SE IR during winter time and icing conditons
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Pilot DAR. At GBP 500 per signature (the rate charged by a UK avionics shop for a mod to an N-reg) your job is only marginally less lucrative than being an FAA DAR (£1300 for a signature) 
Of course an FAA DER (or I guess you for that matter) doesn't himself get 500 quid for a signature, but that is the rate it ends up by the time the various intermediaries have jacked it up.
Of course an FAA DER (or I guess you for that matter) doesn't himself get 500 quid for a signature, but that is the rate it ends up by the time the various intermediaries have jacked it up.
Moderator
Hi IO-540,
Speaking personally, clients don't really pay for my signature, but for my qualified evaluation of the compliance of the design change. My fee has, in some cases, been a quarter of the amount you state, for simple mods. Though, yes, most cost much more.
It is worthy of consideration, particularly in the environment of this forum, that pilots expect that they are always flying and aircraft that will do exactly what the book says it will, including the affect of the modifications. Pilots (particularly here) state very clearly that they do not want to be test pilots. By reading the posts here, I am constantly reminded that I must be very thorough in my evaluation and test. I must not send an aircraft out (with my signature) such that the pilot, while operating within the limits I approve, can find something about the characteristics of the plane that I did not know already, and account for.
So, when I am part way through my evaulation, I always stop and ask myself, "what will some silly pilot try with this plane, that I need to prevent?" So far 2 pilots have found things (though never anything to do with the mod) which I would not have imagined they would attempt, and I have had to explain in great detail to an accident investigator how the aircraft was still safe the moment before it hit. I don't get paid for my signature on that report!
Cheers, Pilot DAR
Speaking personally, clients don't really pay for my signature, but for my qualified evaluation of the compliance of the design change. My fee has, in some cases, been a quarter of the amount you state, for simple mods. Though, yes, most cost much more.
It is worthy of consideration, particularly in the environment of this forum, that pilots expect that they are always flying and aircraft that will do exactly what the book says it will, including the affect of the modifications. Pilots (particularly here) state very clearly that they do not want to be test pilots. By reading the posts here, I am constantly reminded that I must be very thorough in my evaluation and test. I must not send an aircraft out (with my signature) such that the pilot, while operating within the limits I approve, can find something about the characteristics of the plane that I did not know already, and account for.
So, when I am part way through my evaulation, I always stop and ask myself, "what will some silly pilot try with this plane, that I need to prevent?" So far 2 pilots have found things (though never anything to do with the mod) which I would not have imagined they would attempt, and I have had to explain in great detail to an accident investigator how the aircraft was still safe the moment before it hit. I don't get paid for my signature on that report!
Cheers, Pilot DAR
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know, my comment was tongue in cheek and not intended to criticise.
The FAA DER process at least offers a way to get mods implemented in a streamlined and timely manner. Here in Euroland, we have to get EASA approvals and the system now requires the STC holder (the manufacturer, usually) to apply to EASA. This can be difficult or impossible to organise if the mfg is not interested. The aircraft owner can no longer apply to EASA.
The FAA DER process at least offers a way to get mods implemented in a streamlined and timely manner. Here in Euroland, we have to get EASA approvals and the system now requires the STC holder (the manufacturer, usually) to apply to EASA. This can be difficult or impossible to organise if the mfg is not interested. The aircraft owner can no longer apply to EASA.
Moderator
Yes, I quite appreciate the freedom to modify aircraft in Canada. We have sent modified products to Europe, and been frustrated with the EASA system. Sometimes we in North America wonder why the wonderful people in Europe and the UK allow the govenment to so discourage aviation there?!
I am just finalizing approval work on a research aircraft for a European research organization, who did not want to subject themselves to the EASA process.
Anyway, I'm probably guilty of thread drift here...
Always here to learn and help,
Pilot DAR
I am just finalizing approval work on a research aircraft for a European research organization, who did not want to subject themselves to the EASA process.
Anyway, I'm probably guilty of thread drift here...
Always here to learn and help,
Pilot DAR
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Drift away, it's so interesting I'm having trouble concentrating on my work! 
EASA, what can we say - they're full of... trouble.
As for Europe working FOR pilos!? Hahahahahahaha! That'll be the day!!
Come on, the French wanted an IR to be issued only to CPL holders and CPL only to be taught at universities where you'd have to do a full ATPL course anyway. Up here in the north we've allowed SEIFR with Caravans for several years, while the rest of europe says no. We couldn't be farther apart. And now they're deciding everything centrally! For whom?
EASA, what can we say - they're full of... trouble.
As for Europe working FOR pilos!? Hahahahahahaha! That'll be the day!!
Come on, the French wanted an IR to be issued only to CPL holders and CPL only to be taught at universities where you'd have to do a full ATPL course anyway. Up here in the north we've allowed SEIFR with Caravans for several years, while the rest of europe says no. We couldn't be farther apart. And now they're deciding everything centrally! For whom?
Moderator
European Aviation Safety Agency. It seems to me that EASA's vision of aviation safety, as it relates to the operation of aircraft, is that the best way to keep them safe, is to keep them on the ground.
