Confused about ARC CofA EASA etc
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Pembrokeshire UK
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's specialist & calibrated tools like a pitot/static tester and weighing equipment that are sometimes needed. This is workshop kit that is regularly checked and calibrated, and you have to be well trusted to be allowed to use it.
The French have given some competent owners resticted part 66 licences so that under EASA they can continue to maintain their own aircraft. When I tried to get the CAA to look at this idea the guy I contacted was genuinely appalled. Even though my qualifications and experience are more than required, the UK licence fees makes a UK part 66 licence (for a competent DIY owner) a non cost effective option. In any case "it's just not done" for an amateur owner to have a professional licence to service his own aeroplane.
The French have given some competent owners resticted part 66 licences so that under EASA they can continue to maintain their own aircraft. When I tried to get the CAA to look at this idea the guy I contacted was genuinely appalled. Even though my qualifications and experience are more than required, the UK licence fees makes a UK part 66 licence (for a competent DIY owner) a non cost effective option. In any case "it's just not done" for an amateur owner to have a professional licence to service his own aeroplane.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No matter which way you look at it Permit is cheaper than certified. A few reasons:
This is before you look at insurance, hangerage, fuel costs ....
Of course you may say you are comparing apples and pears, and certainly there will be some whose needs can only be met from a certified aircraft, perhaps because of the need to carry 4 passengers, heavy cargo, fly IFR (though that may be available to permit soon). However, they are the minority; for most permit will be the only economic option.
- More work you can do yourself
- cheaper parts
- Ability to use non certified equipment, so that a glass cockpit (if you want one) costs £2,000 to £3,000 rather than £15k +
- engineers who operate with far lower overheads so charge less
- no huge CAA fees for annual or licensing engineers etc
This is before you look at insurance, hangerage, fuel costs ....
Of course you may say you are comparing apples and pears, and certainly there will be some whose needs can only be met from a certified aircraft, perhaps because of the need to carry 4 passengers, heavy cargo, fly IFR (though that may be available to permit soon). However, they are the minority; for most permit will be the only economic option.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are really talking about a different plane, Justiciar, not the fact that it is on a Permit.
If I could put my TB20 on a permit, this would have no effect on
- engineers who charge less (that one is down to cultivating contacts)
- insurance (that one is down to hull value, pilot experience etc)
- hangarage (that one goes by where in the UK, and the wingspan)
- fuel costs (obviously)
My Annual would come down from £2500 to about £2000. If I had a hangar where work can be done, it would dome down to about £1000 because I know just the chap who would love to do it.
My 50hr checks would cost the same (done under pilot maintenance privileges, by myself).
It is true that if I wanted to burn through some real money and install TCAS and stuff like that, I could buy up stuff on U.S. Ebay and throw some money at a freelance avionics bloke to put it in, saving perhaps 50%.
A different plane which fits a different mission profile - that is what the CofA v. Permit argument is really about.
Unless you fly a C150 or similar, down the coast to Beachy Head, and you like to get your hands dirty, in which case there is no contest - go Permit.
If I could put my TB20 on a permit, this would have no effect on
- engineers who charge less (that one is down to cultivating contacts)
- insurance (that one is down to hull value, pilot experience etc)
- hangarage (that one goes by where in the UK, and the wingspan)
- fuel costs (obviously)
My Annual would come down from £2500 to about £2000. If I had a hangar where work can be done, it would dome down to about £1000 because I know just the chap who would love to do it.
My 50hr checks would cost the same (done under pilot maintenance privileges, by myself).
It is true that if I wanted to burn through some real money and install TCAS and stuff like that, I could buy up stuff on U.S. Ebay and throw some money at a freelance avionics bloke to put it in, saving perhaps 50%.
A different plane which fits a different mission profile - that is what the CofA v. Permit argument is really about.
Unless you fly a C150 or similar, down the coast to Beachy Head, and you like to get your hands dirty, in which case there is no contest - go Permit.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Pembrokeshire UK
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I guess the new EASA part M affects some people very much and others not at all.
If like me you built your own house, service and repair your own car and farm equipment, and being an unlicenced aircraft engineer you do all the maintenance work on your own aircraft.... Then part M is an expensive disaster.
But for those owners who employ one lot of engineers to service their aeroplane, and another lot to check the paperwork plus the servicing work done by the first lot... Then you must be rich and don't care to get your hands dirty; and you certainly won't notice much difference.
When I get too old to replace roof slates on my barn, or renew the cam belt on my diesel car, or do a top overhaul on my aeroplane, then is the time to think about paying someone else...or admit to failure and just give up.
If like me you built your own house, service and repair your own car and farm equipment, and being an unlicenced aircraft engineer you do all the maintenance work on your own aircraft.... Then part M is an expensive disaster.
But for those owners who employ one lot of engineers to service their aeroplane, and another lot to check the paperwork plus the servicing work done by the first lot... Then you must be rich and don't care to get your hands dirty; and you certainly won't notice much difference.
