LeSving wrote:
I read in another thread someone toasted the TP engine at Helgoland? The cost of fixing it there vs fixing it at the maintenance shop was 10 times more. This is EASA in a nut shell
I don’t see how EASA regulations could cause this. Care to explain?
The cost of fixing it there vs fixing it at the maintenance shop was 10 times more. This is EASA in a nut shell
I think you will find the outcome (whatever it actually was – I bet the 300k was paid for something else) would have been the same with a turboprop engined homebuilt aircraft. Well, unless you disregard the SLs and SBs concerning hot starts, which you may be able to do under some permits especially if you are the original builder 
Aviation is not declining, at least not in my part of the world. Many of the new pilots enjoy the gratification of having achieved what money can’t buy, and what requires work and dedication: Learn to fly an aircraft.
I reckon you see this where you are because you have a high % of schools/clubs operating decent quality hardware. One of the things I have always said is that the old wreckage (to which the old-timers in GA tend to be blind) is a massive deterrent to recruiting “modern” people, who are surrounded by smart/modern stuff in every other aspect of their lives. That in turn leads to all the other issues e.g. the lack of a social scene.
Sure the old wreckage is cheaper to operate but to argue that line is to argue for a race to the bottom.
The UK scene still appears to be declining, but then the UK scene is mostly operating old wreckage. There are FTOs operating Diamonds but I am not sure how many private pilots do their PPL there because those schools are so formal, with the fancy uniforms with epaulletes, silver/gold braid, etc.
Peter wrote:
I reckon you see this where you are because you have a high % of schools/clubs operating decent quality hardware. One of the things I have always said is that the old wreckage (to which the old-timers in GA tend to be blind) is a massive deterrent to recruiting “modern” people, who are surrounded by smart/modern stuff in every other aspect of their lives.
That depends, what you call decent hardware. Our club operates a C150 (that is for sale right now) with almost 35000 landings on it, a C172H, a C172P and an Elster-C as towplane. They are in a good condition with good interior, but nothing very fancy. In fact, planes are so different, hat a new painted and well cared for C172H is almost indistinguable from a DA40 in layman’s eyes, if “novelty” is asked. Many people don’t think “ancient” when seeing a good old standard GA aircraft. They think aircraft.
Of course, if the aircraft isn’t presented well, has torn cushions and scratched windows, is dirty and looks neglected, trust is lost. But in that case it won’t matter if it’s a plastic Katana or a C150.
Two of our panels:
The 172P has a Trig COM now and an iPad mini tray instead of the (defect) Garmin GPS:
Airborne_Again wrote:
I don’t see how EASA regulations could cause this. Care to explain?
It’s the Mohammed/Mountain principle (or something similar 
Much easier for Mohammed to go to the mountain than for the mountain to go to Mohammed) But, I agree, not the best example the TP incident, it’s a special case. Anyway, In the old days there were freelance mechanics that could do anything. Things were easy for private aircraft, because you could do most yourself and get one mechanic to look over things and sign whatever needed to be signed. Today this isn’t possible, you have to get the aircraft to a certified shop, and there it will stay for a month or two, then you have to get it home and you have to pay whatever they ask. The cost difference is easily 10:1 for these two different systems. In the middle of Germany where you have several shops that competes and distances are small, the EASA system is survivable (I guess), but here in Norway, it isn’t viable as all statistics show.
The EASA system also favorizes newer aircraft, high use, high level of “EASA-competence” (instead of general aircraft competence). For anything else it is unfit.
Peter wrote:
disregard the SLs and SBs concerning hot starts
I am actually surprised that “hot starts” is an issue today, in 2016. When I was a young mechanic in the Air Force a long time ago, I started and run the F-16 engine a few times from the cockpit to test the “BUC” (the analogue, hydromechanical backup engine computer). As I remember it was one single switch, and within a few seconds I had tens of thousands of HP in my hand. That’s all the hands on experience I have with jet engines. Even the tiny jet on the homebuilt SubSonex has FADEC and is started with the flip of a switch, no “hot start” problems there.
LeSving wrote:
I am actually surprised that “hot starts” is an issue today, in 2016. When I was a young mechanic in the Air Force a long time ago, I started and run the F-16 engine a few times from the cockpit to test the “BUC” (the analogue, hydromechanical backup engine computer). As I remember it was one single switch, and within a few seconds I had tens of thousands of HP in my hand. That’s all the hands on experience I have with jet engines. Even the tiny jet on the homebuilt SubSonex has FADEC and is started with the flip of a switch, no “hot start” problems there.
There is no FADEC on the PT-6. All the newer light jet turbofan engines have it such as the P&W 600 series as fitted to the Mustang, Eclipse, Phenom etc and the Williams FJ33 in the Cirrus Jet. Reportedly the new GE engine for the new Textron turboprop will have FADEC.
LeSving wrote:
Things were easy for private aircraft, because you could do most yourself and get one mechanic to look over things and sign whatever needed to be signed. Today this isn’t possible
Of course it is possible! My club has its aircraft in a “controlled environment” maintained by a “certified shop” at another airport. If we have an AOG situation, the mechanic comes over to our field to fix the problem. Do you think we have to dismantle the aircraft and bring it to the shop on a truck??
LeSving wrote:
oday this isn’t possible, you have to get the aircraft to a certified shop, and there it will stay for a month or two, then you have to get it home and you have to pay whatever they ask.
What are you talking about? Of course this isn’t the case, that would be stupid. But If you have done so all the time, I get why you overpaid all your maintenance. But then the problem is in lack of understanding the regulations, rather than in the regulations themselves. I leave the interpretation open if you can’t or don’t want to understand. But to be frank, you constant bragging and issuing of certifiable wrong statements about EASA regulations (be it maintenance, licensing or certification) get’s annoying with the time.
Airborne_Again wrote:
If we have an AOG situation, the mechanic comes over to our field to fix the problem.
It doesn’t really matter when the closest (currently available) maintenance shop is 2.5 hours away by private airplane (a working day travelling by public transport). Who is Mohammed and who is the mountain becomes irrelevant. You are in a constant “Helgoland situation”.
mh wrote:
But then the problem is in lack of understanding the regulations, rather than in the regulations themselves
If the regulations are so cryptic that people don’t understand them, there obviously is something fundamentally wrong with them from the very beginning.
The current maintence regulations really don’t help. I would love to see approval of the individual rather than organisation.
LeSving wrote:
It doesn’t really matter when the closest (currently available) maintenance shop is 2.5 hours away by private airplane (a working day travelling by public transport). Who is Mohammed and who is the mountain becomes irrelevant. You are in a constant “Helgoland situation”.
This doesn’t make any sense to me. Are you talking about scheduled maintenance now? The “Helgoland situation” was AOG.
