Here we go again... Massive cylinder NPRM

[bnt83]

http://www.ofr.gov/(S(ouli32nytq2hs0j5r5w2utot))/OFRUpload/OFRData/2013-19414_PI.pdf


This covers about 60,000 serial #'s (can't be 60,000 cylinders ) on Coninental 470, 520 and 550 engines.

 

[poadeleted20]

More bad news for those with ECI cylinders on the affected Continental engines.

 

[wsuffa]

Another $83 million, covering 6,000 aircraft. At some point it becomes uneconomic to keep going through this & less expensive to scrap the plane.

 

[bnt83]

Another $83 million, covering 6,000 aircraft. At some point it becomes uneconomic to keep going through this & less expensive to scrap the plane.

only $14,000 per plane?

 

[wsuffa]

only $14,000 per plane?

Given the dropping values of the GA fleet, that's a pretty significant portion of the value of many planes.....

 

[bnt83]

Cylinders should be color coded to identify them by manufacturer, so we don't have to pull the cowl to see which ones have the junk jugs.


Just make sure to get a consult if you or your mech is color blind.

 

[Ted]

I saw this one coming. My friend had 10 or 11 out of the 12 ECI cylinders on this T310R cracked at 500 hours. Put new ones on that are supposedly improved - the same ones on the 310 I fly.

But I will need to look through the logs and make sure that this AD doesn't apply to the (supposedly) new and improved cylinders.

Sigh...

 

[bnt83]

I saw this one coming. My friend had 10 or 11 out of the 12 ECI cylinders on this T310R cracked at 500 hours. Put new ones on that are supposedly improved - the same ones on the 310 I fly.

But I will need to look through the logs and make sure that this AD doesn't apply to the (supposedly) new and improved cylinders.

Sigh...

Did any fail in flight as in head separation reulting in engine shutdown?

 

[Ted]

Did any fail in flight as in head separation reulting in engine shutdown?

They hadn't yet, but probably would have shortly thereafter. They were all discovered at annual and were leaking to varying degrees.

 

[Ted]

Check ECi's website: they are asking impacted individuals to submit responses.

The more I read, the more convinced I am that I will be submitting a response regardless of whether or not this impacts me. They are clearly making a mountain out of this. FAA almost never goes beyond NTSB recommendations.

 

[ScottM]

There has to be something fundamentally wrong with the ECI design and/or engineering as this keeps happening to them every few years.

 

[bnt83]

There has to be something fundamentally wrong with the ECI design and/or engineering as this keeps happening to them every few years.

It looks like most of them to me. Not just ECI

 

[steingar]

Only in aviation are the customers forced to pay for faulty parts manufacturing.

 

[wsuffa]

Only in aviation are the customers forced to pay for faulty parts manufacturing.

Unlike the auto industry where the company is expected to pay, even long after the service life of the vehicle would be over....

 

[docmirror]

There has to be something fundamentally wrong with the ECI design and/or engineering as this keeps happening to them every few years.

I might be more inclined to point to materials spec. The cost of lower grade of Al for the head could be an issue as much as the design.

 

[ScottM]

It looks like most of them to me. Not just ECI

What NPRM are you reading then? The one that was posted in the OP only talks about ECI cylinders.

I went through the whole NPRM and the only references I see are those that are stated in the initial sentence of the summary.

We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Airmotive Engineering Corp. replacement parts manufacturer approval (PMA) cylinder assemblies marketed by Engine Components International Division (ECi),

If there are more vendors affected I am missing. Help me see what you are seeing.

 

[Skylane81E]

FWIW,

ECI states that of 30,000 Titan cylinders 30 have cracked and that there have been more than 1,200 similar head-to-barrel failures on other brands of 520/550 cylinders

 

[Henning]

The only engine fire I ever had was in a 310 with 520s. The head blew off and the injector line broke spraying gas right on the exhaust manifold. Luckily the fire went out as soon as I caged the engine and I was already on descent for LGB and approaching LAX when it happened so it ended uneventfully. That was a chromed TCM cylinder.

