IT SEEMS that the Kenya Civil Aviation Authority (KCAA) has fallen into the same trap as did the South African CAA some years ago through a misinterpretation of the word “recommended” as, according to our Nairobi correspondent, Simon Githae, the KCAA has recently issued a new directive that all piston engines must be overhauled after 12 years, irrespective of the hours flown.
Citing recommendations from the Lycoming and Continental engine manufacturers, the authority has now introduced this ruling and is not renewing Certificates of Airworthiness for piston-engine aircraft which have not met this requirement. This directive comes at a time when the industry has shown signs of positive growth all of which is now threatened. Of the 150 aircraft in this category in Kenya, 70 stand to be directly affected by this directive.
The requirement, which is a directive from the Lycoming and Continental manufacturers, recommends that the engine be overhauled after the normal TBO (usually between 1 500 and 2 000 hours) or 12 years whichever comes first. This is nothing new and has received mixed reactions from various regulators across the globe, but most regulators have adopted a cautious approach in view of the safety and industry economics. The whole matter really hinges around the definition of the word “recommended”. The SACAA and several other authorities including the UK CAA, fell into this trap misinterpreting “recommended” believing the engine manufacturers’ directive to be mandatory. The Oxford Dictionary defines recommend as “advise a course of action”. The manufacturers’ directive was apparently issued years ago because it was found that some engines which had not run for extended periods were deteriorating to a point where their performance would be suspect. This is indeed the case so certain maintenance requirements have been introduced.
This 12-year directive at first covered all piston-engined aircraft in all categories until it was amended in some countries to cover commercially-operated aircraft. This will hardly affect the industry as it is very unlikely that an aircraft used “for hire and reward” will not have had at least one – probably more – engine overhauls in a 12-year span.
The, UK CAA and South African CAA have released notices to deal with 12-year overhaul requirement by making conditions for continued operation of such aircraft as per the specified category with various inspection requirements. These were covered in the UK CAA Cap 747 and SACAA’s AIC 18.19 (dated December 12, 2006). The US FAA considers the recommendation as advisory – not mandatory – and has thus has not issued any directive to that effect.
The recommendations covered in the SACAA AIC 18.19 are plain common sense and any private aircraft owner ignoring them would need “his head read”. For example, all engines reaching 12 years since new or since the last overhaul irrespective of hours flown, must be thoroughly inspected by a qualified AMO. In short, the engine has to be checked including a blow-by and a boroscope inspection carried out on all cylinders. All fuel-carrying lines and oil leaks must be investigated and rectified as necessary and seals and hoses requiring replacement are to be renewed. These and other requirements are plain common sense. The introduction of the mandatory 12-year overhaul by the SACAA caused such an uproar that the authority was placed under an obligation to investigate the situation further. As it freely admitted, it was unable to find any case where an accident or incident had been the result of a non-overhauled 12 year old engine failing.
Thus, in a nutshell, the regulation as it applies to privately owned and operated aircraft only, was changed from mandatory to recommended (with conditions). It is therefore hard to understand how the Kenya Civil Aviation Authority could have fallen in to the misinterpretation trap. Surely it knew that the SACAA had gone this same route? Perhaps the Kenyan authority has had a sudden rush of blood to its head and has the urge to issue proclamations left right and centre. The 12-year regulation was announced almost simultaneously with a new set of fees which has seen most charges increased from 100% to anywhere up to ONE THOUSAND PERCENT (see page 64). What sort of madness is this?
This double blow to the Kenyan aviation industry is not being taken lightly and already operators are up in arms, the consensus being that the directive and higher fees will greatly affect growth and can even lead to shrinkage of the general aviation – especially the private category – sector in Kenya. The Kenya Association of Air Operators is already engaging KCAA on the directive, seeking audience with the senior management of the authority for a way out, the result of which was still pending at the time of writing.
In its petition to KCAA, the association noted that the enforcement of this directive was questionable since the authority had not issued any circular to that effect citing that the manufacturer’s directives were not mandatory unless promulgated by the authority. Furthermore, the directive will not lead to higher safety as it is felt that implementation may have more to do with the commercial interests at play, according to Steven Ndolo, Director - Aviation Solutions, Kenya. He, too, noted that there had been no single reported incident which could be attributed to failure to overhaul an engine at the recommended 12 year time.
On another tack: It seems that the KCAA is not the only one in Africa going hell-bent for higher fees. The Civil Aviation Authority of Zimbabwe (CAAZ) has just introduced a new fee structure to be charged in conjunction with the current departure taxes making Zimbabwe the most expensive country in the region as far as tax on general aviation is concerned – and that’s saying something (see also page 52)!
Do these and other such authorities really consider general aviation to be the goose that lays the golden egg? Kenya operators have already pointed out to their KCAA that the industry in that country is too small to finance the cash-hungry authority alone and that it should look elsewhere for funds. The time is long overdue that the authorities throughout Africa wake up to the fact that general aviation is not, as they seem to consider, a “rich man’s plaything”, but, in fact, is vital to this continent’s transport infrastructure.
