If there is any substance in the two quoted perspectives below the issue appears ambiguous.
Anyone have any idea if they could be both be valid?
One perspective articulated on another Flying forum:
I expect that 99% of all UK single engined Cessnas are maintained to the light aircraft maintenance program. CAP766
Section 2
The undersigned (owner/operator) undertakes to ensure that the aircraft will continue to be maintained in accordance with the program section 3 responsibilities and standards.
Non compliance will invalidate the c of a.
Signed for/on behalf of the owner operator
Section 3
Overhaul, Additional inspections and test periods shall be those recommended by the type certificate holder (Cessna ) or STC holder. (Note use of the word recommended not the word mandated)
Instructions for continued airworthiness consist of inservice data published by the type cert holder in maintenance manuals, bulletins, letters e.t.c.
Looks fairly clear to me as this is part of the maintenance manual failure to comply invalidates your C of A.
And one articulated by EASA to AOPA Germany:
Our below response addresses the case of non-large aircraft not used in commercial air transport.
We can confirm that the Cessna Supplemental Inspection Documents (SIDs) for 100/200 series are not included in the airworthiness limitations sections of the Cessna instructions for continuing airworthiness (ICA), and at this point they are also not covered by an AD. Hence, the Cessna SIDs for 100/200 series qualify as non-mandatory inspections in terms of ICA, even if they are designated "mandatory" in the revisions to the Cessna maintenance documentation. The position of the Agency is that compliance with SID for Cessna series aircraft should generally be recommended to aircraft owners/operators in line with the principles set out in M.A.302 and the related AMCs (cf. in particular Appendix I to AMC M.A.302 and AMC M.B.301(b) "Content of the Maintenance Programme", item 1.1.13a). If the owner/operator then decides not to include the optional modification/ inspections in the maintenance programme, he/she takes full responsibility for this decision.
I am just about to purchase a share in a Cessna. I have spoken to two separate maintenance organisations about the much feared Cessna inspections. They are both adamant that these are SBs and not ADs and NOT THEREFORE MANDATORY. They also state that any any machine which has been well maintained particularly in a reputable CAMO environment should not produce any expensive surprises even with the most diligent and thorough inspection.
As others have said, you can learn a lot by joining an established group and attending all their meetings. I have no regrets about the 3-4 years flying I did in my first group, even though I eventually outgrew it - I learned a lot about how groups run, how aircraft are kept in the air, and how to read an engineering bill :)
No doubt outright ownership is great, if you can afford it; but it's worth considering that, whatever your budget, if you share the costs with others you will be able to get a faster/newer/bigger/whatever aircraft than you can afford on your own. Only you can decide where you want to compromise.
If you do decide to go for a share, the most important thing is the other group members.
I'd like to see the "70-80hrs" itemised. That is about 4x more hours than it takes to do a complete visual inspection of a retractable. Does it involve dye-penetration NDT?
No idea! Anyone?
The kind gentleman who discussed his experience with me said his last Cessna annual basic price was £2.5k basic, but ended up coming in a shade under £8k
It is very common to pay £8k for an Annual on a Cessna 152/172, but those are usually cases where the plane is in a poor condition airframe-wise (corrosion is a good one) or has been operated with continued neglect and/or abused by students or abused by a large (very cheap flying) syndicate of say 30 members.
I personally know a chap who used to manage a C152 in a very large syndicate and their Annuals were c. £7k. With the # of members they had, though could have just bought (this is tongue in cheek - unsuitable for the Bembridge pub mission profile) a late-model TB20GT but no agreement could be reached on any capital expenditure. They were happy to keep paying for the maintenance, however, which they did! Their annual spend was at least 2x what I pay for the TB20...
I think those are about the only scenarios where that sort of money is appropriately spent on such simple planes long-term.
The other possibility of course is that somebody is ripping somebody off - a hardly unknown thing in GA 
Sadly, from people I am in touch with who are in syndicates, it seems that quite a lot of syndicates are getting ripped off; much more than sole owners. There is some curious dynamic which facilitates this... maybe a lack of agreement on who to use for maintenance results in the existing arrangement being continued even if apparently unsatisfactory. Or a member insists on using his mate for the work and vetoes anything else, so the group goes down the road of least resistance because there are bigger fish to fry. If you were the sole owner and somebody did a bad job, you would never use them again - obviously.
