D-reg. vs. N-reg.

Just my observation that people who experienced N-reg. will usually not never change back.

Agreed. The only scenario where I would change from N would be if I could no longer get the FAA medical and then I would change to

• 2-reg (Guernsey) – can use EASA medical (where this would work is a very narrow medical scenario; thankfully not applicable to me), or
• G-reg, and fly UK day VFR only, on the NPPL with the medical self declaration

We have done the SDMP topic (do a search on SDMP). There are too many issues, varying according to which country.

AIUI, the main thing which Part M L will give you is the ability to use an EASA66 engineer to work freelance on your ELA2 plane, but

• you will need a hangar where the work is permitted (they are rare, because maintenance companies “control” the situation on the ground at most airports)
• most EASA66 guys are working for a Part M company and cannot be seen to be freelancing openly (this can manifest itself as walking away from a slightly complicated situation; I’ve had that myself)

Peter wrote:

AIUI, the main thing which Part M L will give you is the ability to use an EASA66 engineer to work freelance on your ELA2 plane, but

Not just ELA2 aircraft, but any airplane with MTOM of 2 730 kg or less.

Note that under current regulations (part-M) this is already possible for ELA1 aircraft.

Anyone planning to operate an EASA-reg place under these concessions needs to check they can actually use the concessions.

I know I keep going on about this but if e.g. you are not allowed to work in your hangar, and cannot find one where you can, then the concession is not available to you. Probably not even the SDMP one, because a maintenance company will make less money that way.

@Peter are your problems with Part M a general UK thing or are they just the south of England ?Here we have 2 very good maintenance organisations on the field plus several retired engineers with the qualifications to work on Part M or part 66 and no problems with working in the hangar except maybe one would need a small generator. There is no animosity between the maintenance organisations and owners who work on their own aircraft with freelance help, in fact one maintenance organisation goes out of its way to be helpful, but then they are always busy, anyway.

A good Q…

My general view is that the more a “community” is under pressure, the more people try to bite each other. One saw that under communism where everybody who was not spying on somebody was trying to rip them off, and one sees it in certain sectors of GA. In the UK, particularly in the south east where the GA density is greatest by far, there is a lot of pressure on land ownership, so basically landowners (hangar owners, in the GA context) exercise a lot of control.

My posts are often based on stories I hear off-forum from many places. The difference is that the sources won’t post them, fo obvious reasons, while I can, in general terms and appropriately dis-identified. If I was struggling under the Part M system in the way I often describe, I would not be posting any of this, because all it would take is for the Part M to visit EuroGA and they would chuck me out of the hangar.

I think France has

• a lot less land pressure
• a more relaxed “rules are ok to break if nobody minds” approach (you have to learn to play this one “just right” )
• a long history of doing stuff at the “grass roots” level
• local govt subsidies for airfields → a lot of nice hangarage
• the DGAC which is much involved on the ground and lets a lot of stuff go on

Peter wrote:

Anyone planning to operate an EASA-reg place under these concessions needs to check they can actually use the concessions.

I know I keep going on about this but if e.g. you are not allowed to work in your hangar, and cannot find one where you can, then the concession is not available to you. Probably not even the SDMP one, because a maintenance company will make less money that way.

Sure, but that applies to N-reg as well, doesn’t it?

The need for a hangar does, yes, for the Annual or any bigger work, but two things work in your favour:

• the freelance A&P/IA system, which nobody tries to argue with (only a FAA 145 company would try that)
• most A&P/IAs naturally work freelance (whereas most EASA66s naturally work for a Part M company, so freelance activies are likely to need “discretion”)

In practice the 50hr checks get scheduled for a nice day, OVC002/100m if there are local politics, and you do it outdoors. On an EASA-reg this is generally pretty difficult because even those (or especially those) who haven’t got a clue about the regs will be muttering “he is doing illegal maintenance” whereas if they see somebody doing something on an N-reg they will think “lucky bugger to be able to do that”.

And most of the things which create downtime can be sorted in the context of the 50hr check, especially if there is an A&P around, so you aren’t doing it all under pilot privileges.

Peter wrote:

you will need a hangar where the work is permitted (they are rare, because maintenance companies “control” the situation on the ground at most airports)

Would there be a market for such a hangar?

You can certainly charge more hangarage, if people are permitted to do own work in there. But this will work only for those who can do that. Hard to know what % that is; probably very small.

FWIW in my US area, I would judge about 80 or 90% of light singles are maintained in their own hangar. If it’s not by the owner under supervision, it’s by an A&P with the aircraft owner loosely in attendance. Very little is done without direct owner involvement. There are typically rules to limit the scope of maintenance in hangars, mostly ignored except that painting tends to gather negative attention.

(I am reminded to call my avionics installing A&P friend and find out why he has disappeared versus installing my new transponder in my hangar)!