The article in the current FP titled “Legacy turbine engines under review” seems to have slipped through almost unnoticed, when in fact this potential piece of legislation could spell the end of a large number of classic jet types.
This half baked plan is basically flawed at a number of levels. The concern appears to be for older engines being the cause of a number of “accidents and incidents”. No evidence exists where an accident can be attributed to the age of an engine. The AAIB have NOT made any recommendations to calender life turbine engines. Neither the RAF nor manufacturers have ever specified a calender life of turbine engines. Shouldn’t they know what they are doing? The ten year life decided by the CAA is simply a number plucked out of thin air.
Owners, operators and maintainers need to wake up to this ill thought out idea and not simply roll over to an imposition driven by lawyers not engineers
By: Easy Tiger - 3rd November 2005 at 21:42
Hi Skipper
You are quite right. Gas turbine engines are always lifed either in flying hour or cycles, never calender time.
When the first MPD came out a few years ago for Avon engines, the magic 10 years appeared then. When operators expressed their alarm, the figure was increased by the CAA to 15 years, without any consultation or justification.
By: Skipper - 2nd November 2005 at 12:14
Hi, Easy Tiger!
In my experience, “Calender-based” requirements should only be considered for specific items contained within an engine which degrade over time irrespective of their use. Never have I known this policy apply to a complete engine! :confused:
Replacement requirements for the other, “non-Calender-based” items are either “Life-based” or “Condition-based”, with:
[INDENT]”Life-based” requirements meaning that a module or component’s operating life is closely monitored and the item is then replaced when its life approaches maunfacturer’s specified Life Expired (LIFEX) limit.
“Condition-based” requirements meaning that a module or component’s condition is closely monitored by way of measuring a particular physical parameter (e.g. wear) and the item is then replaced when a pre-determined limit (e.g. wear limit) is approached .[/INDENT]
As long as an engine operator can demonstrate that he has control of each of these types of requirements for all the component parts of his engine then surely that is all that is required to say whether an engine is safe to operate?!
So, “Yes”, based on what you say the ten year life appears to be a number plucked out of thin air, not based on engineering principles, resulting in yet another apparently ill thought out idea that needs to be fought! 😡
Regards
Skipper
By: Arm Waver - 2nd November 2005 at 11:06
I read this in Aeroplane too.
This rate we’ll have no airworthy historic aviation.
By: andrewman - 2nd November 2005 at 10:25
Yes this is worrying and needs urgent action, I and a couple of others are looking into this at present and I will keep everyone informed.
Sign In
November 2, 2005 at 12:34 am