SORU: Uçak teknisyenleri ne iş yapar?
CEVAP: Uçaklar bakım merkezlerinde değişik safhalarda yapılması zorunlu bakımlara girerler. Uçak Teknisyenleri de yetkileri dahilinde bu bakım işlemlerine bizzat katılarak ilgili bakım kartlarında bulunan komponentlerin bakımını ve arıza giderme işlemlerini yaparlar.
SORU: Uçak teknisyenliği için yaş sınırı var mıdır?
CEVAP: 18 yaşını doldurmuş olmak gereklidir.
SORU: Uçak teknisyeni olmak için hangi okullara gidilir?
CEVAP: Uçak Bakımı Bölümü bulunan Meslek Liseleri, Sivil Havacılık Meslek Yüksekokulları ve Sivil Havacılık Yüksekokulları’na gidilir.
SORU: Uçak teknisyenliği eğitiminde ne tür dersler işlenir?
CEVAP: Temel uçak teorik ve pratik derslerinin yanında İnsan Faktörleri ve Havacılık Kuralları, yabancı dil gibi dersler işlenir.
Sivil Havacılık Yüksekokulları’nda ise temel mühendislik dersleri ve yukarıdabelirtilen dersler ileri seviyede işlenir.
19 August 2016
4 August 2016
Must the EASA Form 1 be kept for on-condition components ?
There is no specific requirement to retain the EASA Form 1 of such components unless needed to comply with the requirements set forth in M.A.305 (h)(1), (h)(4), (h)(5) and (h)(6) for determining the continuing airworthiness and configuration of the aircraft.
When does the interval for the next aircraft maintenance check/task or the interval for the component check/overhaul after the lengthy maintenance/storage starts?
In a normal scenario :
However there may be a lot of different considerations that change the normal scenario and make the statements above no longer valid. For example:
Case 1: When the maintenance task has been “extended” using a procedure approved by the competent authority and included in the AMP (refer to Appendix I to AMC M.A.302 point 4). In this case the new deadline is calculated using the old deadline (sometimes called “tolerance”).
Case 2: The maintenance task refers to a component maintenance task, for example the landing gear overhaul. In this case the start of the interval would be the date of the release to service after the overhaul of the landing gear or in some particular cases when specified in the maintenance data the interval may start from the date of installation.
Case 3: The task is part of a maintenance check, where the duration of the check is significant compared to the interval of the task. For example a check that lasts for 2 months and an inspection which has an interval of 3 months. In this case, it is reasonable to think that the performance of this task would need to be planned for the last days of the maintenance check. Otherwise the inspection also can be done on the first day, but in that case it is reasonable to expect that it will be released that very first day (then the deadline would be 3 months after the release). It also applies to the specific cases of mandatory tasks (ADs, CMRs, ALIs, SBs etc.) defining repetitive action with a calendar limit.
There are many other examples, the key is to use sound engineering judgment and the guidance provided in the ICAs to calculate the next deadline.
- The date of release should be considered to be the date of accomplishment
- The new deadline should be calculated using the date of release
However there may be a lot of different considerations that change the normal scenario and make the statements above no longer valid. For example:
Case 1: When the maintenance task has been “extended” using a procedure approved by the competent authority and included in the AMP (refer to Appendix I to AMC M.A.302 point 4). In this case the new deadline is calculated using the old deadline (sometimes called “tolerance”).
Case 2: The maintenance task refers to a component maintenance task, for example the landing gear overhaul. In this case the start of the interval would be the date of the release to service after the overhaul of the landing gear or in some particular cases when specified in the maintenance data the interval may start from the date of installation.
Case 3: The task is part of a maintenance check, where the duration of the check is significant compared to the interval of the task. For example a check that lasts for 2 months and an inspection which has an interval of 3 months. In this case, it is reasonable to think that the performance of this task would need to be planned for the last days of the maintenance check. Otherwise the inspection also can be done on the first day, but in that case it is reasonable to expect that it will be released that very first day (then the deadline would be 3 months after the release). It also applies to the specific cases of mandatory tasks (ADs, CMRs, ALIs, SBs etc.) defining repetitive action with a calendar limit.
There are many other examples, the key is to use sound engineering judgment and the guidance provided in the ICAs to calculate the next deadline.
What are the plans of EASA in regards of the guidance relating to components’ Time between overhaul (TBO) extension?
The Decision 2013/025/R of the Executive Director of the Agency of 11 September 2013 "Recommended practice for TBO extension’"was published by EASA in September 2013. Two months later, in December 2013, the ED Decision 2013/034/R cancelled the ED Decision 2013/025/R - "Recommended practice for TBO extension". That was done in reply to implementation difficulties reported by some NAAs. Afterwards EASA has decided to include the guidance related to the extension of the TBO into the framework of the Rulemaking task Part-M GA Task Force (Phase II).
CAMO 1 uses the anticipation when performing the airworthiness review or extension for 90 or 30 days correspondingly. After the issue or extension of the ARC, the aircraft is transferred during the anticipation period from CAMO 1 to CAMO 2. As the consequence CAMO 2 has solely continuously managed the aircraft for more than 12 months due to the term of the validity of the ARC accordingly being more than 12 month. Are the requirements of the M.A.901(b)(i) satisfied?
