How closely do you manage your maintenance?

and I am eventually hoping to get my own Part 66 certification.

Be sure to check to check if you meet all requirements, especially those on experiance and training. It is quite hard for “new” people that are full time in aviation to get their license now. These Part 147 Courses are not cheap either. Following the courses can be interesting anyway.

Also note that EASA has B1 and B2 licenses, while FAA just has A&P.

Yes, Valerio, I agree completely. And what’s important: This recommendation I wrote was very founded and I can explain it in detail. About much of this “case” i have eMail documentation and other proof – and I would NEVER write anything bad about a shop without good reason. Having a maintenace facility myself I know that I have to be fair here.

But how would you call this experience, and would you share it? I think I have every right to write about this.

- I bring my plane to the 50 h inspection and tell the chief mechanic that the autopilot and the servos have to be checked because the autopilot disconnected seven times in cruise flight, on the last flight
- a mechanic checks the servos and the autopilots, He measures 4 volts startup voltage for the rolltrim servo. He tells me that “everything is okay and that no failure can be found” and the A/P is fine (although it cannot be fine if it disconnects, right? (That’s actually the worst behaviour: you know it’s not “okay” and they say it is)
- I call Avidyne from the hotel and the chief DFC90 support guy there tells me – explictely – that the max. start-up voltage is 2 volts. and that the autopilot will fail when it’s 4 volts
- the next day in the shop i tell the chief mechanic what Avidyne told me but he shrugs it off and says “nah, the autopilot is fine, the servos are all like that”:
- The airplane is signed off and i fly home. On the flight home the autopilot disconnects 5 times.
- After my flight home Avidyne even sends me a new A/P computer, because they trust the shop that they checked the servos etc. But the autopilot fails again, even with the new computer….
- I go to Avionik Straubing, they check the servos and say that “the start-up volate” of the rolltrim servo is too high …
- We change the rolltrim servo, clean the pitchtrim servo and now the A/p works perfectly. The old servo was completely worn out and full of carbon dust..

do you think an EASA66 guy can sign off an Annual on say a TB20? If not, what exactly can he do? “EASA non-Complex” is anything below 5700kg, SEP or MEP, single pilot, under 19 seats, SET or not a jet.

Peter, ‘complex’ in this context refers to maintenance tasks, not aircraft. Overhauling an engine is a complex task. A 50-hour inspection certainly isn’t. An annual – don’t know what’s prescribed for TB20, but probably isn’t, either.

Be sure to check to check if you meet all requirements, especially those on experiance and training. It is quite hard for “new” people that are full time in aviation to get their license now. These Part 147 Courses are not cheap either. Following the courses can be interesting anyway.
Also note that EASA has B1 and B2 licenses, while FAA just has A&P.

Jesse, you certainly know it better than me, so please correct me if I’m deluded. I’m hoping to use the provision for recognition of prior training in a similar field and convince them to recognise my old military training as a radar maintenance engineer plus a university degree in experimental physics as an adequate training program for a B2 or a B3. As to practical experience, I will probably have it signed off by the maintenance facility where I am currently based.

Peter, here is what constitutes a complex maintenance task (quoted from Part M, Appendix VII):

