Folks,
Just to remind the man with the "light sabre" complex, US (at least) engine manufacturers do not publish TBO, they publish "recommended" TBO, a not very subtle difference.
As for FAA requirements (after all, the number of aircraft in the US makes for statistically significant data) see the regulations applying to type of operation, ie: Part 91, 125, 135 etc.
Tootle pip!!

We do it every time we go flying.

And we know why you don't understand that.

And you're living in blissful ignorance, believing that stopping on-condition maintenance is going to stop someone taking you to court.

Lighten up obi. Anyone would think you were curing cancer or something!

Some people in this industry seriously have a severe case of figjam.

Running a spell check wouldn't hurt either.

obi_wan2015 clearly went to the same school as yr right. Or they're related. Or yr right has been reincarnated just like the original obi wan! I'm sure that ridiculous writing style is done deliberately to annoy everyone else. If so, its certainly working a treat with me..!:ugh:

Then don't do it.

Get it?

Just don't do it.

You'll feel better and we won't have to wade through your waffle to get to the important stuff.

And the really dumb thing is that you will be blissfully ignorant of your exposure when you fit that new engine in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendation. But clearly, blissful ignorance is your area of expertise. :ok:

I don't know why casa bothers about TBO's . When you think about it every engine flies 'on condition'. If a 1800 hr TBO engine chucks a con rod through the block at 50 hrs you don't just carry on for another 1,750 hrs because casa said it should be good for that time.

It all comes down to the mode of failure in high time engines. If impending failure gives plenty of warning then why not run them till you get tired of topping up the oil.

It appears that catastrophic failure is much more likely to occur early in an engine's life or as a result of maintenance errors than it is due to high time.

Even underutilized engines generally do not fail catastrophically. They simply wear out quicker than frequently used engines.

If casa wants to do something to help GA it would be better employed tuning up the suppliers of aviation parts and supplies. In my association with aviation I have survived the biggest fuel contamination scandal to occur anywhere in the world, TCM cylinders belling out the tops of their cylinders, Lycoming killing people with dodgy crankshafts, TCM neglecting to do adequate quality control resulting in a rash of improperly case hardened followers and thus ruined cam shafts. Now we have TCM selling new cylinders which don't seal properly brand new from the factory causing more expense as Aust engine rebuilders have to check all of them and reseat many. These are just problems that have affected me . There are plenty more.

All of the above list has cost operators collectively millions and what happened to the perpetrators ? nothing ? a slap on the face with a 3 day old lettuce leaf ? Not much that's for sure because every couple of years they manage to inflict some new expensive,dangerous blight on our industry.

Oversight of these companies by casa with half the enthusiasm they they have for trashing perfectly good engines would bring about a safer, more affordable and happier GA community.

Rutan around:

And think of all those lovely overseas conferences and fact finding missions such a policy would generate…...

Where did 10 years rather than the Usual manufacturers' 12 come from?

Are CASA just trying to make sure we're really really really safe? Yes, I guess so. Pricing GA operators out of the industry for no particular safety benefit should be in their vision statement.

You just don't get it, obi. But that's understandable: You have a very narrow experience that just happens to be repeated over and over.

Who is it that signs for and takes responsibility for the daily inspection? Not the engineer that signed the MR. As rutan around has pointed out, the fact that some LAME has signed an MR does not absolve the pilot from responsibility for spotting the loose spark plug lead, or that 9 quarts of oil had been added by the LAME without draining the old stuff and changing the oil filter, or the undercarriage circuit breaker that's pulled, or the ....

(When is it that pilots find the most things wrong with an aircraft? In that inspection and flight just after some LAME signed the MR.)

Who is it that has responsibility for the weight and balance calculations and loading distribution for the flight? Not the engineer that signed the MR.

Who is it that has responsibility for the fuel load and calculations? Not the engineer that signed the MR.

Who is that has responsibility for the landing and take-off distance and obstacle clearance calculations? Not the engineer that signed the MR.