The intent of the article M.A.901(b)(i) is to define the ‘controlled environment’ by indicating that the aircraft must be managed during last 12 months by unique CAMO, which indirectly refers to a standard term of validity of the ARC. Therefore, if the aircraft has been managed by more than one CAMO since the date of issue of the last ARC or the date of issue of the ARC extension, it actually indicates that controlled environment was discontinued.
In addition in accordance with M.A.710(d) the 90 days anticipation shall be used to allow the physical review to be performed during a maintenance check. However, the intention of the rule was never to address the transfer of the aircraft within those 90 days with the purpose of avoiding the forthcoming airworthiness review. Concerning the 30 days anticipation for the ARC extension, point M.A.901(f) is intended for 2 consecutive extensions by the same CAMO managing the continuing airworthiness of the aircraft from the date of issue of the ARC, so the extended ARC could not be extended 2nd time by another organisation, because this constitutes a ‘breach’ of controlled environment.
In addition in accordance with M.A.710(d) the 90 days anticipation shall be used to allow the physical review to be performed during a maintenance check. However, the intention of the rule was never to address the transfer of the aircraft within those 90 days with the purpose of avoiding the forthcoming airworthiness review. Concerning the 30 days anticipation for the ARC extension, point M.A.901(f) is intended for 2 consecutive extensions by the same CAMO managing the continuing airworthiness of the aircraft from the date of issue of the ARC, so the extended ARC could not be extended 2nd time by another organisation, because this constitutes a ‘breach’ of controlled environment.
Can the airworthiness review certificate (ARC) of the large aircraft be extended during the extensive maintenance/long term storage?
An ARC extension could be performed as long as:
AND
there is no evidence or reason to believe that the aircraft is not airworthy, as stated in M.A.901(k).
Thus, the procedure for the extension established in the CAMO has to address verification of the compliance with 3 above mentioned conditions. An aircraft going through the lengthy maintenance/modification or long-term storage is not considered to meet the condition number 2.
- the conditions established for controlled environment (M.A.901 (b)) are met. This means:
- continuously managed during the previous 12 months by a unique CAMO, and
- maintained for the previous 12 months by Part 145 organisations.
AND
there is no evidence or reason to believe that the aircraft is not airworthy, as stated in M.A.901(k).
Thus, the procedure for the extension established in the CAMO has to address verification of the compliance with 3 above mentioned conditions. An aircraft going through the lengthy maintenance/modification or long-term storage is not considered to meet the condition number 2.
Which tasks of the aircraft maintenance programme (AMP) could be the subject to deletion or interval extension by a CAMO using the indirect approval procedures?
The indirect approval procedures may only be used for:
In any case, such processes still should be based on the M.A.301(4) analysis of the effectiveness of the AMP.
- the tasks, prescribed by the Design Approval Holder (DAH) in accordance with Part-21. The interval of these tasks could be decreased by the CAMO and extended to the values prescribed by the DAH,
- CAMO originated tasks which could be added, deleted or extended,
- addition/deletion/interval extension for the tasks arising from recommendations issued by the DAH.
In any case, such processes still should be based on the M.A.301(4) analysis of the effectiveness of the AMP.
Is EASA Forms 1 required during the import of the aircraft in the EU?
For the import of aircraft in the EU, the provisions of M.A.904 require the accomplishment of the airworthiness review, associated AMC M.A.904(a)(2) defines work to be performed in order to determine the airworthiness status of the aircraft.
When performing the airworthiness review there would be certain provisions of part-M where it might be not possible to show the full compliance with M.A.710 e.g. availability of EASA Form 1 for all relevant components. In such case, other releases to service or serviceable tags may be acceptable for the competent authority of the importing country.
Nevertheless, it must be ensured that the information required by M.A.305(d) related to the status of ADs, determination of remaining life, modifications and repairs is available (see also AMC M.A.305(d)).
When performing the airworthiness review there would be certain provisions of part-M where it might be not possible to show the full compliance with M.A.710 e.g. availability of EASA Form 1 for all relevant components. In such case, other releases to service or serviceable tags may be acceptable for the competent authority of the importing country.
Nevertheless, it must be ensured that the information required by M.A.305(d) related to the status of ADs, determination of remaining life, modifications and repairs is available (see also AMC M.A.305(d)).
Can an extension of an ARC be anticipated more than 30 days?
As long as the conditions established for controlled environment (M.A.901 (b): continuously managed during the previous 12 months by a unique CAMO and maintained for the previous 12 months by part-145/part-M subpart F maintenance organisations or maintenance tasks referred to in point M.A.803(b) carried out and released to service by independent certifying staff (M.A.801(b)2) or pilot owner (M.A.801(b)3) are met, the validity of the ARC can be extended for a period of one year. Should the ARC extension be anticipated more than 30 days, you will lose the continuity of the airworthiness review pattern, being the next date of expiry one year after the date of extension.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)