411,
I was involved with the program that you refer to which was in fact approved for Kitty Hawk.
The program was approved on the basis that Kitty Hawk were then flying 3,500 hours per year and thus the program did not exceed the Lockheed recommendations. The program also stated that if the utilisation changed the program would be reviewed
I did in fact miss a word out in my prevoius it should have added the word
responsible regulatory authority.
Yes other people have used that program ( Copied word for word !!) but not in civilised countries.
I have been involved with 3 programs in Europe and none will exceed the Lockheed recomendation.
Isnt it funny that this wonderful program was not used by Delta or ATA who followed the Lockheed recomendation.
Please let us know the countries/operators that you claim are using this program - it would make interesting reading!
Of course I notice you did not mention the CPCP AD which still requires all the calender inspections. This is why responsible operators do not use the 4,200 hour progrm in that IF you follow the rules there is little to be gained