Peter wrote:
This will be massively resisted in the USA and the FAA is probably not going to make it an AD.
It does not need to be made an AD to be a problem. EASA-approved Maintenance Programmes should take all the manufacturer’s recommendations into account. Are CAMOs and CAA going to insist that owners have a special inspection from Beechcraft designed for their “mission profile”? As they mention it will become an Airworthiness Limitation, as far as the maintenance programme is concerned, that’s mandatory.
AdamFrisch wrote:
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 agree with Silvaire’s comment regarding simple machines but (assuming he means simple single single piston engined aircraft) there are larger aircraft being maintained virtually without the support of the type certificate holder using 30 or 40 year old maintenance manuals which does cause problems.
AdamFrisch wrote:
Should the aircraft be used for missions other than that intended by design, the inspections specified in the Standard Flight Profile Inspection Schedule (Chart 201) are not appropriate for continued airworthiness of the airplane structure.
The Elephant in the Room?
Personally I’d hate for this to be true. King Air is on my bucket list… 
RobertL18C wrote:
The King Air has been rendered somewhat obsolete by the PC12, on the one hand, and the Caravan on the other.
In 2014 Beechcraft sold 126 King Airs vs 71 PC12s.
Doesn’t sound obsolete to me.
Not wishing to start the twin versus single debate for commercial all weather ops across any terrain two PT6s still sounds better than one which for me will always giving the kingair an edge – commercial considerations of course aside.
Neil, that is impressive, I had in mind that KA production had dwindled to well below 100 annually. Perhaps this was due to the bankruptcy re organisation slowing sales, and they have since picked up.
Pilatus aims to produce around 70 PC 12 annually, limiting production to protect re sale values. They claim the lowest depreciation amongst turbo props.
The DoD is a big purchaser of the KA, although the PC 12 in U28A guise is also used in Special Ops.
I think the King Air is far from dead. The entire thread is a little silly tbh. Many aircraft are subject to different inspections if doing things like pipeline inspections etc. It puts far more pressure on the airframe. The PA46 has some similar limitations.
2015 – 84 Kingairs sold in first three quarters versus 37 PC-12s. 61 Caravan and Grand Caravan. None of these numbers include military shipments.
Here is doc:
Apparently it has been in place for some time, but has been generally ignored. Seems like Textron wants to reiterate and remind the service centers/maintenance facilities/FSDO etc. Harshly implemented and followed to the letter, it’s a disaster. But maybe reality and sanity will make the real world interpretation less so. Only time will tell. But wordings like this pretty much concludes it will be financially disastrous for operators:
The process of developing a Wing Life Evaluation is extensive and requires several departments’ involvement from structures, certification, publications, etc. The cost to develop the evaluation depends on the level of study needed which depends on the complexity of the flight profiles and can take up to nine months to complete due to interaction required with the regulatory authorities.
Now, part 91 this is not applicable as long as it’s not an AD, as I understand. But in Euroland and Australia they never make a distinction between the two.
But in Euroland and Australia they never make a distinction between the two.
I am not sure that is the case. It certainly isn’t the case in the piston world.
For 10 years I was hangared at a KA/TBM service centre and it’s true that they always did the entire manufacturer MM list, but that was because the customers at that level expect that. If somebody wants Part 91 operation, or private use on a G-reg, etc, they would have had to go elsewhere. I did ask about this w.r.t. a TBM700, operated Part 91.
In some cases the additional distinction between an SB and an MSB is that the latter is done free of charge if the plane is under a warranty. So a manufacturer has an incentive to minimise MSBs while too many affected airframes are still under warranty 
But isn’t that exactly what happened with the Cessna SID’s? Not an issue in FAA land for part 91, but a complete disaster in Europe and Australia?
