|
Kevin:
I understand your position. For certain engines (one where maintenance is unknown or one which mostly sat without flying for years) I would take your side, but let me play the role of "run'em while they hum" advocate for engines of known good maintenance which haven't been sitting.
In GMAs message he's concerned about wear and other factors which can lead to catastrophic failure, and you point out the impact on core value and the in-flight emergency. My rebuttal is this: and this happened on an engine where I'm carefully tracking oil usage, compression and oil-change analysis? Not likely. Remember also that doing an overhaul is no guarantee of another 1500 hours of trouble-free flying, as your 800 hour failure and Kim Geyer's experience with recently reman engines suggest. In fact, because of infant mortality, I'd much rather be flying an engine at TBO with no sign of problems than one with 20 hours out of overhaul. This is a statement I made earlier but now strengthen to include a TBO engine.
My view, for what it's worth.
Ernie
|
Hybrid Mode
