50 Hours or Three Years (General Aviation News)

[Neal]

Interesting thought. For example, do we really need a condition inspection annually on a new(er) plane?

50 Hours or Three Years — General Aviation News

Should aircraft inspections move to a "50 hours or three years" schedule? Explore the potential benefits, economic impacts, and FAA hurdles of this proposed maintenance shift.

generalaviationnews.com

 

[Cactus Charlie]

I would oppose any regulatory change that required inspection after 50 hours. I have no intention of doing two condition inspections each year.

Even aircraft in commercial service only require inspection every 100 hours. Reducing that to 50 hours for non-commercial use would be ridiculous.

 

[ve6yeq]

This does not follow the evidence that inspections and maintence induces failures. For example Quantifying Maintenance Risk - SavvyAviation

 

[Neal]

Don't agree with 50 hours, what interests me more is extending the inspection cycle from 1 year to 2 or 3. I don't know what applies to corporate jets for example but their down time is probably costly beyond the cost of inspection.

 

[Cactus Charlie]

Two years or one hundred hours would have my support.

 

[ve6yeq]

The data from Savvy Aviation suggests that 300 hrs or 24 months is closer to optimal.

This year, since I have the plane down south for the winter, I am going to hit 100 hrs in the next few weeks before I reach 12 months. It does not take many ~18 hr XC trips to use up the hours. As I have not updated the operating conditions for phased inspections, all inspections must occur at the same time, so I expect a couple of days of inspections in April after I hit 100 hrs.

 

[Neal]

Correct me if I'm wrong but 100 hour does not apply to experimental. EX-3/FX-3 is both experimental airframe and engine. Only condition inspection - annual.