D-ESPJ, a great friend of mine, was doing VFR in IMC, just like most people who hit granite.
I was thinking about Stefan when I was performing the approach to LFLP the other day…
A TB20 is not exposed to the “European Part M System”.
Nearly the entire maintenance business refuses to operate the (revenue reducing) concessions. Then you get airport politics which effectively blocks freelance maintenance at most places.
Nearly the entire maintenance business refuses to operate the (revenue reducing) concessions. Then you get airport politics which effectively blocks freelance maintenance at most places.
Part ML is not a concession. A maintenance business cannot apply Part M to a TB20 operated acc. to EASA NCO.
Snoopy wrote:
Part ML is not a concession. A maintenance business cannot apply Part M to a TB20 operated acc. to EASA NCO.
Yes. This is a point that might have been missed. You – or the maintenance shop – don’t have a choice of applying part-M or part-ML. The kind of aircraft and the kind of operations determine which one to use.
Glass cockpit avionics does not add any benefit from a legal point of view in terms of navigation and IFR flight plan filing. So, no benefit from that point and possibly the view of the OP.
Good points… but…
One thing which has not been mentioned yet is the resale value. In a few years time, if you decide to sell, glass will certainly sell better. 2003 is relatively recent, and my feeling is that the panel is a good match, not overdone but a good mix of all you ever need.
It is one thing to own and fly an old airplane, but it is another thing to spend your time staring at antiquated steam gages. Most people nowadays realize the added value, safety and compatibility to modern navigation of glass, and as previous posters wrote, a nice glass panel takes precedence on an older engine.
Glass is not necessarily more complicated than steam, it just offers so much more in terms of use, possibilities, assistance, capability, and so on. But one can get started with glass by using needles as was learned with steam, and once comfortable with the basic use of glass, build on.
Re price, making an offer is always a good idea. Not as low as to offend the seller, but an honest argument(s) based one might lead to a win-win deal.
When I bought my present steed, the engine was kind of a gamble as she had not flown for 2 years as the owner was hoping to get his medical back. He did perform monthly run-ups, which as we know is not the best practice for an engine, but that was it. We agreed on a price that took the rebuilding of that engine into account, and since the engine’s now been reliably running for >1.5K hours, that was a pretty good deal 
You – or the maintenance shop – don’t have a choice of applying part-M or part-ML. The kind of aircraft and the kind of operations determine which one to use.
Guys – you know what I was referring to
Everything gets sold at some point and in a few years steam gauge equipped aircraft will sell at a vast discount. To a degree that’s already happening.
For somebody buying one, there is a difference between TB20 GT and an early TB20, because the former will have avionics like mine has: suitable for present-day IFR. And the KCS-55 compass system is actually really good. You can keep it going from US Ebay – whoops I never wrote that – because many Americans are removing the old kit.
I would rather have a solid plane, no corrosion, and the year 2000 avionics, than say a 1990 TB20 with “glass” and a load of airframe bits which need doing.
Thread drift alert :)
I have tended to spend the AMU on the airframe and components. I have seen people drop close on six figures on avionics on these thirty year old plus airframes, but if the airframe is not solid they do not recoup their investment…and they don’t.
Airframe, powerplant, interior, avionics in that order. This assumes a basic serviceable IFR suite. Interior is ahead of avionics as it will impress, and is relatively low cost.
SEP SOP is typically no low IFR, as you need around 1000 feet ceiling in the event of a forced landing. A G3X, 750xi, 650, GTX345, GFC500 panel surgery is around £75k (give or take) with a fair amount of down time. You can get real lasting value in preserving, renewing airframe and powerplant with that budget.
Exactly.
Dan wrote:
In a few years time, if you decide to sell, glass will certainly sell better.
Not necessarily. If you have a legacy integrated glass cockpit that doesn’t support new navigation standards, you may have to replace the entire avionics system at an exorbitant cost to get up to specs, or you may have no upgrade path at all. My choice for a used aircraft would be glass, but not integrated: G5/GI275/SN3500/SN4500/… indicators + GNSS navigator + electronic engine monitor. This way, you can upgrade individual items as you go and leave the rest in place.
