Savvy Aviation Mike Busch Videos - Thoughts?

[455 Bravo Uniform]

As I understand it, the TBO requirement was driven by commercial operator certification more than driven by the CAR13/Part 33 certification. I believe the current reference is found in Part 119 but it goes back to the CAA days.

Its the reason few engines have their TBO listed in the ALS or listed in the TCDS. Its also the reason those TBOs can be legally extended by commercial operators and are not required for private Part 91 ops.

Cool, thanks as always. Was there a required procedure the mfg’s used to calculate TBO?

 

[WDD]

Cool, thanks as always. Was there a required procedure the mfg’s used to calculate TBO?

Here is a succinct opinion

TBO is a number someone pulled from their ass because the FAA insists on a number.

 

[Bell206]

Was there a required procedure the mfg’s used to calculate TBO?

It was based on the endurance block tests in CAR13/Part33. However, it was left to the OEM how the TBO limit was determined from those tests.

 

[Klaus M]

Sorry @WDD of accusing you of trolling. This Gentleman Mike Busch is the type of guy that may be very informative and is quite often used as a reference. The issue many mechanics have with him is his 'my-way-or-the-highway' attitude. Mike doesn't like to discuss just dictate his opinions.

Adding to @Bell206 points, TBO is a very important part of keeping the commercial aircraft reliable and of the highest standards. Most forms of transportation ignore "PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE". If the engine, transmission or wheels fall off your vehicle you kick it and call for a tow. You would never pay for your grandchildren to be transported on a plane that has an old worn out engine or propeller. I know I won't.

Preventative Maintenance has been the most powerful tool we have to prevent failure of critical components. Waiting for failure before replacement has not worked very good for commercial operators. Creates lawsuits. Private owner/operators have the regulatory right to push parts to failure and I will argue that you have that right. Nobody is going to violate a private operator just because they pushed a part to failure (except A.D.s) and they never should.