Old AD 98-02-08

hotprops said:
I would inspect any small bore lyc crank with the "freeze" plug under the prop if my ass was in the aircraft.. so easy to do .
Click to expand...

That’s not the debate at hand. The question is, do you have to. I think there is sufficient evidence that the FAA doesn’t feel it is necessary to look at the 150hp engines.

Lycoming on the other hand does believe the 150hp engines need attention too, per their service bulletin.
 
unsafervguy said:
You still have produced NO legal document, as required by law, that shows a change to that.
What made the faa come out with a clarification? Where the hell is this clarification you speak of, all you have is a search result. show us a document from the faa.
Click to expand...
What is the web address of the search result?
go look it up again.
 
You are talking out of both sides of you rear end. You say the preamble is not regulatory so that does not apply. Then your ignore the applicability section of the ad that states "limited to" which is regulatory. Then you point to a search engine as applicability, but have no regulatory document to backpack that up. If the link you posted in post two were regulatory it would be in a regulatory document. I believe you have no idea how the regulatory system works. Let me say it for the final time. Regulatory applicability requires publishing in the federal register, until you post a legal regulatory document your just spreading crap. A web address is not regulatory.
 
Tom-D said:
You don't beleve the application list is a portion of the AD.

Aue geez,, I'm done.
Click to expand...

Yes I beleve the application list. AS PRINTED IN THE AD and federal register as required by law. That document which is leagaly binding says limited to 160hp.

How many times does that have to be pointed out?

To change the wording in the application section requires a new AD. Period. That is the law.

I'm done also because your to stupid and bull headed to understand the process and regulations.
 
I bet you both reply at least one more time. ;)
 
Tom-D said:
The application is direct from the FAA, who do you believe the chief counsel is?
What can I tell ya, the FAA says your interpretation is wrong. and the AD applies to all 0-320s 150 and 160 horse power.
Click to expand...

Tom-D said:
THEY DID NOT CHANGE THE BODY OF THE AD.
Good GOD man read the AD!

Clarification is neither a change or superseding of the AD.
The FAA issued a clarification in Feb -18 to bring attention to the fact that this AD was misinterpreted, and that the 150 horse power engine were included from the start.
Click to expand...

That's you making **** up.

Tom-D said:
You keep coming back to the very AD that tells us what engines are exempt.
and the 150 horse engines are not listed as exempt.
Click to expand...

The AD doesn't apply to 150 horse engines, therefore no need to list them exempted.

Tom-D said:
You don't beleve the application list is a portion of the AD.

Aue geez,, I'm done.
Click to expand...

You need to go back and apply some critical thinking to that link in post #2, the AD process, what you called a "letter" and all that.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-4-23_13-23-9.png
    upload_2018-4-23_13-23-9.png
    418.3 KB · Views: 80
Last edited:
Now I am really confused. I have a 150 HP O-320-E2C. I am on the list.

Is it correct to assume that many of these engines don't have a hollow crank? All I would need to do is pull the spinner and look at the end of the crank. If it is solid with no plug, then I'm good to go?
 
Cruzinchris said:
Now I am really confused. I have a 150 HP O-320-E2C. I am on the list.

Is it correct to assume that many of these engines don't have a hollow crank? All I would need to do is pull the spinner and look at the end of the crank. If it is solid with no plug, then I'm good to go?
Click to expand...


There is nothing to be confused about. If your engine is 150 horse, it doesn't apply. If it is 160 horse it does, including those that were born a 150 and later converted to 160.
 
bnt83 said:
There is nothing to be confused about. If your engine is 150 horse, it doesn't apply. If it is 160 horse it does, including those that were born a 150 and later converted to 160.
Click to expand...
Unless you want to be confused
 
Cruzinchris said:
Now I am really confused. I have a 150 HP O-320-E2C. I am on the list.

Is it correct to assume that many of these engines don't have a hollow crank? All I would need to do is pull the spinner and look at the end of the crank. If it is solid with no plug, then I'm good to go?
Click to expand...
If your engine has been overhauled since 1998, it has a solid crank. Hollow cranks were to be removed from service at next overhaul.
If your engine has "PID" stamped on the crank flange, the AD has been complied with, No matter what horse power it is.
The ones who have this AD due, are the 150 horse power engines that were never inspected, and then upgraded to 160 horse by STC.
 
bnt83 said:
That's you making **** up.



The AD doesn't apply to 150 horse engines, therefore no need to list them exempted.



