The GA Season Debrief will consider the main lessons that have been identified from 2021 (and back to 2020).
EASA and other GA Pilots will reflect on their own experiences over the summer that we can identify the main take always as pilots on what to work on over the winter months, so we can be prepared for a great year in flying 2022.
Livestream Follow the Livestream on YouTube
John,
I did not make the Season debrief but my questions from the season opener were still not answered. I submitted a formal request under the contact us link and nobody replied to me either. We have 3 Cessna 172s in our group that are all on the MIP and each aircraft completes approx 200 hours per year. The "Pitot Static functional check" requires an appropriately rated Engineer with extensive equipment to perform a Functional Test (A test which the recording of results is mandatory) .
Cessna only require this check every 2 years but in the case of the MIP its every 100 hours, therefore we have to do the Functional Check every month in the case of the hours that we perform. Each functional check of the pitot static system costs us 700EURO from an organisation with the equipment. This is too expensive, many indivuals have commented on my thread and everyone has a different opinion. Many saying that the CAMO can decide that the functional check is not required but in fact the regulation says that no check can be reduced to one below the MIP so therfore it must be repetitive every 100 hours or 12 months.
Please can you help elevate this issue.
Kind Regards,
Andrew
Apologies for missing this one from before. I have contacted the colleagues in this area for some advice to get you a reply. Will update you as soon as possible.
Hi Andrew, the answer from our maintenance colleagues is as follows - hope this helps:
"Under Part-ML regime, the person or organisation responsible for the aircraft continuing airworthiness has the choice to develop the aircraft maintenance programme (AMP) either on the basis of ICA issued by the Design Approval Holder, or else on the basis of the Minimum Inspection Programme (MIP) proposed by the Regulation (ref. ML.A.302(c)(2)). When the MIP is used as basis, as its name suggests, no deviation is allowed.
When the ICA are used as AMP basis however, deviations to these ICA are possible under the responsibility of that person or organisation, under the condition that the resulting task is not less restrictive than in the MIP (ref. ML.A.302(c)(3))
It seems that in the case described, choosing the ICA as the basis for the AMP would be more advantageous in respect of the functional test of the pitot system, because the 2 years interval could be kept in the AMP. But it remains to be evaluated for other tasks.
So we invite you to consider developing an AMP on the basis of the ICA, taking into account points ML.A.302(c)(2)(b) and ML.A.302(c)(3) of the Regulation. Please also consult ‘GM1 ML.A.302(c)(3)’ which provides guidance how to approach deviations to ICA, if needed."