When I get too old to replace roof slates on my barn, or renew the cam belt on my diesel car, or do a top overhaul on my aeroplane, then is the time to think about paying someone else...or admit to failure and just give up.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed, but there are also ones in between - like me. I am a good engineer and can do a lot of stuff, and could certainly do the whole Annual on the TB20, but would not touch specialised jobs like engine rebuilds.
If engine rebuilds were easy, the UK engine shop scene would not be the disaster which it is, and people would not be sending engines to reputable engine shops in the USA.
I can also get the plane jacked up, the landing gear taken apart and greased, for about £300. On the scale of flying costs, £300 is not an issue because this job is done once every couple of years.
The biggest factor is having a hangar where you can work without restrictions. That opens up the doors to huge cost savings.... which is probably why this privilege is so unusual, away from the farm strip community
I am not defending Part M which is a load of crap. Typical European approach to "setting standards" - certify an "organisation" and all the work done by that organisation is by definition satisfactory. A fantastic shield for cowboys and crooks, of whom there is no shortage in aviation. Just like ISO9000 - the biggest scam ever.
If engine rebuilds were easy, the UK engine shop scene would not be the disaster which it is, and people would not be sending engines to reputable engine shops in the USA.
I can also get the plane jacked up, the landing gear taken apart and greased, for about £300. On the scale of flying costs, £300 is not an issue because this job is done once every couple of years.
The biggest factor is having a hangar where you can work without restrictions. That opens up the doors to huge cost savings.... which is probably why this privilege is so unusual, away from the farm strip community
I am not defending Part M which is a load of crap. Typical European approach to "setting standards" - certify an "organisation" and all the work done by that organisation is by definition satisfactory. A fantastic shield for cowboys and crooks, of whom there is no shortage in aviation. Just like ISO9000 - the biggest scam ever.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are really talking about a different plane, Justiciar, not the fact that it is on a Permit.
Even if you do none of your own maintenance the cost of farming it out to engineers is far less than in the certified market.
But yes, at the top end of the market there are may powerful, fast load luggers which have no equivalent in the permit market.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, I agree that at the low end of GA (which is incidentally where we find all the examples of planes which co-exist in LAA/CofA versions) there is a substantial saving to be had. But again this is only because they are all "simple" types where a "happy to get hands dirty" owner can manage.
The more advanced/capable planes do not have LAA equivalents... well not yet, in Europe, AFAIK. In the USA they do, but American pilots are unique in not having to ever leave the USA and thus are not constrained by the Experimental status in the way a European owner of anything capable would be.
The more advanced/capable planes do not have LAA equivalents... well not yet, in Europe, AFAIK. In the USA they do, but American pilots are unique in not having to ever leave the USA and thus are not constrained by the Experimental status in the way a European owner of anything capable would be.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, I agree that at the low end of GA (which is incidentally where we find all the examples of planes which co-exist in LAA/CofA versions) there is a substantial saving to be had. But again this is only because they are all "simple" types where a "happy to get hands dirty" owner can manage.
The only reason that some are on CofA is because some (or perhaps one) are being used for commercial purposes.
Once on Permit,that ability is stopped, so to keep it going they need a TC holder. As long as one person or organisation says they are willing to consider taking it on, then EASA and the CAA won't consider moving it.
It happened with the Austers until it was decided to move them all to Permit after a very long delay.
The problem is there are identical aircraft some on Permit and some on C of A. The difference in cost is enormous, even when the individual CofA aircraft is no longer used for hire, it cannot revert to Permit.
Piper, Cessna and TB fleet will never go to Permit. Supercubs can't either. The best they can hope for is a Restricted CofA which doesn't give much in the way of savings in cost.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is similar in the USA. You can't transfer a TB20 to Experimental category.
This is the price paid for ICAO and its huge privileges: unrestricted worldwide flight, IFR and night.
To some people this is priceless. To many people this is worthless, but they have loads of options on the "light/sports" scene.
IMHO there is no point in moaning about this because it will never change. ICAO is what has protected GA from left wing / dictatorial politicans going after "rich bastards" in most countries in Europe (those that do not have a long GA history, like UK and Germany) would have simply banned GA, decades ago.
The trick is managing a CofA plane cost effectively. I have already laid out how you do it
One other thing: base maintenance on strict airborne time. This is 100% correct and - for typical GA burger run flying - will save about 20% on maintenance.
Arguing that one's hour meter doesn't work that way but counts hours all the time the oil pressure is up, etc, etc, etc, is like saying one is flying full-rich (and wasting about 30% extra fuel as a result) because one doesn't have EGT / CHT gauges.
This is the price paid for ICAO and its huge privileges: unrestricted worldwide flight, IFR and night.
To some people this is priceless. To many people this is worthless, but they have loads of options on the "light/sports" scene.
IMHO there is no point in moaning about this because it will never change. ICAO is what has protected GA from left wing / dictatorial politicans going after "rich bastards" in most countries in Europe (those that do not have a long GA history, like UK and Germany) would have simply banned GA, decades ago.
