One of my jobs at work is keeping track of inspection intervals for our flight training birds so I have a quickly drawn up status sheet in Excel to keep my sanity at work. An issue I had with the A2A birds when using a "Used" bird is not knowing when the last time I changed the oil was so I have adopted my status sheets for work to the A2A birds and thought I would share it with yall.
All you have to do after a flight is enter your new tach time in the upper center block and it will auto-update the rest of the sheet to reflect the changes. When you change your oil, put the current date and ACTT in the oil change line under the C/W (Complied With) section and it will update your next due times to reflect those changes.
Feel free to improve on the sheets or use them as you see fit.
http://www.mediafire.com/file/1teqzuty5 ... SHEET.xlsx
A2A Status Sheet
- Lewis - A2A
- A2A Lieutenant Colonel
- Posts: 33284
- Joined: 06 Nov 2004, 23:22
- Location: Norfolk UK
- Contact:
Re: A2A Status Sheet
Very interesting spreadsheet thanks for sharing with the community.
cheers,
Lewis
cheers,
Lewis
A2A Facebook for news live to your social media newsfeed
A2A Youtube because a video can say a thousand screenshots,..
A2A Simulations Twitter for news live to your social media newsfeed
A2A Simulations Community Discord for voice/text chat
A2A Youtube because a video can say a thousand screenshots,..
A2A Simulations Twitter for news live to your social media newsfeed
A2A Simulations Community Discord for voice/text chat
-
- Airman First Class
- Posts: 95
- Joined: 08 Mar 2017, 20:00
Re: A2A Status Sheet
No problem at all. Hopefully someone can find a use for it like I have.
Re: A2A Status Sheet
Nice, thanks for sharing!
One thing I found useful when the list of items got longer is to format 'a master list' into a single big list using Excel table feature so one can easily filter out by class (SB, AD, AMM task...) and simply sort the entire list by due date/due hours. Then if one wanted to have a separate sheet for ADs for instance, one could use the lookup functions to make that kind of dynamic.
-Esa
One thing I found useful when the list of items got longer is to format 'a master list' into a single big list using Excel table feature so one can easily filter out by class (SB, AD, AMM task...) and simply sort the entire list by due date/due hours. Then if one wanted to have a separate sheet for ADs for instance, one could use the lookup functions to make that kind of dynamic.
-Esa
-
- Airman First Class
- Posts: 95
- Joined: 08 Mar 2017, 20:00
Re: A2A Status Sheet
We have something similar to what you are describing for the birds at work. The excel is for quick reference on the Part 91 birds and a few pages longer for the 135 Charter birds. Also another program for ADs/MSBs etc.
Re: A2A Status Sheet
Yea, and when using Excel or such, there is always the nice thing of having some freedom to make the list by one's own preferences, which is great. Even with Cessnas and such, the status list easily goes over one hundred items - in particular if managing one's own airplane or of some flying club's, it is important that it is comfortably readable. From about the size of Cessna Caravan and up, the airplanes often get managed in CAMP, AMOS or similar MRO management solution. Already at business jet scale, one easily ends up with a good thousand of rows.
-Esa
-Esa
Ai
It is.
At work, our King Airs have about 200-300 items to check at each visit, with 4 types of them in total, called phases . You do phase 1, than after 200 flight hours phase 2, and then 3, 4 and back to 1. They are mostly filter/gasket replacements, and visual inspections. And if you find something wrong, you have to fix it before releasing the plane.
And on top of that you have out of phase items that needs to be followed individually, like the starter generators that needs an overhaul every 1000 flight hours.
But since there are hundreds of systems that needs monitoring like that, you need the help of a whole separate company called CAMO (Continuing Airwothiness Maintaining Organization) that do just that; closely monitor each of the systems and decide when the plane will have to go back to the garage and what to do during the visit.
Working in maintenance kind of taught me that in real life, it doesn't quite work like in the A2A sim
Obviously A2A's choice is the best for a sim because you have the freedom to witness the magic of things wearing down and failing. But it doesn't work like that in develloped countries with serious regulations
Actually the most true-to-life in that regard is the Connie; stuff may fail unexpectably in flight but on the ground, everything is closely monitered and we don't ask the pilot before fixing
Also maintenance on mid-size airplanes like King Airs is a pain in the back, because they look like large, top-tier general aviation birds from the outside but under the hood they got airbus-grade avionics, working pressurisation, and the maintenance company have to follow the exact same regulations as if they were working on 747s.
You could buy a T-6 for the price of one big king air regular maintenance visit...
At work, our King Airs have about 200-300 items to check at each visit, with 4 types of them in total, called phases . You do phase 1, than after 200 flight hours phase 2, and then 3, 4 and back to 1. They are mostly filter/gasket replacements, and visual inspections. And if you find something wrong, you have to fix it before releasing the plane.
