Peter wrote:
He’s probably operating them under Part 91, not on a maintenance programme, plus being based in the US makes it easier to find people who know them, etc. You have a much better “ecosystem” out there for “projects”.
I was recently told that on Jets you seem to have to follow the manufacturers maintenance program even on n-reg. I did investigate at bit what it would mean to operate an Eclipse jet and the bottom line was that the purchase of the airframe seemed to be the smallest issue. You have to follow the expensive maintenance program, you have very expensive parts, very expensive training, lots of paperwork for RVSM, NCC etc., higher fees due to the higher MTOW of typical jets. Then higher fuel burn and range problems as soon as you can not climb to FL400. As cool as it might be there seems to be a reason the TBM sells so well…
You have to follow an inspection program, but not a maintenance program. This is not anything worse than any annual, it just sounds like it. Part 91 you do not have to comply with any overhaul items unless they’re A: and AD or B: part of the actual type certificate. This has been clarified by FAA. Inpections yes, that’s why hot sections need to be complied with, but since overhauls are considered maintenance, you don’t need to overhaul.
I had exactly the same thing on my props last year. Service center wanted to send props off for overhaul as they’ve reached their 6-year limit. But when they overhaul them, they grind them down, reshape them, eliminating metal. This means they’ll be weaker and get thinner for each overhaul, making sure they’ll eventually fail the inspection. This is not a co-incidence, it’s all by design. We must never forget that the prop companies themselves set these overhaul rules and they have an interest in you buying new props. I said “no, it’s an SB, not an AD to overhaul them, I just want them inspected”. This threw service center into a kind of legal spin of resistance since they’re simply not used to part 91 owners that much – part 135 have to comply. Eventually they came back and said, “yes, you’re right”. No need to overhaul, just inspect. This is a different of about $15K in price and has the added benefit of actually making your blades last longer.
It’s very easy to get shafted in the aviation industry unless you know some of the fine print.
A few years ago, I happened to be sitting at a big UK bizjet maintenance company. The N-reg jet in question had a defective instrument in the panel and a replacement was sourced but it came with an EASA-1 form, not an 8130-3. The mechanic was adamant they cannot install it. I was just a bystander (wasn’t my plane though I was going to fly RHS in it) and I told him the FAA accepts EASA-1 like an 8130-3 but he was having none of it, and a few thousand quid was wasted via more hassle all around.
Just because a mechanic works on upmarket hardware, doesn’t mean he knows anything special.
I used to know of an operation in the UK, where they had their own private hangar with some jets in it, and an A&P/IA who practically lived in the hangar, looking after these. That way, they got everything done exactly right, at the right price. They are probably still there…
