See around page 31 of EU regulation 1321/2014 for M.A 803 – Pilot-owner authorization – but yes, I believe as long as the maintenance programme (M.A. 302 – page 12 of same document) allows it, you can do it. The challenge, as I currently understand it, is to get your CAA to approve a maint. programme that works for you.
The weight limit is, I believe, 2730kg MTOM, which is well above even ELA2 (see M.A. 803 above, point b).
Peter wrote:
EASA does not allow you to do a “50h check” or the like
Is this not valid anymore, or was it always bogus?
That just sets the framework for what a CAA can approve in a maintenance program. Germany goes to the maximum extent, probably prompted by the large number of clubs with their own maintenance.
Again, you cannot do a “50h check” or anything like that, all you get approval for is certain specific maintenance tasks. If the manufacturer prescribed 50h check only consists of these tasks, then you can do your own 50h check. Otherwise you need signoff. You can still do it all by yourself but need signoff.
As always, there is still room for interpretation in the maintenance program. My own interpretation of it is very pro owner… 
Doing a search of the above PDF on “owner” finds several hits, including Appendix VIII, but my Adobe Acrobat (full v8) crashes. No idea why EASA is generating PDFs which require the latest reader, because not everybody wants to pay for the latest full Acrobat, so one ends up having two versions installed, with the free reader for docs like this.
All versions of Adobe Reader are free. For prehistoric Windows versions I believe X is the last version supported.
Peter wrote:
No idea why EASA is generating PDFs which require the latest reader
(etc)
PDF is actually an open specification. You don’t have to use Adobe’s software, there are hundreds of PDF readers (most of them better than the Adobe implementation).
From Appendix VIII of the above PDF (a local copy saved here)
For a “regulation”, this is typical vague EASA crap. I take it the engine is not required for IFR? Does it mean you cannot dig dead flies out of the pitot tube?
Previous versions of this stuff allowed the removal of slide-in avionics, with the exception of anything making use of the static system (so e.g. autopilots) and specifically excluding autopilots, DMEs and transponders. Has this concession been totally removed?
I also recall going to a seminar on Part M where it was stated that some EASA reg required the person to have a university degree!
Normally, in a proper justice system 
, any ambiguity is construed against the party relying on the regulation, but…. in how many European countries is that actually true?
My maintenance program explicitly mentions removal of cowlings.
You can always try to interpret something in the most negative way possible but why would you want to do it? Why does everything have to be spelled out in 110% clarity?
This EASA list only sets the limits for CAAs to grant owner maintenance permissions. It is therefore not relevant for your decision which tasks to carry out. If the CAA grants you cowling removal and EASA did not intend the CAAs to grant that, then it’s the CAA’s problem, not yours. CAAs can give you permission for all tasks that do not fall in the banned category, but they don’t have to. While the German CAA is probably the most liberal in this regard, there are some weird things. I am prohibited from replacing the battery on an IFR airplane but I can remove, clean and gap the spark plugs.
Here’s the German text of what maintenance tasks I’m granted to carry out by the German CAA. I’m too lazy to translate it right now but it is very far reaching, about 90% of what comprises an annual.
The German text you share is (as far as my poor German allows) an exact translation of the table in Part-M and is indeed far reaching.
PetitCessnaVoyageur wrote:
Which means you can change the probe, but I guess cannot change the specific part, by a more convenient or less expensive one.
If there is an alternative probe that is PMA approved for fitment you can.
