The bottom line is that the SID’s and other instructions for continued airworthiness for your aircraft, are written by the manufacturers engineering department based on real knowledge of the product, not the opinion of one guy who’s owned one aircraft for a few years and cant bear to fix something that isn’t broke yet, but the combined information and feedback from tens of thousands of airframes, and millions of flight hrs. These inspections represent a minimum standard.
It amazes me that most peoples initial reaction to new or increased maintenance requirements is to fight back or burry their heads in the sand.
Aviation is supposed to be made up of Professional people, so - be professional and act professional.
If an aircraft owner cant get their head around the cost of the minimum standard then get rid of your aircraft, hand in you pilot licence and take up another hobby, your not welcome here.
For the LAME’s having seen first hand several Aviation litigation cases in Australia, all I can say is beware. The case “yr right” mentions is true, it did happen, and is just one example.
What is not mentioned adequately here is the cost of litigation, and more importantly not the cost in actual dollars but the cost in the stress of litigation. The cost on peoples health and sanity listening to lies, stories, untrue and poorly written statements written by unscrupulous rock spider lawyers and barristers.
These cases go on for years.
In an accident related compensation case, The plaintiff is most likely not the aircraft owner or pilot, but rather their next of kin, or the estate of a passenger who knows nothing about aviation, the rules, or anything else pertinent to the case.
The person that was skimping lying and cheating on maintenance costs is most likely dead, but someone else will be making them out to be some sort of hero that had everything done when and as needed. Of course the LAME with a lifetime of experience on the shop floor will be perceived as the villain that must loose everything.
In another case that I have been watching closely relating to a 50 something year old aircraft, the owner is claiming around $ 80,000 in damages for a corrosion related problem, The claim seems vexatious to say the least, and even if the claim did have any merit it only has a basis of around $10,000. Despite this it is ongoing now for around 4 years and over $250,000 has been spent on costs between the various parties. This does not include their own time and the cost on their health and sanity.