Contacting my “Maintenance Organization” on a Saturday involves sending a text at around 11:30 saying “I’m over here installing the canopy seal… lunch in a little while?” 
After lunch yesterday we did some other stuff together (utilizing his higher level of skill) and I gave him the logbooks to do some nice logbook entries for a bunch of work and the Annual. When he returns them I’ll give him ten $100 bills… it’s been a lot of work together over several months.
with a private aircraft, this surely is a real PITA.
Exactly; having a good arrangement for keeping one’s plane working is absolutely vital in making the difference between flying as a whole being an enjoyable hobby, and being one big expensive hassle.
The result is microlight and experimentals
Only for the people who can do the work themselves, or who can dig up somebody who is willing to do it. It’s a “special” community
When he returns them I’ll give him ten $100 bills… it’s been a lot of work over several months.
That’s how it should be, and it can be done in certain communities.
Peter wrote;
What do you do for the AOG situation? 25 mins’ flying time is 1-2hrs’ driving, which will be very expensive – of the order of €500 extra for someone to come down.
In our case it much less than the €500 but still higher than the cost of flying to and from maintenance.
In an AOG situation obviously they have to come by car.
Peter wrote:
Only for the people who can do the work themselves, or who can dig up somebody who is willing to do it. It’s a “special” community
There is no lack of people who can work on a certified light GA planes. There is only a lack of those people within the appropriate organisation, or rather a lack of the appropriate organisation. There are several dozens of certified mechanics at ENVA, but they work on Boeings, dash’es or helicopters. A long time ago they also did the odd maintenance on light GA, or someone at the Air Force end did. Those times are long gone. There is no incentive for anyone anymore to work on light GA because the people who would otherwise liked to in the spare time, has to do it within organizations that cannot do this in a cost effective manner. They have to focus on Boeings, dashes and helicopters.
No rules, regulation or corporate considerations prohibits someone to work on an experimental aircraft in the spare time. There is always someone in the community that also happens to more than good enough for the task. This is not a problem. My own tech adviser for my planes is the head of maintenance at the local helicopter company. He is now also doing two other people (that I know of), one with an RV-8 and one with an RV-10. He is officially appointed by the CAA. He can do this, and think it’s fun, because there are no bureaucratic or legal strings attached to it. The same goes for maintenance of experimental aircraft. Any certified mechanic can do this, but also the owner by taking a course and by participating two times with someone else. This is no problem for a mechanic because there is no bureaucratic strings attached. He can do it, no questions asked, because he got the right personal papers. Why couldn’t certified planes be the same? This is how it used to be (as far as mechanics for maintenance go). The only reason it isn’t so is because a “sausage German” in Köln says “Nein”. The result is 500+ NM round trip to do simple maintenance on a simple C-172. In what universe is this OK? And all in the name of safety. IMO It’s about time someone invited those sausages to come along on one of this “safety trips” in the the twilight in the winter across the mountains of Norway.
A few years ago now, before EASA. Myself and a friend set up a light aircraft maintenance company. We couldn’t make it work. We couldn’t get the through put of work to pay the bill’s. Glad it didn’t in hindsight. I don’t think I would have the life style I have now.
I also started advertising as an independent engineer. I’m able to sign for nearly all light aircraft. Got EASA, CAA, FAA, LAA and BMAA licenses and got hardly any enquiries for work. When I did, it was someone who had usually fallen out with their maintenance company who wanted work done on the cheap. They would usually want it done in a field somewhere to save money. I have now stopped advertising for work. By the time I had payed for advertising, web sites, insurance, tax, etc it wasn’t worth the effort. Plus I had less time to go flying. It is also hard work when you have a full time job.
Over the summer I was offered a hangar free of charged to set up a maintenance company on a busy well established airfield in the south of England. After thinking about it for while I decided it wasn’t a good idea. I have a well paid job maintaining business jets. Its close to home. It pays a pension, share options. Pay rise every year I’ve worked there. Not matter how much I don’t enjoy it I cant afford to jack it in to go live in a caravan on an airfield while I try and build up a business that will probably never pay a descent wage. Its not fair on my Mrs and I’m getting to old for it.
I like GA. I used to work full time in it. But the rewards are not great for the amount of effort.
My A&P IA has a $150K per year tech rep job as his main income. Its better that way – less pressure on all concerned to enjoy their hobby, but the solid toy money being exchanged helps pay for things that might otherwise be seen as superfluous.
LeSving wrote:
There is no lack of people who can work on a certified light GA planes. There is only a lack of those people within the appropriate organisation, or rather a lack of the appropriate organisation.
I couldn’t agree more if EASA would simply let people who are qualified to simply do what they are qualified to do then things would improve. EASA approves the organisation and not the individual this simply adds a further layer of cost and bureaucracy.
LeSving wrote:
Why couldn’t certified planes be the same? This is how it used to be (as far as mechanics for maintenance go). The only reason it isn’t so is because a “sausage German” in Köln says “Nein”. The result is 500+ NM round trip to do simple maintenance on a simple C-172. In what universe is this OK? And all in the name of safety. IMO It’s about time someone invited those sausages to come along on one of this “safety trips” in the the twilight in the winter across the mountains of Norway.I might be terribly wrong, but at least in Estonia and Latvia its still possible. If you don’t need CAMO (only private operations) then a licensed mechanic can do the maintenance and everything’s OK..
ivark wrote:
I might be terribly wrong, but at least in Estonia and Latvia its still possible. If you don’t need CAMO (only private operations) then a licensed mechanic can do the maintenance and everything’s OK..
It is definitely possible elsewhere as well, with the exception of major maintenance on non-ELA1 aircraft. Some maintenance can also be done and released by a private owner. It’s all described in Part M, Subpart H (M.A.801 and M.A.803, respectively).
EASA approves the organisation and not the individual
That is the “European way”. It is the case in every walk of life and business. Approved organisations… It is the absolutely inevitable result of a system where the organisations pay fees to whoever approves them. Unfortunately, as with criticising Fraport, this kind of discussion just results in an exodus from certain quarters…
Some maintenance can also be done and released by a private owner
Indeed; pilot privileges are usually ok for the “in between” servicing – both EASA and FAA.
The issues tend to be
)
