View Full Version : Is everyone in EASAland fitting 8.33 radios and disabling their 25Khz kit??
firebird_uk
31st Oct 2017, 13:33
It's law in the EASA world to have 8.33 compliant kit from 01/01/18 (excluding the feds and mil (of course)).
Lots of people I speak to don't seem to be bothering. Are you?
chopjock
31st Oct 2017, 13:52
Only in airspace that requires the use of radio...
206 jock
31st Oct 2017, 14:24
Yep. Another tax on aviation for no discernible benefit. The 20% contribution from European funds is pathetic but better than nothing I suppose.
Mandatory if your machine is sued commercially - 2 sets for AOC work:ugh:
Hughes500
31st Oct 2017, 14:55
well somewhat lucky the Garmin GNS 430 was a simple reprogram. To replace the King KY196A with a 196 b is £ 6500 !!!!!!! While to replace a King KX165 Nav comm is only £ 4500 where oh where do they get those figures from. Not a tax I thought highway robbery had been outlawed 2 centuries ago
No discernible benefit??? It liberates three times the number of channels in an already congested spectrum - something that's both a benefit and discernible, surely?
The different prices for equipment mods will reflect the different components that need changing - with some it's just uploadable software, with others it may need an eprom change, with yet others it may need some glue logic chips changing and with some it may even need changes to the RF boards to cope with the tighter bandwidth limits. And then there's the detail that some may need changed displays and switchgear.
And then there's the detail that the cost per unit will also depend on how many of the upgrades they will sell and so how much the basic engineering/qualification/tooling costs can be divided amongst those individual sales. With the newer units this could simply be the number of units installed as people will tend to bite the bullet and spend the money on new kit. But if it's older kit then it's quite likely that people will choose to replace it with something new and blingy rather than upgrade it, so the number of upgrade sales will be less predictable.
The fact that the upgrade costs are actually different tends to suggest they are representative of the actual costs rather than being random numbers...
PDR
Hughes500
31st Oct 2017, 17:50
PDR
It has already been proved we don't need 8.33 as there are enough frequencies to go round on 25 spacing.
As for the equipment the manufacturers must be laughing, as they are able to take the piss as usual:ugh:
firebird_uk
1st Nov 2017, 00:45
Documentation online seems to imply that the 8.33 frequencies will be substantially cheaper for ground stations. Airfields looking to save money will move to these thus ensuring enforced compliance (even if it is not done via maintainers, ARC renewal etc).
I'd expect the prices will then slide back up again.....
PDR
It has already been proved we don't need 8.33 as there are enough frequencies to go round on 25 spacing.
As for the equipment the manufacturers must be laughing, as they are able to take the piss as usual:ugh:
Can you point me to this remarkable piece of objective evidence?
PDR
There is no way the pricing is justifiable with the cost of components etc.
If priced in sensibly they would sell a larger volume rather than try to mod old kit.
I think it was Motorola that said, Once a product was worked on the MTBF went down by a significant factor.
But keep thinking just because it's aircraft it costs & it is quality equipment :sad:
Not quite comparable but marine equipment is peanuts in comparison.
Land mobile equipment also.
GoodGrief
1st Nov 2017, 11:02
Can you point me to this remarkable piece of objective evidence?
PDR
AOPA hasa worked out a very good plan. 8.33 is not necessary.
Eurocontrol liked it very much but France, the UK and Germany voted against a European frequency plan.
They argued that aviation frequencies are a matter of national sovereignty.
There is no way the pricing is justifiable with the cost of components etc.
So you are sayiung that in your view design development, qualification, production tooling etc etc should all be done free of charge?
Perhaps in Venezualla or RoK, but not in any rational country.
PDR
AOPA hasa worked out a very good plan. 8.33 is not necessary.
Eurocontrol liked it very much but France, the UK and Germany voted against a European frequency plan.
They argued that aviation frequencies are a matter of national sovereignty.
Again, evidence or it didn't happen!
PDR
GoodGrief
1st Nov 2017, 12:01
Again, evidence or it didn't happen!
PDR
Google broken? I won't spoon feed you.
You made the assertion - it's up to you to show there was some substance to it. That's the way it works.
