Posted for "Bill Bradburry"
<bbradburry@bellsouth.net>:
> I think it is just simply that Lancair was owned for many years by a lawyer
> and the poison has
yet to be metabolized. :>)
>
>
>
> Bill B
>
>
>
> _____
>
>From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Paul
>
Miller
> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 2:31 PM
> To: lml@lancaironline.net
> Subject: Re: [LML] Question on Legacy MG
>
Strut
>
>
>
> I found your note on the liability waiver and refusal to provide
> instructions an interesting position
by Lancair. I'd like to expand the
> topic and make a few comments about owners being able to maintain their
> aircraft in an
airworthy condition. I have personal and group involvement
> in this matter with certified aircraft.
>
>
>
>For decades the alphabet groups and FAA and manufacturers have been fighting
> over the FARs that requires type certificated US aircraft
manufacturers to
> make available airworthiness instructions to the "owner" so that the
> aircraft can be maintained in an airworthy
condition at all times. This
> means instructions, parts availability, CRMs and more. Many manufacturers
> have gone
to extremes to satisfy that requirement.
>
>
>
> Some firms like Airbus do not want to disclose proprietary data and
have
> purposely not adhered to the FARs in this respect and forced owners to
> overhaul or replace parts at great
expense. Those battles continue.
> Conversely, companies like Beech and Cessna have long made the parts and
> data available
and Cessna will even cross-reference Cessna part numbers for
> original part numbers so you can go source the original or generic part
>
needed (o-rings, motors, brushes etc). King Air landing gear (for example)
> is arguably more complex than an ESCO strut
but the Beech gear can:
>
>
>
> a) be exchanged at Beech or
>
> b) sent to any shop of your choice qualified
in that category or
>
> c) repaired and overhauled in your own hangar.
>
>
>
> That's because Beech makes
available to owners and shops all the Component
> Repair Manuals and instructions needed to accomplish the tasks.
>
>
>
> While Lancairs may be different because of the experimental category, these
> aircraft must still be maintained in an airworthy
condition. Therefore, I
> would argue that Lancair should make the data available to any owner or shop
> so that Lancairs can
be maintained in an airworthy condition whether it be
> repairs, overhauls, inspections or whatever is needed to ensure
>
airworthiness. Those procedures and the parts necessary to maintain them
> are part of what makes the Lancair an airplane--not just
the original kit.
>
>
>
> If I were running the ship, I'd do whatever I can to make the operating
> costs for
Lancairs as low as possible. I'd publish and sell a complete set
> of manuals for overhaul and repair instructions (as TCM does for
the engine)
> plus I'd offer to perform the work in-house as well (if that makes sense).
> That makes for a very happy owner group and
keeps costs under control and
> allows everyone in the world to maintain an airworthy airplane.
>
>
>
> It is the
owner's airplane, the owner's strut and the owner's responsibility
> to maintain it in an airworthy condition. The data to keep it
airworthy is
> not proprietary and should not be locked away in someone else's cabinet.
> That's just wrong.
>
>
>
> I could be wrong but I look forward to comments on that position and I
> suggest anyone looking to buy any airplane simply ask where
all the
> instructions for continued airworthiness reside. The answers can be
> revealing.
>
>
>
>
Paul
>
> On 24 September 2013 04:19, Valin & Allyson Thorn <thorn@starflight.aero>
> wrote:
>
>
Paul,
>
> Normally this work is done by Lancair and that is their strong preference.
> We wanted to do it ourselves for its
educational value. After some
> deliberations, Lancair agreed and required us signing a liability waiver and
> they would
provide absolutely no instructions but would sell us the seals.
>
|