light aircraft maintenance
Most of the worlds privately operated certified light aircraft operate without traceability paperwork required for replacement parts. FAA regs require that the installing mechanic verify that the part is legal by whatever means he has at his disposal, no manufacturer paperwork required.
The FAA certificated mechanic doing light aircraft repairs operates outside of a maintenance organization, doesn't pay government or quasi-governmental fees to any organization, and is free to supervise others in doing certified aircraft maintenance. His authority includes supervising aircraft owners maintaining their own aircraft and also supervising, inspecting and signing-off work such as weld repairs and machine work performed by uncertificated personnel. By my observation most privately owned N-registered aircraft are maintained by team work between owner and FAA mechanic, in either the owner or mechanics hangar. There is no recognition or necessity for a documented maintenance program except for following FAA requirements that cover all aircraft, for instance A.D. compliance and generic annual inspection requirements. The over regulated maintenance paperwork and licensing/fee structure that one reads here as being inextricably associated with 'C of A' aircraft does not apply.
The FAA certificated mechanic doing light aircraft repairs operates outside of a maintenance organization, doesn't pay government or quasi-governmental fees to any organization, and is free to supervise others in doing certified aircraft maintenance. His authority includes supervising aircraft owners maintaining their own aircraft and also supervising, inspecting and signing-off work such as weld repairs and machine work performed by uncertificated personnel. By my observation most privately owned N-registered aircraft are maintained by team work between owner and FAA mechanic, in either the owner or mechanics hangar. There is no recognition or necessity for a documented maintenance program except for following FAA requirements that cover all aircraft, for instance A.D. compliance and generic annual inspection requirements. The over regulated maintenance paperwork and licensing/fee structure that one reads here as being inextricably associated with 'C of A' aircraft does not apply.
Last edited by Silvaire1; 17th Mar 2014 at 18:23.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since I've been in aviation, both in Permit and CofA types, the most frustrating thing I've found is in maintenance.
CofA types are more expensive (my prop was 20% more than the identical Permit equivalent) because of Form 1.
I've been ripped off by maintenance organisations over the years whether the aircraft was Permit or CofA - the worst was an LAA inspector, surprisingly.
I'm pleased to say my current CofA arrangements have been great. Delays do happen, but so do they with certain inspectors.
I've also seen some seriously dangerous Permit aircraft - one had to be transported to its new owner by road as it was in such a poor condition and another, after its delivery flight was grounded on the spot. I have little doubt it occurs with CofA aircraft as well.
But these days I would be very wary about buying a homebuilt or kit aircraft.
CofA types are more expensive (my prop was 20% more than the identical Permit equivalent) because of Form 1.
I've been ripped off by maintenance organisations over the years whether the aircraft was Permit or CofA - the worst was an LAA inspector, surprisingly.
I'm pleased to say my current CofA arrangements have been great. Delays do happen, but so do they with certain inspectors.
I've also seen some seriously dangerous Permit aircraft - one had to be transported to its new owner by road as it was in such a poor condition and another, after its delivery flight was grounded on the spot. I have little doubt it occurs with CofA aircraft as well.
But these days I would be very wary about buying a homebuilt or kit aircraft.
I once was hired to deliver a Cessna 421C from Toronto to the West Coast for its new owner. It had a fresh 100 hr/ annual inspection. By the time I made it back home the snag list was 59 items long. 
As an LAA inspector where do I draw the line when it comes to fitting a safety critical part to a permit aircraft ?
Do I fit an bolt for an unknown sorce ? Do I get that bolt magnafluxed to Check it ? Do I fit an aviation bolt with a release note ?.
Should the bolt fail and someone die which of these actions would a court see as not exercising the duty of care that as an LAA inspector ?
It seems to me that some on this forum don't spend money on quality assurance, and expect LAA inspectors to take the responsability for parts fitted for next to no financal reward.
I don't give a damm about the nif-naf & trivia bits of LAA aircraft but when it comes to the Quality control of critical parts there is only one standard for aircraft and that is the same for a Piper cub and a B747, it is just how we achive that quality assurance that may differ.
Do I fit an bolt for an unknown sorce ? Do I get that bolt magnafluxed to Check it ? Do I fit an aviation bolt with a release note ?.
Should the bolt fail and someone die which of these actions would a court see as not exercising the duty of care that as an LAA inspector ?
It seems to me that some on this forum don't spend money on quality assurance, and expect LAA inspectors to take the responsability for parts fitted for next to no financal reward.
