On condition engines

[Arnold E]

Fact is ......yes

[Arnold E]

dont know why reply ended up in front of question

[swh]

Are people still being able to get engines flown beyond the manufacturers tbo for pvt and aerial work ?

Some say yes, some no. What is the truth ?

[poteroo]

Yes.

LAMES approve them according to quite valid engineering guidelines.

But ask your insurer if they will continue cover for the level of flying you intend.

The answer might be interesting.

happy days

[FokkerInYour12]

Not charter though....grrr

[VH-BCY]

Yes it does happen quite a lot, however, the number of maintenance shops signing them out is decreasing at a rapid rate. It depends on what relationship you have with the shop.
Good point Poteroo. I must check with my insurers as I have a few that are "on condition". :{

[Jabawocky]

Has anyone ever made a study of the number of failures in the first 100 hours after rebuild compared to the first 100 after TBO on condition?

And to make the comparison even more one sided sompare those past TBO's for say 200 or more hours.

I have a feeling a good engine at TBO statistically is more reliable. But would love to see if that is true.

[Avgas172]

My 172 engine has just gone OC, with only 450hrs TSN, the LAME has ok'ed it for the next 100 hourly but as I understand it's na for Charter but ok for private hire & I'll also check with the insurer on status, .... not like the buggers haven't haven't made enough out of it over the past 45 years though ... :ugh:

[baron_beeza]

Good answer Jaba. I certify engines on-condition and it is really the accessories that need the careful inspection and consideration.
I am a firm believer of 'On-Condition' engines.. at least you know what you have got.

I have seen figures like you spoke of, from memory it was something like 6 times more likely to fail in the first 50 hours after overhaul compared to keeping it in service.
You can play with the figures any which way of course... I will post a few links here to some of the American views on it.

The Savvy Aviator #4: Debunking TBO (http://www.avweb.com/news/savvyaviator/187037-1.html)

The Savvy Aviator #45: How Risky Is Going Past TBO? (http://www.avweb.com/news/savvyaviator/savvy_aviator_45_how_risky_is_going_past_tbo_195241-1.html)

The Savvy Aviator #48: Reliability-Centered Maintenance (Part 2) (http://www.avweb.com/news/savvyaviator/savvy_aviator_48_reliability-centered_maintenance_part_2_195969-1.html)

The carb and mags really need to be in good condition, - no engine will be reliable if you have adverse wear in these components. Given that the components are serviceable then the engine should be able to continue in service subject to satisfactory completion of the On-condition check list.

[Jabawocky]

Beeza :ok:Just what I suspected.

While not a LAME, as an engineer the articles you linked line up with what I expected.

With 500hrs in just over 2 years I will be expecting to hit TBO in 2018 and hopefully a new engine in 2020.:)

[baron_beeza]

I should have added that TBO is just based on hours. Not all that relevant compared to the environment, utilisation, type of operation and type of maintenance, - oils used etc..
There is now a calendar catch on TBO also but that really just tries to address the low utilisation aspect of some engines.

Modern oils such as Philips XC20/50 and Philips anti-rust oil are just so much better in my opinion. I have heard so many good news stories and it makes it difficult to compare hours to hours, apples to oranges etc..

The NZ leaflet on running engines On-Condition stresses the need for the engines to run hot also. I have seen many engines in this country that had previously been running far too cold. I could not believe my eyes when I saw the ball in the OPRV of one engine red rusty and pitted. What chance did that poor engine have ?

[RadioSaigon]

Yeah BB... those "on condition" engines just never seem to quit. Remember Fat Fingers and the PA28-235 of his? As I recall that engine ran "on condition" for bloody years!!!

[jas24zzk]

Lets face it,
your whole airframe passes every 100 hourly/annual 'on condition' anyway. The sum of the parts is only as good as the attention to detail.

I've seen 'owners' approach on condition in a couple of different ways recently, and the results have been surprising. Being able to fly both aircraft, and note the differences in performance/oil burn etc has been quite interesting. The performance drop off on the 172 in q has been amazing to see, as its oil burn levels.

Some say running them on condition will cost you in the long run, some say it won't if you handle it with a management plan, (which in my opinion should have been implemented at hour zero). The well managed ones I have flown, you wouldn't know.

No different to anything mechanical really.

[Clearedtoreenter]

I once owned a 2200 hour O360 Lycoming - ran like clockwork, super smooth, never missed a beat and over 10 hours per litre of oil. Would probably still be running fine now if it had been allowed. I guess we cannot blame LAME's for being reluctant to sign them out though... I wouldn't if it was my livelyhood at stake, even if risk is minimal.

[PA39]

AS long as the engine stays within the parameters of leakdown, oil consumption, oil analysis, filter cut etc.. I had a twin of which the engines were factory new in 1975 had 1400 hrs on them in 2005 and didn't use a drop of oil and had absolutely no leaks. Compressions all 70's/80. Its the components that you must look at especially the mags and FCU's, lines, hoses etc. Personally i don't go much on the chronological age of the engines but the condition and maintenance is very important. I often liken aircraft engines to taxis....some can be only twelve months old but have done a million k's. Don't agree with the 12 yr life for chtr also.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Be very clear, the manufacturers only publish a RECOMMENDED TBO, there is nothing sacrosanct about the number.

