Reviving an old thread… does anyone know if the limitation described by Ultranomad is still a “thing”/limitation in the UK?
boscomantico wrote:
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.
I don’t know whether or not that was the case in 2014 when boscomatico’s post was written, but it is possible under EASA today. Ref. ML.A.803(a)(2)(ii)
ML.A.803 Pilot-owner authorisation
(a) To qualify as a pilot-owner, the person must:
..(1) hold a valid pilot licence or equivalent licence issued or validated by a Member State for the aircraft type or class rating;
..(2) own the aircraft, either as a sole or joint owner; that owner must be, alternatively:
….(i) one of the natural persons on the registration form;
….(ii) a member of a non-profit recreational legal entity, where the legal entity is specified on the registration document as owner or operator; that member must be directly involved in the decision-making process of the legal entity and designated by that legal entity to carry out Pilot-owner maintenance
Thanks for finding that. The issue in the U.K. is that the legal entities owning the aircraft are often not “non-profit recreational legal entities”, so it does seem we are still in that place.
..(2) own the aircraft, either as a sole or joint owner; that owner must be, alternatively:
Hmmm… so if I own a Ltd., which owns my plane, I can’t do POM?
But aren’t you one of the persons on the company registration form? I am not sure what they mean by registration form but I believe that the intent of the rules is that you are not supposed to do POM unless you are directly involved in the ownership of it.
They probably mean „certificate of registration“, which would bear XYZ Company Ltd., and not the name of the person owning the company.
Hmmmm… not good if this is really the case.
The interpretation from the UK CAA which Peter pointed out back in 2014 is:
“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.”
I guess this is a case of not being able to have your cake and eat it. There are a number of benefits to operating as a Limited company but it seems owner maintenance is not one of them.
Our aircraft is also used for some continuation training for non-members via a DTO which I think would be another hurdle anyway.
Either way and interesting topic and potentially open to local interpretation to the whim of your local aviation authority.
Whiskey_Bravo wrote:
Our aircraft is also used for some continuation training for non-members via a DTO which I think would be another hurdle anyway.
Correct. Only if the ATO/DTO certification is issued to a non-profit closed to the public club, which acts as the operator of the aircraft, is NON CAMO and Pilot Owner Maintenance permitted.
Snoopy wrote:
Correct. Only if the ATO/DTO certification is issued to a non-profit closed to the public club, which acts as the operator of the aircraft, is NON CAMO and Pilot Owner Maintenance permitted.
The rules don’t say “closed to the public” and that part is a non-issue anyway since you just arrange for a membership organisation.
But that’s not how the UK CAA interpret it.
