Peter wrote:
The next factor after free labour is skimping on maintenance that is actually required, which is generally illegal on certified but generally legal on a homebuilt. But it happens widely…
Where do you get all this from? A homebuilt requires the same maintenance as any other aircraft, legally speaking. The only “slack” is EASA has nothing to do with it, so it’s up to the local AA to decide who can do it. Also, for certified aircraft, lots of work is paperwork due to certifications. Homebuilts are not certified and so no need for all that overhead which requires certified people and the EASA pet; approved organizations.
“free labour” ? Do you get payed to fly your TB? I guess not, so why don’t you hire someone to do the flying for you, which would be a much better use of your spare time and money? It’s the same thing with maintenance and also more serious business.The point is that maintenance is cheap, easy, fast and flexible the moment you remove all the (utterly useless and redundant) overhead due to certification. For a typical homebuilt you would use less time, frustration and money on maintenance, not more, even if you do everything yourself. Some will use a lot more of course, simply because they can, while others let professionals do it (also because they can, and it’s much cheaper, flexible and faster than any certified aircraft).
A homebuilt requires the same maintenance as any other aircraft, legally speaking
That’s not correct by a huge margin.
You can ignore SBs ADs etc etc etc.
Obviously stuff which needs to be done needs to be done, but real on condition maintenance is a small subset of regulatory maintenance.
The “widely” comment references both regimes.
I stand by my point that cost savings come mainly from the factors I listed. That is fair enough but means that probably most GA owners would not benefit.
The real huge savings are made by avoiding a company and using a freelance engineer. And doing it yourself saves even more.
Which is exactly what you get with a non certified plane,though you won’t get it unless you have a hangar etc.
That is also where you get the opportunity to improve the quality of work done, but again it is up to the owner to manage that. And if he happens to use one of the firms that do bad work but is happy with it, what will change?
I will look up the ELA2 link when I get back on a proper computer, Ultranomad 
But it sounds great.
That’s not correct by a huge margin.
You can ignore SBs ADs etc etc etc.
Sorry Peter, that is completely untrue. The choice you have depends on the national regulations under which you operate. However the choice is whether you have to deal with it sooner or later.
Under national setups where an inspector is involved, then.you have to deal with them or you won’t get a permit renewal.
Under national setups where there is no inspector involved, i.e. self-declarations, you ignore them at your peril. When you need to claim on your insurance you might find problems, because you annually self-declare its all been dealt with.
Peter wrote:
The real huge savings are made by avoiding a company and using a freelance engineer. And doing it yourself saves even more
It’s not only savings in terms of money. You save time, save lots and lots of irritation over hopeless and expensive maintenance organisations, you save travelling and waiting. If you have a mechanic, you and him/her can concentrate on doing maintenance, preventive and mandatory, focus on the important stuff. This is how real maintenance is done, maintenance is not some “expense” that you skimp and cut every possible corner for no other reason than to make sure the paperwork is OK. Maintenance is NOT paperwork. I’m not saying that paperwork is not important, only that what really count is the condition of the airplane.
Peter wrote:
You can ignore SBs ADs etc etc etc.
That’s not universal, and very far away from the truth IF you “legally” can ignore it. In Norway we cannot ignore it (so the CAA say). In the US you can ignore it – but – insurance companies and the NTSB does NOT ignore these things. Vans and other kit manufacturers issues so called recommended and required bulletins. Often these are issued based on reports by the NTSB. Of course, no kit manufacturer have any legal basis of assuring people follow these bulletins, it’s the builder/owner who has the responsibility, but insurance companies can make you follow these, and so can the local AA.
Peter wrote:
but real on condition maintenance is a small subset of regulatory maintenance.
If you think about it, the single only reason for doing maintenance is to be reasonably sure the aircraft will be able to fly the next flight(s). This is done by inspecting the condition, and eventually fixing it if the inspection finds this to be necessary,
I’m not saying that paperwork is not important, only that what really count is the condition of the airplane.
Here, here! Agreed. Too often many worry about the paperwork far more than the actual condition.
LeSving wrote:
Do you get payed to fly your TB? I guess not, so why don’t you hire someone to do the flying for you, which would be a much better use of your spare time and money? It’s the same thing with maintenance and also more serious business.
That depends whether you consider maintaining your aircraft something worthwhile or a chore. I hire people to do chores, not to do something I enjoy. It’s like suggesting I hire someone to go to a racetrack and have fun instead of me. Since maintenance is something that has to be done (if you actually plan on using whatever you’re maintaining) and we have only limited amount of time available, it can actually be both.
I agree with you that the lack of paperwork is a big money/ time saver. And @Peter, I’m with the others. This is not a way to legally avoid ADs and such. You just might have more options open and complying with them might be easier/ more convenient.
As to the original topic. It really depends on what you want to accomplish. You can do a lot of the heavy lifting without any licence (depending on a machine, some of it you can do on your own, some of it would require supervision/ sign-off). Next step would be Part-66 (becoming a licensed mechanic).
PS: If I wanted to this myself, I would need two things: 1) Nicely equipped hangar. 2) Friendly and competent Part-66 mechanic. That doesn’t seem unrealistic to me.
Martin wrote:
Since maintenance is something that has to be done (if you actually plan on using whatever you’re maintaining) and we have only limited amount of time available, it can actually be both.
Yes. With a homebuilt this is not an either or situation. But I think unless you fly for a living, most people would very much like to be involved in the maintenance in a more meaningful way than shopping around for the cheapest organisation that does OK maintenance without the airplane being away for a month at a time. This is useless knowledge, time and money that could be put to much better use by becoming more involved in the actual maintenance. You don’t have to do it alone, you and a competent technician can do it together. With a homebuilt you can chose. At least in Norway you can also just send it off to a maintenance organisation, but no one does that when they don’t have to.
This is not a way to legally avoid ADs and such. You just might have more options open and complying with them might be easier/ more convenient.
I got my information from a US engine shop which does a lot of Exp work and knows the regs.
From the above it looks like I was partly right for Europe.
