Peter wrote:
Probably no choice though, due to this.
This part 145 facility is at a completely different airport, so even if this “politics” issue was a thing in Sweden (which it is not), it would not apply in this case.
Shall I move this to a new thread on how far a “maintenance” company can bend the rules and get away with it, because they have 145 approval? A 145 which wrote up a job (charging for it is irrelevant procedurally, but it is another piece of evidence of – at best – a couldn’t care less attitude) but didn’t do it, should be busted. We have plenty of threads of this kind of stuff and each time one starts, a bunch of people who make a living out of this disappear for 6 months in protest 
Politics exists everywhere, unfortunately – even in Sweden. Otherwise, why not just go straight back to this company and demand they fix it, and reimburse you for all the costs including the flights there and back? The answer is obvious: they would not touch your aeroclub again with a 20ft (6m) bargepole, and would prob99 make sure nobody else in the area does, either. The club swallowed this malpractice because they don’t want to rock the boat. And not rocking the boat is a major activity in GA ownership
Peter wrote:
Politics exists everywhere, unfortunately – even in Sweden. Otherwise, why not just go straight back to this company and demand they fix it, and reimburse you for all the costs including the flights there and back? The answer is obvious: they would not touch your aeroclub again with a 20ft (6m) bargepole, and would prob99 make sure nobody else in the area does, either. The club swallowed this malpractice because they don’t want to rock the boat. And not rocking the boat is a major activity in GA ownership
Sorry, Peter. In this case you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. And remember that I am (shudder) the club president.
I may indeed have absolutely no idea what I am talking about, but the fact remains is that your club swallowed this, and you have not explained why
Peter wrote:
I may indeed have absolutely no idea what I am talking about, but the fact remains is that your club swallowed this, and you have not explained why
Ok. We seriously discussed pursuing this, including getting legal advice. The reason we did not was that we would have to prove that
1) the damage was caused by a few months of cold starts and not by (other) engine mismanagement. That would require getting a mechanic to testify with only photographs of the damage as evidence. (The parts would have been discarded by the engine shop.)
2) we could not reasonably have been expected to discover that the heater was missing. That would not be trivial – particularly as in the end it was one of our own members who discovered that the heater “was not working”.
If we lost a case we would have to pay both our own legal fees and those of the shop. In the end we found the risk too great.
As the engine was torn down anyway for the unrelated shockload inspection (paid for by the insurance company) we only had to pay parts cost so it was manageable.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Ok. We seriously discussed pursuing this, including getting legal advice. The reason we did not was that we would have to prove that1) the damage was caused by a few months of cold starts and not by (other) engine mismanagement. That would require getting a mechanic to testify with only photographs of the damage as evidence. (The parts would have been discarded by the engine shop.)
2) we could not reasonably have been expected to discover that the heater was missing. That would not be trivial – particularly as in the end it was one of our own members who discovered that the heater “was not working”.If we lost a case we would have to pay both our own legal fees and those of the shop. In the end we found the risk too great.
As the engine was torn down anyway for the unrelated shockload inspection (paid for by the insurance company) we only had to pay parts cost so it was manageable.
I wouldn’t have worried about any of that. I’d have just given them hell for saying they’d done something (and presumably charged you for it) when they hadn’t.
I agree consequential damage is almost impossible to prove. But ultimately you swallowed them completely ripping you off for something. Did you even get the money back for fitting the fictional heater?
@Peter is right that in aviation people just swallow all sorts of stuff because that’s how things work. Our place just made a mistake on re-assembly after the annual that nearly cost one guy his life and the rest of us our aircraft. We talked about what we might do, but in the end had to leave it because (a) they are usually very good and (b) we have no better alternative. Had this been anything other than aviation, we’d have raised hell, changed vendor, and certainly wouldn’t have paid the bill.
This is only the start of the legal wrangling. The insurance and reinsurance business will go on for a good few years. It’s a tricky case, with the death occurring partway through the contract process.
The AAIB recommended that
“the European Union Aviation Safety Agency require piston engine aircraft which may have a risk of carbon monoxide poisoning to have a CO detector with an active warning to alert pilots to the presence of elevated levels of carbon monoxide.”
EASA has now concluded that such a requirement would carry a cost which is not proportionate to the limited safety improvement, so they reject the recommendation.
(Page 182 and on here.)
Interesting. Gosh what a lot of writing, including a “social impact” of CO detectors
On a quick read, they seem to be saying (not sure if anyone has done any statistical analysis) that a CO detector reduces accidents. That would make sense to me.
Now that Henderson is safely in jail (for stuff not even relating to flying a plane), the CAA could look for the wreckage again, fish it out, and produce an interesting report, perhaps implicating certain “industry factors” 
