Peter wrote:
Anyone believing that EASA regs are easy to find and understand should try his local maint company, and quote a few of them, and see how far you get
Now you’re moving the goalpost! You talked about finding, not understanding. I agree that some regs make difficult reading but in most cases it is really a case of “can’t bother to check what the regs say.”
I agree with much of what Mike Busch has written, in fact I don’t know of an instance where I have disagreed.
My reference to a signoff being “conditional” was simply what I wrote earlier i.e. an engine done as IRAN does not imply any ADs were complied with, whereas an engine done as OH does imply that.
Admittedly anybody doing an IRAN and ignoring ADs is an idiot – looking at how many man-hours go into taking an engine to bits – and doing a huge dis-service to his customer (who is prob99 totally ignorant of what is happening) but that isn’t the point 
That said, a lot of maint companies did “somehow” forget about Lyco’s SB569 and the corresponding crankshaft AD…
I’ve seen some awful junk in homebuilts. A good area is a lack of understanding of vibration. For example any pipes or wire looms which run across the engine rubber mounts need to be flexible.
I’ve seen some awful junk in homebuilts
There is no standard, so “anything” goes. The only “standard” is “according to good aviation practice”. Which makes it as meaningful or meaningless as you want depending on how familiar you are with “good aviation practice”. Tons of books, webinars etc on the subject though.
I have seen very little junk in homebuilts. But some do modifications they obviously shouldn’t do.
