It is the same in Europe. Mandatory SB compliance is not legally required for private operations.
The „mandatory“ is not regulatory. It merely refers to the commercial relationship between manufacturer/seller and buyer.
True, but, oh dear. More posts I have to move to another/new thread. Airfield politics, balance of power, perhaps?
Those who for some reason cannot work from home always say working from home is impossible as a general rule. Those who can work from home, say it’s no problem.
I have been working “off office” for the last 14 years. During COVID some of it have been literally from home as well.
If I sit at home or at my “satellite” office makes little difference if the work can be done with a PC only. A substantial part requires hardware (lab, instruments, also lots of field work). That work cannot physically be done from home.
IMO working from home is no problem if the work is of a character that it physically makes no difference where you are (due to PC, internet). On the other hand it can be impossible due to physical constraints (hardware, other people are required etc). But, if working from home is “impossible” due to some " psychological" constraints, you have a real problem, because things have changed, and you better adapt or you will be left behind IMHO.
The old “get on the train because it’s leaving the station without you” method of activism can be used almost every situation, eh? 
I think what may actually happen is that people who are interested in making their home into a workplace, and who work in a job involving no physical product, may going forward have an increased opportunity to work out of their house. They won’t be compensated the let’s say $45/sq ft (circa €500/sq meter) annual rental value for their property (that is the commercial property value in my area) and that saving will be intended by the employers to compensate (and more) for whatever risk or difference in productivity may occur. Those who are ‘skiving off’ now, and there are many, will slowly be terminated as tools and techniques are produced by the market that allow employers to effectively track their employees and their product. Right now many people are loving it, thinking their work days are easier and freer, that probably won’t last and I think the feeling of being company property 24 hrs/day will grow.
Employment is an agreement between two parties, all that matters as an employee is that you negotiate a deal that works for you and your broader program. For me, having a company smart phone is plenty invasive enough, but the company was smart enough to let me use it as my only phone as encouragement (saving me some money) so I figured it was a good enough deal to accept. Now they can contact me any time they like by phone, text, email or Teams, easily track my physical location using software on the phone that provides for it and so on, and if I told them I’d no longer carry a company phone it would be perceived as ‘negative’. And so the slow erosion of one’s real life continues, if you allow it. Working from home is more of the same, and I think some fraction of those who allow it will come to see that they are being manipulated. Be careful what you ask for, you might just get it.
@Gallois, I’m assuming you’re not a certified aircraft owner? Understanding that manufacturers of aircraft and certified components play a game with government to manipulate the owners of their products is basic to aircraft ownership. No, “mandatory” does not really mean mandatory unless you’re under a regulatory regime that allows it to be so, but manufacturers push the limits as hard as they can. In Europe under some circumstances it’s taken it to the point where the manufacturers themselves can effectively write law in the form of unregulated SBs being treated as ADs, with very little government process or oversight. They can also remove pre-existing privately owned products from commercial service by just refusing to provide ‘support’. I won’t even start on a description of Garmin’s corrupt business practices and FAA’s unwillingness to combat them. Understanding and explaining this kind of stupidity and corruption does not equate to attempting to ‘change a national way of life’, and I don’t think it’s boring myself for those of us who make choices that allow us to avoid paying tribute.
@Silvaire I have actually been an owner of several certified aircraft although currently I am not.
So I am quite familiar with the concept of SBs and ADs.
However, the concept of using the word “mandatory” for something that is not “mandatory” is surely a misuse of the English language. For information the same or a similar word is used in French meaning something is “obligatory”. If a manufacturer writes that it is mandatory to make a change to your aircraft, and you decide that it is not really necessary so ignore the SB. Then something happens and you make a claim against your insurance. Isn’t one of the first questions asked "have all mandatory service bulletins and ADs been carried out?
And I am aware that you don’t carry hull insurance on your aircraft.
As for the rest of your post I don’t get what you are trying to say. But isn’t Garmin an American company?
No, there is no insurance issue, and the perception of there being so in more fluffy Euro nonsense. This is basic: insurance policies require the plane to be maintained in accordance with the type certificate, for my aircraft meaning FAA regulations that cover the FAA requirements for e.g. scope and necessity for annual inspections, approved maintenance manual limitations and ADs. There is no insurance requirement to follow whatever the manufacturer may dream up without FAA oversight, e.g. service bulletins regardless of what the manufacturer thinks of their necessity, because quite obviously that leads to a corrupt self-feeding situation. All these things are widely understood within the FAA regime, there is no ambiguity.
Nothing I’m writing is specific to any national regime, and yes, Garmin is an American company. Their game involves ‘requiring’ STCs to install equipment that would not normally require an STC. Then they issue data required for installation by the STC only to their dealers. Corruption is not limited to certain nation regimes, although it is more prevalent in some than others.
the concept of using the word “mandatory” for something that is not “mandatory” is surely a misuse of the English language.
This thread shows the art of going off topic just not quite enough to enable the mod to move the posts without a lot of work… See first two hits here for an explanation of the restrictive practices which lead to this designation.
Those who for some reason cannot work from home always say working from home is impossible as a general rule. Those who can work from home, say it’s no problem.
That’s partly true. However, not for me, for example. I could work from home, but we have a “factory unit” which obviously cannot be run “from home”. During CV19 lockdowns, I worked at home in the mornings and my office manageress worked at home in the afternoons. Now, I could just skive off and nobody could do anything about it (because I own the business) but it would set a bad example to the others.
Also most people who totally could perform their duties from home are simply not productive at home if they have small children. Only if they have no children is there a reasonable chance of it working well, and AFAICT only if the person is motivated and has a suitably separated setup at home.
Otherwise, IME, “WFH” has been synonymous with a dreadful reduction in customer service just about everywhere and not just in the UK. I have learn to accept “we can’t do this for x days due to staff WFH” as a “f**k you; we don’t need you to get our salaries paid”, and the nearest example is one’s local CAA
Peter wrote:
Now, I could just skive off and nobody could do anything about it (because I own the business) but it would set a bad example to the others.
The skiving off is something that was a problem in the beginning but companies soon realized that there are easy ways to a) check it or b) simply verify the work is done.
The most effective way is to simply work result based. People do have to deliver results for their work, be it in the form of documents, be it in the form of online presence (phone centers or similar) or be it in the IT world. These are quite easily measurable. In practice, as with work in the office, what counts is that the work whatever it is gets done. From where, nobody gives a hoot as long as it is done and done properly.
I’ve been doing it since ever we got the possibility and it works fine. I usually get things done at home much faster as in the office, as there is less distraction, less office chat, less need to go for breaks if you can take your coffee right of your own kitchen, less time needed for lunch e.t.c. And if the work is done, you do get some freedoms you otherwise would not.
