Bar Shaker,
I think you will find that the 200 hour service related to the engine only; there is no evidence that the wing had been stripped and inspected as required and the report suggests that if it had been the problem might have been discovered. Also (from memory of my earlier reading, it’s too late to re-read!) the a/c should have been air tested by the distributor/manufacturer each year but was not, I accept that this may not be a permit renewal requirement.
Regarding the paperwork and buying an a/c I fully agree and would in any case have a survey of some sort done. However without suggesting that it would have happened in this particular case, if you have a blank Tech log and a certificate from the regulatory authority that the log book is signed up and correct what’s to stop an unscrupulous owner adding the missing entries?
I agree with your other comments (except that as an ex engineer I never trust anything straight from maintenance!) and with Madam B and also hope things get sorted - but lets not get too side tracked by the thankfully rare occurrence of in-flight break-ups. Failures in maintenance, servicing schedules and documentation requirements does no one any favours and certainly not the paying customer, the casual passenger or the owner.
As the man said, if you think maintenance / safety is expensive, try an accident. Unfortunately some people seem to have forgotten this old saw. I for one will certainly probe a little more before accepting a ride in other people’s a/c (including certified ones)
Edit: I was remiss in not throwing some mud in the CAAs direction.
Penultimate paragraph edited.
Heliport
Last edited by egbt; 16th Nov 2005 at 20:45.