I am in the process of putting my Bonanza onto the G Reg and have been told today that my engine will need to be replaced because it is twelve years old although it has only done 600 hours so is nowhere near TBO.
This is apparently because the Bonanza is now an EASA aircraft and the new EASA rules specifiy that the engines must be replaced at 12 years or tbo whichever is sooner.
To say I am shocked and p**sed off is an understatement. How did my engine get less safe because it passed the 12 year old mark I will never know.
I have spent hours tonight on the EASA website trying to find details of this regualtion which my maintenance shop think is applicable. Can anyone here help point me to where I can read about this.
Only thing is that the document you have pointed to was dated 1998 but I know this limit didnt wasnt mandatory to CAA Public or Pivate CofA's and apparently only now has come in under EASA. What I want to know is where in the rules it says this.
Yes I have thought of that but then that begs the question of whether it is worth doing that either because I have not got an FAA IR and I cant see my finding time to do it in the next couple of years due to work and children.
Also I am not sure it would be worth it given the seemingly inevitable charge to ban N Reg ops in the UK which is a different debate.
Does anybody know about EASA and this engine life rule. Please help?
I've come across the same problem recently, on a G aircraft, and while it was not on an engine it was concerning the previously-optional and now-under-EASA-mandatory overhaul of a certain airframe component.
As nobody had previously overhauled this component (no need to, ever) the manufacturer has never bothered to produce the right parts for the overhaul. Now, suddenly, a number of owners are stuffed with having to do this completely unnecessary job.
You should have stayed on N. Why did you go N originally?
If you have the IMC Rating and are a good current instrument pilot, then (having first passed the IR written in the UK, a few months' revision for a family man like you or me who can spare little time) you can get an FAA IR in Florida in 2 weeks max. With the right training over here (plenty of freelance CFIIs about) you can do it in a Monday-Friday session. YOU'VE GOT TO DO THIS CR@P ONLY ONCE PER LIFE and then you will have fantastic privileges, worldwide.
And if you aren't flying much then a transfer to N never made sense; N is more expensive than G on practically every maintenance front. N is for high-time pilots who use IFR to go places.
It also doesn't make sense to go N to G just because you have bought into the fears exactly as certain parties want you to do. In the unlikely case the DFT finds a way to kill off N, they will have to give everybody plenty of time. THEN you can go back to G, or sell the aircraft to somebody outside the UK.
There is no way all of Europe will ban N unless EASA do it and that would take years. Their latest proposals are actually not to ban N but to subject it to EASA maintenance requirements. But EASA is gradually taking FAA certification on board anyway, much to the CAAs disgust.
There seems to be a lot of myths being passed around regarding EASA. For private operations EASA are currently only responsible for certification issues. Maintenance stays with the CAA until 2007/2008, when EASA Part M comes in. Even than there will be few changes to the actual maintenance requirements.
With the exception of changes the AWN 75 (Prop inspections) there have been no changes to maintenance requirements because of EASA. There is no extra work or overhauls to do because of EASA.
Stuart If your engine meets the requirements of AWN 35 (Piston engine O/H lifes), which I think it does based on the information supplied, there is no reason why it should not go G-
I am afraid it is true as I have had the documentation through from the CAA now. If you put a plane on the G Reg it must have its engine replaced (or overhauled) after a specified time or hours. The specified time in my case and most engines was 12 years but after that time it seems it can be used on a private use basis but on condition of a 100 hours engine inspection.
You can have a 20% time or hours extension and continue to use it for public use but only if it was previously on the G Reg for the last 200 hours before it expired. You can also appeal to the CAA against this and that is what I am currently doing. Hopefully the fact that my engine is only 600 hours old and had a top end overhaul 0 hours ago will see sense prevail.
It looks like there will be many planes making it back across the Atlantic before their time expires here.
Ironically I purchased this plane from Germany just before the engine was 12 years old. The owner was selling it because he didnt want to go to the expense of putting a new engine in as Germany have had the 12 year rule for some time I believe.
Hmm thats a daft comment. Thats not allowing for the aeroplane bug. I know it is not common sense to own a plane but then for the few precious days when my family go to France for lunch and back to Northern England I will pay the price I suppose.
What we are seeing here is another clasic case of the CAA changing the rules to the new EASA rules (they have no choice) but failing to check how the EASA rules will affect other related unique CAA Rules.
This EASA rule does not have such an effect in other countries because unlike the UK, aircraft on a private C of A can be used for;
Flight Instruction; and
Hired for private use.
In other countries Flight Instruction is not Aerial Work so most of the training fleets are on private category C of As.
Thus the CAA have taken away one part of their own unique system but kept the bits that should go also so that there is no real change.
My engineer is interpreting this as meaning that engines in aircraft used for what was called 'public cat' under CAA will have to comply with manufacturers recommendations, which are 10yrs plus 20% extension for Lycomings and 12 yrs apparently for Continental. I wonder how many operators in the US comply with these 'recommendations'?
If the aircraft is used 'privately' then it can go on condition as before, but I am not sure of the implications of the 100Hr 'engine check' referred to above. Will EASA allow 100Hr airframe checks as well, in line with their 'manufacterers recommendation' policy?
Of course the law of unintended consequences may apply here because in reality most 'public cat' engines would reach 2000 hrs long before 10yrs, so no problem. The difficulty is with aircraft that have changed use or the case where occasional public cat operations are convenient to otherwise private owners.