Martin wrote:
It was written here several times, it is possible with a plane like the 172 (it’s one of the positive developments under EASA). You just seem to ignore it because it doesn’t suit your argument.
There is talk about it, but where in the EASA regulation does it say a freelance can do the annual?
LeSving wrote:
There is talk about it, but where in the EASA regulation does it say a freelance can do the annual?
Part-M says
(b) No aircraft can be released to service unless a certificate of release to service is issued at the completion of any maintenance, when satisfied that all maintenance required has been properly carried out, by:
1. appropriate certifying staff on behalf of the maintenance organisation approved in accordance with Section A, Subpart F of this Annex (Part M); or
2. *certifying staff in compliance with the requirements laid down in Annex III (Part-66), except for complex maintenance tasks listed in Appendix VII to this Annex for which point 1 applies; or *
3. by the Pilot-owner in compliance with point M.A.803;
So if your annual doesn’t contain complex maintenance tasks, a Part 66 mechanic can do it.
LeSving wrote:
But that logic only makes sense if the flying you do is what you do for a living, and by using time fixing your plane, that time is subtracted from the earnings you could do as a pilot.
No, that logic makes sense as long as you have better things to do. Time always has a value, you can use it a way that brings you something. If gardening (or building stabilizers) fulfills you, good, I prefer to pay a gardener so I can use that time for something else (it’s valuable enough to me).
LeSving wrote:
There is talk about it, but where in the EASA regulation does it say a freelance can do the annual?
Actually, you might be able to do the annual yourself (depends on what needs to be done).
Guillaume wrote:
So if your annual doesn’t contain complex maintenance tasks, a Part 66 mechanic can do it.
We’re talking about ELA1 (C172 and similar).
Martin wrote:
No, that logic makes sense as long as you have better things to do. Time always has a value, you can use it a way that brings you something
That’s only excuses to not do anything. I want it now, or I don’t want it at all syndrome. I don’t understand your logic at all. You talk about old planes and maintenance, but aren’t willing to lift as much as a single finger to assure it is properly maintained, because you would rather do more “valuable” things ?? How on earth can you even start to suggest that other people should get 40-50 year old “wrecks” that will vacuum clean their wallets by maintenance alone, instead of a new microlight that will fly faster and better and also is something they can show off to anyone, and with a minimal maintenance they can do on their own?
@Guillaume , that’s really cool if it actually means what it suggests. Do you have the links for it?
Martin wrote:
We’re talking about ELA1 (C172 and similar).
Regarding ELA 1 not used in commercial transport, there is indeed one more alleviation :
c) By derogation from point M.A.801(b)2 for ELA1 aircraft not used in commercial air transport, aircraft complex maintenance tasks listed in Appendix VII to this Annex may be released by certifying staff referred to in point M.A.801(b)2;
For ELA 1 not used in commercial air transport, a Part 66 can do everything (including complex maintenance tasks).
Guillaume wrote:
For ELA 1 not used in commercial air transport, a Part 66 can do everything (including complex maintenance tasks).
That’s what I was hinting at. Certainly a thank you is in order for quoting the regs, as LeSving asked. So, thank you.
@LeSving I was just trying to explain to you why accounting for time makes sense. It always has value, even free time. If you want to sink it into a plane, fine (I can certainly understand how can someone enjoy more building a plane than flying it afterwards). I’m not saying I won’t do any maintenance (in general, car, house, plane, etc.), but when I do, I do it because I enjoy it or I don’t want to trust anyone with it. Someone might do it to save money, because his time is cheaper. You might be surprised, but such 40 year old plane can be maintained exclusively by a mechanic and still for less than what you wrote. Someone new to aircraft ownership will depend on a mechanic anyway, otherwise it would be a very steep learning curve (and this is a hobby where you don’t want to learn by trial and error).
Maybe we need two threads…
1) About attracting people to aircraft ownership. Objective: enjoy owning and maintaining an aircraft, flying is a bonus.
Analogy: Owning and driving a genuine oldtimer.
2) About attracting people to flying. Owning and maintaining an aircraft is a means to an end.
Analogy: Driving a regular car.
These two camps will never reconcile.
Low prices for old aircraft and relaxing regs around self-maintenance will help to attract people to (1). I dare say it puts off those who want (2).
Cobalt wrote:
I dare say it puts off those who want (2).
Not necessarily. However, an older machine (plane or car) that you don’t know can always be full of surprises and not of the good kind. And there are people buying older cars that would be way outside of their means as new just as A to B transport maintained by a mechanic (typically not an authorized service center, too expensive and too often incompetent), not to satisfy their tinkering needs. It’s a risk and it can pay off. But it’s not for everyone.
But you’re right, those two groups have a bit different goals. And I think Mooney_Driver was addressing number two.
@Cobalt – always feel free to start threads 
A Part 66 mechanic can carry and release to service any non-complex maintenance tasks on any aircraft (ELA 2 and even more !) authorised on it’s license.
Not only this…
It is perfectly possible for me to get an Annual done on an EASA-reg TB20 for the proverbial 200 quid. All one needs is to have the competence, the tools, and to work “under the supervision of” the person(s) with the right qualifications. On N-reg I just need an A&P who works for beer, and an IA who signs off the Annual for more beer.
On the homebuilt scene, if some posts are to be believed, everybody works for “beer”.
That’s great but there is a finite number of people out there who really and truly work for beer. Most people will do a little bit for “beer”, and a bit more to help friends. I know an LAA inspector who works almost for “beer”.
But ultimately most people are looking for a “return” of some sort, especially if they feel people who do have some money are just using them for free work.
