Continental announced some time back in SIL98-9C that the TBO of the O-200 with engine serial numbers 1006000 and later can have their TBO increased to 2000 hours.
Obviously this is a good move however I’m not convinced that its financially viable to buy a new or re-manufactured engine off continental especially with the current value of the pound to take advantage of this increase.
At the same time they also stated that if an engine consistently accumulates 40 or more hours per month since being placed in service then one can add 200 hours to the recommended TBO.
Now this does interest me as my Cessna 150 does over 500 hours hours a year (599 hours to be exact). So one would think that’s great news to me. But after contacting continental the aircraft has to fly greater than 40 hours EVERY single month. So last February when the weather was crap and it was in for its annual for two weeks it did less than 40 hours. So I think this TBO increase is a bit of a marketing scam as I doubt there will be many if any O-200’s that meet this requirement.
C150 is ELA1, so why do you still worry about recommended TBOs? Doesn’t matter that the aircraft is used for flight training.
Many LAA O200s are making 3000+.
Boscomantico
Becasuse the CAA have stated that all aircraft used for flying instruction have to remain on lamp till 2019
LAMP was indeed a huge waste of money for light GA in the UK…
Bathman wrote:
CAA have stated that all aircraft used for flying instruction have to remain on lamp till 2019
Similar in DK – “until Part M-light” for commercial instruction.
As for non-commercial club instruction – that has effectively been redefined to be commercial, inaccurately referring to EASA regulations on the definition of commercial activity.
huv wrote:
As for non-commercial club instruction – that has effectively been redefined to be commercial, inaccurately referring to EASA regulations on the definition of commercial activity.
After some head scratching, the Swedish CAA made the opposite decision… Maybe your clubs should change to SE-reg? 
Airborne_Again wrote:
After some head scratching, the Swedish CAA made the opposite decision… Maybe your clubs should change to SE-reg?
huv wrote:
As we have a meeting set up with the CAA in a few weeks to arm wrestle about this problem, I would be very grateful if you could give me a reference for what the Swedish CAA has decided!
I’ll dig it up. It may take some days before I get around to it. If you haven’t heard from me in a week, send a PM.
