- Nov 14, 2009
- Rocky Mountains
By "mechanical issues" I presume that this includes both parts that break due to age/damage/defect and improper assembly/maintenance? If so could you make a distinction between the 2 groups by separating those 2 versions of mechanical issues?About 27% of all homebuilt accidents are triggered by mechanical issues. Looking at Cessna 172s and the most common fixed-gear versions of the PA-28 from 2001-2010, 7.5% of the 172 accidents and 10.3% of the Piper accidents had mechanical issues at heart.
In other words did the certified group maybe have a higher percentage of parts that failed because they had been in service or rebuilt more times while the Experimental group had a higher percentage of mechanical issues caused by improper installation?
@Tspear "This is a catch 22 situation. ATSM, ISO and many other standard bodies are funded by membership fee<< >>"
Yes, there is a flip side argument, but IMHO it is outweighed by the public's right/need to know. Besides there are plenty of standards in use by industry that are not referenced by regulation and of that subset that are some are only referenced as an example of "best practices". There is very little public need to know with regard to these standards. In the case of standards like F37 LSA the standards ARE the regulation. There is no other source.
I've donated several hundred hours to ASTM over the years as have many on the standards committees. Yet the price ASTM charges for a standard is far too high for the average person to justify. Maybe not all standard organizations are as parsimonious but ASTM would not even give me, as a new member of one committee, a copy of the standard I was expected to consider to be fully informed before voting.
I don't expect these corporations to work for free, or even restrict their profit. There needs to be some mechanism in place so that individuals that have a legitimate need, or even desire, to see the standards that effect their lives through regulation - without individual cost.