 

[Ted]

FWIW,

ECI states that of 30,000 Titan cylinders 30 have cracked and that there have been more than 1,200 similar head-to-barrel failures on other brands of 520/550 cylinders

Well, I think those numbers might be a bit off since my friend's T310R had 10-11 cylinders cracked on it. I doubt he makes up 30% of the cracked cylinder fleet.

But the point does remain that others have this issue.

Not looking forward to looking through my logs tonight, hoping that mine don't fall in the AD. My guess is that they will be "Group B" which must be retired by 1,000 hours time in service with 50 hour checks if this AD goes through as-is.

 

[flyingron]

ECI's slant on it: http://www.eci.aero/pages/news_releases_detail.aspx?n=1034

 

[ScottM]

FWIW,

ECI states that of 30,000 Titan cylinders 30 have cracked and that there have been more than 1,200 similar head-to-barrel failures on other brands of 520/550 cylinders

Are those stats just for this model number of ECI jug?

I ask because this is not the first ECI proposed AD. There have been others on other models for different engines and it always seems to come down to this particular failure mode. Maybe they are getting a bad rap this time around. But their track record is not so great. They have had casting problems and head-to-barrel failures before. I know. I got zapped twice by the AD for their products. That is why they are not on my engine anymore.

 

[Skylane81E]

Are those stats just for this model number of ECI jug?

I ask because this is not the first ECI proposed AD. There have been others on other models for different engines and it always seems to come down to this particular failure mode. Maybe they are getting a bad rap this time around. But their track record is not so great. They have had casting problems and head-to-barrel failures before. I know. I got zapped twice by the AD for their products. That is why they are not on my engine anymore.

It is why I haven't installed any for a while either

 

[Skylane81E]

Well, I think those numbers might be a bit off since my friend's T310R had 10-11 cylinders cracked on it. I doubt he makes up 30% of the cracked cylinder fleet.

But the point does remain that others have this issue.

Not looking forward to looking through my logs tonight, hoping that mine don't fall in the AD. My guess is that they will be "Group B" which must be retired by 1,000 hours time in service with 50 hour checks if this AD goes through as-is.

Yep, I'd bet that there have been far more than 30, just as there have likely been far more than 1200 for the others. Heck my school has the head from a TCM 520 cylinder that a student recovered from inside the cowling of a T-210 after it made an emergency landing at ILN.

 

[docmirror]

ECI's slant on it: http://www.eci.aero/pages/news_releases_detail.aspx?n=1034

They make a good point about maint induced failures when the engine is touched, and for infant mortality of the affected jugs.

However, 1:1000 failure rate is nothing to write home about. It represent a 0.1% failure rate which in any mass produced environment is pretty bad(we suspect that number is much higher anyway). Also characterizing the 'other guys stuff is worse' is hardly a suitable defense.

 

[Ted]

Just checked the logs - we are not impacted by this NPRM.

I will be writing a letter anyway, though. The big problem with this is that some planes will be more susceptible to the cylinders failing than others based on operator habits. So in other words, someone like me who operates conservatively (low CHTs, LOP, etc.) is less likely to have an issue, and should not be penalized because some pilots don't pay attention to their engines.

 

[RotorAndWing]

The only engine fire I ever had was in a 310 with 520s. The head blew off and the injector line broke spraying gas right on the exhaust manifold. Luckily the fire went out as soon as I caged the engine and I was already on descent for LGB and approaching LAX when it happened so it ended uneventfully. That was a chromed TCM cylinder.

 

[PilotAlan]

But, but, but.... They're PMA'd and certified! That means they're of 'aircraft quality'!
That's why anything on the plane has to be FAA certified!

Kinda shoots holes in the theory that it's inherently unsafe to use anything uncertified on an airplane........

