Lamp's always was amended to the individual aircraft, I had to fill a copy out in the back of the logbooks and add additionals to tailor it to the individual aircraft.
But to be honest when all the mandatory maintainance requirements were added to take into account the type certificate holders requirements it became stupid, you then had the situation where you were having to add for example Cessna's maintainance time limits to Lamps. As the US system is based on 50 hr and 100 hr cycles and the 100hr also covering the Annual and the Uk was based on a 1st 50hr, 2nd 50hr, 150hr and Annual cycle you would find you would need to do stuff like tappet clearances etc at 100hrs as that is the Type Cert Holders specified time limits, even though LAMPS was on a 150hr Cycle........ so you end up with trying to merge two different hourly systems........ the only way round it was to write an individual maintainance programme for each type and get it approved, but you would then have to justify and get passed the deviation from the type holders life or time limits, and I wish you luck there.
Now I could fully understand this if there was conclusive proof of aircraft dropping out of the skies because of this not being carried out evey 100 hrs, but truth be told the majority of the UK light aircraft fleets having operated over 20 years plus on a 150 hr cycle have proved this not to be the case.
All of this would be fine if Cessna did their job and actually updated the manuals, the SL about teflon brake hoses came out in 85 and was supposed to be updated in the manual..... still awaiting that one, the aileron balancing in the 152 manual still has the wrong ailerons and figures too!
Seat belts are the other classic fopar in putting a must replace life on them, fine if it was accurate across the fleets, but it isn't you end up changing belts on a 150 but not on a 152 that uses the same belt..... also even though the belt manufacturer do not give it a life, Cessna do.
You could also have the situation of say a Cessna 150 privately owned, kept in a heated darkened hangar and flown say 40 hours a year by just the owner who then has to replace the passenger seatbelt that has never ever been used on calender time, even though no one ever sits in the seat and the belt has never been used....... ludicrous.. We used to proof test these and can anyone explain why we no longer can??
And don't get me started on Teflon engine hose lifes on the likes of Cessna's powered by Lycomings, where other manufactures put those hoses on Condition!
EASA and the CAA have lost the plot...... Engineering licences are another one, fine go over to an all encompassing EASA licence, but please explain WTF we have Annex 2 aircraft and have to retain a licence for those???? As far as I can see it was just to justify keeping staff on at the CAA.. all aircraft should have been transferred to the EASA licence and the CAA as such should have ceased to exist as an independant body... and now with the future light stuff they are looking at a third licence..... It is bureaucracy gone mad!!!!!!
Last edited by NutLoose; 31st July 2011 at 22:02.