Under FAA the rules are different. They have part 91 and part 135 but these correspond to private/public cat only loosely.

One gotcha in this is with sole owners whose plane is company owned and who rent it to themseleves occasssionally. Under G, that plane has to be maintained to transport cat requirements, 50hour checks, 150hour checks, etc. even though the one person only ever flies it, privately. Pointless.

Under N, it can be part 91, and no 100hr checks unless the owner is training other people in it (FAR91.409). Much more sensible.

Yes my engineer is interpretting it the same. In fact the CAA seem to have confirmed this is the case. I am able to run this engine to 20% over its 12 years but they dont have to accept it on the G Reg however if they are satisfied with its history they will.

There is more updates on my blog.

Beech Bonanza A-36 Blog

I dislike petty bureaucracy; but in this case, my heart doesn't bleed for such an 'owner' (who, after all, has the option of transferring title from the corporation to himself, if the 'gotcha' is a problem).

Legally speaking, the corporation is a separate person from its sole shareholder. Presumably there are tax or other advantages to the legal fiction of the corporation's ownership, and that's why the original decision was made to register ownership in the company's name. But you can't have it both ways ("I don't own it (wink); but really I do").

In the UK, there are good reasons for company ownership of a plane. It clarifies VAT and Inland Revenue issues, and clarifies mixed private/business usage.

It also protects the owner from personal liability resulting from an incident when somebody else is flying the plane.

One can always de-incorporate, repaying the VAT to Customs on the current market value :O

Is that really the case? With the advent of corporate manslaughter, I'm not so sure. I would venture a guess that the opposite might be true.

StuartForrest, the reason the regs deal with the issue of low hour aging engines is because of the corrosion and accelerated wear that can occur inside an internal combustion engine that sits for long periods between runs. This is due to the fact that moisture and other contaminants can get inside an engine and begin to corrode it, when it sits for long periods without being run. This happens with autos and trucks and boats as well as airplane engines.

You mentioned that your engine is 12 years old and has only 600 hours, and it just had a top end overhaul with 0 hours since then. Think about why that top end overhaul was required? What is the condition of the rest of the engine?

I do think however that a sensible way to deal with this in the regs, is for an older low time engine to be inspected at set periods, to make sure it is not suffering from any corrosion problems. If an engine is found to be OK upon inspection, then it should be allowed to remain in service.

Yes I do now believe in fact that my engine required the top end overhaul because of lack of use during its 12 years so that seems sensible to have inspections but it doesnt seem sensible to get the work done and then the engine is still expiring after 12 years plus 20%.

I dont believe there are great benefits to having it in the name of a company and it seems it is correct that if I rent it to myself then I wont be able to once the 20% expires as that will be public use. It looks like I will either have to get a new engine by then or pay the VAT and make it purely for private use which is probably the option I will choose. That will cost loads of course to pay the VAT £27650 but then I wont need to charge myself VAT in the future.

You also won't be able to reclaim VAT on all the stuff you pay for. These issues are complex; one cannot make blanket statements.

Corporate manslaughter is exceedingly unlikely to apply here - it takes a lot more to make that stick.

But this stuff has been done to death here many times...

Heard the other day ( from Rumour Control) that the very existance of EASA is now in jeopardy because its existence is tied to the EU Constitution which is itself in jeopardy.

Nice rumour, but we're too far down the line for them to let us off the hook that easily

It has been mentioned in passing a couple of times, certainly not done to death. I understand this is a tangent, but I don't think recent events will put victim's families off having a go, so defence costs maybe a consideration!

Anyway, some bedtime reading before I shutup: http://www.corporateaccountability.o...illmar2005.pdf

:)