PDR
chopjock
1st Nov 2017, 13:02
PDR1
Have you got evidence 8.33 is actually needed?
Sounds like a load of EURO nonsense to me...
Radio spectrum is needed by everyone. Having three-times the channel density means that some of the spectrum currently hogged by aviation dinosaurs can be re-allocated to others who need it.
PDR
Lucky me this time. Garmin 430 and G530 only needs to be reprogrammed, the G1000 already has it and I just sold the oldest aircraft of the fleet with the old Bendix/King installed👍
GoodGrief
1st Nov 2017, 15:51
I just sold the oldest aircraft of the fleet...
:ok::{..........
ShyTorque
1st Nov 2017, 16:32
Lucky me this time. Garmin 430 and G530 only needs to be reprogrammed, the G1000 already has it and I just sold the oldest aircraft of the fleet with the old Bendix/King installed👍
The Garmin 430 & 530 can be configured to and from 8.33 by the user; it can be done in flight if required.
lowfat
1st Nov 2017, 17:02
I was fitting 8.33 radios back in 2000..
md 600 driver
1st Nov 2017, 18:30
Just mark it inop
Hughes500
1st Nov 2017, 19:19
PDR
You need to be careful here as 500e really does know what he is talking about when it comes to radios and frequencies !
You obviously have no idea how us aircraft owners are tucked up by the manufacturers, whom see to think we are doing them a favour by buying their products.
No, it's just that I am not one who chooses to spend my life as a self-pitying victim and I also have a reasonable professional understanding of what it costs to develop, qualify, manufacture and support aviation products.
PDR
Hughes500
2nd Nov 2017, 07:38
PDR
In that case please justify the following
On a 269 a steel tube 12 inches long with a hole at each end $ 1350
Switch from a 500 $135 same part number from Farnell £ 1.95
Pressure switch on a 109 air conditioning system $ 14500 yes $14500
Now to radios why does a military frequency hopping radio cost less than an airborne 8.33 radio ?
If I want to put 1:50k maps on a Bendix King sat nav they told me I wanted the ......... which would be £ 20k. I bought an iPad with the software in it for £ 400
Nice work if you can get it. The manufacturers don't really get it, they are starting to price things out of the market. Another example for you MD helicopters had just stopped outside overhaul agencies overhauling their main transmissions. Guess what the price just gone up from $ 85k to $ 125k strange really
Yes I might be moaning about it but this keeps going on there will not be an industry left soon. I can't put my prices up by 50% !!!!
I can get an unemployed homeless person to sit in a chair for a few hours for minimum wage, but to get an ATPL to do the same thing I have to pay serious money. Clearly a total rip-off!
I have no idea what your foot of steel tube does on a 269, but if it's a structurally significant item there will be design costs, certification costs and manufacturing costs. It must be made from material of known provenance (which needs accounting paperwork, and that costs money) manufactured using a qualified and controlled process (which needs accounting paperwork, and that costs money) by suitably skilled, qualified and experienced people (who need accounting paperwork, which costs money). It must then be stored, shipped and installed in a "controlled environment" (which needs accounting paperwork, and that costs money). So it's not the same as popping down to home depot and getting them to saw you off a foot of scaffolding pole.
The same applies to electrical switchgear - if you want it for aircraft use then the FAA/EASA/Etc regulations require that it has additional certification processes, testing and paperwork over and above that for the same part number when sold for non-aircraft use. That costs money.
Having recently (OK, six years ago) been involved in bringing some military aircraft into compliance with the 8.33kHz requirement I most certainly don't recognise the claim that "a military frequency hopping radio cost less than an airborne 8.33 radio" - that's just twaddle.
If you wish to fly with unqualified, untested and mickey-mouse kit in your helicopter then by all means go ahead - just make sure you tell your passengers (any anyone on the ground beneath you) that you are risking their lives because you have a contempt for sound engineering, their safety and the law of the land.
PDR
Evil Twin
2nd Nov 2017, 08:49
:ok:Dead on Hughes500, not to mention the development of both those aircraft, 50+ years ago, was paid for by the U.S. tax payer!