I don't give a damm about the nif-naf & trivia bits of LAA aircraft but when it comes to the Quality control of critical parts there is only one standard for aircraft and that is the same for a Piper cub and a B747, it is just how we achive that quality assurance that may differ.
A CofA aeroplane has work done by a qualified person; a PtF aeroplane has work checked by an independent qualified person. As a BMAA inspector I'm prohibited from signing for my own work, and I thought that the same applied to LAA?
G
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GtE
Perhaps I should have said inspecting rather than fitting but the principle stands, in these day when accidents never happen because the lawers are driving society to always think that someone is to blame an inspector has to be very careful.
A few years back an recreational aircraft inspector was involved implicated in events that resulted in a fatal accident, the law did not difereciate between the duty of care that the recreational inspector and a professional inspector must give. The results for the inspector were tragic as the full weight of the law and prison loomed, and this all because he was acting with the best of intentions and made a mistake.
In my view this puts the inspector in a very dangerous position, if something goes wrong he can loose his home, his savings and his liberty if he fails to take reasonable steps to assure the quality of the work he is certifying..........and all this for travel expences !
The bottom line is that there has to be some sort of quality control on safety critical parts, and this sort of audit trail costs money and if you want to fly you have to understand you must pay for this quality control.
A few years back an recreational aircraft inspector was involved implicated in events that resulted in a fatal accident, the law did not difereciate between the duty of care that the recreational inspector and a professional inspector must give. The results for the inspector were tragic as the full weight of the law and prison loomed, and this all because he was acting with the best of intentions and made a mistake.
In my view this puts the inspector in a very dangerous position, if something goes wrong he can loose his home, his savings and his liberty if he fails to take reasonable steps to assure the quality of the work he is certifying..........and all this for travel expences !
The bottom line is that there has to be some sort of quality control on safety critical parts, and this sort of audit trail costs money and if you want to fly you have to understand you must pay for this quality control.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The bottom line is that there has to be some sort of quality control on safety critical parts, and this sort of audit trail costs money and if you want to fly you have to understand you must pay for this quality control.
Any reputable manufacturer will have a QC system in place, as evidenced by the fact that steel-framed buildings, bridges, cranes, schools, hospitals.......aren't falling about around our ears!
All metric fasteners have a strength-code embossed on them (not sure about Unified, it's been a long time
)Even cheap "knockoff" Chinese Quad "bikes" are NOT notorious for falling apart......granted, they usually rust pretty quickly and screws and bolts often shear off if they don't get pre-treatment....so, I;d say the threat of in-service failure is a red-herring....
The threat is real, of course, Statistically, it's vanishingly small, as is the chance of a piece of alloy tube or sheet in a Microlight failing......If you think I'm spouting crap, please explain why the CAA have decided that lightweight single -seaters are perfectly OK being unregulated...
AIUI, not evena basic fabric-strength-test (Betts test? ) Joe soap, the pilot of said machine , is quite within his remit to pick up nuts and bolts from his local hardware-store...Fortunately, the nature of the undertaking/hobby, and the mandatory pilot-training, make it probable that he is well-aware of the safety-implications of using sub-standard components.....He'll also know that the "off the shelf" High-tensile fastener-stock from a reputable engineer's supplier has probably sold in it's billions , against the aircraft-approved equivalent in it'sthousands or millions....and probably with a lower failure rate,despite Fred the steel-erector not having a torque-wrench or an understanding of elastic deformation, etc.
There are areas where items are stressed to the limit....IMHO, they are undersized...in these instances, I can see the point in NDT -ing every itembefore release from the manufacturer.
The Rotorway helicopter comes to mind as an example of engineering down to the margin....I believe it has now become reasonably safe and reliable.
I remember looking at a Rans aeleron pivot -bolt and bracket,thinking how flimsy it was, then realising that it was probably about 10 times bigger than it actually needed to be, for the loads developed in service.
Certified aircraft, carrying thousands of Pax, in the air ~ 20 hours a day, 7 days a week......yes, I can see the value of an extra layer of quality-assurance.
I struggle to see any benifit to GA and the statistics and evolving legislation would appear to back up my view.
Was very impressed with the Vans AD's re-cracks ...what a well-built machine, for an "amateur" product.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CS
Your choice to flag up the Vans aircraft as amateur built is a bad one the only thing "amature" about the Vans is that no one is paid to build them, it is for all intents and perposes a factory built aircraft assembled in shed & garages all over the world and made out of standard aviation parts.
