Oh Continental, what have you done now?

[iamtheari]

I know it's an "or"

Disclaimer: Assume I am totally wrong
But if you read the details from Continental you can see that the only crankshafts affected which are included in that serial # list were manufactured/assembled after June 1, 2021 by Continental. If that information is wrong, then the FAA and Continental need to clarify. But the manufacturing quality escape, as they put it, was due to somebody in their shop screwing up who must have been working after June 1, 2021. Therefore if you did not change your engine or crankshaft after June 1, 2021 - this cannot apply to you

Here are some excerpts from AC 37-9D that seem to inform the position that you need an A&P to document that this AD does not apply to your plane before you can fly it at all, with some underlining for emphasis:

9. APPLICABILITY OF ADs. Each AD contains an applicability statement specifying the product (aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance) to which it applies.
...
a. ... The following are examples of AD applicability statements for TC’d products:
...
(5) “This AD applies to Lycoming Engines Models AEIO-360-A1A and IO-360-A1A.” This statement makes the AD applicable to the engine models listed that are installed on TC’d aircraft.
...
10. AD COMPLIANCE. ADs are regulations issued under part 39. Therefore, no person may operate a product to which an AD applies, except in accordance with the requirements of that AD.
...
13. RESPONSIBILITY FOR AD COMPLIANCE AND RECORDATION. The owner or operator of an aircraft is primarily responsible for maintaining that aircraft in an Airworthy condition, including compliance with ADs.
a. Means of Accomplishment. This responsibility may be met by ensuring that properly certificated and appropriately rated maintenance person(s) accomplish the requirements of the AD and properly record this action in the appropriate maintenance records. This action must be accomplished within the compliance time specified in the AD or the aircraft may not be operated.

The AD in question says it applies to the engines by model only. The requirements of the AD are not a model of great writing, but are structured in such a way that one of the requirements of the AD, which must be accomplished and logged by a "properly certificated and appropriately rated maintenance person," is to check the engine and crankshaft serial numbers against the appendices to the Continental MSB.

The problem with the AD is 100% that it was poorly written, probably because it was issued in a hurry. As suggested above, the FAA police probably won't put you in FAA jail for flying behind an unaffected engine without having an A&P sign off on this AD for you, but at best you would be in a legal gray area if you do so because the engine falls within the "applicability statement" of the AD.

 

[Bell206]

The problem with the AD is 100% that it was poorly written, probably because it was issued in a hurry.

FYI: Its looking more like TCM could not provide 100% traceability for the crankshafts sold as spares. So technically without that ability those cranks can end up in any of the affected models.

Therefore if you did not change your engine or crankshaft after June 1, 2021 - this cannot apply to you

While that is a possible gray area route to take, why bother since the S/N is visible on the crank output flange? I haven't needed to look for one yet but per the MSB its there.

 

[Dan Thomas]

FYI: Its looking more like TCM could not provide 100% traceability for the crankshafts sold as spares. So technically without that ability those cranks can end up in any of the affected models.

While that is a possible gray area route to take, why bother since the S/N is visible on the crank output flange? I haven't needed to look for one yet but per the MSB its there.

When I bought factory Lycomings, they always came with a build list. All the stuff on that engine that had a serial number was listed, from the crankcase up through the crank and cam and cylinders and mags and carb/fuel injection stuff. It was pasted right into the front of the engine log that came with the engine. Why wouldn't a field shop write up the same thing for their engines? Saves so much time (and disassembly!) later on when ADs like this pop up. I'm an information junkie, and believe that it's hard to have too much record on stuff like this.

 

[flyingron]

Yeah, I logged my crank and engine serial number with "not listed in MSB 23-01".

 

[Bell206]

Why wouldn't a field shop write up the same thing for their engines?

From what I've seen it depends on the shop. The one I used on a regular basis listed everything on the CRS workorder to include ADs and SBs complied with. Whether the owner keeps his work order copy is another story. Then there are the OH'd engines sold outright with a serviceable tag or 8130 and no logbook. An interesting tidbit is some OEMs also keep build sheets for engines going back decades as well.

 

[Pinecone]

Our CAP 182 had piston fail due to detonation and trash the cylinder. The log entry from the engine shop did not state that the piston was replaced.

