As with any argument Creamie, it is an injustice to only quote figures or statistics selectively so as to try to prove your point.
I have changed Vac pumps below the 1000Hr mark due to sheared drive shafts, worn Vanes. That doesn't mean they all will and Vice Versa.
Why did it fail? Environment, Cleaning agents or over zealous use of degreasers in the vicinity, FOD, turning backwards...
Would it have been good to change the Drive at 6 years as recommended?
would it have made a difference.
You and I know mag timing can change by a degree or Two in 100Hrs of use.
Was it a new mag bedding in,
Is the capacitor flogged out creating heat down the arm melting the cam lifter?
Also saying every time something is changed it will introduce a fault is not correct, and the Data will tell you that.
Human Factors is a reality of course. Aircraft Maintenance is preventative Maintenance, and by default so is probably most things that get any level of maintenance, just focused on more with aircraft.
I understand perfectly where you are coming from, and you are not human if you don't make mistakes.
But there are too many variables in operating environments, Machine operation, FOD, Engineer experience level's, Knowledge, and component operating life expectancy to simply say, well I have seen this or that run for a lot longer than the book allows me to operate it, so I will,
because for every example you give me of extended operations, Several people out there will have the opposite example.
The focus seems to be toward Vac pumps and Injectors. But what about something of a more critical nature.
Would you be happy to let a Governor run well past its Overhaul period,
as I have seen these fail also,
How about a Fuel injection unit, a propeller, does the tendency to leave something to continue operating relate to the perceived risk of failure?
The equipment available to the cockpit these days is vastly improved on when the aircraft was built in most cases.
You have access to a lot of information in regards to engine parameters now, which is great for trouble shooting and engine monitoring.
But that wont stop a failure of a component past its TBO, with all your vast experience you must have had many trouble free hours of maintenance carried out on your aircraft, and carried out by your self.
So let it be, intrusion does not have to equal fault. Components should not be allowed to run until failure.
I cant maintain to your experiences, which may differ greatly from someone else's, in regards to components the limits are clearly defined,
I can evaluate many other facets of aircraft defects and wear, using my experience and wear limits provided.
Other than that you follow the Reg's, regardless of how silly you may think they are, because ultimately, and this is quite important, I cant use you or your experiences as my reference to the Regulator!
Yes shocking, I know, but if I have to justify myself to someone as to why I let something run on, I can's say AMM CreamPuff R1.