PDR1,
Thats what the manufacturers want you to believe and is probably close to reality but does not reflect the "price".
Unfortunately they have been caught out throwing a dart at a phone book as well to price things as to who knows why.
Maybe they actually cannot be arsed to work it out on cost plus and just what they think it is worth as a guess.
Boeing got seriously embarrassed many years ago ripping off the US Gummint.
They have a special secret formula.
Hughes 500,
I first worked on 369 and 269 models for a national distributor probably 40 years ago.
The prices were beyond comprehension then as now.
The current model (AHD) that I work with also beggars belief as to how you could operate it "commercially".
chopjock
2nd Nov 2017, 10:11
PDR1, I have just worked it out,
Having recently (OK, six years ago) been involved in bringing some military aircraft into compliance with the 8.33kHz requirement
Sounds like you supply this equipment so you are on the gravy train and have an axe to grind!
That's right, play the ball rather than the man - a classical indication of an unsupportable argument!
Your allegation is as odeous as it is inaccurate, just like most of the twaddle in this thread. I do not work for a radio "supplier" or an avionics company. I have just been involved in the process of bringing military aircraft fleets into compliance with the new regulations. I was also involved in studies to bring ATM equipment (SSR, PSR, PAR etc) into compliance with the new requirements to "play nicely" with mobile phone transmissions at 2.6GHz, and the wind-farm compliance issue, although we didn't win that one so we didn't get to do it.
The post I was responding to seemed to believe that an 8.33kHz radio fit in a commercial helicopter should by just buying a toy radio from Radio Shack. Fortuinately there are regulations which prevent cowboy operators doing such dangerous things. But if you really, really beleive that then just become the CAM for a helicopter operator and you are at liberty to define and sign off whatever you like - you can repair your aircraft with pieces of scaffolding pole attached with screws from home depot by mexican illegals on $0.05 an hour.
And when the enquiry finds your signature after the ensuing crash you will probably spend the remaining years of your life in jail, with your family stripped of every cent to pay the compensation to the families of the dead pilots, passengers and innocent bystanders.
There are cowboy corner-cutters in every walk of life, but I have to say I'm dissappointed to find them here. These people and their contempt for safety have no place in any aviation organisation.
PDR
Evil Twin
2nd Nov 2017, 11:05
That's right, play the ball rather than the man - a classical indication of an unsupportable argument!
Your allegation is as odeous as it is inaccurate, just like most of the twaddle in this thread. I do not work for a radio "supplier" or an avionics company. I have just been involved in the process of bringing military aircraft fleets into compliance with the new regulations. I was also involved in studies to bring ATM equipment (SSR, PSR, PAR etc) into compliance with the new requirements to "play nicely" with mobile phone transmissions at 2.6GHz, and the wind-farm compliance issue, although we didn't win that one so we didn't get to do it.
The post I was responding to seemed to believe that an 8.33kHz radio fit in a commercial helicopter should by just buying a toy radio from Radio Shack. Fortuinately there are regulations which prevent cowboy operators doing such dangerous things. But if you really, really beleive that then just become the CAM for a helicopter operator and you are at liberty to define and sign off whatever you like - you can repair your aircraft with pieces of scaffolding pole attached with screws from home depot by mexican illegals on $0.05 an hour.
And when the enquiry finds your signature after the ensuing crash you will probably spend the remaining years of your life in jail, with your family stripped of every cent to pay the compensation to the families of the dead pilots, passengers and innocent bystanders.
There are cowboy corner-cutters in every walk of life, but I have to say I'm dissappointed to find them here. These people and their contempt for safety have no place in any aviation organisation.
PDR
Chill out man, you'll give yourself an ulcer the way you're going.
I'm chilled - I'm not the one who is publicly promoting th use of bodges and illegal parts in helicopters!
PDR
homonculus
2nd Nov 2017, 12:49
PDR1
All the arguments in your post 26 apply equally to medical equipment, which itself is often a rip off but peanuts in comparison with aviation parts. The reality is that manufacturers charge what they can get away with. They know the aircraft cant be returned to service without their part or overhaul and they have a monopoly.