 

[readytocopy995]

Here are some excerpts from AC 37-9D that seem to inform the position that you need an A&P to document that this AD does not apply to your plane before you can fly it at all, with some underlining for emphasis:

The AD in question says it applies to the engines by model only. The requirements of the AD are not a model of great writing, but are structured in such a way that one of the requirements of the AD, which must be accomplished and logged by a "properly certificated and appropriately rated maintenance person," is to check the engine and crankshaft serial numbers against the appendices to the Continental MSB.

The problem with the AD is 100% that it was poorly written, probably because it was issued in a hurry. As suggested above, the FAA police probably won't put you in FAA jail for flying behind an unaffected engine without having an A&P sign off on this AD for you, but at best you would be in a legal gray area if you do so because the engine falls within the "applicability statement" of the AD.

do you actually believe that the FAA intends for every single person with a Continental engine to make a logbook entry stating it doesn't apply, even though it applies to <2k engines

FYI: Its looking more like TCM could not provide 100% traceability for the crankshafts sold as spares. So technically without that ability those cranks can end up in any of the affected models.
While that is a possible gray area route to take, why bother since the S/N is visible on the crank output flange? I haven't needed to look for one yet but per the MSB its there.

yeah i just meant logically for the user complaining that they didn't know their crank serial. i'm pointing out that if you didn't install it after June 1, it doesn't matter what your crank serial # may be

 

[iamtheari]

do you actually believe that the FAA intends for every single person with a Continental engine to make a logbook entry stating it doesn't apply, even though it applies to <2k engines

I don't have any knowledge about what the FAA intended. If I were the FAA, I would not have acted with that intent. However, when you read an agency rule like this, there is a rule of construction that the agency said what it intended and intended what it said. You don't usually get far arguing that the agency intended something different from what it wrote, unless of course it's the agency making that argument.

 

[Bell206]

every single person with a Continental engine to make a logbook entry stating it doesn't apply,

Well only those with engines listed in the AD. But yes. Tough to get away from the applicability statement as mentioned above.

i'm pointing out that if you didn't install it after June 1, it doesn't matter what your crank serial # may be

Technically paragraph (g)(2) requires you compare the installed S/N to the list in Appdx 2, but you're definitely in a gray area with the June 1st date. However, if push came to shove the S/N can supposedly be seen from the exterior. So why push it?

 

[Dan Thomas]

do you actually believe that the FAA intends for every single person with a Continental engine to make a logbook entry stating it doesn't apply, even though it applies to <2k engines

Oh, dear. So much work.

Like I said earlier, making an entry proves to the next mechanic, or a prospective buyer, that the AD was addressed and found not applicable. Without that, you'll often need to do the inspection and make the entry to reassure them. Too much information is far better than not enough.

 

[readytocopy995]

I don't have any knowledge about what the FAA intended. If I were the FAA, I would not have acted with that intent. However, when you read an agency rule like this, there is a rule of construction that the agency said what it intended and intended what it said. You don't usually get far arguing that the agency intended something different from what it wrote, unless of course it's the agency making that argument.

you do you

Well only those with engines listed in the AD. But yes. Tough to get away from the applicability statement as mentioned above.

Technically paragraph (g)(2) requires you compare the installed S/N to the list in Appdx 2, but you're definitely in a gray area with the June 1st date. However, if push came to shove the S/N can supposedly be seen from the exterior. So why push it?

again, i'm responding to the person that suggested they weren't sure if this applied to them and hadn't touched their engine or crankshaft in over a decade. clearly it doesn't apply to them based on the SB. sure, check the serial # to be sure

Oh, dear. So much work.

