Genau
King avionics springs to mind.
What I find disturbing, is when a relatively small company which is dependent on a good product and good will of its customers to survive and prosper becomes larger and then gets bought out by a larger company. Which then merges with even larger companies. The only thing that becomes important at that point is how much money they get every quarter from their investment. How they get it is of no concern. If their products turn to junk they dont care. When their customers complain they dont care. Ultimately they"spin Off" the company after having taken out the very life blood out of the original company because now it is no longer profitable. In the meantime they manage to wreck a fragile niche industry.
Sorry cant follow that up with a smile or even a wink.
OK, @C210_Flyer, agreed. The problem is that it is easy to slag off these cynical organisations, and rightly so, but if they actually go bust, it doesn’t do any of us a favour. Tricky one!
mh wrote:
Listening to the chatter of banning all airshows in Switzerland after the Grashoppers accident, it comes to mind, that Swiss measures are a bit drastic, aren’t they?
It’s chatter. Nothing more. They had a townhall meeting at the place it happened and the villagers still stand very much behind their airfield and the airshow.
I think the reason it got so much unwarranted attention was that it happened so shortly after the Shoreham Hunter. And while I understand Hunters are still grounded in the UK, they are flying happily in Switzerland.
mh wrote:
Wasn’t it last year in Rome when even EASA admitted that overregulating GA is adverse to its safety record?
Yes and it appears EASA is hearing their own words. Now the message needs to go back to the individual CAA’s. It appears some are not happy with the way EASA is moving under its new leadership.
C210_Flyer wrote:
As we all know things come down from the legal department or the sales department or management for nefarious reasons. This sounds like it is just that type of rule. Money in the bank for the industry and the poorhouse for the owner
Your comments dovetails with the above sentence.
I know it’s Friday but you have lost me there 
Peter I think you are tip toeing around the word nefarious which I posted on earlier.
And yet you are planning to overhaul based on that, not based on reaching the flight hours or engine condition?
Who? Not me.
So what would you propose they base it on ?
Nothing. There is no need for a simple engine life limit. You can run an engine on condition. The world’s biggest piston GA population (USA) is the proof.
There is a good reason for a life limit on an engine, but the meaning of “good” depends on how cynical you are. It enables a manufacturer to limit his liability. For example, Lycoming escaped probable bankrupcy over their crankshaft saga (most cranks supplied 1997-2002 had to be swapped) by a simple subterfuge: their position is that an engine is good for only 12 years, so the 12 year limit on the crank life (under the SB569 AD) dovetailed nicely with that, and by offering a free crank swap if you send your engine to Lyco they avoided a class action – because you “have to” overhaul the engine at 12 years, so their offer reduces your economic loss to zero. Lyco are not obliged to support 3rd party maintenance shops so this got them off the hook. Arguably it would not be in anybody’s interest if they went bust. And a similar thing was with the separation of engine and airframe warranties in Diamonds bought by businesses…
After owner please add 
