Advantage of a homebuilt if you cannot do any significant work on it yourself, and solutions?

Peter wrote:

Sure, but that’s not my point, which is the risk assessment of whoever is doing the work.

If we are talking about a homebuilt owner who can’t do the work, then the only options are

using a company
using some private contact (who needs to be paid, somehow, eventually)
and both of these will have a view on their liability.

There is a notable silence from people working in maintenance companies that do work on homebuilts

I don’t understand what you are saying here. The “best” owner of non certified aircraft are always the ones with most technical competence. Usually they are both pilots and (top notch) certified aircraft mechanics/engineers. It’s those people who also help others. Any perceived silence is probably due to the fact that the work they do for others are often off the record, things they do in the spare time and so on, more on hobby basis than anything else, just using the facilities of the company.

I think your point depends on what the regulations actually say, and this is different from place to place and circumstance. An experimental aircraft can also be owned by a club, and then the maintenance would be different than when owned and used by a private individual.

How and why would the mechanic and his employer know there was an engine AD that might, from one point of view, apply to an engine installed in an Experimental aircraft that has an engine that by chance has so far been maintained in its original certified state? How would they know it was still in that state? Why would they care, given that it’s a non-certified experimental plane?

All of that in my view would be anal, self important nonsense by the mechanic and his employer, and they would be making up liability again regulations that don’t exist or apply. In a an open, competitive market I’d expect them to be out of business in short order…

As an aside, one of the recognized purposes of the FAA Experimental Amateur Built category is to allow people to ignore ADs and collect data on what actually happens, in the real world.

Peter wrote:

People can disagree with some ADs, e.g. the Cessna corrosion inspections

Those inspections are not ADs, are they?

Peter wrote:

How would the owner do that?

That’s the difference between an owner of an experimental aircraft and the owner of a certified aircraft. The homebuilder knows Seriously, this is one of the main points about non certified aircraft. The owner is supposed to know these things, and make the right decisions. A maintenance company may have no idea of all the oddities in a non certified aircraft, but the owner should know (as the regulations state). This is what non certified is all about, they do not adhere to a standard, and if they are almost “stock” when built, they gradually evolve due to modifications the owners do.

Peter wrote:

My last Q stands: would a company who is asked to work on a homebuilt e.g. ignore a crankshaft AD? Or any of the many less “important” scenarios?

I guess you would have to ask the company. This will also be very different from place to place depending on what the regulation actually say. In Norway the regulation clearly state that it is the owners responsibility to asses if AD are applicable for the aircraft. It is not for the maintenance company to decide. If the owner say he want this AD to be done, and the company don’t, then they have a problem of course.

Neil wrote:

The LAA is not really between the owner and the CAA. The LAA has delegated authority to actually issue the Permit on behalf of the CAA, who have no involvement in the process.

Then permit oversight should be at least as hassle free for the owner as it is directly with the authorities. I get the forms for the permit renewal from the NL-CAA in due time before my PTF lapses without any ground time, I make some declarations, that the plane is maintained according to the rules, have direct responsibiIity, no need for an inspector to sign off my work even if I’d be an aeronautical engineer, I can base my aircraft abroad, only needing a representative…

But I don’t know if all those drawbacks in the current UK-System were implemented by the LAA, so I don’t blame them.

I have a capable mechanic I perfectly trust, help him with maintenance and repairs, thus significantly reducing the costs, everything is easy (but safe).

LeSving wrote:

Any non EASA aircraft is “easier” to maintain for private individuals than FAA, and in particular homebuilts and microlight. Things differ from place to place, but just getting out of the EASA regime with it’s maintenance organisations is a huge change.

Getting away from EASA and its operatives must surely be a worthy objective but I can’t see that non-certified aircraft are easy. The UK Permit renewal, with its periodic flight test protocol including dives to Vne and other similar (and slightly scary) nonsense is certainly something I’d want to avoid, even while realizing that most owners probably fake the whole thing. It is much easier for me to maintain my FAA certified aircraft: no preordained maintenance plan, no C of A renewal, no periodic contact with government or its local monopoly ‘club’, no fees, none of that.

I think the issue in Europe might be finding an FAA A&P who is reasonable and who would work with a reasonable owner. It appears to me many of them start to emulate the natives and become unreasonable, but Peter and others do it, so I’m led to believe it’s practical with the right guy. If necessary I’d fly one over. A local A&P IA acquaintance does that periodically for a UK guy with a Bonanza that he used to maintain in the US. The A&P is also a CFII and gives him a flight review when needed.