Final post on this thread.
I'm struck by the irony that I'm advocating for evidence-based maintenance requirements, using data from the single largest piston fleet on the planet, rather than robotic compliance with asinine law, and some people are arguing against that. It's depressing to say it, but I'm completely unsurprised that GA in Australia is in the state it's in.
For those who consider manufacturers' manuals to be the collected wisdom of lessons learnt by people who know best, I note this from CASA's Discussion Paper on ageing aircraft management.
[S]ome Manufacturer’s Schedules are documents which are frozen in time from when the aircraft was first actually produced. In some cases these schedules have not been legally required to be updated to reflect the aircraft ageing well beyond its original design life assumptions, even though these assumptions may have been reached many decades ago.
And you know what they say about assumptions...
stevo200: Find an engineer with a deep understanding and long experience in the maintenance of the type and model of aircraft you have/are considering buying. Get him or her to explain what's actually involved in maintaining the aircraft properly. Good luck.