Who is that has responsibility for reviewing and planning around the weather forecasts and NOTAMS? Not the engineer that signed the MR.

You're as bad as AVMED. You have this messianic belief that you and the manufacturer's recommendations and pieces of paper are the only bastions against aviation death and destruction. (Actually, you're worse, because you don't have the capacity to comprehend that you're at higher risk of liability when you 'sign out' a new engine than you are when you sign out one that's on condition.)

When the weather turns bad or a magneto fails because of some dodgy spark plugs fitted by some narrow-minded LAME who takes as gospel the propaganda produced by the manufacturer, believe me: That last thing pilots are reaching for and the last thing on which safety depends is your POS MR (or AVMED's POS medical certificate) and what they represent.

To add insult to injury, the owner will then have to pay to get the magneto fixed, so that the dodgy plugs can destroy that magneto as well. But who cares. It's "safe" because some LAME has signed an MR, in accordance with the manufacturer's propaganda.

Between that and privatisation of the airports, GA is all but dead. Well done, Australia!

:yuk:

Yes.

I do it already.

I'd be happy to do it on any piston engined aircraft, provided:

- the engine/s is/are at least 500 hours old

- the engines/s was/were run over that period by a pilot who knows how to run piston engines (i.e. not someone full of old wive's tales)

- the engine/s is/are fitted with an all-cylinder engine monitor, and

- the engine/s hasn't/haven't been fiddled with by engineers who don't know what they're doing, or worse, engineers who think the recommendations in maintenance manuals are the product of deep analysis and review and revision in the light of objective data.

I would Yr Right, provided it was in good condition. The odds of it failing in the next 100 hours/year are small. If it does fail, the odds are it won't be catastrophic and the aircraft in question will make it to a suitable landing field. If it is catastrophic, the odds are that the pilot will make a reasonable forced landing and if the pilot blows the landing the odds are he will be relatively uninjured anyway.

Your paranoia of the legal system and litigation is pathetic, you should really change to a "safer" industry anyway. Office work perhaps? CASA even?

Get a life!

The bigger question here is, if yr right or obi wan is actually a LAME, how is it that his daylight hours are spent posting here and not working? Please delete this thread, it's burning my eyes.... ;L

Yes, i do, every time i fly, and work with people that do, and have done for decades.. and not just piston engines..

Before this goes any further, does anybody have a link to any official CASA documents that state where/when this is to happen?

If it does and the new Board and DAS let it happen we can write off Australian private GA and any hopes that anything would change with the new Board.

If the new Board's and DAS's response to the CVD issue is anything to go by, I wouldn't be counting on too many decisions based on objective evidence and objective risk.

Now that is asking a bit much Eyrie!

Just going back to Fujii's original post that started this thread:

We have a rumour started on an airfield, then progressed to a pilots rumour network. If CASA want to bring in 10 year calendar overhauls, perhaps they started to rumour to gauge industry opinion. Looking at this thread and some of the opinions I am thinking they would get away with it.

Dripple dripple and more drippleYou might want to read up a little on the ignition process within the cylinder, and on flame front speed at various mixture strengths, and why the speed varies with mixture. Starting on the lean side, speed of the flame front increases with a richening mixture, reaches a peak at best power, and decreases as the mixture is further enriched. Of course at extreme lean and extreme rich there is no flame front, ergo no speed.Corrected it for you.

I guess we can look forward to more dripple dripple and more dripple.

Obiwan reported as a reincarnation of the banned yr_right.

And an expert on my working hours and holiday arrangements! Is there anything that you don't know, obi? Anything?

I'll say it one more time for the one people that can't don't won't wish to understand: The probabilities of a piston engine you've 'signed out' failing catastrophically are higher on a new engine than one that's on condition. I realise you think you're not going to be taken to court in the former situation, but you'd be rong. :ok:

Obi, please don't confirm my opinion that you are a troll!! :{