Too many rules. No wonder people’s favorite past time here is drinking.
Too many rules. No wonder people’s favorite past time here is drinking.
R O T F L !!!!!
you crack me up Charlie two-ten flyer !
Luxembourg has issued an airworthiness directive or something which do not motivate to use their register…
- TBO is a hard limit
- 12 year is a softer limit but… Calendar limit cannot be extended more than 150% (i.e. 18 years becomes the hard limit), to extend you need extra maintenance or checks, and every extension reduces TBO of 10%
So year 13 is TBOx0.9, year 14 is TBOx0.8, until year 18 which is the hard limit…
How stupid that every country thinks it has to reinvent the wheel and set its own rules. Just had a discussion with EASA people about it but unfortunately they can’t do anything there.
I was told that they frown upon “registration shopping” and want every airplane to be registered in the state where it is stationed. Future regulation could enforce that.
Very annoying that e.g. Germany f*** me on the Cessna SIDs whereas the UK f*** me on the 6 year propeller overhaul. Whichever country you choose in EASA land, it’s no good.
The whole thing isn’t very European.
Couldn’t agree more. It should be standardised and based on best evidence.
Its a joke at present.
on the topic…Austro have increased AE300 TBO to 1800hrs today…
Interesting note I found on another forum from a crop duster owner about TBO on his fleet of PT6’s. I quote:
Yes, we completely ignore TBO. Our planes currently range from 10,000-14,000 SMOH. That said, we do comply with HSI intervals and usually do them as much as twice as often as recommended by Pratt. If you have someone who will treat you right on hots, they can be a good way to save money. In addition to finding discrepancies while there is still time to repair instead of replace, frequent hot sections can be a vital tool in determining if current operating practices are allowing for the most economical outcome.
Our in house limits are currently 1000 hours on starter/generators, 5000 on CT blades, 1500 on hot sections, 5000 on FCUs, High pressure fuel pumps, and power sections. Most every thing else is done “on condition”. As far as cycle limits, we strictly observe them on all rotating components.
The results have been outstanding. Dispatch reliability is nearly perfect and operating expense is only a fraction of what Pratt quotes
Seems like doing more frequent hots is a good strategy for longevity.
Interesting on the above post.
I personally think that the failure rate on a Lycoming 0-360 is probably the lowest between 2,000 and 3,000 hours with the following caveats
I might be wrong (I am being slightly provocative) about the 2,000 – 3,000 hour thing, but there is no doubt that the most risky engine is the 0-400 hour engine. The problem is that all of the “good” engines get “euthanased” at 2,200 hours because Lycoming want to make money and sell you a new engine!
I fly over water a lot – give me a well used older engine rather than those planes with new engines that fly once every 60 days or less.
Bathman wrote:
Couldn’t agree more. It should be standardised and based on best evidence.
The best evidence no doubt being the 70% of the world’s fleet flying under the FARs…
