This just out from Textron (who owns Beech):
The inspection schedule (Chart 201) in Chapter 57-17-01 and 57-17-02 identifies the inspection areas, initial inspection periods, recurring inspection intervals and component replacement times. This schedule is based on airplane utilization, operation and maintenance in the category of service for which the airplane was originally designed; specifically, a pressurized executive or corporate transportation vehicle wherein the majority of cruise is above 10,000 feet altitude and flight duration is more than one hour. Should the aircraft be used for missions other than that intended by design, such as an air taxi, commuter air service, pipeline surveillance, livestock/predator animal control, search and rescue, navigation aids inspection, extraordinary service at low altitude or unusually short duration flights (less than 30 minutes), the inspections specified in the Standard Flight Profile Inspection Schedule (Chart 201) are not appropriate for continued airworthiness of the airplane structure. In such cases, promptly notify Beechcraft Technical Support and a special inspection program will be established to address the unique requirements of the airplane’s mission.
The King Air SIRM is a FAA approved manual, therefore this requirement is mandatory. Operators must contact Beechcraft via Technical Support to obtain an inspection program. The end result is a special inspection program specifically for the serial number of the airplane based on the mission profiles the airplane is flying. The inspection program is then listed in the Airworthiness Limitations Manual (ALM) for the airplane under the Special Purposes Section of the ALM.
I expect EASA to follow this mandate, which would make running the King Air’s cost prohibitive probably – the most successful TP charter aircraft in the world probably – in most commercial operations.
Reflection – it’s almost becoming a problem/liability to buy aircraft from a manufacturer that is still in business. Piper, Cessna, Beech have all these onerous and scary things for the owners going on, whereas “forgotten” makers, or where the TC owner is someone else other than the original manufacturer, have it much easier. Something to keep in mind for the future perhaps.
I can’t link the pdf here, but I’ll see if I can upload it somehow.
AdamFrisch wrote:
Reflection – it’s almost becoming a problem/liability to buy aircraft from a manufacturer that is still in business. Piper, Cessna, Beech have all these onerous and scary things for the owners going on, whereas “forgotten” makers, or where the TC owner is someone else other than the original manufacturer, have it much easier. Something to keep in mind for the future perhaps.
Yes, I’ve bought two aircraft with this principle firmly in mind. I do not want descendants of the people who made my property 40+ years ago reaching into my 2016 world and taking a piece 
For simple aircraft operated under FAA Part 91 or similar, under caring sole ownership, I’d say manufacturer technical ‘support’ is not generally a desirable thing. Type certified and forgotten can conversely be desirable in avoiding costly and annoying artificial problems, if you have time and authority to deal with real world hardware problems independently, when and (more to the point) if they occur.
Agreed Silvaire – the Cessna SID’s really hurt the owners in those countries who make no distinction between private and charter. Prob cost the owners in Australia and Europe a lot of money, alt. destroyed the value of their property.
AdamFrisch wrote:
who make no distinction between private and charter.
Or who don’t know or don’t want to know the difference between a recommendation and a mandiatory action.
AdamFrisch wrote:
This schedule is based on airplane utilization, operation and maintenance in the category of service for which the airplane was originally designed; specifically, a pressurized executive or corporate transportation vehicle wherein the majority of cruise is above 10,000 feet altitude and flight duration is more than one hour
So in which way does this preclude:
AdamFrisch wrote:
Should the aircraft be used for missions other than that intended by design, such as an air taxi, commuter air service,
Basically at least for this it would mean to me that King Air owners will have to prove that they usually fly over 10k ft and legs of average more than an hour in order to be within the “designed” parameters?
I think this will open a massive can of worms. I know quite a few nav checker companies which use a King Air. Also I’d expect US owners to sue, as this will put a very hard restriction on their ownership.
I wonder when one manufacturer will come up with the simple “recommendation” that his airplanes should not be used for flying. The ultimate safety recommendation which is sure to prevent any accident in the future. Or wait, while it exists, someone might hit his head on a standing prop blade.
This will be massively resisted in the USA and the FAA is probably not going to make it an AD.
Peter wrote:
This will be massively resisted in the USA and the FAA is probably not going to make it an AD.
I hope so. And preferrably before EASA feels that they have to mandate it just to be sure.
AdamFrisch wrote:
Should the aircraft be used for missions other than that intended by design, such as an air taxi, commuter air service, pipeline surveillance, livestock/predator animal control, search and rescue, navigation aids inspection, extraordinary service at low altitude or unusually short duration flights (less than 30 minutes)
So what missions are “intended by design”??
The King Air has been rendered somewhat obsolete by the PC12, on the one hand, and the Caravan on the other. Whether Goldman Sachs financial engineering or disruptive technology (PC12 and Caravan) led to the last Beechcraft bankruptcy, or both, is difficult to tell.
Boy this smells a lot like the stuff coming out of Cessna for “aging aircraft” (Cessna 210 and C177 Spar and others BS).
Isnt Beech and Cessna owned by the same parent company? Could it be that the parent is concerned about its children?
Isnt Beech and Cessna owned by the same parent company?
Yes, Textron. Around here, these KingAir problems will not have much impact as the KingAir has been discarded by most commercial operators long ago. A CitationJet flies the same distance cheaper and passengers don’t like propellers at all. Some specialised operators like flight inspection still have KingAirs, but there are only a handful left.
