Another screwed by someone elses mechanics thread

[ChemGuy]

Found out yesterday the flying club I'm in with an RV7a is grounded. Turns out the engine by SN has a crank that is affected by a lycoming SB and then AD from 2006. And for the past 13 or 14 years all the other mechanics and the pre buy mechanic just went off the original guy saying "not applicable". Which I guess it was...but it is affected buy the revised SB/AD that came out later and added a whole bunch of new engines.

This type of crap is what really annoys me...company L makes a crappy part. They find this out a few years after they make said crappy part. Tell people they need, MUST!, replace this part. Then they want the customer to pay for it. Now to be fair at the time they had a good deal on new parts for this. But that ended 12 years ago as it was a very limited time deal. So we are stuck paying.

And side 2 of this coin if anyone of the other mechanics earlier had bothered to due their job...we wouldnt have bought a plane with a subject crank. Can they be made to pay for the repair...probably not. Will there be any ramification against them as licensed mechanics...probably not.

Anyone have a spare good crank for a Lycoming IO360 A1B6 laying around? I was told new cranks are ~1 year out. We may just go to a new engine....those are about 5 months out at Van's. Now i know why people want to Subaru and corvair power planes.

 

[WannFly]

WOW. here i thought all these crap were reserved for certificated world!!

 

[AGLyme]

Imagine the poor engineers at Pratt/Boeing about right now... 2 engine failures on the same day. No one was killed, but there will be $gabillions spent on who's fault it is and why...

 

[ChemGuy]

WOW. here i thought all these crap were reserved for certificated world!!

IN many ways it is...but unless I missed some change....the FAA's feels that if an AD states under affected something like "Lycoming engine XX-YYY" then it doesnt matter if its on a cessna or a vans.

I think there may be some discussion on this point among people. But we are also looking ta it form a legal, liability and most importantly insurance side of the equation. So I think we will replace the crank or engine. Its the time for either that sucks. Being AOG for all the warm flying months coming soon....ugh.

 

[mondtster]

WOW. here i thought all these crap were reserved for certificated world!!

Depends on how the AD is written and what part we’re talking about. Despite popular belief, ADs do apply to experimental airplanes.

Im betting the previous owners and mechanics in this case had a similar belief to yours, leading to where the OP is at now.

 

[NordicDave]

I remember the big bore crank AD. Lycoming sold the repair kit for something like $1600 for a window of 12 to 18 months, and after that it was full-boat retail. It was shocking how many cheap pilots were affected by the crank AD waited and didn’t take advantage of the low price; which was probably rock bottom cost for Lycoming anyway.

 

[RyanB]

Now i know why people want to Subaru and corvair power planes.

Oh, trust me, those have their share of problems too. The track record on them hasn’t been good either. I wouldn’t fly behind any of those auto conversion engines.

 

[SoonerAviator]

WOW. here i thought all these crap were reserved for certificated world!!

The should have went with the Audi diesel conversion instead of the Lycosaurus.

 

[midwestpa24]

This type of crap is what really annoys me...company L makes a crappy part. They find this out a few years after they make said crappy part. Tell people they need, MUST!, replace this part. Then they want the customer to pay for it.

I've never understood that part of the AD process either, that the manufacturer rarely has any skin in the game. That being said, if they did it would just be reflected in higher prices to us anyway.

 

[steingar]

No sympathy. None. This AD made big noise, I remember nervously checking my engine, which had been rebuilt during the period when the bad cranks went in. You want to own an airplane? Do your diligence. Mechanics aren't your nursemaids. And this wasn't 13 years ago, it was two.

 

[TrueCourse]

Perhaps buyers need to start doing more of the pre-buys and logbook inspections than has been done in the past. Or, there is a pre-buy insurance industry waiting to be born.

 

[NordicDave]

I've never understood that part of the AD process either, that the manufacturer rarely has any skin in the game. That being said, if they did it would just be reflected in higher prices to us anyway.

Aviation is the only industry I'm aware that touches consumers and the consumer owns the manufacturing defects.

Understandable in the 50's when Piper & Cessna designed there best selling planes, they never expected them to still be flying 60 years later. Airframe aging and corrosion AD's from high time or long term use are not welcomed, but understood.

AD's due to manufacturing problems or poor engineering which are AD'd just outside a new plane's warranty is harder to swallow.

 

[Bell206]

but it is affected buy the revised SB/AD that came out later and added a whole bunch of new engines.

What's the specific AD number? As mentioned above how the applicability statement is written is important when it comes to E/AB.

And side 2 of this coin if anyone of the other mechanics earlier had bothered to due their job...we wouldnt have bought a plane with a subject crank. Can they be made to pay for the repair...probably not. Will there be any ramification against them as licensed mechanics...probably not.