1. The modification, repair or replacement by riveting, bonding, laminating, or welding
of any of the following airframe parts:
(a) a box beam;
(b) a wing stringer or chord member;
(c) a spar;
(d) a spar flange;
(e) a member of a truss-type beam;
(f) the web of a beam;
(g) a keel or chine member of a flying boat hull or a float;
(h) a corrugated sheet compression member in a wing or tail surface;
(i) a wing main rib;
(j) a wing or tail surface brace strut;
(k) an engine mount;
(l) a fuselage longeron or frame;
(m) a member of a side truss, horizontal truss or bulkhead;
(n) a seat support brace or bracket;
(o) a seat rail replacement;
(p) a landing gear strut or brace strut;
(q) an axle;
(r) a wheel; and
(s) a ski or ski pedestal, excluding the replacement of a low-friction coating.
2. The modification or repair of any of the following parts:
(a) aircraft skin, or the skin of an aircraft float, if the work requires the use of a support,
jig or fixture;
(b) aircraft skin that is subject to pressurization loads, if the damage to the skin
measures more than 15 cm (6 inches) in any direction;
(c) a load-bearing part of a control system, including a control column, pedal, shaft,
quadrant, bell crank, torque tube, control horn and forged or cast bracket, but
excluding
(i) the swaging of a repair splice or cable fitting, and
(ii) the replacement of a push-pull tube end fitting that is attached by riveting;
and
(d) any other s tructure, not listed in (1), that a manufacturer has identified
as primary structure in its maintenance manual, structural repair manual or
instructions for continuing airworthiness.
3. The performance of the following maintenance on a piston engine:
(a) dismantling and subsequent reassembling of a piston engine other than
(i) to obtain access to the piston/cylinder assemblies; or
(ii) to remove the rear accessory cover to inspect and/or replace oil pump assemblies,
where such work does not involve the removal and re-fitment of internal
gears;
(b) dismantling and subsequent reassembling of reduction gears;
(c) welding and brazing of joints, other than minor weld repairs to exhaust units carried
out by a suitably approved or authorised welder but excluding component
replacement;
(d) the disturbing of individual parts of units which are supplied as bench tested
units, except for the replacement or adjustment of items normally replaceable or
adjustable in service.
4. The balancing of a propeller, except:
(a) for the certification of static balancing where required by the maintenance
manual;
(b) dynamic balancing on installed propellers using electronic balancing equipment
where permitted by the maintenance manual or other approved airworthiness
data;
5. Any additional task that requires:
(a) specialized tooling, equipment or facilities; or
(b) significant coordination procedures because of the extensive duration of the
tasks and the involvement of several persons.

And here is the basic provision for an EASA66 engineer to issue a CRS:

Subpart H
CERTIFICATE OF RELEASE TO SERVICE –
CRS
M.A.801 Aircraft certificate of release to service
(a) Except for aircraft released to service by a maintenance organisation approved in
accordance with Annex II (Part-145), the certificate of release to service shall be
issued according to this Subpart;
(b) No aircraft can be released to service unless a certificate of release to service is issued
at the completion of any maintenance, when satisfied that all maintenance required
has been properly carried out, by:
1. appropriate certifying staff on behalf of the maintenance organisation approved
in accordance with Section A, Subpart F of this Annex (Part M); or
2. certifying staff in compliance with the requirements laid down in Annex III (Part-
66), except for complex maintenance tasks listed in Appendix VII to this Annex
for which point 1 applies; or
3. by the Pilot-owner in compliance with point M.A.803;
(c) By derogation from point M.A.801(b)2 for ELA1 aircraft not used in commercial air
transport, aircraft complex maintenance tasks listed in Appendix VII may be released
by certifying staff referred to in point M.A.801(b)2;
…
…

and actually,

European Light Aircraft (ELA 1) aircraft are:
an aeroplane, sailplane or powered sail plane with a Maximum Take Off Mass (MTOM) less than 1200 kg that is not classified as a complex motor-powered aircraft;
a balloon with a maximum design lifting gas or hot air volume of not more than 3400 m3 for hot air balloons, 1050 m3 for gas balloons, 300 m3 for tethered gas balloons; or
an airship designed for not more than two occupants and a maximum design lifting gas of hot air volume of not more than 2500 m3 for hot air airships and 1000 m3 for gas airships.

…so even complex maintenance tasks on our garden-variety sub-1200 kg aircraft are authorised, too! Sorry, here’s an AA-5B has an advantage over a TB20

“EASA non-Complex” is anything below 5700kg, SEP or MEP, single pilot, under 19 seats, SET or not a jet.

This is not true for maintenance. Maintenance categories are far more complex (especially when compared to FAA A&P).

There are a lot of catergories, this is changing, which for ELA should be better, yet it requires type ratings for lots of other aircraft (ground school + on the job training).. I was lucky enough to hold my license prior to Part 66, so I have grandfather rights. I have done my fair share of type ratings though.

You might want to ask if your military background is sufficient, if you want to make sure you get your license. If you like to study and don’t mind the money, it is always interesting.

My current license looks like below, almost any line requires separate rating now. The latest I added was the Beechcraft King Air 200, which was a big struggle. Minimum experiance is 200 days in either 1 or 2 year. Depending on who is reviewing your application they might require you to have 200 days experiance on type. Which is simply impossible for 99% of general aviation. I guess the statement made elsewhere is true, on comparing aircraft maintenance companies with old style garages. A few are dedicated to only on brand, others, including me, work on everything that flies.

