Confused about ARC CofA EASA etc

[Justiciar]

If you had two examples of the same hardware, one LAA and one CofA

I think to a large extent LowNSlow has covered that with his experience pre and post going onto a permit in his Auster. A much simpler aircraft you won't find!

I would be interested to know what effect being on a Permit has on engine maintenance - I assume it has the Gypsy Major.

The fact that maintenance organisations have to pass on all the cost of the Part M etc bureaucracy must make the cost of any work much higher. An acquaintance of mine who is an aircraft engineer and owns a Rallye plans to get rid of it because even he finds the costs associated with having a C of A aircraft too much, particularly when it comes to parts.

Of course there are savings to be made by owners who are prepared to roll up their sleeves, but may people have either the inclination, time, facilities or skills to do much owner maintenance, though even there the work an owner can do on a permit aircraft is greater than on a C of A.

It is no coincidence that owners were very happy when a number of Jodel models (eg the D140) went from C of A to permit, nor that Stampe owners have been pushing (unsuccessfully, it seems) to go that route. We have a Chipmunk, Tiger Moth and Hornet Moth in our hangar and there is no doubt that being on a C of A (even if they are Annex II) adds significantly to the cost of maintenance of those old aircraft.

In practice perhaps complexity will to a degree erode the differential and it would be interesting to hear from those with hight performance complex aircraft on a permit (not many, I know)to see how their maintenance costs break down.

[NazgulAir]

Our list of items is huge, containing more than 150 mandatory items every 100 hours or annual. Doing them takes time. If the technician first needs to familiarize himself with the aircraft and its history, that time will take much, much longer.

What helps:

• Keep your aircraft clean.
• Perform good preflight inspections, spot problems early.
• Private parking or hangarage avoids "hangar rash"
• Read the Service Manual.
• Keep a Parts Manual, find your own sources for parts if there's a big markup at your shop. Keep a stock of parts that need regular replacement.
• Know all the applicable AD's and their timing. The insurance companies just love to prove that a flight has been illegal.
• Find a good maintenance facility, preferably one that allows owner-assisted maintenance, and stick to it. Set up a long-term maintenance plan with a sensible preventive maintenance schedule with them. Cultivate a good relationship in which they understand your operational needs and limits.
• Schedule preventive maintenance to take place during annuals.
• Time annuals to coincide with other mandatory timed work.
• Do the depanelling and preparation for an annual yourself. Why pay technician fees for something that you are allowed to do yourself? Same with screwing the panels back on.
• Assist the technicians, do some maintenance work yourself under supervision, when allowed. Not just to save money but also because the increased knowledge makes you a better operator and could even make you a better pilot.
• Even if you don't want to get your hands dirty, at least go and see what they're doing.
• Become a member of the owner's group for your type of aircraft.

YMMV -- The older the aircraft, the more AD's need to be done or checked. Some aircraft have arcane systems that require specialized knowledge that not every technician may have or be easily able to acquire. In such cases, membership of an owners support group can save you a lot of grief.

[IO540]

Justiciar - I still don't get how LowNSlow gets his 30hrs in for £800.

One cannot generalise and a simple type will obviously involve fewer man-hours, but I have been an owner for over 8 years and I think I have a reasonable picture of where costs come in, and where costs can be avoided. I avoid costs on many fronts especially avionics where expertise and contacts can save lots of money, but if a plane needs 30hrs then it needs 30 hrs.

Obviously if one doesn't do the 30hrs "because it is only a simple type" (not suggesting LowNSlow is doing this) then you save huge amounts of money, but then it is not a fair comparison because you can do that on a CofA type too (and evidently quite a few people do).

Good advice NazgulAir but again some things you mention (like owner assistance) are strongly "discouraged" on the CofA scene, but this really comes back to most people not having hangars where they can work. If you have a hangar where you can work, YOU call the shots. Everything then changes.

Of course the companies will hate you because if every CofA owner had his own hangar, very soon all the companies' employees (well, those who can pick up a spanner) would be moonlighting, taking extended holidays during which they are working at the owners' hangars

If the technician first needs to familiarize himself with the aircraft and its history, that time will take much, much longer.

One should not use a company unless they are familiar with the type.

[Justiciar]

30 hours seems quite a lot for a Permit renewal. My impression is that owners I know do not take this long! But, I am now pushing against the limits of my experience

[NazgulAir]

Regardless of whether you do any maintenance yourself (supervised or otherwise), it pays to know which jobs are due, and why. Which jobs are mandatory, which are necessary and which are optional. On the optional side, presuming that you actually want to keep your investment from being hollowed out, you need to be able to converse with the people who service your aircraft and participate in the preventive maintenance planning, not just give them a blank check and remain ignorant of what happens behind their closed hangar doors.
An owner does have a mandate but can only exercise it if he is suitably informed.
Too often you pay just for paperwork and procedures and a cursory look, with nothing to show for it when your plane leaves the hangar and you get the big bill, with things not done that would have been in the interest of preventing future costs.

Originally Posted by IO540

One should not use a company unless they are familiar with the type.