On the other issues I think we are in violent agreement, when I say quality control I mean just that, it is not nessesaraly reams of paper it is just the assurance that the part is fit for service, as you say motorcycles don't fall apart but we must be sure that the HTS bolt is fit to hold the motorcycle together and is NOT the bolt that held together the packing case the motorcycle that the motorcycle was delivered in !
In a lot of cases for American size standard parts buying from normal aviation sorces is the cheapest way of quality assurance, for metric the best way to go would be a reputable sorce who can provide a certificate of conformity.
As for the CAA's attitude to single seat microlights, I think they are relying on the fact that these don't have much energy and the only person likely to be killed by the machine is the pilot........... Added to the fact that the CAA scale of charges is regulated by the MTOW resulting in there being very little money in regulation of microlights.
On the other issues I think we are in violent agreement, when I say quality control I mean just that, it is not nessesaraly reams of paper it is just the assurance that the part is fit for service, as you say motorcycles don't fall apart but we must be sure that the HTS bolt is fit to hold the motorcycle together and is NOT the bolt that held together the packing case the motorcycle that the motorcycle was delivered in !
In a lot of cases for American size standard parts buying from normal aviation sorces is the cheapest way of quality assurance, for metric the best way to go would be a reputable sorce who can provide a certificate of conformity.
As for the CAA's attitude to single seat microlights, I think they are relying on the fact that these don't have much energy and the only person likely to be killed by the machine is the pilot........... Added to the fact that the CAA scale of charges is regulated by the MTOW resulting in there being very little money in regulation of microlights.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@A&C said
But what about the patients, puppies and schoolchildren the intrepid Aviator may fall on?
Now we get to the reality......CAA is a self-serving beaurocracy, Admittedly,the Government's insistence on using it, uniquely in a Public Service, as a milch-cow, doesn't help it to serve the interests of the customer. there is a clear conflict of interest in serving the customer's needs , whilst ensuring a very firm grip on the nuts, which can be squeezed readily,until the pips squeak!
Disagree, It's an aircraft built from factory-quality parts, assembled by totally unqualified amateurs in highly variable -quality surroundings.
Here we are, arguing the toss on another thread, as to wether a formerly-licensed engineer is capable of changing and cleaning spark-plugs, yet we agree that Joe Soap can build a superb aircraft,albeit progress-checked by an experienced supervisor at regular intervals.
Totally agree, re- the difference between packing-case bolts and good-quality ones...the point stands, the ones with the "bit of paper" carry a ridiculous premium which is little more than monopoly abuse and extortion. Statistically, I would suggest the differencein risk is ,realistically, unmeasurable....therefore, either the insurance industry is abusing it's position, or the supply-chain is.
single seat microlights, I think they are relying on the fact that these don't have much energy and the only person likely to be killed by the machine is the pilot.
resulting in there being very little money in regulation of microlights.
it is for all intents and perposes a factory built aircraft assembled in shed & garages all over the world
Here we are, arguing the toss on another thread, as to wether a formerly-licensed engineer is capable of changing and cleaning spark-plugs, yet we agree that Joe Soap can build a superb aircraft,albeit progress-checked by an experienced supervisor at regular intervals.
Totally agree, re- the difference between packing-case bolts and good-quality ones...the point stands, the ones with the "bit of paper" carry a ridiculous premium which is little more than monopoly abuse and extortion. Statistically, I would suggest the differencein risk is ,realistically, unmeasurable....therefore, either the insurance industry is abusing it's position, or the supply-chain is.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SC
If you are looking for abuse of a monopoly it is the Leagal (so called) profession, these are the people who charge huge fees in search of huge compensation payouts from the industry.
It follows that the insurance company's have to charge large premiums to provide liability insurance to manufactures and maintenance company's. In addition to this the industry has to maintain a large paperwork trail to prove that the work has been done properly beond reasonable doubt to stand a chance in court as the leagal profession only has to prove a civil case on the balance of probability.
On the subject of Vans aircraft the reason that fleet quality is high is the ease of inspection, what you don't see is the bits of rejected structure as the homebuilder learns is craft............... It is almost imposable to inspect a composite aircraft to this depth without being present during almost all of the composite lay up and so the quality control of these aircraft in a problem.
The last thing I have to ask you is that if you were an LAA inspector fitting a safety critical bolt to an aircraft ( remembering that your family home and liberty are at risk if you get it wrong) what quality assurance would you be happy with ?