• B1.1 Beechcraft King Air 200 series
• B1.1 All aeroplanes with single engine turbine <5700 kg (ASTE)
• B1.1 (Limited, Limited to air-con, instruments, electrical and avionics) for:
- All complex aircraft (group 2)
- Aeroplanes multiple turbine engine (group 3, AMTE)
• B1.2 All aeroplanes with multiple piston engine – metal structure ( AMPE-MS)
• B1.2 All aeroplanes with single piston engine – metal structure (ASPE-MS)
• B1.2 All aeroplanes with single piston engine – wooden structure (ASPE-WS)
• B1.2 Diamond DA42 with Thielert engine (AMPE-CS)
• B1.2 All aeroplanes with single piston engine – composite structure (AMSE-CS)
• B1.3 (Limited, Limited to air-con, instruments, electrical and avionics) for:
- Augusta A109 series
- Bell 206LT
- Eurocopter AS 355
- Eurocopter BO 105
- All helicopters with single turbine engine (HSTE)
• B1.4 (Limited, Limited to air-con, instruments, electrical and avionics) for:
- All helicopters with piston engine (HSPE)
• B2.1 All aeroplanes with single engine turbine <5700 kg (ASTE)
• B2.1 All complex aircraft (group 2)
• B2.1 All Aeroplanes multiple turbine engine (group 3, AMTE)
• B2.2 All aeroplanes with multiple piston engine – metal structure ( AMPE-MS)
• B2.2 All aeroplanes with single piston engine – metal structure (ASPE-MS)
• B2.2 All aeroplanes with single piston engine – wooden structure (ASPE-WS)
• B2.2 Diamond DA42 with Thielert engine (AMPE-CS)
• B2.2 All aeroplanes with single piston engine – composite structure (AMSE-CS)
• B2.3 Augusta A109 series
• B2.3 Bell 206LT
• B2.3 Eurocopter AS 355
• B2.3 Eurocopter BO 105
• B2.3 All helicopters with single turbine engine (HSTE)
• B2.4 All helicopters with piston engine (HSPE)

so even complex maintenance tasks on our garden-variety sub-1200 kg aircraft are authorised, too! Sorry, here’s an AA-5B has an advantage over a TB20

Yes ELA1 aircraft are an advantage, but also the ELA2 aircraft in which the TB2 will be in, will get more suiteable regulation (IMHO), it will be more strict than ELA1 though.

The complex maintenance tasks have some limitations though, for example working on components, any component with a life time is prohibited, so this rules out all engines and magneto’s for example. Personally I think this a good point. Have seen engines twice which where unable to rotate normally after overhaul by two different FAA A&P. I do think the freedom of the A&P license is good as long as one knows their own limitations, which is something some don’t seem to know for themselfs.

The other thing is tools, I regulary come across work that has not been performed without the right tools or equipment.

One example which I come across on regular basis, aircraft with new mode S transponder or 406 MHz ELT installed by someone who for sure didn’t have the right tools or equipment, which proves by wrong coding when checked over the air, wrong encoder settings, ELT programmed with wrong data. Poor coax cables. These are all points that are easily found by someone using the right test equipment, so wouldn’t be released if they were tested.

But many engine shops are rubbish.

I’ve just had a Lycoming O-320 overhauled a few weeks ago by a local shop here, a family business started in the 1950. Originally they used to overhaul of all kinds of engines but over time engines got better besides … aero engines which are now the only type of engine they do.

The shop was very competent and the workmanship excellent. I don’t think that much could be gained in terms of quality of the work by sending it to the US. The most important aspect for a good overhaul is quality craftsmanship and that is something you find here. The price was comparable to what a US shop charges and certainly cheaper if you include S&H. I know what can go wrong during such a job and I would not want to send the engine back overseas to correct something.

Sorry, here’s an AA-5B has an advantage over a TB20

Yes, of course, the lighter/simpler/the plane, the lighter/simpler/easier maintenance becomes. Here too, I am at the lower extreme of the scale – for one example, I changed the engine oil and filter last Saturday, of course myself and unaided; still it took less than an hour. Seldom seen such a straightforward job, actually.