JnsV wrote:
The worst is when the SB / AD is the result of some CYA action, if not outright aimed at getting extra maintenance income from customers.
Well, this (if true) is EASA not doing their job, but letting corrupted practices continue on. It’s not a “systems” error. Why isn’t anyone reporting this to EASA? it’s clearly a criminal scheme of exploiting people through EASA. There is a difference between a poorly executed, but OK system, and a poor system.
Peter wrote:
For “simple” aircraft, basically nearly all piston GA stuff, I still don’t see any reason for there having to be a TC holder other than for income stream protection for the industry which does maintenance etc.
My honest opinion is certification is pure nonsense on any small GA aircraft for private use, but that’s beside the matter here. The point though, is on topic. An aircraft whether certified or not, EASA or FAA or any other reg, will have to be airworthy to be allowed to fly. That’s not the only thing, it also has a requirement for continuous airworthiness. There are several degrees of airworthiness, from nothing essentially (not a prescribed one according to some spec at least) to Airbus 380 kind. For a certified light GA aircraft however, it’s airworthiness is directly linked to the fact that it is indeed certified. It has a TC and someone to make sure the TC is “up to date”. A TC that is simply left dead, has no meaning. Then the whole certification deal becomes a farce. That is what the FAA does in reality, they are playing a farce. Another way to look at it though, is certification does not matter, what matters is airworthiness. Why make a deal about certification and TC when the aircraft is fully airworthy in any case? This will not change as time goes by. If the aircraft is maintained and repaired (according to it’s ancient TC), it will be the same as it once was when new.
EASA also does that, but in a different way. EASA (at least tries) not to make a farce out of EASA certification and EASA TCs. If an aircraft is no longer applicable for EASA certification, it will get a “Special” certificate, or it will go to Annex II where each country can do whatever they want. You could say the EASA system is vulnerable to be exploited by a dishonest industry, and quite obviously it is. But, the problem is not the system, the problem is the dishonesty in the industry, and EASA apparently doing nothing about it.
The main problem is airworthiness and continuous airworthiness being linked up to a system of certification that the industry cannot support. The industry is too small. The US LSA tried to solve that by linking it up to an industry standard type of “certification”. By the looks of it, that does not work all too well either. It solves the problem of cost of certification, but adds the nuisance (and uncertainty) of airplanes being linked up to specific companies for continuous airworthiness.
The only thing that has shown to actually work is experimentals and European microlights. A truly flourishing industry where the continuous airworthiness is linked up to yearly maintenance or yearly inspections by third parties (or at least overseen by a third party). The third party is either the the national aviation authority or some organisation working on behalf of the authority. To let these aircraft do commercial business, would not be a very vise thing to do I guess, mainly because of the “blame someone” principle.
