Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: C42 Spare Parts

  1. #1
    Member Settling in
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Leicestershire
    Posts
    48

    C42 Spare Parts

    To all C42 owners,

    I would like to clarify the position on the supply of C42 spare parts from Red Aviation

    Although we are still waiting for the CAA to lift our suspension after further delays, the latest being caused by CAA staff holidays, we are still able to supply the vast majority of the parts needed as these tend to be the service/wear & tear items that fall under the BMAA TIL058 see.....BMAA website for details

    The rather inaccurate emails sent out by the CAA and BMAA last week incorrectly stated that all parts must be obtained from Comco-Ikarus directly. However this only applies for parts made specifically for a C42 and our approval suspension does not apply to standard/commercial items i.e. Brakes, tyres, batteries, engine parts, bolts, screws, fasteners, electrical parts etc., etc.

    Also all parts including primary structure - struts, spars and the like, can be supplied for the lucky owners of C42 aircraft on an LAA permit, as even though these types can now be used for flight training, the CAA A8-1 approval does not apply to these aircraft.

    Thanks to Ben Syson, the BMAA web site has now been amended to correct the original statement, but the CAA have not yet amended their communication to owners

    I would be grateful if everyone who reads this post, could pass on this information to any C42 owners they may know, as not all owners visit this forum

    Many thanks

    Malcolm Stewart

    Red Aviation

  2. #2
    Malcolm,

    What is the rationale behind the approval suspension? Historically RED AIR don't seem to have been free from controversy in aviation terms.
    Might be time to tell your customers what the lowdown is?

  3. #3
    Member Settling in
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Leicestershire
    Posts
    48
    Hi Sean I do not think this forum is the right place to tell you what I really think about the way the new CAA surveyor conducted the audit earlier this year, except to say that his version of what is needed to comply with BCARS A8-1 regulation is very different from his predecessors. We have had to add many more pages of new procedures to our exposition(quality manual) and now have a formal contract with Comco who had to sign to acknowledge that for the UK C42's the CAA regulations apply for both manufacturing standards and the aircraft certification. This has never been needed before in the 15 years that the C42 has had factory built type approval using exactly the same paperwork as this already covers this topic. These change requests happen every time we have a new surveyor(auditor) which is quite often. For instance, we are now on a 3rd surveyor since the audit this year and a 4th auditor will be visiting Comco very soon although it is not exactly clear why his is going at all? I am not invited despite having spent 4 days at Comco in June doing an full audit which the CAA insisted I do, even though Comco put a lot of money, time and effort in obtaining ISO quality management accreditation 3 years ago which is independently audited and recognised by all EU & other countries around the world that the C42 is supplied to. The CAA however do not recognise this approval, which probably says it all?

    I suggest you read the article in last months microlight magazine as the level of bureaucracy applied to microlights in the UK has to be experienced to be believed.

    I think you should ask the CAA for the low down as I haven't got a clue. As far as I am concerned the ball is and has been in the CAA court since 1st week in September which is the last time any changes or additions to our exposition were requested and were supplied . It is now November and we are still waiting.
    Last edited by Malcolm Stewart; 1st November 2017 at 09:09.

  4. #4
    Malcolm,
    As an ex Head of Safety & Compliance for a large aviation organisation, I read your letter in the BMAA magazine with interest. Granted I do not have the entire picture, but from my perspective this should not be insurmountable and should be relatively easy to resolve.

    As much as we would like to, a 3rd Party organisation holding an ISO Quailty accreditation does not absolve the requirement for your own independent audit. It was the bane of my life, having oversight of 400+ suppliers, but there are different means in achieving the outcome required

    I'm happy to discuss further off forum if you wish.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •