Mailbox: SACAA's controversial engine overhaul mandate

Key topics:SACAA enforces mandatory piston engine overhauls after 12 years, ignoring "on condition" operation.Heavy-handed regulations target private pilots, not flying schools, increasing engine failure risks.SACAA's actions may reflect political paranoia, impacting small aircraft owners disproportionately..Sign up for your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to keep you up to speed with the content that matters. The newsletter will land in your inbox at 5:30am weekdays. Register here.Support South Africa’s bastion of independent journalism, offering balanced insights on investments, business, and the political economy, by joining BizNews Premium. Register here.If you prefer WhatsApp for updates, sign up to the BizNews channel here.The auditorium doors will open for BNIC#2 on 10 September 2025 in Hermanus. For more information and tickets, click here..Feedback: Heavy handed regulators ground small airplanes, etc..By Chalkie Stobbart.I am Chalkie Stobbart, Google the name. I joined SAA in January 1968 as an apprentice aircraft mechanic, retired August 2011 as a senior captain. So, yes I have been in aviation for a while and even worked with Kevin Storie through association with the Aero Club of SA and RAASA, at the time I was the guy who ran the technical section. (Recreational Aircraft Association of South Africa.)Your podcast was an embarrassment to me as it did not address the elephant in the room. When you mentioned Cemair and Pratt and Whitney, you were so far off track that I gave a thumbs down and left the Youtube presentation.The heavy handed SACAA approach is ’normal’ SACAA over control/central control, for any and all ‘problems’ they envisage. (As you said, when referring to ‘Pretoria.’) They will defend their actions as ‘best international practices’ but most of these actions are cherry picked and totally unnecessary. (We call them T-time Rules.) They are just rocks rolled in the way of progress.The problem affects many aircraft in the private operation category. Part 91 of CAR’s and CAT’s affecting light aircraft fitted with piston engines. It does not affect gas turbines or turbo-props.In short, Lycoming and Teledyne Continental issued Service Instructions, that it is recommended that piston engines which have had 12 years lapse since new or last overhaul, should be overhauled again, irrespective of hours flown. (It's a recommendation, not law.) This is great for the OEM to say as it increases their spare part sales, however, industry statistics will prove that this action actually increases the likelihood of an engine failure within the first 200 hours of operation after overhaul.In the USA, FAR Part 91 (Federal Aviation Regulations) allows aircraft operated in the Private Category to ignore this recommendation and operate the aircraft engine ‘on condition.’ This would require monitoring the status and performance of the engine, and even beyond recommended TBO. (Time Between Overhauls.) (Many modern ways to do that.) Mike Busch of Savvy Aviation has a wealth of knowledge and articles… Such as these, if you want to do some research..Unfortunately our SACAA, have decided they need to make these Service Instructions mandatory. This is ludicrous and the funniest part is that if the SACAA enforce this rule, the OEM’s in the USA will not be able to supply spares as they have a lead time of 12 months or more… so the OEM have already said that they will issue an approval for the engine to continue operating (on condition) until such time that they are able to supply the spare parts needed. Now do you see how shortsighted our Regulator is?In aviation, Service Bulletins and Service Instructions are issued by the OEM. They are NOT compulsory, except here in the RSA, where the SACAA enforces SB’s as compulsory and is now trying to do the same with SI's.By the way, this affects ALL companies with recommended time limits (not hours of operation limits.) Rotax have 10 year, 12 year and 15 year, depending on engine model. Pratt and Whitney radial engines do not have a time limit as do many other light aircraft engines on the market, but the SACAA is allegedly trying to make their new law apply to ALL piston engines in GA. (General Aviation.) BTW, Flying Schools will not be affected as they fly off the TBO hours in less than the recommended 12 year overhaul time. The people who are affected are the little guys, the ‘weekend warriors.’ Those who fly 10 or 20 hours a year. Many have engines that were overhauled more than 12 years ago, and their aircraft still purr along ‘like a Swiss watch.’ Think about this: A few weeks ago at FAPX (my local municipal airfield Paradise Beach, EC) an SANDF member entered my hangar and looked around, took pictures and asked questions, we chatted. His detail was to visit all ‘private’ airships in the WC, EC, Natal and OFS, on his way back to ‘Pretoria.’ Could it be that the timing of this ’12 year rule’ has a lot to do with the failings of the ANC and their paranoia of ‘witgevaar.’ I don’t know, asking for a friend...If it ain't broke, don’t fix it.Regards, Chalkie.Aviation problem with engine 12-year overhaul rule.By Karl Jensen .Watched and listened to your vlog and conversation with Kevin Storie. Thank you for having those views aired, most of which are very disturbing to me and other airplane owners. I was aware of the troublesome CAA legislation that was discussed. I would like to hear the public airing of the regulator's point of view while being questioned by a person of Kevin Storie’s ilk and the regulator’s understanding of the devastating effects. I suggest that this legislation be challenged in a Court of Law by qualified legal professionalsRegards,Karl Jensen

Mailbox: SACAA's controversial engine overhaul mandate

Related Stories

"BEE pits black against white": The trailblazer who says empowerment got it wrong — Sam Montši

Crashing up: The endless cycle of booms, busts, and human folly

Are you losing R30 000 a year in unnecessary tax?

How to make the most of the TFSA limit increase