And on top of that you have out of phase items that needs to be followed individually, like the starter generators that needs an overhaul every 1000 flight hours.
But since there are hundreds of systems that needs monitoring like that, you need the help of a whole separate company called CAMO (Continuing Airwothiness Maintaining Organization) that do just that; closely monitor each of the systems and decide when the plane will have to go back to the garage and what to do during the visit.
Working in maintenance kind of taught me that in real life, it doesn't quite work like in the A2A sim
Obviously A2A's choice is the best for a sim because you have the freedom to witness the magic of things wearing down and failing. But it doesn't work like that in develloped countries with serious regulations
Actually the most true-to-life in that regard is the Connie; stuff may fail unexpectably in flight but on the ground, everything is closely monitered and we don't ask the pilot before fixing
Also maintenance on mid-size airplanes like King Airs is a pain in the back, because they look like large, top-tier general aviation birds from the outside but under the hood they got airbus-grade avionics, working pressurisation, and the maintenance company have to follow the exact same regulations as if they were working on 747s.
You could buy a T-6 for the price of one big king air regular maintenance visit...
Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul
Re: A2A Status Sheet
I'd add one detail that the CAMO is not necessarily a separate company, but often is the operator itself. Specifically, in case of an air carrier, the operator must have a CAMO approval of its own.Aymi wrote:But since there are hundreds of systems that needs monitoring like that, you need the help of a whole separate company called CAMO (Continuing Airwothiness Maintaining Organization) that do just that; closely monitor each of the systems and decide when the plane will have to go back to the garage and what to do during the visit.
Yeah, "small big planes" are in cases the most ungrateful to work with, because they cleverly combine the complexity of the big planes to the unreliability and often childish design and construction of the small planes. It makes up the dark segment of aviation. King Air is somewhat above that. Bring in any pressurized piston with the s/n suggesting like seventies, operator of which does some semi-commercial strange business, and registration staring with November, some mechanics wet their eyes and whisper "no...no...no..."Aymi wrote:Also maintenance on mid-size airplanes like King Airs is a pain in the back, because they look like large, top-tier general aviation birds from the outside but under the hood they got airbus-grade avionics, working pressurisation, and the maintenance company have to follow the exact same regulations as if they were working on 747s.
-Esa
-
- Airman First Class
- Posts: 95
- Joined: 08 Mar 2017, 20:00
Re: A2A Status Sheet
Esa you have described my reaction 110% when a P Baron comes in the shop lol
Re: A2A Status Sheet
Well about the CAMO, it is really not that much the case. Big ones aside, small airlines and private charter companies all use sperate CAMO. I have yet to see a falcon, king air or citation with the operator being the CAMOAKar wrote:I'd add one detail that the CAMO is not necessarily a separate company, but often is the operator itself. Specifically, in case of an air carrier, the operator must have a CAMO approval of its own.Aymi wrote:But since there are hundreds of systems that needs monitoring like that, you need the help of a whole separate company called CAMO (Continuing Airwothiness Maintaining Organization) that do just that; closely monitor each of the systems and decide when the plane will have to go back to the garage and what to do during the visit.
-Esa
And that leads up to even more nonsence because all the operator is doing is asking about the availability of it's aircraft, and is far away from any technical understanding.
Out here, part M camo is a big, growing business
Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul
Re: A2A Status Sheet
It comes directly from the regulation:Aymi wrote:Well about the CAMO, it is really not that much the case. Big ones aside, small airlines and private charter companies all use sperate CAMO. I have yet to see a falcon, king air or citation with the operator being the CAMO
Note that such CAMO can be very light, and most of actual the actual work can probably be outsourced to a different company. Back when I was working in CAMO environment, it was interpreted so that basically the operator had to have the CAMO approval, obviously, but other than that it had to have the exposition written of its CAMO functions, and its own NPH (Continuing Airworthiness Manager). In many cases, lots of the dirty work was done by someone else, but the accountability remains with the operator, and their CAM.Part M, M.A.201 wrote:In the case of aircraft used by licenced air carriers in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008, the operator is responsible for the continuing airworthiness of the aircraft it operates and shall:
[...]
(e) be approved, as part of its air operator certificate, as a continuing airworthiness management organisation pursuant to M.A. Subpart G (CAMO) for the aircraft it operates
145 functions are specifically allowed to be contracted out, though, so an airline for instance needs not to have its own MRO workshop. It is, however, required that such contract exists should the operator not include 145 functions under the scope of own approvals.
