An engine manufacturer produces duff crankshafts which could break in service, and their customers have to pay to have them replaced?
AIUI, they avoided a US class action (to which I was invited to join by the lawyer running it) by issuing the SB (which became an AD) limiting the crank life to 12 years and then offering to replace the crank for free if you sent the engine to them for the overhaul, which if you go by "the book", you are supposed to do at 12 years, Sir. Therefore, Sir, your economic loss (which is all you can sue for, usually) is nil 
However a number of people did sue, or credibly threatened to, and got a settlement. But all had to sign an NDA and AFAIK none of them talked. Not even one I know personally, so I assume the NDA was pretty vile. My guess is that Lyco did a deal along the lines of paying for the engine overhaul, pro-rated to the TBO so if e.g. your engine had 1500hrs on it, they paid 1/4 of what it cost you to get it done. I do know the people who got this under the table deal were smiling.
I did my crank in 2008 under the concession which ended in Feb 2009. Now, your only option is a crank for about $15k (reportedly) plus all the other work, so the recommendation is to buy a new or a factory rebuilt engine from Lyco, with the new roller tappets, on an exchange basis. If you don't trust Lyco QA (join the club) then you would have it shipped via a reputable US engine shop which takes it apart, balances the bits, and generally makes sure the screws are all done up
Why Honeywell don't just fix the KFC225 is a mystery, however. Perhaps they are hoping it will go away before an AD pops up, ordering all installs to be placarded INOP, which would cause them huge trouble.
for a similar scenario in the UK would the Sale of Goods Act not apply?
A very good Q. Clearly the SOGA does apply, but the supplier can sidestep it if the buyer is corporate. It is only with a private buyer that unfair terms cannot be imposed (IANAL but that's the basic idea). When you bought a new DA40/42 with the original Thielert engines, would you have had a single warranty, or separate warranties for the airframe and the engine(s)?
Avidyne should be hard pressed to finally become independent from other producers, otherwise the same can happen again and again. I think S-Tec is painfully aware that the DCF90 is killing their 55x series so it was not really astonishing that they will try to ban it. So Avidyne will need to speed up their certification of their own servos. Once they are done with that and can offer competitive prices, S-Tec will be hurt severely.
Equally, their Garmin replacements will finally provide them with a "full" Avidyne Cockpit which does not rely on Garmin's boxes. I am not sure if calling these products "vapourware" is accurate.
If Garmin get their way, they will end up being the only producer on the GA marketplace, with Honeywell having their interests elsewhere and we all know what monopolies do. I have to say I much prefer Avidyne to be successful and to have 2 head to head competitors on this market, not to speak of having an Autopilot like the DCF90. I know two Cirrus owners who got it installed and rave about it. One of them flies Airbusses and loves the DCF90.
What I did see the other day and really got my attention were the Tru Track products for non certified planes, combined with the Dynon avionic line, particularly where pricing is concerned. Shows very nicely what the combination of certification and monopoly does....
Re Honeywell, I think King lost their touch a long time ago when they were taken over by Bendix, who also focus on larger planes and then by Honeywell. Nevertheless, I do hope someone gets their act cleaned up. I do remember the KFC 150 as quite reliable but I hear that nowadays they do not support it anymore or rather it is very difficult to get replacement servos for some of them. That really is a disgrace, particularly if the newer ones don't live up to it.
Of course Garmin need competition, but I am trying to be realistic.
I ask Avidyne about their DFC90 plans every time I see them, and (like the Diamond Jet ) it's always the same story. They seem to be interested mainly in the non-G1000 Cirrus market, which is fair enough for them.
If Avidyne were smart they would make their servos plug-compatible with the King ones (whose mechanical design is fine) and then they would sell a few k of those a year, at $3k each.
But of course they would then not sell DFC90 autopilot computers with those.
But they won't be selling DFC90 autopilot computers to most of those people anyway because their DFC90 certification plans for KFC225-equipped aircraft are AFAIK close to nil.