It follows that the insurance company's have to charge large premiums to provide liability insurance to manufactures and maintenance company's. In addition to this the industry has to maintain a large paperwork trail to prove that the work has been done properly beond reasonable doubt to stand a chance in court as the leagal profession only has to prove a civil case on the balance of probability.
On the subject of Vans aircraft the reason that fleet quality is high is the ease of inspection, what you don't see is the bits of rejected structure as the homebuilder learns is craft............... It is almost imposable to inspect a composite aircraft to this depth without being present during almost all of the composite lay up and so the quality control of these aircraft in a problem.
The last thing I have to ask you is that if you were an LAA inspector fitting a safety critical bolt to an aircraft ( remembering that your family home and liberty are at risk if you get it wrong) what quality assurance would you be happy with ?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The last thing I have to ask you is that if you were an LAA inspector fitting a safety critical bolt to an aircraft ( remembering that your family home and liberty are at risk if you get it wrong) what quality assurance would you be happy with ?
I would be saying to the constructor....."This bolt with the impressive tag, is fifteen quid,- if it fails, the CAA can issue an alert and maybe , just maybe, recall the rest of the batch....IIRC it happened with Robinson helicopter main-blade bolts cracking....So, it's not an absolute guarantee of quality.......Your alternative is to go to "bloggs engineer's merchants" and buy a box of 100 for six pounds...you should know the BS Spec. for ht fasteners, you shouldknow the strength-coding on the head.....If not, google and learn.....then check the rest o fyour aircraft Your call, you need a dozen, 6p each, no paper trail or 15 quid each" " your life your decision".
But I'm not a LAA inspector, anyway
Were I to bw building, I'd hope the inspector would lead me to make informed choices....As I said before, the certificate is no guarantee of quality, neither is "GKN bs xyz" on the box....but they both have product-liability and therefore , one assumes, insurance for same.
I believe that even the main hang-bolt on a flexwing , has a backup safety strop? The "Jesus bolt" on a heli, doesn't....it goes, you're dead traceability will not help you!
Interesting discussion....I'd love to see a similar stimulus to UK GA, as the American "Experimental" scene, but don't think I'll live to see it happen
Depends upon model.
Ravens for example have no backup to the hangbolt, whilst all the Mainair types do. I don't think that the Pegasus aircraft range have a backup.
In practice, it's probably not the most critical "Jesus" bolt anyhow, that is the much smaller bolts in the bottom corners of the A-frame.
Doesn't stop me checking the hangbolt bloody carefully every time I rig, and given it costs about £10 or so, changing it at half the recommended interval
G
Ravens for example have no backup to the hangbolt, whilst all the Mainair types do. I don't think that the Pegasus aircraft range have a backup.
In practice, it's probably not the most critical "Jesus" bolt anyhow, that is the much smaller bolts in the bottom corners of the A-frame.
Doesn't stop me checking the hangbolt bloody carefully every time I rig, and given it costs about £10 or so, changing it at half the recommended interval
G
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: kent
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but they both have product-liability and therefore , one assumes, insurance for same.
a. any products relating to aircraft, including missiles or spacecraft, and any ground support or control equipment used in connection with such products
b. any products installed in aircraft, including missiles or spacecraft, or used in connection with such craft, or for tooling used in their manufacture including ground-handling tools and equipment, training aids, instruction manuals, blueprints, engineering or other data, advice and services and labour relating to such craft or products
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's get back to the original question.
Yes, the PPL is a pilot license and has nothing to do with maintenance, at first glance. But, from tradition it has been assumed that a pilot has basic knowledge of all relevant mechanics of his plane to repair it on even remote places of the world. By this, a privately operated even licensed light aircraft can have a certified maintenance manual on basis of so-called pilot-owner maintenance. For the certified part the manual has to state which maintenance can be done by the screwing hobby mechanics - i.e. 50h/100h/200h maintenance can usually be done by pilot-owners, annual has to be done by a part.145 organization, so at least once a year somebody does have an eye on it. There is a very large variety of things allowed to be done by this pilot-owner and yes, it is coupled to the license by the above mentioned reason.
