Sat Nov 02, 2024 9:35 am
#2040937
I think it's worth saying that whilst a lot of advice here is pointing you to going the 'permit' route. For a group, that can have its pitfalls as much as having a Part 21 aircraft like a Warrior.
Part 21 aircraft must be maintained to an Aircraft Maintenance Program that complies with Part ML. The owner becomes responsible for the standard of maintenance and most, if not all, place that responsibility in the hands of an approved maintenance company who then become the 'Continued Airworthiness Maintenance Organisation' (or CAMO as they're known).
Having a group place its aircraft with a CAMO removes any risk of internal conflict in the event that costs arise that some might consider unnecessary. If the CAMO says it's not fit to fly then the matter is out of the groups hands.
The problem in a permit group, especially one that is doing its own maintenance is that the situation can occur where the fitness of the aircraft becomes debatable between those doing the work and those simply contributing towards it. Maybe in a ten person group, only one or two actually carry out the work. If they say the aircraft should be grounded and the others feel the defect is carryable then the situation becomes a breeding ground of discontent. Permit aircraft might be cheaper to operate but the CAMO has a strong role to play in keeping the group stable.
That said of course. It depends on which CAMO you appoint and how honest they are at providing a cost effective service to their customers. That, I'm afraid, is a subject that deserves its own debate.
Part 21 aircraft must be maintained to an Aircraft Maintenance Program that complies with Part ML. The owner becomes responsible for the standard of maintenance and most, if not all, place that responsibility in the hands of an approved maintenance company who then become the 'Continued Airworthiness Maintenance Organisation' (or CAMO as they're known).
Having a group place its aircraft with a CAMO removes any risk of internal conflict in the event that costs arise that some might consider unnecessary. If the CAMO says it's not fit to fly then the matter is out of the groups hands.
The problem in a permit group, especially one that is doing its own maintenance is that the situation can occur where the fitness of the aircraft becomes debatable between those doing the work and those simply contributing towards it. Maybe in a ten person group, only one or two actually carry out the work. If they say the aircraft should be grounded and the others feel the defect is carryable then the situation becomes a breeding ground of discontent. Permit aircraft might be cheaper to operate but the CAMO has a strong role to play in keeping the group stable.
That said of course. It depends on which CAMO you appoint and how honest they are at providing a cost effective service to their customers. That, I'm afraid, is a subject that deserves its own debate.