I talked to them a while ago and they said they want to achieve certification for the DFC90 for all aircraft currently certified for the S-TEC 55x. Clearly, they first wanted to be able to replace the 55X in their "own" cockpits, that is where their PFD/ND's are installed and currently driven by the 55x. But at least the original idea seems to have been to also offer the ap for other makes too. The same goes for their FMS's, where they do target the Garmin 430/530 market with pull out / push in replacements in direct competition to the newer Garmin series.
I somehow wish the True Track AP's would come out in a certified version... but that won't happen. I asked.
they said they want to achieve certification for the DFC90 for all aircraft currently certified for the S-TEC 55x.
That will take them a long while...
I simply do not believe that Avidyne have the resources to do that.
I simply do not believe that Avidyne have the resources to do that.
They have managed to develop the product and I have only heard very positive things about it. The only competitor for retro fit autopilots is S-TEC and Avidyne's product is vastly superior. Now all they have to do is look at individual business cases and decide whether it's worth doing the certification for a given model based on demand. Eventually they will need their own servos but the current addressable market of pre GFC700 Cirrus and S-TEC equipped Cessnas is already quite large.
Once it becomes an option, I am firmly committed to swap my S-TEC 60-2 for the Avidyne AP.
There is no doubt the DFC90 works well.
But actually flight testing it and developing the control parameters so the aircraft is stable in all corners of its speed and loading envelopes takes a fair bit of work.
I am very sure that certain autopilot manufacturers did not do that testing 
because some models are unstable under some conditions of loading or speed.
That's one thing which Honeywell did right on the KFC225 - it is very stable no matter what you are doing. They spent a huge amount of time on it; for example the TB20/21-specific "STC Installation Manual" is quite a thick document and very detailed.
A part of the job is designing the servo mounting brackets. That's another thing which Avidyne would have saved by using the STEC servos... had STEC not sabotaged that.
However I am not happy with the whole GA autopilot servo situation where cheap brush motors are the norm. These will wear out as sure as death or taxes, you get all kinds of weird failures when that happens (see the videos in my article) and the Honeywell servos can at least be swapped out by anybody with no special tooks or training, whereas the STEC servos have the capstan attached so changing them is a lot of work. So I can see why Avidyne have apparently gone for the Honeywell servo pattern. What I have not been able to find out is whether they have done it properly and used brushless motors.
I wonder what motors the GFC700 uses?
When you bought a new DA40/42 with the original Thielert engines, would you have had a single warranty, or separate warranties for the airframe and the engine(s)?>
As I understand it, if as a private buyer you purchase a new aeroplane in the UK then your contract is with the vendor only. Under SOGA, the goods must be 'fit for purpose' and 'of merchantable quality'. The vendor is solely responsible for all of these, and cannot deflect your complaints towards the manufacturers. The statute of limitations varies according to case law, some areas of commerce (e.g. second-hand cars) have published and accepted limitations, but in most areas it just comes down to what a court considers reasonable.
If the engines packed up on a DA42 then your complaint is not with Thielert, nor with Diamond, but with the company who sold you the aeroplane, because that's who you have a contract with.
Obviously this becomes very difficult if the vendor is no longer trading. I understand aircraft dealers aren't renowned for their longevity.
Legally speaking, what constitutes 'fit for purpose' or 'of merchantable quality' is usually left for lawyers to argue and courts to decide. However, if an aviation regulatory authority issues a decree declaring that a bit of kit is not safe to fly pending replacement/modification (i.e. an AD) then I doubt even the cleverest lawyer in the land would be able to successfully argue that the piece of kit concerned was fit for purpose and of merchantable quality.
In some businesses, companies take their reputation for quality so seriously that a firmly-worded letter mentioning SOGA is often enough to 'shame' them into taking responsibility.
I agree, Graham, but if you are a trade buyer then the vendor can sidestep a lot of that stuff.
For example, he can get you (the buyer) to sign a sales contract under which you have one warranty (airframe) with the airframe mfg and another warranty (engine) with the engine mfg.
Then, if the engine mfg produces an unreliable engine or goes bust, the airframe mfg is protected from legal action.
That was why I asked what terms Diamond applies to commercial operators.
I've just read that on the DA40/42 the "IFR Annual" requires the removal of the autopilot servos (which I believe are the KS270C/KS271C/KS272C) for some purpose. Does anyone know what they do with them?
