I would never have started in the first place.
It will be interesting to see the number of responses made to this NPA compared with the number of those submitted on MDM032. My feeling is that the numbers will be down by a huge amount, possibly in the order of 90%. I await the actual figure with keen anticipation.
Your task of analysing the responses and preparing the CRD may well be easier. The publication of the CRD sooner. But have you actually received all the sincerely held suggestions you might have done with a more "user welcoming" system. I think not.
Page viewed on 2007-10-12 00:13:51 GMT
____________________________
With the final date for submissions looming I have been asked by the HAA council to make a response to this important NPA on its behalf and that of the HAA membership as a whole. The process is tortuous when tackled for the first time and effectively designed to dissuade folk from making their points to those in EASA charged with our regulation by the EU parliament. Bill Taylor has been of immense help in formulating my response and we shall see what results in the expected CRD to be published in due course.
It only really affects those who own and operate certificated aircraft not listed in EASA Annexe II, at least for the forseeable future. Like the curates egg there are good and bad aspects. But the overall theme of my submission is to deplore the vast increase in bureaucracy implicit in the NPA and the inevitable increases in maintenance costs. This along with the likely reduction in the number of maintenance organisations in the UK which will lead to problems in getting work done. Quite simply, there is NO safety case made for the proposals when the UK record is considered. With the increase in costs that I forsee there may well be less flying done and fewer aircraft owned. This will be bad for general aviation and will have severe safety implications.
Let us hope that the responses to the NPA will be effective in persuading EASA to modify their ideas.
__________________________
There was an EASA conference held at the RAeS on Thursday 27th September attended by some of the luminaries of UK civil aviation. A panel of five senior officials from EASA were there led by Patrick Goudou, the chief executive.
The majority of the briefing and questions did not really affect general aviation much to my personal disappointment. But there were some snippets that did.
One question related to the impact of EASA Part M on those aircraft not in Annexe 2. Eric Sival stressed the vital need for reasoned responses to the current NPA consultation. All is not set in stone and they will seriously consider any proposals for amendment prior to producing the CRD and continuing with the process. The implementation date is September 2008 however this is, in my and that of so many others, opinion a pipedream.
I privately raised with Eric the tortuous process involved in making a response. A process guaranteed to deter anyone. He agreed to consider any suggestions for making it more user friendly but the basic idea was to ease the task of dealing with responses and to speed the issue of the CRD. A laudable aim that I support, but with changes in the process.
My own experience, in the past, is that many individual responses to EASA proposals were neatly placed in the circular metal filing tray for recycling. I really am an old cynic but 14 years with the UK "Feds" showed me how such organisations tend to work.
____________________________
The EASA briefing took place on Tuesday 4 September at Turweston with an audience of both aircraft owners and maintainers. It was excellent in terms of presentation by the two experts from EASA’a regulation division.
However it was also disastrous in revealing the morass of bureaucracy heading our way. This with absolutely no safety case whatsoever in terms of improving the UK’s fine record in this area.
Part M essentially has been derived from procedures designed to cover the maintenance of commercial air transport aircraft. The concept of a Part M (light) has been rejected by EASA.
It seems inevitable that many existing M3 appoved organisations will just disappear due to their ageing ownership not being willing to face the changes and charges to be brought in by September 2008.
This will also inevitably lead to a shortage of new Part M approved organisations, delay in getting aircraft maintained, significant cost increases and even, perhaps, a marked reduction in safety due to the factors above.
You still have an opportunity to influence matters. There is an NPA consultation process currently in progress and your association will be making its views known to EASA through the tortuous response process on the EASA website.
If you feel sufficiently outraged to the extent of making your personal views clear then please do not copy someone elses submission as duplicates will be detected by clever software in Cologne.
I will try to provide "bullet points" for possible inclusion but these will need fleshing out with your own prose.
I will also try to provide a guide to accessing the EASA response maze. I have managed it so you should be able to, if you are so minded. I do hope you do since it is no use moaning at the result after the new regime comes in only one year in the future.
The final date for responses has been put back until October 28th 2007.
At the moment this only applies to those aircraft on normal certificates of airworthiness and not included in the EASA Annexe II listing.
In the future Annexe II may well disappear and thus all EU registered aircraft will be affected to a degree by Part M.
Never ask for whom the bell tolls…… it tolls for thee..!!