TBO and beyond - Who is on your side?

Ted DuPuis said:
If you have a crash involving an engine failure, there will be no shortage of questions from from lawyers. This will be regardless of whether or not you follow the TBO recommendation. What about the 135 operators that have their engines run on condition rather than on TBO?
Click to expand...

The issue is, the liability can be transferred to the owner, not just the engine manufacturer, or maintenance facility. The part 135 guys could easily be screwed too. They should probably think about this.

Why do we have TBOs anyway? Because airplanes are unique in the vehicular world. An engine failure can easily result in death. Other vehicles it's just a nuisance. There needs to be a guideline to determine on average, how long an engine can go and likely not have a problem. The manufacturers base the TBO on laboratory and actual experience inthe field with failures. It seems most engines start to go awry around 2000 hours, so they say 2000 hours as guideline.

In a lot of countries in the world, you can not operate and engine on condition and TBO is mandatory for everyone. Here we have organizations like the AOPA that have negotiated leeway for some of us to try to keep aviation affordable.

The problem is, we have lawyers and no shortage of grieving family members looking for compensation. Flying an engine past the point where the manufacturer has recommended the engine be overhauled can easily be seen as negligence if there should be a failure. The problem being, the "engine will speak to you" method of knowing the time to overhaul doesn't always work and it's irrelevant to a jury anyhow. You ignored the manufacturer and FAA recommendations and the engine failed. Real simple for a jury here. Whether or not it is legal to do so makes no difference. You don't have to break any laws to lose your money in a lawsuit.
 
Eh, if you lose, just find a lawyer who will file a countersuit against the plantiff for causing you undue pain and suffering. Actually, I probably wouldn't even wait, as soon as I got paperwork, they would have their own within a week.
 
Dav8or said:
The issue is, the liability can be transferred to the owner, not just the engine manufacturer, or maintenance facility. The part 135 guys could easily be screwed too. They should probably think about this.
Click to expand...

I can say with decent certainty that I've got a better view of lawsuits in this industry than you given my professional exposure to it. You may have more legal background (no idea, I'm not a lawyer), but I've seen what actually happens.

The reality is that, as R&W said, you can be sued regardless of what happens. And if you have a crash that impacts someone else, you WILL be sued regardless. The insurance company knows how many hours are on your engine (because you told them at renewal time, and I presume you didn't lie) so they know you're past TBO. But you will be sued. They will use anything and everything they can against you.

The engine manufacturer will be sued, as well. It doesn't matter if they haven't seen the engine in 40 years and it had 4,000 hours on it, they will be sued.

The maintenance facility will be sued while we're at it. They must have missed the failure.

Everyone gets sued, nobody gets singled out when you have the grieving widow who insists that her husband who purposely flew his plane into the side of the mountain wasn't at fault. The 135 operators who are in a good enough position to be able to run their engines on condition rather than on TBO know that they're going to be sued regardless of a crash. They also know that by doing things on condition, they can reduce their costs which will mean they can more easily afford to spend money on items that actually are important, and their planes will be more reliable as a result. Compare this to the 135 world where the Chief Pilot tells you "This airplane never breaks. If you ever write a maintenance discrepancy in this book, I'll fire you on the spot." Don't think that doesn't happen.

Why do we have TBOs anyway? Because airplanes are unique in the vehicular world. An engine failure can easily result in death. Other vehicles it's just a nuisance.
Click to expand...
Tell that to GM. I don't recall Lycoming, Continental, or Cessna ever having to go before Congress regarding 11 deaths.

There needs to be a guideline to determine on average, how long an engine can go and likely not have a problem. The manufacturers base the TBO on laboratory and actual experience inthe field with failures. It seems most engines start to go awry around 2000 hours, so they say 2000 hours as guideline.
Click to expand...
What do you base this statement on?
 
Dav8or said:
It seems most engines start to go awry around 2000 hours, so they say 2000 hours as guideline.
Click to expand...
So, are you saying that TBO is B-50?

