To the OP, welcome to the club. The club that one should expect that ‘certified’, and ‘approved’ service shops would look after your aircraft, maintain to an acceptable standard, and in accordance with the Manufacturers Maintenance Handbook, maintain it to an airworthy standard.
Problem is the club, owners, pilots and operators, are the club. The rest, the maintainers, are outside of this club. What you get is an extraordinary invoice, a ‘Release to Service’, a demand for payment prior to your airplane leaving the facility, and then you find out:-
1. Work stated as being done has not been.
2. Works you were told required doing, actually did not.
3. Parts that were purchased on your behalf, were not from the Manufacturer, but bought in some back street surplus shop.
4. Any number of items are fitted incorrectly, fitted not in accordance with Manufacturers recommendations, and some are downright dangerous.
5. Critical lock nuts are either missing, not locked by an appropriate means, parts that were lock wired prior, are no longer lock wired.
I could go on, but I think you are getting the picture.
Now, complain to the company doing the work. Not interested.
Now complain to the regulator, CAA, not interested, in fact, as owner/operator, it is now ALL your fault.
I was quoted by a wonderful CAA surveyor, that after my complaint, he was going to visit my home airfield, with a view to grounding my aircraft, because I had highlighted the inadequencies of the Maintenance shop.
I, as Peter knows, went to N reg, not an easy, nor cheap process, but it brought a certain element of control to me, it was either that, or my aircraft would have been scrapped, after paying another 6k bill. Seriously……FWIW, I viewed maintenance as a must, for safety, and peace of mind. Money, actually was never an issue, getting the work done correctly was, a huge issue.
I have virtually rebuilt my aircraft, with a trusted, respected, IA, who works alone. Took me a long time, and a very expensive trip to find him, but I am there.
Be very, very, careful as to who maintains your aircraft. After your gone, when it fell out of the sky, no one, and I mean no one, from these maintenance companies would be interested. And remember, the logs, if you were fortunate, would qualify the work they “had completed”.
An EASA66 person can do all the work. No issue there. But then a Part M Subpart G company needs to sign off the ARC
We must have a misunderstanding here. A rated Part 66 B1/B2 engineer can perform all regular maintenance as indicated in the aircraft maintenance manual. Theire are some limitions:
- A Part 66 B1/B2 can NOT release an aircraft flying on an AOC
- A Part 66 engineer must be rated for your aircraft. You with need a B1 for the airframe and power plant, and a B2 for avionics works. Some engineers are dual licensed and hold both the B1 and B2.
- All maintenance can be performed in accordance with the maintenance manuals. Note that components do not fall into this cat.
- The B1 / B2 engineer must issue a CRS when the works (maintenance or modification has been carried out).
- An EASA aircraft has an airworthiness certificate. This must be renewed by an ARC inspector. The ARC inspector just verifies if your aircraft is in airworthy condition, and that all mandatory items have been carried out. The ARC inspector does not work as B1 / B2 engineer.
Basically the B1 / B2 engineer can do almost the same as an FAA A&P. The ARC inspector does the work an IA does. The ARC inspector does not need to do a complete “1 year” inspection, if the B1 engineer allready performed the 100 hrs + 1 year items previously.
This ARC inspection does not have to coincidence the 100 hrs + 1 year inspection of the aircraft.
You will have to use multiple persons to have your aircraft maintened. It is likely that that would be the same under FAA. I don’t think that this would be far more expensive than the N route, although this is very often suggested. The numbers that are called out on forums like these for works on EASA aircraft seem very excessive to me.
The rest, the maintainers, are outside of this club. What you get is an extraordinary invoice, a ‘Release to Service’, a demand for payment prior to your airplane leaving the facility, and then you find out:- ……………………………… I have virtually rebuilt my aircraft, with a trusted, respected, IA, who works alone. Took me a long time, and a very expensive trip to find him, but I am there.
You for sure seem to feel like that. What I really don’t understand, is why all A&P / IA / American shops are viewed as best qualtity one can get, while Europeans seem to be the worst.
Sure their are poor shops in EU but also in USA. I am sure you can find fair top engineers in both EU and USA. I can’t see why it would have been impossible to have your aircraft rebuilt with a trusted, respected Part 66 engineer?
