Peter wrote:
I don’t have a reference but don’t need one – it is obvious. The removal of UK papers’ validity for EU-regs was directed by Brussels. The EU member countries had to obey.** They all did this concurrently.
We are talking about two quite different things here. One thing is the automatic mutual validation of licenses within EASA. That obviously ended for UK licenses when the UK chose to leave EASA after Brexit. No “directive” from Brussels was needed for that. (The UK could have stayed in EASA even after Brexit, but that would require deferring to the ECJ for aviation-related matters which was a total no-no for the UK government.) Now, if the EU should continue to automatically recognise UK licenses, that would have required a “directive from Brussels.”
The other thing is the possibility of a national EASA-member CAA to validate individual UK licenses like any other third country license. If you claim that Brussels have “directed” EU member states not to do that you have better provide a reference as it is by no means obvious.
It never ceases to amaze me that so many brits – even remainers – can’t accept that the UK is now a third country in relation to the EU and is given exactly the same treatment as other third countries, e.g. the USA. You can’t keep the privileges you get by belonging to a club after you’ve left it in order to be free of the obligations!
So it seems like the consensus is that the hours/lifetime of an engine generally is more a commercial one rather than a technical one, and that the CAA is a bit over the top not allowing commercial operations. Assuming I do my homework on the state of the engine, i should be more open to older engines. Appreciate the feedback on this – its really very useful!
Re the EU – regardless of political views, i do think it would have made sense to at least extend the recognition for a few years. Just on account of the existing ties. Put it another way, what is the downside for the EU? If there is none, then one could argue its a punishment. And its a bit of an own goal too – for example, i would have probably purchased one of the TB20s if i could….
Its also a bit of an own goal from the UK, given that the ECJ still has authority over most things anyway…
In this context (piston charter requires a twin, and there is negligible SEP TB20 sightseeing AOC usage) “commercial” means flying school usage, which in the UK is approximately zero, for the TB20 or for the “540” size engine.
You can (in the UK) have training in a plane whose engine is > 12 years, although possibly not ab initio training for the PPL even in a plane you own (but you probably don’t need that anyway). This reg has varied over the years and I don’t know the latest. @MattL @tumbleweed @bathman @Qalupalik may know, or you could ask the CAA and wait… I did my UK IR in my N-reg TB20 where the 12 years was never relevant, or checked.
So it seems like the consensus is that the hours/lifetime of an engine generally is more a commercial one rather than a technical one, and that the CAA is a bit over the top not allowing commercial operations. Assuming I do my homework on the state of the engine, i should be more open to older engines. Appreciate the feedback on this – its really very useful!
It’s mostly a liability thing. The problem is if you ask what “commercial” means 99% of the GA scene will give you a wrong definition.
For EASA, an aircraft used in a commercial DTO/ATO needs to be in a controlled, CAO/CAMO contracted, Part-ML maintenance environment while the operational environment is still NCO. This means whatever the CAMO/CAO approves goes.
An aircraft used in commercial air transport (AOC, CAT) requires a Part-M maintenance environment.
Interesting note: There’s (mostly) no TBO for engines used on large aircraft. They are run on condition and closely monitored in real-time. Often line maintenance would know about issues upon blocking in that we, the pilots, had no idea of during the flight.
Peter wrote:
You can (in the UK) have training in a plane whose engine is > 12 years, although possibly not ab initio training for the PPL even in a plane you own (but you probably don’t need that anyway). This reg has varied over the years and I don’t know the latest. @MattL @tumbleweed @bathman @Qalupalik may know, or you could ask the CAA and wait… I did my UK IR in my N-reg TB20 where the 12 years was never relevant, or checked.
In EASA land commercial flight training can be done in airplanes with the engine “on condition” (eg. >12y). That´s what I´ve been advised. I´m to lazy to find the reference right now, somebody else prob. has this straight from the right foot.
Rami1988 wrote:
So it seems like the consensus is that the hours/lifetime of an engine generally is more a commercial one rather than a technical one, and that the CAA is a bit over the top not allowing commercial operations. Assuming I do my homework on the state of the engine, i should be more open to older engines. Appreciate the feedback on this – its really very useful!
Well, a bit simplified, and strictly speaking when limiting commercial (AoC) operators to NOT be allow using engines “on condition” I don´t see why that would be such an unreasonable demand. Where and how should the authorities, with public responsibilities, draw the line? They need some lines to be drawn straight. So many scruples operators out there already – if you let some of these totally loose (eg. “on condition” with bla bla borescope bla bla. etc.) it will just get even worse from a safety perspective. I´m happy the line is drawn!
For non-commercial use the “calendar” limit (eg. 12 years) is for reasons stated all over the place is totally unnecessary, I agree, and the regulations are reflecting that accordingly with measures in place for “on condition” for this type of use. The type of usage of the engine, eg. school flying, cold weather operations (little warm up or hasty “innovative” warm up), total clown amateur pilot handling and other rough handling of the engine will likely have much bigger influence on the overhaul time than the actual time on the engine. So, yeah figure out the type of usage of the aircraft.
Good luck.
In EASA land commercial flight training can be done in airplanes with the engine “on condition” (eg. >12y). That´s what I´ve been advised. I´m to lazy to find the reference right now, somebody else prob. has this straight from the right foot.
A UK school never could go > 12 years. But this doesn’t affect the OP since he will own the plane.
Rami1988 wrote:
Assuming I do my homework on the state of the engine, i should be more open to older engines
In short: Yes as long as we are talking non-turbo engines. Those can, with proper care, last for a lot more than TBO. Most of the time more than an average pilot career. Also: An engine overhaul is a pretty much known cost. Very different than e.g. Avionics upgrades which can escalate BIG time.
Turbo charged engines need a lot more maintenance and need cylinders swapped every odd 1000 hrs or so. Unless you really need high altitude capacity, I’d stay away from them. The normal TB20 can do FL200 if it has to. Peter’s done it.
With the TB20, the fact that one has TKS is FAR more important than a broken AP. You can fix an AP or replace it “relatively” easy. To put after market TKS, well Peter’s done it but I think he must have been the only one I’ve ever known.
The difference between the GT and the normal one is primarily important for those who have a problem with the head room. For IFR I’d go for a normal TB20 with TKS and good equipment over a GT without.
What I liked about that G-reg TB20 is definitly TKS as well as relatively new avionics. And if you don’t want to fix that AP, get a Garmin one. But in the right hands, that AP should be repairable. Everything else is there.
You’re definitely starting to convince me about that aircraft! The next question is what would be the fair price for that? I have absolutely no clue where these planes transact. Then adding the AP and potential overhaul to it…
Old avionics, old engine, high hours: <99k
Mid avionics, mid-old engine, mid-low hours: 99-199k
New avionics, mid-old engine, mid-low hours: 149k-199k
New avionics, new engine, mid-low hours: 199k-269k
For the U.K. the old restriction on ‘on condition’ went with Part ML but it now states
In practice you can’t just ignore the overhaul periods of you are operating in a DTO/ATO
Following is a good ref doc for the UK
https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP2400P%20Airworthiness%20Code_print.pdf
