While doing a little "googling" -- I came across the FY06 Aviation Safety Report. The report included a section of Auxiliary aviation -- and the implementation of the TBO requirements...
It's official, we can blame the new TBO requirements -- at least partly -- on the CAP ($1 in the jar for forewatch)!!
quote:
AUXILIARY AVIATION In August 2005 Air Station Port Angeles released an AuxAir Class E mishap message of an in-flight engine failure of a multi-engine AuxAir aircraft. The mishap investigation, determination was made that the failed engine had been operated well beyond the manufacturer’s recommended Time Between Overhaul (TBO). Following the investigation, the Auxiliary Aviation Standardization Team researched data provided by the Federal Aviation Regulations, various aircraft manufacturers, aviation insurance underwriters, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in order to gain a more thorough understanding of the possible ramifications of operating an aircraft beyond TBO.
Because of the similarities between the Civil Air Patrol (CAP) and the Coast Guard AuxAir, the Office of Auxiliary (CG3-PCX) also met with members of the CAP to learn how their organization handled issues regarding TBO. From this meeting CG3-PCX learned that the CAP does not allow its aircraft to operate beyond TBO.
As a result of the investigation’s findings and the data collected by the AuxAir Stan Team and CG3-PCX, a recommendation was made to mandate a policy that would not allow Coast Guard Auxiliary aircraft to operate beyond the manufacturers’ recommended TBO. The Auxiliary Aviation Standardization Team drafted and released a message that required all Coast Guard Auxiliary aircraft to comply with manufacturers’ recommended TBO in order to be offered for use as an AuxAir facility.
Since this message was released, several Air Stations voiced a concern over the potential reduction of available AuxAir facilities. As a result, the Coast Guard Offices of Auxiliary, Aviation Safety, Aviation Forces, Aviation Engineering, and CG Claims and Litigation reviewed the new policy to determine if the new TBO mandate was excessively restrictive and warranted modification. The findings of the review were that this new policy ultimately strengthens the safety and credibility of the Auxiliary Aviation program and no modifications to the policy are warranted. Despite this new requirement, the Coast Guard Auxiliary Aviation program remains an extremely valuable asset, combining the talents of skilled pilots and aircrews with safe and reliable facilities capable of performing various missions in support of Coast Guard operations.
FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 Total Hours Flown 18,462 17,994 18,085 17,403 # Acft (End Of Year) 280 294 289 303 # Pilots – all (EOY) 431 442 486 320 # Aircrew (EOY) 123 150 153 367
Auxiliary Aviation statistics for the last four calendar years are shown in Table 4 above. (Special thanks to LTJG Shannon Scaff CG3-PCX for writing this article)
What the report omits is that the multi-engine with the high time engine failure was transporting an admiral at the time. Nothing quite like making an admiral big-eyed to get your operating parameters reviewed.
The standards are nothing more than the FAA standards for aircraft used in commercial operations. While they were borrowing from the CAP, there are another couple of things they could have borrowed, like Flight Release Officers, maintenance officers, and routine surprise inspections by mechanically alert safety officers. I have grounded more than one airplane at a SAR exercise.
What the report omits is that the multi-engine with the high time engine failure was transporting an admiral at the time. Nothing quite like making an admiral big-eyed to get your operating parameters reviewed.
The standards are nothing more than the FAA standards for aircraft used in commercial operatio
As much as I don't like the prospects of investing $25K or so to comply in a year or so -- I do understand the implementation of the requirement, and do support it.
Although, a freshly overhauled or factory remanufactured engine has a higher probability of a catastrophic failure during the first few hundred hours of use -- than a well running engine with good compessions, low oil consumption, and clean oil analysis (not producing significant metal) that has exceeded the typical 2000 hour TBO mark.
I'm thinking about the possibility of a conversion to a diesel engine when the time comes. A couple of manufacturers do have STCs for the Cessna line with more in R&D -- and it would run on the less expensive Jet A and be more fuel efficient as well.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: flyandscuba,