They would jack up medical equipment to the same level if they could, but as it normally gets charged to an individual patient it would be affordable. Sadly they see aircraft owners as having bottomless pockets, or at least owning items with massive capital cost that are worthless bits of scrap metal unless you pay up.
Dont think you will get much support for your views on this forum
Dont think you will get much support for your views on this forum
You're probably right. Too many posts on here present personal (uniformed, innaccurate and downright wrong) opinions as facts.
You can look at almost any sentence that starts with "the fact is..." or "the reality is..." and be pretty certain that what follows is either popular myth or made up on the spot to support a personal grudge because everything in the world is Someone Else's Fault.
Go read the regulations, and work out a fully costed proposal to make these parts in a way that would be compliant with them. That would have to include a proposal to set up an organisation which meets the legal requirements to be an aviation supplier as well, of course, and would then have to show how the costs of the latter are recovered from the sales of the former.
What has been said in this thread would be the equivalent of someone complaining about a £12,000 charter quote when he has worked out that the aeroplane will only use £300 of fuel. It is obvious here that the complainers haven't the faintest idea what is needed to produce these items, they just whine about the cost like they probabl;y whine when it rains, or when there are traffic jams.
This is not grown-up behaviour, you know.
PDR
ShyTorque
2nd Nov 2017, 13:46
I haven't read anything on this thread suggesting fitting illegal parts to an aircraft. People have understandably questioned the cost of certification of aircraft parts.
I'd be very interested to see some facts and figures regarding the need for more air band frequencies. Every year it seems another airfield has closed, rather than new ones opening.
Aviation seems to be an ever smaller dog being wagged by an ever larger tail.
I have read your comments PDR1 & find you do not read to closely I did not say fit sub standard parts to helicopters ( I presume it was me you were playing)
What I was pointing out was the component parts are a minute part of cost of the unit most surface mount resistors caps etc cost fractions of a cent\ penny \ yen, the tin ware is cheap to produce the design for a lot of the equipment is standard practice so we have innovation to cost in + sales shipping & profit.
Taking MR mobile digital fixed radio price £400 then doubling it £800 to allow for reduced customer base for aircraft ( not sure that stands up to day with a lot of radio customers moving to phones & PTTi)
We now add £400 for conformity excessive it think but there you go, we are at £1200 add some more profit £ 400 so now £1600 still a big gap Hey I might have forgotten something How about we add a bit more profit £300 still only £1900 & remember MR were taking a profit from £400
3496As Hughes 500 pointed out prices are Crazy
PDR justify price please Please note date these are locating pegs for a 500 clam door
Just to point you in the direction I have been in the owner of electronics RF business for getting on 50 years at service & manufacture level. I have no gripe regarding 8.33kHx spacing
What happens if they fail?
PDR
ShyTorque
2nd Nov 2017, 17:01
If they're anything like the door locating/locking pins on A109s, there is a loud bang, a rush of air, your ears pop and you hope all you're going to need is clean underwear. But they are factory parts.....
Just because they're certificated with all the expense involved, it doesn't mean to say they're up to the job.
homonculus
2nd Nov 2017, 18:14
There you go again PDR1, putting up another defense of what if they fail.
What if any commercially used bit of kit fails - the manufacturer can be sued.
Just to take hughes500's examples (and I have owned a 500)
500 switch $135. If it fails the item wont turn on or off
anaesthetic machine switch - far more complex $42. If it fails the patient dies
500 pressure switch $14500. Similar used for orthopaedic operations £160. Again if it fails patient ends up with failed joint replacement,permanent limp, pay out massive
Aviation is not the only industry where items are used on a small scale, have to be designed and tracked and where failure can result in horrendous litigation.
What happens if they fail?
PDR
Have seen a few missing or door cracked around the lower corner, some the doors are distorted enough for them to miss the hole they locate in. (I do not suggest this is the norm or a good idea) never heard of one coming off in flight due to missing \ broken pin, I await to hear different ? may be if the latches let go.
I also owned a share in a 500 for 8 years the bill were paid by me & partner, not by a corporation or company, both of us felt we were cash cows & sold it, the same as a lot of private owners.
