Do L'Hotellier Ball Fittings Wear?

On Thursday, 14 April 2016 21:30:07 UTC+3, Eric Munk wrote:
At 12:18 14 April 2016, krasw wrote:

If national authorities turn expression "recommended" into "mandatory", I
would call that something else than interpretation.

Welcome to Europe, where this is how EASA-rules are interpreted by most
national authorities' legal experts. Australia too, and I believe New
Zealand.

I live in EASA-world and our authorities did their "interpretation" process to these same l'Hotellier papers before accepting them as a part of my glider maintenance program. While letting 10 year replacement recommendation slip past their fingers, they did note that l'Hotellier annual measurement has to be made by aircraft mechanic with calibrated shop instrument, since papers did not specify that owner can do it (that is actually true and is not subject to interpretation). I still know of no owner who doesn't do it himself. That is the beauty of EASA, you write fancy documents (and pay for get them approved) and then continue to act like they don't exist at all. And no one gives a sh*t.

Exactly.

Bert
Ventus cM "TW"

Same here in my country: the annual measurements should IMHO be
Pilot-Owner-Maintenance, but they are not.

I think your grievances with EASA are echood throughout the general
aviation community. From my experience as an inspector there is a growing
gap between the real world and the paperwork of some aircraft offered for
inspection, in order to comply with regulations. Timeconsuming,
counterproductive to the improvement of safety and in many cases absolutely
unnecessary. Not a position any aircraft owner or pilot should be finding
himself in...

Back to the l'Hotelliers in EASA-aircraft: unless there is a national AD
out that says otherwise, the aircraft maintenance program follows only the
aircraft manufacturers recommendations and maintenance requirements. This
means there's usually a away around the 10-yearly replacement. Sometimes
around the 3,000-hours one too, but most manufacturers have taken this up
in their 3,000-hours inspection of the aircraft (not a bad thing me
thinks).

At 05:31 15 April 2016, krasw wrote:
On Thursday, 14 April 2016 21:30:07 UTC+3, Eric Munk wrote:
At 12:18 14 April 2016, krasw wrote:
=20
If national authorities turn expression "recommended" into
"mandatory",
=
I
would call that something else than interpretation.
=20
Welcome to Europe, where this is how EASA-rules are interpreted by most
national authorities' legal experts. Australia too, and I believe New
Zealand.

I live in EASA-world and our authorities did their "interpretation"
process=
to these same l'Hotellier papers before accepting them as a part of my
gli=
der maintenance program. While letting 10 year replacement recommendation
s=
lip past their fingers, they did note that l'Hotellier annual measurement
h=
as to be made by aircraft mechanic with calibrated shop instrument, since
p=
apers did not specify that owner can do it (that is actually true and is
no=
t subject to interpretation). I still know of no owner who doesn't do it
hi=
mself. That is the beauty of EASA, you write fancy documents (and pay for
g=
et them approved) and then continue to act like they don't exist at all.
An=
d no one gives a sh*t.