Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Engine calendar time limit (TBO) mandatory for DTO or rental use?

Airborne_Again wrote:

I know that it is the CAO/CAMO and not the NAA that approves, but surely the CAO/CAMO must follow their NAA policy?

Good question.

Although the national authority may permit concessions even for approved maintenance programmes.

Maybe the CAMO/CAO clarifies unusual things with the NAA? Then again, since gold plating of EU law is specifically forbidden, as long as the CAMO/CAO follows those, and is happy with the liability, it shouldn’t be necessary.

always learning
LO__, Austria

Snoopy wrote:

CAO/CAMO can since approve whatever they feel comfortable bearing the responsibility for.

I know that it is the CAO/CAMO and not the NAA that approves, but surely the CAO/CAMO must follow their NAA policy?

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

The commercial/non-commercial distinction decides whether a CAMO/CAO is necessary. If you have a CAMO/CAO then you must have an approved maintenance programme (i.e. you can’t have an owner-declared maintenance programme). An approved maintenance programme generally has to include all manufacturer’s recommendations and that’s how the TBO limits are enforced. Although the national authority may permit concessions even for approved maintenance programmes.

NAA cannot approve ML AMPs since ML went into effect. Existing NAA approved AMPs remain valid until owner change.

CAO/CAMO can since approve whatever they feel comfortable bearing the responsibility for. Following DAH AMM or SBs is up to the CAO/CAMO. But yes, one could say CAO/CAMO generally follow the manufacturer‘s recommendations.

There is a case where an owner must follow all DAH recommendations and is still responsible himself without CAO/CAMO → ML.A.302(e). In this case no AMP required.

Many misunderstand the owner declared AMP deviations. They include some LyConti Service Bulletin for TBO and then deviate, when it wouldn’t be mandatory in the first place (Don’t want to follow a SB/SL/SI? Don’t include it in the AMP).

always learning
LO__, Austria

Airborne_Again wrote:

Although the national authority may permit concessions even for approved maintenance programmes.

I was going to say that. In Germany, before we had the declared maintenance programs, obviously all maintenance programs we of the “approved” type. And lots of them contained lots of deviations from manufacturer recommendations, i.e. non-airworthiless limitation TBOs, etc. …

Mainz (EDFZ) & Egelsbach (EDFE), Germany

Peter wrote:

We have done this “nonprofit” debate many times,

Part-ML includes some Guidance Material about the commercial/non-commercial distinction:

GM1 ML.A.201(e) COMMERCIAL ATO/DTO

According to industry practice, the following are examples of aircraft not considered to be operated by a commercial ATO or a commercial DTO:
(a) Aircraft operated by an organisation holding an ATO certificate or a DTO declaration, created with the aim of promoting aerial sport or leisure aviation, on the conditions that:
…(1) the aircraft is operated by the organisation on the basis of ownership or dry lease;
…(2) the ATO/DTO is a non-profit organisation; and
…(3) whenever non-members of the organisation are involved, such flights represent only a marginal activity of the organisation.
(b) Aircraft operated under Part-NCO by its owner together with an ATO or a DTO flight instructor for the purpose of training, when the contract between the owner and the training organisation and the procedures of the training organisation allow it. The continuing airworthiness of such aircraft remains under the responsibility of the owner, or of the CAMO or CAO contracted by the owner, if the owner has elected to contract a CAMO or CAO in accordance with ML.A.201(f).
(c) Aircraft used for very limited training flights due to the specific configuration of the aircraft and limited need for such flights

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Peter wrote:

does the country have a “nonprofit club etc” concession in its corporate taxation rules (one which allows the accumulation of the profit, without paying corporation tax)

Sweden, yes.

does the country’s CAA recognise this accounting structure for the purpose of determining whether calendar TBO is enforced

Sweden, yes, indirectly. It is not the tax-exempt status as such which is important but the reason for being tax-exempt. And this also does not affect calendar TBO except indirectly.

The commercial/non-commercial distinction decides whether a CAMO/CAO is necessary. If you have a CAMO/CAO then you must have an approved maintenance programme (i.e. you can’t have an owner-declared maintenance programme). An approved maintenance programme generally has to include all manufacturer’s recommendations and that’s how the TBO limits are enforced. Although the national authority may permit concessions even for approved maintenance programmes.

Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 18 Oct 11:38
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Peter wrote:

AFAIK, in the UK, the 12 years is enforced for training aircraft owned by a school, and is not enforced for aircraft owned by the student (subject to various rules)

If the student can be part of the club, so he owns the aircraft share: if you get to do your PPL in Spits or Harvards in DTO/ATO, the engine will be likely past 12 years, the UK CAA seems to allow it but yes no way to get this concession in “ordinary ATO” with PA28 & C172 as everybody has them !

Recently, CAA allows non-PPL training & private rental of Annex1/2 on PtF, there is a provision to have these past ATO evaluation in EASA rules (I am not sure if this restrict to 12 years old engines bellow TBO?)

Last Edited by Ibra at 18 Oct 10:13
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

We have done this “nonprofit” debate many times, because people from some countries are very proud of their “club” culture and vigorously defend it, which is fine, but since money doesn’t grow on trees, the setup has to be cash-positive otherwise it will sink, and this is obviously not negotiable. It could be cash-neutral but that is very hard to achieve (you would be continually adjusting your charges) so a “surplus” has to be aimed for. So there is always a “profit”.

So there must be two angles on this:

  • does the country have a “nonprofit club etc” concession in its corporate taxation rules (one which allows the accumulation of the profit, without paying corporation tax)
  • does the country’s CAA recognise this accounting structure for the purpose of determining whether calendar TBO is enforced

Or possibly the country’s CAA is using a different measure, not related to accounting practices, to make the determination…

AFAIK, in the UK, the 12 years is enforced for training aircraft owned by a school, and is not enforced for aircraft owned by the student (subject to various rules). It is also generally enforced on registry transfers…

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

You can have non commercial DTO/ATO: just matter how much profits is generated, if it stays in a shared locked “club account” or get “distributed to shareholders”? and if it’s open “to public” or “to listed members”?

I think every country will have one of these “charities or sports flying clubs” but it’s not a business (they are not printing dollars), actually no profit is generated just a money pit where the cost of running DTO/ATO is covered by high admission fees, the more people subscribe the better (no one cares if they fly or not )

Last Edited by Ibra at 18 Oct 09:12
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

Yeah… who decides this?

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
19 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top