From my owner perspective I have noticed that no TB 20 annual has been under €4k (with regular parts) in recent years. Even though you don’t always need 12 quarts, and mentioned that, the engine will be full when you come back. Even with a well-maintained ac, some trainee is tasked with unscrewing all the covers to find nothing and the whole thing ends with a bent base plate and a broken Tx antenna. Not to mention the gear on a TB20 where someone just uses a grease gun to put some grease everywhere. So far I’ve always had to rework it myself. I’m p***** off about the price and reality of workshops. Maybe you have similar experiences and my experiences have to be summarized under the „normal“ frustration tolerance?
What are your experiences when the workshop breaks more than just carrying out maintenance and how to handle that? Presenting the bill from the paint shop?
I would expect a higher % of SR22 owners to use a company 100%, than owners of other types, and that will produce a higher average maintenance cost. You pay 2x simply by using a company over a freelance A&P/EASA66.
The €25k chute every 10 years is another €2.5k a year which is totally unavoidable. From conversations with many owners over the years, I don’t think many thought about this too hard, especially since it was 10k for many years.
Keeping this as SR22 specific as possible.
Costs scare me. I was recently told that when the time for my TN engine comes to be overhauled, I should expect a £75k to £90k bill.
This is serious money. And then the parachute as well.
Ultimately, I can pay for it. But does make me quite uncomfortable and very self conscious.
I was recently told that when the time for my TN engine comes to be overhauled, I should expect a £75k to £90k bill.
Who quoted this figure? Was it a UK maintenance shop?
Turbo engines do cost more to OH, and partly this is because the exhaust system (including the turbo) is often close to being on the way out. But this isn’t always the case. I’d investigate options in the US.
We have various threads on turbo issues, and here is one on how to pack an engine for shipping to the US (ignore comments by people who love their local engine builders, or have no dog in the race anyway). You can save a few tens of k if you do this right, and you will get a better job than from any European engine shop.
The chute you can’t do anything about.
In UL, the BRS is usually an option: one can fly without if they feel the risk is not worth mitigation
In Cirrus, the aircraft is grounded without CAPS: the repack is expensive and require lot of downtime, this is a hard constraint to anyone looking for utility (most pilots sell at 10 years or one year before repack)
Even under UK/EU rules, some claim lack of CAPS repack does invalidate insurance, they are also claims that forced landings also invalidate insurance while pulling chute does not, are there documented examples of insurers refusing claims?
From a financial point of view pulling is chute is the best outcome: the other pilots will pay for it, it’s a very expensive insurance though, we are talking x% hull-value on 1m€ aircraft with 30k€ tepack every 10 years. At what point, the cost of “CAPS premium” becomes prohibitive versus the risks that one tries to mitigate or what one can afford? there is surely a price somewhere…
Ibra wrote:
For N-reg, CAPS repack is mandatory before every flight even in daylight with cavok over flat ground: it’s a legal requirement to have CAPS serviced and available for evry flight, this is a requirement applies for certification (FAR23) and also mandated by operational rule (Part91)
For G-reg or EASA-reg, in theory, one can fly without CAPS repack (at least according to CS23 and NCO for say private owner flights, no training and no comercial)
Interesting, but where did you get that from? I owned an F Reg Cirrus which had, as part of its limitations written in section 2 – 11, the fact that you had to have CAPS available for all flights, VFR & IFR. I’ve never heard exceptions, nor were any written in that section. Indeed, seeing the price of CAPS replacement going through the roof, soon we’ll see the replacement cost to be the same or more than an engine rebuild and, when that happens, early model SR20s will no longer be financially viable….
Utterly improbable. At best based on some wishful reading.
Most of the insurance stuff is BS for sure.
For G-reg or EASA-reg, in theory, one can fly without CAPS repack (at least according to CS23 and NCO for say private owner flights, no training and no comercial)
No, the above is wrong.
It is an airworthiness limitation. As are the airbag seatbelts.
It has nothing to do with CS23 and NCO, by the way.
I owned an F Reg Cirrus which had, as part of its limitations written in section 2 – 11, the fact that you had to have CAPS available for all flights, VFR & IFR
CAPS was not required in CS23 certification (it’s not a limitation in EASA TCDS) and also it’s not required as operational equipment in NCO for VFR, IFR, Night operation
The manufacturer is free to list other limitations in AFM not mandated by regulation:
AFAIK, these are not applicable to say F-reg or G-reg flown privately: manufacturer or operator equipment simply don’t apply unless regulator require them (of course, some private pilots can chose to have an operator manual with “CAPS in MEL/CDL” and document “CAPS SOP”, even send copy to authority for approval)
For N-reg, it’s different CAPS was required in FAR23 certification (it’s a limitation in FAA TCDS)
It is an airworthiness limitation. As are the airbag seatbelts.
Where do you see that in EASA airworthiness? it was certified for CS23 spin without CAPS !
https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/downloads/7512/en
N-reg is different as it’s an FAA airworthiness limitation: CAPS is required under Equivalent Level Of Safety in FAA TCDS to mitigate spin issue (ACE-96-5A for 14 CFR § 23.221)
https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/DRSDOCID192641915020231018140404.0001
The manufacturer can mandate whatever equipment they wish, even leather heated seats, however, only limitations in CS23, TCDS, NCO matters for most of us?
Convincing an EASA ATO to do training or EASA Part145/M to sign annual without CAPS is another matter, however, flying G-reg or F-reg without CAPS is perfectly legal 
Indeed, seeing the price of CAPS replacement going through the roof, soon we’ll see the replacement cost to be the same or more than an engine rebuild and, when that happens, early model SR20s will no longer be financially viable….
That’s my point, lot of the discussion about CAPS availability and use need a price tag: insurance costs, maintenance cost and downtime versus risk to mitigate !
@Ibra wrote
The manufacturer can mandate whatever equipment they wish, even leather heated seats, however, only limitations in CS23, TCDS, NCO matters for most of us?
Convincing an EASA ATO to do training or EASA Part145/M to sign annual without CAPS is another matter, however, flying G-reg or F-reg without CAPS is perfectly legal
No, it isn’t. With all due respect, your post is utter misinformation and makes no sense.
The manufacturer is free to list other limitations in AFM not mandated by regulation:
Manufacturer airframe limitations (POH, SI, SB) not in CS23, TCDS, or AD
First of all, SI / SB are not mandatory to be applied for private owner pilots (NCO) and as such are not (!) airframe limitations. Airframe limitations will be included in the AFM/POH, usually along other limitations in Ch. 2 or in the form of required equipment depending on day/night/ifr/vfr operation.
Manufacturer minimal equipment (MMEL) not in NCO.IDE.A for VFR, Night, IFR
The acronym MMEL means “Master Minimum Equipment List” and is created by the TCDH/DAH. There is no MMEL/MEL applicable for NCO.
NCO.IDE and MMEL/MEL are completely different subjects anyway, and not relevant for this topic.
Let me try again: There are instructions for continuing airworthiness (ICA) published by the DAH = Cirrus, which are applicable under Part-ML and mandate obeying of AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS, of which there are, for Cirrus SR, 4 items:
