Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Cirrus Jet (combined thread)

Having been hangared in a TBM an King Air service outfit for 10 years, I reckon TBM owners all fit into one mould:

  • they want everything done as per the TBM MM (which is hundreds of pages of tickboxes)
  • they don’t care what it costs
  • they don’t know much about the plane – they just want to fly it

… which is fair enough but you can’t blame the firm for doing what is asked of them

The way Socata write their MMs is a recipe for ripping off the owners. Probably 75% of the stuff is pointless and probably half of that is stuff which should not be disturbed.

If I took my TB20 to Socata, an basic Annual would be best part of €10,000.

At the other extreme, if you take a TB20 to a typical maintenance shop and get a €3,000 “fixed price Annual” done, they will do only about half of what they need to do. And this is the core issue in aircraft ownership. You either have to be personally involved, or be (very) lucky to find a diligent firm. With a TBM, and probably the Cirrus jet, this isn’t going to be easy because the work will need special tools and facilities, so the owners are going to get pretty well ripped off. But they won’t mind – the sound of a turbine is always worth the money

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

achimha wrote:

The EASA regulation was changed last minute to exclude TP twins from the complex regime.

Last time I checked, TP twin was still complex. Yes, I saw an exception for METs in the Part-NCC but that doesn’t make it non-complex. It just means the requirements are not exactly the same as for jets. You still have to follow different set of rules than SETs.

Or are you saying they actually changed the definition of complex (which would require changes in existing law) and it’s just not in the consolidated version yet?

The argument was a convincing one

Question is why they included TP twins (explicitly) in the first place. Original proposal also put, a coincidence I’m sure , the PC-12 into the complex basket (I think it was via seat limit) and Swiss, as the rumor goes, negotiated a change to the definition of complex so the only European manufacturer that got screwed was the Piaggio (maybe they annoyed someone at the Italian aviation authority ). The rumor was that the original definition was a work of the French.

@AdamFrisch Nobody wrote (at least I’m not aware of it) that a 25 year old TBM is new. 850s with G1000, which were mentioned, are hardly 25 years old.

It was widely believed at the time that the twin TP inclusion was done as a finger-up to the USA, who make the very successful King Air.

At the time, EASA was openly hostile to the USA and this came through in various conferences, presentations, etc.

It may well have been the work of the French since the two guys who ran EASA at the time (Goudot and Sivel) were both French

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Turboprop aircraft are no longer subject to Part OPS NCC but to Part OPS NCO (non commercial). This was changed after widespread protest. Any aircraft with a turbofan (such as the Cirrus Jet if and when it becomes available) is subject to Part OPS NCC which is pretty much prohibitive for private owners. The latest statements from EASA say that they envision a Part NCC Light for small jets and a ops manual template for private operators. However, the current law has none of that so the Cirrus Jet is treated like a BBJ.

Peter wrote:

It was widely believed at the time that the twin TP inclusion was done as a finger-up to the USA, who make the very successful King Air.

What doesn’t fit into your conspiracy theory is that EASA for many years prevented European air transport companies from using European aircraft and forced them to use US built aircraft. Only very recently some CAAs started to issue temporary permissions to use SETs.

Where is this change reflected? Could you point me in the right direction? I’m assuming it would be in the Article 5 of No 965/2012. But the consolidated version doesn’t incorporate the latest amendment (2015/1329) yet. Is it in that amendment? Or am I looking at the wrong place? Aside from Part-NCC, there is also Part-ORO and Part-SPO which also apply to complex but not non-complex machines (as far as non-commercial ops go).

I wouldn’t go as far as conspiracy, more like someone with vested interest having enough pull to sneak in harmless-enough looking definition that would shaft most of the turboprop competition. The original limit for seats was 9 or 8. One might still be able to find those documents.

What doesn’t fit into your conspiracy theory is that EASA for many years prevented European air transport companies from using European aircraft and forced them to use US built aircraft

The requirement for multi engine for A-to-B charter AOC goes back to the dawn of aviation. Hence charter was done in shagged out Senecas, Islanders etc (scud running as necessary at 400ft all the way from Jersey to Southampton/Shoreham/Lydd) when a shiny new pressurised TBM could not be used.

Where is this change reflected? Could you point me in the right direction?

I would like to see a reference too, because plenty of people email me asking for it. I have heard of it from another source but he didn’t have a reference either.

The original limit for seats was 9 or 8. One might still be able to find those documents.

The current 18 (?) seat limit coincides nicely with the max PC12 seat config too. However IIRC that is from some ICAO definition so the PC12 was probably designed for that.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

The UK CAA have a good writeup on the NCC/NCO rules on the multi turboprop derogation:

http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1428&pagetype=90&pageid=16960

The European Commission has agreed a derogation that allows non-commercial operations of twin turboprop aeroplanes, with a MCTOM of 5700kg and below, to be operated under Part-NCO (Non-Commercial Operations) rules instead of Part-NCC. This also means that operators of this type of aircraft do not have to comply with Part-ORO (Organisation Requirements).

Martin wrote:

Where is this change reflected?

The European Commission has agreed a derogation that allows non-commercial operations of twin turboprop aeroplanes, with a MCTOM of 5700kg and below, to be operated under Part-NCO (Non-Commercial Operations) rules instead of Part-NCC. This also means that operators of this type of aircraft do not have to comply with Part-ORO (Organisation Requirements).

http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1428&pagetype=90&pageid=16960

EGTK Oxford

Peter wrote:

The current 18 (?) seat limit coincides nicely with the max PC12 seat config too. However IIRC that is from some ICAO definition so the PC12 was probably designed for that.

It should be >19 (20 and more). I think FAA has some such limit as well (commuter category?), it could very well be ICAO. It’s bit arbitrary anyway. The rumor was that the Swiss negotiated a change in that definition in exchange for their support (for the crew licensing reg I think).

Last Edited by Martin at 24 Oct 19:11

Thank you all. I have updated this summary yet again I can’t keep track of all this stuff and still have two trip writeups to write up (Sweden and the Big One from last month)…

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top