This popped up on avweb. Apparently Continental has a major problem with its post 1st of June 2021 engines…
Cirrus has grounded some of their own fleet as a precaution.
This concerns not only big bore engines for Cirrus but all 360-, 470-, 520- and 550-series.
Counterweight issue. Gonna be very expensive to fix.
This likely has no effect all SR22 (NA and T) > Jan 2021? only those owned and/or operated by Cirrus Aircraft?
“to pause all internal Cirrus Aircraft company flight operations on SR22s and SR22Ts manufactured and issued a Certificate of Airworthiness from June 1, 2021”
Legally you need FAA, CAA, EASA to ground an aircraft
Does this invalidate insurances?
As indicated in the Avweb article, FAA is reviewing so there may another shoe to drop here (AD?).
Currently the titles in various fora and publications is misleading.
All that Cirrus has done is ground their OWN fleet, operated by Cirrus THEMSELVES as a PRECAUTION.
I guess the headline is actually pointing in the very wrong direction: The problem is not Cirrus, its Continental and it reaches far beyond the SR22/22T. Incidently, it may also affect SR20’s but much more. It does affect all June 2021 and later 360, 470 and 520/550 series. Continental appears to have put out word as well telling owners not to fly them, as a “precaution” and “recommendation.”
I’d say an Emergency AD is not far off. And that would cause a massive problem for Continental.
Ibra wrote:
Does this invalidate insurances?
Valid question. Insurances have been very antsy about Ga anyway recently. But they would have to tell you in writing I suppose.
Cirrus can have any policy they want with their own property, and tell the world about it, but regardless insurance on N-registered, US regulated aircraft will be unaffected as long as there is no FAA AD on the engine.
The wording in insurance policies is “the type certificate must be in full force and effect”, which means airworthiness is determined by government process, not arbitrary decisions by commercial entities.
Silvaire wrote:
The wording in insurance policies is “the type certificate must be in full force and effect”, which means airworthiness is determined by government process, not arbitrary decisions by commercial entities.
And that is how it should be too.
The question is what courts will make out of accusations of “recklessness” by any operator who continues to operate engines despite a recommendation by the manufacturer not to.
Anyway, I suppose it is only a question of relatively short time before an AD will be issued, given the actions of Continental. Cirrus in the relation is simply a juicy news item but unless Cirrus tell their customers not to fly the airplanes, it is the Continental recommendation which is much more far reaching.
The other end of it may be if Continental themselves are insured somehow for something like this.
They will have product liability insurance – probably costing them a few % of turnover (not the 99.9% of turnover which everybody is posting all over the internet 
).
But that comes into effect only if they are actually sued.
If there is an AD, then any operator is flying ilegally and can’t possibly sue IMHO.
If there is no AD, then Conti doesn’t have to do anything.
The Lyco crankshaft saga is indicative.
I guess insurance, pilots and 3rd party can’t go after Cirrus Aircraft and/or Continental now that they have disclosed this
However, insurance and 3rd party can come after the pilots who don’t stick to the recommendation, they are legal as long as FAA has not issued an AD yet, so the case has to be an extreme one to worth a try in courts
