IAOPA ber om avklaring ang. vedlikehold og ARC


IAOPA har skrevet til EASA og bedt de presisere overfor de nasjonale myndigheter at vedlikeholdsanbefalinger og Service Bulletiner (SB) ikke er obligatorisk.  Likeledes ber de EASA bekrefte «Grandfathers Rights» for fly som er godkjent etter tidligere regler.

Som eksempel nevnes at svenske myndigheter forlanger at dørlister skal smøres hver 30. dag  av sertifisert mekaniker fordi produsenten anbefalter det.

Her er hele uttalelsen fra IAOPA:

IAOPA seeks clarification on unnecessary ‘mandates’

IAOPA Europe has written to EASA asking the Agency to inform national aviation authorities (NAAs) that manufacturers’ recommendations and service bulletins are not mandatory and aircraft owners should not be forced to comply with them. The request, set out in an IAOPA White Paper on maintenance, follows an increasing number of sometimes bizarre decisions by national authorities who have misinterpreted the Part M maintenance requirements. As an example, Sweden has made it mandatory to have the door seals on some aircraft lubricated by a licensed engineer every 30 days, battery boxes and cables to be checked on a similar schedule, and oil to be changed every four months regardless of flight hours. The situation has led to major problems in Sweden, where aircraft have had to be flown for some hours to a licensed engineer who can lubricate the door seals each month – a two-minute job accompanied by 45 minutes of expensive paperwork. When challenged, the Swedish CAA blames EASA and points to AMC M.A. 302 (d) 1. of the Part M requirements: “An owner or operator’s maintenance programme should normally be based upon the maintenance review board (MRB) report where applicable, the maintenance planning document (MPD), the relevant chapters of the maintenance manual or any other maintenance data containing information on scheduling. Furthermore, an owner or operators maintenance programme should also take into account any maintenance data containing information on scheduling for components.” This means, according to some NAAs, that manufacturer’s recommendations must always be complied with. IAOPA points out that other sections of Part M specifically refer to documents such as Service Bulletins as ‘non-mandatory material’, and it is requesting speedy clarification from EASA.
IAOPA points out that the effect of mandating compliance with service letters or bulletins – which are not officially approved as instructions for continuing airworthiness – is to give privately-employed non-EU citizens working for the various Type Certificate holders legislative powers that cover the European Union. This situation is completely unacceptable.

IAOPA’s White Paper also requests that EASA clarify the situation concerning ‘grandfathered’ documents on continuing airworthiness that pre-date the adoption of the JARs in 2003. Some NAAs have been citing Part M when demanding full and complete documentation going back 20 or even 30 years, with aircraft grounded until all the paperwork can be produced – which in some cases is not possible. IAOPA’s position is that maintenance documents overseen by NAAs prior to the adoption of the JARs were effectively accepted by the system in September 2003, and that no owner should now be required to provide documentary proof that maintenance schedules were adhered to in the 1990s, 80s or even 1970s.

Dette innlegget ble publisert i Eget fly, Myndighetskontakt. Bokmerk permalenken.

Legg igjen en kommentar

Fyll inn i feltene under, eller klikk på et ikon for å logge inn:


Du kommenterer med bruk av din WordPress.com konto. Logg ut /  Endre )


Du kommenterer med bruk av din Google+ konto. Logg ut /  Endre )


Du kommenterer med bruk av din Twitter konto. Logg ut /  Endre )


Du kommenterer med bruk av din Facebook konto. Logg ut /  Endre )


Kobler til %s