Lycoming TBO extension

Since 1929. Lycoming claims to power 50% of the GA fleet.

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
alexvanwyk
Aircraft in Hangar
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 8:26 pm
Closest Airfield: FAWB
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Lycoming TBO extension

Unread post by alexvanwyk » Tue Jun 26, 2018 8:49 am

Good morning all.

We have 2 Cessna 172's with factory reman engines that are up for overhaul soon, due to hours flown. I have spoken to the Lycoming representatives and the engines qualify for the 200 hour TBO extension, because they have only had original Lycoming parts and maintenance carried out. Unfortunately they both have 2 months that have missed the 40h per month utilisation so we miss on the further 200 hour extension.

The question: Apparently I need to notify the CAA and get permission to extend the TBO. The way I see it is that the TBO is 2200 hours for the engines. The CAA don't have a say in the matter. The further 200 hours due to utilisation is a different matter, but not relevant to this case.

Am I wrong?
And who do I need to contact at the CAA to get clarity?

And just to clarify, does anyone know what the exact criteria are for the extension of the TBO due to utilisation? If I play around a bit with the dates I can have the aircraft do 40 hours in every 30 day period.
Our problem is that the aircraft engine was fitted at the end of the month and the aircraft flew 2 hours on the 31st. So the engine only ran for 2 hours in October according to the current defenitions.

Your input will be appreciated.
Barros
1k poster
1k poster
Posts: 1129
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:24 pm
Closest Airfield: Earls Colne
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time

Re: Lycoming TBO extension

Unread post by Barros » Tue Jun 26, 2018 7:49 pm

Caa no longer allows any extensions as far as Im aware .???
User avatar
alexvanwyk
Aircraft in Hangar
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 8:26 pm
Closest Airfield: FAWB
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Lycoming TBO extension

Unread post by alexvanwyk » Wed Jul 04, 2018 1:54 pm

I spoke to a bunch of people, including an airworthiness inspector at the CAA. There are various opinions, but according to the inspector, who did not know about the SB1009BC, as long as all the criteria relevant to that engine are applied, we don't need permission from them.
As for the extension for frequent use, he said they have tried to clarify with Lycoming, but he said that almost no aircraft have complied with that requirement " So don't even try".

I am happy to proceed, and have all the necessary documents to cover my behind if they ask any questions.

Return to “Lycoming Engines”