Yes, the PPL is a pilot license and has nothing to do with maintenance, at first glance. But, from tradition it has been assumed that a pilot has basic knowledge of all relevant mechanics of his plane to repair it on even remote places of the world. By this, a privately operated even licensed light aircraft can have a certified maintenance manual on basis of so-called pilot-owner maintenance. For the certified part the manual has to state which maintenance can be done by the screwing hobby mechanics - i.e. 50h/100h/200h maintenance can usually be done by pilot-owners, annual has to be done by a part.145 organization, so at least once a year somebody does have an eye on it. There is a very large variety of things allowed to be done by this pilot-owner and yes, it is coupled to the license by the above mentioned reason.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks, Jodelman1 Seems like the insurance industry share a lot with the bankers ( Bank manager- guy who lends youan umbrella but snatches it back at the first sign of rain!)
Those exclusions are the ultimate in arse-covering!
Ultimately, it would need a test-case to establish if a sub-standard part had product-liability attached, irrespective of application. A bolt stressed to 50% of it's designated loading/stress parameters , doesn't know if it's holding an undercarriage leg or a car suspension-leg!
@ Genghis,.... I can see your point, but apart from throwinfg away ~£5 of "unused-life" what about the A-frame bolts?
Those fitted have proven safe so far.
changing introduces the risk of...
incorrect fitting...faulty bolt....faulty nut....wear in fixing-points.....
OTOH, the one removed, may have been about to give way
(crossing with the thread on scheduled maintenance and "if it aint broke, why fix it" schools of thought. )
Those exclusions are the ultimate in arse-covering!
Ultimately, it would need a test-case to establish if a sub-standard part had product-liability attached, irrespective of application. A bolt stressed to 50% of it's designated loading/stress parameters , doesn't know if it's holding an undercarriage leg or a car suspension-leg!
@ Genghis,.... I can see your point, but apart from throwinfg away ~£5 of "unused-life" what about the A-frame bolts?
Those fitted have proven safe so far.
changing introduces the risk of...
incorrect fitting...faulty bolt....faulty nut....wear in fixing-points.....
OTOH, the one removed, may have been about to give way
(crossing with the thread on scheduled maintenance and "if it aint broke, why fix it" schools of thought. )
It's my aeroplane (well shared with two other likeminded hedgehoppers), we do pretty much all the maintenance between us, and slightly worn or corroded fasteners just get replaced as a matter of course, because we can, the cost is trivial, and it creates this warm fuzzy feeling of a slightly "better and safer" aeroplane.
Flexwings are rigged/derigged and bits disassembled for inspection as a matter of routine anyhow. They're designed for it. I know it's unnecessary, but it's still my aeroplane and I can. I wouldn't, as an inspector, insist that somebody else did unless the part was genuinely approaching end of life or unsafe.
Same with some other things like cleanliness, neatness of wire locking, tidiness of wiring - there's acceptable safe standards I'd insist on if overseeing somebody else's aeroplane, then there's the higher standard I want on my own.
G
Flexwings are rigged/derigged and bits disassembled for inspection as a matter of routine anyhow. They're designed for it. I know it's unnecessary, but it's still my aeroplane and I can. I wouldn't, as an inspector, insist that somebody else did unless the part was genuinely approaching end of life or unsafe.
Same with some other things like cleanliness, neatness of wire locking, tidiness of wiring - there's acceptable safe standards I'd insist on if overseeing somebody else's aeroplane, then there's the higher standard I want on my own.
G
@chickenhouse: thanks for patiently explaining. Is the regulation you mention fixed in law? If so, is it limited to certain countries? What does EASA say on the matter?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cockney Steve
What troubles me is that you seem to have a very strange idea of the price differential between high quality bolts from a commercial source and those standard parts from an aviation source, the fact is given the extra effort to check the suitability of the commercial bolt and the liability ( or lack of ) issues the price differential is very small for the extra quality assurance.
As for the so called freedom of the American experimental scene, it is all very well for those who know what they are doing but it gives the idiots a chance of killing them selfs and any innocent who is unfortunate to fly in the aircraft built by an idiot. I have only once been unfortunate to get involved with an experimental type Imported from the USA, my lasting memory from a string of safety critical defects was the high voltage strobe light wires that passed through the fuel tanks inside a bit of normal garden hose !
This aircraft can't have been typical of most American home built aircraft and may be it got to the UK because all the locals in the USA had the inside information on the builder, but it shows that the LAA quality system is in place for a reason, and works well to keep a check on those who don't have the skill or knowledge to do the job properly.
As for the so called freedom of the American experimental scene, it is all very well for those who know what they are doing but it gives the idiots a chance of killing them selfs and any innocent who is unfortunate to fly in the aircraft built by an idiot. I have only once been unfortunate to get involved with an experimental type Imported from the USA, my lasting memory from a string of safety critical defects was the high voltage strobe light wires that passed through the fuel tanks inside a bit of normal garden hose !
