[Mike Busch] IT’S DIFFERENT FOR CARS

The point I think the author missed is that most airframe AD notes have been established for a long time and very rarely does a new one pop up for an old airplane. Engines however are getting ridiculous and should be treated separately from the air frame.
 
AggieMike88 said:
An interesting take on the difference between automobiles and airplanes.

https://blog.aopa.org/aopa/2017/06/27/its-different-for-cars/
Click to expand...

Mike,

I would opine it is simply the difference in numbers; auto owners outweigh us many times over, and with airplanes
the FAA is the final arbiter/decision maker that tends to favor the manufacturers. Consider how many service bulletins have been incorporated into AD's. Then give thought to the small number of automobile incidents/accidents may lead to the NHTSA or another administration issuing a recall. Yeah, IMO aircraft owners are getting the shaft on manufacturer's mistakes. AS I see it, aircraft owners are lacking the leverage granted to the general population and are left holding the bag.

I started turning wrenches on small aircraft in the early eighties and I'm now "out to pasture" so my opinion no longer counts, but, IMO, the manufacturers and the Faa are sharing the same bed. It all appears to be related to politics.
 
Grum.Man said:
The point I think the author missed is that most airframe AD notes have been established for a long time and very rarely does a new one pop up for an old airplane. Engines however are getting ridiculous and should be treated separately from the air frame.
Click to expand...

Problem is two fold. Engines are so low in volume, that the costs to perform extensive enough testing for any change the price per unit would be even more prohibitive. Further, you would from a practical perspective either need to reduce options (e.g. which props and starters) or you need to test all permutations....
The second issue is age, you hear pilots complain all the time about how old the design is, but it is a proven design. You cannot have it both ways, either you acknowledge the companies can make changes, and then deal with the repercussions (current solution), or you freeze everything as is, do no allow new anything new attached to the engine.

Tim
 
Norman said:
I would opine it is simply the difference in numbers
Click to expand...

I agree. It's one thing for a large auto company to pay for recall repairs and another for a much smaller manufacturing concern. I know nothing of Lycoming's financials, but would this repair severely impact their financials? Would a big enough recall cause them to say no thanks, we're closing and no longer manufacturing your little engines?
 
Bill Jennings said:
I agree. It's one thing for a large auto company to pay for recall repairs and another for a much smaller manufacturing concern. I know nothing of Lycoming's financials, but would this repair severely impact their financials? Would a big enough recall cause them to say no thanks, we're closing and no longer manufacturing your little engines?
Click to expand...
Also look at the average age of airplanes vs cars! I would guess the average age of a piston single is somewhere around 30-35 years old, the average age of cars on the road is around 9-10 depending on whose numbers you use. My airplanes were built in 77 and 85!
 
N747JB said:
Also look at the average age of airplanes vs cars! I would guess the average age of a piston single is somewhere around 30-35 years old, the average age of cars on the road is around 9-10 depending on whose numbers you use. My airplanes were built in 77 and 85!
Click to expand...

Well, true, but that is why you get overhauls done. The airframe may be 50 years old for example, but I don't think there is someone flying around on a non-overhauled engine from the 60's...if so..yikes.
 
Not to mention that if the engine goes kaput in a car, you just pull over the side of the road and wait for a tow. Not so easy when same thing happens at 12,000' in a plane. The accessories in planes that go with engines wear out faster than the rest so makes regular costs increase as well as lack of innovation in the whole manufacturing technology of single piston aircraft engines.
 
Caramon13 said:
Well, true, but that is why you get overhauls done. The airframe may be 50 years old for example, but I don't think there is someone flying around on a non-overhauled engine from the 60's...if so..yikes.
Click to expand...
Me. 1965 o360 with 2650+ hours on it. Oil analysis is good, runs solid. I am going to overhaul it next year regardless, but I'm in the middle of a 1700 mile cross country with it right now.
 
Salty said:
Me. 1965 o360 with 2650+ hours on it. Oil analysis is good, runs solid. I am going to overhaul it next year regardless, but I'm in the middle of a 1700 mile cross country with it right now.
Click to expand...

Wow...that thing is hanging in there eh? I had a 1965 Cherokee 180 with a 0-360 as well, but it was overhauled.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top