Engine Hours vs Time

Silvaire,

the "European Thing" is that any and all recommendations are taken on as face value and imposed the most restrictive way against GA over here.

It has to be said however that a LOT of private airplanes have massive under usage due to many factors. The 30 day statement in the report (saying that an engine should be run at least once a month at operating temps for at least 1 hr) would mean that lots of times private owners would have to ground run them as there is no way of flying them in the winter months for instance. I just ran my own records and see that we did indeed somehow manage to fly once a month since the engine has been overhauled, but I do notice a massive decrease in flight hours from 100 hrs in 2011 to 46 in 2012 and 27 so far this year. I hear the same from a lot of owners in central Europe due to the horrible weather conditions from January to end of June this year. I did not manage to fly myself until May.

To speak frankly, I do start to question if private ownership actually makes sense for people who do not have the freedom to shift their flying days randomly to accomodate weather and other comitments. If e.g. one proposal I've seen were to come into law, which would make the 1 hr per 30 days rule law and face owners with massive and expensive tear down inspections at each annual if not achieved, then it would probably mean the end for many owners. The question is of course, if that rule would even make sense. I fear it might, particularly for airplanes parked outside in the wet and gisly climate of central Europe.

Adds another factor to my current soul searching on wether to continue flying or to give in to the more than clear arguments which keep jumping up into my face recently.

Assuming its a Lycoming, what I might do is check the maintenance logs to see if the engine had low compression or anything else unusual at the last annual inspection. Then I'd make sure it had a recent oil change and check static rpm. Then it might be wise to fly it a bit VFR and make sure all is well with the plane generally before filing any flight plans or planning trips. Unless I'm missing something, if it had four hours in the last year I'd be concerned, but forty is regular use.

If its a Thielert, I'd want it inspected before flying it.

Mooney Driver - it's interesting to imagine the reaction of a Swiss bureaucrat if deposited in the western US, within the culture that created these American aircraft and American engines, operated under American regs successfully for decades. These are not Swiss watches but I fear said bureaucrat might have a coronary from the culture shock :-)

I find it very hard to believe that flying for 1 hour every 30 days is hard.

Obviously if one cannot afford to fly at all then one cannot fly at all, but it is inconceivable that the weather is sub-VFR for 30 solid days.

It can be unsuitable for pre-PPL solo flights, where a UK PPL instructor will probably put a block on flying in less than 10km vis. So you can lose the whole (hazy) summer. I have known PPL students who waited several months for their QXC flight... obviously they had to redo much of their PPL after such a long break.

But once you have your PPL you can fly properly, with a GPS etc.

Is Switzerland really forcing a 12 year engine life right now?

Is baroscopic checks sufficient to determine corrosion?

A borescope cannot get into a Lyco engine to inspect the camshaft, unfortunately. No, I have no idea why they did such a stupid design. You have to pull off a cylinder, at a minimum.

A borescope also cannot see corrosion below the pistons. All it will see, via the spart plug holes, is the cylinder above the piston.

So if you buy a used plane, you are taking a bit of a chance unless you can verify the previous flying pattern reliably. I would personally much rather buy a plane with a shagged or out of time engine, discounted appropriately, and immediately overhaul the engine.

An advantage of Permit aircraft is how cheap it can be to have pots off at the Annual - under the supervision of an LAA Inspector. It took us only a few hours to do two on an O200 last week. Fixing an oil leak, but checking visually. We're not at manufacturer's TBO, but over 12 years. I do 6+ hours in most winter months, in north Scotland.

It does only take maybe a couple of hours to remove a cylinder on a Lyco engine.

What makes the job take longer is taking care of the baffles, the exhaust pipework, etc.

Obviously if you can do the work yourself, and don't account for your time, that reduces the cost, but you can do that on a CofA type also if you have a "relationship" with the right people. It's probably much easier to run such relationships on the Permit regime, and also I suspect the Permit community has a lot more access to a hangar where owner work is permitted.

An advantage of Permit aircraft is how cheap it can be to have pots off at the Annual - under the supervision of an LAA Inspector.

Same for standard category aircraft on N-register, with the (slight) difference that the supervising mechanic for the engine work on the N-register aircraft need not have inspection authorization - that necessity is reserved for annual inspections, fabric recovering and a few other limited items. Nor does the FAA A&P mechanic need any association with any non-Government organization.

(Sorry Peter, I posted a few minutes after you!)

I find it very hard to believe that flying for 1 hour every 30 days is hard.

