When EASA appeared, DR1050 maintenance costs dropped to less than 1/4 of what they were under the CAA.
With the Lake it’s the same. 
Even the paperwork is reduced dramatically, this picture shows the complete maintenance file.
Can we really blame EASA for reduction in maintenance costs due to transfer of a defunct/orphan type from CAA to LAA oversight?
By the same reasoning, we ought to congratulate our dear Eurocrats for the UK SSDR and US NORSEE initiatives. 
Indirectly, I suppose EASA has contributed to UK deregulation of GA – by reducing the UK CAA to a rule-taking poodle so that it no longer has the resources, expertise or appetite for risk management to regulate GA, whether it be airworthiness of old taildraggers or new LPV procedures.
We went from CAA C of A to LAA Permit. Some DR1050s are Night and IFR permitted, but the other Group members were hostile to this, even if I payed the cost.
I’ve just become part-owner of one of the few Bolkow BO208 Juniors on an LAA Permit, which might get Night and IFR.
Kudos to the CAA for allowing the LAA to give these privelages to aircraft which EASA allowed out of an expensive maintenance regime.
Maoraigh wrote:
We went from CAA C of A to LAA Permit.
I have compared this to current EASA regs for ELA1, and they are basically the same, with the slight EASA advantage to have every European inspector being able to sign off your work, not a special LAA inspector. Resale value would be higher, too, for non-LAA aircraft, as they can be a PITA to reenter into a European Register. Plus, you don’t need a permission to fly outside of UK aerospace.
It’s true that the UK LAA system is pretty tight. I suppose UK LAA aircraft owners are grateful despite that because they escape from the CAA which is even worse 
And LAA aircraft pilots can fly on the UK NPPL with the medical self declaration, which is a massive concession which nobody else in Europe has. Only the French UL scene (which needs no medical at all) is similar but there is no comparison in potential mission capability.
However I seriously doubt that LAA compares with ELA1 for flexibility of installed equipment, and who can work on it. ELA1 needs an EASA66 engineer, and mostly certified parts. He can be freelance, but freelance ones aren’t in a big supply due to airfield (certified scene) politics; moonlighting is a problem. That translates to a significant maintenance cost saving; a non-cert type is pointless (for saving money) unless you work on it yourself, or can wangle someone else to do it for you.
Non-cert aircraft need a matrix of permits all around Europe, not just going outside the UK…
However, Jacko has got it right above that this is nothing to do with EASA “improved regulation” however.
Peter wrote:
However I seriously doubt that LAA compares with ELA1 for flexibility of installed equipment, and who can work on it.
Nope, on both regimes, everyone can work on it and an inspector needs to check and sign outside of basic maintenance. Only within the EASA system, you are Organisation-centered, but have a much bigger choice of inspectors. If the inspector is a freelance or is working in a company is nothing but semantics.
Peter wrote:
aren’t in a big supply due to airfield (certified scene) politics; moonlighting is a problem.
The same would affect any LAA inspector, though. EASA isn’t responsible for local airfield politics. Besides, I do not know of a single airfield with such restrictions here in Germany, so it would be a predominantly cultural thing.
Peter wrote:
However, Jacko has got it right above that this is nothing to do with EASA “improved regulation” however.
Yes, but with ELA1 rules, my maintenance costs have been reduced in a similar way.
If the inspector is a freelance or is working in a company is nothing but semantics.
Sure, just like democracy and despotism is exactly the same thing, according to the despot.
LeSving wrote:
Sure, just like democracy and despotism is exactly the same thing, according to the despot.
Do you actually believe what you write?
