Leadsled(GoldWing?) states with no show of evidence:
Then demands of Your Right evidence that Insurers were driving the situationHaving been involved in release to service of on condition piston engines when the AD was first issued, I can vouch for the veracity of Your Right's statement - the Hangar Liability Insurance would not have covered any maintenance that was against OEM recommendation.
Speaking of on condition maintenance, you do realise that this means to remove/repair BEFORE the item breaks down, not after?
So with this in mind, how do you anticipate the stoppage of a Vac pump?
This may be why the OEM recommends a time life.No need to be mystified Leadsled, As the Robinson Heli Instructer said, " to arrive at true hours multiply the MR hours by a factor of 1. something, except in Australia where use a factor of 3!"

Clinton. After some thought I can see your side of the argument reference CASA Schedule 5: CAR 41 (1) states CAR 42B states Ergo that is the Maintenance program, PLUS what ever else is nominated on the LBS for that aircraft.

For the reasons touched on by perspective, maintainers and regulators have a direct interest in mandated time-life component replacement/overhaul. More money and simpler. (Not for the aircraft operator, of course. Ironically, that attitude is one of the reasons for the demise of the industry that pays them.)


MMM lets look at this statement.


maintainers and regulators have a direct interest in mandated time-life component replacement/overhaul.


Regelators how so ?
Maintainers as well I know how much time is cut of bills so well not really true


(Not for the aircraft operator, of course. Ironically, that attitude is one of the reasons for the demise of the industry that pays them.)


MMM here is another one.
Well the main reason of reliability is you change before it breaks, So lets say like yesterday. I change a starter gen out still had some brush life left may have done another 100 hours may not have. 9K to do the job. Now if it broke down. 1st a near 2 hour flight to get to it again. 10 or so un happy pax at around $1000 ea 2 may be 3 revenue flights lost plus cost of a flight out plus time lost in flying out in the work shop. Oh gee wiz should have left it on im guessing.




And lead at 5-30 do you realyy think im going to go look for an insurance policy to pls you when I already know the answer.
I bet your hose has no door handles hey on your doors. You made so many statements that arnt ttrue. I like the one that the owner is resonsabile for the maintenance he is only that to make sure its done and not for the work that is carried out, that's why I have to sign 50 times a day my sig and lic and date.
So its the lame you fool.




Cheers

The manufacture has zero control over the aircraft once its has been sold. really you can do what you like with it. So in that case they set a maintenance program , limited life components , srm sb msb etc etc etc to guild the maintenance of the aircraft though its life.
The aircraft can be any where on the planet they have zero control so its set to the lowest point.
An aircraft that is not being used will have more problems than on that is always being used.


Cheers

yr right,
Once again, you cannot back up your assertions.
Can you explain why the same insurers as in Australia have no problems with engines on condition in NZ, if your claims are true, which they are not!!

Once again, you illustrate that you do not understand the relevant regulations, what you devoutly believe and what the law says are two quite different things.

Because CASA can be and is regularly sued, and just regurgitating airframe manufacturer's MM limitations does go some way to minimizing CASA potential liability, at great expense to the whole Australian GA aviation sector.

no hoper,
RAPCO type dry vac. pumps are an interesting issue, and, as I hope you know, it is the airframe manufacturer's time lives that count, not the vac. pump OEM. There are differences (that I have seen) of up to 50% difference in the OEM and the TC MM figures.

Personally, where I have the choice, I never use a dry vac. pump.

As to the survey of underwriters, it was done by AOPA, the results were as I have posted, if you don't want to accept that, that's your choice. At the time, there were all sorts of scary stories about engines on condition, as happens every time some kind of change is mooted in Australian aviation.

Separate facts from urban myths.

As for your accusations that virtually all light aircraft log books are records of criminal fraud ( not just a civil aviation offense, such fraud is dealt with under the Crimes Act), I simply reject such accusations. And yes, I am well aware of some such behavior, mostly in the cattle mustering sector, but that is far from being the whole of the GA fleet.

The fact remains, that running engines on condition, regarded as completely unexceptional in most countries, causes a certain kind of Australian LAME to have fits of the vapours, and forecast the end of aviation as we know it, if any change is made --- particularly and kind of change that might effect his income stream.

Tootle pip!!

PS: I have no idea who "goldwing" is, but it certainly ain't me.

Leadsled,
Only for those that hadn't been in the mustering industry.
Reference hangar owners liability insurance, I was advised by the insurance rep of the company's Hanger Insurance to have my own liability insurance should an accident occur involving an engine I had released on condition.

