The G-reg has a mandatory 150hr service which is almost a full Annual. That represents a big extra cost, for anyone going past the 150hrs (many syndicates do). Here it was reported this has now been moved to 100hrs!
The 50hr service is also mandatory but can be done under pilot privileges – except for AD items and other stuff.
How do other countries compare?
Croatian registry accepts whatever MM defines. E.g. TB20 has 50hr service while DA42 doesn’t have one. I know that for these two types same applies for Swedish registry so I guess they have the same policy.
Are there no European registers that maintain privately operated aircraft on condition, as in Part 91? I would think that is the key discriminator in laying mandated service procedures to rest.
(On N-register most light aircraft undergo government mandated inspections but not government specified/mandated maintenance, unless it is specifically called out as a limitation of the type’s design under the type certificate or by AD)
EASA ELA1 aircraft (1200kgs or less of whatever registry) can have a self declared maintenance programme which must not be less restrictive than the EASA Minimum Inspection Programme. That means a 100hr/annual check but no intermediate 50 hour checks, although I choose to do one every 50 hours/6 months using the Pilot Maintenance provisions.
When EASA pull their collective fingers out and approve Part M Light I understand that will then apply to aircraft up to 2730kgs.
So we will all have to do a 100 hr check at least annually instead of at the 150 hr/annual interval, but don’t have to do a 50hr/6 month inspection. Is that not rather stupid?? I hate to think what the oil would look like at 100 hours.
And then there is the ridiculous situation of having non-expiring CofA’s which are only valid with an ARC which are renewed for a calendar year based on the date of the first issue. So unless you can do an annual inspection in 5 minutes the ARC renewal and annual inspections get out of phase cumulatively by the amount of time it takes to do each annual. What is the point in having a CofA if it is only valid if we have another piece of paper called an ARC?
The whole system of EASA airworthiness smells of the Camel, a horse designed by a committee. The only thing it has accomplished is to increase our maintenance costs for no safety benefit whatsoever.
I hate to think what the oil would look like at 100 hours.
This came up before. But some people seem to be running the oil to 100hrs.
Are there no European registers that maintain privately operated aircraft on condition, as in Part 91
I am not aware of that option. There has always been some sort of “CAA minimum actions list” like the UK LAMP list.
Why would anybody, anywhere run aircraft oil 100 hrs? That’s nuts!
I do mine at something near 25 hr intervals, looking at the oil filter occasionally to remind myself – like many people, I write tach time on the filter when installing it and my filter is very easy to see at every pre-flight inspection.
Inspection intervals have nothing to do with taking care of your plane… other than showing the results if you don’t 
Marchettiman wrote:
The only thing it has accomplished is to increase our maintenance costs for no safety benefit whatsoever.
It’s actually worse than that. This gold plating in practice mandates an annual every 100Hrs, right below the ‘sweet spot’ for light aircraft ownership at 100 – 150 Hrs. My guess is that many owners will limit their utilisation to less than 100 hrs / year, rather than see the annual march around the calendar at a rate of 3 months per year or something. Mine is carefully choreographed to happen in January when I’m in the US, for instance.
So the marginal cost of owning will notch up (again), pilot currency will slip (again), and aircraft reliability will decrease through under utilisation. Each of these factors will impact safety, so this not a neutral change. The only reason that it may not cost actual lives is that it will force a decline in hours flown more steeply than the accident rate.
Bizarrely, flight schools in UK are being allowed to stay on Lamp with it’s 50/50/150 sequence because they kicked off about the extra cost. A direct comment on the feeble status of private owners in UK, I suppose. Soon you’ll be lucky to see a private G-reg in Le Touquet, let alone Punta Arenas!
Interesting that nobody has added anything. Is it really the case that most of Europe has no mandatory inter-Annual services?
I am no expert but this is what I know :
all F-regs are subject to a 50/100/200hrs check regime. Maybe the 100hrs is due annually but i never heard of a specific “annual” inspection. Always thought it was an FAA part91 concept.
Most aircraft get no maintenance between 50hrs checks, and the oil is really really dark when it gets there 
Club admin/mechanics/FIs seem quite happy with this system.
@Silvaire : note that French pilots (renters I mean) know approx. ZERO in terms of maintenance, and they are told to not touch anything. If they see something really wrong, the aircraft is grounded, but you know, everyone would prefer the plane to carry on flying I don’t know much myself I admit.
E.g. I don’t know one club that allows its members to inflate a tire themselves. Sloppy tire → maintenance shop
To be honest, I don’t know what is regulation (mandatory) and what is shop-policies (or airworthiness program or tradition).
The “we always did it that way” is very strong around here.
Jujupilote wrote:
all F-regs are subject to a 50/100/200hrs check regime.
Maybe the 100hrs is due annually but i never heard of a specific “annual” inspection.
I know at least for two types (TB20 and DA42) that there are separate annual and 100hrs inspections. Annual can replace 100hrs if you fly 100 hours/year (or close to, depending on tolerance given in MM) but if you fly e.g. 130 hours then you have to make 100hrs and annual.
