Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

In which EASA country on condition Engine/Prop is allowed?

There seems to be quite some National differences in Europe on what is allowed for Private owners. Can we build a list?

Be able to fly yu engine on-condition may have a huge financial impact.. rgds Vref

EBST

The UK allows it, certainly.

Be able to fly yu engine on-condition may have a huge financial impact

It probably depends on the history of the ownership.

If you buy a plane with 1999 hrs on the engine, and you are allowed to run "on condition" then it is worth a lot more than if you had to overhaul at 2000hrs

But if you have owned it for some time, then it matters much less. For example, if the OH costs £20k, that comes to £10/hr on the engine fund. If you "hope" to stretch it to 2500hrs then the engine fund comes to £8/hr i.e. a saving of just £2/hr, which is a miniscule fraction of what you are paying for fuel etc. And that assumes that the 2000hr OH will cost the same as the 2500hr OH, which is debatable.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

OK, this is valid mainly when purchasing another aircraft in today's buyers market you can find nice aircraft with an engine reaching TBO but still in fairly good condition. it is much more expensive to update an older airframe with newer avionics then (if your lucky) to continue to fly with an on condition engine and pay for the overhaul when there are no more options left over...Upgrading to mode S, GNS430 some radio's etc...My experience so far is that modern avionics are quit reliable, however engines aren't specially when not knowing the history... The on-condition engine may be a much better shape then the 300 Hrs since TBO ..?

EBST

The problem is that an engine with 2500 hrs is more reliable than a 0hrs overhauled engine. I think on condition is not a bad concept. Most engine failures can be diagnosed with engine monitoring and oil tests. I just had my engine and components overhauled. Within 27 hrs, I had a governor (overhauled) and magneto (new) failure.

EGBE - Coventry

Yes; it all depends on what you want to use it for, and your attitude to risk.

Personally, I would initially spend money on making sure the bits that could kill you are as good as possible.

So if I was buying a used plane, and the engine had say 1500hrs on it, I would get it overhauled by a reputable engine shop before doing any significant flying on it.

Same with the prop. If a blade comes out, it's game over.

You can never know the history of e.g. prop strikes for sure. It's easy to conceal repairs or unscheduled maintenance work. A lot of such work is not entered directly into the aircraft logbooks; instead, the firm doing it generates a logbook entry, which is a standalone sheet, which you are supposed to insert into your logbook. If you get the work done by a firm other than the usual one ... You get the idea, I am sure.

Prop strikes are amazingly common. I had one, in a pothole, with an instructor in the RHS, when my brand new plane had just 1 hour on it This was 2002, and back then it was permissible (G-reg) to skip the shock load inspection if none of the prop blades had to be removed for repair. One firm kindly offered to file off the last 20mm from each blade - job done! I didn't pick that option Result: £20k.

But then I do a fair number of long trips, over the Alps, etc.

Avionics are not going to kill you... Well not unless you are doing something fairly radical But if you want IFR capability then all that has to work 100% too.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Well it needs to be seen on a case by case I think.. So back to the list OC main components Private use

  • Germany prop engine allowed
  • UK prop engine allowed
  • Hungary Not allowed engine can go beyond calender time <TBO
  • Belgium (not sure I think max 20%> TBO (to be confirmed)
  • France ?
  • Netherlands
  • etc...
EBST

In Italy not allowed.

Happy only when flying
Sabaudia airstrip

In Holland on condition is allowed. You have to apply for an on condition program and go through some paper work. There are some requirements and some parts of the engine (even some engine manufacturers) are excluded. For more details:

The Dutch requirements look a little tough. To my understanding, you have to fly at least 1 hour a month and 15 hours in six months to keep your engine operating "on condition". There are plenty of aircraft in UK that don't meet those requirements but still operate "on condition" under CAA UK's oversight.

As Peter says, legality and paperwork is one thing, reality over decades in private ownership (regardless of country) is another... and relatively interesting if you own (or are buying) the hardware. My Lycoming was manufactured forty years ago and by reliable word of mouth and lack of leaks I know what happened in 2000. Total time is about 1000 hrs since new and it runs really well with the fancy new $13K prop it got at that time, with paperwork. The owner was heavily involved in very well funded automotive racing activities. It's a good engine, examined very closely by me and maintained 'on condition' since 1971.

This was a good bargaining point when I bought the aircraft .

14 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top