How many times can you overhaul an engine?

Tom-D said:
show me a Cessna 172 airworthiness limitations on a 1956 172.
Click to expand...
??? For someone who complains about remaining on topic you sure missed this one.:rolleyes:

FYI: the discussion is about new Lycoming engine variants that are being certified under Part 33 and now have Airworthiness Limitation sections with required inspections.

What new engine variants and Part 33 have to do with a 1956 Cessna 172 I'll never know..........o_O
 
Bell206 said:
It usually is, but it is still an optional requirement on most engines. To my surprise, Lycoming, and probably Continental, are using Part 33 to certify some of their newer model variants. Part 33 is set up differently than CAR 13, which most engines are certified under, and provides separate manual requirements to include the use of an approved Airworthiness Limitations Sections. And Lycoming conveniently listed several inspection requirements to include the 500 hr mag inspection. That means the 500 inspection is no longer optional but mandatory per 43.16 and 91.403 on those specific model engines. And since ALS requirements are found in 91 and 43 even the owner can be busted for flying over the 500 hr limit. Looks like the Lycoming legal dept is getting more involved in aircraft certification again.
Click to expand...
Like I've said all along, the mag service bulletin is not mandatory, unless the approved airworthiness limitation says so. and not many do.
 
Tom-D said:
Like I've said all along, the mag service bulletin is not mandatory, unless the approved airworthiness limitation says so. and not many do.
Click to expand...
Ha. It's amazing what one can learn in 12 posts on PoA. Back in Post 33 you stated the mag inspection** wasn't mandatory if listed in a ALS, now in Post 45, you state it is mandatory if listed in a ALS. Good on you. Shows even the oldest of dogs can still learn something.:thumbsup: (But in case you forgot Post 33, I copied it below for you.)

And since you are now a pillar of knowledge on the subject, why not explain to our fellow PoA'rs where an owner might determine if a particular engine model is certified under Part 33 and where they might find any potential Airworthiness Limitation Section... since owners now have skin in the game under 91.403(c).;)

**FYI: it's not a Service Bulletin. It's an outright inspection per whatever the ALS states to follow.
upload_2020-7-29_19-2-51.png
 
Bell206 said:
What new engine variants and Part 33 have to do with a 1956 Cessna 172 I'll never know..........o_O
Click to expand...

well know this,, there are a hell of old Cessna's that do not have a Airworthiness Limitation Section.

thus-- no required inspection
 
Several "older" GA designs have airworthiness limitations. The Citabria has one that requires replacement with new, or removal, NDI and reinstallation of the front wing strut-to-spar attach fittings. I can't remember if it's 500 or 1000 hours. I kept a spare set and would replace them and send the old ones for NDI. On one set, on their first NDI since new, a hidden cavity was discovered. Flying like that. A manufacturing flaw in the extrusion it was machined from. Maybe American Champion should be doing NDI on all new fittings too.

I remember that Cessna has been considering issuing an airworthiness limitation on the 210 spars.
 
Dan Thomas said:
I remember that Cessna has been considering issuing an airworthiness limitation on the 210 spars.
Click to expand...
They did more than consider it, they issued an ALS on 210s then tried to imply it applied to all 210s since day one. Fortunately, there were several shops that questioned this and it went all the way to the top. In the end, it was determined that the ALS covered only those aircraft produced after the issuance of the new ALS. It was quite the story for about 6 months 5 or 6 years ago. Here's one bit of guidance that came out:
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...ft services - (2015) legal interpretation.pdf

But my main concern is that most GA aircraft owners, and to an extent, some APIAs, don't realize that OEMs are changing how they certify products and how they are maintained. When I found out about the new Lycoming ALS requirements I realized it set up not only the owner, but any mechanic that didn't think to even look for an ALS on a Lyc IO-360. Granted it was a new variant, but it is my understanding that is the route most OEMs are taking just like Cessna did on the 210 spars. Interesting times ahead.
 
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...ft services - (2015) legal interpretation.pdf

read it

(Airworthiness limitations) requires maintenance providers to perform inspections or other maintenance in accordance with the newly added ALS for those older aircraft. For aircraft operated under 14 C.P.R. part 91, the answer to your question is no. These after-added ALS requirements are not mandatory for operators or maintainers of the affected aircraft absent the FAA's issuing an Airworthiness Directive (AD) or some other notice and comment rule making that would make them Mandatory.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...ft services - (2015) legal interpretation.pdf

read it

(Airworthiness limitations) requires maintenance providers to perform inspections or other maintenance in accordance with the newly added ALS for those older aircraft. For aircraft operated under 14 C.P.R. part 91, the answer to your question is no. These after-added ALS requirements are not mandatory for operators or maintainers of the affected aircraft absent the FAA's issuing an Airworthiness Directive (AD) or some other notice and comment rule making that would make them Mandatory.
Click to expand...

Thanks Tom, that’s helpful.
 
Tom-D said:
well know this,, there are a hell of old Cessna's that do not have a Airworthiness Limitation Section.

thus-- no required inspection
Click to expand...

348e225ad4b30681ec5ccf0cbac67736.jpg
 
Tom-D said:
read it
Click to expand...
I have read it.

But what is incredible is that you cut out only a portion--out of context of the entire LOI--and pass it off as fact to just fit your personal narrative regardless of the consequences to others. And sure enough you got one person to believe it, and probably others, as shown in Post 51, to follow your mis-guided lead. The key words you failed to highlight in your quote..."These after-added ALS requirements..." point back to the subject of the FAA LOI which was Cessna created an ALS for the 210 and tried to make it applicable to all 210s. The FAA came back and stated the ALS only applied those new 210s manufactured after the the ALS was issued and no previous 210s. Not that it does not apply to Part 91 aircraft. It's even more incredible that as an APIA you would set up others to fail just to try and win an argument.o_O
 
Last edited:
Bell206 said:
I have read it. It's even more incredible that as an APIA you would set up others to fail just to try and win an argument.o_O
Click to expand...
Then it pretty much shoots you down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top