A lot of information which is published on forums seem to be (partially) incorrect on EASA / Part 66 / Minor changes. :-(
What I really don’t understand, is why all A&P / IA / American shops are viewed as best qualtity one can get, while Europeans seem to be the worst.
There is probably a correlation between the owners who get involved in their maintenance and the owners who are N-reg, and this “more involved” group will naturally have a higher level of satisfaction.
There are crap shops everywhere but being N-reg facilitates more owner involvement/control which makes it much harder for a bad person/shop to remain involved with that owner.
If you are EASA-reg you have less control because you have to go to a company (see below) and you rarely know who did the bad work. And even if you do know you cannot prevent it next time. For example I never found out who did the outrageous bodges in my TAS installation (though I have a pretty good idea) and anyway the management didn’t seem to care.
You will have to use multiple persons to have your aircraft maintened. It is likely that that would be the same under FAA.
Negative – with an N-reg you can get an A&P/IA to do the entire job including all signoffs. He can also sign off 337s (Major mods) backed by an STC or an 8110, which enables substantial avionics work to be done at the same time (e.g. AML STC GTN750 install).
The practical result is that while an EASA-reg owner has to use a company, with a typical TB20 “fixed price Annual” of GBP 2500 plus VAT (so about 4000 by the time the usual extras are added), an N-reg owner who gets personally involved can rent a discreet hangar for say GBP 100-200, or use his own if permitted, free issue all the parts (say 500), pay the guy say 1500, and you get
In reality, GBP 4000 is a “cheap” Annual…
I would not recommend N-reg to an owner who doesn’t want to get involved, however. But, as with every other aspect of life, not getting involved = you pay a lot more 
If you are EASA-reg you have less control because you have to go to a company (see below) and you rarely know who did the bad work. And even if you do know you cannot prevent it next time.
Why? You could get involved their as well? Just like with your A&P or IA?
Negative – with an N-reg you can get an A&P/IA to do the entire job including all signoffs. He can also sign off 337s (Major mods) backed by an STC or an 8110, which enables substantial avionics work to be done at the same time (e.g. AML STC GTN750 install).
The same is true is for EASA. Major mods with an EASA STC are no problem either. I don’t think your A&P / IA can sign of your IFR checks is he?
I do know some IA’s tend to do so, I don’t think that is correct. I could be wrong here, I don’t have an FAA license.
The practical result is that while an EASA-reg owner has to use a company, with a typical TB20 “fixed price Annual” of GBP 2500 plus VAT (so about 4000 by the time the usual extras are added)
That’s the whole point, you do NOT need a company for non AOC aircraft. You can have your aircraft serviced by an appropriate licensed EASA Part 66 B1 engineer if you would want to. I would not know why you couldn’t have a similair relationship with that guy, as with the A&P/IA one. You could “assist” the B1 engineer and supply parts, if you could come to an agree on that. As you can with the A&P/IA, why not with the B1?
Then you could have your ARC renewal done at an ARC inspector. You could compair this with MOT, you will just get your aircraft / car checked to see if it is air / road worthy. If it failed, you could correct it with your B1 engineer. As you would only pay them for the ARC renewal.
The price difference if exist, is MUCH smaller than you suggest.
You compare a freelance A&P/IA with a full service Part 145 company. It’s not fair to compare those.
You compare a freelance A&P/IA with a full service Part 145 company. It’s not fair to compare those.
The comparison of course is not fair, but that is what we are talking about, Jesse.
As you can see from my post, the maintenance issues strike a raw nerve with me. I have been truly stung, with little regulatory recourse, under EASA Part M. This is unfair. I fully appreciate and understand, that under both regimes, there are good and bad apples, that is life.
I also understand the economics that exist within the EASA, particularly, UK EASA schemes. But, we are not talking about dropping our ten year old beamers in for an MOT, here. We are talking about complex flying machines. I could go on for hours about how we got here, will save you the boredom. Suffice to say, that there are few, decent, transparent, Part M maintenance companies with the wherewithall to properly maintain and look after aeroplanes. A sad fact, but accurate. Yes there are exceptions, but the customer, the savvy customer, has to really look. That should not be the case under a supposed regulated regime. They should all be of standard, they are not. And yes, it exists both sides of the pond.
