Robin Yep - can't argue with that. :rolleyes:

As someone who had a more immediate midair failure after picking up the a/c
after a top overhaul on a Lycombing 180 - they had "forgotten" to fit the piston oil scraper rings. As said, CAA were apathetic and solicitors failed to get any satisfaction and cost me a fortune.....and it was also on Public Transport:ugh:

I don't think the CAA prosecute firms which pay them fees.

IO540 wins a cigar, methinks....

It's a bit like academia used to be where, if you made Professor at a university, the only way they could get rid of you was if you were guilty of "moral turpitude".

I actually have quite a bit of faith in the CAA (if not in EASA!) and genuinely suspect that they will do something.

They need to go in there and sort these guys out (or shut them down) before they kill someone.

I do sincere hope they do.
Cos this is bloody outrageous !

I find the "CAA never acts" storys a little hard to take I know of a number of companys that have had no end of trouble following "paperwork" issues (and one engine overhaul company that was shut down).

We must understand that mistakes do happen however missed AD's on the scale quoted above would seem to indicate the Subpart G company has missed a lot of things during the paperwork audit.

It would appear that Elstree is generaly a place to avoid, what with sudden runway closures, hostile A/g operators and dodgy maintemance outfits. Can't be long before the planning application goes in for "affordable housing".

Capetonian,

Don't know about your neck of the woods, but in the UK the truth is an absolute defence against defamation (both libel and slander) and trumps any circumstances.

For a pursuer to win a defamation action they must first prove that the written or spoken word is false (and the onus is on the pursuer). If they do prove it to be false, they still have plenty of other hurdles to get over as well. If they cannot prove it is false, they lose.

JS is one hundred percent correct - it is never defamatory to speak/write the truth. Just make sure you can prove it is true, in case they come at you with the heavy duty lawyer squad.

Hmmm. Unfortunately it's also the most convenient place to use for those of us "oop Norf" wishing to get into central London ...

If a company has consistently acted in this manner, and particularly if some of the ADs/work not done addresses safety in some manner, would this not potentially construe reckless endangerment, and as such be of interest to the old Bill ?

This also highlights when changing maintenance companies, the new company has to go through all the paperwork, and inspect the aircraft to verify the work has been done, and done correctly (at the owners expense). Is this not why Part M was introduced, or am I wrong?

Damyns Hall?

I've seen an annual done overnight at one place....at least the day before the aeroplane was parked on the grass and the next day it was parked in exactly the same position yet had an annual. Including radio annual I might add, which promptly failed just after take off.

My friend was pre-flighting his (company's) twin engined turbo prop before a flight just after maintenance. It had been taxied back by the maintenance company and during the walk round he found one of the cowl plugs in the back of the engine.......

I get really annoyed with idiot maintenance outfits. Our mags had a 500 hr service last year...all well and good, except that they should have had a major o/h according to the ARC. So more downtime while they are sent away for 3 weeks to be overhauled again at another £1300. 3 weeks later they fail (causing the aeroplane not to start). Our maintenance outfit took them apart and found a rusty spring inside causing the problem which they fixed.

There are some really good engineers out there, and some real cowboys. The one we use now come under the really good category - they know what they are doing, are happy to show and advise, you can wander around their facility, and they are always happy to help in any way. They are extremely experienced in all aspects of what they do and I am gobsmacked how they can manufacture panels and aerofoils from sheet metal and get it exactly right. The difference is that they take pride in their work and love doing it, unlike some others I could mention who just see pound signs.

but noting No case to answer?????

I think Damyns Hall is equally quick, if not quicker than Elstree with the option of the overland and the tube. It is however a shortish grass field, so might not be suitable for all aircraft. It's very friendly and cheap, though.

Denham. Quick train to Baker Street.

Oop North.

Stapleford? Tube 3 miles away?

The CAA are historically rubbish at enforcing anything company wise. They'll jump on individual pilots as quick as blink, but companies, no.

I once had reason to "discuss" with them a UK scheduled airline that ran a fleet of 5 aircraft none of which was fit to fly for fundamental maintenance-related reasons and had documentary evidence to prove it. They - or rather the Flight Ops Inspector involved denied that the CAA had any right to spring a surprise maintnance audit or to investigate the matter and nothig was done. A number of similar reports from others over the years has apparently had similar (non) effect.

Ther may well be issues of responsibility among the overseers of the company's CAA licences who would not wish it to become known that this had been going on undetected under their remit, causing questions to be asked about their efficiency in overseeing their charges...It could be that they just don't want questions asked about their own eficiency and it's easier to turn a blind eye and simply deny their existence, like the police often do with problem crime crime areas.

When my best mate first opened the village garage he worked to very high standards and charged less than most (and still does), consequently he took a lot of business away from a nearby competitor.
Said compeitor attempted to spread rumours that my buddy wasn't doing all the work and wasn't replacing parts he was charging for.

My mate responded by offering customers all the old parts he'd had to replace back when the job was done and, because all operational parts of the garage are filmed H24 for security purposes, anyone can sit down and watch the full screen version of their vehicle being attended to.
It works a treat and the offer still stands.

If every pilot/flying organisation insisted on having all old parts returned, it would make life pretty awkward for the cowboys out there.
Additionally, if every engineering organisation was legally obliged to maintain a computerised link to the regulatory authorities which records a comprehensive report of parts used, where they were sourced and the actual work done, as well as giving a copy to the customer, that should clean up the industry.

I know that would take some organising and there would be a cost, but if it stops Julian's experience reoccurring or something worse happening, it would be worth it.

and then all you would need is some jobsworth in the CAA to say that every part must have an EASA-1 form (which is not the case now, though many like to claim so) and the whole of GA grinds to a halt...

Our (group owned) aircraft was found (during the first inspection by our new maintenance company) to have laminar corrosion separating the top cap from the main spar a few years back and the extent of the corrosion was such that the aircraft had gone through approx. two years worth of Annuals, 50's, 150's and a CofA. It cost £12,000 to put right.

The photographs were shown to 3 x CAA Surveyors who all agreed (off the record, of course) that there were very good grounds for negligence on the part of the previous maintenance company.

But we were also told that, even if we did formally complain the chances were that no action would be taken as negligence would be very difficult if not impossible to prove.

What aircraft was it, 2Close?