Part 91 is, essentially, not applying life limits on items which are readily inspectable for condition. Even on a SEP you save a fair bit of money, and on a TP like a TBM you can save a lot because e.g. Socata’s MM is as long as your arm.
It has been claimed that if say you buy a TBM and maintain it on Part 91, you lose a lot of resale value.
However, what about if you run it on Part 91 and then when it comes to selling it you replace all the lifed parts in one go? Surely there is no difference to the buyer, and you saved a lot of money in the meantime?
The separate issue is that many/most service centres will not be willing to run Part 91 because they make a lot of money on the supply of the parts. One I used to know very well told me this recently. So you need to be a pro-active owner and probably just need a hangar where you can do the work, and an A&P who knows the type.
I think that 90% of buyers don’t understand these subtle differences in maintenance regimes.
What might (or will) probably happen though is that when you want to sell an N-reg. and the prospective buyer wants to put it on an EASA reg, then the buyer or his prebuy inspector will ask for a directory of item life times (“Laufzeitenübersicht” in LBA speak) and say they would have to spend x on various components on “expired items” to be able to transfer registry. Of course, the answer will be “your problem, leave it on the N-reg., which is much smarter anyway” and in the end, one will find a compromise.
Surely there is no difference to the buyer
I’m not sure this market is really that rational…
My insurance broker told me if resale value is important to you, you should put your TBM under Socatas CAMO
Obviously it makes a difference, just like with cars where a complete maintenance log from an “official” shop carrying the brand name is a major factor.
Also the market for these airplanes is very small. A few dealers/brokers are active and they tend to know every aircraft/owner. If you sell your TBM, a prospective buyer will talk to somebody in the inner circle and if he hears “yes, that’s this Peter plane, some dodgy maintenance with a freelancer in a backstreet hangar, always trying to circumvent safety regulations”, the airplane will not sell well.
I think that as you go up the scale in terms of aircraft there is more and more likelihood that aircraft would be on a manufacturers maintenance schedule. Whether or not it’s mandatory on Part 91 makes no difference, they need to be up to date. Every used aircraft we have sold or bought has had a line in the contract warranting that the aircraft is maintained in accordance with the manufacturers maintenance programme with all recommended and mandatory SB’s completed
To pick up this old thread, does anyone know what people do with say a Jetprop?
Peter wrote:
does anyone know what people do with say a Jetprop?
One guy I know leaves it to Troyes Aviation, they have a flat rate per hour flown and handle everything maintenance-related. The other guy I know leaves it to DEA in Gamston. Obviously, lots of them are maintained at Aerotech in Coventry. If you make three phone calls to those companies, you’d have a fair accurate picture. With a turbine, the only way to get the squawk free experience is to have someone onside who maintains lots of them. That way they’ve seen the problem a dozen times and know that it’s dust on a sensor that’s throwing off the cabin heating, or the autopilot is acting up because the autopilot pitch trim servo is defective.
I very much doubt any of these firms will agree to do Part 91.