A problem arises when one owner is spread over multiple aircraft. Number 1 gets flown often, number 2 (or even more so number 3) much less. Since number 3 doesn't get flown often for a reason (valuable, rare, not insured, tricky to fly etc) its likely not to be offered to other pilots for the same reason.

Then there's the old guy whose personal identity is 'aircraft owner' but he can't fly any more. Many would rather pay the hangar rent than sell the aircraft. He keeps it in annual, it gets flown occasionally, and he maintains his long standing lifestyle at the airport. A friend of mine seems to specialize in flying aircraft like this for the owners, because its fun and 'the right thing to do'. Every time he has to be circumspect about the condition of an aircraft that was fine the last time it was flown, 6 months ago. Then if it does need something that has to get figured out.

Airports today (certainly in the US) are sometimes places with more nice aircraft than people to fly them - that's one reason they're not building many new ones. Fine with me for any number of reasons, an embarrassment of riches, but it does impose the burden of keeping them flying.

but it is inconceivable that the weather is sub-VFR for 30 solid days.

In switzerland, operating on a short grass runway without snow removal equipment and instrument procedures, which in winter time is often covered for weeks by low stratus, january and first half of february is very difficult.

Silvaire,

it's interesting to imagine the reaction of a Swiss bureaucrat if deposited in the western US, within the culture that created these American aircraft and American engines, operated under American regs successfully for decades. These are not Swiss watches but I fear said bureaucrat might have a coronary from the culture shock :-)

Most of them working in the aviation field know it well enough. Some even go fly there for the same reasons many here do... talk about the ultimate paradoxon.

The trouble is that today no CAA in Europe is really independent in it's decisions anymore, which can also be a blessing, but in most cases is not.

As I understand it from people I do know and appreciate within the regulatory bodies, the safety recommendation in that report was received with a groan. They today have a pretty liberal praxis for on condition which is almost 100% alike the one in the US. They are however forced to implement such recommendations almost to the letter in fear of law suits if they don't. That is unfortunately an American trend, which has made it over here.

Apart, I feel that the aircraft in question was not representative in any way. It had not flown properly within a year, it had been imported "on condition" which is actually not accepted usually (to register a plane here, both engine and prop must be within calendar limits!). So to generalize that ALL planes are prone to this, is alike generalizing that all people are alcoholics, just because some are.

Peter,

I find it very hard to believe that flying for 1 hour every 30 days is hard.

I belive you. You are in the enviable situation to both have an IR and a flexible time planning. That makes it much easier than somebody who knows his available dates months in advance and then has to fit flying into the available spare time he has.

it is inconceivable that the weather is sub-VFR for 30 solid days.

Yes it is. Tom sais it correctly, grass runways are more or less closed during that time, plus you need >5km / 1500 ft ceiling on the controlled airports. Where I live, the weather conditions have 90% IMC over the winter (with low cloud BKN005 and or vis <5km for months at a time), it is very easy not to be able to fly for months at a time if you are VFR only. Switzerland and ZRH in particular goes IMC in the beginning of November and usually comes out of it in early spring. January and February are basically lost months every year. Clearly, there are individual days which are VMC or a few hours at a time, but then you need to have time as well as slots available (which go in minutes).

I have been working at a statistic to get exact figures on this, but current conditions at my workplace have put it on the back burner. I would like however to continue this and will let you know the results in due time. Some initial figures I have gotten out of this however suggest that VFR is not viable at all for continued operation other than short round trips for about 70-80% of the time over the whole year. This swings bewteen 100% and 60% seasonal.

Combine this with fixed working schedules (with either only weekends and some months ahead planned holidays available or with work plans which require 100% presence time on planned working days) and you get a situation where people regularly do not fly for months at a time. This lethal combination made me stop from September 12 to May 13....

Is Switzerland really forcing a 12 year engine life right now?

They have done and do for imported planes, that is to register it in Switzerland even before this accident, which is why I really can't understand how it happened.

They do not YET force it generally. There is a technical circular, which this report attacks, which allows on condition operation much alike the US version, that is you can operate an engine indefinitly if certain precautions are taken. That is how I managed to run my engine to 2500 hrs before I gave it for overhaul. The report attacks this and sais there is no technical reason to allow this, so the safety recommendation is basically attacking this circular and wants it withdrawn. The result would be that the difference between commercial ops and private in terms of lifetime limits would no longer exist.

So the CAA is between a rock and a hard place on this one. The report basically presents a legal challenge to their practice, so they have now actively got to justify why they allow on condition at all.

I understand that some people in EASA are also very interested in this report and are demanding the same thing.

Best regards Urs