EASA have released their response on TBOs

Interesting.

So this is not of any use to a flight school, unless the aircraft is solely used for additional ratings? (See page 3, para 2.l.ii).

Does anyone have any idea what "linked to IFR-operations" means? (See page 3, para 2.l.iii).

There is a catch-all for new equipment, see page 4, para 3 2) 2. That sounds pretty subjective, and no doubt one country's agency will have a different view than the other..

So, here is a little quiz. The right answer will be rewarded with a scenic flight in my plane all around Mallorca. Well, only if I like the answer of course..

Assuming my Thielerts time out (TBR, not TBO) based on calendar time (12 years), would I be given extensions assuming the conditions in this document are met, and the relevant authority has 'sufficient experience' with these engines? I fly a mix of VFR and IFR, and the aircraft is only privately used..

Just re-read that 'linked to IFR operations' part and I guess it means that for any component that is used solely to support IFR flight, the TBO cannot be extended. Like most navigation equipment.. So not for the engine, prop etc.

I just love those rules that leave a lot of headroom for interpretation.

What is "linked to IFR operations" in AMC2 M.A.302 (d) 2.l.iii supposed to mean?

For example, many props have onerously low calendar time limits (like mine, 6 years). So current FOCA approved practice in switzerland is to just ignore calendar time limits for metal props in private operations. Now is the prop "linked to IFR operations"?

The next question is whether this is relevant to planes used for "IFR" training if the actual conditions are VMC.

Very often such training is done as a plain simple VFR flight.

Also there is no life limit on navigation equipment.

So what does this mean?

Yes, of course, Nav equipment has no life limit.. So what else can be meant here. Anti/De-ice equipment, like pneumatics and pumps (TKS) come to mind. Pitot/Stall heat electrics?

And if I read this correctly in respect to ab-intio training

An aircraft engine is most likely to fail in the first 400 hours “infant mortality”

And for an engine in a training aircraft (0-200, 235, 320) it is less likely to fail when on 10%+10% extension then when its new.

What they are proposing is that engines in training aircraft are replaced/overhauled with an engine that is statistically proven to be less save.

This is unbelievable. So much for evidence based safety.

Prey I'm reading this wrong.

(copied from elsewhere so please except my apologies)

That is prob99 true. Especially if one is using a cheap engine shop.

You currently have a 20% extension available on the hours, or the 2000hr life, or both?

I don't think a lot of "ATPL" FTOs can make use of extensions, because a lot of them have charter AOCs and no extensions are allowed on those. So this may have been sneaked in under pressure from the FTO business, to make "PPL-only" schools less competitive.

It's not a big increase on the engine fund (extensions never are if you actually work it out) but what about a school which has say 2 planes under 2000hrs and 2 over 2000hrs. The last 2 are now grounded until the school finds the cash...

Its currently 10% plus another 10% if engineering are happy. So yes basically 20% but this applies to both hours and years.

So for an 0200 in a C150 it increases from 1800 hours to 2160. And for the o320 it goes up from 2000 hours to 2400.

I know of one school that if this regulation was introduced tomorrow would reslt in 2 of there 3 aircraft being "grounded" one of hours the other on time.

And Peter this does make a big difference to a schools bottom line. Its logbook that wear our engines rather than flying hours.

Perhaps what even more stupid is that this regulation that EASA are looking at bringing on only applies to ab intio training so if a customer/student need refresher training, renewal or revalidation training then this TBO requirement doesn't apply.

Madness

Just had a word with my service centre on all this. They told me that the notion that EASA governs all is still pretty theoretical. Each country still interprets the EASA rules as they see fit, at least for now.

As an example: Tomjnx mentioned how FOCA treats props. The Dutch CAA would never allow this, as they reason that no-one other than the manufacturer of the prop has the right Non-Destructive Testing equipment to detect internal cracks for instance, so just do an overhaul as per the manufacturers' instructions.