You are right of course, but sometimes you have little choice. If the type is uncommon, some of the people working on it might not have sufficient experience to perform all tasks efficiently.
I also meant "familiar with the aircraft's history" here. If you present an aircraft of a known type at a place where they've never seen the aircraft, the annual will include extra work spent on checking the standard of previous work. (EASA introduced an unworkably rigid fixed-base rule for ARC CofA's, but they do have a point.)

Justiciar -- How old is the Permit aircraft? How important to you is it that it is kept safely, that you and other users, potential buyers and other parties know that it is kept in top condition?
Under Permit a lot more things are at the owner's discretion, but if you want to keep everything in top shape the work would still need to be done somehow.

[IO540]

but sometimes you have little choice

and there lies most of the potential for saving money: CHOICE

What you are presenting NazgulAir is a boiled down summary of how to manage ownership, but it is simply a characteristic of most CofA owners that they cannot be bothered. Then, IMHO, if they moan about their £5000 Annuals (and discover that most of the works was skipped anyway) they have only themselves to blame. GA aircraft ownership is not like BMW ownership

Whereas LAA owners tend to be born mechanics who spend their lives underneath their beloved MG Midget

I am on the N-reg, which doesn't save any money on scheduled maintenance (except saving the 150hr check, which TBH most private owners never have to do anyway) but it sure as hell gives a lot of choice on how to go about getting stuff done. I am much better able to use good trusted competent individuals than when I was on G with the same plane (first 3 years).

A huge chunk of this topic is to be able to use individuals rather than companies, which boils down to ..... having a hangar where one can do work All the time one is having to use companies, one gets "variable" work done, but always at top prices.

30 hours seems quite a lot for a Permit renewal

I think 30hrs is plenty for most planes, actually. Doing the full Socata maintenance schedule on my TB20 is about 40hrs, so they claim. But nearly all of this is inspection, and a large chunk of that is removing/replacing covers and poking around. EASA dictates a number of replacements (like the totally pointless replacement of the o-ring seals in the emergency gear release valve, which is an all-day job for nothing gained) but most companies don't actually do these.

I reckon one could do an Annual on a simple plane in 10hrs.

[Justiciar]

Justiciar -- How old is the Permit aircraft? How important to you is it that it is kept safely, that you and other users, potential buyers and other parties know that it is kept in top condition?
Under Permit a lot more things are at the owner's discretion, but if you want to keep everything in top shape the work would still need to be done somehow.

I don't own a permit aircraft, but I take your point absolutely. The issue is whether everything required by the EASA regime is necessary for safety or whether it is a paper chase. I have no issue with doing work which LAMS or indeed common sense say should be done. What I have issue with is unnecessary and costly work done because some maintenance regulation says so irrespective of any safety benefit.

[NazgulAir]

IO540 -- We can't do work in our hangar. And we don't have a complete set of tools. We've entered a workable partnership with a maintenance facility on our airfield, and are allowed to do supervised work there.
This arrangement wouldn't work for everyone, you have to be the kind of person who wants to learn, doesn't mind dirty hands, understands procedures, is attentive to details, can read a manual, etc. I suppose we are the kind of hangar rats that will end up with a qualification of our own eventually. In fact I've started to think seriously about doing just that, but it may take five years to get there.

...and yes, we are on the N-reg too, but still we're doing a lot of stuff that isn't strictly necessary by law, for many reasons. Giving our grand old lady the best of TLC. Having a very reliable travelling machine that remains our perfect holiday partner for decades to come. Ending up with a valuable classic that can still outperform most of the newer breeds. Having all the paperwork to the highest standard with all provenance proven in case we'd like to re-register.

I think we'd want the same work done regardless of which reg or scheme we would be operating under. But you are right, being on the N-reg has the advantage of greater choice.

Justiciar -- well said. Unfortunately there are shops where the paperwork is better than the technical standards or common sense. Maybe their people have lost the simple nuts-and-bolts joy of keeping the fleet flying, or are so afraid of liability issues that their hands are tied, I don't know. It's a shame.

[IO540]

The issue is whether everything required by the EASA regime is necessary for safety or whether it is a paper chase

Setting EASA aside, one could debate this for ever.

Most of an Annual is just inspection. On a new well-built plane, you could skip this for a good 10 years, and it would still be fine. E.g. I know for a fact that many planes have never seen proper lubrication (a bit of oil from a can doesn't cut it) in their life, and some have never had any lube at all in some places (like that well known TB whose vertical stabiliser came off at the top because the top bearing was never greased, over ~ 20 years). Yet you can comply with EASA etc without proper lubing.

A smart owner with good connections could also be doing a rolling maintenance regime during the 50hr checks; the trick is to then make sure one doesn't pay for the work all over again on the Annual. I don't think there is any quite legal way to do that though. Progressive maintenance is done on jets but is virtually impossible to get approved on pistons.

EASA mandates a lot of seals to be changed but usually this is pointless (at the frequency required) and there can be a lot of labour.

[NazgulAir]

EASA mandates a lot of seals to be changed but usually this is pointless (at the frequency required) and there can be a lot of labour.

The seals themselves are cheap, but removal, dissembly, replacement, assembly and reinstalling costs a lot of labour. Don't I know it....