The trick is managing a CofA plane cost effectively. I have already laid out how you do it
One other thing: base maintenance on strict airborne time. This is 100% correct and - for typical GA burger run flying - will save about 20% on maintenance.
Arguing that one's hour meter doesn't work that way but counts hours all the time the oil pressure is up, etc, etc, etc, is like saying one is flying full-rich (and wasting about 30% extra fuel as a result) because one doesn't have EGT / CHT gauges.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: South East
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540 I am really suprised that pitot/static testing and weighing is something that you need to do frequently on a G reg.
Pitot static testing is part of the annual on G reg. You need to record the parameters of the ASI and ALT. Weighing is not frequent.
Pitot static testing is part of the annual on G reg. You need to record the parameters of the ASI and ALT. Weighing is not frequent.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's what I thought.
It is often not done though (I happen to know) and neither is any kind of radio check. A lot of planes flying have such crap radios they would never pass a radio check anyway.
It is often not done though (I happen to know) and neither is any kind of radio check. A lot of planes flying have such crap radios they would never pass a radio check anyway.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cilboldentune, Britannia
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And..don't forget the annual capacity check for both aircraft and backup instrument batteries. The instrument battery 'checker'/charger is another bit of expensive kit that most people don't realise you need.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is only one battery checker which means anything, and it is built into every plane.
It is called a starter motor
But never criticise CAA gold plating of everything, including stuff that doesn't matter, while allowing people to fly with knackered radios which would not have been tolerated in WW2.
It is called a starter motor
But never criticise CAA gold plating of everything, including stuff that doesn't matter, while allowing people to fly with knackered radios which would not have been tolerated in WW2.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cilboldentune, Britannia
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO - we all know what you say is correct but from a maintainance organisation point of view you have to prove (to the CAA aka EASA) that you have all the equipment (along with all the manuals) to do the required tests and tasks. This is why MOs have to amortise their costs in their prices; ask radio engineers about the cost of their test equipment for say mode 'S'. Those little batteries you may have in the standby instruments required with an EFIS fit, have a life and are supposed to be checked regularly and replaced every so often.
I couldn't agree with you more about the radios which seem still be prone moisture - I never had any problems with Garmin though (touch wood and whistle). How about you?
I couldn't agree with you more about the radios which seem still be prone moisture - I never had any problems with Garmin though (touch wood and whistle). How about you?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re manuals, sure, the FAA too in theory requires the latest manuals, but the "fact" is that most firms do not subscribe to the latest $1000/year ATP CD manuals for every type they work on. Many work off many years old microfilms. The GA maintenance scene would grind to a halt if this was actually enforced. It would also make a mockery of all owner maintenance provisions.
I suspect that anybody flying a G1000 plane won't worry about the cost of replacing the backup batteries I have just my ELT battery to check each year. There is one in the KLN94 but that was never checked even when I was on PT G-reg. These batteries cannot be tested as such; they can only be lifed, or replaced when they are manifestly flat (config gets lots).
Radios... no issues, but I am hangared, keep 1kg of silica gel in the cockpit the whole time (and change it for freshly baked one every week, usually when I fly), and I think the old KX radios (I have a 155A and a 165A) were among the better stuff. I have had the usual KFC225 AP issues but little else - after the first 6 months or so when a lot of stuff packed up under warranty. Nothing corrosion related.
I suspect that anybody flying a G1000 plane won't worry about the cost of replacing the backup batteries
I have just my ELT battery to check each year. There is one in the KLN94 but that was never checked even when I was on PT G-reg. These batteries cannot be tested as such; they can only be lifed, or replaced when they are manifestly flat (config gets lots).Radios... no issues, but I am hangared, keep 1kg of silica gel in the cockpit the whole time (and change it for freshly baked one every week, usually when I fly), and I think the old KX radios (I have a 155A and a 165A) were among the better stuff. I have had the usual KFC225 AP issues but little else - after the first 6 months or so when a lot of stuff packed up under warranty. Nothing corrosion related.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: uk
Age: 60
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO 540,
From all your previous opinions on other threads you really have a burr up your A** about maintenance companies & licenced engineers in general I feel. The requirements are laid down in black and white, there is nothing any of us can do but get on with it. You can always get your own Pt 66 or A & P licence.
From all your previous opinions on other threads you really have a burr up your A** about maintenance companies & licenced engineers in general I feel. The requirements are laid down in black and white, there is nothing any of us can do but get on with it. You can always get your own Pt 66 or A & P licence.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glad to be of service with thought-provoking postings 
On the contrary, I think the need to pay silly money for "current" service data for a plane last made 20 years ago is a bit pointless - if one has verified that nothing has happened since one acquired one's "out of date" copy. In such a situation, IMHO, IANAL, the MO could not be successfully prosecuted anyway.
On the contrary, I think the need to pay silly money for "current" service data for a plane last made 20 years ago is a bit pointless - if one has verified that nothing has happened since one acquired one's "out of date" copy. In such a situation, IMHO, IANAL, the MO could not be successfully prosecuted anyway.