A good video on risks of cylinder replacement

Well, up to a few years ago, things like this simply did not happen. I don’t know really what caused this change.

Also I have to say that personally never had any problems with anyone whom I worked with. Everyone I ever talked to or met were helpful, courteous and tried their very best to get you what you need. When i did the IFR certification of my plane this year, that impression was re-enforced. Very kind, helpful and positive people.

That is why many people here are so perplexed at what is going on at the moment.This is not something which happens at the front, but in the background.

There are quite a few N-Regs and also some T7’s around here but not many EU regs. Presumably that was because up to very recently it did not occurr to anyone to move their regs to other places which were perceived here as the nightmare it has become here. The TBO affair started with one single accident, when the SUST, the accident investigation branch, issued a safety recommendation to the effect that they felt that making a difference between commercial and private flights with regards to TBO adherence was inappropriate and should be banned, equally they recommended that service instructions and letters should be regarded law. In consequence, the then practice of allowing “on condition” was changed with a new “Technische Mitteilung” (which is how the FOCA communicates it’s interpretation of law) which indicated a change. But even then it was not clear just how this was going to happen. It was only this july, when quite a few people got their maintenance programs rejected on TBO grounds that we became alert to this.

Whatever it is, it has to be stopped. Otherwise foreign registered airplanes will beocme the norme here, not the exception. And there is just no way how private owners can afford to overhaul their perfectly functioning engines every 12 and their props every 6 years without any good reason. So i suppose either will people transfer the registration or give up.

Personally I hope for ELA1 and EASA putting their feet down.

BAZL has zero choice but adopting ELA1 to the letter.

Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:

BAZL has zero choice but adopting ELA1 to the letter.

Agreed, and for ELA1, the (in)competent authority doesn’t need to approve the maintenance program.

Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:

BAZL has zero choice but adopting ELA1 to the letter.

Yes, I agree. The question will be for planes > 1200 kg.

Part M Light covers ELA1 and ELA2 (>1200kg).

@tomjnx under Part ML both ELA1 and2 owners can have their own AMP with deviations that they do not need to justify and the authority has no authority to approve or refuse… I live for that day. My new AMP is ready and in a stamped envelope.

Where are you going to send it? As I understand it, the NAAs won’t even get to see your maintenance programme usually. Or am I mistaken?

Mooney_Driver wrote:

Following a crash of a badly maintained Saratoga a few years back, Switzerland has basically banned “on condition” operation for GA engines

Listening to the chatter of banning all airshows in Switzerland after the Grashoppers accident, it comes to mind, that Swiss measures are a bit drastic, aren’t they? Wasn’t it last year in Rome when even EASA admitted that overregulating GA is adverse to its safety record?

Can someone explain to me the time rule as a limiting factor for engine TBO? Where is the logic in that?

C210_Flyer wrote:

Can someone explain to me the time rule as a limiting factor for engine TBO? Where is the logic in that?

Time limited components on aircraft has been around along time and it is the norm on turbine aircraft and helicopters.