achimha wrote:
I think you are free to fly to the US for a haircut and back if you believe that gives you a better haircut but it is pretty rare for a European GA pilot to send engines overseas for overhaul.
Well, you are talking with one 
I did it when the $/£ was around 1.73, the work was done to “Factory New” with new camshaft, cylinders mags, etc. The O/H failed after 60-70h and the engine was shipped back at the shop’s cost to be re-overhauled. I did not want a repair (per the warranty) so then agreed to pay for the shipping. Then 90h later the engine failed again, the double gear lost a tooth so the engine went back, the shop paid one way and I paid the return. I did not enjoy it and had some sharp words with the shop owner but to his credit he took it on the chin and did his best to keep me happy and did not suggest that it was my fault or even tried to roll the blame on me.
Ben wrote:
I did not want a repair (per the warranty) so then agreed to pay for the shipping. Then 90h later the engine failed again, the double gear lost a tooth so the engine went back, the shop paid one way and I paid the return. I did not enjoy it and had some sharp words with the shop owner but to his credit he took it on the chin and did his best to keep me happy and did not suggest that it was my fault or even tried to roll the blame on me.
That is quite an unlucky situation.
It might, or might not have been the case in Ben’s situation, some tend to forget is that the parts source is quite limit, and, sometimes (or quite often) the quality of parts / workmanship of manufacturers seems to be quite low. Have had issues with multiple avionics manufacturers where new equipment is more than 100% rejected (e.g. the 2nd time it comes back is rejected again). I am aware the same is true for certain starter parts (new bendix won’t fix over shaft, or break in 1000 pieces the first time you try to start. It sometimes even occurs at more critical engine / magneto parts as well.
In my experiance this seem to happen more and more since the last 5 years or so. Strangely the mandatory reporting at CAA’s don’t seem to make any change in this.
In case like those, it is quite hard, because the installer / mechanic / overhaul shop uses new certified parts, which fail, without any wrongdoing of the pilot nor maintenance facility. Quite frustrating for both the ower, and equally for the maintenance facility.
The O/H failed after 60-70h and the engine was shipped back at the shop’s cost to be re-overhauled. I did not want a repair (per the warranty) so then agreed to pay for the shipping. Then 90h later the engine failed again, the double gear lost a tooth so the engine went back, the shop paid one way and I paid the return. I did not enjoy it and had some sharp words with the shop owner but to his credit he took it on the chin and did his best to keep me happy and did not suggest that it was my fault or even tried to roll the blame on me.
Was that by any chance a well known EASA approved shop?
Have had issues with multiple avionics manufacturers where new equipment is more than 100% rejected (e.g. the 2nd time it comes back is rejected again).
This is really bad (especially when one knows of some of the names) but the Big Q is how can the vendors get away with it. This is Europe but the same must be happening in the USA. The dealers can’t be very happy about it because they usually don’t get paid the full cost of fixing it, and for sure they don’t get covered for the loss of goodwill because the customer has had to come back several times. Somehow, it hasn’t yet hit the press in a big way. Perhaps because the aviation press is in the pockets of the advertisers? Also no pilot is going to go public because he needs to protect his dealer relationship… at least till the warranty runs out.
Peter wrote:
So running to say 2200hrs rather than 2000hrs saves you only about 1.5 quid an hour, which is below trivial. It is around 1/40 of the fuel cost.
It only shows that the real reason to do maintenance is to be able to fly where and when you want (when you do want to fly) without worrying about maintenance. It’s a question of availability and how much you dislike the nuisance of unplanned maintenance destroying planned trips. If 1.5 (an hour) is all it takes, then this is truly worth it. Besides, people who are free to maintain themselves (experimentals and microlight), always do more maintenance, not less.
Peter wrote:
Was that by any chance a well known EASA approved shop?
No, it was a known and a very respected regional shop in Florida that came up top in the Aviation Consumer survey. I was told by them that the camshaft might had bad metal that caused the shavings that took the lifter, the valves and the rings, as for the broken gear the photos that were sent showed an inclusion right at the centre of the broken tooth. Why it took about 4000h before it broke and why it broke when it did no one can say.
I went public on the US forums and named the shop, I don’t have any bad feelings about them, I think that they were honourable honoured their warranty and kept their word, they have re overhauled the engine and paid for transportation (although all they had to do is a repair), they were very good to me.
Will I use them again? If I was in the US the answer would be yes, however, being here and having to send the engine twice (within a 2 years period, winter 2003 and then winter 2004) is a pain as the aircraft is down for several months, however, I have saved about £10k on the price but paid with down time.
By the way. I have ran the engine to 2740h before it needed an O/H.
Michael wrote:
You now elect to extend the engine life by 10% (200 hours) your books will show a net positive of £3,000 on the engine reserve.
If the plane is actually rented out and generating income, that’s a real take-it-to-the-bank 3 grand Sterling .
Is it legal to go beyond TBO on planes that are rented out? Can it be dependent on the CAA, or even on the CAMO organization?
tmo wrote:
Is it legal to go beyond TBO on planes that are rented out?
On FAA register, yes.
Can it be dependent on the CAA, or even on the CAMO organization?
Probably, let’s see what the EASA experts have to say .
It’s ok in Germany if you rent it out on a private basis
I have an engine away at LOMA in Belgium at the moment. I’ll report how it goes when it comes back in a few weeks.
