The money is not the issue. Jeez, flying a pressurised piston twin is a good way to sink buckets of money into GA. It is the principle of enforcement of things that don't arguably provide additional safety over what is currently done (by me in my own individual case), when they are by CASA's own instruments not enforceable. Where is the logical extension of this - no more on-condition running of engines (the majority of the fleet disappears), 6 yr prop overhauls, along with control cables, why not flap motors, Aux pumps, brake callipers, air-con blowers and goodness knows what else. It is regulation for regulation's sake and it is destroying GA. I can afford to overhaul my magnetos, it is not a big item. The question though is why should I, when it is not mandatory and they were stripped and inspected a year ago? Is it safer? Arguably, no. Could that money be spent on something that would have a greater safety benefit, or maybe spend it on actually flying the machine?
Is it raining broken magneto parts and smoking airframes? I think not. Pilots destroy far more aircraft than magnetos do.
I am not picking and choosing - I can elect to ignore the SB altogether, but recognise that a 500hr inspection is probably a wise idea and is cost-effective. I am not convinced that, if I do that, an additional overhaul every 4 years, is. After all, the ongoing airworthiness of the aircraft is the operator's responsibility and, so long as no rules are broken, it seems to me that the operator can legitimately choose to decline the calendar overhaul of their magnetos. Wise? Maybe not, maybe so. Legal? It would seem to be absolutely so.
Last edited by Brainy; 31st May 2015 at 22:49.