Cessna 182T w. G-1000 pirep

C,

Ah, the lifetime limit. Most any aviation expert I have heard
commenting that says it's no big deal. I tend to agree. But we've been
around that particular block before.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
C,

Ah, the lifetime limit. Most any aviation expert I have heard
commenting that says it's no big deal. I tend to agree. But we've been
around that particular block before.

Well, there are plenty of aviation experts that agree with me. It is a big
deal. Even if it was not, you are still faced with a fatal accident rate per
100,000 hours 10 times that of average, the 1700 hour TBO on a normally
aspirated engine, higher direct operating costs, lower ceilings, the fact
that the plane cannot recover from a spin without deploying the parachute,
less stability on approach, longer wings which increase the chance of hangar
rash, insurance rates as much as 52% higher, repetitive and costly
inspections of the Caps system, and seven times more noise than a T182. The
Cirrus may well supplant the Bonanza as the next doctor killer.

C J Campbell wrote:

Even if it was not, you are still faced with a fatal accident rate per
100,000 hours 10 times that of average,

Put the average PPL into a Boeing 737, and I bet the accident rate will
be even higher. So the 737 is an inherently unsafe plane?

Statistics offers the numbers, but they must be interpreted.

Stefan

"Stefan" wrote in message
...
C J Campbell wrote:

Even if it was not, you are still faced with a fatal accident rate per
100,000 hours 10 times that of average,

Put the average PPL into a Boeing 737, and I bet the accident rate will
be even higher. So the 737 is an inherently unsafe plane?

Statistics offers the numbers, but they must be interpreted.

The Boeing 737 is not being sold as easy and safe for low time private
pilots to fly. The Cirrus is.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Stefan" wrote in message
...
C J Campbell wrote:

Even if it was not, you are still faced with a fatal accident rate per
100,000 hours 10 times that of average,

Put the average PPL into a Boeing 737, and I bet the accident rate will
be even higher. So the 737 is an inherently unsafe plane?

Statistics offers the numbers, but they must be interpreted.

The Boeing 737 is not being sold as easy and safe for low time private
pilots to fly. The Cirrus is.



Which is my biggest gripe about the Cirrus after all. They are selling a
plane that takes a Bonanza like training course to people that would NEVER
say they are ready for a Bo.

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:09:59 +0200, Thomas Borchert
wrote:

C,

Ah, the lifetime limit. Most any aviation expert I have heard
commenting that says it's no big deal. I tend to agree. But we've been
around that particular block before.

What happens when an airframe goes beyond the lifetime limit? Is the
airworthiness certificate trash then?

"6079 Smith" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:09:59 +0200, Thomas Borchert
wrote:

C,

Ah, the lifetime limit. Most any aviation expert I have heard
commenting that says it's no big deal. I tend to agree. But we've been
around that particular block before.

What happens when an airframe goes beyond the lifetime limit? Is the
airworthiness certificate trash then?

In theory, yes. However, what the FAA has said is that when a significant
number of aircraft approach the lifetime limit then they will inspect the
planes for signs of age and wear and possibly extend the lifetime limit,
with perhaps some limitations and conditions. Of course, you have to take
the FAA's word for this... Anyway, I was told that all new aircraft designs
are having some sort of lifetime limit, usually 12,000 hours, imposed on
them. The Diamonds appear to be an exception; they have no limit directly
mentioned on the TCDS*, so I don't know how accurate that information is.
But that is what I was told. We will see what limitations are placed on the
DA42.

Of course, no one in their right mind trusts the FAA, least of all the FAA's
own personnel. Policies and procedures there change with the wind. It must
be hell to work there.

If nothing is done, the airplane becomes an expensive lawn ornament.

*The TCDS says that the DA40 must comply with the airworthiness limitations
and time limits specified in the maintenance manual. That manual is nearly
2000 pages long, but I could not find any airframe time limit in either
chapters 4 or 5, which cover airworthiness and time limits. There is also no
mention of any airframe time limit in the Flight Manual. Both manuals are
available on Diamond's web site for those who wish to examine them. (I wish
Cessna would do that.) Furthermore, Diamond's representative told me that
the Diamond has no airframe life limit. If I seem suspicious, I have my
reasons.