What is the "expert" who testifies that the engine was flown beyond TBO going to say when questioned in grueling detail about what TBO really means and what the statistics around that number mean? Is the jury going to believe someone who can be made to look like they know nothing other than "someone wrote 2000 in a book".

I suspect that it all comes down to who has the most convincing experts. And it's always a roll of the dice.
 
Well, if you are going to say TBO must be followed then you had better not use parts that are not from Continental/Lycoming:
"5. CMI does not provide a TBO for engines that:
• Have been assembled with parts not supplied by CMI"

"This Service Instruction identifies the established Time Between Overhaul (TBO) for Lycoming piston aircraft engines that have genuine Lycoming parts only."

Lycoming boasts about their engines regularly making it past TBO.

Again, read what Mike Bush (and others), write. The airplane cited in this article is NOT one that should have been run past TBO due to obvious issues. Heck, I've seen engines with less than TBO that exhibited these symptoms and were overhauled.

Overhauling an engine just because it is at TBO is actually less safe than operating an engine with a good monitor program. The most likely time for an engine to fail is when first installed. Personally I am more interested in operating safely, liability be damned verses just doing something to avoid liability even if it is less safe.
 
Blackhawk said:
Well, if you are going to say TBO must be followed then you had better not use parts that are not from Continental/Lycoming:
"5. CMI does not provide a TBO for engines that:
• Have been assembled with parts not supplied by CMI"

"This Service Instruction identifies the established Time Between Overhaul (TBO) for Lycoming piston aircraft engines that have genuine Lycoming parts only."

Lycoming boasts about their engines regularly making it past TBO.

Again, read what Mike Bush (and others), write. The airplane cited in this article is NOT one that should have been run past TBO due to obvious issues. Heck, I've seen engines with less than TBO that exhibited these symptoms and were overhauled.

Overhauling an engine just because it is at TBO is actually less safe than operating an engine with a good monitor program. The most likely time for an engine to fail is when first installed. Personally I am more interested in operating safely, liability be damned verses just doing something to avoid liability even if it is less safe.
Click to expand...

This. I was involved with an O-320 powered airplane that was well past TBO (500 since top overhaul) when we sold it. Guess what? The A&P who bought it from us is still running the same engine with regular compression checks and periodically sends oil out for analysis and so far everything is perfectly fine with it.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The reality is that, as R&W said, you can be sued regardless of what happens. And if you have a crash that impacts someone else, you WILL be sued regardless.
Click to expand...

No doubt true. The point being, if you go beyond TBO you're giving your opposition additional and useful data to convince a jury of know nothings that you were negligent. On the surface of it, it looks like you disregarded manufacturer recommendations just to save money. Now your lawyers are in the position where they have to try to convince the jury that you had safety in mind, not money, or at the very least, the failure of the engine had nothing to do with your money saving scheme. Maybe they can get Mike Busch to help out.

The insurance company knows how many hours are on your engine (because you told them at renewal time, and I presume you didn't lie) so they know you're past TBO.
Click to expand...

This is an interesting point. They do know. I wonder if they gradually raise your premium as you go beyond or not? If anybody knows about liability exposure, it's usually the insurance companies.

Compare this to the 135 world where the Chief Pilot tells you "This airplane never breaks. If you ever write a maintenance discrepancy in this book, I'll fire you on the spot." Don't think that doesn't happen.
Click to expand...

Not sure what this bit has to do with anything.

What do you base this statement on?
Click to expand...

I base it on the fact that there is a TBO written down by the manufacturer for every aircraft engine. Maybe I worded it wrong, so I'll let you have a crack at it. Why do we have TBOs written down, what use are they and where do the numbers come from?
 
Blackhawk said:
Overhauling an engine just because it is at TBO is actually less safe than operating an engine with a good monitor program. The most likely time for an engine to fail is when first installed. Personally I am more interested in operating safely, liability be damned verses just doing something to avoid liability even if it is less safe.
Click to expand...