-Esa
- CAPFlyer
- A2A Aviation Consultant
- Posts: 2241
- Joined: 03 Mar 2008, 12:06
- Location: Wichita Falls, Texas, USA
Re: A2A Status Sheet
Interestingly, in the US the manufacturer is usually the CAMO for non-Air Carrier (i.e. Parts 135, 121, 119, etc) operated aircraft. The only ones that tend to have a 3rd party are those that no longer have an active manufacturer (i.e. Convair, Commander, etc). In a lot of ways, the manufacturers want to be the CAMO for the aircraft because it allows them more control over how their airplanes are maintained so they can limit their liability exposure in case of an incident.
Re: A2A Status Sheet
As far as I understand, the operator is also accountable of the continued airworthiness of the airplanes it operates under FAA as well. Not sure there even exists a direct equivalent to EASA CAMO. Obviously, because the maintenance programme is very much manufacturer-driven in bigger plane world, lots of potential functions of CAMO are actually pre-done by the manufacturer. Yet, the operator remains accountable for orchestrating the maintenance system, providing the maintenance programme as applicable to individual airplane etc.
Of course, manufacturers do provide (are required to provide) instructions for continued airworthiness, and in many cases, tools as well. For instance, Cessna uses CAMP-based CESCOM for MRO solution. It is a bit different thing however.
-Esa
Of course, manufacturers do provide (are required to provide) instructions for continued airworthiness, and in many cases, tools as well. For instance, Cessna uses CAMP-based CESCOM for MRO solution. It is a bit different thing however.
-Esa
Re: A2A Status Sheet
Don't want to dig on a sunday but I'm pretty sure that an amendement somewhere allows operator to completely outsource the CAMO. Given how common and severe the audits are, there are no illegal stuff being berformed under the radar.AKar wrote:It comes directly from the regulation:Aymi wrote:Well about the CAMO, it is really not that much the case. Big ones aside, small airlines and private charter companies all use sperate CAMO. I have yet to see a falcon, king air or citation with the operator being the CAMONote that such CAMO can be very light, and most of actual the actual work can probably be outsourced to a different company. Back when I was working in CAMO environment, it was interpreted so that basically the operator had to have the CAMO approval, obviously, but other than that it had to have the exposition written of its CAMO functions, and its own NPH (Continuing Airworthiness Manager). In many cases, lots of the dirty work was done by someone else, but the accountability remains with the operator, and their CAM.Part M, M.A.201 wrote:In the case of aircraft used by licenced air carriers in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008, the operator is responsible for the continuing airworthiness of the aircraft it operates and shall:
[...]
(e) be approved, as part of its air operator certificate, as a continuing airworthiness management organisation pursuant to M.A. Subpart G (CAMO) for the aircraft it operates
145 functions are specifically allowed to be contracted out, though, so an airline for instance needs not to have its own MRO workshop. It is, however, required that such contract exists should the operator not include 145 functions under the scope of own approvals.
-Esa
In practice operators outsource the CAMO just like they outsource the 145.
Maintenance programs, while based on the manufacturer's AMM, is made and kept updated by the CAMO, not the operator.
Some of the operators we work with even contractually leaves us (the 145) the responsability of outsourcing the CAMO to whoever we please as part of the maintenance contract.
Here's an exemple of non-airline CAMO
Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul
Re: A2A Status Sheet
Can very well be, I stopped actively following the amendments to the regulation in 2013 perhaps. I am certainly interested if there was such an amendment - that would state the final accountability can be outsourced as well.Aymi wrote:Don't want to dig on a sunday but I'm pretty sure that an amendement somewhere allows operator to completely outsource the CAMO.
I quickly don't find a thing on the REGIO LEASE website whether you can outsource absolutely everything to them if you were a CAT operator for instance. How it stood when I was last 'current' was that you could very well outsource the services they list, no problem. But, you still had to have your NPH, CAME and CAMO approval for your AOC, even if it simply was in reality a single person acting as Continuing Airworthiness Manager and a copy-paste exposition stating that these services are outsourced by this contract.
There is also a chance that the interpretation of the regulation in between the countries vary. Around here, every applicable operator even flying a single Cessna appear to have a CAMO, based on CAA's list of approved organisations. Several of those I know are outsourcing just about everything, but they still have the approval, and therefore necessarily an NPH for instance.
Edit: While not regulatory text, this EASA FAQ dated 2016 is the latest I could find as of now. I also find an NPA which proposes a possibility of complete outsourcing, but not any resulting regulation. Indeed, without having gone through all the possible amendments, it appears that under Part M, as written, in case of a "licensed air carrier" (yet another term that you need to have a definition for...) the operator must hold a CAMO approval. This is also how it is around here de facto: airlines actually do write their own maintenance programmes etc.
-Esa
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests