Indeed. OEM TBOs are
recommended in the USA.
The only way this could be disastrous is if manufacturers decide to change recommended to mandatory TBO. I think that would cause an absolute uproar in the US and their politically savvy alphabet groups would surely knock it on the head as 'unconstitutional' or some such.
The basic fact is that the
most dangerous period from an engine failure point of view is the first 3-400 hrs post overhaul/from new. If the engine is running fine at 1700 hrs it likely will be at 2400 hrs.
In the end though I suppose most GA engines are not doing the annual hours that helps ensure trouble free running post TBO. That is a double edged sword too....low utilisation is likely to mean the engine has been topped pre TBO...which means the engine is even MORE likely to be safe beyond TBO.
Lets face it, the bottom ends are pretty bullet proof.
Are we facing a situation where fear of litigation is negating the very design basis of the engines where individual parts can be exchanged as needed, cylinders, valves, magnetos etc, rather than overhauling the engine just because a date or time in service has arrived?
I overhauled my IO550B at TBO+ 10% and did so with a heavy heart as it was running like a swiss watch. Had I known then what I know now that engine would be 400 hrs past TBO today and likely still running strong. The cylinders only had 800 hrs (the engine had been topped long before I bought the aircraft) in service when I pulled them during overhaul and replaced them with new Millenniums. The bottom end/crankcase are as delivered from the factory, merely checked and found to be within tolerances and reinstalled
Or are we dealing with a meddling moron?