Can you explain the ICA? I got the same docs from them, but I have no idea what this means...

The Instructions for Continued Airworthiness is a maintenance plan that you submit to the FAA for approval that differs from the manufacturers.

You're basically saying, "My plan to keep the plane airworthy is better or just as safe than the manufacturers, and here is why". And then the FAA tells you if they agree or not.

There was an air carrier in Europe that had a bunch of Piaggio that even had a custom inspection schedule ABCD checks. EASA is different than FAA but I think it was a similar idea. I'd have to google to find it again.

Edit: I think this is what I recall. Its for the engines, not the airframe
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... -extension

I thought that was called an AIP, Approved Inspection Program:

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/med ... 91-90_.pdf

You submit under 91.409(f)(4) and it does require FSDO approval.

The term ICA is usually used for STCs and components from what I can tell. It gives additional instructions for maintenance of the modified system.

Mike C.

Clearly there's a lot of confusion. I'm learning as I go on this.

Within the MORE documents, there is a path to approval for 91 operators that does not require FSDO approval.

If you're adding it to your Opspecs for 135 the FSDO would have to be notified, but I don't see how they could withhold approval for an already approved STC with published ICA.

Clearly there's a lot of confusion. I'm learning as I go on this.

Within the MORE documents, there is a path to approval for 91 operators that does not require FSDO approval.

If you're adding it to your Opspecs for 135 the FSDO would have to be notified, but I don't see how they could withhold approval for an already approved STC with published ICA.

"On Condition" ?

As per the operator FAA approved maintenance program or inspection schedule ?

Anyone uses this option? Comments, suggestions?

The MORE doc that was included above has this to say for 91 operators: "Option 2: Comply with the manufacturers Hot Section Inspection interval found in the pertinent PW&C Service Bulletins. When using this Option there is no need to contact the FAA FSDO." It doesn't mention single vs twin. Of course, many of us have maintained that 91 operators can do exactly that *without* the MORE program.

I had no idea you could just replace the ICA without an STC. This leads to the question: If the -60s don't need an STC, why do the smaller engines have an STC?

And how do they make money? I can't legally use an STC without the STC holder's permission. Does the same apply to custom ICA?

They tightly control that ICA. It wouldn't have the same protection that an STC has, but it is their IP.

Hi everyone,

Two items

1. SIMULATOR
Does anyone have a simulator they like for Collins Pro-Line 21? I have a Garmin Piaggio and did my initial training in-plane, but am thinking I will go to FlightSafety next time. I have zero experience with non-Garmin avionics so would hope to get a little practice with the system before showing up. Ideal simulator would be of a Piaggio, but really any plane I guess would get the job done.

2. Overhaul & MORE
There has been discussion about MORE in the TBMOPA forum. If I recall, it's not that the -66 doesn't NEED an STC, it's that one has not been developed for it (yet). A FSDO in theory can approve anything. It sounds like MORE is exploring formalizing their program for the TBM -66, which presumably is near-identical to the P180 -66.

In TBMOPA, people have also been sharing their overhaul costs, and it's all over the board, definitely up since Covid. Presumably the variation is both a function of engine condition and shop chosen. I've seen numbers from $400k-$950k per engine, the uncertainty of course is madly frustrating to a lot of people. There are no obvious conclusions developed yet over there on how to think about pricing.

Ed

I think the three biggest variables for overhaul costs will be:

1. Shop

Some are just more expensive than others.

2. Life Limited Parts, SBs, and ADs

Check your cycles left on your various blades, impellers, wheels, etc. If they are timed out, or if they WOULD time out by the next overhaul, you need to buy one. They can be very pricey. Some "mandatory" SBs will be forced on you by some shops, and ADs are of course required.

3. Past Usage

Was it kept near the sea or corrosive places? Was it run hard and hot? Was it abused? Was it operated regularly and taken care of?

The first two can be analyzed to some degree, check your logs for LLP, SBs, and ADs, and understand your shop economics. Past usage is harder to judge.

Much of it comes down to luck, usually bad, like finding something cracked.

I can easily see how OH costs can vary 2x or more, but maybe an assessment of the above factors can help narrow it down. The PT6A-6x series are expensive to overhaul.

Mike C.

Every other business (except health care) seem to be able to offer fixed prices, or at least an a la carte, but not aviation. Still the wild west. I wonder if all the shady film producers in Hollywood worked in aerospace beforehand?

Compressor rinse via Idalia moisture this afternoon.
Headed to Florence, SC for an approach and back but just before I begin vectors to ILS-9 at FLO controller says he has extreme rain. Moderate to even what they call heavy rain now; no big deal but I kinda like the paint the way it is on me aeroplane so I did a 180 and back home. Light rain back home and I have been wanting to
land without using beta/reverse to prove just how much it matters.
Certainly could have stopped sooner as I was easy on me KrazE expensive carbon brakes.
Turned off at 6,000 feet.

Not sure I would ever be interested in a small jet without reverse.

Friday headed to NY to see my son.
Still amazes me I can be there in ~90 minutes.

So, what did you learn?

What was your landing weight? Wet runway, right? How much shorter do you typically get with reverse?

I definitely find reverse effective. This was KHWD Rwy 28R. Off at taxiway E…

About 9,800 lbs.
Yes, wet runway. Light braking no reverse or beta.
My home drone is 7,000 feet. I normally use zero or very light braking only to turn off on taxiway and usually turn off around 4,000 feet.
My shortest turnoff was about the same distance as yours.
Runway 10 at LNA turning off at A1. I only attempted because AWOS reporting 10 knot headwind. Not really hard just overcoming objection from the tightwad accountant in me for using moderate braking.

Part 135 Charter (if I understand correctly) will not depart without balanced field.
Yes, I am part 91.
I still weigh risk benefit anytime I contemplate using a shorter field and mostly do not compromise except when just me or just me and wife.
Staniel Cay Exuma Bahamas was one exception as is LNA sometimes when I got to Flight Safety.

Now :
I hereby challenge you to a short field landing competition using YOUR airplane.

99% sure I can drag her in just behind power curve at around 106 knots, land within 100 feet of threshold and get her stopped in under 1500 feet.

Once you land kinda short and get these carbon brakes hot they will hold plane still with full power on take off just like the sim will.