light aircraft maintenance

[cockney steve]

I still don't understand your claim that the basic American nuts and bolts are supplied at a price ramped up by "several hundred percent" 20 % would be nearer the mark.

Sorry, I didn't mean to claim , categorically, that all American (Unified) bolts were marked -up by an obscene amount....I wastrying to suggest that there's an enormous amount of mass-production stuff, which , as many will know, already have full traceability....but, as soon as a copy of that traceability is supplied in a format that denotes "aircraft" the price is ramped totally disproportionately.

You obviously have a huge personal investment in time, qualifications and cash, to secure your industry -position.... I, too, would mount a stout defence of the status-quo, under those circumstances. I repeat.... Where are the statistics that show any individual component producer being held liable and needing insurance several hundred percent more than standard insurance....
Re-quality assurance....even a cheap, nasty Taiwanese consumer nick-nack can, and does, get a public recall in case of serious fault being detected....so, a five- quid set of hair-curling tongs, can have documented, accurate batch-control and monitoring.......now we have the "but aircraft parts are made in very small quantities"...Some, yes, over a certain level, small-batch production does not see a huge saving, if ramped-up to mass-production..

The fuel-pump quoted by another poster, is a prime example of profiteering from the captive Aviation-market.
Ultimately, over-regulation will kill the Certified GA market.

How the hell can Cessna justify~ £400 for a flat-spring U-bolt, and then intimate that it's such piss-poor quality, you have to change it every 3 years.....this, despite the fact that many have been in active service in excess of 10 times that life, in a hard training-environment.......is the private, 50-hours a year owner (say 100 landings) really going to be happy paying aover £1 a flight, just for u-bolts???.....the worms will turn, I tell ya!

[A and C]

Cockney Steve

I don't think that it is the traceability that is the prime cost issue, it is the product liability insurance.

The failure of a critical aircraft part is likely to result in death, by the very nature of aircraft they are generally flown by the more affluent members of society and so if there is a liability case the numbers are likely to be large.

The chances of a domestic product attracting the same level of liability and the vastly larger number of units sold brings the insurance liability rate per item down to a very low level............. It's all a numbers game.

Just as the aircraft manufactures can't justify loading all the product liability onto the few critical parts the numbers game says they have to spread it over all the parts they sell.

From my point of view as an LAA inspector who has a duty of care to the aircraft owner I have to take the veiw that an aircraft bolt is better than an equally specification commercial bolt, they may be equally fit for perpose but when some smart lawyer finds out that the commercial item is also used in a domestic appliance and the Daily Mail prints the story that the aircraft was held together with washing machine parts how do you think this will play with a jury ?

You only have to see how the Lack of aviation understanding played out in the case of the BA 747 that made a poor approach at LHR a few years back played out to know what happeneds when those with little understanding of a subject are called to find fault.