tmo wrote:
Isn’t there a catch that says the pilot-owner is whoever is on the Certificate of Registration, making any work by actual pilot-owners of planes in trusts a shady thing at best?
Co-ownership is enough according to this Advisory Circular:
The tasks must be performed by the holder of at least a private pilot certificate issued under part 61 who is the registered owner (or co-owner) of the aircraft.
Ownership through a trust is no problem and there is nothing shady with a trust. The rules about providing “Evidence of Ownership” are in 14 CFR § 47.11:
(a) The buyer in possession, the bailee, or the lessee of an aircraft under a contract of conditional sale must submit the contract. The assignee under a contract of conditional sale must submit both the contract (unless it is already recorded at the Registry), and his assignment from the original buyer, bailee, lessee, or prior assignee.
I don’t see “trust”, “trustee” nor “trustor” anywhere in that CFR section nor in the AC you reference in a context that would indicate that the trustor (me) has any right to claim ownership.
My trust agreement only names my company as the operator of the plane, and creating the trust meant selling the plane to the trustee. That is my concern. A trust is in no way a “co-ownership”. The plane registration card clearly lists the trustee as the registered owner.
Paragraph g of 14 CFR 43.3 does say “on any aircraft owned or operated by that pilot” which I guess is a means to cascade the “operator” status down to little old me, from the trustee to my company and from the company on to me. Thanks for making me look that up (I do mean it sincerely).
And, to explain myself – never did I mean to imply a trust is shady, far from it. What I was trying to express is that there is no “ownership” since the plane is in a trust, which cedes ownership onto the trust / trustee. But the quote from 14 CFR 43.3 (g) above gives the “operator” the right to do the work and sign it off.
tmo wrote:
That is my concern. A trust is in no way a “co-ownership”. The plane registration card clearly lists the trustee as the registered owner.
Yes valid but only theoretical concern, I think for N-reg owned by SAC there are two comforting realities:
- I am sure Golfstream G650 owner who handed the titles have better lawyers than us
- The aircraft and keys sit near the backyard not somewhere in Carson City in Nevada
tmo wrote:
Paragraph g of 14 CFR 43.3 does say “on any aircraft owned or operated by that pilot” which I guess is a means to cascade the “operator” status down to little old me
That is a good find, I had overlooked this part somehow.
Can a foreign mechanic do work on an N-reg?
I remember reading that a foreign (non-US) mechanic can do non-IA work on an N-reg aircraft, assuming that the mechanic is licensed in the country where the work is performed.
However, I told a friend this and he didn’t believe me! I tried to find a source for this rule and came up blank. Is it true?
Even a monkey (literally) can do work on an N-reg. It’s always the person signing work off that needs to have certain qualifications (either “pilot-owner”, or “A&P”, or “IA”, depending on the type of work).
This distinction is where many misunderstandings come from regarding this subject.
In EASA, it’s the same, by the way. Many shop-employed mechanics have no particular qualification.
I am not aware that for any work requiring an A&P or IA, the A&P or IA signoff can be substituted by a different authority’s certifying staff’s signoff.
Your grandmother can work on any plane, under supervision. This is what enables training to be done.
For N-reg, must be supervised by an FAA A&P mechanic, or within an FAA Part 145 Repair Station which has the aircraft type on its approval list. A&P/IA must sign off the Annual (or the Part 145 can, similarly).
For EASA-reg, same as above, EASA66 mechanic, or 145.
In practice, the way it works is this:
An EASA maintenance company does the work and then an A&P turns up, inspects the work, and signs it off. A&P/IA needed if it was an Annual (or a geared engine is involved). Unless the FAA mechanic is stupid (or greedy) he will demand that all inspection covers are left off, obviously!! I have in the past demanded such and refused to accept the plane if they screwed the covers back on.
In exceptional circumstances, an EASA CAA authorises foreign (e.g. Australian) mechanics to perform work. For an N-reg, I don’t know if the FAA does this; my guess is that an IFO would authorise something like that. But not heard of it. FAA A&Ps can be found in most places…
the A&P or IA signoff can be substituted by a different authority’s certifying staff’s signoff.
Not sure about that…
I don’t believe this is true, in general. FAA regulations are generally clear and the relevant one is here. It starts off by saying that no person can work on any N-registered plane except as listed, and then provides the list. People working under A&P supervision are included in the list, as Peter mentions but these people are not required to have any qualifications. An EASA mechanic is no different in regard to working under FAA A&P supervision than I am when working on my own plane (I have no A&P)
When a person is working under A&P supervision the A&P must be “immediately available” meaning on site, showing up afterward or supervising by phone is not legal. When I do work under supervision on my plane we allow that to mean located on the other side of the airport, aware of the work in progress and ready to come over if needed, as well as to inspect before making logbook entries. I am very appreciative of the A&P working with me like this, and do not violate the spirit or intent of the regulation.
An interesting exception is mentioned in the regulation, for N-registered aircraft physically located in Canada specifically, being maintained by Canadian mechanics. The FAA regulation which applies is here
Posts merged into an existing thread on the exact topic.
