Maintenance on an N-reg has to be done by or under the supervision of an A&P.
Only a fool of an A&P/IA would sign off an unknown job.
We did this in some TBM thread. There is very poor support here in Europe for that kind of ownership of a TP or a jet even though it clearly can be done legally, as Adam says. Most seem to be done by service centres and on programmes. But not all… I recall visiting a hangar in the UK containing two jets (one Cessna and one Lear) and a resident A&P/IA whose main job was looking after the two planes.
I guess the Jetprop is an exception?
Michael wrote:
N’es tpas Adam ?
Absolutely! I could do all the work myself on a G650ER, as long as someone is willing to sign it off!
My old shop, who took care of my Aerostar, didn’t want to deal with the TC. Because they’d have to “send a guy to mechanic school for 2 weeks and it wouldn’t be worth it for just one airframe”. I’d never heard about that, but they said it was a requirement on turbines. So I switched shops and he certainly never went to any school – it was just like any other plane. Turns out the old shop was qualifying for ISO 9001 and that was their requirement. But there is no FAA mandate whatsoever.
AdamFrisch wrote:
… didn’t want to deal with the TC. Because they’d have to “send a guy to mechanic school for 2 weeks … But there is no FAA mandate whatsoever.
I disagree.
The FARs are pretty clear on this :
§ 65.81 General privileges and limitations.
(a) A certificated mechanic may perform or supervise the maintenance, preventive maintenance or alteration of an aircraft or appliance, or a part thereof, for which he is rated (but excluding major repairs to, and major alterations of, propellers, and any repair to, or alteration of, instruments), and may perform additional duties in accordance with §§ 65.85, 65.87, and 65.95. However, he may not supervise the maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alteration of, or approve and return to service, any aircraft or appliance, or part thereof, for which he is rated unless he has satisfactorily performed the work concerned at an earlier date. If he has not so performed that work at an earlier date, he may show his ability to do it by performing it to the satisfaction of the Administrator or under the direct supervision of a certificated and appropriately rated mechanic, or a certificated repairman, who has had previous experience in the specific operation concerned.
(b) A certificated mechanic may not exercise the privileges of his certificate and rating unless he understands the current instructions of the manufacturer, and the maintenance manuals, for the specific operation concerned.
AdamFrisch wrote:
They try to make you think you need to only do it at service centers, or there’s some regulatory thing that mandates it, but that’s BS.
True, but if I would want to get a pre-buy inspection on a plane like that, then I would really want the experts to tell me what they think. A mom and pop place will maybe have the knowledge to tell me, but they also might think of it as their income for the next few years…. a center is not really interested in such cases as I saw here. They want well maintained quick to turn airplanes. The one here was not very keen on taking on restoring the 500SP sitting here and said so, despite the fact that they would have had to do a phase 1 – 5 and annual plus several other things, totalling no few money. Much easier to get a regularly inspected and maintained plane.
I actually talked informatively with a guy with connections there over a beer and he thinks he knows that German 501 we were talking about and sais, as far as he knows the primary problem is that the engines are not on a program and therefore TBO can not be extended, so they need to be overhauled. Core value of a run out engine like that is very small but there are still takers. A well maintained 501SP is actually usually sought after, but the prospect of replacing both engines at full cost after 400 hours will put a lot of people off, hence the price. If it’s the one he thinks it is, he doesn’t think it is a parting out candidate as it is a 501SP in good condition which are sought after. But someone would have to put serious money into it to source some engines or overhaul the existing ones.
I am not sure if the Eagle 2 conversions with the Williams engines is still offered but I’d think an airframe like this would be a good candidate…
ISO9000 is utter BS. It is a pure marketing exercise, especially in aviation which runs on other perfectly adequate regulations. In ISO9000 you write your own quality manual and – unless you want to sell volume production to huge firms – not one customer will ever look at what you put into it. I cannot believe an aircraft workshop was going for ISO9000! They may as well qualify for some Beer Brewery Competence Certificate.
Peter wrote:
I cannot believe an aircraft workshop was going for ISO9000!
Quite a few companies do here, I think most of our aircraft workshops are certified and I would not be surprised if the CAA requires it. Almost everyone around here is certified, even our government agency is.
I agree that it is mostly a job creation scheme but it appears to be an acknowledged standard which many organisations deem worthwile maintaining…
Mooney_Driver wrote:
With proper training, if you can fly the commander you can fly a Citation 501 in my humble opinion.
A 501 is older and far more complicated to fly single pilot than the later CJs. But broadly I would agree that if you can fly a twin turboprop like a King Air to ATP standards, you could fly a jet similarly with the right training. Taking off and doing a couple of approaches is not the same as being able to pass the equivalent of a type rating checkride.
Other than fluids and gases and lights, there is little on a jet that a pilot needs to be able to fiddle with. Unless you can make it your full time job and get the right training, you would not really want to start playing with engines, avionics or environmental systems. These are complex aircraft flying in the flight levels and to think that anyone other than a pro should maintan them is a little fanciful (although a fun intellectual exercise I grant you).
The biggest cost with a jet is parts. Labour is not the issue.
JasonC wrote:
Taking off and doing a couple of approaches is not the same as being able to pass the equivalent of a type rating checkride.
Of course. I thought about Adam here, who is checked out fully on the Commander, which I don’t think is much less complex than a 501 plus has very different characteristics when flown OEI. With an engine malfunction on a prop plane, fast action (feathering) is vital, whereas in the jet this is much less of an immediate issue. Add to that, that the yaw effect on a tail mounted engines vs a wing mounted possibly windmilling prop is very different. I don’t recall any Vmca accidents on a tail mounted jet but many on turboprops and MEP’s!
Anyone who wants to upgrade to something like a 501 from a SEP or MEP it is a different story, even though I hear that moving up from one of the Cessna twins is quite straightforward as they have similar systems, other than fuel fortunately.
My own experiences are highly non standard, but the comparison between the two I know best, the Caravelle and the Saab 2000, the Caravelle was much easier to fly in my opinion. Both are multi crew so it does not compare, but the flight characteristics do.
With an engine malfunction on a prop plane, fast action (feathering) is vital,
…actually maintaining control is vital, and then methodically carrying out the engine out drill, emphasis on methodically. Kung fu artistes who speed through the drill have a good chance of feathering the wrong engine!
JasonC wrote:
Other than fluids and gases and lights, there is little on a jet that a pilot needs to be able to fiddle with.
Yep, I guess someone’s gotta deal with those chemical loos 