So, where does that leave us owners. I searched and found a good guy. It now works for me. Took ten years. Peter, now has his IA, with shed rental. Excellent, but we have a full input into what is going on. That just does not exist within the current Part M UK set up. Add that I would never see it happening, ever.
But, we are not talking about dropping our ten year old beamers in for an MOT, here.
No, and continuing with that analogy, I think what we are doing is more akin to taking a 1972 BMW 2002 vintage racing car for technical approval by the sanctioning body. The task requires individual skill and judgement, not access to an organization that adds absolutely no value for the job at hand. Try taking your 25 year old BMW motorcycle into a dealership and see how much value the organization adds… The answer is none, but they do add a lot of overhead, confusion and cost. If you’re lucky, one of the guys who has been there a long time takes your motorcycle home and does the work outside of the organization. (I am talking from experience here, with a factory owned dealer).
That aside, I’m sure glad my A&P IA friend doesn’t need to be approved for the type, considering that there are eight of them operating in the US and the manuals are in a foreign language!
The reality is that what an aircraft needs is people who are free to do their job without nonsense bureaucracy to distract them, held accountable directly by the guy paying the bill.
The comparison of course is not fair, but that is what we are talking about, Jesse.
Yes, so I noticed. Why not a fair comparison, A&P/IA versus Part 66-B1 / ARC inspector?
I searched and found a good guy. It now works for me. Took ten years.
That is very good, and good to share this. It’s is not the only option though, and I think it would be fair to also see the alternatives which are available under EASA control. Especially as the topic starter flies G-reg. Their is no need to have is ARC inspection carried out by a UK ARC inspector, it could also be done by other EASA ARC inspectors. He could have maintenance with a Part 66 B1 engineer, just like you have your maintenance.
The ARC renewal does not need to contain any maintenance actions. The annual maintenance (100 hrs + 1 year items) could be carried out by Part 66-B1.
we have a full input into what is going on. That just does not exist within the current Part M UK set up. Add that I would never see it happening, ever.’
Which input are you talking about? Which input wouldn’t be possible under EASA and would be possible for FAA?
That aside, I’m sure glad my A&P IA friend doesn’t need to be approved for the type, considering that there are eight of them operating in the US and the manuals are in a foreign language!
In that case it would be very likely that these aircraft wouldn’t fall under EASA regulations anyway, so NOT fair to compair either.
The reality is that what an aircraft needs is people who are free to do their job without nonsense bureaucracy to distract them, held accountable directly by the guy paying the bill.
I don’t see any difference between a freelance Part 66 B1 and FAA A&P. Do you?
Jesse,
My type is subject to EASA regulations if on one of their national registers, and also on a standard Certificate of Airworthiness on N-register. The situation is directly comparable.
My A&P IA buddy, who also taught me to fly as an certificated instructor in my plane, now does my annual inspections for $200 in my hangar. We do the work very carefully. He then signs off my logbooks, and they are never seen by anybody except he and I until I sell the plane someday and the buyer reviews them. There is no interaction with government or with government approved organizations, no ARC or similar nonsense, no fees to third parties, and he would do it for free if I didn’t force the $200 into his hands. There are no formalized ‘50-hr checks’, or any other government mandated crappola, and all my other maintenance is signed off by any of about five A&P friends. They all have ‘real jobs’ and do A&P stuff for fun, for themselves and their friends, for free. So yes, I see a huge difference.
My annual labor cost for aircraft maintenance is $400, for two FAA certified N-register aircraft.
Which input are you talking about? Which input wouldn’t be possible under EASA and would be possible for FAA?
The owners input taking into account the Manufacturers recommended maintenance procedures. Example, Beechcraft gear actuator motor. Manual recommends overhaul at 2000hrs. Note recommends. Owner can run on condition with planned maintenance programme to suit.
EASA, mandatory overhaul, regardless of condition. This affects a number of major gears and motors. We are looking at the owner and his IA taking measured and logical, safe decisions to ensure that the aircraft keeps flying, safely.
This is not possible under current EASA mandates. This cooperation between owner and maintainer creates a closer understanding of all issues and requirements under a planned maintenance programme, drafted in accordance with the Handbook.
