Quote Originally Posted by aosunaiv View Post
Hello everyone, new guy here. The file was an interesting read, but I have to agree with the folks that believe the ability to blow off an AD is a bad thing. Additionally, I think most of us know it, but it wasn't stated here that the reason that EAB builders have expanded maintenance privileges, is because they BUILT the airplane. If they didn't build the airplane, then they'd have to seek competent technical personnel to perform anything other than minor maintenance, unless they received additional training. Finally, how many times have we read about non A&P personnel performing unauthorized maintenance, that cost them their lives? Thanks for listening.

BTW, I know there are sub-par A&Ps out there, as well.
The NTSB database does not support your claim. There are far more MIF (Maintenance induced Failures) by A&Ps then for AB aircraft maintained by owner after the 40 hour phase 1. Owner maintenance has not produced a higher accident rate. And just to be fair; the majority of accidents are pilot errors not aircraft failures. Also; there are really very few accidents each year on the total and very few due to maintenance. So do we really need all the regulation and cost to manage a very small incident? What we need are bold changes to Small GA so that it can grow and start to get some economies of scale.