you'd be violating German law
Not if the law is ambiguous.
What you would be violating is some CAMO's financially-creative interpretation of the ambiguity 
I am thinking of the 2 x 8.33 thing where the CAMO has you over a barrel to the amount of some €3000-4000. But any scenario where somebody has you over a barrel is a bad thing, which is why I am staying on the N-reg because it gives me control of who has me over a barrel and when.
Italianjon - I am sure you have read the reams written in the past on syndicates etc, but basically what matters most is the people who you put together. The structure (i.e. shareholdings, or just plain renting) matters much less.
If you get some shyster who fakes his flying time then he's going to be doing it anyway. If you rent dry (as I used to) and invoice separately for the fuel, based on the Shadin fuel flowmeter, then he will adjust the flowmeter reading - notwithstanding the fact that this is highly dangerous for whoever flies it later. I've had all that... the worst two were in fact instructors (one was an IRE) presumably because they knew how to play the system.
Most syndicates have 1 or more members who take the piss. One I know about has a member who does a lot of flights abroad, from an airport which is very close to "abroad", and he pockets the whole duty drawback. Not illegal (so long as the rules are complied with on not claiming for the same fuel twice, etc) but very immoral. It's the group's fault for not laying down a different rule on duty drawback, but this individual is just taking advantage of a hole, and if that hole wasn't there he would be working a different hole. I had someone (the IRE) pocket the duty drawback and right away I changed the rules (so any drawback would be distributed among those who burn that fuel) and he never rented again.
So one needs to pick a bunch of really nice people, who are well matched in ambitions (particularly re VFR or IFR capability), matched in adequate ability to come up with money when needed, and generally pleasant... A syndicate is then the cheapest way to do serious flying.
So if it is just a MEL, why do the German CofAs have an IFR tick box on them? I have been told that a German CAMO charges a lot extra for putting a tick in this box.
The CoA's IFR field is from the type certificate, that comes from the manufacturer. You are probably referring to the radio check. It's just an informational field and also helps you to keep track of what radio/static check has to be performed when.
The type of flying I would like to do, is some longer trips, say over the alps to northern Italy to visit family once I have my IR; and some return trips to the UK, so cost per NM becomes very interesting.
It's typical to be overly optimistic about the flying one is going to do once there is an IR/own plane/etc. A lot of things in aviation look very attractive at first sight but come with a lot of issues when you look closer. Diesel airplanes is one of them. You can save a lot of money by using Mogas. EDTY is particularly expensive when it comes to AVGAS -- currently 2,70€/l compared to 2,57 €/l at the neighboring EDTH for AVGAS and 1,88 €/l for Mogas.
In case EDTH is in reach for you and you're interested in a good VFR Mogas C172 (28l/h), let me know.
you'd be violating German law
Not if the law is ambiguous.
That will be resolved for sure, with some luck to our advantage. Ambiguous laws is not something you typically find here. And again: it applies to all aircraft entering German airspace, not just D-regs.
I am thinking of the 2 x 8.33 thing where the CAMO has you over a barrel to the amount of some €3000-4000. But any scenario where somebody has you over a barrel is a bad thing, which is why I am staying on the N-reg because it gives me control of who has me over a barrel and when.
Why would a private aircraft owner who is willing to invest a bit of time in managing his airplane go with a CAMO? That is no value for the money. Nobody got me over the barrel for anything, when I need maintenance I find the right IA to sign off and if he wouldn't, there is another that would.
Why would a private aircraft owner who is willing to invest a bit of time in managing his airplane go with a CAMO?
Because most owners don't want to get involved. They just drop the plane off at some company, leave the keys on the seat, leave a pre-signed blank cheque next to it...
Different pilot communities do this to different degrees. I can think of one brand of aircraft whose owners do it almost exclusively, and there are companies that make a very nice living off them.
Sure it's a way to get poor value for money at best and to get completely shafted and end up with a dangerous aircraft at worst. Unless you are lucky...
It's typical to be overly optimistic about the flying one is going to do once there is an IR/own plane/etc
Why overly optimistic? When I was paying half of what I pay now I flew twice as far, often crossing the channel in the syndicate C152. A run from EDTY to Luxembourg and/or Northern Switzerland mean my suggestions are reasonable when doubled. I am only seeking a solution to return to syndicate flying and the greater flexibility and cheaper costs that can be achieved. The mention of IR is because that is my focus this year, so I'm not interested in setting up a syndicate or changing clubs with very high sign on fees right now. However if the numbers add up then I would be very interested in the C172. TH is about same distance from my house as TY.
The CoA's IFR field is from the type certificate, that comes from the manufacturer
Now I am confused. So why does the handbook of 1 aircraft state that it is VFR, IFR, Night but not flight into known icing. That is what Piper agree could be the flight conditions, and yet I am told I could not fly IFR in it, because it does not hold an IFR CofA. Is that a CofA issue or just some interpretation of the regs?
With a G-reg there isn't the stupid "IFR Certificate" which Germany runs. That seems potentially very valuable because if your CAMO says that you need e.g. two 8.33 radios, they have you over a barrel. You can't ditch your CAMO - well not without a lot of hassle and paying for stuff twice.
Actually I did. The cost was only 400€ if I remember right.
I do everything 100% by the book, and I still find it convenient to be on the German register. Also, I am a complete novice regarding maintenance. I learn as I go but the maintenance shop is basically in charge of most things.
Actually I did. The cost was only 400€ if I remember right.
That presumably was because you know the process
I have recently discovered that if I was on EASA-reg I could get my plane maintained in a private hangar, not in any company. One EASA66 engineer would do the work (with owner assistance, etc) and then another man walks in, has a look around, and signs a piece of paper - the "ARC" I think. All freelance.
But very few people know this is possible. Anyway, very few owners are in a hangar in which maintenance is permitted. If I want major work done I have to rent one for £20/day (which is pretty good!) which is a 1hr drive (not so good but worth it).
Anyway, very few owners are in a hangar in which maintenance is permitted.
Never heard this was a problem. I can do whatever I wish in my hanger (I have a calendar with nudes on the wall). Why would it be a problem? Who would care what you do in the hanger?
I have recently discovered that if I was on EASA-reg I could get my plane maintained in a private hangar, not in any company. One EASA66 engineer would do the work (with owner assistance, etc) and then another man walks in, has a look around, and signs a piece of paper - the "ARC" I think. All freelance.
A Part 145 shop can't do it from what I was told, only with a permit from the CAA (in case the aircraft cannot be flown to the shop). Never came across Part 66 freelance mechanics...
You don't need a Part 145 shop for a piston aircraft.
I don't know how exactly it worked but clearly the setup would have had an address for premises. Nobody can control where the work is done physically.