 

[Tom-D]

Kinda shoots holes in the theory that it's inherently unsafe to use anything uncertified on an airplane........

Where else could you find a cylinder for a 520/550?

Show me one that isn't certified for sale.

 

[PilotAlan]

Where else could you find a cylinder for a 520/550?
Show me one that isn't certified for sale.

You do realize that you turned my statement around 180 degrees?

My argument isn't about cylinders, it's about certification.
Based on statements in other threads, certification is an assurance of quality and safety. I argue otherwise.
If someone made uncertified cylinders, I would take them over ECIs.

Then there's the whole crankshaft debacle. And those were certified as well.

 

[Ted]

But, but, but.... They're PMA'd and certified! That means they're of 'aircraft quality'!
That's why anything on the plane has to be FAA certified!

Kinda shoots holes in the theory that it's inherently unsafe to use anything uncertified on an airplane........

Alan, the existence of problems does not indicate that certification offers no benefit. What it does indicate is imperfect certification. Cert requirements will always be imperfect.

The number of E-AB engine failures seems to indicate the benefit of certification pretty strongly.

 

[flyingron]

The number of E-AB engine failures seems to indicate the benefit of certification pretty strongly.

Really? How so? The incidence in E-AB after the first flight or two is not significantly different than the fleet in general.

 

[Tom-D]

You do realize that you turned my statement around 180 degrees?

My argument isn't about cylinders, it's about certification.
Based on statements in other threads, certification is an assurance of quality and safety. I argue otherwise.
If someone made uncertified cylinders, I would take them over ECIs.

Then there's the whole crankshaft debacle. And those were certified as well.

The 520/550 is having problems with every ones cylinders. I don't understand why it is just ECI that got the AD.

As for certification no one would spend the money to go into production on any engine part that could not gain certification. So your theory is a moot point, there are no cylinders on the market that are not certified for the 520/550.

Certification in this case went as it should. ECI's failure rate is as good as as any other brand. The Problem seems to be a engine design problem or usage problem rather than one of certification or manufacturing.

JMHO

 

[docmirror]

Is the IO-540 Lyc having similar cyl problems? They are found in similar fleets, and operated by similar operators but I'm not hearing any complaints about the big Lyc engine jugs. Maybe it is a design defect. Since the jugs are failing after 300-1100 hours TIS, this seems to indicate a heat or heat cycle type of problem. Perhaps the heads aren't getting enough airflow, or the fins are too small, or the metallurgy specified is not good enough, or a combo of these factors.

This has the feel of a metallurgy problem to me, particularly if the failures are occurring around the exhaust area.

 

[Tom-D]

Is the IO-540 Lyc having similar cyl problems? They are found in similar fleets, and operated by similar operators but I'm not hearing any complaints about the big Lyc engine jugs. Maybe it is a design defect. Since the jugs are failing after 300-1100 hours TIS, this seems to indicate a heat or heat cycle type of problem. Perhaps the heads aren't getting enough airflow, or the fins are too small, or the metallurgy specified is not good enough, or a combo of these factors.

This has the feel of a metallurgy problem to me, particularly if the failures are occurring around the exhaust area.

I thought we were talking about the Continental 520/550

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_IO-550

 

[docmirror]

I thought we were talking about the Continental 520/550

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_IO-550

Which prompts the question, is the comparative Lyc engine of similar size, power, fleet use, and operator having similar problems? ECI seems to think this is an operator problem, or that over vendors are also at fault. So, if this isn't just confined to the Conti 520/550, then they might have some basis. If the problem is just the Conti 520/550 then it appears there's a design or metallurgy problem.

 

[Ted]

Is the IO-540 Lyc having similar cyl problems? They are found in similar fleets, and operated by similar operators but I'm not hearing any complaints about the big Lyc engine jugs. Maybe it is a design defect. Since the jugs are failing after 300-1100 hours TIS, this seems to indicate a heat or heat cycle type of problem. Perhaps the heads aren't getting enough airflow, or the fins are too small, or the metallurgy specified is not good enough, or a combo of these factors.

