"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
Why or how this translates into a more lenient attitude toward airline
aircraft maintenance is the question. As always, it's probably a
"follow the money" thing.

There are several routes that a manufacturer can take to correct
difficiencies. To my way of thinking, Lycoming was the impetus behind the
O-540 ADs. They didn't want the lawsuits that would inevitably be filed
against them by week-end single-engine pilots' estates because the engines
failed after the pilots neglected an 'optional' service bulletin. So they
'suggested' that the FAA issue an AD, to my way of thinking.

The FAA isn't afraid to tick off the French. Witness the emergency ADs after
the Roselawn ATR-72 crash. The French DGAC protested loudly that the ADs
weren't neccessary, but every US certificated ATR has the big de-ice boots
now along with a prohibition against using the autopilot in severe icing
conditions.

The A-320 is a good product but not perfect. After 20 years there are still
some bugs to work, as there are in any complex piece of machinery. In my
manual, there are close to 20 operations bulletins. There are service
bulletins issued to flightcrews and to maintenance. The nosewheel problem
and the lack of tail strike protection ($1.5Million or more per strike not
including loss of revenue) perplex me, but then again, the A-320 won't have
exploding gas tanks because the electric pump wiring is outside the tank. A
canted nosewheel is no more dangerous than a gear that fails to extend. The
B-727 has been filmed numerous times landing without one of the gears being
extended. I'm not aware of any ADs for that problem.

Expanding perceptions,
D.