You need to go back and apply some critical thinking to that link in post #2, the AD process, what you called a "letter" and all that.
View attachment 62210
Click to expand...

Is the full letter available? I have seen this AD misinterpreted several times over the years, me included. It is poorly worded right from the start.
 
JAWS said:
Is the full letter available? I have seen this AD misinterpreted several times over the years, me included. It is poorly worded right from the start.
Click to expand...
The whole purpose of this thread.. :)

Any engine on that list could have this AD due, that is IMHO why the application list was posted in Feb this year.
 
I did my own Google digging. Found the link below.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1998-01-28/html/98-1705.htm

The relevant paragraph below. Emphasis added.

"One commenter states that the AD should take into consideration the
operation and service history for each engine in specifying corrective
action. The FAA partially concurs. The FAA has taken into consideration
service history and has limited the applicability of this AD to engines
with 160 hp or greater. The survey to be completed for the initial
inspection of the crankshaft may aid the FAA in determining other
causal effects which may be used for future rulemaking."

This kind of information would be most helpful when trying to determine applicability during an inspection. A note in the AD would be nice.

Better late than never!
 
JAWS said:
A note in the AD would be nice.
Click to expand...

How about this one.

Note 1: This airworthiness directive (AD) applies to each engine identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD.

Also know the difference between :

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
and
Regulatory Information

 
Tom-D said:
How about this one.

Note 1: This airworthiness directive (AD) applies to each engine identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD.

Also know the difference between :

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
and
Regulatory Information
Click to expand...

Yes, well of course, how silly of me. It is all so clear now. :rolleyes:
 
Here a thought.
We have Lycoming 150 horse engines out there that had crankshaft corrosion problems 20 years ago.
Nothing was ever done to these engines.
 
Tom-D said:
If your engine has been overhauled since 1998, it has a solid crank. Hollow cranks were to be removed from service at next overhaul.
Click to expand...

You're making even more **** up now. There is no AD requiring replacement of hollow crankshafts with solid crankshafts at overhaul.

That being said, I doubt that ANY overhauler would yellow tag ANY used 4 banger Lycoming crankshaft without applying the Lycoming SB, no matter what engine it came out of, required by the AD or not, the overhauler is gonna be looking in there and doing the SB.
 
Last edited:
bnt83 said:
You're making even more **** up now. There is no AD requiring replacement of hollow crankshafts with solid crankshafts at overhaul.

That being said, I doubt that ANY overhauler would yellow tag ANY used 4 banger Lycoming crankshaft without applying the Lycoming SB, no matter what engine it came out of, required by the AD or not, the overhauler is gonna be looking in there and doing the SB.
Click to expand...
Wait for it. In a few minutes he’ll tell us that he started the thread to explain that to us.
 
bnt83 said:
You're making even more **** up now. There is no AD requiring replacement of hollow crankshafts with solid crankshafts at overhaul.
Click to expand...

Not in the AD.
When you overhaul are you required to comply with service bulletins ?
 
Tom-D said:
Not in the AD.
When you overhaul are you required to comply with service bulletins ?
Click to expand...

There is no service bulletin requiring hollow crankshafts to be replaced with solid crankshafts. In fact, the new Lycoming crankshaft for my O320E2D is still hollow, requiring a plug for installation for fixed pitch propellers.

Parts manual issued Oct 2011, see section 4 https://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/O-320-E2D &-E3D Parts Catalog PC-203-6.pdf

There isn't even an alternate crankshaft listed there or a "for spares order xxxx" type note.
 
Last edited:
bnt83 said:
There is no service bulletin requiring hollow crankshafts to be replaced with solid crankshafts. In fact, the new Lycoming crankshaft for my O320E2D is still hollow, requiring a plug for installation for fixed pitch propellers.

Parts manual issued Oct 2011, see section 4 https://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/O-320-E2D &-E3D Parts Catalog PC-203-6.pdf

There isn't even an alternate crankshaft listed there or a "for spares order xxxx" type note.
Click to expand...
Wrong Reference again.SB 505b para (f.) any corroded crank must be replaced.

or did you forget why we got the AD to start with?

This morning I signed an annual off as unairworthy, due to a 0-320-E2A 's crank being severely corroded, and the owners want a new engine. So the annual is done, the engines gets replaced, and returned to service as airworthy on the A&P's signature.

I was surprised when they told me they read these pages and was prompted to take a look and a 0-320 crank that even had "PID" on the flange. I was more surprised when I saw how badly corroded the shaft was. Ura-coating was loose, and massive rust under it.
so your advocating that these cranks will pass the required inspections for recertiofication show exactly how much experience you have in this area.
 