Don't quite following your comment or title. Unless your RVs Ops Limitations state to check ADs for the conditional inspection don't see where a mechanic, certified or not, would be required to check for ADs on an E/AB. Now I could be wrong, but most conditional inspections I'm familiar with only point to a scope and detail of 43 Appx D which doesn't list an AD search. The only mx reference to ADs is under Part 43 which is not applicable to E/AB. So unless the mechanic AD check you mention was a personal agreement with the inspecting mechanics there is no "job requirement" or "regulatory ramification" to an AP when inspecting an E/AB aircraft. The only regulatory AD accountability outside Part 43 falls to the owner.

 

[Magman]

Unfortunately; most folks ignore the complete AD process until it’s time to write

the check.

A lot of things happen before that.


Discovery of defect. - mfg contacted ? Malfunction & Defect Report sent to FA.

Possible mfg Service Bulletin ( deal here?)

FAA Service Difficulty Report ?

Notice of Proposed Rule Making for possible AD.

Comment Period for possible AD.

AD finalized and published .

Each AD has an Effective Date usually about a month later.

Each AD has differing Compliance Times. ie

Before next Flight

Within xx days or years

At next Inspection

At next Overhaul

Add various compliance methods such as recurrent inspection or terminating

action and it can be complex.


You don’t want to follow all this?

Just write the check.

 

[ChemGuy]

What's the specific AD number?

The original AD is 2006-20-9 based on Lycoming SB 569 and then 569A. It seems there was a revision to the AD in 2012 and now its 2012-19-1.

In SB 569A table 1 our engine SN is listed. The engine was new from Lycoming in ~2003. Right smack in the middle of the expected bad parts.



Now whether or not it applies to us as EAB or even if the mechanic should have checked...its too late. As now we know so it could be an FAA thing or insurance issue for us.

And this wasn't 13 years ago, it was two.

This isnt the bad Superior crank...this is bad Lycoming cranks made from 1999 thru~2006...maybe even more years. It should have been seen before we got it ~1.5 years ago.

 

[Brad Z]

Aviation is the only industry I'm aware that touches consumers and the consumer owns the manufacturing defects.

Understandable in the 50's when Piper & Cessna designed there best selling planes, they never expected them to still be flying 60 years later. Airframe aging and corrosion AD's from high time or long term use are not welcomed, but understood.

AD's due to manufacturing problems or poor engineering which are AD'd just outside a new plane's warranty is harder to swallow.

I suspect because if the manufacturer was responsible for the complete cost of the AD, some of the significant ADs could easily sink the company and put them out of business, or at least into bankruptcy. Further, it also discourages companies from trying to hide issues they discover after the fact. And as mentioned, we'll all end up paying for it either way.

 

[Bell206]

In SB 569A table 1 our engine SN is listed. The engine was new from Lycoming in ~2003. Right smack in the middle of the expected bad parts.

Have you checked to see if your crankshaft S/N is listed in Table 5 of No. 569A? If the crank is not, no further action required.

 

[ChemGuy]

Have you checked to see if your crankshaft S/N is listed in Table 5 of No. 569A? If the crank is not, no further action required.

View attachment 94231

Not yet. I did notice that and pass it on to the club guy looking at this. But since the engine SN is on the list and it was new from Lycoming (never opened up)...I dont hold out much hope. I mean if they dont know what SN crank went into what SN engine....then they are worse than I thought.


The silver lining in this is we are a club, we have equity in the plane and we can get a loan to pay for this fiasco and just pay it off over 10-20 years. Right now we are thinking a new 210hp 390 and sell the core. But a long way from a final decision.

 

[Marshall Alexander]

What's the specific AD number? As mentioned above how the applicability statement is written is important when it comes to E/AB.

Don't quite following your comment or title. Unless your RVs Ops Limitations state to check ADs for the conditional inspection don't see where a mechanic, certified or not, would be required to check for ADs on an E/AB. Now I could be wrong, but most conditional inspections I'm familiar with only point to a scope and detail of 43 Appx D which doesn't list an AD search. The only mx reference to ADs is under Part 43 which is not applicable to E/AB. So unless the mechanic AD check you mention was a personal agreement with the inspecting mechanics there is no "job requirement" or "regulatory ramification" to an AP when inspecting an E/AB aircraft. The only regulatory AD accountability outside Part 43 falls to the owner.

The inspections are not conditional. The inspection is a condition inspection, you're inspecting the condition of the airplane.

 

[Bell206]

I mean if they dont know what SN crank went into what SN engine....then they are worse than I thought.

There will be documentation on what crank S/N is installed in each engine from the factory. Hence the reason for the crank S/N table. Since your engine was factory new with no major repair (?) then call Lycoming support with your engine S/N and ask for the build sheet. If your wondering why Lycoming didn't do that in the 1st place... it's just how the system works with ADs in some cases.

 

[Daleandee]

Oh, trust me, those have their share of problems too. The track record on them hasn’t been good either. I wouldn’t fly behind any of those auto conversion engines.

A lot of that depends on the builder and the mechanic in charge. Thus far mine has given me excellent service. But I used to fly two strokes so what do I know ...

 

[Bell206]

The inspection is a condition inspection, you're inspecting the condition of the airplane.

Exactly. But whether that conditional inspection includes an AD check is dependent on the aircraft operating limitations. AD checks and inspections for E/AB aircraft are not inclusive from a regulatory standpoint as checks and inspections on a TC's aircraft are. It's one of the perks of owning/operating aa E/AB.

 

[Daleandee]

Unless your RVs Ops Limitations state to check ADs for the conditional inspection don't see where a mechanic, certified or not, would be required to check for ADs on an E/AB. Now I could be wrong, but most conditional inspections I'm familiar with only point to a scope and detail of 43 Appx D which doesn't list an AD search. The only mx reference to ADs is under Part 43 which is not applicable to E/AB.

While what you say it true I have always been taught that part of the inspection on my plane should include a look to see if any "service bulletins" or "service alerts" have been issued that would apply to my plane. For instance, as I was building my plane a "service bulletin" came from Sonex about a change to the landing gear attachment bolts.

William Wynne (Fly Corvair) is quite particular about how the engine is maintained and while he is not in a position of enforcement he makes it clear that if you are not following the tried, true, and tested procedures then he's not in your corner if you need him for any purpose i.e. insurance or compliance to best practices.

Several years ago there were rocker arms being sold that were made in China and they were defective and there was a failure. William never recommended them or used them but still an "alert" was sent out to make certain that this junk wasn't used on a flying Corvair engine.

There have been those promoting Chinese cranks that are also not allowed if building to the Fly Corvair or Sport Performance Aviation standards.

The Corvair is a robust & reliable engine but like anything else ... if you build it using junk parts, that's exactly what you have!

 

[Dana]

Oh, trust me, those have their share of problems too. The track record on them hasn’t been good either. I wouldn’t fly behind any of those auto conversion engines.

Some of them are admittedly questionable... but others have a good track record. I flew behind a Mosler (half VW) engine for a few years... and the only problems I had were with the Slick magneto.

 

[Bell206]

I have always been taught that part of the inspection on my plane should include a look to see if any "service bulletins" or "service alerts" have been issued that would apply to my plane.

Good on you. So consider yourself an engaged aircraft owner, which is more than a few owners out there to even include some on PoA who believe in hangar fairies, whose mantra is "if it ain't in the book, it didn't happen" and my favorite, "an annual should only take 20 minutes."

 

[3393RP]

Imagine the poor engineers at Pratt/Boeing about right now... 2 engine failures on the same day. No one was killed, but there will be $gabillions spent on who's fault it is and why...

Why do you include Boeing? The media seems to be intent on dragging their name into the incidents, when it's 100% a Pratt & Whitney problem.

I would expect pilots like you to be aware of that fact.

 

[Marshall Alexander]

Exactly. But whether that conditional inspection includes an AD check is dependent on the aircraft operating limitations. AD checks and inspections for E/AB aircraft are not inclusive from a regulatory standpoint as checks and inspections on a TC's aircraft are. It's one of the perks of owning/operating aa E/AB.

BUT, it's not conditional. It's still a CONDITION, not conditional, inspection of the aircraft and engine.

 

[tspear]

@ChemGuy

Curious, are you guys paying attention to the TBO recommendations? Maybe just the hours not the calendar? A lot has changed in the 18 years, six years past TBO, since the engine was built.
Too often I think owners/pilots only focus on the number of hours an engine has been used and forget the calendar. Time is not the friend of the engine.

If the engine was rebuilt since 2006, then maybe you might have a reason to be upset.

Tim

 

[Bell206]

It's still a CONDITION, not conditional, inspection of the aircraft and engine.

Don't know where you're going with this in the context of my posts. So lets try this route.

When a conditional inspection is performed on an E/AB, what inspection reference is used?

 

[Marshall Alexander]

Don't know where you're going with this in the context of my posts. So lets try this route.

When a conditional inspection is performed on an E/AB, what inspection reference is used?

Terminology......conditional vs. condition

 

[Doug Reid]

The S/N can be read off the outer edge of the prop flange. I would verify the S/N is on the list to be certain.

 

[steingar]

This isnt the bad Superior crank...this is bad Lycoming cranks made from 1999 thru~2006...maybe even more years. It should have been seen before we got it ~1.5 years ago.

