PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - light aircraft maintenance
View Single Post
Old 22nd Mar 2014, 11:00
  #38 (permalink)  
cockney steve
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
@ A&C I just use the example of bolts, as a common product with no publicised safety-issues or recalls in the vast numbers sold commercially.

It could just as easily be pop-rivets....back in the early 60's I was fabricating aluminium yacht -spars (aluminium spars for yachts, before the Grammar nazis strike ) We used an aircraft rivetting system for affixing tracks that had a rivet about every 4 inches down each side. I have no idea if these rivets were certified, time expired, or what. certainly, the pop-rivets were aircraft-spec, but carried no "papers"
The real issue, is , as cited by a previous poster, an "off the shelf" standard product having the price ramped by several hundred percent, merely because a supplier has insured themselves against "a claim"

In spite of all this bull, the fact remains, parts still fail in service, are no better quality because of the paperwork and the whole industry of certification is largely selling an illusion.

Rotorway helicopters were notorious for transmission failures and main driveshaft -failures....The parts were redesigned...Rotorway didn't go under in a sea of litigation...Why? Because buyers knew they were buying a product at a fraction of the "proven" mainstream Heli's price.

IF we choose the cheaper route in this country (LAA Permit)-there is a massive cost-saving, allowing many more people to fly, who would be priced out of the "Certified" market.

The statistics conclusively PROVE that permit-aircraft are just as safe (if not safer) as those where there is a huge paper-trail.

I am certainly NOT knocking the Permit regime....on the contrary, I'm suggesting that it's far more cost-effective than the Cof A regime and , were the artificial obstacles removed (night, IFR, hire/reward/training for example) there would be little incentive for GA to pay the huge premium over Permit,that C of A demands, with no demonstrable benefits.

(I'd also suggest that GtE's microlight bits are far cheaper than if they were CAA components.)
Therefore, more affordable and easier to justify changing.
cockney steve is offline