This aircraft can't have been typical of most American home built aircraft and may be it got to the UK because all the locals in the USA had the inside information on the builder, but it shows that the LAA quality system is in place for a reason, and works well to keep a check on those who don't have the skill or knowledge to do the job properly.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ A&C I just use the example of bolts, as a common product with no publicised safety-issues or recalls in the vast numbers sold commercially.
It could just as easily be pop-rivets....back in the early 60's I was fabricating aluminium yacht -spars (aluminium spars for yachts, before the Grammar nazis strike ) We used an aircraft rivetting system for affixing tracks that had a rivet about every 4 inches down each side. I have no idea if these rivets were certified, time expired, or what. certainly, the pop-rivets were aircraft-spec, but carried no "papers"
The real issue, is , as cited by a previous poster, an "off the shelf" standard product having the price ramped by several hundred percent, merely because a supplier has insured themselves against "a claim"
In spite of all this bull, the fact remains, parts still fail in service, are no better quality because of the paperwork and the whole industry of certification is largely selling an illusion.
Rotorway helicopters were notorious for transmission failures and main driveshaft -failures....The parts were redesigned...Rotorway didn't go under in a sea of litigation...Why? Because buyers knew they were buying a product at a fraction of the "proven" mainstream Heli's price.
IF we choose the cheaper route in this country (LAA Permit)-there is a massive cost-saving, allowing many more people to fly, who would be priced out of the "Certified" market.
The statistics conclusively PROVE that permit-aircraft are just as safe (if not safer) as those where there is a huge paper-trail.
I am certainly NOT knocking the Permit regime....on the contrary, I'm suggesting that it's far more cost-effective than the Cof A regime and , were the artificial obstacles removed (night, IFR, hire/reward/training for example) there would be little incentive for GA to pay the huge premium over Permit,that C of A demands, with no demonstrable benefits.
(I'd also suggest that GtE's microlight bits are far cheaper than if they were CAA components.)
Therefore, more affordable and easier to justify changing.
It could just as easily be pop-rivets....back in the early 60's I was fabricating aluminium yacht -spars (aluminium spars for yachts, before the Grammar nazis strike
) We used an aircraft rivetting system for affixing tracks that had a rivet about every 4 inches down each side. I have no idea if these rivets were certified, time expired, or what. certainly, the pop-rivets were aircraft-spec, but carried no "papers"The real issue, is , as cited by a previous poster, an "off the shelf" standard product having the price ramped by several hundred percent, merely because a supplier has insured themselves against "a claim"
In spite of all this bull, the fact remains, parts still fail in service, are no better quality because of the paperwork and the whole industry of certification is largely selling an illusion.
Rotorway helicopters were notorious for transmission failures and main driveshaft -failures....The parts were redesigned...Rotorway didn't go under in a sea of litigation...Why? Because buyers knew they were buying a product at a fraction of the "proven" mainstream Heli's price.
IF we choose the cheaper route in this country (LAA Permit)-there is a massive cost-saving, allowing many more people to fly, who would be priced out of the "Certified" market.
The statistics conclusively PROVE that permit-aircraft are just as safe (if not safer) as those where there is a huge paper-trail.
I am certainly NOT knocking the Permit regime....on the contrary, I'm suggesting that it's far more cost-effective than the Cof A regime and , were the artificial obstacles removed (night, IFR, hire/reward/training for example) there would be little incentive for GA to pay the huge premium over Permit,that C of A demands, with no demonstrable benefits.
(I'd also suggest that GtE's microlight bits are far cheaper than if they were CAA components.)
Therefore, more affordable and easier to justify changing.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When we had a prop strike a few years back, we ordered a new prop. The particular model was a fairly common one and it arrived quickly, but we were asked if we were fitting it to a CofA or Permit type
The price differential was £400+ even though the prop is identical in every way to that fitted on hundreds of Permit aircraft.
Does the additional effort really amount to that level of cost?
The price differential was £400+ even though the prop is identical in every way to that fitted on hundreds of Permit aircraft.
Does the additional effort really amount to that level of cost?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robin
By guess is that 80% of the extra cost would have been to pay for the manufactures liability insurance and the rest for the extra paperwork.
However I don't discount the fact that the prop supplier was pulling a fast one.
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.
However I don't discount the fact that the prop supplier was pulling a fast one.
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.