Page 13 - March 2015 Volume 9, Number 3

When do we execute another hot section now that we have exceeded TBO?
Of all the maintenance professionals I spoke with, this was the biggest concern. They are concerned that now the liability for the maintenance of that engine is falling on their shoulders and there is no clear course of action for the company or individual to take to give them the comfort level they desire.
I believe that this is coming from the fact that facilities are now being found liable in court cases once they sign off an engine that has been past the recommended TBO.
As maintenance professionals, we all want to keep the aircraft that we maintain as safe as possible and as economical as possible, but no one really wants to assume unrealistic liabilities in doing so. I think in the future you may begin to see maintenance personnel and facilities just not wanting to work on aircraft that have engines exceeding TBO.
Ironically, in my entire turbine customer base, I do not have a single customer that has requested an exceedance of a TBO.
In conclusion, I originally asked Tom for documentation that would counter my assessments of the FARs and it has been provided. I therefore very respectfully thank Tom and you others who have done so. I stand corrected.
Let’s now have even more fun with the FAA definition of the “Current Manual” and how it is applied to maintenance!
Respectfully submitted, Michael E. Stanko KA
Editor’s Note: For Order 8620.2A in its entirety go to www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/ Order/8620_ 2A.pdf
About the Author: Mike Stanko established Gemco Aviation Services in 1977, which specializes in maintaining the Beech aircraft line from the Staggerwing through the King Air 350. He has been recognized as the industry leader in the restoration and maintenance of the Beechcraft Staggerwing, having restored over 15. He actively serves as a board member for the Beechcraft Heritage Museum.
MARCH 2015
KING AIR MAGAZINE • 11