Is ownership worth it?

Peter wrote:

I know someone who has just done that (got ~30k off) and I always recommend it, but most sellers won’t agree to it because they live in a dream-land… until they actually need the cash.

I also bought my Mooney with a 2400 hr engine, the overhaul was definitely planned and the price reflected this. With standard engines like the O320/360 and so on series this is not an issue at all, if the price reflects the engine condition.

What has to be taken into account however is that today you might see quite lenghty overhaul times due to lack of parts, particularly cylinders. The “ideal” case would be that if you know you want to overhaul in the next 2 years or so to kind of make an agreement with the overhauler that he organizes the cylinders and other hard to get parts in advance and let the engine come in once everything is in place. Obviously this does not work for unexpected overhauls.

Dan wrote:

Rule #1 in a pre-buy is not to use the maintenance facility taking care of the airplane.

Yes, there are very few exceptions to that rule. Me for instance, knew both the previous owner and the maintenance company and intended to stay with them (and have since). In this particular constellation where we all were on the same plate, the maintenance company knew the airplane inside out and were able to give me a very clear picture of what I was getting into. They were good to their word ever since and extremely supportive particularly in some after sale snags they had not picked up pre-sale.

The “other” case often questioned is if you should use the maintenance company which WILL take care of the airplane once it’s yours. There are pros and cons to that, but it all comes down to trust. A good maintenance company will give you their best assessment of the condition in the knowledge that they will be held responsible if they overlook something. Others might try to get you to buy a money pit with them at the bottom of it.

The issue is that most owners, due to limited options, are constrained by airfield-political factors which prevent them from exercising these new regulatory options.

Who in Netherlands, Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany, Austria, France etc.. has “limited options” due “airfield political factors”?

Why this is being repeated and repeated over and over again on EuroGA as if it were to affect 99% of GA airplane owners, when in reality it affects maybe 1%?

Additionally, what would be the difference that airfield politics cause whether on N-reg or EASA reg?

Snoopy – you may as well ask for proof of [lack of] extraterrestrial life.

On my airfield and around I’ve seen and am in contact with several others who do lots of maintenance themselves. N-reg and easa reg, while admittedly the procedures look easier with freelance FAA mechanics. To get this sorted out under easa is not yet as common. So the question “how do you do that?” is raised quite often, where the n-reg holders just turn the wrench as if it never was any different.

No issues here with airfield policy, nor on any neighbouring field. However all are comparatively small places. Maybe on places with more facilities (like commercial traffic?) this is different?

Peter wrote:

Part-ML, if fully exploited, would reduce MO revenue by probably 50-75%, and that is totally unacceptable to the industry. Even just the concession on “aviation paperwork” would reduce MO margin on parts supply by some huge factor. Even my granny would have realised this simply isn’t going to fly.

Now of course we will see the usual posts from a couple of people that this is a “UK problem” but I know from hundreds of contacts that this isn’t the case.

I don’t say that it is a UK problem but over here, the problem is such a shortage of licensed mechanics that it is difficult to even get your aircraft into a shop. The shop my club used canceled the maintenance contracts with half its customers when two mechanic retired (one part time, but still). If there is more demand than they are able to take on their revenue wouldn’t be reduced by offloading work on owners.

I know the obvious reply is that shops will increase their prices in this situation but that hasn’t really happened – probably because shops know that we’re already very close to the limit of what owners are able to pay.

None of the airfields/airports whether small or large have any policies which say you can’t work on your own aeroplane with or without a part 66 or FAA mechanic if N reg.
That includes La Rochelle LFBH which has 3 maintenance companies and an avionics outfit.
Locally we have an English speaking FAA guy who can sign off or do work on N reg and we have a few part 66 mechanics. None of them though tend to run a business. They are mostly retired, although one group have just been made redundant from a Part 145 company which has been buying up other maintenance companies, putting the prices up, doing less quality control and then when the customers stop coming shut down and move everything worth moving to another location.
RIP Fly West .

Additionally to what’s been said, one still has to deal with ARC renewals, yearly if outside a CAMO environment as this thread portrays, which means you get minimum three different involved parties for maintenance: owner, part 66 and ARC inspector.

Configuration changes are so much easier on FAA with an STC being installed and signed off by the same IA doing the annual inspection and mailing the 337: no more paperwork submittal or applications. Minor mods do not need a SC approval. Also for older aircraft owner parts are easier to come by, document and implement.

The culture has been there for ages with the FAA, EASA will take some time to come close. The current version of Part 21 also limits very much the use of parts without a form one:

c) Parts and appliances listed in point (b) are eligible for installation in a type-certified product without being accompanied by an EASA Form 1, provided that the installer holds a document issued by the person or organisation that manufactured the part or appliance, which declares the name of the part or appliance, the part number, and the conformity of the part or appliance with its design data, and which contains the issuance date.

I have enough discussions with the authority on professional matters, I don’t need any more on personal matters. Frequently in this part of the world persons have this culture that they know better especially if they have authority, and “is it allowed” ?

In the US the culture is more “how can we resolve this so it works well and is correct” and “is it disallowed” ?

The scarcity of good, reasonably priced GA mechanics is in the top-three list of threats to European GA.

We in GA, as a group in general, do a poor job of looking after the mechanic community.

We see a lot of mechanic-bashing even in this mostly civilized forum.

I would say having an excellent relationship with whoever maintains your aircraft is in the top-two list for ownership success.

This is another difference between N-reg and Euro-reg. If you use a freelance mechanic, you have a relationship with him. If you use a company (which most people have to) your relationship is usually with the company.