Hi Neil.
I understand. The good thing about FAA part 91 ops is there are certain things I don’t have to comply with. That kin of fault would not be something I’d need to comply with if it’s not on a specific approved MEL list or I’m part 135. I’m sure there must be a way in Europe to have to comply with the phase inspections items only (i.e. mechanical) and not have to deal with this as well for a private owner?
What happens when you sell the aircraft after it his been operated in FAA Part 91 for a while? Lots of work and $ to get it marketable?
PS Adam I was in Los Angeles yesterday and was surprised to see an Extra 400 or 500 flying over on approach to Van Nuys. I thought of you! Later at dinner in Palos Verdes we were buzzed by a P-51 (twice) and a Flex Wing ultralight, with which we exchanged waves from the dinner table. A lot of activity on a nice day 
(The place names can suffice as the Spanish content to this post – I would like to go to Salamanca based on the photos!)
What happens when you sell the aircraft after it his been operated in FAA Part 91 for a while? Lots of work and $ to get it marketable?
Not if
If it goes to a Euro-reg then yes, potentially lots of work, but it varies. For example a TB20GT has almost no affected components. It would only be if e.g. you overhauled the engine and didn’t change the hoses (which IMHO would be stupid anyway).
There have been forecasts of N-reg values plummetting after EASA FCL but they probably won’t do so significantly because most of the IFR community already has the FAA papers and they would need to get EASA papers anyway if they went EASA-reg.
I heard Walter Extra has sold the Extra 500 line to some new investors, Silvaire. I hope it doesn’t get buried as I’m still rooting for it. Yeah, I was out flying yesterday as well and it was very busy.
Only thing that would add cost maybe was if you wanted to put it back on a 135 certificate. But even then, you can write a minimum equipment list and get that approved and exclude things you don’t want or need. I would say both TCAS and WX radar could easily be excluded. TBO has to be complied with under part 135 (or be on an approved extension program), but not part 91. HSI needs to be done both for 91 and 135, as well as cycle limits on turbine parts. As part 91 you can revert back to the manufacturers phase inspection. A phase inspection is like an annul, except it comes at every 100hr. On a part 135 certificate, you normally have them on a 150hr approved phase inspection and I could specify a similar one for part 91, but for me the 100hr would probably be the best option.
Don’t forget that in Europe, “EASA complex” (which includes any ME turboprop) aircraft will need a Part M signoff in addition to FAA approved maintenance.
Exactly what this involves, I don’t think anybody knows.
Obviously the TBM and the PC12 are not affected. Hey, I wonder why not 
There’s a lot of confusion even in FAA world about what can and can’t be done with turbines. But the bottom line is, simplified, that it under part 91, you don’t need to comply with anything that isn’t part of either the Type Certificate Data Sheet or an AD. This means that TBO etc is a recommend because it’s the equivalent of a SB. However you need to comply with “inspections”, so a hot section inspection you do need to comply with. Also the cycle limits of the rotables inside.
The regulation that seemed to confuse the most was FAR 91.409 where it says:
Large airplanes (to which part 125 is not applicable), turbojet multiengine airplanes, turbopropeller-powered multiengine airplanes, and turbine-powered rotorcraft. No person may operate a large airplane, turbojet multiengine airplane, turbopropeller-powered multiengine airplane, or turbine-powered rotorcraft unless the replacement times for life-limited parts specified in the aircraft specifications, type data sheets, or other documents approved by the Administrator are complied with and the airplane or turbine-powered rotorcraft, including the airframe, engines, propellers, rotors, appliances, survival equipment, and emergency equipment, is inspected in accordance with an inspection program selected under the provisions of paragraph (f) of this section, except that, the owner or operator of a turbine-powered rotorcraft may elect to use the inspection provisions of § 91.409(a), (b), (c), or (d) in lieu of an inspection option of § 91.409(f).
Except that large aircraft are defined as 12500lbs or higher. So there is no legal difference between a turbine single, or turbine twin under 12500lbs in FAA. As long as you do HSI and change the cycled out times in the engine, you can fly them forever legally. Is it smart to do so? Maybe not. But inspection programs like the MORE for the PT6 allows them to extend to 7000hrs TBO, and they do not have higher incident rates. So if the HSI’s been done, it’s probably pretty safe to fly another 1000 at least over TBO.
Interesting thing is that there’s a submarket for over TBO turbines in the US (which is not what I’m looking at, btw). Once they reach that point they’re not economically viable for a part 135 operator , and they command a very low price because a complete overhaul would be rather costly. The good news is that you can get into some of these for not very much money part 91 and still get thousands of hours of flying out of them. They also will probably not depreciate as much as a plane tied to the engine times. Thirdly, there’s a huge aftermarket for mid-time turbines and you can very often get a PT6 or a Garrett with maybe 2000hrs left on it for about the same you would pay for a piston engine overhaul firewall forward.
How this translates to Europe, I don’t know.