For years before the "on condition" CAAP was published, most of the big commercial operators of PA31 etc had engine life extension programs, a typical extension for a Chieftain or similar was 2600 hours, and long term statistics showed NO ADVERSE reliability trend.

The enemy for seldom used engines is rust!!

Tootle pip!!

PS: The yanks have almost 100 years of experience, with 100s of 1000s of engines running on condition, including thousands of big radial in the days of piston engine RPT (likewise Australia), what more proof do you need.

Insurance company restrictions --- because they can, no competition in Australia, and they have been lobbied very heavily by those who overhaul engines in AU --- surprise, surprise. Believe me, LAMEs (with honourable exceptions) are not necessarily the experts on engine life.

[Jabawocky]

Leadie,

Believe me, LAMEs (with honourable exceptions) are not necessarily the experts on engine life.

Aint that the truth! :ok:

And a few other things about engines I have found.

[Widewoodenwingswork]

LAME's might not be the experts on engine life, however, they sign the MR and may end up in the big house if they don't follow the recommendations.

The best thing you can do is build a strong relationship with your facility and get their opinion on "on condition" engines (early in the engines life, not 20 hours TBO). If you don't like their opinion, feel free to get another opinion. Once you have built a good relationship, stick with the one shop if you can help it.

I've seen O-320's that have done WELL over 4000hrs, I'm under no illusions that they can go the distance, and based on that, I would have no qualms signing out an "on condition" engine if I:

- knew the history of the engine
- knew the operator
- knew that the operator understood what liability I was undertaking while trying to save him some money.

At the end of the day, I believe that getting an engine "on condition" is a privilege, not a right.

[Jabawocky]

WWWW

I've seen O-320's that have done WELL over 4000hrs, I'm under no illusions that they can go the distance, and based on that, I would have no qualms signing out an "on condition" engine if I:

- knew the history of the engine
- knew the operator
- knew that the operator understood what liability I was undertaking while trying to save him some money.


That is a pragmatic approach :ok:

As for a privilege not a right. I do not think so. It is not a privilege, nor a right, it is an analysis of facts, many of which are covered in your comments above.

[baron_beeza]

I agree with most of the last few posts, - basically that is how it is.

Certainly the operator has to be factored in, - some are just too pushy or dare I say, even devious. Any suspicion of doctored oil consumption figures, secret filter changes, or otherwise 'economical with the truth' then it all stops.

It happens.

Some pilots are just hopeless also... the operators can be difficult customers.

What do you think the chances are of this character getting beyond TBO on his engine ?

Piper Tomahawk maintenance brakes - YouTube

[jas24zzk]

The term silly old **** comes to mind.

He's gunna just clean the bottom plugs and put em back in!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I might be just a dumb panel beater...however.............

Clean,
Gap
Run on a tester.

(or buy new ones....which i run on a tester anyway!)


He's worried about spending 800 on his annual. BIG F*CKING FIZZ!!!

The brakes on his Audi are gunna cost him that just for the front pads..............forget the rest of the service!

And this ladies is what we are talking about, tight wads expecting the world for free.

[27/09]

What do you think the chances are of this character getting beyond TBO on his engine ?

There's a few more questions you could ask about this guy, like;

What do you think the chances are of this character recording every hour in the aircraft logbooks?

What do you think the chances are of this character actually getting the 100 or annual hourly done by a qualified person?

WTF was the need to bleed the brakes anyway? Oh and the reference to the spanner sizes in metric seems a bit odd for a Yank.

I did wonder for a moment that he might be taking the piss, but I decided he was for real. :(

[Avgas172]

it's not rocket science on these 'aging' aircraft just basic mechanics circa 1950 .... no need to sell it beyond what it is, hence the upsurge in LSA and the continued downward graveyard spiral in the GA community. And as for the $800 ... I wish, try more like $2500 in Aus. and that is if every thing is good, and it mostly is a F#*@ing rip off. Having had that rant, I love my LAME and my personal plane has been serviced by the same shop for 40 years. :D

[Engineer_aus]

Has anyone seen the new rules CASA want to bring in. It is going to ground probably over 70% of private aircraft due to the calender life has run out. From what I understand no more on condition either.

[jas24zzk]

Engineer...hasn't calender life been around for a longtime?

I know of several engines of late that have not reached TBO but have been pinged on calender.....tho all were in AWK.

[jas24zzk]

Has anyone seen the new rules CASA want to bring in. It is going to ground probably over 70% of private aircraft due to the calender life has run out. From what I understand no more on condition either.


Further to my above post, infornmation like this is useless without a link, or reference. After that it is hyperbole, as it gives us nothing to consider other than a rumour.

Sh*t!!!!!!!!! i forget this is a rumour network!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

keep up the good work :ok:

[kingtoad]

Another big factor is the hangarkeepers liability insurance (professional indemnity) that your LAME has will impact his ability to sign engines out 'on condition'. Some policies allow it, some limit 'on condition' to a 10% overrun - others won't cover it at all.

[blackhand]

Another big factor is the hangarkeepers liability insurance

And that is the salient point.
The company with my insurance coverage has stated that If I release an aircraft or component to service outside the manufacturers recommendations I accept the liability for it, not them. So short answer is - not on my signature.