Last I heard Socata issued a SL saying the replacement of that £800 filter is no longer mandatory; it can be (like N-reg) inspected and continued indefinitely on condition.
Sadly not.
Word is it worked well on the -20, but not the -21 (didn’t fit), so they’re back to the original manufacturer to get the filters in production again. No idea where that got to.
I see that Socata are about to certify what looks suspiciously like the excellent Andair filter.
@jwoolard did Socata ever do that? The existing fuel filter has the 2-way selector on top of it, so changing that would need some plumbing rearrangement.
Peter wrote:
On the TB, one had wonderful items like dismantling the famous emergency gear release valve… used to be every 2 or 3 years under EASA. Maybe it’s changed but what does the TB MM say about that one?
Still says it needs to be dismantled… but under part-ML, I really hope nobody does anymore. To be fair, you could get out of this under the old system pretty easily too…
Peter wrote:
And I’ve had numerous emails from people trying to source the famous fuel filter,
I see that Socata are about to certify what looks suspiciously like the excellent Andair filter.
Peter wrote:
You have to do a “50hr” anyway, to change the oil. It is also wise to eyeball the exhaust system, check the plugs, and borescope the exhaust valves. But you know that already
Exactly, so one may as well put it in the maintenance program to show willing!
The Socata MM is a goldmine for anybody trying to make money from maintaining a Socata aircraft – especially the TBM which would rarely leave a shop with a bill in a mere 4 figures 
On the TB, one had wonderful items like dismantling the famous emergency gear release valve… used to be every 2 or 3 years under EASA. Maybe it’s changed but what does the TB MM say about that one? And I’ve had numerous emails from people trying to source the famous fuel filter, which is metal and will last for ever unless somebody sticks a screwdriver through it (it just needs an inspection and possibly cleaning at each Annual).
Re the prop, and assuming no excessive damage from rocks, IMHO it strongly depends on whether hangared. If so, it will likely be clean for 10-20 years, and assuming no grease leakage, it is good to stay on-condition. Any grease leakage is a definite IRAN.
You have to do a “50hr” anyway, to change the oil. It is also wise to eyeball the exhaust system, check the plugs, and borescope the exhaust valves. But you know that already
Airborne_Again wrote:
If the 50 hour inspection is included in the AMP and you did it at 30 hours, then you would need to make a 100-hour inspection after 80 hours!
The Socata MM deals with that quite nicely – there’s a list of 50 hour tasks, a list of 100 hour tasks, and a list of annual tasks: you do the 50 hours every time, the 100 hours after every 100 hours (NOT every second 50 hour check), and the annual once a year.
In practice, of course, most people do one 50 hour and one combined annual/100hour check.
For the TB20, there’s not a lot of things in the 100 hour over the 50 hour – and nothing that can’t be inspected under owner-maintenance – so my thinking is I’ll just have a single 50/100-hour list and spend the extra 30 minutes on those checks every time (cleaning the fuel filter is the biggest addition over the straight 50 hour).
So I’m heading for:
Next question: what do people think about on-condition variable pitch propellers?
Snoopy wrote:
Is it ok to just omit them in the MIP AMP and do your own 50 hour inspection (oil change) „additionally“?
Formally, yes. That could be an advantage if you expect to be away from a place where you can conveniently make an oil change when the time comes. You could instead do two voluntary oil changes as 30 and 70 hours, say. If the 50 hour inspection is included in the AMP and you did it at 30 hours, then you would need to make a 100-hour inspection after 80 hours!
jwoolard wrote:
That’s a good point, on reflection I think you’re right.
I also think you are right. Under part-M, there was the concept of a “limited contract” with a CAMO, where the CAMO manages the aircraft according to an owner-declared AMP. That possibility seems to be gone in part-ML.
My club used that possibility for a while to run an engine on condition indefinitely. Although the CAMO agreed, he wasn’t very keen so I can imagine the possibility was removed in part-ML because very few CAMO:s wanted to enter into such a contract.
(The engine – a Lyc. IO-360-L2A – was eventually overhauled at 3400 hours. Not because of any indication of problems, but because some club officials got nervous. Contrary to popular belief by some, you don’t get to decide everything by virtue of being an aeroclub president!)
Snoopy wrote:
Is it ok to just omit them in the MIP AMP and do your own 50 hour inspection (oil change) „additionally“?
Whichever maintenance approach you take, it’s always best to have the formal document properly reflect your actual practice.
By the way, the Czech CAA did a wise thing by publishing AMP recommendations for the common types of Czech design. They contain summaries of old DAH programmes with the items colour-coded by category: mandatory, optional, or “optional but strongly recommended”.
jwoolard wrote:
Even if no CAO/CAMO is involved, it seems worthwhile to have the engineer or organisation that will do the signoff cast an eye over it.
Even if no CAO/CAMO is involved, someone must still issue an ARC (see ML.A.901, ML.A.903) and review the AMP. The least onerous option is a freelance engineer with a proper authorisation.
Ultranomad wrote:
Regarding 50-hour inspections, it’s good to keep them simple enough to be performed by the pilot-owner under ML.A.803.
Is it ok to just omit them in the MIP AMP and do your own 50 hour inspection (oil change) „additionally“?
