Mon Mar 24, 2014 2:49 pm
#1265217
Not a thread on a new diet.
My carburettor had a small leak. My maintenance shop was not authorised to deal with it. It went off to the engineers who overhauled the engine. They were not authorised to deal with it. It has now gone stateside, hopefully back this week.
The two UK shops do perfectly good work, but did not have the necessary CAA approval. Now there is a school of thought that carbureted engines are better because, well they are simpler to maintain, the technology being well known.
How have we got to a situation where a UK regulator has made maintenance approval so onerous that a system designed to be maintained in deepest Alaska/Peru/Tanzania/PNG (take your pick) with a cycling multi tool, by almost anybody (the needle needs replacing), has required three engineering shops and a transatlantic voyage?
I will see if my AOPA membership is useful in digging into this, but if owners do not log these absurdities it is bound to get worse.
My carburettor had a small leak. My maintenance shop was not authorised to deal with it. It went off to the engineers who overhauled the engine. They were not authorised to deal with it. It has now gone stateside, hopefully back this week.
The two UK shops do perfectly good work, but did not have the necessary CAA approval. Now there is a school of thought that carbureted engines are better because, well they are simpler to maintain, the technology being well known.
How have we got to a situation where a UK regulator has made maintenance approval so onerous that a system designed to be maintained in deepest Alaska/Peru/Tanzania/PNG (take your pick) with a cycling multi tool, by almost anybody (the needle needs replacing), has required three engineering shops and a transatlantic voyage?
I will see if my AOPA membership is useful in digging into this, but if owners do not log these absurdities it is bound to get worse.