I would suggest you are clutching at straws to justify the price
Shy
Don't get me started on 500 door locking mechanisms complicated to make, adjust, & keep adjusted, then the poor material they are made of, Wear is an understatement
Hughes500
3rd Nov 2017, 07:43
PDR
All clear now you work for a company ripping us tax payers off sorting out military machines.Nice work if you can get it. I do not fit illegal parts to any of the 20 odd machines my company has owned over the years. Here is an example for you and this is factually true. A certain UK manufacturer was asked by UK Mil to fit a USB plug to a certain type of UK Mil helicopter. The manufacturer purchased Belkin plugs from a certain high street retailer for under £ 5 each, they put one of their certificates on it and charged us the tax payer £ 350 for it. So most of what you say is utter bollocks I am afraid. You really need to go and speak to the people who actually pay the bills for the **** quality product we have to put up with.
Another example for you, one type of my machines has got through 4 voltage regulators in 4 years. Having had cars for over 35 years and I drive 25k a year i have never had a voltage reg fail. The cars are not mollycoddled like helicopters have to be. It really is not a difficult we are not flying space shuttles !
Another example Allison compressor wheels you wouldn't believe what they cost to make compared to what Rolls Royce sell them for ( incidentally the PMA boys can make them out of better material and half the cost of RR)
As you probably aware you are in a minority position here
PDR
All clear now you work for a company ripping us tax payers off sorting out military machines.
An outright lie, but hardly surprising given your dribblings here. Playing the man rather than the ball simply exposes the complete lack of substance in your argument.You are so intent on being a victim that your mind is closed to any other possibility.
You don't have a clue what you are talking about, and have no interest in ever changing that situation. Well enjoy wallowing in your self-pity and leave the real thinking to the grown-ups.
PDR
If they're anything like the door locating/locking pins on A109s, there is a loud bang, a rush of air, your ears pop and you hope all you're going to need is clean underwear. But they are factory parts.....
Just because they're certificated with all the expense involved, it doesn't mean to say they're up to the job.
The point is that if the consequence of failure would be "bad stuff" it is necessary to ensure that the part is made from known materials by a known process in a controlled environment. Aeroplane parts are operated much closer to structural limits than non-aeroplane parts because weight is always an issue.
In (for example) a car the engine mountings are bolted down with parts that have structural margins of well over 200%, so they are pretty insensitive to small variations in material, dimensions and manufacturing process. But a typical aviation part has a structural margin of 10-20% because the extra weight of more generous margins is unaffordable, so small variations in strength are very significant.
Look back through the accident reports where structural failures were a cause and you'll see it over and over again - parts with incorrect heat treatment, or features that were outside limits, or the wrong alloys. Assuring that these things are within spec costs money - often more than the cost of making the part (in much the same way that assuring a bandage is sterile costs more than making the bandage, since people are fixated with medical analogies). Perhaps you should ask Tim Lancaster whether the cost of ensuring bolts were the correct dimensions is a worthwhile expense, because nothing bad ever happened to flight 5390, did it?
It has been suggested that helicopter voltage regulators are a rip-off because they fail more often than the ones in cars, which is bunkum. A helicopter environment is much harsher in terms of temperature variation, vibration, shock etc etc and in most cases the unit will be run much closer to its electrical limits for far more of the time as well (because of the weight thing).
Everything you put on an aeroplane must (by law) have known design characteristics that have been verified by analysis, analogy or physical testing. Their supply and storage must be controlled and documented (as a matter of law). All of that costs money - a lot of money. Aeroplanes are built in tiny quantities (compared to say cars or washing machines) and so these costs form a much larger proportion of the end-price than for non-aviation parts. This isn't a matter of being "ripped off" - it's just a matter of complying with the law in a world where killing people results in large legal bills.
PDR
A certain UK manufacturer was asked by UK Mil to fit a USB plug to a certain type of UK Mil helicopter. The manufacturer purchased Belkin plugs from a certain high street retailer for under £ 5 each, they put one of their certificates on it and charged us the tax payer £ 350 for it.
