Is everyone in EASAland fitting 8.33 radios and disabling their 25Khz kit??
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
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
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.
Just because they're certificated with all the expense involved, it doesn't mean to say they're up to the job.
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.
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
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by ShyTorque; 3rd Nov 2017 at 09:59.
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
Personally I think you are just here to wind people up
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 ?
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 ?
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.
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
Last edited by PDR1; 4th Nov 2017 at 14:04. Reason: To add verisimilitude to an otherwise dull and unconvincing narrative
Guest
Posts: n/a
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 ?
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 ?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Whereas you and your fan club here keep making allegations that I am personally ripping someone off. It's pathetic.
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
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
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