Like I said earlier, making an entry proves to the next mechanic, or a prospective buyer, that the AD was addressed and found not applicable. Without that, you'll often need to do the inspection and make the entry to reassure them. Too much information is far better than not enough.

you sound like whoever came up with our lovely NOTAM system. so much useless information, nobody cares to read the pertinent stuff. if you want to go through and list every single AD there has ever been and how they don't apply to your plane, go ahead

 

[Turbo-Arrow-Driver]

Me thinks the FAA realized the initial release of this AD was a bit overbroad. Here's the text from the first e-mail I received from the FAA on 2/26/23:

This AD and final rule is effective February 23, 2023 and affects any crankshaft assembly on a Continental Engine.​

Today, I received an update from the FAA with this text (their emphasis, not mine):

This AD and final rule is effective February 23, 2023, and affects crankshaft assemblies on Continental Engines listed as applicable per the AD.​

 

[iamtheari]

Me thinks the FAA realized the initial release of this AD was a bit overbroad. Here's the text from the first e-mail I received from the FAA on 2/26/23:

This AD and final rule is effective February 23, 2023 and affects any crankshaft assembly on a Continental Engine.​

Today, I received an update from the FAA with this text (their emphasis, not mine):

This AD and final rule is effective February 23, 2023, and affects crankshaft assemblies on Continental Engines listed as applicable per the AD.​

I got that but didn't see what changed in the text of the AD.

 

[Turbo-Arrow-Driver]

Nothing changed in the AD itself, but their first e-mail to registered owners was a real freak-out...and I kinda suspect they got a lot of flak about that.

 

[readytocopy995]

they updated it, changing the number, and added a couple of engine models

for the people who need things explicitly spelled out to them they even added a flowchart!
https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2023/Mar/AD_2023-05-16_Flowchart.pdf

 

[Jeff767]

So if you have 199 hours can you take off and orbit over the runway until you hit 200 and you are good to go?

 

[iamtheari]

So if you have 199 hours can you take off and orbit over the runway until you hit 200 and you are good to go?

No. The FAA threw out the 200-hour concept from the MSB when they issued the AD.

they updated it, changing the number, and added a couple of engine models

for the people who need things explicitly spelled out to them they even added a flowchart!
https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2023/Mar/AD_2023-05-16_Flowchart.pdf

The flowchart is helpful other than not quite resolving the argument in this thread regarding whether a mechanic has to log AD compliance before flight for applicable engine models that do not require inspection. I think they left that slightly vague on purpose to get this thread up to 15 pages.

 

[Turbo-Arrow-Driver]

More fun at the FAA. They are superseding with AD 2023--5-16. Got this e-mail from them this morning:

FAA AD 2023-04-08 - Continental Engines - Superseded for Missing Engine Models
Notice Number: NOTC2904


Since the FAA issued AD 2023-04-08, the FAA determined that IO-470-A, -C, -F, and -LO; and TSIO-360-F and -FB model engines are also affected by the unsafe condition and should be added to the applicability. Additionally, the FAA determined that the limitations in the special flight permit paragraph, specifying “no metal contamination in the oil filter”, did not account for trace metal particles that may be found in newer engines due to break-in of the engine.


AD 2023-04-08 is superseded by AD 2023-05-16 to include the additional engine models in the applicability and to revise the special flight permit limitations. AD 2023-05-16 went on Public Inspection on March 13, 2023 and is scheduled to publish on March 15, 2023.


You may find the new AD at www.federalregister.gov by searching for AD 2023-05-16


What does this mean?

• AD 2023-05-16 supersedes AD 2023-04-08
• If you have fully complied with AD 2023-04-08 prior to the effective date of AD 2023-05-16 your compliance is accounted for in paragraph (f) of the AD and you are not required to re-perform the required action. Record compliance accordingly.
• AD 2023-05-16 did not change the required action paragraph to what is found in AD 2023-04-08.
• AD 2023-05-16 is effective upon publication.

A flow chart is included to assist in the understanding of the requirements of the AD 2023-05-16.​

 

[Bell206]

they updated it, changing the number, and added a couple of engine models

FYI: to those looking for the new AD 2023-05-16 it won't be published until March 16th.

 

[Bell206]

FYI: to those looking for the new AD 2023-05-16 it won't be published until March 16th.

Here is the unpublished version of the new AD 2023-05-16 for those who wish to read it. What I always find interesting is when an AD of such significance is issued those people who it affects the most never comment on its impact in the docket. There were only 7 comments on 2023-04-08.

not quite resolving the argument in this thread regarding whether a mechanic has to log AD compliance before flight

I don't quite follow what more clarity you are looking for but both AD versions plainly state "before flight." You either perform the inspection or its not applicable.

 

[iamtheari]

I don't quite follow what more clarity you are looking for but both AD versions plainly state "before flight." You either perform the inspection or its not applicable.

Plenty of people think that they can check the MSB serial number list and overhaul date of their engines and go flying without a logbook entry. @tspear's post #174 in this thread reports that this thread is the only place he has seen anyone claiming that a logbook entry is necessary for engines that do not require the full inspection. On the other hand, some here (including you) have taken the (defensible but evidently not at all universally held) position that an A&P has to log compliance with the AD for all engines in the model list, including those that do not require any inspection beyond the serial numbers.

It's clear that not everyone has the same understanding of the requirements of this AD. I'm almost certainly in the minority of non-mechanic airplane operators who self-grounded until a mechanic signed off on this AD. If you're right, there are a lot of people flying unairworthy airplanes because they don't understand the requirements of the AD. The flowchart could easily have clarified that for even the densest of pilots.

 

[schmookeeg]

But based on our prior discussion of "Applicability" paragraphs... the helpful FAA flowchart is wrong? Or is it now incorporated into the new AD despite being conflicting, and can be leaned upon to explain the lack of a log entry for an unaffected engine?

 

[Jeff Oslick]

But based on our prior discussion of "Applicability" paragraphs... the helpful FAA flowchart is wrong? Or is it now incorporated into the new AD despite being conflicting, and can be leaned upon to explain the lack of a log entry for an unaffected engine?

The flow chart isn't "wrong", but it does not clarify the applicability section of the AD. In fact, the flow chart says at the bottom that if the flow chart isn't clear about something, then the language in the AD governs, not the flow chart. Based upon that, my read on it is nothing has changed on that front and it still requires an affirmative statement somewhere in the aircraft records that the AD doesn't apply.

 

[Mongoose Aviator]

Between the flowchart and the FAA email with the emphasis along with the following from the proposed revised AD:

Another individual commenter requested that the serial numbers of affected crankshafts and applicable manufacture date range of the affected engines should be included in the AD. The FAA disagrees with the requests. MSB23-01A, which is incorporated by reference into this AD, contains the list of affected engines and crankshafts. Therefore, duplicating the appendix information from the service information into the AD is unnecessary. The FAA notes that paragraph (g)(2) of the required actions specifies “crankshaft assembly that was repaired or installed on or after June 1, 2021.” The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

If somebody is flying with a 15 year old Continental (which has not been recently repaired or installed) nor has had the crankshaft assembly repaired or installed (on or after June 1, 2021) which is a model listed on the AD then there of course is nothing wrong with them choosing to inspect anything they want.

It is my personal opinion the owner of such an engine has a better chance of winning the Billion dollar lotto jackpot from a single ticket then they do have having an upheld action of enforcement due to not logging compliance of this AD.

I do fly a Continental L/TSIO-360-EB both of which were rebuilt/overhauled/something around 2004. I personally have not the slightest concern over this AD. During Annual I will let my mechanic do as he wishes with this AD in terms of signing off as NA just as he does with a whole range of other ADs and for which I personally am not bothered in the slightest as to the specifics of the wording if they really and truly do not apply to me.

 

[flyingron]

Anytime I get one of these things I log it anyhow. This one is pretty easy. There was one on the fuel pump a while back and it took a flashlight, a mirror, and some contortion on my part to get the serial/part # off the thing where it was installed on the back of my engine. I log those numbers just in case me (or someone else) gets curious again about compliance.

 

[Bell206]

there are a lot of people flying unairworthy airplanes because they don't understand the requirements of the AD.

^^^This. A lot of people don't understand how ADs work. Same as "a lot of people" think every STC needs a 337. But its very simple and AC39-7 I posted earlier gives you the guidance with examples. If your engine is listed in the AD applicability statement then you need a write up either inspecting your engine or stating the inspection is not applicable. And that write up must be entered before flight per (f). Its all there in black and white. If your engine is not listed in the Applicability statement then no write up is required. The flow chart is for what action is needed, i.e, inspection, as shown below. The flow chart has zero to do with the requirement on making the logbook entry. For those who fly with this AD not signed off are unairworthy unless under an SFP. And just for a point of reference, each time an aircraft is flown without the proper compliance on AD its counts as a separate penalty. I've signed off 14 aircraft as inspection N/A on AD 2023-04-08. And when AD 2023-05-16 gets published I'll be signing that AD off as well on those same aircraft as it is a separate requirement. It is what it is.