Last edited:
Run the engine crank shaft part number you see it has been upgraded
 
Tom-D said:
Wrong Reference again.SB 505b para (f.) any corroded crank must be replaced.

or did you forget why we got the AD to start with?

This morning I signed an annual off as unairworthy, due to a 0-320-E2A 's crank being severely corroded, and the owners want a new engine. So the annual is done, the engines gets replaced, and returned to service as airworthy on the A&P's signature.

I was surprised when they told me they read these pages and was prompted to take a look and a 0-320 crank that even had "PID" on the flange. I was more surprised when I saw how badly corroded the shaft was. Ura-coating was loose, and massive rust under it.
so your advocating that these cranks will pass the required inspections for recertiofication show exactly how much experience you have in this area.
Click to expand...

Twisting the topic again, you stated that hollow cranks must be replaced with solid cranks implying that there is a mandate to replace them regardless of condition, a completely false statement.
 
bnt83 said:
Twisting the topic again, you stated that hollow cranks must be replaced with solid cranks implying that there is a mandate to replace them regardless of condition, a completely false statement.
Click to expand...
Simply staying on point, All the cranks involved in this AD will be replaced, due to corrosion IAW SB 505B para (f.)
If you believe that 30-40 year old cranks that had corrosion problems over 20 years ago and had nothing done to them because of the way you and others read this AD will pass inspection now or in the resent past, you probably believe in Santa Clause and the tooth fairy.

If are you saying you are not required to comply with service bulletins when you overhaul?
If that is what you are implying, that would prove you know nothing about Lycoming instructions.
And to advocate we leave these hollow cranks in service is a special kind of dangerous.
 
Last edited:
You really are a treasure, Tom. :)
 
Tom-D said:
Simply staying on point, All the cranks involved in this AD will be replaced, due to corrosion IAW SB 505B para (f.)
If you believe that 30-40 year old cranks that had corrosion problems over 20 years ago and had nothing done to them because of the way you and others read this AD will pass inspection now or in the resent past, you probably believe in Santa Clause and the tooth fairy.

If are you saying you are not required to comply with service bulletins when you overhaul?
If that is what you are implying, that would prove you know nothing about Lycoming instructions.
And to advocate we leave these hollow cranks in service is a special kind of
Click to expand...

Again, you seem to have a reading comprehension issue. 505f does not mandate replacement.

f. If during visual inspection any pitting resulting from corrosion is found, the crankshaft must be removed from service immediately or subjected to FPI according to Section II of this Service Bulletin on page 3
Click to expand...
 
JAWS said:
You really are a treasure, Tom. :)
Click to expand...
Glad you enjoy.. Do Canadians allow corrosion pitted cranks to be placed back in engines against the direction of a mandatory SB?
Read Mandatory Service bulletin 505B paragraph (f) see if you believe any corroded cranks can be used, remember even here in the US we are required to comply with service bulletin during the overhaul, That is right in the overhaul manual.

Then tell me how many of these old cranks that has corrosion 20 years ago do you believe will pass the required inspection for re-use. IAW 505B (f) which in so many words says to discard them.

So Yes, I'll stick with my statement that if your engine has been overhauled since the AD or SB came out it has a solid crank.
 
Salty said:
Again, you seem to have a reading comprehension issue. 505f does not mandate replacement.
Click to expand...
How many of these old cranks do you think can pass the FPI and pitting inspection?

Be real. the answer is ZERO. sure they are directed to be removed for inspection, but zero make it past that.

I've replaced 3, 0-320 in resent years, every one came back with a solid crank.

my machine shop who does my cranks and other machining, told me they simply clean, inspect, red tag and return.
 
How many of the experts here have actually and hand on experience, or are you all simply going by what you read.
 
Tom-D said:
Read Mandatory Service bulletin 505B paragraph (f) see if you believe any corroded cranks can be used
Click to expand...

Here is section f from 505B:

upload_2018-4-24_20-17-59.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-4-24_20-17-24.png
    upload_2018-4-24_20-17-24.png
    619.4 KB · Views: 5
Tom-D said:
How many of the experts here have actually and hand on experience, or are you all simply going by what you read.
Click to expand...
The words you’re looking for Tom are “I was wrong”. Just trying to help.
 
Salty said:
The words you’re looking for Tom are “I was wrong”. Just trying to help.
Click to expand...
I doubt that very much, want to prove me wrong? show me a old crank shaft that passed a inspection to return it to service.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top