A and C
Thanks for the very sound advise. I totally agree that a thorough inspection needs to take place but unforntunately, if you send the prop for overhaul it will end up having material removed.
Since my initial post, I have spent some time going through EASA M.A 302 and have come to the following conclusions.
In para 3 covering ELA 1 aircraft not in commercial used, it states that the maintenance programme SHALL include all mandatory continuing airworthiness requirements such as repetitive Airworthiness Directives , the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued Airwortiness (ICA) and specific requirements contained in the Type Certificate Data Sheet.
As McCauley state the overhaul requirements in the Operator Manual which states in the introduction that the manual gives Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA), I believe their instructions must be mandated in the SDMP.
It is however worth noting that M.A 302 goes on to say that maintenance recommendations, such as TBOs recommended through service bulletins or other non mandatory service information needs to be "taken into consideration" in the SDMP. This appears to open the door to some discretion subject to sound engineering reasoning.
The bottom line for me is that I have ordered a Sensenich prop and spinner without the 6 year calender overhaul requirement.
The concept of engineering discretion by appropriately qualified and knowledgible people is an interesting one. The Cessna maintenance manual requires the pitot / static hoses to be replaced every 10 years !!!!!
I have spoken to a number of highly reputable maintenance organisations that do not apply this maintenance requirement on the basis of satisfactory annual pitot static leak check and general inspection.
Where do you draw the line especially if the underlying engineering judgement is sound ????