"Every Continental engine model listed in section (c) of the AD, titled “Applicability” is affected by this AD."

"However, every affected engine does not require the inspection detailed in Continental Aerospace Technologies Mandatory Service Bulletin MSB23-01A."

 

[Magman]

My belief is that if an AD is not listed with a status then every Inspection will

result in the Tech having to research why is does or does not apply. This could

cost more in the long run. An entry stating “ N/A -p/n or date mfg” will be

extremely helpful down the road. ADs may slip through the cracks for years

until a thorough search is made.

You really don’t know how good your engine shop is until an AD requires

investigation into what parts are installed. Some years ago there was an AD on a

Lycoming Crankshaft Bolt. The same p/ n was used for several different bolts

so you had to know the color. Penn Yan was able to provide a letter that it was

N/A.

 

[Mongoose Aviator]

For those who fly with this AD not signed off are unairworthy unless under an SFP. And just for a point of reference, each time an aircraft is flown without the proper compliance on AD its counts as a separate penalty.

I do not believe that my aircraft is unworthy due to a lack of a signature saying this AD is not applicable. Based on my reading of the proposed revised AD, the flowchart and the email, I 100% do not believe the FAA intends for my aircraft (which has not any crankshaft work since 2004) to be impacted by this AD even to the extent of calling it unairworthy due to the lack of an "NA" signature.

That is my belief and if the FAA wants to apply enforcement action against me then they know where I live.

 

[mondtster]

I do not believe that my aircraft is unworthy due to a lack of a signature saying this AD is not applicable. Based on my reading of the proposed revised AD, the flowchart and the email, I 100% do not believe the FAA intends for my aircraft (which has not any crankshaft work since 2004) to be impacted by this AD even to the extent of calling it unairworthy due to the lack of an "NA" signature.

That is my belief and if the FAA wants to apply enforcement action against me then they know where I live.

That may be your belief but that is not how the AD was written.

 

[Mongoose Aviator]

That may be your belief but that is not how the AD was written.

I disagree with your interpretation of the proposed revised AD. Which is supposed to be published tomorrow?

MSB23-01A, which is incorporated by reference into this AD, contains the list of affected engines and crankshafts.

The FAA is clearly and unambiguously stating the MSB is incorporated by reference into the AD.
The MSB clearly states that the engines affected are listed by serial number in the Appendix.
The FAA AD clearly states crankshaft assembly that was repaired or installed on or after June 1, 2021.

Any other reading that seems to imply an engine from 2004 (with no recent crankshaft work) is deemed unworthy immediately upon release of this AD is something that could easily be kicked over to a lawyer and let them take it up with the FAA. I find zero evidence this is what the FAA intends and multiple points where it seems clear what the FAA has for intentions.

And just for a point of reference, each time an aircraft is flown without the proper compliance on AD its counts as a separate penalty.

The FAA knows where I live. I really do not expect them to come knocking at my door.

 

[Bell206]

I find zero evidence this is what the FAA intends and multiple points where it seems clear what the FAA has for intentions.

Not quite. What you do is further verify my point in Post 226 that a lot of people do not understand how to read an Airworthiness Directive.

The FAA knows where I live. I really do not expect them to come knocking at my door.

No need to keep repeating yourself. Just remember ignorance is not a defense when dealing with the FAA. Trust me.

 

[iamtheari]

No need to keep repeating yourself. Just remember ignorance is not a defense when dealing with the FAA. Trust me.

In fairness, trusting SGOTI is also not a defense when dealing with the FAA.

 

[Bell206]

In fairness, trusting SGOTI is also not a defense when dealing with the FAA.

Ha. Except when the SGOTI merely repeats what already exists in the FAA guidance library. There's more available than just AC 39-7 for those who care to look. As they say, you can lead them to water but can't make them drink.

 

[Mongoose Aviator]

No need to keep repeating yourself. Just remember ignorance is not a defense when dealing with the FAA. Trust me.

Trust me.
The FAA would never take enforcement action on this for AD an engine that clearly does not meet their obvious intentions.
The best way for an agency to remove a grey area is to take enforcement action. The subsequent ruling removes the grey. Enforcement action would not hold up.

No need to keep repeating yourself.

Say that again?

In fairness, trusting SGOTI is also not a defense when dealing with the FAA.

Now that I can 100% agree with.

 

[rotormatic1]

The aircraft owner/operator is required to have a list of applicable AD’s, as required by part 91.417.

(v) The current status of applicable airworthiness directives (AD) and safety directives including, for each, the method of compliance, the AD or safety directive number and revision date. If the AD or safety directive involves recurring action, the time and date when the next action is required.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.417

 

[Bell206]

The FAA would never take enforcement action on this for AD an engine that clearly does not meet their obvious intentions.

The one item you fail to understand is a new AD is a new Part 39 regulation regardless of the AD topic. No different than a new rule under Part 43 or Part 91. So while you can imply intent all you want, the rules are pretty straight forward when it comes to not complying with the required instructions of the AD, i.e, regulation. But hey... rock on. It's your issue, not mine. Trust me.

Say that again?

You repeat yourself in separate posts. Heard you the 1st time.

That is my belief and if the FAA wants to apply enforcement action against me then they know where I live.

The FAA knows where I live. I really do not expect them to come knocking at my door.

 

[Mongoose Aviator]

The one item you fail to understand

No. I am solid on this. You are entirely missing what I am conveying.

Trust me.

You are absolutely allowed to ground any of your own airplanes without penalty for any reason you like.

You repeat yourself in separate posts. Heard you the 1st time.

Feel free to repeat yourself again just in case. Who knows.
Maybe this time you really will convince SGOTI to change their mind based on your personal interpretation and opinion. Could happen.

 

[3393RP]

If the AD requires every engine model listed to be inspected for compliance, why does the flowchart say "However, every affected engine does not require the
inspection detailed in Continental Aerospace Technologies Mandatory Service
Bulletin MSB23-01A. Operators of affected engines can follow the flowchart
below to determine whether their engine requires inspection." and that after determining by serial number or date of installation a particular engine is not affected "no further action is required"?

That verbiage is incontestable.

 

[iamtheari]

If the AD requires every engine model listed to be inspected for compliance, why does the flowchart say "However, every affected engine does not require the
inspection detailed in Continental Aerospace Technologies Mandatory Service
Bulletin MSB23-01A. Operators of affected engines can follow the flowchart
below to determine whether their engine requires inspection." and that after determining by serial number or date of installation a particular engine is not affected "no further action is required"?

That verbiage is incontestable.

Whoever wrote the flowchart has even worse writing skills than the people behind the AD itself. "Every affected engine does not require the inspection." Really?

Anyhow, the "no further action" part implies that a prior action was required. That action was to determine if the engine or crankshaft serial number is called out in the MSB. And the argument is that the AD requires an A&P to take and log that action before the plane can fly again. It's a sound enough argument that I had a mechanic do exactly that for me, although it sounds like I'm in the minority.

 

[Bell206]

why does the flowchart say "However, every affected engine does not require the inspection detailed in Continental Aerospace Technologies Mandatory Service Bulletin MSB23-01A. Operators of affected engines can follow the flowchart below to determine whether their engine requires inspection." and that after determining by serial number or date of installation a particular engine is not affected "no further action is required"?

Mainly because there are two separate parts that need to be addressed: 1) is the AD applicable per Part 39 and 2) if so what work is required. The first part triggers a write up as with all applicable ADs and the 2nd part indicates what work is required and when. The flow chart assists you in making those two determinations. Some believe this is my personal interpretation/opinion, however, I’m merely reiterating what the FAA has already written on AD compliance to include how each AD is “applicable” which is not determined by the owner/operator but by the FAA. Its all there for you and others to read.

although it sounds like I'm in the minority.

I think in certain circles you might be. But considering the current compliance rate I'm seeing/participating in there are more owners/operators complying with the AD once they've talked to their mechanics. This is actually nothing new with ADs as a number of owners believe any ADs only need to be complied with at annual time regardless of what 91.403 states.