Short-term, obviously anything is possible. To take an extreme case, you could buy an old dog (poor pre-buy due diligence) which presents you with a £30k Annual (i.e. scrap is the only option).
I'd like to see the "70-80hrs" itemised. That is about 4x more hours than it takes to do a complete visual inspection of a retractable. Does it involve dye-penetration NDT?
RE: Cessna inspections.
I get the impression that for N reg aircraft, it's an optional thing, but for G reg aircraft it is mandatory (please correct me if I am wrong).
The general consensus amongst G reg owners (and I use that word loosely) appears to be a shrug of the shoulders and suggestion that it'll be no big deal, with the inference that these sort of inspections are already carried out by their maintenance organisation's already. This may be true, but I sort of get the impression that this perspective is more a product of wishful thinking than hard knowledge. I'm still in the "ignorant, but am keen to know more camp".
Those that do appear to done some digging have quoted an inspection process requiring 70-80 hours, so no change out of £5k if nothing is found or needs replacing. The kind gentleman who discussed his experience with me said his last Cessna annual basic price was £2.5k basic, but ended up coming in a shade under £8k. As I said to him, if the same scaling applies to these inspections, it'll raise a few tears.
Share ownership has allowed me to experience the non-flying parts of ownership, e.g. maintenance, record keeping, insurance, etc., without exposure to the full risk. If I knew then what I know now, I would have bought outright. This is the biggest lesson I have learned.
Sounds like you buying a share was a great move. You get to learn about ownership without the full monty of having to do everything yourself. If you buy a plane outright in the future the experience will be very valuable.
I am suprised nobody (especially from the USA) has yet commented on the threatened Cessna inspections... maybe they are not seen a problem for Part 91?
It's not something US Cessna owners seem to be worrying about. Firstly, its not an AD so the only tangible paperwork issue for non-commercial ops will be a maintenance logbook entry by your friendly A&P. Secondly, Cessnas are not exactly falling out of the sky so the average owner may or may not do something like the recommended inspection at some time in the future, depending on how much similar work has been done in the past.
After renting for a few years, I bought a share in a very nice PA-28. Since then, I have done more flying than ever before - far more than I thought I would. Probably the best thing I have done for my flying as both my skills and confidence have improved significantly.
Before making the leap, I considered full ownership. I read everything I could get my hands on about the benefits and pitfalls of full ownership. Pretty much everyone, except Peter and Silvaire and a couple of others, advised extreme caution or outright avoidance of full ownership. I lacked experience, so I took heed of this advice, but now I really wish I hadn't let it scare me off.
Despite being in a great, small group with very good availability (on average the aircraft is flown on only 1.3 days/week), I find it restrictive. But not nearly as restrictive as renting. For the greater part, I think this has cropped up as result of how quickly my flying has progressed, thanks to cheaper flying and better availability.
Share ownership has allowed me to experience the non-flying parts of ownership, e.g. maintenance, record keeping, insurance, etc., without exposure to the full risk. If I knew then what I know now, I would have bought outright. This is the biggest lesson I have learned.
You know yourself better than anyone. Some people are happy sharing things with others, some are not. If finances only allow sharing or renting, then sharing is almost certainly cheaper and will give you greater accessibility.
If you are going to buy a share, think long-term. Give very serious consideration to what kind of flying you are likely to want when you have three or four times as much experience as you do now.
Looking back on my early flying days, it's obvious how little one knows, having merely been hanging out at the flying school.
The transition to whole or part ownership is a tough one, made tougher by a lack of support (for obvious business reasons) from the flying school.
The biggest thing is having a good community of owners where one can ask questions 
I think it's true for most pilots that they learnt far more from the internet than from any flying school.
An established group is great but it is difficult to verify how well it is running. If there are issues (disagreements on maintenance, a member who is taking the micky in some way, etc) these are unlikely to be disclosed to a prospective share buyer - especially as the group has a strong incentive to get shot of the troublesome member whose share is up for sale
Here in the UK anyway, shares tend to be overpriced, presumably because they are more affordable than the whole plane, and perhaps because the group doesn't want to face the fall in market values which has taken place in recent years.
I am suprised nobody (especially from the USA) has yet commented on the threatened Cessna inspections... maybe they are not seen a problem for Part 91?
