Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Pilot maintenance not permitted on company owned aircraft

Page 53 here

Unfortunately many jointly owned private aircraft in the UK are operated through limited companies which are not “non-profit recreational legal entities”. This significantly restricts the scope of pilot-owner maintenance.

Clearly this applies to G-regs but this is the first time I or anybody else I know have heard of this. Loads of people have bought planes via a company.

Last Edited by Peter at 31 Jan 16:35
Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Yes. In Germany, a similar problem applies to aeroclub aircraft. So far, most clubs have one or two “technical” members who do some maintenance on the aircraft. In order to be allowed to do this, they needed to attend a weekend seminar and earn a certificate.

Under EASA, that’s not possible, because a member of an aeroclub is not an owner.

This “pilot owner maintenance” thing was basically a good idea, but the pilot-owner turned pur to be too restrictive in many cases.

Last Edited by boscomantico at 31 Jan 17:14
Mainz (EDFZ) & Egelsbach (EDFE), Germany

I was stung by this limitation last year. According to my CAMO, it’s only last year or so that the British CAA started actually paying attention to that.

LKBU (near Prague), Czech Republic

Interesting.

I left G-reg in 2005 but the plane was always Ltd Co owned. OTOH as I was renting it out I had to maintain it by a company anyway.

I wonder who and why chose to fight this particular “war over nothing”. If a plane is company owned but used for private flying, the actual usage, and safety expectation by anybody aboard, is exactly the same as if it was owned by an individual.

One solution is to use an LLP, presumably.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

As I’m told, it wasn’t a “war over nothing” but merely sticking to the letter of the law: “You are not the registered owner, so you can’t maintain it”.

LKBU (near Prague), Czech Republic

It may have been brought to the fore last year by a certain flying club owner maintaining his fleet under the pilot/owner theory.

Not only was this not allowed by virtue of the owner aircraft being used for flying training and private hire where the aircraft must be maintained by a licensed engineer but he was not the registered owner – the aircraft were company owned.

He protested quite publicly….

That figures…

In other words, somebody doing something clearly illegal and ruining life for everybody else. So often the case in GA!

Why can’t such a school employ an EASA66 guy to do the work, and throw some money at a Subpart G (or whatever) company to take care of the signoffs? That way they will not be paying somebody else’s profit on aircraft maintenance, and the chap can do whatever other jobs in his spare time. That is exactly what they would have achieved using DIY maintenance, which is not at all free if done by anybody with a real job.

The big US schools tend to run their own maintenance and one can see why. It is the most economical way to do it.

It’s like IT support within some company or office, done “in spare time” by someone who understands computers. That person costs the company the pro-rated salary, in full. He’s not free. But it is better for the company to pay him than paying an outside contractor whose profit is lost outside.

Last Edited by Peter at 31 Jan 22:56
Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Why can’t such a school employ an EASA66 guy to do the work, and throw some money at a Subpart G (or whatever) company to take care of the signoffs?

In many cases you don’t even need Subpart G or F – a standalone Part 66-certified person can issue a certificate of release to service under Subpart H.

LKBU (near Prague), Czech Republic

It may have been brought to the fore last year by a certain flying club owner maintaining his fleet under the pilot/owner theory.
Not only was this not allowed by virtue of the owner aircraft being used for flying training and private hire where the aircraft must be maintained by a licensed engineer but he was not the registered owner – the aircraft were company owned.

I chatted to my CAMO man a couple of days ago, and he confirmed it even without me asking. I am not sure if the culprit in his story was the same guy Aerofurb is talking about, but he got caught on some considerably less legal practices, and then the CAA just threw the book at him.

LKBU (near Prague), Czech Republic

For N registered aircraft, the wording in 43.3(g) dealing with this subject is:

(g) Except for holders of a sport pilot certificate, the holder of a pilot certificate issued under part 61 may perform preventive maintenance on any aircraft owned or operated by that pilot which is not used under part 121, 129, or 135 of this chapter. The holder of a sport pilot certificate may perform preventive maintenance on an aircraft owned or operated by that pilot and issued a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category.

The pilot does not have to be the literal owner if they are the operator.

KUZA, United States
28 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top