* AvCanada's Home Page * Photo Gallery * Directory * Topsites *Weather *Enter Chat * Media Kit
It is currently Wed Jun 19, 2013 9:50 pm



All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is chatting

Who is chatting
Enter Chat




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 4:56 pm 
Offline
Rank 1
Rank 1

Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 5:50 pm
Posts: 49
I fly at a flight school and regularly use a 172 with an engine on condition, where the oil usage is monitored, i assume, before deciding it needs an overhaul. I'm wondering if this is common and more importantly safe? Are there not other components that should be replaced at a certain interval regardless of what the oil usage and compression is? I have no background in this topic whatsoever. Thank you for any feedback.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 5:06 pm 
Offline
Rank 11
Rank 11
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:17 am
Posts: 4199
Location: Over Macho Grande
"On condition" is predicated upon TBO (Time Between Overhaul) which is established by the engine manufacturer as a purely statistical exercise.

TBO is not only determined by flight hours, but also by calendar. After 12 years, officially your engine is past TBO, even if it only has 100TTSN on it.

In fact, what kills most privately-owned aircraft is lack of use leading to internal corrosion. They almost never make TBO.

Frequently-flown aircraft can often go well past TBO. A long time ago, I flew a little twin that had one engine 5500 SMOH, which is about 3x TBO. They just kept changing accessories and jugs. The bottom end was still fine because it flew frequently (no corrosion), they had no cold starts, etc.

Another engine was removed from an air combat airplane at 2600 SNEW. Conventional wisdom would tell you that flying an engine hard would wear it out sooner. Wrong. This engine was flown very hard - wide open throttle nearly all the time - and it was running fine at 2600 hours when they got nervous and pulled it for overhaul. Every since internal part of that engine was still within service limits, which is what you get AFTER a field overhaul.

Let's say you take a brand new engine and fly it 100 hours in the first year, then park it without inhibiting it for 2 years. Well, at 3 years and 100 SNEW, it's junk - it's internally corroded out, and it's nowhere near TBO.

TBO is a statistical value. Statistics lie. My favorite statistic is that a man with his head in the freezer and feet in the stove is, on average comfortable.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 5:21 pm 
Offline
Rank 8
Rank 8

Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 3:45 pm
Posts: 839
Location: ottawa/gatineau
yes. properly monitored there should be lots of time to spot problems.
infact new engines are sometimes more trouble as are low time infrequently run engines.

its likely the only 'old' parts are the crank case cam and bottom end stuff. All the top end has likely been rebuild once anyway as have the other do dads.

I was recently flying a brand new overhauled engine (1 hr since major) and it blew 2 gallons of oil overboard through an incorrectly sealed case.. soooo

Anyway airplanes always demand vigilance and careful preflights can eliminate most problems early .. old or new.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 5:27 pm 
Offline
Rank 11
Rank 11
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:17 am
Posts: 4199
Location: Over Macho Grande
Absolutely! Stuff that has just been serviced is
the most unreliable. The more serious the maintenance,
the more likely you will have serious problems with it.

Decades ago, the military used to require maintenance
test flights. Maybe they still do, who knows. Often they
could get very exciting. Pilots were specially designated
for this duty. They learned to look for tools left in the cockpit
which would jam flight controls, etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 7:31 pm 
Offline
Rank 1
Rank 1

Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 2:29 am
Posts: 32
Dazed,
"On Condition" means more than just dropping the oils. If you review AN B041, it gives you a better idea what's 'supposed' to happen to an engine in the on-condition program. Deteriorating performance should show up before the 'fly to failure' thing.

Also, in Canada, there's no "12 year" thing for engine life for a private operator. I think the U.S. still have a 12 year calendar life for private piston powered aircraft, but not sure. CAR 625 Appendix C states:

"Information Note: No hard time, including calendar time, between overhauls need be observed in the case of small aircraft reciprocating engines in non-commercial private operation."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 11:11 pm 
Offline
Rank 11
Rank 11
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:17 am
Posts: 4199
Location: Over Macho Grande
Uh ... he's flying at a flight school, so TBO - both
flight and calendar time - certainly does apply to
his commercially-registered aircraft in Canada!

Quote:
I think the U.S. still have a 12 year calendar
life for private piston powered aircraft, but not sure


Umm ... they never did. For part 91 ops, engine
manufacturer's TBO - both flight time and calendar -
does not apply.

