Peter wrote:
Unfortunately while the French aeroclub scene is run by old ex Air Force men
I am not so sure this is true. Most of the instructors on the payroll of French aeroclubs come from ENAC or some other flying school and are waiting for an airline job, or never got an airline job. The volunteer instructors are mostly PPLs that were sponsored by their club and the FFA to attend instructor training. I have yet to meet an instructor with an attitude who gave me a hard time in a French aeroclub. The only place I ever fired an instructor (two, actually) was in the US.
Martin wrote:
If they manage to prove he was negligent (allowed things which shouldn’t be allowed)…
Not to start a discussion about going past TBO, but following that logic we don’t allow “on condition” engines on our club planes, because our local CAA frowns on that (I believe the wording of the CAA document is something along the lines of “TBO is to be enforced, unless the plane is used privately and the owner/pilot signs a document saying they accept any and all responsibility for running the engine on-condition”).
So, where does one draw the line? Can’t really fault the club prez for playing it safe, but shouldn’t the acceptance of a past TBO engine be a function of the plane having a valid ARC, from which it would follow that a plane with a valid ARC is enough for the club to be “sufficiently diligent”?
I don’t know the first thing about all the paperwork that makes the plane fly, so I could be totally off, but if so, please set me straight.
In most of “business life” you discharge your due diligence obligation by engaging a person or some body who is qualified under the appropriate regime, to sign it off.
So if an engineer signs something off, the bloke in charge of the operation has his 6 o’clock covered. That would include an engine past 2k hrs, etc.
In the aviation world this stuff is extremely well defined. If a plane has a CofA (etc) it it legal to fly (even if it is a complete wreck). If a pilot has a PPL (etc) he/she is legal to fly even if he/she is completely useless *
And if the DGAC doesn’t like that, well, you could sue them 
Nobody does that, because they are quite involved on the ground floor in France and they would – I have been told by several people on the French scene – stab you in the back at some later opportunity. If this was not true, they would not be banning the websites which are legal under EASA because they would know they will get taken to court. The UK CAA would not do this. This dysfunctional scene in France enables the DGAC to do what it likes. If an insurer refused a payout (following an advertised cost shared flight) you would have to take the insurer to court and prob99 the DGAC would stand as a witness against you, despite the illegality of their conduct.
So, FUD rules…
* the remaining vulnerability is if say the pilot has say a fake PPL, and for that you have insurance, and there is always a residual vulnerability there because the cover will be finite. That is why e.g. syndicates often use a limited company (in the UK). That is also why e.g. UK’s mandatory 3rd party car insurance cover is unlimited, but you can’t normally get that.
tmo wrote:
I believe the wording of the CAA document is something along the lines of “TBO is to be enforced, unless the plane is used privately and the owner/pilot signs a document saying they accept any and all responsibility for running the engine on-condition”
I continue to find it bizarre that a private aircraft owner could avoid being legally responsible for his property, and legally avoid accepting the risk of his operation. That’s why he might buy insurance. Beyond that any aircraft operation is either legal or illegal, there should be no need to sign in advance to indicate that you intend to conduct legal operations.
Peter wrote:
In most of “business life” you discharge your due diligence obligation by engaging a person or some body who is qualified under the appropriate regime, to sign it off. So if an engineer signs something off, the bloke in charge of the operation has his 6 o’clock covered. That would include an engine past 2k hrs, etc.
The mechanic’s annual sign off on an engine is good at the time that he signs, to comply with a government requirement for him to make an inspection in search of pre-existing problems. It is not a one year warranty for future operation.
If something happens with my engine, I’ll be taking responsibility. I see that as life in the real world. I’m happy that yesterday I cut open my O-320’s oil filter element as I do, checked for metal and found nothing whatsoever. 45 years since manufacture, lots of inspections, no overhaul so far.
Peter wrote:
That is also why e.g. UK’s mandatory 3rd party car insurance cover is unlimited, but you can’t normally get that.
Is it really? Swedish 3rd party car insurance has a limit – but so high that it is extremely improbable that it will ever be reached (€ 30 million).
Silvaire wrote:
I continue to find it bizarre that a private aircraft owner could avoid being legally responsible for his property.
On the other hand I see it as an individual recognizing that there is liability involved and mitigating it by a) having skilled people asses the airworthiness of a plane (including, in this particular case, confirming that going past TBO on this particular engine is OK); b) having insurance coverage for any accidental mishaps. In this scenario the airworthiness assured by a) would, as I imagine it, mean that if something does happen, the insurance will pay for the damage, not the individual that owns the plane. So I guess the issue is of being diligent in eliminating ways to be found negligible.
tmo wrote:
In this scenario the airworthiness assured by a) would, as I imagine it, mean that if something does happen, the insurance will pay for the damage, not the individual that owns the plane.
I agree, except I see it as the owner paying the damage and being compensated by his insurance company within the liability limits he chose to purchase.
The phrase that’s often used by insurance companies in the US is that the type certificate must be in “full force and effect”.
Silvaire wrote:
The mechanic’s annual sign off on an engine is good at the time that he signs, to comply with a government requirement for him to make an inspection in search of pre-existing problems
This sounds ridiculous. The main reason to to maintenance is to be reasonable sure a device will work without problems the next day/month/year. But, if there are nothing that gets worn, then why do maintenance in the first place?
I think problems develop over time. Developing problems may then be corrected after (and as a result of) an annual inspection. There is very little in an annual inspection that would detect a currently non-existent problem.
LeSving wrote:
But, if there are nothing that gets worn, then why do maintenance in the first place?
Obviously most aircraft pass inspection every year with existing wear. The annual inspection required by government is an inspection against the minimum requirements for airworthiness, it is not maintenance. It is only a matter of convenience that motivates owners to combine their maintenance activity with an annual inspection.
It’s actually legal for an annual inspection to leave non-airworthy items unrepaired, as long as they are noted and corrected by others before flight.
Yes, true, but from the POV of getting some kind of backstop on liability of the “management” you have to work with what you have…
Insurance here requires the flight to be legal. They leave the details of how to achieve that to you 
And under the ICAO airframe and crew cert regime a legal flight is a plane and pilot with the required paperwork. No more.
The DGAC business here is more complicated. It’s pure FUD but they will pull it off because they can scare the sh*t out of all the great unwashed
