EASA have released their response on TBOs

Not wishing to minimise some daft EASA reg, but

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

is not clear to me.

The difference on the engine fund between say 2000hrs and say 2400hrs is just 20%. On my plane, IO540-C4, overhaul $40k (USA top shop, including shipping) is $20/hr versus $16.66 i.e. £2.20/hr i.e. insignificant against the ~ £80/hr fuel bill. That's why I would never run past 2000hrs - there is simply no point at all. A Cessna 152 will be a far smaller difference.

My guess is that school engine fund figures are very different because they buy an old shagged plane with say 1800hrs on the engine and then it makes a big difference whether they have to pay out the £15k overhaul cost 200hrs later or 600hrs later.

The value of the shagged old plane is much the same before or after... or is it?

Obviously if the operator does not have the cash for the overhaul at all (the case for many private owners and syndicates, for sure) then if he has an 1800hr plane the difference between running to 2000hrs and 2400hrs is "everything".

But then how can such a school operate at all, because at whatever point you reach the "end game" (2000 or 2400) the plane will be worth only scrap and the school will go bust. So you lose almost everything you paid for it.

One has to run some sort of engine fund.

Actually Aart

I believe the dutch caa allows for "on condition" for things like props and engines as long as it is not for commercial use. (What is an fto?) and as long as a good log is kept for at least more than half its lifelimit which has to give you a good insight into the state of the object.

Interesting. TBO's are recommendations for a flight school here in the US. The biggest problem with engines is not being used often enough. We ran all our C172's to 2400 hours and the C152 to 2800 hours. Only one C152 didn't make it the distance, it developed a crack in the case at around 1700 hours and we replaced the engine. Cylinders are treated like the bolt on accessories that they are, just like an alternator. We did 25 hour oil and filter changes, oil analysis, 50 hour inspections and 100 hour inspections. Only the 100 hour inspections were required and we would do a borescope on the top end. The most dangerous flight was the first few after the engine was overhauled. Which engine would you want to take across a body of water, one that was 50 hours since overhaul or one that had good compressions, developed normal power, had regular oil changes with oil monitoring, and a proven trouble free history but 200 hours beyond TBO. Give me the one that has demonstrated it is reliable.

Very interesting that you were doing oil analysis, NCYankee. I wonder how many European commercial operators do that? Very close to zero, I would bet.

And borescoping the cylinders... what sort of stuff did you find doing that? I understand that a bad piston pin failure might just about show up that way.

Commander,

Have a look at page 7, para 4. Props are a no-no for 'on-condition' maintenance, along with other equipment.

Here is a list of equipment that can be maintained on-condition (note that one particular prop type is allowed..):

EASA appears to have withdrawn/postponed this

PDF

Yes, the german AOPA was the main force behind this. The above decision and the accompanying AMC created a huge uproar in Germany.

The LBA has always been the most “liberal” of the european CAAs in terms of TBO extensions. As a consequence, most if not all privately operated aircraft in Germany have a few components (usually engine and prop) over TBO.

Hence, a decision which might be considered progress in some other countries would have been a huge step backwards and the death of GA in Germany. Let’s see how this goes ahead.

Anyway, I do put some hope into Mr. Ky for the future. Goudou was really GA’s worst nightmare for way too many years…

It would have been the death of GA in all of Europe, and specifically Germany, UK, France i.e. the major centres of GA activity.

It would not have been allowed to happen in the end (by the national CAAs) but would have driven everybody (except in France where they all “know” the DGAC will look after them in the end) crazy and killed the used market in the meantime. A lot of planes would have ended up on the scrap heap before it would have been sorted out.

Boscomantico: would you happen to know what the actual guidelines for TBO extensions – both in terms of years as well as hours – in Germany for club machines are, which are NOT being used for “ab initio training”? Just curious……