With the work involved €400 seems reasonable for an ARC renewal and with the overheads involved in running a part 145 company I doubt anyone is getting rich by as you put is screwing you over.
The inappropriate maintenance oversight for light aircraft was the work of EASA and you cant blame the maintenance companies who are only providing the maintenance and oversight required by law.
However, the vast majority of owners prefer using a company and not getting involved. Even with perfectly good intentions, a maintenance company isn’t interested in having an oddball customer.
yes this is exactly why I welcomed the changes proposed under Part-ML hoping that we can all finally work with independent mechanics who allow the owners to get involved. I have already posted before about the problems I had with dropping my airplane to part-145 shops and being kicked out of their hangar. I continue to find maintenance induced issues after every annual. I don’t intend to blame the shops here.. not anymore.The fact is, no shop can afford the time to pay the attention an owner can afford on his/her own airplane. This is the reality.
ith the work involved €400 seems reasonable for an ARC renewal
400 euros for ARC renewal. yes. I’d quite like to save that too. Why not? Part-ML says we longer have to get inspection programs, ARC renewal etc. done via camo or need to be approved by LBA. Why continue paying if regulation releases you from it? My point about getting screwed over by shops is three ways. 1. mainly being completely excluded to any work done on the airplane 2. paying lots of overhead fees which eventually make it harder for me to keep an airplane ownership year by year, 3. on top having to deal with 3rd party induced maintenance issues.
Has anyone thought of becoming a part 66 engineer? it might actually be worth it. I wish EASA had a regulation whereby the owners would be allowed to become authorized mechanics only for their own certificated aircraft, only after having gone through a reasonable amount of training and practical experience on the type owned.
I spoke to a guy yesterday who did the EASA66 exams. It’s horrible. I’ve also seen some of the material years ago when another friend was doing them. The electrical topics were full of really basic mistakes and anybody knowing the stuff would fail them.
Then you need the work experience (for EASA66 or A&P). Some info around here.
here is quite a lot of work a pilot-owner can perform under Part-M.
yes I know but I am not sure if some of that stuff even makes sense. for example, under EASA rules, pilot owner can not replace the landing lights with a certified LED version. It must be signed off by a mechanic. It is the world’s easiest job to do. Not even exchange of interior carpeting, headliner covers etc. are allowed to be released to service by the owner.
On the other hand, you are strangely allowed to fill oil/air into struts or change tires/wheels etc. I mean this stuff is fairly complicated and even dangerous like working with high compressed air to fill struts or jacking the airplane and pretty much dismentaling the entire wheel/brake assembly to change tires etc. All of this needs a lot of specialized equipment and probably even training by a mechanic.
Yes I have often wondered that changing the wheels on a retractable is within pilot privileges
A lot of this stuff is historical, going back many decades, to the days of “rag and tube” aircraft, and reflecting the distrust of the regulators in anything they cannot understand themselves – basically anything containing a piece of wire and some electrons in it
I recall seeing a really obscure regulation regarding airliners – it may still be in effect but I sure as hell won’t be able to find it – which said that an ATPL holder (but not a CPL/IR i.e. a RHS pilot of a passenger jet who has not yet got the 500hrs jet cockpit time) is permitted to change a light bulb in one of the wingtip lights. It was from the late JAA or early EASA days.
for example, under EASA rules, pilot owner can not replace the landing lights with a certified LED version.
Standard Change CS-SC031b EXCHANGE OF CONVENTIONAL ANTI-COLLISION LIGHTS, POSITION LIGHTS AND LANDING & TAXI LIGHTS BY LED TYPE LIGHTS
Exchange of anti-collision lights, position lights and landing & taxi lights by LED type lights.
Aeroplanes not being complex motor-powered aircraft, rotorcraft not being complex motor-powered aircraft and not approved for NVIS and any other ELA2 aircraft.
3. Acceptable methods, techniques, and practices
The following standards contain acceptable data: — FAA Advisory Circular AC 43.13-2B, Chapter 4; and
— FAA Advisory Circular AC 43.13-1B, Chapter 11, Section 15 (on bonding).
Additionally the following applies: — anti-collision lights are authorised in accordance with ETSO-C96a or later amendments, or equivalent;
— position lights are authorised in accordance with ETSO-C30c or later amendments, or equivalent;
— the equipment is installed at the same location with identical light distribution angles and colours;
— the equipment is qualified for the environmental conditions to be expected during normal operation;
— instructions and tests defined by the equipment manufacturer have to be followed; and
— any modification of electrical wiring is performed in accordance with acceptable practices such as the aircraft maintenance manual or Chapter 11 of FAA Advisory Circulars AC 43.13-1B and Chapter 4 of AC 43.13-2B.
Any limitations defined by the equipment manufacturer apply.
If needed, amend the AFM with AFMS containing equipment instructions for operation, as required. Amend ICA to establish maintenance actions/inspections and intervals, as required. In particular, consider description of required maintenance actions after failure of single LED segments.
6. Release to service
This SC is not suitable for release to service by the Pilot-owner.
Thanks. I agree if you want to modify electric instalation.
I would think this SC applies to replacing lamp sockets with permanent LED lights and not to inserting LED lamps in existing sockets.