@mmgreve If your plane is not used commercially, e.g. in a charter company, and you do not use the CAMO to take care of all your maintenance planning (a.k.a Controlled Environment/ “Überwachte Umgebung”) you can use a Self-declared-maintenance program instead of the standard one written by the manufacturer, and in this you can decide that you will use certain components (e.g. engines) beyond their TBO. You have to specify the means you intend to employ for ensuring the continued airworthiness of said component.
Please also note that this program is declared by you, it does not need any kind of costly “approval” by the LBA or the local authority.
Edit: The only exception to tbe above are items listed in section 4 of the AMM. The Cirrus’ chute is a good example of this. The life limits in this section, and only in this one, are part of the aircraft’s certification by the competent authority.
mmgreve wrote:
Your engine will expire next month so can we book it in for overhaul”
They might just be trying to cover themselves and are expecting you to say no … so that the ball is in your court ?
I can testify that this works well in Germany, and always has, even prior Part ML.
We regularly run engines (including their accessories), Propellers, harnesses, etc. on condition.
This includes palnes used for primary, VFR night and IFR training. Neither the CAMO nor the LBA ever had anything against that. All we did was sit down and discuss sensible means to ensure continuing airworthiness.
I am not involved in dealing with the financial side of things, the only data point I can offer is the isue of a Mode-S-address to an aircraft that did not have one, which is 25€.
Interestingly I’m on D-reg and have just received an email from my CAMO saying “Your engine will expire next month so can we book it in for overhaul” – just like that 
I don’t think so….
Specifically for EASA, any more personal experiences you can share?
Apparently Malta (9H) is quite good. What about the Baltics (good with e-government)? Or eastern countries? Thank you!
Neil wrote:
All the local difficulties will be less complicated than dealing with an authority in another country. I’m sure there are exceptions but that’s my experience anyway.
Other than mailing in Form 337s, for which I need no response, and web based registration renewals every three years, I have had no contact with FAA for any reason in relation to 18 years of N-registered certified plane ownership.
RobertL18C wrote:
Imagine today or for the foreseeable future having an aircraft registered in a country other than yours, and your engineer flies out and may have to isolate either coming or returning or both!!
I think the preferred situation would be authorized mechanics in every country worldwide, allowing you to travel without introducing that situation.
Imagine today or for the foreseeable future having an aircraft registered in a country other than yours, and your engineer flies out and may have to isolate either coming or returning or both!!
I think that unless you are running a fairly serious aeroplane, I.e. probably turbine powered, the best authority is the one where you live. All the local difficulties will be less complicated than dealing with an authority in another country. I’m sure there are exceptions but that’s my experience anyway.
A search for e.g. “D-reg” (with the quotes) digs up lots of info in various countries’ requirements.
In Europe, generally, the best option is to register in one’s own country. That’s because the various advantages of doing otherwise tend to vary over time.
For example many Germans went G-reg to avoid the Cessna wing spar inspections, but this turned out to be a temporary advantage. And some got caught when the UK CAA found document discrepancies which the LBA had missed (obviously nobody will publish details). Then came brexit
The substantial exception is to go N-reg and a huge amount of discussion exists here on that topic. I have a fairly up to date summary here. Few people are embarking on this route now because of various hassles such as this. It retains big advantages for those who already have the FAA pilot papers. Even the Part M light / ELA2 concession does not come near being N-reg because freelance EASA66 guys are rare.
I can testify that this works well in Germany, and always has, even prior Part ML.
We regularly run engines (including their accessories), Propellers, harnesses, etc. on condition.
This includes palnes used for primary, VFR night and IFR training. Neither the CAMO nor the LBA ever had anything against that. All we did was sit down and discuss sensible means to ensure continuing airworthiness.
I am not involved in dealing with the financial side of things, the only data point I can offer is the isue of a Mode-S-address to an aircraft that did not have one, which is 25€.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Looking at the relevant texts, ELA1 airplanes are generally exempt from TBO regulations in private operations, as long as they are run via a self declaration of maintenance, something the Swiss FOCA very reluctantly had to admit, albeit with the threat of legal consequences in case of incidents or accidents.
The restriction to ELA1 is gone with the new part-ML. Now every aircraft regulated by part-ML (up to 2 730 kg MTOM and not on an AoC) can have an SDMP.
