Peter wrote:
I have used vi and it is truly horrible…
Them be fighting words!
Malibuflyer wrote:
C’mon everyone knows that if you can’t do it in ed, you should seriously think about buying a Nintendo rather than a Linux machine ;-)
How must neophyte ed sessions go:
dylan@adun:~$ ed
help
?
open file.txt
?
quit
?
exit
?
^C
?
^Z
1+ Stopped ed
dylan@adun:~$ kill -9 %1
+ Stopped ed
dylan@adun:~$
1+ Killed ed
From here
gallois wrote:
You have an accident which you feel was caused by some passed maintenance anomaly.
Nothing was found at your careful pre buy inspection and the aircraft passed its last annual and has a current ARC. Who are you going to sue?
In many regulations it is a major difference if you “pass on” wrong information that you got from a “trustworthy source” (e.g. if you rely on an ARC you got bona fide although the plane actually is not airworthy), vs. you certified something yourself (e.g. performance of a certain stability test during your built) which turned out to be wrongly performed.
There is litte prejudice with airplanes in Europe because homebuilts are rare and sale of homebuilts is even more rare. But with cars there is a lot. And there at leas in Germany there is a clear differentiation.
Let’s assume you want to sell your car that has modified shocks. In order for the car to be “roadworthy” in Germany the shocks need to be approved for your car. There’s two ways how this can be done: Either there is a “general approval” (like an STC) or you get individual approval by TUeV (like a major change).
If you sell your car saying tin the contract that the car is in roadworthy condition (because you claim to have checked that this model is on the “STC”) but did not check that or made a mistake, you as the seller will be liable. If you got an individual approval by TUeV but after the fact it turns out that the TUeV should not have issued this approval because the shocks technically do not fit, then it is not your liability as seller but the buyers problem (at least if you have not deceived the TUeV in some way to get the permission).
Coming back to planes: Yes, in theory same applies also to certified planes but less frequently because most relevant things are actually confirmed by third parties. But if you, e.g. claim that you have done some work as owner maintenance but did not perform them or performed them wrongly, you might be liable as well.
Malibuflyer wrote:
Let’s assume you want to sell your car that has modified shocks. In order for the car to be “roadworthy” in Germany the shocks need to be approved for your car. There’s two ways how this can be done: Either there is a “general approval” (like an STC) or you get individual approval by TUeV (like a major change).
You’re kidding? You’re actually kidding? You need STC-like approval to modify your car in Germany?
Here in the UK we can do whatever the hell we like. If it passes the MoT test*, you’re good to use it on the road (and you don’t need a fresh MoT just because you’ve modified something). Most testers aren’t even going to notice the presence of aftermarket shocks, except perhaps that if freshly fitted they look unusually clean.
My Spitfire has non-standard nearly everything. If I needed approvals for each change then the whole project wouldn’t be something that I or anyone else in the UK would bother with and there would therefore be none of the type left on the road…
*Ministry of Transport test – the annual inspection. Takes 45 minutes and is performed by a government-licenced individual, not a company. Requires certain fixed equipment (e.g. rolling road) so cannot be done by a freelancer at your home, but it is the individual who signs it off personally. It has nothing to do with maintenance/servicing and the government actually sets the maximum fee that can be charged for the test – presently £55 for a car.
My Spitfire does not actually need an MoT as vehicles over 40 years old are exempt. The law simply says that if I use it on the public road it must be roadworthy, without attempting to define how I achieve that. It is an eminently sensible system, based on the premise that people who own and drive 40yr old cars probably have a decent idea what they’re doing.
The nearest we get to a CAMO-like system (combining maintenance and the inspection) is that plenty of garages will offer you some sort of discount if you buy an MoT and an annual service together. This is a bit like what @Silvaire suggested might be a better way of seeing if the CAMO arrangement actually has any value.
You’re kidding? You’re actually kidding? You need STC-like approval to modify your car in Germany?
That’s the case across most of the EU.
T28 wrote:
That’s the case across most of the EU.
Wow. Amazing.
Switzerland as well as a matter of fact. Mostly to make sure people do not install parts that change the car’s characteristics (brake / suspension / wheels as most of these are changer on aesthetic rather than technical merit) or otherwise endanger traffic (say H3 led lights). Also a way to combat usage of “counterfeit” spares.
You can of course re-build a car from the ground up but you have to get it recertified, I am looking at doing that with an Icon derelict.
Graham wrote:
You need STC-like approval to modify your car in Germany?
The system is actually not that different from what we have at airplanes – except the fact that “major changes” appear much less often only very few people would have the idea to install digital primary instrumentation in a steam gauge Volkswagen…
There are parts you do not need anything because they are not safety or emission relevant – e.g. seat cusshions
There are parts that have a general authorization (like an TSO) and can be used at any car where they fit – e.g. wheels
There are parts that have an authorization for a large number of named models like STC with a broad AML – e.g. shocks
There are parts that have an authorization for a specific model like a normal STC – e.g. exhaust systems
There are parts that would be a major change and needed individual authorization – e.g. different engine
Graham wrote:
Wow. Amazing.
That depends on what you do. To install extra headlights? No. To change tyre dimensions? Yes. (As that can affect the car’s driving behaviour.)
Sounds crazy to me.
Just off the top of my head I have fitted (myself, not via a paid professional) the following non-original components:
Brakes (pads, discs, drums, shoes, calipers, flexible hoses)
Wheels and tyres (non-standard sizes)
Suspension bushes
Steering joints
Fuel pump
Engine – including non-standard head, camshaft, carburettors, ignition system
Exhaust (including manifolds)
Gearbox
Clutch
Instrumentation
Switches and wiring
None of this needs to be signed off by anyone or have any paperwork in place to support it, and none of the parts used need their provenance or fitness for purpose establishing by any auditable method. I am pretty sure there are a number of small parts on the car that I fabricated myself.
I am genuinely amazed to learn that in other European countries this is not allowed!
Peter wrote:
Then I got a VW Scirocco, 2012. Nothing is possible on that. No towbar exists (unless you remove it for the MOT and then put it back; you would need to buy a second rear bumper and drill holes in it) because the type approval doesn’t list a towbar. No roofrack either. I can change the “radio/satnav”, but only to another approved model (Kenwood, which is just as crappy as the stock VW RNS530 (?); both having a near-unusable touch screen).
I am always ready to be corrected but I don’t believe the UK MoT test contains any aspect of verifying the provenance of parts or accessories fitted, establishing ‘permission’ or otherwise from the manufacturer to fit them, or any reference to type approvals/certificates or any other paperwork. It is an objective test of roadworthiness performed according to a defined set of criteria and without prejudice to the make or model of the car being tested. You can fail if your towbar is worn/damaged/insecure/blocking the lights but you cannot fail just for having a towbar on a car where the manufacturer has not ‘approved’ one! My Spitfire has sailed through numerous MoTs sporting many non-original features that no Spitfire ever left the factory with and that The Standard-Triumph Motor Company never approved.
Incidentally, a Spitfire would be an example of an ‘orphaned’ type if it were an aircraft. No manufacturer ‘supports’ Triumph cars, although BMW owns the rights to the name.
