A young owner of a 172 approached me to day for my opinion on a problem he has with his Aircraft and CFI. He had bought the 172 to learn to fly and family transportation. The engine was a 0 since major (not by me) and the owner was given specific instruction for break in for the 6 brand new superior cylinders, by the engine overhaul company a Certified repair station with a good reputation. The CFI ignored these instructions, and now 52 hours since major the cylinders are toast, compression is down to 20/80 and burning 1 qt in 3 hours, (no leaks) The CFI admitted he was told how the company wanted the engine to be run for the first 50 hours. and he admitted he did not run it that way. Now the question. How much responsibility does the CFI have in reimbursement to the owner for damages?
Zero. It's the owners problem if he failed, for any reason, to follow the "usual and customary" break in.
50/50. The CFI for ignoring the instructions and the owner for not insisting that they be followed. Unless there is more to the story that we don’t know. But good luck getting anything out of the CFI unless he is taken to court.
I can’t see how the CFI could be held for all of the blame. He certainly should’ve known better and in all regards was quite foolish of him, but it’s ultimately the owner (and operator’s) responsibility to comply.
Got to love the liability train!! The owner should go after mr cfi for not following specific recommendations given to him, if that is indeed what happened.
Well the CFI is the idiot but I don't think there's a way he's going to cough up any money. I mean, he's a CFI.
The owner knew the instructions, but started training in it anyway? I assume that is where the first 50hrs came from?
You assume correctly. the owner had no idea the CFI was not following the instructions of the Overhauler
Not following break in instructions results in this much damage after 52 hours? That seems rediculous. If that much damage is likely, that’s something the factory could do. Was there any sort of engine warranty? I don’t think it can be proven how the engine was run.
It can, overheat the rings doing slow flight and it will take the temper out of the rings, they collapse into their groves, and huge amount of blow by happens. I HAVE NOT SEEN THIS ENGINE APART---- yet.
The blind leading the blind. Mr owner needs to go to school or find someone to manage the plane with a big stick. Mr cfi needs his knuckles rapped, though I bet he knows little more than mr owner. A nice, expensive lesson for both!
Just my feelings. Any CFI that doesn't know enough about aircraft that they would not follow brake in instructions, shouldn't be teaching. If they don't have the cash to make this good, they should get this owner his PPL free of charge.
How was it supposed to be flown and what did the instructor do instead? Was an explanation given by the CFI as to why he didn't follow the directions?
I wish I knew that. I talked to both for a very short time, and have not seen the instructions given I do know the CFI was teaching slow flight at high power settings. Some of the 52 hours were ferry flight by the Same ferry pilot/CFI.
ZERO Besides for all you know the shop botched the job. Shy of teaching this guy back to back long cross countries, breaking in cylinders isn’t exactly compatible with most of PPL training.
Is it possible to simultaneously follow the 50 hour break-in routine and do the required maneuvers that primary training requires? Was the CFI hired to provide primary flight training or do the 50 hour break-in? Does the owner understand his ownership responsibilities under the regulations?
The airplane is the owners responsibilty,the CFI is hired to give instruction,looks like a big miscommunication on both sides.
Sounds like a cheap owner learning an expensive lesson. I guess he’ll know now. How can break in procedures be Greek? I’ve always been told something simple, like “run 75% power, 25 hours, minimize low power, no patttern work and no practice approaches. And to the person that asked, working on private is not conducive to a proper engine break in. Of course the owner could have come along and learned something on 50hours of cross country, but learning the basics would have to wait or be started in another plane.
Wait a minute, the owner was given explicit instructions and it's the CFi' s fault? Ah no. And why doesn't the kid bring the airplane back to the original mechanic? Not a lot adding up in this story, the least of which is why is it always operator error when an engine goes bad. Can't the cylinders be pulled and rehoned?
The owner should have paid to have the engine broken in properly. If he was being cheap and trying to make revenue during the break in period, he kind of created the problem. On the other hand, what kind of pilot, after being told how to operate the aircraft, just blows it off and abuses it?
Kid should have hired a pilot to fly off the 50 hours. AND.................That seems to be a HUGE LOT of hours to break in a cylinder. Should easily happen in less than 10. Here at M94 a experimental builder has hired a pilot to fly off the 40 hr requirement.
That would have been the smart thing to do.. I love how many here believe the brand new owner should have known all this on day 1. I believe the big mistake was him not having a mentor.
This expensive lesson is what happens when a student buys a plane with zero knowledge and hires a CFI with limited knowledge/experiance.
Next question.. If you were a A&P-IA would you get involved? I've already given my opinion, and that was all the owner asked for.
From a legal side none unless they had a contract. From a "do the right thing" side...... Involved how? Repairing the engine?
