CFIs vs Maintenance

Status
Not open for further replies.
Doug Reid said:
Tom, look in the cylinders an tell us what you see. 20/80 compressions....are all the cylinders leaking past the rings back into the case ? Tell us more..
Click to expand...
I may not be the one tearing it down.
Dave Theisen said:
So the CFI had nothing to do with the break in.
Click to expand...
How do we know it was broke in? oil consumption on these new era cylinders never really starts.
compression rings still may run hot long after that.. the factory wants 50 hours on there engines to consider them broke in.
I really don't know what happened to this engine, and maybe no one ever will.
 
Timbeck2 said:
So this flight instructor didn't do a pre-flight?
Click to expand...
Not from what I understood (IA - "On the ramp she's ready to go....!").o_O

Tom - I understand that (some or all?) C-90 engines have holes in the rod caps that are to spray oil on the opposite cylinder. It would be easy to not get this detail right on assembly with devastating consequences in this O-300D - if they use similar parts.
 
I still suspect something other than the CFI as the problem. Under normal circumstances, flying the plane should seat the rings. 20/80 compression makes me wonder. I am sure the repair station test ran the engine before it was installed on the plane. There is more going on than we know.
 
nrpetersen said:
Not from what I understood (IA - "On the ramp she's ready to go....!").o_O

Tom - I understand that (some or all?) C-90 engines have holes in the rod caps that are to spray oil on the opposite cylinder. It would be easy to not get this detail right on assembly with devastating consequences in this O-300D - if they use similar parts.
Click to expand...

The O-300 OH manual clearly states that the numbers should be on top, as Tom said.

upload_2019-3-18_10-23-54.png
I don't know if O-300 rods have oil squirt holes or not, but if they do it seems likely that numbers on top = oil hole in correct position. The C-90 OH manual has similar directions, so it would only be "easy" to mess this up if you did not follow the OH manual:

upload_2019-3-18_10-33-10.png
 
Dave Theisen said:
I’m just saying, if the CFI in question didn’t get his hands on it until 35 hours after the overhaul, he isn’t the one that did the damage.
Click to expand...
Then why wasn't there damage prior to his operating the engine?
It's my opinion he cooked the cylinders by over heating the engine, which took the temper out of the rings.
this is very typical for the 0-300.
 
nrpetersen said:
Not from what I understood (IA - "On the ramp she's ready to go....!").o_O

Tom - I understand that (some or all?) C-90 engines have holes in the rod caps that are to spray oil on the opposite cylinder.
Click to expand...
the 0-200 and the 0-300 does also. that does not mean you can't overheat the engine
 
Tom-D said:
Then why wasn't there damage prior to his operating the engine?
It's my opinion he cooked the cylinders by over heating the engine, which took the temper out of the rings.
this is very typical for the 0-300.
Click to expand...

Ok, maybe he did, but that’s a much different story than the original “engine had zero time and he didn’t follow the break in instructions”. I find it hard to believe that anyone would do slow flight long enough to overheat the engine, but I wasn’t there.
 
Dave Theisen said:
Ok, maybe he did, but that’s a much different story than the original “engine had zero time and he didn’t follow the break in instructions”. I find it hard to believe that anyone would do slow flight long enough to overheat the engine, but I wasn’t there.
Click to expand...
Ya post what you know at the time.

OBTW, post 1 says the engine had 52 hours, not 0 now I know who put this hours on, and when the problem occurred.
I didn't get that info from the owner.
The CFI didn't follow the instruction he was given for the operation, he was told it was a fresh overhaul and not to over heat it. (I'm paraphrasing so)
 
Last edited:
A 0-300 rod cap, shows the oil hole
 

Attachments

  • Rod to crank (6).jpg
    Rod to crank (6).jpg
    75.6 KB · Views: 34
Unless the engine was assembled incorrectly, I can't imagine how one can hurt an O-300 Conti! Ours was rebuilt twice; my break-in procedure was to warm it up and fly the thing! It's still flying, in an eastern flight school.
 
Tom-D said:
It's my opinion he cooked the cylinders by over heating the engine, which took the temper out of the rings.
Click to expand...

Is that your opinion based on your review of the damaged parts, or is that your supposition not having performed any examination?
 
Dave Theisen said:
Ok, maybe he did, but that’s a much different story than the original “engine had zero time and he didn’t follow the break in instructions”. I find it hard to believe that anyone would do slow flight long enough to overheat the engine, but I wasn’t there.
Click to expand...

Tom-D said:
Ya post what you know at the time.

OBTW, post 1 says the engine had 52 hours, not 0...
Click to expand...

Ummm...no Tom.

You said NOW the engine has 52 hours on it and that the new owner got it at zero.

You said: "The engine was a 0 since major"

Typical Tom thread. I hope you research problems before wrenching better than you do before posting. But I suspect elsewise.
 
PPC1052 said:
Is that your opinion based on your review of the damaged parts, or is that your supposition not having performed any examination?
Click to expand...
It's an opinion based upon experience.
 
timwinters said:
Ummm...no Tom.

You said NOW the engine has 52 hours on it and that the new owner got it at zero.

You said: "The engine was a 0 since major"

Typical Tom thread. I hope you research problems before wrenching better than you do before posting. But I suspect elsewise.
Click to expand...
How does that alter who's at fault for this failure, Or did you forget what the question was.
 
timwinters said:
@jesse

I'm just curious.

