Could someone write to Cirrus and/or EASA and/or DGAC and/or UK CAA and/or … and quote a response here?
That should help (I hope! Sometimes the regulator doesn’t help, I know).
Could someone write to Cirrus and/or EASA and/or DGAC and/or UK CAA and/or … and quote a response here?
That should help (I hope! Sometimes the regulator doesn’t help, I know).
To find out if a SR2x can be legally flown without CAPS?
Seriously?
I am starting to understand how fake news and alternative facts work.
Could someone write to Cirrus and/or EASA and/or DGAC and/or UK CAA
Why would Cirrus move a finger against it’s service network?
Why would CAA say a word which might limit the revenue generated by maintenance organisations which in turn finance the CAA?
Hopefully, @Snoopy will be right… Otherwise I have to give back my Part 66 licence to the authority and go again to Part 147 School….
And what is with all the other Airworthiness Limitations on other aircraft, then they will be also obsolete for most of the operators…
And also the 3000/6000 hour checks on most gliders (also an Airworthiness Limitation) will then be obsolete…
Sorry, but that an airworthiness limitation, which is already approved by the competent authority when they implement it to the AMM, has to be mentioned again in the TCDS seems to me the biggest bullshit I have read and heard in the last years.
Hopefully, not too much Cirrus Owners (and also other owners of Aircraft with Airworthiness Limitations on it) will now call her shop tomorrow, and will discuss with them, that they don´t need to comply with Airworthiness Limitations. They will wasting their time with this…
Especially with the CAPS, with this massive amount of Cirrus SR Aircraft flying around on EASA Register since years, why should now someone find out, that it´s legal that you don´t need to replace/repack the components? And I guess, more than 75% of this Aircraft will be operated under NCO.
And also the 3000/6000 hour checks on most gliders (also an Airworthiness Limitation) will then be obsolets. Sorry, but that an airworthiness limitation, which is already approved by the competent authority when they implement it to the AMM, has to be mentioned again in the TCDS seems to me the biggest bullshit I have read and heard in the last years.
FAA do duplicate these manufacturer calendar and cycle limits in FAA TCDS, while EASA does not. In EASA, I was told one has refer to manufacturer limits, I stand corrected
Indeed, the famous airframe 12000 hour limit on Cirrus composite is explicily mentioned in FAA TCDS, however, it’s omitted in EASA TCDS
However, I was told that these calendar & cycle limits also apply on EASA reg (it’s not an oversight, miss or concession)
Ibra wrote:
Indeed, the famous airframe 12000 hour limit on Cirrus composite is explicily mentioned in FAA TCDS, however, it’s omitted in EASA TCDSHowever, I was told that these calendar & cycle limits also apply on EASA reg (it’s not an oversight, miss or concession)
A new Cirrus is easily 1.2 Mios, so a cost of 100 per flight hour is only burning the invest? Wow.
It is easy to get lost in the above gibblygodywording. In the hope of bringing some clarity:
Thus the only way to eliminate the CAPS requirement other than the above is by making its reference in the OEM TCDS not applicable: ie via a “supplemental TC” or STC which supersedes the relevant sections of the TCDS. The STC holder would have to demonstrate to the authorities that the elimination of the CAPS or its airworthiness limitation has no detrimental impact on the applicable FAR-23 and/or CS-23 . Not impossible but good luck with that, given the way the SR2x series was certified.
