Pas encore de retour de l'OSAC, mais j'ai celui de l'EASA.
Ma question :
Manu a écrit:Good morning,
Regulation 1088/2015 implements the MIP for aircraft with declared maintenance programme. This MIP defines an maximum check interval of 100 FH / 1 year and require a operational test of the transponder. For aeroclub's aircraft, with sevral hundredth of FH each year, the operational test, in practice a flight test, represents a heavy workload and an important cost.
Based on that, I would obtain an AMOC to this requirement with the following tasks :
- Operational test of the transponder at interval of 1 year
- Ground test of the transponder every 100 FH (simulated altitude with a barometric bench and transponder altitude read out).
These both tasks will be compliant with the requirement of regulation 1088/2015 as they will allow to check the correct altitude reporting function of the transponder every 100 FH / 1 year.
La réponse :
EASA a écrit:In accordance with M.A.302(h), for the aircraft maintenance programme (AMP) for ELA1 aircraft not involved in commercial operations, compliance with points M.A.302 (b), (c), (d), (e), and (g) may be replaced by the conditions M.A.302(h) 1 to 5. In particular, the provision M.A.302 (d) ‘The aircraft maintenance programme must establish compliance with (…) (i) instructions issued by the competent authority (…)’ is not applicable for aircraft with a declared M.A.302(h) AMP based on a MIP.
In regards to the operational test of the transponder required by the MIP, the Agency is of the opinion that, when dealing with already certified system, ground test is deemed enough to check XPDR is operational. As recommended in EASA SIB 2011-15R2, it is possible to check correct operation of installed XPDR using appropriate ramp testing. These ramp test equipment include XPDR power output checking.
Nevertheless, be reminded that, in accordance with M.A.302 (h)5, when deficiencies in the content of the maintenance programme are found when performing the AMP annual review (typically during the Airworthiness Review), the authority has to be informed by the person performing the AMP review and the AMP amended as agreed with the authority. This case would be a reason for the authority to request in-flight operational check in the AMP, i.e. if there is evidence of a deficiency with the transponder identified during an airworthiness review (e.g by reviewing aircraft records).
Lastly, let us stress that the transponder operational test referred in the MIP (M.A.302 (i)) as well as other tasks of the MIP defined in AMC M.A.302(i) are required annually or every 100 FH, whichever comes first.
J'ai du mal avec le langage administratif, quelqu'un peut me traduire ? Le test au sol est suffisant, toujours toutes les 100 h / 1 an, mais en cas de défaut, ça remettrait en cause le PE, c'est bien ça ? En clair si le PE a permis de découvrir la panne, c'est qu'il n'est pas acceptable pour l'autorité...
J'espère que je me suis mélangé les pinceaux
Manu
Posté: Lundi 8 Octobre 2018 11:23