In the UK we have 50 hour check (or 6 months). Then another 50 hour check (or six months) and then a 150 hour check. We aIlso have an annual.
Am I right in thinking that in the states they have 100 hour checks (or annual).
I've also read on another post that in germany 50 hour checks aren't mandatory.
If this is all true then what I can't understand is why there is such variation. Why doesn't everyone follow the manufacturer's recommendations?
...because it's a huge mess when manufacturers' recommendations are made mandatory by CAAs. This is exactly what you don't want to happen.
No, the question is not whether you need 50h checks but who is allowed to perform them. The oil change interval for most piston aircraft is 50h and that is mandatory per section 2 of the maintenance manual. In Germany I am allowed to do that myself. I am also allowed to perform 100h checks myself. However, I am not allowed to extend the ARC myself and there has to be at least one 100h check per year signed off by an authorized inspector. Given that the ARC checks include everything that one tends to have in a 100h check, it's more a formality. Some shops try to charge double.
I haven't done much since Part M in Germany, but it was different before. you had 50h and 100h (1000h..) maintenance and different checks: 100h check (100 Std. Nachpruefung nur bei Schulung) and annual (Jahresnachpruefung) I had a licence to do the 100h check, wheras the maintenance could be done by anyone with 'knowledge'. There was a big difference between maintenance and check.
It was a good system.
A big topic 
Why doesn't everyone follow the manufacturer's recommendations?
The problem with those is that they tend to be excessive.
They were written for the FAA scenario, where the only mandatory maintenance is what is in the Airworthiness section of the maintenance manual (MM). Everything else is "on condition". That is because the certification authority (the FAA) "owns" the right to direct maintenance (and other stuff); the manufacturer gives up control of that in return for being granted the Type Certificate (and other stuff). The manufacturer can recommend (issue SBs) but can't force anybody. Only the FAA can force people, by issuing an AD.
Europe has perverted the above, by taking the MM and making it mandatory. So stuff like component life limits (which in most cases have no engineering basis) become mandatory.
In the FAA system the Annual is mandatory and that's it. The in-between services are also "practically necessary" via the need to chance the oil, etc. But if oil lasted for ever, few people would need to do them.
The FAA 100hr check (a subject of much misinformation in Europe) is required only if you carry paying passengers, or train others in your plane. It is a big cost burden because it is more or less a full Annual.
The UK CAA 150hr check is pure stupidity, with no engineering basis. It is also a big cost burden because it is more or less a full Annual.
Turboprops and jets are different from the above - not least because their oil lasts much longer.
Turboprops and jets are different from the above - not least because their oil lasts much longer.
You are right. I have noticed that Mirage vs Meridian, the turboprop has almost no regular maintenance between annuals. Even brakes are used less given beta. Of course bits and pieces go wrong but I mean piston style preventative maintenance - the biggest difference is the oil changes.
It interesting to note a certain tendency, only slight under FAA rules as described by Peter, but much more pronounced under EASA and legacy Euro national regs, to consider regulation of aircraft maintenance as a government function. I think its completely inappropriate for private aircraft - maintenance of my property, used privately, is not a community project. Sure, government has a legitimate role in requiring that their designee inspect my aircraft annually for compliance with the type certificate and airworthy condition. But how its maintained in condition to pass that inspection is properly up to me, the owner and user.
My US-based aircraft are N-registered and have no 'Continued Airworthiness' section in their maintenance manuals - that is relatively recent invention introduced for FAA certification since 1981, as far as I can tell. Therefore, the role of government in assuring airworthiness of my particular aircraft is in requiring an annual inspection, government approval of engineering data for any major repairs or modifications, and compliance with any government ADs they may issue. Nothing whatsoever to do with routine maintenance, manufacturer recommended or not, other that it be performed (signed off) by certificated mechanics.
National regulation issues aside, there are several reasons why I own and fly aircraft produced by inactive (in effect defunct) manufacturers, with an ill-defined certified configuration, powered by engines (A65 Continental and O-320 Lycoming) that had the bugs worked out of them decades ago. One main reason is to reduce the chance that any government dictate other than annual inspections will cross my path during long term ownership.
If you're looking for reasons why newly certified aircraft (including Light Sports) don't take off in the marketplace, in the real world I think that's a big part of the answer.
The FAA 100hr check (a subject of much misinformation in Europe) is required only if you carry paying passengers, or train others in your plane. It is a big cost burden because it is more or less a full Annual.
Never knew it. At the airforce we had 25h checks, so it was 25, 50, 75 (same as 25) 100...
The FAA is the regulator, the manufacturer is not. A mandatory service bulletin is not binding unless the FAA specifically issues an AD stating the SB must be followed. On Bonanzas, there is an AD that specifies inspection and repair requirements IAW a specific SB on the issue of cracks in the spar carry through cover. The SB permitted cracks of a certain size to be stop drilled and monitored as long as they did not exceed a certain length. The manufacturer later decided to amend the service bulletin to not permit any cracks without requiring a repair kit. The FAA stated that it has no effect as they did not modify their AD to include the new revision of the SB. A long study was conducted by the ABS in cooperation with the FAA and it concluded that the current SB did not compromise safety.
Very few maintenance manuals have limitations sections that are FAA approved that need to be followed. Changes in the manuals where new requirements are introduced by the manufacturer are not binding on existing aircraft unless there is an AD, which is rarely justified.
Another mandatory SB that Beechcraft has issued on Bonanza aircraft is to have the wing bolts removed and inspected every 5 years and replaced on a 15 year cycle. In the 67 year history of the type, there has never been a wing bolt failure. Wings have been torn off in crashes, but not at the bolt attachment. Mine are currently 47 years old. They get inspected visually every annual, I spray them and the wing bolt bathtub fitting with Corrosion X and make sure the drain hole is clear, but I have no intention of replacing them.
