Peter asked the status on my behalf.
The French regs change on this matter is from Feb 2020. Until then engines were limited to 120% TBO (as stated by Steve6443 above).
How much fighting went on until that change, I don’t know.
Can you send me further details? I have been part of an EASA meeting about implementation experience of Part ML and it did not seem to me that any NAA was very reluctant to oppose EASAs stance on the TBO on any flight outside of an AOC (Basically on any Part-ML maintained aircraft).
If you have known issues with any CAA, I would be glad to collect the cases and advise AOPA about this.
No EU country can enforce it for NCO operation sub 2730kg.
In Denmark we are still fighting to be able to use on condition airplanes for school flight, and importing an airplane to Danish register is simply not possible with an 12+ years old engine (even from another EASA country!).
We can shout all we want about EU and EASA but they just refuse.
The latest is a slight opening from CAA about flight training, but we are still decoding the conditions, and for commercial flight schools it is a plain NO.
Snoopy wrote:
No EU country can enforce it for NCO operation sub 2730kg.
…and also not for night VFR or IFR. Part-ML rules.
No EU country can enforce it for NCO operation sub 2730kg.
Is there any European country which enforces TBO (or TBO+20% / 12 years / etc) for privately operated planes?
What about night flight, or IFR?
We have had various threads on this over the years and it appears to be illegal now for a CAA to require this.
But negotiations aren’t with EASA but within EASA and in the case of France that involves the DGAC having its say. Ot doesn’t get to the department for transport until later when the wording has to be signed off under EU terms
don’t you think that that’s what the NAA’s wanted when they agreed the wording within EASA?
Most of them, for sure. NAAs like to support the industry which pays them annual fees for organisational approvals.
gallois wrote:
@Malibuflyer don’t you think that that’s what the NAA’s wanted when they agreed the wording within EASA?
No – simply because NAAs do not agree wording with EASA. The negotiation process is between the ministries of transport (or equivalent) and the commission – not between the NAAs and EASA.
But yes: It’s quite clear that member states have different interests and also different definitions of “commercial” in their tax laws…
@Malibuflyer don’t you think that that’s what the NAA’s wanted when they agreed the wording within EASA?