And here we see just how deep your ignorance is. In order to "put one of their certificates on it" they will need to have expended a lot of engineering effort selecting the part and then ensuring it was capable of the job and compatible with the operating environment to provide the (legally mandated) clearance - that's (from experience) probably a minimum of £20k in non-recurring engineering. So if the parts are then fitted to a fleet of 60 helicopters the act of "putting a certificate on it" costs ~£330 per aircraft and the ~£3 cost of the part is irrelevant.
So most of what you say suffers from the distinct disadvantage of not having the faintest clue what you're talking about, I'm afraid.
But you carry on spitting dummies to demonstrate who grown-up and professional you really are...
PDR
ShyTorque
3rd Nov 2017, 09:10
PDR,
You complain that other posters are "playing the man rather than the ball". I suggest you re-read the whole thread and see who is most guilty of that. It's yourself.
Secondly, you are trying to teach people how to suck eggs and keep going round in circles, repeating yourself. Again, as someone who depends on all parts on the aircraft I fly for a living (I'm responsible for direct liaison with our maintenance company on a very regular basis) I am fully aware of the reasons for certification. Thankfully, I'm not responsible for paying the bills for maintenance so I have no personal reason to even countenance the thought of non certificated parts being used.
I'll repeat what I wrote before because it appears you didn't quite understand. No one here has stated that they would fit non certificated parts to any aircraft. But people who do pay the bills understandably sometimes question the huge cost of the certification process. It appears that some manufacturers think of the actual cost and move the decimal point to the right a couple of places.
I don't know who Tim Lancaster is.
Having dismantled some electrical\electronic components from aircraft I am surprised at the poor design, component quality, & build, we built cars for the rally championships for over 20 years in another business & I say that a alternator & most electrical components in WRC cars are built to be as light as possible & reliable, as to the operating environment you are correct there is no comparison, under bonnet with turbo engine heat, 120MPH over rocky terrain, through water & mud for starters then the heat cycles.
Personally I think you are just here to wind people up
Hughes500
3rd Nov 2017, 19:09
PDR
You really don't work in our industry do you.
Belkin example, there was no investigation or anything done to it other than a generation of a piece of worthless paper, that is A FACT
I can give you loads of examples of **** manufacturing that is positively dangerous and guess what nothing is done about it by the regulators until people are killed.
I guess 500e is right you are a wind up merchant. I can stand by everything that i Have said with facts, can you really ?
PDR,
You complain that other posters are "playing the man rather than the ball". I suggest you re-read the whole thread and see who is most guilty of that. It's yourself.
Whereas you and your fan club here keep making allegations that I am personally ripping someone off. It's pathetic.
It is the law of the land(s) that the designer/typecert holder/part21 organisation must follow certain processes to "put their certificate on stuff", and that costs money. But if you REALLY believe its such a rip-off then you (as an aircraft owner/operator) have the choice to go your own way. As you will be well aware, the TC/pt21/05-123 organisation has no authority over the aeroplane once it is in service. That authority lies with the CAM (SubPt.G organisation in EASA-speak), and the CAM can choose to simply buy (frexample) the Belkin part from EBay and fit it. If it is such a rip-off why don'y you just do that?
I've asked this question for real, and the answer I received was "If I do that and it goes pear-shaped then I will be the one who is sued because the manufacturers won't accept liability!", which is kinda the point. The Owner/Operator of an aeroplane is responsible for its safety and airworthiness. If you want to be able to "pass back" that liability to an 05-123/TCH/Pt21 organisation then you have to pay the cost they will incur to do the assurance work needed to allow then to take on that liability. And that amount of money is not small. It really is that simple. You may not like that, but it doesn't make it any less true.
Oh I don't doubt you can find individual examples of unjustified costs, especially on colonial military programmes, but in the UK military programmes they will be much less likely because these procurements are "open book". The QMAC defines fixed profit allowences and the costings are routinely audited. I have no visibility of the alleged USB socket incident, but if it was done as a PDS task then the claimed price hike is probably the cost of the whole activity from initial enquiry through to implementation amortised into a per-unit price.
