Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Engine lifetime extension with VFR only restriction

Hi,

Few day ago, the Hungarian CAA /EASA member state/ pulled out a new Hungarian directive for ELA1/ELA2/TMG aircrafts operated in Part NCO. The major outcome of it, that if it is out of the calendar limit, but within the TBO, the aircraft can be operated daylight VFR only! If out of the TBO, the engine MUST be overhauled.
May I get a feedback from your side, how is it with your National Authorities?

Zsolt Szüle
LHTL, Hungary

For NCO-
Denmark: A piston engine, with the exception of 450 kW hub and diesel engines, may remain in service beyond the number of flight hours and / or years recommended by the design holder if a Part 66 Certified Technician or an authorized workshop in connection with A 100 hour / year inspection finds that the engine’s performance and oil consumption are within the limits set by the design holder.
3.1.1 Except for propellers and hoses containing flammable liquids, engine components for which the design holder has a recommended calendar time limit for overhaul may remain in operation beyond the calendar time.
4.1.2 The same applies to engine components with flight time limit, if the designers’ recommended inspection requirements are met. This means the following components that are certified with the engine: Carburettor, starter, magnetos, fuel system and turbocharger.
5. For the first time, the engine has been in service 10 years since new manufacturing, overhaul or total separation, a Part 66 Certified Technician or Workshop, regardless of engine flight time, must separate the engine or disassemble cylinders or covers to the extent that check all knots on the camshaft or camshafts, the surface of all cam followers, and inspect for corrosion and abnormal wear on the engine. Cylinders that are not disassembled must be inspected for corrosion and general condition using boroskop or similar equipment. The process must then be repeated at intervals of not more than 5 years.

Estonia: up to 20% TBO and 2x calendar life, with inspections, can also be used in ATO-s .

EERI EETU, Estonia

Zsoszu wrote:

Few day ago, the Hungarian CAA /EASA member state/ pulled out a new Hungarian directive for ELA1/ELA2/TMG aircrafts operated in Part NCO. The major outcome of it, that if it is out of the calendar limit, but within the TBO, the aircraft can be operated daylight VFR only! If out of the TBO, the engine MUST be overhauled.
May I get a feedback from your side, how is it with your National Authorities?

I don’t see how Hungary can legally do that for ELA1 aircraft on an owner-declared maintenance programme. But maybe this directive only applies to approved maintenance programmes?

Anyway.

Sweden: A petrol-fueled piston engine used in flight operations not needing a permit (which includes most non-commercial ops) may be used up to the lowest of 150% of the TBO time or 3000 hours. For ops requiring a permit you can run up to 120% of the TBO time. Additional inspections have to be done each 100 hours once past the TBO. No restrictions on calendar time. Diesel engines can not be run past manufacturer recommended limits. (This does NOT apply to ELA1 aircraft on owner-declared maintenance programmes. Our club ran an engine to 3400 hours before overhaul on an owner-declared MP.)

Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 10 Jan 07:45
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

What gives the regulator the right to issue instructions like this?

Biggin Hill

Yes; very strange.

I am trying to decipher this bit especially

5. For the first time, the engine has been in service 10 years since new manufacturing, overhaul or total separation, a Part 66 Certified Technician or Workshop, regardless of engine flight time, must separate the engine or disassemble cylinders or covers to the extent that check all knots on the camshaft or camshafts, the surface of all cam followers, and inspect for corrosion and abnormal wear on the engine. Cylinders that are not disassembled must be inspected for corrosion and general condition using boroskop or similar equipment. The process must then be repeated at intervals of not more than 5 years.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

And I thought EASA was supposed to bring about standardisation thoughtout EASA states

Peter wrote:

I am trying to decipher this bit especially

the text is actually google translation from “AIC B 16/12. Vejledning, anvisninger og informationer til BL 1-2, Bestemmelser om vedligeholdelse af luftfartøjer, der udelukkende anvendes til privatflyvning, bortset fra firmaflyvning.” But seems close enough to reality, as my OY-reg Piper had cylinders pulled and inspection perfomed on 2017..
(and the plane is under CAMO)

Last Edited by ivark at 10 Jan 08:59
EERI EETU, Estonia

Zsoszu wrote:

May I get a feedback from your side, how is it with your National Authorities?

This violates ELA1, NCO and ELA2. It should be brought to immediate attention of EASA who should issue a finding. I can not see how they can do this legally.

Switzerland was trying something like this prior to part NCO and ELA 1 and were overruled by EASA (they acknowledged that they can’t do it under part NCO and ELA1) so I don’t see how Hungary can. If they succeed, they will set a very dangerous precedent within EASA. Therefore this MUST be stopped at all cost.

LSZH, Switzerland

IMHO, it’s useless getting worked up about how things SHOULD be.

Fact is: it is not EASA that issues your ARC, approves maintenance programs, etc. It’s still the national CAAs. So, pragmatically speaking, what they say is what ultimately matters. Not what EASA says, but what YOUR CAA says. And the CAAs pretty much do what they want, thinking EASA gives them the regulatory freedom (or the task?) to decide these things on their own (whether they really do, I have no idea).

That’s the situation we have.

Frankfurt (EDFE, EDFC, EDFZ), Germany

Couldn’t agree more

21 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top