Peter wrote:
I wonder if anyone runs these planes on pure Part 91? We did a bit of that here and other places, and the general view is that almost nobody does it because being on a programme maintains the aircraft value a lot better.
It is the aircraft without any programmes that you see for $200,000. Even they seem to stay on the manufacturer’s maintenance programmes, I don’t know about in the USA but I think a jet has to have an approved maintenance programme and the manufacturer’s seems to be the only game in town
Under Part 91.409(f) you must follow an inspection programme on a multi turbojet aircraft. This does not actually mandate following a maintenance programme only that unairworthy parts discovered during inspection must be replaced. This does not strictly mandate overhauls etc. It is Part 135 (charter) which requires a maintenance programme.
JasonC wrote:
Under Part 91.409(f) you must follow an inspection programme on a multi turbojet aircraft. This does not actually mandate following a maintenance programme only that unairworthy parts discovered during inspection must be replaced. This does not strictly mandate overhauls etc. It is Part 135 (charter) which requires a maintenance programme.
But isn’t a part which has exceeded the Manufacturer’s life by definition unairworthy? If you are following the inspection programme that’s a big part of the cost anyway. If there’s a requirement to inspect engines in accordance with some sort of inspection programme then you are getting towards doing engine overhauls anyway, are you not?
Neil wrote:
But isn’t a part which has exceeded the Manufacturer’s life by definition unairworthy? If you are following the inspection programme that’s a big part of the cost anyway. If there’s a requirement to inspect engines in accordance with some sort of inspection programme then you are getting towards doing engine overhauls anyway, are you not?
Yes if the TCDS has a life limit on a part that is binding. I am not suggesting it is realistic to do anything other than run on the manufacturers programme for everything but strictly there is a difference.
Neil wrote:
But isn’t a part which has exceeded the Manufacturer’s life by definition unairworthy?
Any life limit is set by the government at initial component certification, not by the component manufacturer. As a corollary to that, the life limit cannot subsequently be changed without an AD regardless of manufacturer recommendations.
(And of course, jets aside, most aircraft operating under Part 91 do not have any components with life specified at initial certification)
Silvaire wrote:
And of course, jets aside, most aircraft operating under Part 91 do not have any components with life specified at initial certification)
But we are talking about Citations, particulatly the CE510, which is a jet.
You can run anything over its published life limit on part 91. But you need to comply with is inspections. And any hard limits in the TCDS. Many smaller jets, probably most of them, are operated part 91.
That looks like a significant difference between the US and European private jet communities.
Peter wrote:
That looks like a significant difference between the US and European private jet communities.
It is a theoretical difference – in practice everyone maintains and inspects according to the program.
Peter wrote:
That looks like a significant difference between the US and European private jet communities.
Adam is far from typical! Not saying that’s a bad thing of course
