Engine TBO & IFR flying - new rules comming?

[FlyForFunSweden]

Hello all!

I talked to someone who said that there are new rules coming which will make it not allowed to fly IFR with a engine overhauled more than 12-years ago (which is the Lycoming recomendation). Apparently these rules are supposed to become effective this spring.

True or not?

I have Googled but didn't find anything, so I posted this thread. Anybody got the lowdown on this issue?

I have a engine overhauled 17 years ago but with only 450 hours on it and in perfect condition. So it would be very annoying if it was true!

But perhaps this is only true for commercial use?

Thanks for any input on where to find the EASA texts on this!

P

[wsmempson]

I hadn't heard that, but what is true in the UK is that the TBO is by hours usage and time - for the IO-540 in my Saratoga it is 2,000hrs or 12 years (plus 20% at the discretion of the maintenance outfit you use) so 14.4 years or 2,400hrs. Within this time the aircraft can be used on an AOC and for public transport work. After this, it is on what equates to the old private cat C of A, so no rentals, etc.

As for no IFR, i hadn't heard that one!

[FlyForFunSweden]

Yep, I have heard that about the 20% on time applying also - sadly I am passed that. Although why we effectively have two levels of airworthiness is wierd. I mean either an aircraft is airworthy or not in my opinion! To say "well this aircraft is airworthy, but that one is airworthier" is strange.

The reason I am wondering is that I am pondering this is that I am just starting my IFR schooling and I would like to take lessons in my own machine (a old PA-28). Sadly here in Sweden (same in UK?) you must maintain it with a 145 shop and "Controlled enviroment" and THEN register it to a school (at a fee! of approx 2000£!) to be able to use it.

In the USA apparently you can take lessons in your own machine without the hassle. Seems much more sensible.

[wsmempson]

these are the rules here

http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadbasic/pamslight-D6E34F14E6924CEF6C0E043D6AB84346/7FE5QZZF3FXUS/EN/AIC/W/001-2011/EG_Circ_2011_W_001_en_2011-01-27.pdf

But it does say that things are likely to change in April 2012 to something else...

[peterh337]

I do vaguely recall reading something about an engine past 12 years disqualifying the aircraft for IFR.

It's probably a drafting cockup. But one never knows. Unfortunately I don't read the massive proposals from EASA anymore (which is their intention - to make sure nobody reads them).

In the USA apparently you can take lessons in your own machine without the hassle. Seems much more sensible.

You can do that anyway. In what circumstances cannot you do that in Sweden? I have just done the JAA IR in my own aircraft.

It would be totally mad if you could not get training in your own aircraft.

There are scenarios here in the UK where you cannot get training in certain aircraft if you pay the instructor:

- non UK registered, and there are more than 4 owners (or 4 Directors if owned by a Ltd Co)

- possibly some Permit aircraft (non ICAO CofA) scenarios, which I don't know anything about

[FlyForFunSweden]

Hehe, mad? Business as usual more like it!

It would be totally mad if you could not get training in your own aircraft.Yes that's what I said! I wrote the Swedish equivalent of CAA = Transportstyrelsen and they said as follows.

A) A flight instructor is not allowed to give lessons ad-hoc, unpaid or not. If it's PPL studies training must be performed by a RF = Registered Facility, or if IR och CPL a FTO = Flight Training Organization.

B) Only aircraft registered on the RF or FTO permit are allowed to be used for training. (which a whooping charge for the privilege of placing a AC on the schools permit - negating any savings).

C) Since the RF or FTO are charging for the aircraft it's commercial and the aircraft must be "public cat" maintained i.e. newer than 12 years engine under a maintenance contract with a CAMO.

D) No exceptions to the above.

So even though I have several friends who are flight instructors I can't fly with them in my own aircraft and log those hours towards my IR.

So if there is a way around it I would love to know!

Shall I take it to mean that a non-UK aircraft with only one owner could be used for training?

I looked at the PDF - nice it says I CAN use my AC to train and pay the instructor! But it contradicts what the local authorities are saying. I need to dig further and see if I can find the "motherlode" which would be the original EASA document that says the same thing and take that to the local authorities.

Thanks!

P

[wsmempson]

Good luck with anything to do with EASA....!:E

[peterh337]

A) A flight instructor is not allowed to give lessons ad-hoc, unpaid or not. If it's PPL studies training must be performed by a RF = Registered Facility, or if IR och CPL a FTO = Flight Training Organization.

B) Only aircraft registered on the RF or FTO permit are allowed to be used for training. (which a whooping charge for the privilege of placing a AC on the schools permit - negating any savings).That is true here as well but it applies only to training required for the initial award of a license or a rating.

So if you do say a PPL or an IR in your own plane, that plane needs to be "put on" the FTO's fleet. It is a simple piece of paperwork but still most FTOs won't touch it because they make more money flying their own ones, of course.

All other training e.g. recurrent training, or training towards a PPL or an IR skills test once the required hours and syllabus have been covered at an RF/FTO, can be done with a freelance instructor.

The freelance-instructor hours can be logged openly in your logbook (provided he is actually an instructor ;) ) and you can pay him if he holds a JAA CPL. But those hours cannot be used towards the 45hrs of a JAA PPL, or towards the 15/50/55hrs of a JAA IR.

Maybe Sweden has a ban on all instruction in customer-owned aircraft but that is simply mad. In that case, fly your plane here to the UK and do it here :) There are also schools in Spain where you can do it in your own (EASA reg) plane - FIS at Jerez for example.

C) Since the RF or FTO are charging for the aircraft it's commercial and the aircraft must be "public cat" maintained i.e. newer than 12 years engine under a maintenance contract with a CAMO.That is quite possible.

To be fair to the PPL and IR examiners, they have to climb into various wreckage, once or twice a day, and much of the FTO wreckage is only barely airworthy, so even though there is not a good engineering reason for taking an engine apart just because it is 12 years old, they probably like to draw the line somewhere :)

If I was doing that job I would be a lot more fussy about what I climb into.

[FlyForFunSweden]

Ha! Well good luck will be needed I guess!

I re-read the UK document on "FLYING TRAINING AND FLYING TESTS IN PRIVATE AIRCRAFT." and if I am not mistaken it said that if it was a EASA aircraft it could be used for getting a initial rating.

It is strange since it seems to contradict JAR-FCL 1 which says "Only aeroplanes approved by the Authority for training purposes shall be used".

Anyway they seem to be local to the UK and the old national UK certificates.

I don't know why it wouldn't be possible to follow a syllabus with a instructor in my own plane seen from a learning perspective, that's what you do in the USA i think? That's why they have those very clear "Practical test standards" which tell you what is expected. Great system!

But anyway I assume this is old info since after the 8 April 2012 new regs. apply (although different sates will have different effective dates).

More on the new legislation can be found in

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1178/2011 of 3 November 2011
laying down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to civil aviation aircrew pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council

which is 200 pages+ and can be found here
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:311:FULL:EN:PDF

I Googled further and realize that RF, FTO and TRTO now will be replaced with Approved Training Organisation – ATO (documented in Part-OR)

EASA Flight Standards: NPA AR / OR (http://easa.europa.eu/flightstandards/npa_ar-or.html)

So what the rules actually are is anybody's guess - but my guess is that they are complex, unnecessary, expensive, and will not benefit flying safety.

EASA is just out of control... :mad: