Does an annual confirm the compliance with all ADs? Can compliance be assumed?

[Tom-D]

You would expect them to fail at any time?

There were less that a few than ever failed in service, and they give warning when they go. the cylinder just starts to skip.
This was the perfect example of the Manufacturer trying to sell parts by AD.

1994 was when the after market cylinders started to show up on the market.

 

[Tom-D]

Or just go ahead and hang a 180hp kit on it.

How to spend 40k on a 20k aircraft.

 

[Henning]

How to spend 40k on a 20k aircraft.

What does a 180hp 172 cost? Figure he has a $20k overhaul coming that is going to leave him with a $20k plane.

 

[Stewartb]

How to spend 40k on a 20k aircraft.

That one's easy. Buy a $20K aircraft.

 

[German guy]

I'd not allow this minor AD ruin a sale, you are going to overhaul it anyway. you will use new cylinders then. or you can top it now, 6 cylinders now or later -- which?

Would you indeed recommend to only have the top overhauled? In particular with such an old engine?

So what's a new set of jugs go for? Freshen up the top end.

Before I read Tom's suggestion above I thought that before we do something like this, we would get a complete overhaul. I saw prices ranging from around $12,000 (Jewell) to a bit above $20,000. We expect the higher number, I will however also research lower cost alternatives, once we get there.

[...] With this deal you are buying a run out engine anyway. What I would try to do if the airframe is a good speci mine is work the deal you buy new cylinders, seller pays the labor. Get a nice new set. Cylinders are engine accessories, and in 2 years/200 hours if/when you decide to overhaul the engine, they can be put back onto the reworked lower end.

Or just go ahead and hang a 180hp kit on it.

180 hp would be nice, I actually have a few hours on a 172N with the 180 HP conversion. VERY nice. But close to $40,000 for the Air Plains Kit!? For that kind of money + the plane, I could get an older 182. Hmmm...

I hope to hear back from the seller tomorrow, who insists that the AD had been complied with and that this is only a logbook issue. If he comes up with the required letter, fine. If not, we'll move from there.
I need to sleep on it, but don't think that we'd be willing to throw additional money into the plane, even before it gets into our possession.

We were initially planning to spend around $40 - 50k on a plane. The idea was to get a really nice straight tail 172 and have the avionics upgraded. After a lengthy discussion about the pros and can of venturi driven vacuum, we however gave up that idea. So, I started looking for newer Cessnas and found this one which is in a very nice condition but has the old / high time engine. The assumption was that our budget would give a nice airframe with a brand new engine and possibly even a avionics upgrade, if we increase the budget a little bit. Still, though, we do not want to be forced to have anything major done immediately.

 

[Henning]

Would you indeed recommend to only have the top overhauled? In particular with such an old engine?

Before I read Tom's suggestion above I thought that before we do something like this, we would get a complete overhaul. I saw prices ranging from around $12,000 (Jewell) to a bit above $20,000. We expect the higher number, I will however also research lower cost alternatives, once we get there.

180 hp would be nice, I actually have a few hours on a 172N with the 180 HP conversion. VERY nice. But close to $40,000 for the Air Plains Kit!? For that kind of money + the plane, I could get an older 182. Hmmm...

I hope to hear back from the seller tomorrow, who insists that the AD had been complied with and that this is only a logbook issue. If he comes up with the required letter, fine. If not, we'll move from there.

The issue is really pretty irrelevant, it doesn't really change the money you will have to spend, just moves up the time table on it. I too would rather have a 182 than 180hp 172, but if I had the 172 and was looking at $20k to overhaul an O-300, I would definitely be going into the comps to see what premiums the upgrades are bringing. It seems to be one of the best residual value upgrades on the market.

 

[Tom-D]

Would you indeed recommend to only have the top overhauled? In particular with such an old engine?

When all other things are right sure.

Before I read Tom's suggestion above I thought that before we do something like this, we would get a complete overhaul. I saw prices ranging from around $12,000 (Jewell) to a bit above $20,000. We expect the higher number, I will however also research lower cost alternatives, once we get there.

new set of ECI nickel cylinders are $5500 retale I get a 20% discount.

MY overhaul cost is a set price for labor, all other expenses are on your CC.

 

[German guy]

The issue is really pretty irrelevant, it doesn't really change the money you will have to spend, just moves up the time table on it. I too would rather have a 182 than 180hp 172, but if I had the 172 and was looking at $20k to overhaul an O-300, I would definitely be going into the comps to see what premiums the upgrades are bringing. It seems to be one of the best residual value upgrades on the market.

Those 180 hp conversions indeed seem to go (or are a least offered) with really steep price tags.

I however hate being forced into spending money in a situation like this. I don't want to start with any kind of overhaul, ferry permit or whatever. I want a plane which we can fly home, enjoy for the summer and which we have at a later point upgraded / overhauled after a careful consideration of the available options.

 

[Tom-D]

I however hate being forced into spending money in a situation like this. I don't want to start with any kind of overhaul, ferry permit or whatever. I want a plane which we can fly home, enjoy for the summer and which we have at a later point upgraded / overhauled after a careful consideration of the available options.

From What I read here, you can do exactly that with the 172 you are looking at.

 

[Henning]

Those 180 hp conversions indeed seem to go (or are a least offered) with really steep price tags.

I however hate being forced into spending money in a situation like this. I don't want to start with any kind of overhaul, ferry permit or whatever. I want a plane which we can fly home, enjoy for the summer and which we have at a later point upgraded / overhauled after a careful consideration of the available options.

If you want that you have to be looking above $20k. At $20k you are not likely to make it through the summer without significant repair. Might as well start with fresh jugs, or just start with a better plane. Buying cheap planes is not a particularly good value.

 

[German guy]

From What I read here, you can do exactly that with the 172 you are looking at.

...assuming, we get a confirmation letter from the A&P!? I saw the controversy between you and Ron above, whether a annual is also a confirmation of the compliance with all applicable ADs. Based on this I would think that his is at least a grey area.

If you want that you have to be looking above $20k. At $20k you are not likely to make it through the summer without significant repair. Might as well start with fresh jugs, or just start with a better plane. Buying cheap planes is not a particularly good value.

Well, how much better would a plane for 40 or 50k be and in which aspects? The planes seem to be a bit younger, most of the engines have less hours on them, still the last overhaul was usually done many, many years ago. I don't see a much smaller risk that expensive repairs may lay ahead, while we would however pay for the lower time engine and the slightly younger airframe.

And - if we get a confirmation of the compliance with this AD, everything will be as intended: We will have a nice older 172, which we can enjoy for a while as it is and which will later get a (almost) new engine. All this for around 40 - 50 k. IMHO, this makes more sense, than to buy for the same amount a 1970s 172 with a few hundred hours on the engine, which was overhauled 20 years ago.

 

[Tom-D]

..I saw the controversy between you and Ron above, whether a annual is also a confirmation of the compliance with all applicable ADs. Based on this I would think that his is at least a grey area.

Ron makes several assumptions on facts yet to be known.

This engine was overhauled as you say 40 years ago. the AD did not apply to any cylinder installed at that over haul.
You have yet to tell us the time the replaced cylinder were put on, or what they were.

Ron also missed the fact that this AD only applies to cylinders that were removed, it does not apply to new cylinders.

I'll give him the point that this applies to all 0-200/0-300 engines. but it does not apply to all cylinders.

Until you can tell us the answers to my questions, I can't tell you If This AD applies or not.

Plus the aircraft can not be airworthy until it complies with FAR 39. thus if the A&P-IA signs it as airworthy. it must have been compliant or their IA goes away when caught.

Yes people do make mistakes, and yes IAs have been revoked. and Yes people make mistakes and get away with it.

 

[VWGhiaBob]

Short answer: No. Better answer:
This is a prime situation to engage Savvy Aviation: https://www.savvymx.com. Their pre--buy is impartial, thorough, and includes many tests that will not only confirm AD's, but also the engine's health (hint: compression is not the right measure). The cost is around $900. I used their findings to knock $3,000 off the price. The engine analysis came back good. There were some avoinics issues that would have cost me over ten grand (part of the $3,000 was an extended warranty). Buyer beware!

 

[timwinters]

????

Sounds like the issues have been amply exposed. Why would he want to spend another grand to a third party at a remote location?

Or, are you on a Savvy retainer?

 

[German guy]

[...] This engine was overhauled as you say 40 years ago. the AD did not apply to any cylinder installed at that over haul.
You have yet to tell us the time the replaced cylinder were put on, or what they were. [...]

The guy at the Cessna Center told me, that the engine had been overhauled 40 years ago. I don’t know who did the overhaul and which cylinders had been used. He also told me that since the AD had been published, all cylinders were removed. Of these which were removed, 2 or 3 had been replaced, the others were repaired.

Now, let me assume they used for the overhaul 40 years ago parts, to which the AD does not apply. Even in this case I would still expect a logbook entry, at the date at which the cylinders had been removed after the release of the AD, in which the mechanic refers to the AD and states why it is not applicable!? The same, if he installed new cylinders after the release of the AD, to which the AD does not apply.

Long story short, in any case I would expect a logbook entry, referring to the AD.

I also read the AD again. Frankly, I don’t see that it is limited to Conti cylinders. They simply state ‘Applicability: Teledyne Continental Motors (TCM) Model C75, C85, C90, C125, C145, O-200, O-300’, without any limitations.

 

[Henning]

...assuming, we get a confirmation letter from the A&P!? I saw the controversy between you and Ron above, whether a annual is also a confirmation of the compliance with all applicable ADs. Based on this I would think that his is at least a grey area.




Well, how much better would a plane for 40 or 50k be and in which aspects? The planes seem to be a bit younger, most of the engines have less hours on them, still the last overhaul was usually done many, many years ago. I don't see a much smaller risk that expensive repairs may lay ahead, while we would however pay for the lower time engine and the slightly younger airframe.

And - if we get a confirmation of the compliance with this AD, everything will be as intended: We will have a nice older 172, which we can enjoy for a while as it is and which will later get a (almost) new engine. All this for around 40 - 50 k. IMHO, this makes more sense, than to buy for the same amount a 1970s 172 with a few hundred hours on the engine, which was overhauled 20 years ago.

I don't think you can do a better price or that you shouldn't be looking at this plane, I'm just saying that expecting it to make it through the summer without having to deal with an engine issue is not particularly a realistic expectation. Like I said, if I wanted that, I'd just top it now, and then get to the bottom end when it started showing some evidence in the oil analysis returns that it was getting due.

Value is all in the airframe, the engine is only a directly prorated accessory on the airframe.

 

[N801BH]

The guy at the Cessna Center told me, that the engine had been overhauled 40 years ago. I don’t know who did the overhaul and which cylinders had been used. He also told me that since the AD had been published, all cylinders were removed. Of these which were removed, 2 or 3 had been replaced, the others were repaired.

Now, let me assume they used for the overhaul 40 years ago parts, to which the AD does not apply. Even in this case I would still expect a logbook entry, at the date at which the cylinders had been removed after the release of the AD, in which the mechanic refers to the AD and states why it is not applicable!? The same, if he installed new cylinders after the release of the AD, to which the AD does not apply.

Long story short, in any case I would expect a logbook entry, referring to the AD.

I also read the AD again. Frankly, I don’t see that it is limited to Conti cylinders. They simply state ‘Applicability: Teledyne Continental Motors (TCM) Model C75, C85, C90, C125, C145, O-200, O-300’, without any limitations.

I am pretty sure Superior and ECI didn't exist 40 years ago....

 

[Henning]

I am pretty sure Superior and ECI didn't exist 40 years ago....

IIRC Superior was first in the Aftermarket introducing this very cylinder set for the O-200/O-300 in I think 1994. Before that there were only 'factory cylinders'.

 

[German guy]

I don't think you can do a better price or that you shouldn't be looking at this plane, I'm just saying that expecting it to make it through the summer without having to deal with an engine issue is not particularly a realistic expectation. [...]

OK, I misunderstood you then.

Our minimum expectation is, that the aircraft is airworthy as of today, what includes the compliance with all applicable ADs. To be able to fly it throughout the summer is what we hope for, if anything major comes up earlier, so be it.

I know I repeat myself, but we want to have the time to evaluate all available options and not be forced to throw money into a plane, which we haven't even picked up yet. I also don't want to get the cylinders replaced, only to learn a few weeks later that a 180 hp upgrade would have been a feasible option. An upgrade to 210 hp is also available, I however have no idea yet what it would cost and whether it can be combined with a gross weight increase. Too many options to consider, to make rushed decisions...

 

[Tom-D]

The guy at the Cessna Center told me, that the engine had been overhauled 40 years ago. I don’t know who did the overhaul and which cylinders had been used. He also told me that since the AD had been published, all cylinders were removed. Of these which were removed, 2 or 3 had been replaced, the others were repaired.

Now, let me assume they used for the overhaul 40 years ago parts, to which the AD does not apply. Even in this case I would still expect a logbook entry, at the date at which the cylinders had been removed after the release of the AD, in which the mechanic refers to the AD and states why it is not applicable!? The same, if he installed new cylinders after the release of the AD, to which the AD does not apply.

Long story short, in any case I would expect a logbook entry, referring to the AD.

I also read the AD again. Frankly, I don’t see that it is limited to Conti cylinders. They simply state ‘Applicability: Teledyne Continental Motors (TCM) Model C75, C85, C90, C125, C145, O-200, O-300’, without any limitations.

40 years ago there were no new cylinders available for the 0-300. the cylinders that were used at this overhaul were either over sized rebuilt, or chromed. Each of these cylinders should have had a yellow tag telling what they are. but there is no requirement to keep the yellow tags after installation. or maybe there is a clue as to what they are in the overhaul work order, but again there is no requirement to keep that either.

But that isn't the issue, all that occurred prior to the AD requirement.

And still we don't know when the cylinder maintenance occurred. That is what we need to know to determine the application of the AD. When any AD does not apply, there is no requirement to log it as not applicable.

There is a couple possibilities that you may find the AD compliance in the actual entry returning the cylinders to service because it would not apply to all cylinders when the cylinders were repaired.

 

[Tom-D]

OK, I misunderstood you then.

Our minimum expectation is, that the aircraft is airworthy as of today, what includes the compliance with all applicable ADs. To be able to fly it throughout the summer is what we hope for, if anything major comes up earlier, so be it.

I know I repeat myself, but we want to have the time to evaluate all available options and not be forced to throw money into a plane, which we haven't even picked up yet. I also don't want to get the cylinders replaced, only to learn a few weeks later that a 180 hp upgrade would have been a feasible option. An upgrade to 210 hp is also available, I however have no idea yet what it would cost and whether it can be combined with a gross weight increase. Too many options to consider, to make rushed decisions...

Would you invest a couple hundred bucks to save the deal, that is about what it will take to comply with the AD on all cylinders even if it does or doesn't apply.

Tom Anderson is the guy to ask about the 210 horse power IO-360 upgrade. the cost last I checked was about 50 grand all told. that's if you want a fresh engine.

 

[German guy]

[...] And still we don't know when the cylinder maintenance occurred. That is what we need to know to determine the application of the AD. When any AD does not apply, there is no requirement to log it as not applicable.

There is a couple possibilities that you may find the AD compliance in the actual entry returning the cylinders to service because it would not apply to all cylinders when the cylinders were repaired.

The Cessna Center guy said that all cylinders had been removed after the AD was published. The removal / repair / replacement of the cylinders was recorderd in the logbook, however without any comment regarding the AD. The AD was neither mentioned in the describtion of the repairs, nor in the logbook's AD section.

I don't have specific dates available regarding when the cylinders had been removed, I understand however that the only criteria whether they had to be inspected or nor is the release date of the AD. No matter whether the cylinders had been pulled 10 days or 10 years after the release of the AD, they would have had to be inspected and an according logbook entry would have been required.

 

[Henning]

The Cessna Center guy said that all cylinders had been removed after the AD was published. The removal / repair / replacement of the cylinders was recorderd in the logbook, however without any comment regarding the AD. The AD was neither mentioned in the describtion of the repairs, nor in the logbook's AD section.

I don't have specific dates available, when the cylinders had been removed, I understand however that the only criteria whether they had to be inspected or nor is the release date of the AD. No matter whether the cylinders had be pulled 10 day or 10 years after the release of the AD, they would have had to be inspected and an according logbook entry would have been required.

What you have never stated about this plane is airframe condition. That is all that matters, the engine issue at worst will take a couple weeks to resolve, and may very well resolve in a few hours for a few hundred dollars if you can't get the back paper trail straightened.

You're just paying too much attention to the wrong subject.

What is the overall airframe condition?

 

[German guy]

Would you invest a couple hundred bucks to save the deal, that is about what it will take to comply with the AD on all cylinders even if it does or doesn't apply.

Tom Anderson is the guy to ask about the 210 horse power IO-360 upgrade. the cost last I checked was about 50 grand all told. that's if you want a fresh engine.

A couple hundred bucks would certainly be fine. The mechanic however insists that he complied with the AD, when he removed the cylinders, but thought that it is not necessary to also specifically record the compliance with the AD in the logbook. If I believe this story, all he would have to do if to fix the documentation (the letter I was talking about) and everybody would be happy. Of course, one could question, whether he indeed inspected the bosses or not, but this is something one could ask for everything that is written in the logbooks...


$50k for the 210hp upgrade. Ouch. On the other hand, the 180 hp upgrade is also $40k.
I don't know how much sense either option makes, I'll yet have to look into that.

 

[Tom-D]

The Cessna Center guy said that all cylinders had been removed after the AD was published. The removal / repair / replacement of the cylinders was recorderd in the logbook, however without any comment regarding the AD. The AD was neither mentioned in the describtion of the repairs, nor in the logbook's AD section.

If you are certain of that, then the R1 version of the AD applies.

plus every A&P-IA that did annuals since then are at risk, and every pilot that flew the aircraft during that period flew a un-airworthy aircraft.

 

[Tom-D]

A couple hundred bucks would certainly be fine. The mechanic however insists that he complied with the AD, when he removed the cylinders, but thought that it is not necessary to also specifically record the compliance with the AD in the logbook. If I believe this story, all he would have to do if to fix the documentation (the letter I was talking about) and everybody would be happy. Of course, one could question, whether he indeed inspected the bosses or not, but this is something one could ask for everything that is written in the logbooks...


$50k for the 210hp upgrade. Ouch. On the other hand, the 180 hp upgrade is also $40k.
I don't know how much sense either option makes, I'll yet have to look into that.

The A&P should then man up and sign off the AD.

Predating the entry is fine.

 

[Henning]

A couple hundred bucks would certainly be fine. The mechanic however insists that he complied with the AD, when he removed the cylinders, but thought that it is not necessary to also specifically record the compliance with the AD in the logbook. If I believe this story, all he would have to do if to fix the documentation (the letter I was talking about) and everybody would be happy. Of course, one could question, whether he indeed inspected the bosses or not, but this is something one could ask for everything that is written in the logbooks...


$50k for the 210hp upgrade. Ouch. On the other hand, the 180 hp upgrade is also $40k.
I don't know how much sense either option makes, I'll yet have to look into that.

180hp makes a 172 into what a 172 should be, a 4 seat airplane. 210hp makes a 172 into a 4 seat mountain airplane. If I wanted a 210hp 172 though, I would just go ahead and buy a Hawk XP with the slightly beefier airframe. However I could never foresee myself wanting a 210hp 172 when I could have a 182 instead and get extra space as well.

Unless I was in the rental/instruction business, I would not buy any 172.

 

[German guy]

[...] What is the overall airframe condition?

According to the Cessna Center, there is no internal corrosion at all and only minimal corrosion in a few spots on the outside. Paint is not like new, but really nice, same with the interior.

This is the bird:
http://www.gardneraircraft.com/planeviewspec.php?id=439

Video:
https://youtu.be/nKBTpzJwdac

It lives since 2006 in Florida, to where is was brought from the Atlanta region.

 

[Henning]

According to the Cessna Center, there is not internal corrosion at all and only minimal corrosion in a few spots on the outside. Paint is not like new, but really nice, same with the interior.

This is the bird:
http://www.gardneraircraft.com/planeviewspec.php?id=439

Video:
https://youtu.be/nKBTpzJwdac

It lives since 2006 in Florida, to where is was brought from the Atlanta region.

This looks like a nice airplane, if there isn't jack all for corrosion, I sure wouldn't throw away the deal over an engine issue where you know it's due anyway.

 

[poadeleted20]

The thing is that the seller lives in Florida, we live in Michigan and I would rather not to send engine logbook, if not necessary.

You don't have to send the logbook to Florida -- the mechanic can type up the entry on a sticky-back and you can paste it in yourself. Just make sure the entry complies with 43.9.

 

[poadeleted20]

The application list does not include the Superior or ECI cylinders, When it applies to them they will be listed.

If it does not apply, it is not required to list it.

The AD application list says "engines", not "cylinders". If the engine data tag says "Continental" and it's one of the engine models listed, the AD applies no matter what cylinders are on it.

 

[poadeleted20]

When I read the AD, I understood that a visual inspection, while everything is still assembled, would not be sufficient!?

You are 100% correct.

 

[Tom-D]

You are 100% correct.

There is no reason to pull the cylinders to do the dye check as required for this AD. Pull the valve covers, rocker arms, and cross shaft. do the dye check, as per the AD and reassemble.

