The International Cessna^® 170 Association

gahorn wrote:

mit wrote:

gahorn wrote: I agree. Let me be more accurate:
You can afford to run around in a personal airplane ...but you cannot afford to assume the responsibility of your actions?

Why do you feel that you do not have an obligation to others for their exposure to your operational risks?

Do you feel that everyone else should cover you when you operationally endanger the rest of us? ...because that's what you are doing!
Your aircraft operations place the rest of us at risk, yet (if you do not carry (relatively cheap liability insurance) you are not meeting your moral and legal obligations, unless you are a very wealthy person who intends to write some very big checks when your disregard of serious maintenance obligations (such as your disregard of prop-strike mandatory service bulletins) places the rest of us at risk. To me, this seems like a selfish decision so that you can avoid the costs-of-responsibility that every other reasonable person takes upon themselves. (This is exactly why many states have enacted mandatory-liability-insurance clauses.... because there are those who do not ..."get it"...(comprehend basic logic).... with regard to their responsibility to others.)
That's my opinion. It does not cloud the water. I believe it is pretty clear.

None of your post has anything to do with Service bulletin's or my assertion that in the interest on general aviation that we be Accurate in what we state in relation to them being mandatory. If you wish to debate Insurance start another thread.

The Cont. Service bulletin is not Mandatory by Regulation. If George Horn wants to do it Great. But that doesn't mean that somebody else is required to do it. I say again; that it is a good idea but don't tell people it is mandatory for part 91 when it is not. Nor do the most of private plane owners want them (SB) to be unless of coarse the manufacture is going to bear the cost of accomplishing them. Doesn't apply to prop strike. Then you may also bring up the A&P that had his day in front of the NTSB over an overhaul he did and didn't follow a SB. You remember that one? That is the kind of thing that I don't want to see happen. I sat thru a Cont. guys class at an IA renewal a year ago and he kept saying how you had to do the compression as per there SB by regulation. When I confronted him on it he back pedaled oh well for part 135 has too..... Its just like you trying to get them to do the AD note on the seats by P/N because it makes sense! You want them to be as specific as possible as to not create a problem for others in both safety and time and money.
Maybe you think that all SB's should be made mandatory by regulation????? I'm sure the manufactures would like that they would probably really start pumping them out then! Pass the Liability on to the owner and the A&P that does the SB. You see that in some AD's and have for years. So I'm not makeing a personal attack on you. I state my case and stand on it. As the man you can say yea the service bulletin should be followed to be sure that there isn't problem how ever it is not mandatory by regulation. Some SB's make a bunch more sense to follow than others.

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/ ... 828sb.html

Gee, what did we do prior to 1984?

http://www.tcmlink.com/pdf2/SB96-11A.pdf

Tim

I understand what your trying to say I think. But we don't get a choice of the words Continental chooses to use. If you or I had an engine company we might likely use the same word, it's obvious to me that George would. And lets be honest, Is there really any difference if Continental says the word "mandatory" or uses a phrase such as "it's a really good idea".

Either way the manufacturer who SHOULD know their engines has indicated it is necessary operation in their opinion to perform to maintain airworthiness under certain circumstances. I'm sure that wasn't a new idea in 1984, they just never felt they needed to put it in writing. My 1945 Cub doesn't have an AFM that tells me exactly how I need to fly my plane either.

What did we do before 1984? One thing we as a society didn't do is sue at a drop of a hat. Society as a whole took more personal responsibility for our individual actions. Or at least we like to think so.

It is obvious that this discussion has touched a nerve and use of the word mandatory has little to do with it. It is more of where we have come as a society and I don't think anyone here likes it.

I agree with you on virtually all points, Tim. I suspect we are dealing with semantics here. (Insurance is a valid point within the discussion I feel, however. It covers such accidents and is germane to our operations since our operations carry the risk of accident to ourselves and others.)

The "mandatory" word is the mfr's method of describing their level of concern with the necessary work to be performed in order to meet the mfr's performance guarantees of their product. You and I (and most folks here) know that it does not require a Part 91 operator to comply with that bulletin. Perhaps a phrase such as "Commercial/Mandatory" might be preferred by some... but it would not change the mfr's position. Nor would it likely change YOURS if you were looking at a prop-stricken aircraft for purchase. (The logs note that the prop was replaced with a new one....certainly should cause concern if on the same date the engine log showed the crankshaft was "mic-ed" and the prop-flange "OK". I'll bet you'd much prefer to see an entry that the Mandatory SB was followed.)

The difference is more subtle that might be otherwise noted.
For example: Another log entry that the "engine was torn down and inspected" might mean nothing more than the sump or cylinders were removed for a visual look-see. But compliance with that "mandatory service bulletin" and reference to that work would indicate detailed description of exactly WHICH parts were inspected, HOW they were inspected, and that the ACCESSORIES mentioned in that bulletin were also inspected. Quite a bit more information, right?

As for the 1984 date... it's more likely that sufficient public questioning raised the attention of the mfr's concerns regarding the matter that the MSB was issued. When TCM rec'd sufficient inquiries asking what clues an owner/shop should look for that an engine needed tear-down...(or perhaps the FAA came to the conclusion that sufficient public guidance did not exist that they asked the mfr's to develop a policy/method).... then they issued a Service Bulletin that described what the mfr considered MANDATORY minimums should the engine suffer sudden stoppage. What would be a simple clue that the engine had suffered sufficient stress that an internal inspection is necessary? Perhaps a good point would be if the prop required removal for repair.

Seems like a good indicator to me.

Well the only thing it has to do with insurance is that no matter what one does it is going to cost money. I have to go to work.