A & P Shops Turning Away Work On Aircraft Older Than 18 Years

In other words, if an aircraft is so old that the
manufacturer can no longer be held responsible for its safety, then
how can anyone hold a mere maintenance responsible for it?

The accident happened soon after maintanance, but a loooooong time after
the plane was manufactured, and even longer after the plane was designed.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
Except that newer aircraft are less likely to require maintenance than
older aircraft.

In the US, turbine equipment is required to have an approved maintenance
program. Most programs include inspections based on calender time. The
ageing problems my not be there, but there is still plenty of maintenance to
be done.

D. (KingAir 200 & Caravan operator)

D.

Jose writes:

The accident happened soon after maintanance, but a loooooong time after
the plane was manufactured, and even longer after the plane was designed.

Then maybe the maintenance was the problem. But that would be true
for aircraft of any age.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

The accident happened soon after maintanance, but a loooooong time after
the plane was manufactured, and even longer after the plane was designed.

Then maybe the maintenance was the problem. But that would be true
for aircraft of any age.

Yes. This is why maintanance would not get the same "pass" on liability
that is (now) granted the manufacturer. And an argument can be made
that a new design or manufacturing flaw might be undetected for a while,
but after 18 years, if it hasn't shown up yet, it's not much of a flaw.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Matt Whiting writes:

It depends on what they service. If they focus on corporate jets and
larger airplanes and the few new designs such as Cirrus, they might
do quite well.

Except that newer aircraft are less likely to require maintenance than
older aircraft.

All aircraft require maintenance. If you are flying them, you are
stressing them, and if you are not flying them, some components become
unreliable. See the annual inspection requirements as a starting point.

Neil

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 02:41:50 GMT, Jose
wrote:

The accident happened soon after maintanance, but a loooooong time after
the plane was manufactured, and even longer after the plane was designed.

Then maybe the maintenance was the problem. But that would be true
for aircraft of any age.

Yes. This is why maintanance would not get the same "pass" on liability
that is (now) granted the manufacturer. And an argument can be made
that a new design or manufacturing flaw might be undetected for a while,
but after 18 years, if it hasn't shown up yet, it's not much of a flaw.

As I recall, part of the impetus for the law was several lawsuits
involving failure of critical components... aftermarket components
that were not made by the original aircraft manufacturer, since
original parts were no longer available (for a made up example,
picture an A&P splicing a new section of tubing into a damaged wing
strut, a perfectly legitimate repair if done correctly). Depending on
the situation, the mechanic might well be liable.

-Dana
--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds-- Albert Einstein

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 15:48:48 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:

The implication is that there is some inherent added risk in operating
an aircraft that is more than 18 years old. However, I'm not aware of
any such added risk. What basis is there for such a belief?

A recently-passed law releases the aircraft manufacturer from liability if
the
aircraft is more than 18 years old. Therefore, if a lawsuit stems from a
pilot
crashing in an airplane more than 18 years old, the only target his heirs
could
sue would be the maintenance shop that worked on the airplane. Thus, if a
shop
limits its customers to newer airplanes, the manufacturer would be a
co-defendant...and undoubtedly the "deep pocket" that would pay most of
the cost
of any judgement against them.

It's certainly in the best interest of the maintenance shop's insurance
company
to try to limit them to newer airplanes, and the premiums would reflect
that.

Ron Wanttaja

Wasn't the "recently-passed law" the general aviation revitalization one
that was passed while Reagan was in office? I understand the new issue is
due to (at least) one insurance company that insures A&P shops specifiying
that the coverage only applied if they worked on newer aircraft, for the
reasons stated.