there's hope
Hi again
Like most respondents I would like to see engine operation beyond the manufacturers TBO allowed in some format if its not going to be AD/ENG/4 current amendment.
My customers would all agree to a few more guidelines if they were based on real world experiences. For example an engine say used in mustering ops doing 400+ hrs a year has a much better chance of achieving high time in service than a private owners aircraft near the coast doing 30hrs annually.
I see nothing wrong with establishing guidelines for annual utilization or for the frequency of oil/filter changes and component inspection/testing. There may be other criteria as well.
As previously stated, each operator having discussed the process with their LAME long before the overhaul time comes due should include their system on the log book statement.
How about anyone who's interested, contribute their ideas for a better AD/ENG/4, post them here. Sorry I just don't accept the current wording or implementation of this AD is delivering the correct intent or the correct outcomes.
I've never seen or heard of an engine beyond TBO failing, not one, again I am suspicious of the reporting system not that the event has actually occurred. I have removed from service several engines beyond TBO for excessive metal production, excessive oil leaks (cracked cases), and failure to perform on ground runs. I've also had customers take aircraft elsewhere and continue the engine operation when I've thought they shouldn't. To the best of my knowledge none of these ended in in-flight failures. I guess I don't always get it right but I don't mind when the reasons are sound at the time.
I'm also surprised at the differing opinions on this thread all derived from the same legislation. Surely if you were the regulator you'd want everyone understanding the requirements better. Less money on lawyers and more on educators would be appreciated. I'd also challenge industry groups to do more eduction and less grandstanding.
Jake