Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Welcome to our forums

Implication of ELA1 for ownership

Hi, i’m thinking of a future ownership.

Maybe a C172, PA28, TB10 or similar with MTOW 1200kg. Should be IFR capable (light-moderate). Have only rented from my club so far so i don’t have so much knowledge about ownership, except for some figures concerning cost.

Wondering how a ELA1 classification will affect ownership?

Is it possible in general to put any non complex machine under MTOW 1200kg such as those mentioned above under ELA1?

Are they allowed to be operated under IFR?

How much easier will it be to maintain a ELA1 machine vs “Normal class”? (I heard the Cessna corrosion inspection is not mandatory on ELA1)

Will there be a significant cost reduction?

Is CAMO still mandatory?

What classes will there be finally? ELA1, ELA2, Normal (<5700kg)? etc…

Grateful for some enlightenment on this subject :)


ESOW Västerås, Sweden

Every non complex CS-23 aircraft under 1200 kg will be ELA1 aircraft. IFR is allowed.

In general most requirements on ELA1 are lighter then under ELA2, or more heavy general aviation aircraft.

More works can be carried out by EASA Part 66 engineers, where the other would require Part 145.
ARC renewal is possible by a specially endorsed Part 66 engineer.

SID requirements are different from country to country. Some countries require SIDs to be performed on all aircraft, others don’t.


CAMO isn’t gerenerally mandatory, neither for non-ELA1.

Last Edited by boscomantico at 03 Jun 04:39
Mainz (EDFZ), Germany

Thanks for input!

So will all non complex CS-23 aircraft under 1200 kg be put under ELA1 automatically? Or is there some kind of “class-approval” process?

Is it cheaper to use Part 66 engineers?

If ARC renewal is possible by a specially endorsed Part 66 engineer. Does it mean that the CAMO is maintained by the owner?

Trying to figure out how much ELA1 will affect GA. Will there be substantial cost reductions?



ESOW Västerås, Sweden

All EASA-reg work can be done by a Part 66 engineer, wholly. The alternative is a Part 145 company, which is completely pointless (it is required for an AOC aircraft).

We had a thread on this recently but I can’t find it

You just need a guy who is Part M Subpart-something to sign it off. There is no need for the aircraft or the work to be located at any specific premises. So the whole job can be done, in effect, by freelancers, in any hangar where the work is permitted by the owner of the hangar.

The last one, of course, is the biggest issue in GA But in general you can usually find a hangar which somebody will rent you. I pay 30 quid a day for one, which is peanuts in the context of a 4 day Annual.

The above is true for a 1400kg TB20 so it must be true (or more true) for anything smaller.

This type of maintenance arrangement halves the cost of maintenance – even if you pay everybody their full employed rate.

Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

So… Can you replace parts of your Thielert powered Diamond with parts from your local Mercedes dealer?


So… Can you replace parts of your Thielert powered Diamond with parts from your local Mercedes dealer?

No ELA1 is not equal to experimental.


Jesse, trying to find it again. If the part can be traced as being the same, I think you can. Searching again.

Found it. To clarify, referring to part 66 engineer installing the mercedes part:

Parts and appliances without an EASA Form 1 can be considered acceptable for installation by the owner of the aircraft only when they are:
1. Not life-limited, nor part of the primary structure, nor part of the flight controls;
2. Manufacturedinconformitytoapplicabledesign;
3. Marked in accordance with Subpart Q;
4. Identified for installation in the specific aircraft.
5. And when the owner has verified compliance with the above 4 conditions and has accepted responsibility for this compliance.

/ Peter, imagine how cheap your TB20 screws could be if it weighed below 1200kg ;)

Last Edited by DMEarc at 09 Jun 21:29

Peter, imagine how cheap your TB20 screws could be if it weighed below 1200kg

Don’t worry about me – I have solutions to this stuff Cosmetic / nonstructural fasteners are easy.

On the N-reg, this crap falls away anyway. Except you can’t get AN/MS parts in metric…

I am informed that Diamond authorise their owners to use commercial parts for that sort of thing. You just need a CofC which is a trivial piece of paper to get from almost any trade supplier.

I would also add that an FAA 8130-3 is good in place of an EASA-1 for any new parts. It is only used/overhauled parts (including ones you had yourself since new and sent off to be overhauled!) which potentially need an EASA-1 form.

Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

The ability for an owner to authorise parts for fitment without a Form 1 also applies to ELA2 – i.e. up to 2t

There is published guidance material on the topic, which I have on my home computer and will post if I remember

The issue is that this legislation crept in quietly 18 months ago and not a lot of engineers and, more importantly, surveyors know this.

29 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top