Thing is, there are microlight pilots who can not do any maintenance, is it because they lack time, skill, dedication, interest or all of it. In this case it almost doesn’t play a role if you go certified.
No, ELA-1 is an EASA-Aircraft Maintenance definition. But even with other aircraft, you may very well make all the work on your aircraft. The point is, that you’re just not allowed to sign for the work. So performing a task and releasing it to service are two different things.
Hm, how then to think of this quote from another thread:
Thank heavens it’s a permit aircraft – if it had been a Cessna 152 with a bent undercarriage, I’d be bankrupt.
That said, I do know one or two microlight pilots who do not know how to handle a screwdriver, and neither would they want to. They are politely greeted by all… and avoided otherwise. For as little as I understand them, they are happy to fly a shiny new plane with all the latest gadgets, including an autopilot, at a cost much less than a certified plane – because the gadgets needn’t be certified. They do spend much time on washing and cleaning.
The rest of the microlighters are discussing issues with all planes on the field, borrowing each other’s tools, giving a helping hand when asked (but only when asked!), generally tinkering on their planes, and flying them now and so often to validate the tinkering – shamelessly enjoying all of it, of course. The remark to T/S " it depends how much of a mechanic you are" carries a lot of truth.
As for working on a certified plane “under supervision” of a certified maintenance company, and having them sign off for it, it is a world I do not really know. For a little as I heard, round here most maintenance companies manage to keep the profit to themselves, but there are a few that will accept the scheme.
As for working on a certified plane “under supervision” of a certified maintenance company, and having them sign off for it, it is a world I do not really know. For a little as I heard, round here most maintenance companies manage to keep the profit to themselves, but there are a few that will accept the scheme.
I don’t think many people do that (“owner assistance”) on EASA-reg. As you suggest, few companies would play ball on that. I used to do it a few years ago, where the company would let me and an avionics guy do avionics work while they did the normal maintenance. But they still billed the fixed price Annual in full.
On N-reg, you don’t need the whole Part-M involvement; you just need one guy who is an FAA A&P/IA and a hangar in which he can work, assisted by you or whoever else you can drag in. That’s what I have been doing for a few years now and it works great, though I never know more than a month in advance if that hangar will still be there.
It’s certainly true that huge cost savings can be achieved by DIY maintenance (whether or not under A&P supervision, as is required for a certified N-reg) but the person doing it still need to be every bit as competent as on the certified aircraft. I know this sounds like a soundbite but there is still the person, plus passengers, sitting in the plane, and their lives are at risk, so it isn’t the license for being the cheapskate that a lot of people (nobody on EuroGA, let me add) think it is. The main savings come from using (a) your own labour (which, by definition in this case, you account for at zero cost) and (b) parts which didn’t come through a traceability process. The skills needed are still the same however, otherwise you will kill yourself through some pointless mechanical failure or an in-flight fire.
I know a couple of guys operating a Robin ATL or a MS880 way below the costs of another friends WT-9 Dynamic.
Sure, nobody doubted that. But you cannot really compare these in terms of performance. Also, one will be 40 years old, the other less than ten…
bosco, that I have said in the following sentences. Point is the question: Do you want to be in the air cheap, or go miles? Do you want to maintain your aircraft, or want to maintain it commercially? Do you want to go flying with two persons and bags and go travelling and still be legal? Basically: It depends on your goals and aircraft at hand, what aircraft is more suitable and cheaper to operate.
Suzy,
The reality is that general aviation is to a large degree, a derivative of earlier days military aviation. Military anything was historically a money is no object undertaking. So the massive infrastructure which came to apply to general aviation, based upon the military model, was still costly. Steps have been taken to reduce those costs, but not much, and you have to be very well informed, with initiative, and tools to make much use of these.
Non certified aircraft have appeared to reduce costs, and in the short term of aircraft operations, it is true. Though, if you are investing in an airplane for a 25 or more year proposed useable lifespan, I’m not certain that low cost non certified will save you any money in the long run. Bear in mind that most flight training is still done in aircraft generally built in the ’70’s and ’80’s – they’ve lasted, and are economical based upon their quality and durability – imposed by a quasi military model.
The simple fact is that their are a lot of people who have done a job in the background, if an airplane is flying. They, as any of us, would like to be paid a fair day’s pay for that. Add to that, there are still pilots/owners who do have a money is no object approach to their pastime. so they’ll perpetually keep the bar higher for everyone else. Those who can do the work will gravitate toward those who will pay happily.
Use the forgoing advice to find the more economic way of flying, but know that there will always be background costs, and if you reduce them too far, you are sacrificing safety. Sometimes, you just gotta pay……
I don’t think many people do that (“owner assistance”) on EASA-reg. As you suggest, few companies would play ball on that. I used to do it a few years ago, where the company would let me and an avionics guy do avionics work while they did the normal maintenance. But they still billed the fixed price Annual in full.
From my experience in other fields (e.g. supervising junior doctors, undergraduate students) my observation would be that supervising someone of unknown ability often doesn’t take much less time than doing something yourself, and is generally riskier. I can’t say I blame them.
After a while its not ‘unknown ability’ anymore, relationships are the norm in aviation and are what can make it workable. I’ll be doing the annual on my plane next month plus installing a new fuel flow totalizer and some other odds and ends. I imagine that as always the A&P IA will get $200 from me for his day of work in the hangar, ten twenty dollar bills, plus furnished lunch to include freshly baked cake from my wife. 
We both have real jobs, this is just fun. We just prefer to do serious things for fun. The anal, too small suit, carefully chosen cologne and prettily colored neck tie world of EASA apparently can’t conceive of that possibility.
EASA also has self-employed Part-66 engineers that can do what you describe. However, your model of cake-for-annual might work for you but certainly not on a larger scale. Maintaining aircraft is a profession and in most cases qualified people will want to get paid appropriately for it.
The guy I work with definitely does get paid appropriately for it. The difference is that if he worked alone, it would take him a lot longer and some of the jobs cannot be done single-handed (e.g. elevator removal). Jacking the plane up also takes several times as long – one of many examples.
He is also EASA66 and thus could do the same for an EASA-reg, but there is the added task of having to get a Part M Subpart G service (which cannot be a single person, though an equivalent can be “arranged” with some subterfuge) to inspect and sign it off. This is difficult to arrange in practice and very few people would have the contacts, so if you fly an EASA-reg you just have to use a company for the whole thing, and then
That said, most aircraft owners have no option but to use a company, because they don’t have the contacts and/or they don’t want to get that involved… And, having spent 4.5 days a couple of weeks ago in an unheated hangar, I can understand Two fleeces, two tracksuits, thick socks, wooly hat, gloves, and we were lucky that the weather was very wet and thus warm, at +8C… 2 years earlier it was -4C. It’s a high price to pay to get a job done well, and to get it done during the winter so that flying is not affected during the nicer months.
