Such meandering imprecision is not quite what I’m after.
I find it utterly amazing that, notwithstanding the apparently expensive and unnecessary consequences of being obliged to perform an overhaul on a private aircraft engine when recommended by the manufacturer, no one can cite the regulation or order that imposed the obligation. All those aircraft owners and LAMEs out there who were struggling under the terrible burden of compliance with recommended overhaul periods for so long, and not one of them can cite the regulation or order that imposed the obligation?
Surely when the struggling CofR holder questioned the cost of and need for an overhaul on their smooth running engine, the LAME pointed to a dog-eared and grease-smeared regulation or Order, made by those terrible, aviation-hating CAA or CASA lawyers.
Surely? And surely such an important rule would be burned in their brains and recalled with ease. Surely?
My money’s still on folklore, but am happy to proved wrong with a regulation or order. My money’s on the propagation of a belief that, irrespective of what the rules did or did not require, the common law duty of care required compliance with manufacturer’s recommendations, and that AD/ENG/4 changed that. The first part may well be correct; good luck with the second!