Heck, you don't have to overhaul constant-speed
props under part 91!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 8:53 pm 
Offline
Rank 1
Rank 1

Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 2:29 am
Posts: 32
Colonel Sanders wrote:
Uh ... he's flying at a flight school, so TBO - both flight and calendar time - certainly does apply to his commercially-registered aircraft in Canada!


Colonel, my humble apologies. My reference to "private" was mis-placed and not apropriate to an FTU question. Guess I should read more before opening mouth.

BUT,
from his original post, DAZED stated this engine was operated "on condition". If this is the case, the Maintenance Schedule Approval will show NO hard time OR calendar time. It will show "On Condition". (But still not Fly to Failure, as some think)

If the engine was NOT on condition and still commercially operated, then I agree TBO time certainly applies (plus whatever tolerance the MSA allowed, if any) but I believe the "12 year thing" is only via an SB from the manufacturer which means it isn't mandatory, at least not in Canada. (not sure about U.S.) If I recall correctly (and my memory's not as good as it once was), both Lycoming and Continental tried to impose this limitation by way of SB's only , and that doesn't impose an airworthiness limitation, even for a comercially operated engine. ("Manufacturer's recommendations" still doesn't require an operator to comply with SB's) I'd be interested to see if this could be tied into something concrete, 'cause that would help clear things up!

Hey man, just trying to keep things lively! :mrgreen:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:17 pm 
Online
Rank 10
Rank 10
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 1:52 pm
Posts: 2083
Col,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but technically the TBO for a commercial operator is set by the maintenance schedule, not the manufacturer's recommendations. It's just that TC approves maintenance schedules that are often the same as the manufacturer's recommendations.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:57 pm 
Offline
Rank 11
Rank 11
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:17 am
Posts: 4199
Location: Over Macho Grande
Quote:
It's just that TC approves maintenance schedules that are often the same as the manufacturer's recommendations


That's kind of a lawyer's answer ... if you start up an FTU and ask for a TBO of 20,000 hours for your Lycomings, I will be able to hear the laughter from the TC office from here.

Yes, you can run engines "on condition" on an FTU OC. Is it worth the hassle and the extra expense of doing oil analysis every 50 hours since overhaul, as I was told by TC I would have to do? I didn't think so, so in my six year MCM journey, I left the TBO at the manufacturer's. If I asked for something else, I could see it taking eight or ten or twelve years to get the MCM approved. With no AMO.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:25 am 
Online
Rank 10
Rank 10
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 1:52 pm
Posts: 2083
Col.,

You're right it's a lawyers answer. When I did PRM duties I successfully increased the intervals for a few items above the manufacturer's recommendations. I was almost able to get the control cables, aircraft structure, etc. on the 172 go from 200hr to 400hr. but at the last minute, our PMI balked and said we couldn't do it. It would have saved us a lot of time ripping out the interior every 200 hr.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 3:40 am 
Offline
Rank 11
Rank 11
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:17 am
Posts: 4199
Location: Over Macho Grande
Quote:
the 172 go from 200hr to 400hr


I know exactly what you're talking about.

Some FTU's do the Cessna 50/100/50/200 cycle - several
times a year, which is insane. There is no need to rip out
the interior 5 or 6 times a year at the 200hr inspection.

What many flight schools do is 50/100/50/100 etc and
only do one or two full teardowns per year. I suspect this will
come as a shock to some TC types whom are unaware what
is happening in other regions.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 


All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: skywardbound and 27 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

 
For questions/comments please send them to
webmaster@avcanada.ca


AvCanada Topsites List
AVIATION TOP 100 - www.avitop.com Avitop.com

While the administrators and moderators of this  forum will attempt to remove or edit any generally objectionable material as  quickly as possible, it is impossible to review every message. If you feel a  topic or post is inappropriate email us at support@avcanada.ca .  By reading these forums you acknowledge that  all posts made to these forums express the views and opinions of the author and  not the administrators, moderators or webmaster (except for posts by these  people) and hence will not be held liable. This website is not responsible or liable in any way for any false or misleading messages or job ads placed at our site.   

Use AvCanada's information at your own risk!

We reserve the right to remove any messages that we deem unacceptable.
  When you post a message, your IP is logged and may be provided to concerned parties where unethical or illegal  behavior is apparent. All rights reserved.