We haven't heard what this USB socket was for - presumably it was actually wired to some piece of kit rather than just sitting in the panel to make it look blinged-up. So there was a wiring loom that needed to be modified or replaced. If it was a military aeroplane there would then be a number of compatability issues from the simple (does it interfere with anything?) to the complex (does it invalidate the IA clearences of any of the kit it's connected to - does it run too close to red-routed cabling, does the addition of this USB interface invalidate the existing security/safety/airworthiness cases? etc). Even if the answers to these questions are all "It's not a problem" they still have to be asked, investigated and signed-off before an 05-123 organisation can legally "put its certificate on it" (via the Form 714/715 process) to give the CAM a liability crutch to lean on. And that costs money.
You say I am teaching you to suck eggs, yet apparently you still object to the cost of these mandated processes - but not to the point where you are prepared to say "no, I'll save the money and take the liability personally". These are contradictory positions, you know.
I don't know who Tim Lancaster is.
Tim Lancaster was the Captain of the BAC-111 who was sucked halfway out of the aeroplane when the windscreen panel in front of him blew out at FL180 (BA flight 5390, June 1990 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_5390) - this wiki page usually comes at the top of the page when you type "Tim Lancaster" into google, btw). The windscreen blew out because >90% of the 90ish bolts that attached it were 26thou undersize, and that was enough to render them useless. The bolts in question were within spec for generic bolts of the same nominal threadform, but not for the aviation-spec version of the same thread. And that's why parts with the same nominal description but no "certificate wrapper" will not cost the same.
But it seems no one here is prepared to listen to any voice that disagrees with them, in a classic example of the Dunning–Kruger effect.
PDR
puntosaurus
4th Nov 2017, 11:21
Wow. What an unhelpful pi**ing contest this has turned out to be.
Some people observe that aviation part costs appear to be woefully inflated, and someone else points out that in some cases the costs of certification may account for some of the difference in price.
The latter side accepts that there may be examples of unwarranted padding of prices, and the former side accepts (without actually saying it) that there may be costs of certification.
I think we're done here ...., apart from Dunning-Kruger - Really ?
ShyTorque
4th Nov 2017, 11:32
Whereas you and your fan club here keep making allegations that I am personally ripping someone off. It's pathetic.
I've said nothing of the sort. Before you make allegations read what is actually written and by whom. Play the ball, not the man.
I've said nothing of the sort. Before you make allegations read what is actually written and by whom. Play the ball, not the man.
You are quite correct - it was Choptalk and Hughes500 who made those allegations. I misguidedly relied on my memory when I made that remark and I withdraw it, hoping you will accept my apology for any offence caused.
Belkin example, there was no investigation or anything done to it other than a generation of a piece of worthless paper, that is A FACT
I'm bemused at the way you seem to feel adding "that is A FACT!! to the end of an unsupported allegation turns it into evidence. Maybe I should go back and append similar epithets to my statements - perhaps that is where I went wrong, that is a FACT!
If your claim was true, and no work was done to get the DA certification, can you please explain how the 714/715 got Classified by the CCB (assuming this was a UK military helicopter, which you seemed to be implying)?
PDR
Hughes500
6th Nov 2017, 07:28
PDR
I have no objection to certification of anything, what I object to is the manufacturers being in a position to rip the operator off, with the excuse it needs to be manufactured to a high tolerance and needs to be certified
What you don't seem to see is that when companies like mine give up because we can't make a profit then guess what your jobs start to disappear.
Some of the examples I have given show there is no justification for the sheer expense
1. Steel tube on a 269 in 2009 it was $790 in 2016 it is $ 1390. Now forgive me but that part was designed 60 years ago and has not been changed. The real laugh was it had to go back as the manufacturer had drilled the holes in the wrong place. So much for paperwork !
2. 269 Pitch control now this is a serial numbered part, cost $ 3700. It came with a nice 8130-3 ( yes not an authority to fit ) but guess what, it wouldn't slide on to the output shaft because it had been made wrong
3. 369 main rotor blades have a habit of cracking the FAA answer ( along with EASA ) just check them every 200 Tq events and that will be fine. My quality manager is ex Jag/Landrover quality manager. As he said if this happened in the automotive world there would be an instant recall on all products with a redesign . But aviation oh no we will just look at and hope that catches the problem before the blade comes off.
I could go on for ages but ............
As to the usb I can give you the guy's name at said company but not on a public forum
Have fun I have to go and fly one of these things now