So who has been caught up in the change of interpretation of the rules? I know of two aircraft that can't get a permit to fly because of this. Expect a lot of grounded aircraft untill this is sorted. Worst cast, this is not good.
Edit, just for some clarification this is from the RAANZ August news letter.
Withdrawal of the RAANZ Part 103 on-condition program We have received advice from CAA that they will NOT grant us an exemption for this program, and require us to advise all affected IAs and members. This means we have to revert to the current CAA interpretation of 103.217(b) and AC103.1. That is- if there exists an engine manufacturer's maintenance schedule and TIS or calendar limits, it must be followed, even if the airframe manufacturer does not reference it. We have arrived at this point through a series of events- • a new interpretation by CAA of 103.127(b) that has stood for many years; • development of a program in consultation with CAA to align Part 103 engine maintenance requirements with other similar classes of aircraft; • launching that program with the expectation that an exemption will be granted; • withdrawal of CAA’s assurance to issue that exemption due to the current political climate surrounding and within CAA.
Last Edit: Aug 17, 2019 8:16:59 GMT 12 by daqqy152
Post by dustyredgodfrey on Aug 18, 2019 8:37:39 GMT 12
Common sense will prevail eventually? There has been a few false starts with the on condition program. I have replaced a perfectly reliable and well maintained engine. This is money I would rather not spend as the 912 series has proven to be extremely reliable even when maintained by non professionals. A significant number of aircraft will be grounded which will hurt the flying community
If you belong to RAANZ then "on condition" is available. It does require owners to keep their maintenance and documentation up to date but I don't see that as a bad thing. Experimentals, home builts and microlights are generally every bit as much proper aircraft as are Cessnas and Pipers.