When you say that the certification adds extra tools for the lawyer, I argue that it protects the manufacturer instead as it can point to the approved manufacturing process to shut down any claims about possible negligence. The certification requirements set a bar for product performance and the manufacturer can claim that it is reasonable to expect it to do better than that or that extra diligence is appropriate.
Lycoming will make money from this. They make money by selling their bogus tool, they make money by selling new bushings and other parts and they take absolutely no hit because their share of the aircraft piston market will not change because of that. It is an inherently flawed system — a poorly performing manufacturer uses certification as a tool to extort customers and increase profits.
Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:
That is cute, but exculpatory agreements do not stand the test of tort law case in most US states, not to mention napoleonic law jurisdictions.
Maybe, maybe not, but the sentence:
Never fly the aircraft equipped with this engine at locations, airspeeds, altitudes or in other circumstances where a successful no-power landing cannot be made after sudden engine stoppage.
is also stated in the engine operation manual that comes with every single engine delivered. The same (or similar wording) exist for all other non certified engines.
The point is, it is not an aircraft engine in a legal sense. Legally it is just a highly irregular working thrust device that may stop at any time, and shall under no circumstance be relied on for safe flight. That’s what it is sold as. That is what you get, no more, no less. Of course, an engine doesn’t know if it is certified or not. Certification is purely paper work here. Statistically a non-certified Rotax 912 series is more reliable than a certified Lycoming. But that is statistics, it has nothing to do with legal aspects. It does say a lot about the incredible poor standard of Lycoming. An engine that is certified, it is kept airworthy by professional mechanics with licenses to fiddle with it. It is still less reliable than a non-certified Rotax that the owner himself fiddle with. The reason is of course there is nothing to fiddle with in the first 2-3-4k hours on a Rotax (not entirely true, but close enough). Also, very few owners dare to fiddle with it, but pass the fiddling on to the local engine wizard.
achimha wrote:
It is an inherently flawed system — a poorly performing manufacturer uses certification as a tool to extort customers and increase profits.
To which I think much of the market says “so what?” because GA activity is predominantly FAA Experimental Amateur Built. Europe may ‘need’ a better system, but that’s not really the direction GA as a business is going. Of course a few people worldwide are still buying new certified light planes, and other people fly used certified aircraft because they’re bottomed out in depreciation and so less expensive as long as you or friends have the right A&P card in your wallet, and mail order access to PMA parts etc. But its not really the main GA focus.
I flew my Lycoming a couple of hours yesterday. They did a pretty good job of assembling it in 1971 
By coincidence one of my local email connections just sent me this Looks like Lycoming supplies the parts free but not the labor unless the engine is under warranty. If it were my engine I’d lift the cylinders with A&P assistance and replace (no cost?) parts as necessary over a couple of weekends.
Sounds like there have been accidents but nobody has got killed.
Lycoming just issued SB632B
Also everyone who is on Savvy Aviation’s mailing list just received a letter from Mike Busch who
- expects a FAA mandated AD soon
- calls the SB very nasty for all affected Lycoming owners
and considers the recommended way to comply with the SB catastrophic as pulling the affected cylinders may cause even more and additional damage and engine failures than the faulty conrod bushings.
He also hints at an alternate way to address the SB that he has proposed to the FAA together with representatives of several owner organizations and ends:
“In the meantime, my advice to owners of Lycoming engines that might be affected by SB 632A is to perform the research of paperwork to determine whether or not your engine contains any of the potentially non-conforming bushings, but NOT to pull any cylinders or connecting rods yet.”
@Peter I guess you also received the letter this morning. Can you link it?
Basically they propose to look for debris from a moved bushing in the oil screen and oil sump every 25h. That means you have to do that until the engine gets overhauled. Not great either.
The Savvy letter which arrived this morning is here.
Yes of course you should do a paperwork check before pulling cylinders – like I did. The smarter engine builders will have used bushings from Superior which aren’t affected. However in some situations (e.g. AOC ops) the engine shop may think they have to use “genuine Lyco parts” only, not PMA, especially in Europe which lives on regulatory OWTs. In other situations the record may not be available e.g. the engine shop has gone bust or is not co-operating. Also some shops may conceal what they used because the view in the USA seems to be that Lyco’s labour allowance is nowhere near enough to cover the full cost of this inspection. I’ve had (and seen) plenty of cases where a work pack would not be revealed, which obviously smells really bad.
As with the crankshaft saga 10-15 years ago, what will happen is that if an owner credibly threatens legal action (that means actually engaging a lawyer) Lyco will do a better deal under the table. The deal will be under an NDA with severe penalties so nobody will be able to talk about it, and indeed very little has leaked out about the crank related deals. The owners who got them were “very satisfied” with the terms, however – I also reckon Lyco pro-rated the compensation according to remaining engine time before 2000hrs.
In the end, this can be sorted for probably something like 10k, which Lyco should pay in its entirety. The hardest thing, in Europe especially, is finding an engine shop which can be trusted. I base this statement on countless emails etc which cannot be posted.
Peter wrote:
The smarter engine builders will have used bushings from Superior which aren’t affected
Unless con-rods were replaced as a whole. They came from Lycoming with the bushinsg already pressed in.
Peter wrote:
the engine shop may think they have to use “genuine Lyco parts” only, not PMA, especially in Europe which lives on regulatory OWTs
I don’t know why you think that European shops are stupid. No shop I ever talked to uses Lycoming parts when alternates are available. None of the German engine overhaul shops use Lycoming con-rod bushings. Shops have become a bit more cautious to recommend non Lycoming/Continental cylinders after the trouble with PMA cylinders a few years ago. What I see is that they give the customer options, add a soft recommendation for one brand but say that either should be fine.
Peter wrote:
In other situations the record may not be available e.g. the engine shop has gone bust or is not co-operating.
Every engine overhaul comes with authority mandated paperwork and that includes a part list. So the situation you mention is not possible.
Peter wrote:
Also some shops may conceal what they used because the view in the USA seems to be that Lyco’s labour allowance is nowhere near enough to cover the full cost of this inspection.
Another conspiracy theory that I consider to be absurd.
Peter wrote:
I base this statement on countless emails etc which cannot be posted.
Conspiracy theories tend to be based on overwhelming evidence that cannot be revealed.
CSE, Oxford, anyone?? Roeder in Germany? See posts from others here. Companies go bust all the time.
Another well known firm formerly near Oxford UK building propellers from condemned parts and generating forged 8130-3 forms, predictably busted by the FAA but not the CAA? When I reported them to the CAA (for refusing to give me a work pack) the CAA guy told me to have a cup of tea with them and sort it out.
Other examples posted here, even ones from the land of “perfect business ethics”?
Come off it (as they say here). Conspiracy? This is everyday business.
It’s a list as long as the time one wants to put into it, and I am not going to bother. In the end it means some % of engines will need cylinders pulled because the parts cannot be verified for whatever reason.