No Hoper,
That raises some interesting issues if you were an employee of the organisation holding the Hangar Keepers policy. Depending on the insurance rep., if I was told that I would be looking into the matter very carefully -- and keeping my pen in my pocket until I was 110% certain of the conditions of any applicable policy. Having said that, insurance reps and some brokers are notoriously illinformed about the policies they are selling. For my sins, I spend too much time with lawyers, much of whose income is derived from aviation insurance disputes.

A possibly analogous situation is rental aircraft where, in the event of an accident, the policy holder (school?) gets paid out, then the pilot is sued by the insurance company for the payout, because the policy does not have a no recourse clause, but it is a bit hard to see how that can be applied to an employee. If your status was as a contractor, that is a different can of worms.

Tootle pip!!

RAPCO type dry vac. pumps are an interesting issue, and, as I hope you know, it is the airframe manufacturer's time lives that count, not the vac. pump OEM. There are differences (that I have seen) of up to 50% difference in the OEM and the TC MM figures




The above statement once again is incorrect. A component may be run to its manufacture's recommendations out side of the airframe limits.


So lead you still not answered a quite simple question that ive been asking you.
Simple how many time have you released and signed an M/R. Our sign and released your own work at a service.


And by the way the regulator dose not set the times in chap 5 for life limited components its the manufacture so once again it has nothing to do with the regulator. If TCM wont and do give a longer service life to there engines it is excepted by the regulator. You also keep bringing in every other country well we are in Aust and it don't matter what they say.


And btw you are wrong about the insurance as well.


Cheers

Wording taken from a hangar keepers policy document from "the larger" of the Australian underwriters.


MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS ENDORSEMENT
This Policy does not cover loss or damage directly or indirectly caused or occasioned by failure to overhaul or replace a Unit in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations provided however that this exclusion shall not apply if the Time in Service of the Unit is authorised by the Statutory Requirements and does not exceed 125% of the Overhaul Life of that Unit.
In all other respects, the Policy remains unaltered.

Very busy millionaire you are yr right, I calculate that you then sign out your work ( after you thoroughly inspect it ) every 9.6 minutes of each 8 hour working day. As I have said previously I don't think I'll be having my work done by you anytime soon.

Avgas that's fine by me. Do you really think I would won't to work on your aircraft. It's also called have trust in your fellow work mates mmm some thing I trust that you don't have. I'll let my record speak for me what about you.
Cheers

Yr Right .... The LAW has nothing to do with trust.

Oh not you too going to lecture me on my reasonabilities as an lame. Nooooooooo please don't. I guess then EVERY work shop should be closed down. Or should anyone working on an aircraft all be lames or do we keep on doing what we doing.
Next thing is a how do you know what I look at when and where or how I can control multiple jobs. You see Avgas it's called experience

Cheers

Not at all Yr Right, but I wasn't the one mouthing off about how much I do in a day .... You are happy to call others in this forum fools, however who is the fool now.

Not me I'm no fool. As I said earlier I'm happy to stand behind my record are you.

And all I said is I sign up to 50 times a day so what you have said was taken out of contex. That's no different to most lames btw.

Get a rubber stamp mate, problem fixed. Wots next?

Strangely enough that can be used if it's in your procedures. Pmsl

I personally couldn't care less how you sign for the work carried out provided the thorough inspection you are signing for as the second inspection required is in fact carried out ..... is it? :confused:

yr right,
I think you better check the "rules" and the court precedents for the correct answer.

More random rubbish, as far as I can see, nobody on this thread has said that the regulator sets RECOMMENDED TBO.

However, CASA does set time lives, when manufacturers do not, one example is the Australian unique AD setting airframe lives, based on estimated fatigue lives.

As to how many return to service documents I have signed out, that is not relevant to the facts and the discussion here.

Despite your claims of competence, based on repetition, you have clearly illustrated some interesting gaps in your knowledge. This in addition to your apparent prejudices, which makes me wonder if you are actually capable of learning from experience.

A bit like the pilot who did not have a 1000 hours experience, he had 1 hour a thousand times. Your views on LOP engine operations are as good an example as any of your approach to aviation life.

Tootle pip!!

As for lop I stand by what I've seen over the years.
As for you signing anything it is relevant as it quite obvious that you have not signed anything but your so quick to tell us how we are to do our job yet you can't do it and we no nothing.
Oh so typical. Gee if I was so bad maybe my lic should have been taken by this but oh no it hasn't. To the point I've beaten casa in court on legal matters in regards to aviation maintenance. Have you.


Cheers