That's great. That's why we have a choice. The point of the article posted above was not to say you can't run past TBO, but rather you may be choosing to take on greater liability in the event of an accident. In your case, you have weighed the differences and are clearly willing to take on the potential additional risk of exposure. That's fine and well, give thanks to organizations like AOPA that make this choice possible. Remember in most other countries, TBO is TBO and you will rebuild the engine there regardless.
 
The counter argument for the idiots on the jury is "How many of you drive your car beyond the warranty period?"
 
warthog1984 said:
You can get 101+% of rated power if you overrev briefly. Lookup "wartime emergency power" for a good example.
Click to expand...

I think wartime emergency power was limited to about five minutes in ww2 and involved water injection. Correct? The demands on an aircraft engine seem totally different that an average automobile to me. Air cooled usually is not uniform as liquid cooled. High rpm on takeoff. Personally I would never run over TBO, especially if others had owned the plane and I had no idea how it had been flown or treated.
 
Last edited:
Jimmy cooper said:
I think wartime emergency power was limited to about five minutes in ww2 and involved water injection. Correct? The demands on an aircraft engine seem totally different that an average automobile to me. Air cooled usually is not uniform as liquid cooled. High rpm on takeoff. Personally I would never run over TBO, especially if others had owned the plane and I had no idea how it had been flown or treated.
Click to expand...

Spoken like a true renter.:lol::D
 
Spoken like a former Cessna 195 owner. Boy did I take gas on it. One can't be too careful. Not too bright on my part but I learned.
 
EdFred said:
The counter argument for the idiots on the jury is "How many of you drive your car beyond the warranty period?"
Click to expand...

The analogy doesn't fit. An important distinction between warranty and TBO is, the automobile manufacturers state no recommended time to rebuild any part of the car. A warranty in either an airplane, or a car is simply a contract to the buyer that should there be a failure inside the warranty period, the seller will fix it free of charge. It has nothing to do with how long a manufacturer believes you should operate an engine. Inversely, TBO has nothing to do with who is to pay for repairs. They are not comparable.
 
Dav8or said:
The analogy doesn't fit. An important distinction between warranty and TBO is, the automobile manufacturers state no recommended time to rebuild any part of the car. A warranty in either an airplane, or a car is simply a contract to the buyer that should there be a failure inside the warranty period, the seller will fix it free of charge. It has nothing to do with how long a manufacturer believes you should operate an engine. Inversely, TBO has nothing to do with who is to pay for repairs. They are not comparable.
Click to expand...
How many people are driving cars that can prove the manufacturer suggested maintenance schedule has been complied with for the entire life of the vehicle?
 
jesse said:
How many people are driving cars that can prove the manufacturer suggested maintenance schedule has been complied with for the entire life of the vehicle?
Click to expand...

Or at one time put in mid-grade instead of premium, or used 10W in the summer instead of 5W like is recommended, or...
 
jesse said:
How many people are driving cars that can prove the manufacturer suggested maintenance schedule has been complied with for the entire life of the vehicle?
Click to expand...

Well; When I bought my truck, I started an Excel spreadsheet for a maintenance record. It's all there, and I have receipts to back up almost everything. 226,000 miles worth so far. :yes:
 
Norman said:
Well; When I bought my truck, I started an Excel spreadsheet for a maintenance record. It's all there, and I have receipts to back up almost everything. 226,000 miles worth so far. :yes:
Click to expand...

So do I, with my motorcycle that I bought new, but not with any of my other vehicles. Even then I have not fully followed the motorcycle's maintenance schedule (requires spark plugs get changed every 7,000 miles and changing them is a major PITA on a Concours 14).

I suspect the percent of the public that could prove the above would be extremely limited. Even those who bought new and took to the dealer are trusting the dealer track it most of the time.
 