Oh sorry. To be honest, when I bought my airplane I specifically had that one checked too. But that was a few years ago. Still, you get sympathy in the book Steingar. That was a bit of bad luck. Still, if your engine is 20 years old maybe its time for an overhaul anyway.

 

[Dana]

When a conditional inspection is performed on an E/AB, what inspection reference is used?

Part 43, Appendix D.

Terminology......conditional vs. condition

"Condition" is correct... but I have seen "conditional" used even in FAA documents.

 

[wanttaja]

When a conditional inspection is performed on an E/AB, what inspection reference is used?

Whatever the aircraft's operating limits state. Most, like Dana posted, should list Part 43, Appendix D as a reference.

Here's what mine says:

Condition inspections shall be recorded in the aircraft maintenance records, showing the following or a similarly worded statement: "I certify that this aircraft has been inspected on (insert date) in accordance with the scope and detail of Appendix D, Part 43, and found to be in a condition for safe operation." The entry will include the aircraft total time in service; and the name, signature, and certificate type and number of the person performing the inspection.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[AGLyme]

Why do you include Boeing?

I'll help you through this o crabby one... Pratt is Boeing's Supplier. Boeing designed the nacelle specs, electrical connections, engine mount specs and fuel plumbing to accept the Pratt engines onto the Boeing planes. And, Boeing bought the engines (oftentimes the engines are sold/leased separately in separate transactions) and sold the kit to their airline customers. There are two issues on the 777 blowup... the blowup itself (fan blade they are saying), and, the fact that the gas wasn't shut off quickly. Imagine the FAA's surprise if Boeing didn't show up to the meetings especially after the MAX fiasco...; )

If you were Boeing, would you ever "allow" your Supplier(s) to meet with the regulatory authorities and/or airlines alone representing your collective legal/engineering/business interests? This is a Boeing problem too because there are tons of older gen 1 Pratts in this family flying around the world on Boeing planes. And, if I were Boeing right now, I would use this non-death opportunity to demonstrate to all of the world's regulatory bodies, airline customers and the flying public that they are out front leading the inspections... and reverse the terrible PR trend. But that's just me.

 

[NordicDave]

... if I were Boeing right now, I would use this non-death opportunity to demonstrate to all of the world's regulatory bodies, airline customers and the flying public that they are out front leading the inspections... and reverse the terrible PR trend. But that's just me.

Gave you a like for this post.

Also, Wall Street is giving Boeing a window of opportunity on this matter to resolve it; given reduced financial consequence since most of the 777 fleet is self-grounded by the airlines for lack of international travel due to Covid.

Near ideal opportunity for them to get in front of this given most of the planes are on the ground anyway and many new orders postponed or delayed.

 

[AGLyme]

Near ideal opportunity for them to get in front of this given most of the planes are on the ground anyway

You are absolutely correct. No to little to no "AOG" drills... heaven for the engineers. Saw a pic of the fan blade... yikes.

 

[AKBill]

Thread drift..

 

[David Megginson]

Found out yesterday the flying club I'm in with an RV7a is grounded. Turns out the engine by SN has a crank that is affected by a lycoming SB and then AD from 2006. And for the past 13 or 14 years all the other mechanics and the pre buy mechanic just went off the original guy saying "not applicable". Which I guess it was...but it is affected buy the revised SB/AD that came out later and added a whole bunch of new engines.

This type of crap is what really annoys me...company L makes a crappy part. They find this out a few years after they make said crappy part. Tell people they need, MUST!, replace this part. Then they want the customer to pay for it. Now to be fair at the time they had a good deal on new parts for this. But that ended 12 years ago as it was a very limited time deal. So we are stuck paying.

And side 2 of this coin if anyone of the other mechanics earlier had bothered to due their job...we wouldnt have bought a plane with a subject crank. Can they be made to pay for the repair...probably not. Will there be any ramification against them as licensed mechanics...probably not.

Anyone have a spare good crank for a Lycoming IO360 A1B6 laying around? I was told new cranks are ~1 year out. We may just go to a new engine....those are about 5 months out at Van's. Now i know why people want to Subaru and corvair power planes.

Very sorry to hear that. My next paragraph notwithstanding, it's a sh*tty position to find yourself in.

I'm not sure about the rules in the U.S., but in Canada, it's the owners who are responsible for ensuring AD compliance. We could accuse mechanics of giving us bad advice, but the buck stops with us.

 

[AKBill]

I'm not sure about the rules in the U.S., but in Canada, it's the owners who are responsible for ensuring AD compliance. We could accuse mechanics of giving us bad advice, but the buck stops with us.

Every year at annual time, I go thru all the AD's for the engine, airframe and components. It normally takes me most of the afternoon. I don't have a fancy AD search App that most of the IA's use and go to the FAA site. I give my search to the IA who sighs off the annual for review.