FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1986
1986 - 0099.PDF
See us at the Asian Aerospace Show Singapore-Jan. 15-18,1986 Featuring: 'Electronic Combat' IAPs electronic technology gives you the edge on the battlefield. In SIGINT, COMINT and other forms of ELINT: with advanced airborne, shipborne and ground radars; with sophisticated avionics for modern and modernized military aircraft; with trainers, simulators, and Ground Sup port Equipment; and with precision naviga tion and fire control for ground forces— IAI leads the way to the future in Electronic and Optoelectronic Combat. And it gives you the means to communicate in that future securely. Large-Scale Defense Programs: All the elements needed for air/land/sea forces—or a total national defense net work. Fully integrated force enhancement at every level. Lavi: Truly control-configured (CCV) fighter with 1,000 nm-plus air-ground combat radius. Fully computerized avionics systems, internal ECM and multifunction displays. Built-in maintenance for superior availability, quick turnaround. Made-to- order for the world's most experienced fighter pilots. Kfir: Multirole fighter, operated by the U.S. Navy, astheF-21A. Arava: The multirole turboprop STOL aircraft. An efficient, cost-effective light transport adaptable to civil and military missions. Executive Aircraft: Astra and Westwind 1 and 2—unmatched in the mid-size, medium-price class of business jets for comfort, range, economy and versatility. And the Sea-Scan, the maritime surveillance derivative. Upgrading: Customized packages for aircraft. Fighter/ attack/trainer aircraft. Conversion of large transport aircraft for special missions. Missile Systems: Barak I—point defense system and Gabriel missile family. Maintenance musings SIR—The operating costs of US-derived light aeroplanes have always been unreason ably inflated in the UK, and with sizeable increases in hull insurance predicted "across the board", there will be diminishing numbers of aero planes to maintain unless something constructive is done about it by the engineers. Twenty-one years ago I initiated "experimentally", the public transport use of the two-page 50/100hr Civil Aircraft Maintenance Card Schedule on Piper Colts and Tri-Pacers, hitherto bogged down with 30 or more pages of British typescript, applicable at 25hr intervals! It took a further seven years to nego tiate the first edition of CAA Notice No. 35, on the subject of engine TBO extentions. Subsequently, the General Purpose Maintenance Sched ule (GPMS) was created, which at least empowered the licensed aircraft maintenance engineer to use his initiative and judgement to "assess the need" to destroy established levels of airworthiness before performing some main tenance ritual. Unfortunately we missed the opportunity to hoist on board a general purpose certification cate gory, known in the USA as "Utility", allowing either com mercial or private operation. The FAA requirements for maintenance are currently quoted in a 1985 Piper Manual as follows:—"One- hundred hour inspections are required by law if the aircraft is used commercially. Other wise this inspection is left to the discretion of the owner. An annual inspection is required once a year to keep the Airworthiness Certificate in effect. It is the same as a lOOhr inspection. This inspec tion is required whether the aircraft is operated commer cially or for pleasure". (50hr inspections are, therefore, a customer's option, leaving some decision-making to him!) Whereas there is nothing new in all this, the UK has doggedly refused to advance its light aircraft maintenance programmes since my revolu tionary leap from 25 to 50hr in the early 1960s. Now we have LETTERS the distorted version of Lams, which includes such air worthiness self-destruct items as mandatory meddling with flexible hoses at six-yearly intervals! The low level of the airworthiness quality of typi cal FAA Airworthiness Direc tives (AD) is due to the pseudo-legal drafting, which degrades the engineering content to the point that only those transmitted by telex are meaningful in airworthiness terms. British citizens must stand against the arbitrary infliction of such "trash" upon their property by bilateral agreements and without democratic debate. Such con tinuing debate with the CAA is now part of an agenda item in our six-monthly meetings of the General Aviation Consultancy Committee. In any case, all such AD's must be rationalised and imple mented at the next mainte nance interval, or otherwise withdrawn. Now is the time to adopt the well proven FAR 43 mainte nance programmes (and the Utility category), as a starting point from which UK engineers, owners, and oper ators can co-operate with CAA to use our initiative and expertise to develop further such philosophies more and more "on condition", to higher levels of both air worthiness and productivity. R. B. STRATTON Brashfield Bungalow Buckingham Road Bicester Oxon 0X6 7EP Poor odds SIR—As a frequent trans atlantic passenger, I read with interest and apprehension J. M. Ramsden's article "Oceanic twins in service" (Flight, December 7). I asked a leading book maker, after he had fully read the article, what odds he would quote against complete loss of engine power on a transatlantic flight in respect of four-, three-, and two- engined large commercial aircraft during the next two years. They were respectively 500-1, 400-1, and 20 (twenty)-l. Farewell Air Canada, TWA, and El Al. D. WAINWRIGHT 7 Grand Drive London SW20 FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL, 4 January 1986 93
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
