As I have posted elsewhere, Therese and I are about to relocate to Italy.
I am selling our G reg Piper Cub and looking around for something similar though a bit faster to base at an Aviosuperficie near our new house.
Question about Maintenance please, and please excuse my gross ignorance!
Can an Italian maintenance engineer legally work on a plane on any of the EASA registers. For example, could I base a D Reg aircraft there and have an Italian shop do the work and sign it off. If I can buy a plane from anywhere in EASA land it will make my search much easier.
The other possibility is an N reg plane. Are there many maintenance organisations that have FAA certified engineers in Italy?
Buckerfan wrote:
Can an Italian maintenance engineer legally work on a plane on any of the EASA registers. For example, could I base a D Reg aircraft there and have an Italian shop do the work and sign it off. If I can buy a plane from anywhere in EASA land it will make my search much easier.
If we’re talking about EASA (not Annex I) aircraft and EASA (not nationally) licensed maintenance staff, then yes.
FAA certified woul dnot be a problem, I know a few and am using one for my N-reg Bonanza.
Having the choice I would go N-reg anytime, but you will get to hear some stories about what the Guardia di Finanza did to N-reg aircraft and how unsafe they are – the usual chatter around some airfields. As I learned myself, there are a few shops better to steer away in Italy. PM me if you need contact details.
N-reg is the most universal in this department. You need to find an A&P and an A&P/IA annually, but if you can do that, the regime is superior to EASA because while EASA allows a freelance EASA66 mechanic, most of them are employed so have to moonlight (hence are very hard to find, and have a habit of disappearing on the day, especially if the job becomes nontrivial) while most FAA mechanics are freelancers by default so nobody really notices them. And of course you have the Form 1 advantages.
Italy is not taking measures against N-regs although there have been sporadic reports of aggressive police searches targeted at N-regs. I got one (nobody else arriving did) but they were very polite. Regarding long term parking, no restrictions, but IF some country in Europe was going to do something, I would put Italy at the top of the list because of its reputation for bizzarre, arbitrary and kneejerk vindictive measures and with accountability of official bodies almost approaching the Bolsheviks – like the “luxury tax” from years ago.
Airborne_Again wrote:
If we’re talking about EASA (not Annex I) aircraft and EASA (not nationally) licensed maintenance staff, then yes.
Oh Boy! It seems I am wandering into completely new territory here. What is an EASA vs Annex I aircraft, and likewise an EASA vs nationally licensed engineers?
Annex 1, formerly Annex 2, is amateur built (“homebuilt”) aircraft – loosely speaking since some are factory built.
Annex 1 – I am not going to boy one of those – though I am sure most are excellent.
Are EASA licensed engineers what would normally find in a decent maintenance shop, I assume so.
A maint shop in EASA-land will employ EASA66 mechanics, and unqualified mechanics working under supervision (same as FAA).
The alternative for a shop is to be Part 145 approved and then it does work under its approval. You are not likely to be using a 145 shop; they are needed only for AOC ops, in general. You need an FAA 145 shop for your 2-yearly altimeter check.
Your Jetprop must have been maintained in this system.
N-reg is the most universal in this department. You need to find an A&P and an A&P/IA annually, but if you can do that, the regime is superior to EASA because while EASA allows a freelance EASA66 mechanic, most of them are employed so have to moonlight (hence are very hard to find, and have a habit of disappearing on the day, especially if the job becomes nontrivial) while most FAA mechanics are freelancers by default so nobody really notices them. And of course you have the Form 1 advantages.
That sounds like saying “all N-regs get pencil whipped annuals in Europe and are in terrible technical condition” because I personally have experienced this. It is misleading.
So to add some precision for EuroGA’s sake: While it is not a fact that “most EASA mechanics are employed vs. FAA mechanics are freelancers” it is a fact that insinuating for one maintenance regime to be superior to the other is incorrect. It would be more helpful to the audience to explain that both FAA and EASA maintenance regimes have their unique advantages and disadvantages, and since 4 years with liberal EASA Part ML rules in effect the overall situation comparing owning N-reg vs. EASA reg is balanced. In the end, as always, it depends on the individual circumstances. I would judge the FAA system as superior when based in the USA. Based in Europe, not so much.
A maintenance organization is certified under Part-145. It will have Part-66 (mechanics) and ARS (Airworthiness review staff) to issue the yearly ARC (as an organization).
An independent Part-66 mechanic can also sign of his work, and if he has ARC authorization, the yearly ARC as a person.
An aircraft with an EASA type certificate and registration can be maintained with heavy owner pilot focus acc. Part-ML.
Buckerfan wrote:
What is an EASA vs Annex I aircraft, and likewise an EASA vs nationally licensed engineers?
Annex I is a part of the EASA Basic Regulation which list aircraft to which the EASA rules don’t apply. For airplanes, they are types of a certain age, homebuilts, experimentals, ultralights and ex-military types.
As EASA rules don’t apply, pilots and maintenance staff have to be nationally licensed. (Of course any reasonable CAA would accept EASA licenses.)