How do threads like this...that seems to recur every few weeks...serve to build the PoA community?

Asking for a friend. :rolleyes: :confused:
Click to expand...
@timwinters

Care to explain the point of me answering that question? If you think that, I, as a management council member sit around and attempt to filter out anything that doesn't "build the community" you're a little confused about how things work.

The rules of conduct are located here:
https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/help/RoC/

If someone doesn't like something, they report it. When something is reported the council votes as to whether reported content violates the RoC. If the majority vote agrees the post is in violation of the RoC then action is taken per the RoC.

So, with that in mind, the proper question for me would be "Does this thread violate the RoC?" and my answer would be "No." If you think I'm wrong, please report the post that violates the RoC.

It seems like you have sore feelings about times the management council has taken action over your RoC violations. You seem to think I'm personally accountable for that, based on the fact that you're calling me out publicly. The truth is, I've never even placed a vote on actions that involve you; I have a lot of personal respect for you (based on our in-person interactions) that makes it difficult be me to be unbiased.

If I feel that I could be biased; I abstain from voting. It's certainly not required by the rules of the management council. It's part of my personal moral code.
 
@jesse

I was simply paraphrasing you! ;)

It would likely be against the RoC for me to respond further and, you know me, I always try to abide by them. :cool:

But I'll just leave this here. From the RoC:
  • Trolling is prohibited. Whenever someone is clearly and deliberately posting for the purpose of angering and/or insulting the other participants of the board, it is considered "trolling." Trolling does not encourage further healthy discussion in the long run; rather, it encourages personal attacks and ill will.
 
Last edited:
timwinters said:
@jesse

But I'll just leave this here. From the RoC:
  • Trolling is prohibited. Whenever someone is clearly and deliberately posting for the purpose of angering and/or insulting the other participants of the board, it is considered "trolling." Trolling does not encourage further healthy discussion in the long run; rather, it encourages personal attacks and ill will.
Click to expand...

And you think this is what Tom is doing? o_O
 
Woulda, coulda, shoulda. Plenty of pilots would be happy to burn off that 50 hours for free.
 
kgruber said:
You should be THRILLED that Tom shares his 8 decades of aviation experience here.
Click to expand...
Thanks Karl. If you and the Mrs, are going to be on this side I'd love to buy lunch.
 
You asked a question without providing us all the relevant information and subsequently moved the goal posts so much that the Seahawks games will be interfered with by the Springboks.

To answer the question in the original post, the CFI has 0% responsibility. If he could have less than 0% responsibility I would answer with that.
 
kgruber said:
You should be THRILLED that Tom shares his 8 decades of aviation experience here.
Click to expand...

As I mentioned before, maybe the OP would be better served to get his POV across via a blog if he truly wants to share.
 
EdFred said:
To answer the question in the original post, the CFI has 0% responsibility. If he could have less than 0% responsibility I would answer with that.
Click to expand...
Thank you, That all I asked for to start with.
And I gave you all the info you needed to make that decision.
Then some one made a big deal over it. because some one made an assumption, and the rest fed on that, and the thread went down hill, like they all do here.
 
kgruber said:
You should be THRILLED that Tom shares his 8 decades of aviation experience here.
Click to expand...
I would be if I could ever understand the point of any of it.
 
Tom-D said:
when you don't understand the topic why post.?
Click to expand...
Indeed, that is usually your attitude. Anybody that doesn’t already agree with you should stay quiet even when you change your answer 5 times along the way.
 
Tom-D said:
Thank you, That all I asked for to start with.
And I gave you all the info you needed to make that decision.
Then some one made a big deal over it. because some one made an assumption, and the rest fed on that, and the thread went down hill, like they all do here.
Click to expand...
That information was not given in the first post. That's the issue with you and what people take with your threads you ask a question or present a scenario and then 15 to 20 post into the thread suddenly you start adding info or changing the parameters of the initial setup.


Based on the very first post everybody thought that the CFI took the airplane from zero time engine to 52 hours. Only after a bunch of posts do you then say Oh this is actually what happened and then expect everybody should have been able to answer the original question without the follow-up information.
 
Salty said:
Indeed, that is usually your attitude. Anybody that doesn’t already agree with you should stay quiet even when you change your answer 5 times along the way.
Click to expand...
I don't believe that is true at all. If you disagree, say so, don't bloviate and twist the topic. It was very easy to answer the question, because some did.
 
PPC1052 said:
Is that your opinion based on your review of the damaged parts, or is that your supposition not having performed any examination?
Click to expand...

Toms post above says:
"I really don't know what happened to this engine, and maybe no one ever will."

love the way Tom haters love to cherry pick.
 
EdFred said:
That information was not given in the first post. That's the issue with you and what people take with your threads you ask a question or present a scenario and then 15 to 20 post into the thread suddenly you start adding info or changing the parameters of the initial setup.


Based on the very first post everybody thought that the CFI took the airplane from zero time engine to 52 hours. Only after a bunch of posts do you then say Oh this is actually what happened and then expect everybody should have been able to answer the original question without the follow-up information.
Click to expand...

Because Tom clearly said from the beginning, essentially, " this is what i lnow now".

Later he said "I have now learned this new information".

It's just amazing to me this group of people that bash anything Tom says.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top