Annuals after TBO

[nels]

Another consideration during my plane shopping. Does anybody have experience on getting annuals done on a plane that is over TBO? I've been told that many shops will not perform an annual if the plane is at or over TBO by a few hundred hrs. Any input?

[Yetti]

It would matter for who would be inspecting your plane.  Go have a chat with them

[nels]

39 minutes ago, Yetti said:

It would matter for who would be inspecting your plane.  Go have a chat with them

Well, I did that and his reply was that he typically won't do an annual if it's more than 200 hrs over TBO.  I guess it surprised me a little which is the reason for this post. Is this what can be expected as the norm? I've heard some guys have gone as much as 3000 hrs.

Edited April 3, 2016 by nels

[RobertGary1]

Pretty normal. 200 over TBO is in the realm of uncommon. Many IAs don't want to risk their cert on an engine like that   

 

-Robert

[Yetti]

If he is not going to sign off, then there you go

[nels]

Just now, Yetti said:

If he is not going to sign off, then there you go

I don't plan on using him next annual anyway. Another reason I'm asking the question on this forum. I guess I could go around asking all the shops in the area but thought this venue might be a lot easier.

[N33GG]

Get another mechanic.

[N601RX]

Look around, their are still IA's around who will do the annual based on condition and not TBO.  Our Cessna had around 2400 when we sold it and now has upward of 2600 on the original engine from 67.  It's had mag and carb overhauls as well as cylinder work, but the bottom end is still original.  I know that there has been at least 5 different IA's sign the annual on it after it was over TBO and I can't remember any of them even bringing the subject up. 

[Supercop0184]

I'm with N33GG, time for a new mechanic and IA. TBO means nothing if the engine is still running strong.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[carusoam]

It is important to discuss what FAA rules you will be flying under.  It is legal for a PP to fly with hardware that is past TBO.  Why would somebody not annual it for the rules that you use?  It may be an interesting technical reason like insurance..?

Best regards,

-a-

[ryoder]

When I bought my 65 C it was over tbo and I bought it at the shop that just performed the annual.  They never saw this airplane before the annual and had to ferry it five miles to their field.  The IA signed off on it.  I asked if he would sign off the next year once I put 200 more hours on it and he kind of didn't want to answer.  He said I should get the engine done because at some point he wouldn't sign off.  The mechanic I use now says the engine is strong and he will continue to sign off based on condition.  He also said that if a cylinder drops compression or something we will overhaul that cylinder.  

[Yetti]

He/she is signing the plane as airworthy. TBO is not an airworthly item.  Making metal and low compression are airworthy items that Lycoming has guidance on.

[helitim]

One of our 182's had 3080 hrs before we electively overhauled it and, it was annualled correctly and legally every year.  Never gave us any mechanical problems because we flew it regularly and maintain it very well. As stated before, find another IA unless you are operating as a 135 or 141 program which is unlikely since you asked the original question.  

[ArtVandelay]

Mike Busch is an advocate for going past TBO...I would send him an email with your location asking for any references to IAs who don't care about TBO, but actually inspect the plane.

[capthaak]

I've gone past TBO on a IO-360 and on a Cont. O-300. The 360 went about 400 hours and sucked a valve. The 300 hadn't been overhauled since 1964 and was still running strong 600 hours past TBO.

I think the real issue is how you use the plane. The O-300 was a day VFR airplane. Sucking a valve at night or IFR is going to have a significantly higher pucker factor!

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[nels]

1 hour ago, capthaak said:

I've gone past TBO on a IO-360 and on a Cont. O-300. The 360 went about 400 hours and sucked a valve. The 300 hadn't been overhauled since 1964 and was still running strong 600 hours past TBO.

I think the real issue is how you use the plane. The O-300 was a day VFR airplane. Sucking a valve at night or IFR is going to have a significantly higher pucker factor!

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Very good thought! That is one of my concerns for sure. I was even thinking if the engine is strong and bottom end seemed good, it would be in my best interest to put new valves in all the cylinders and continue on. That would reduce a very major concern.

[aviatoreb]

I know a certain airline that runs Cessna 402's with the tsio-520 engines (similar to a rocket), on condition about 1000 hrs past tbo, with on condition paper work each inspection.  It doesn't take many years for them to make 2600 hrs, but nonetheless, we are talking a much more complex engine than the io360.  I do think they run them pretty low power usually.  Occasionally they replace pistons. But we are talking part 121, not 91.

[Mooneymite]

TBO is strictly advisory for part 91 operators, but as my mechanic told me after signing off my engine with 2400+ hours...."you're getting to a point where the engine, not you, will be deciding where the overhaul will take place".  I replaced the engine in my hangar shortly thereafter, on my schedule.

 

[Seth]

58 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

I know a certain airline that runs Cessna 402's with the tsio-520 engines (similar to a rocket), on condition about 1000 hrs past tbo, with on condition paper work each inspection.  It doesn't take many years for them to make 2600 hrs, but nonetheless, we are talking a much more complex engine than the io360.  I do think they run them pretty low power usually.  Occasionally they replace pistons. But we are talking part 121, not 91.

Cape Air?  

-Seth

[aviatoreb]

47 minutes ago, Seth said:

Cape Air?  

-Seth

Yup

[Godfather]

I think a big factor not normally discussed is when buying a plane over or close to tbo is you have no idea how that engine was treated over its life.  I have no problem going over tbo if you know how the engine was treated and maintained.  But the PO might put the plane up for sale if the oil analysis started showing signs etc.. I can see why an IA would have reservations about signing off an engine he knows very little about.  We had a 210 overhauled @ tbo that was purchased 400 hr prior.  The shop started working on and said the best option was to trade it in on a reman as many parts were out of spec.

[Shadrach]

On April 3, 2016 at 10:30 PM, RobertGary1 said:

Pretty normal. 200 over TBO is in the realm of uncommon. Many IAs don't want to risk their cert on an engine like that   

 

-Robert

How is performing an annual on a past TBO aircraft engine risking their Cert? An annual inspection is a well codified process. Most manufacturers have a list of items to perform. Mooneys list is attached. If the annual is performed in accordance with the factory guidance and all needed repairs are made using methods techniques and practices acceptable to the administrator, than the IA has fulfilled his duties under the FARs. There is no reason for an IA to be the TBO police, though I fully respect a MX professional's right to refuse service on an aircraft.

[RobertGary1]

Just now, Shadrach said:

How is performing an annual on a past TBO aircraft risking their Cert? An annual inspection is a well codified process. Most manufacturers have a list of items to perform. Mooneys list is attached. If the annual is performed in accordance with the factory guidance and all needed repairs are made using methods techniques and practices acceptable to the administrator, than the IA has fulfilled his duties under the FARs. There is no reason for an IA to be the TBO police, though I fully respect a MX professional's right to refuse service on an aircraft.

That's a discussion you'll need to have with each IA you work with so far beyond TBO.

-Robert

[Guest]

If the IA were to force compliance with the SI concerning engine TBO, is he/she only concerned with the hourly limit or would the calendar time be a concern also?  Then why not compliance with all of the other SI's, SL's and SB's?  

In reality today, few engines make it beyond TBO anyway.

Clarence

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, RobertGary1 said:

That's a discussion you'll need to have with each IA you work with so far beyond TBO.

-Robert

I agree, but it's not a risk to their certification. Compliance is compliance. It's kinda like the "standard of care" in medicine. There are plenty of docs (most in fact) out there that typically exceed that standard. However, as long as that standard is met, they are practicing medicine in an acceptable manner under the law.