Getting out of bed in the morning creates “potential problems”, Arnold.
All the talk about unnecessary maitanence would have some merit if these checks were being done and no defects were being found. The facts are that defects are being found, serious ones at that. Isn't that the point of these test?
Arnold E: Seems to be fairly sensible to me.
I agree completely: It is ostensibly sensible.
Whether it is,
in fact, sensible, is a related but different question.
What caused the defects? What objective risks did the defects create? What is the cost of dealing with that risk? Does that cost outweigh the potential consequences? Does the way of dealing with the risk cause more problems than it resolves?
For a maintainer, maintenance never causes defects. However, an objective analysis of the data shows that maintenance not only sometimes causes defects, but that more maintenance more often
always causes more defects.
Maintainers don’t know – because they can’t know - what objective risks arise from an inaccurate compass, ASI or altimeter. It’s just assumed that because it’s mandated and defects are found, the risks must justify the mandate. It’s completely circular.
Megan: Pilots get lost with perfectly serviceable instruments providing perfectly accurate indications. What conclusions should we draw from that fact and the examples you provided?