Dav8or said:
No doubt true. The point being, if you go beyond TBO you're giving your opposition additional and useful data to convince a jury of know nothings that you were negligent. On the surface of it, it looks like you disregarded manufacturer recommendations just to save money. Now your lawyers are in the position where they have to try to convince the jury that you had safety in mind, not money, or at the very least, the failure of the engine had nothing to do with your money saving scheme. Maybe they can get Mike Busch to help out.
Click to expand...

Can you point to a trial case where that argument has successfully been made solely on the basis that the engine was past TBO? Furthermore, can you find a significant difference in outcomes from those who have changed their engines at TBO vs. those who haven't?

I think you're warning people about something that isn't significant.

This is an interesting point. They do know. I wonder if they gradually raise your premium as you go beyond or not? If anybody knows about liability exposure, it's usually the insurance companies.
Click to expand...

My experience is no. In fact, my premiums have continued to go down each year as the engines have gotten more time. When I overhauled the engines, the premiums went down by about the same amount they had gone down each year prior.

I base it on the fact that there is a TBO written down by the manufacturer for every aircraft engine. Maybe I worded it wrong, so I'll let you have a crack at it. Why do we have TBOs written down, what use are they and where do the numbers come from?
Click to expand...

If you read AC 33.19-1 section 1.1, it provides you some of the background.

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC33-19-1.pdf

Basically, listing a TBO (or engine life) is a regulatory requirement. The numbers come from a combination of service history and conducting block tests. However, they are only pushed when there's an incentive to the engine company to push them. For example, some of the new diesels that have 1200 hour or less TBOs (normal for new engines, per the AC) will likely have the TBOs expanded, because people aren't happy about potentially buying an engine with only a 1200-hour TBO, so they have an incentive to do so. Lycoming doesn't have much incentive to push the TBO further when they already have longer TBOs than the competition and those who want to run past TBO do all the time.

Of course, I've said this many times before on here.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Can you point to a trial case where that argument has successfully been made solely on the basis that the engine was past TBO? Furthermore, can you find a significant difference in outcomes from those who have changed their engines at TBO vs. those who haven't?

I think you're warning people about something that isn't significant.
Click to expand...

I'm not warning anybody about squat. I'm just pointing out that people here, apparently in their intense desire to run past TBO, have missed the point of this thread, which by the way was not started by me. Really don't give a crap if people want to fly till it drops. I have no cases to "point to", or any kind of scientific evidence. I'm just trying to point out that people here were missing the real point of the posted article and that is, this could very well be the new way of thinking for aviation lawyers, not me.

It's significance isn't known. It may be in the future.

My experience is no. In fact, my premiums have continued to go down each year as the engines have gotten more time. When I overhauled the engines, the premiums went down by about the same amount they had gone down each year prior.
Click to expand...

Were any of your engines significantly beyond TBO? It's not clear. Declining premiums as the engines are within TBO is to be expected. As the engines go up in hours, the plane as a whole is worth less, therefore less payout in case of loss.

If you read AC 33.19-1 section 1.1, it provides you some of the background.

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m.../AC33-19-1.pdf

Basically, listing a TBO (or engine life) is a regulatory requirement. The numbers come from a combination of service history and conducting block tests.
Click to expand...

Why would they do this? Any ideas?

However, they are only pushed when there's an incentive to the engine company to push them. For example, some of the new diesels that have 1200 hour or less TBOs (normal for new engines, per the AC) will likely have the TBOs expanded, because people aren't happy about potentially buying an engine with only a 1200-hour TBO, so they have an incentive to do so. Lycoming doesn't have much incentive to push the TBO further when they already have longer TBOs than the competition and those who want to run past TBO do all the time.

Of course, I've said this many times before on here.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm... sounds like a personal crusade. Since you seem to demand truth in posts, do you have any proof that you can cite to support this theory of yours?
 
Dav8or said:
I'm just trying to point out that people here were missing the real point of the posted article and that is, this could very well be the new way of thinking for aviation lawyers, not me.