This has the feel of a metallurgy problem to me, particularly if the failures are occurring around the exhaust area.

Lycoming cylinders have typically been stronger than Continental. There's some design difference that contributes to it. Lycoming will have heads fall off, but that's usually on really old cylinders with many thousands of hours. Continental, by comparison, have cylinders that will often not make TBO.

Lycoming also has four different cylinder designs for 540s. So which one would you be referring to?

 

[docmirror]

Lycoming cylinders have typically been stronger than Continental. There's some design difference that contributes to it. Lycoming will have heads fall off, but that's usually on really old cylinders with many thousands of hours. Continental, by comparison, have cylinders that will often not make TBO.

Lycoming also has four different cylinder designs for 540s. So which one would you be referring to?

All styles. Conti has about 5 different cylinder designs as well. The question is about scoping the problem. ECI wants all cylinders and builders treated the same, and the FAA wants it defined to the two SN ranges of one type of cylinder. Given that, it still represents a huge impact to plane owners. I've heard empirical evidence that suggests the problem is much wider than that stated by the FAA, and I've heard other evidence that just the ECI jugs in this range are the problem.

I had two jugs fail over the span of 8 years with an older O-470 engine. Neither were ECI, and both had cracks similar to what the AD references. I"m thinking that the problem is actually much wider than the AD states, but trying to get the scope of the problem is one of the first steps in solving it.

 

[Tom-D]

I'm pretty much convinced that this problem is as much the fault of the operators as any thing.

those who operate LOP seem to be making TBO those who run rich are not.

 

[Ted]

All styles. Conti has about 5 different cylinder designs as well. The question is about scoping the problem. ECI wants all cylinders and builders treated the same, and the FAA wants it defined to the two SN ranges of one type of cylinder. Given that, it still represents a huge impact to plane owners. I've heard empirical evidence that suggests the problem is much wider than that stated by the FAA, and I've heard other evidence that just the ECI jugs in this range are the problem.

I had two jugs fail over the span of 8 years with an older O-470 engine. Neither were ECI, and both had cracks similar to what the AD references. I"m thinking that the problem is actually much wider than the AD states, but trying to get the scope of the problem is one of the first steps in solving it.

Cylinders on these engines have been cracking since they were first certified 40+ years ago. In truth, they are more reliable today than they ever were. ECi's point is that they are being unfairly singled out for a problem that all of these cylinders have had. However, I do think that ECi cylinders may have more problems with these cylinders due to their partnership with RAM aircraft and subsequent installation of many of their cylinders on upgraded engines (i.e. more pressure and temperature with operators who typically run harder).

I would agree that the "problem" of cylinder cracking is much wider than the AD states. There have been many cylinder cracking ADs out there over the years. I do think that the batch that the NPRM calls out is probably somehow worse off than other cylinders out there, but I also don't believe that justifies going to the extent that the FAA is trying to go given the cost to the industry and the negative impact it will have on safety.

What I will be interested to see is what the next batch of ECi cylinders (what the 310 has in it) will do, and if the FAA tries to AD them out. So far I haven't heard bad reports. I think we are less likely to have problems since I am careful about keeping the engines cool and run LOP.

 

[dell30rb]

Update:

NTSB files formal comments with the FAA, saying the AD is too drastic.

“It’s very unusual for the NTSB to weigh in on a proposed airworthiness directive in this manner after it issued a recommendation,” said Rob Hackman, AOPA vice president for regulatory affairs. “Then again, it is rare for the FAA to propose going so far beyond an NTSB recommendation. We agree that the FAA proposal goes too far given the evidence, and we’re worried that it could dramatically raise the cost to aircraft owners and even create more safety problems than it solves by forcing the replacement of thousands of cylinders in the field.”

http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/...-ad.aspx?WT.mc_sect=adv&WT.mc_id=131115epilot