IMO the availability of a hangar where you or an engineer can work on your plane must be country specific or perhaps specific to the owner of the hangar if you rent space in one. Some hangar owners wouldn’t want oil and other stuff spread all over their beautifully finished floor.
I don’t know of a single aerodrome in this area where you can’t work on your aircraft in the hangar. That includes places like La Rochelle.
Bringing your car, airside to dump stuff off or garaging a car in your hangar is a bit more difficult.
Often discussed here. This is mostly UK-specific, where „airfield“ and and therefore hangarage provider and „based maintenance organsiation“ are often entangled with each other. In fact, often, the only hangarage provider IS the local maintenance organisation. Not usually the case in Europe, where, even if there happens to be a maintenance organisation at the field, they have no say in the airfield operator’s or any other hangar provider’s hangarage agreeements.
There is some truth “YOU working on your aircraft and leaving it in pieces inside hangars”, I doubt it’s about airfields and maintenance politics? putting aside the UK situation (maintenance = airfield manager = school = restaurant owner = fuel provider),
If it’s THE mechanic doing paid work, you may get into health saefty, rental terms…you have to settle your debts with your hangar neighbours
The rule of thumb: if your nighbour let you store 100LL/SP98 in the hangar you can disassemble the aircraft 
This is mostly UK-specific, where „airfield“ and and therefore hangarage provider and „based maintenance organsiation“ are often entangled with each other. In fact, often, the only hangarage provider IS the local maintenance organisation. Not usually the case in Europe, where, even if there happens to be a maintenance organisation at the field, they have no say in the airfield operator’s or any other hangar provider’s hangarage agreeements.
Politics runs the same way everywhere. What varies is who writes what where and how willing they are to sh*t on their own doorstep.
What I see, from both public and private comms, is that
For sure a hangar owner doesn’t want you to set the place on fire, but you can get insurance for that. I have been in contact with insurers (was going to run one hangar, years ago) and it is a non-event. The “working ban” is purely political, to support a local business(es).
The vast majority of owners across Europe are not allowed to work in their hangar.
Almost nobody stores 100LL in their hangar. Some keep oil there.
I don’t think what you are saying contradicts what boscomantico says, it depends on the business setup of your home airfield….it’s tricky when the guy selling hangar spots is also selling fuel, food, training, maintenance (full package: fish & chips with 15W50 )
If no maintenance organization in home-base or no links to hangar lease, why you can’t work on your hangar? assuming the one parked nearby is happy
You can, but there aren’t many airfields with no maint company. Having a MC is a business opportunity worth a bit of money. And is useful if you go AOG; I sometimes get a no-fly issue and have to fix it locally. You can generally pick up ~50 regulars, each one dropping 5k/year on an Annual, plus two 50hr services at 1k each, plus another 50-100 casuals (at most airfields, many based pilots fly away for maintenance because it avoids the risk of creating a dispute with a business which “owns” the airfield) doing a bit of similar. Anyway, you can work it out. We did all this in the “airfield politics” thread.
Impact on N versus EASA reg, is the topic. N is easier for reasons posted, but only assuming you have an A&P/IA available; some do, some don’t. It’s the same with the FAA BFR; you have an FAA CFI available, many don’t (easily). FAA IR is dramatically easier to keep current (via a process which actually encourages the pilot to stay current!) than an EASA IR which needs an annual test arranged (cost can be substantial; similar to a ME test which is blamed for largely killing the ME GA community).
I don’t recognise the barriers to working on your aircraft in hangars at all.
LFFK 2x maintenance but no problem working on your own a/c in your own hangar. In fact maintenance companies so busy they even help with advice and tools and will even sell you a few litres of oil because they buy in large barrels.
It keeps the price of oil down.
Freelance engineer comes from a nearby field to sign off on N reg aircraft.
The nearby airfield is a private airpark with 2 clubs and no problem doing maintenance in hangars, even the ones not attached to houses.
LFBH hangars owned by town hall – no problem working on your own aircraft in the hangar despite 2 or 3 maintenance companies and an aircraft manufacturer on site.
LFRB busier airport. Club does its own maintenance with permanent engineers. No problem doing maintenance in your hangar. Manufacturer of the Gazail kits in small hangar – no problem. Bigger and busier International airport than LFBH.
I have to agree with @Bosmantico here. Its country dependent and UK airfield politics in parricular. I don’t think you can generalise about European airfield hangars and politics.
I think the answer is short and @WilliamF summed it up right – much easier to deal with flight crew licensing than a registry change.
Off the bat you can fly in airspace of the issuing country of your license. Then you can get a piggyback, and so on. Yes, everything used to be easier, but the simple stuff still isn’t prohibitively complicated.
For me, maintenance has been the bigger challenge, but it is manageable and most FAA licensed people are pragmatic and will work with you once you form an actual relationship.
I don’t think I ever really regretted keeping my plane on N-reg.
I know of EASA to EASA transfers which went spectacularly wrong, and after “solving the problem imaginatively” the plane was sold very fast EASA to N or vice versa can go wrong too but people half expect difficulties there so are prepared, whereas everybody has been telling everybody that EU to EU is just a paperwork job, but a) the transfer can and has failed on papers inspection alone, b) there is no assurance of it being just a paper job, c) and those which were problematic were kept off the forums because nobody wants the person they sold the plane to to find out the history… i.e. same old problem.
First, please distinguish between EASA to EASA transfers BEFORE and AFTER 24/03/2020 (Part ML entry into force). Any anecdotal knowledge before is worthless to reiterate for the readership on EuroGA. It’s like advising against an EASA PPL on the basis that in 1994, it was difficult to fly a G-reg on a Czech license.
Second, EU to EU (EASA-EASA) is just a paperwork job. What else could it be? Yes, the airplane can be physically looked at, just like during any ramp check or ACAM inspection anywhere. Obviously, if the paperwork is a mess, any process would be difficult, nothing to do with EASA.
Third, any aircraft that has undocumented changes („manipulations“), missing or fake AD compliance etc.. is always at risk of being grounded, rightfully so. However, it’s inappropriate to portray such cases, which should be the exception, as generally valid examples for the process.
The transfer of aircraft registration within the Union is legally defined by Regulation (EU) 2019/1383
(a) When transferring an aircraft registration within the Union, the applicant shall:
(1) first, provide the former Member State with the name of the Member State in which the aircraft will be registered;
(2) and subsequently apply to the new Member State for the issuance of a new airworthiness certificate
(b) the former ARC shall remain valid until its expiry date
For N planes that are already in Europe to EASA, the main obstacle is at the beginning of the process, namely the Export CofA, which has to be done by a profit oriented FAA appointed DAR. The few who have this privilege and are in Europe have resorted almost to extortion, charging 5000€ for issuing eg a PA28 Exp. CofA.