It's significance isn't known. It may be in the future.
Click to expand...

Except the salient point in this case isn't that the engine was beyond clock/hours TBO, it was the fact that the mechanic had found broken pieces of engine in places that there shouldn't have been broken pieces.

Dav8or said:
Why would they do this? Any ideas?
Click to expand...

It's a carryover from the early airmail/barnstorming days, when having 1200 hours on an engine meant it was runout and engine failures were more common... typically over the worst terrain to have the engine quit.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
My experience is no. In fact, my premiums have continued to go down each year as the engines have gotten more time. When I overhauled the engines, the premiums went down by about the same amount they had gone down each year prior.
Click to expand...
Do they even ask about the plane? My insurer doesn't. The annual questionnaire they send me only includes questions about me. How many hours I've flown, when was my last medical/BFR/IPC/etc.

No questions whatsoever about the plane and its maintenance except to ask if I still want the same hull value.
 
timwinters said:
Do they even ask about the plane? My insurer doesn't. The annual questionnaire they send me only includes questions about me. How many hours I've flown, when was my last medical/BFR/IPC/etc.

No questions whatsoever about the plane and its maintenance except to ask if I still want the same hull value.
Click to expand...

AIG wants to know engine times. I believe I've seen some questions regarding equipment in the airplane too, such as GPS, radar, etc. Other than those basic questions however, I don't recall seeing any other questions about the airplane at renewal time.
 
Norman said:
Hmmmm... sounds like a personal crusade. Since you seem to demand truth in posts, do you have any proof that you can cite to support this theory of yours?
Click to expand...
Much of what he says comes from regulations and advisory circulars you are free to read and the rest comes from his experience as an engineer making his living in this industry. He was also heavily involved in the development and certification of a new class of piston engines for one of the big two manufacturers....
 
Jimmy cooper said:
I think wartime emergency power was limited to about five minutes in ww2 and involved water injection. Correct? The demands on an aircraft engine seem totally different that an average automobile to me. Air cooled usually is not uniform as liquid cooled. High rpm on takeoff. Personally I would never run over TBO, especially if others had owned the plane and I had no idea how it had been flown or treated.
Click to expand...

Say you find a steal of a deal on an airplane and the engine TBO is 2000 or 12 years whichever is first. The engine was last overhauled in the year 2000. The logs show the engine in service until 2006 when it was pickled and put into storage with 900 SMOH, so it flew 150 hours a year, and is listed for sale as is. No corrosion noted via borescope to cylinders or on any steel fasteners on the engine itself.

Are you overhauling that engine? Its now 14 years old. Assuming you fly it 100 hours per year it will be 25 years old by the time it hits 2000 hours.
 
Last edited:
Aren't there metallurgical tests that can confirm integrity?

This would mitigate the 12 year requirement
 
bnt83 said:
Say you find a steal of a deal on an airplane and the engine TBO is 2000 or 12 years whichever is first. The engine was last overhauled in the year 2000. The logs show the engine in service until 2006 when it was pickled and put into storage with 900 SMOH, so it flew 150 hours a year, and is listed for sale as is. No corrosion noted via borescope to cylinders or on any steel fasteners on the engine itself.

Are you overhauling that engine? Its now 14 years old. Assuming you fly it 100 hours per year it will be 25 years old by the time it hits 2000 hours.
Click to expand...

If it checks out (good compression, good scope, no metal in filter, good oil analysis) and runs good, I'd fly it.

Our engine was overhauled in 1996, has 1600hrs, and runs like a champ.
 
My engine was overhauled in the early 80s. No pitting, no corrosion, no abnormal wear. (It's been opened up twice and inspected since 2002) Some of you are just drinking Kool-Aid.
 
Same here Ed, my IO-360 was installed new in the 80s and has 1400 hours on it. Runs great but has been taken care of. Just changed the oil this past Sat and the filter was clean as a whistle

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top