Andi wrote:
can definitely only be done and also released by the maintenance shop/a part 66 license?
The work can be done by the owner, but it has to be released by the examiner. Same is true, e.g., for the annual. You as the owner can do it all alone, but the examiner has to release the plane to service. So yes for something like an annual he will quite surely come to the plane to check that the plane is in airworthy condition. But in principle depending on the task he might also take your work report, which is signed by yourself, and sign off something based on paperwork. He doesn’t have to load the responsibility on his shoulders, because you did the work and signed the work report. And if everything’s ok from the books, and the beacon is working, maybe he’ll sign it off without coming to the plane. I’d discuss that with the examiner.
@Andi, the answer to both question is yes, but if you own and fly the plane yourself, then you can declare a maintenance program authorising yourself to perform any non-critical items. However, don’t forget that the airworthiness inspector issuing your ARC will also need to review that maintenance program for adequacy, to it’s best to talk to him in advance about it and make sure he gives you his blessing to do these repairs. Furthermore, it’s really yourself (or you jointly with other persons) who should own the aircraft – ownership through a one-man company doesn’t work.
Thanks for all the replies and reference to CS-STAN, this is very helpful also for future projects. Does this mean every change or repair that is not covered by either the owner-maintenance approved items or included in CS-STAN can definitely only be done and also released by the maintenance shop/a part 66 license?
Also, what is the usual practise if the part 66 examiner approves to check and eventually release my own repair/change – is the airplane then not grounded until the repair/change is released, meaning the examiner needs to come to the airplane and not other way around?
If only it was that simple. There so few that there is practically no choice.
I think Archer -181 sums this up rather well.
Get a new maintenance company! My maintenance company would be more than happy for me to do this during an Annual, check my work and sign it off with no mark up.
My engineering company installed whelen parmetheus LEDS in my aircraft a few years ago (744 quid for two). There are the first generation units – better than the tungsten they replaced but not as good as the latest units.
One unit is now cracked and once moisture gets in I suspect it will fail.
Would I be legally able to replace the whelen unit with one from Aero Lites myself?
It goes without saying if I ask my maintenance company they will say no and I will have to replace it with a Whelen unit that they will provide.
Snoopy wrote:
Then what’s the point of CS-STAN allowing exchange of landing lights in the first place?
Because the procedure described by Ultranomad would mean that the aircraft can no longer be used at night?
Then what’s the point of CS-STAN allowing exchange of landing lights in the first place?
Theoretically, an installation of non-compliant landing lights could be interpreted as a removal of the landing lights altogether (which will require an amendment to the flight manual, if the aircraft is certified for night VFR or IFR operations) + installation of visual awareness lights under CS-SC036a.
