AAIB report on PA28-140 fatality (Last page, last recommendation.)
When EASA eliminated the periodic air tests which had been normal, at-least to us in the UK, I did a bit of digging to see what their evidence was. It appeared at the time that there was no evidence that air tests were providing any safety benefit because, by and large, maintenance shops only released paperwork to the CAA once the aircraft was found to be compliant. Thus, it appeared to the central authority that air tests were an expense with no safety benefit and there was no central source of information to contradict them.
At the same time, my experience, albeit with sub-ICAO / permit to fly aeroplanes is that about 1 time in 3 I've conducted an air test (for such aircraft, they're required annually for such aircraft in the UK), I've found some performance or handling deficiency which needed correction. Similarly in a former existence I quite often sat in the back of Tucanos for post maintenance air tests, and whilst as you'd expect the maintenance was generally very good, it wasn't unknown to find faults during the air test.
How does anybody else feel on this? For my money, AAIB is absolutely correct in recommending that a periodic "performance check" (air test!) should be required, particularly for aircraft flown by on non public transport operations where this is less likely to get spotted in the course of normal flying.
G