 

[poadeleted20]

Ron also missed the fact that this AD only applies to cylinders that were removed, it does not apply to new cylinders.

But it does apply to overhauled cylinders, which had to have been removed from some engine (this one or another).

I'll give him the point that this applies to all 0-200/0-300 engines. but it does not apply to all cylinders.

I can't find anything in the AD which says it applies only to cylinders manufactured by Continental. If it applies to the engine, not the cylinders, it doesn't matter who built the cylinders. If you see something in the AD which says otherwise, please point it out.

Until you can tell us the answers to my questions, I can't tell you If This AD applies or not.

Since the engine is on the applicability list, the AD applies no matter what the answers to those questions. The only question is what has to be done and when.

Plus the aircraft can not be airworthy until it complies with FAR 39. thus if the A&P-IA signs it as airworthy. it must have been compliant or their IA goes away when caught.

Tom may think that, but the FAA does not agree. All applicable AD's must be addressed explicitly in the aircraft maintenance records -- ask any FAA Airworthiness Inspector about that.

Yes people do make mistakes, and yes IAs have been revoked. and Yes people make mistakes and get away with it.

Now that I agree with. And the mechanic that signed off that engine without noting compliance with that AD made a mistake. While the FAA does not explicitly require AD lists, I am seriously suspicious of any IA who doesn't generate one at every annual, and then document checking the compliance status of each AD applicable to that aircraft (including all accessories). IA's who do that don't get burned on issues like this.

 

[Tom-D]

The AD application list says "engines", not "cylinders". If the engine data tag says "Continental" and it's one of the engine models listed, the AD applies no matter what cylinders are on it.

The AD says to do the AD on cylinders that have been removed, Would you sign off the AD for the whole engine or just the ones removed?

Would you sign off the AD for 6 new cylinders? When it isn't due until they are removed?

In 1994 there were no rebuilt after market cylinders, they were still being used on their first run, or off due to warrantee, and replaced with new from the manufacturer.

You might better stick to the CFI thing, because the AD stuff seems to confuse you.

 

[Tom-D]

But it does apply to overhauled cylinders, which had to have been removed from some engine (this one or another).

You made the assumption that these were overhauled with out knowing that for a fact and we still don't. [/QUOTE]

I can't find anything in the AD which says it applies only to cylinders manufactured by Continental. If it applies to the engine, not the cylinders, it doesn't matter who built the cylinders. If you see something in the AD which says otherwise, please point it out.

But you didn't realize that the cylinders could have been new going back on

Since the engine is on the applicability list, the AD applies no matter what the answers to those questions. The only question is what has to be done and when.

Tom may think that, but the FAA does not agree. All applicable AD's must be addressed explicitly in the aircraft maintenance records -- ask any FAA Airworthiness Inspector about that.

Applicable is the key word there, you made the assumption it was, when that was not known, until today

Now that I agree with. And the mechanic that signed off that engine without noting compliance with that AD made a mistake. While the FAA does not explicitly require AD lists, I am seriously suspicious of any IA who doesn't generate one at every annual, and then document checking the compliance status of each AD applicable to that aircraft (including all accessories). IA's who do that don't get burned on issues like this.

There is no requirement to compile a list of ADs, each one can be complied with at the time of compliance. Many aircraft records reflect the AD compliance on the log book page at the date time it occurred.

Here is the quote from the AC on aircraft records, AC43-9-C

9. MAINTENANCE RECORDS FOR AD COMPLIANCE.
AC 39-7, Airworthiness Directives for GeneralAviation Aircraft, current edition. A separate AD ‘recordmay bekept for the airframe andeachengine,propeller, rotor, andappliance,but is not required. This would facilitate record searcheswhen inspection is needed,and when an engine, propeller, rotor, or applianceis removed, the record may be transferred with it. Such records may also be usedasa schedulefor recurring inspections. The format, shown in Apdendix 1,isasuggestedor0.andadherenceisnotmandatory. Ownersshouldbeawarethat they may be responsiblefor nun-compliance with AD’s when their aircraft are leasedto foreign operators. They should, therefore, ensurethat leasesshould be drafted to deal with this subject.

 

[Tom-D]

There is no requirement to compile a list of ADs, each one can be complied with at the time of compliance. Many aircraft records reflect the AD compliance on the log book page at the date time it occurred.

Here is the quote from the AC on aircraft records, AC43-9-C

9. MAINTENANCE RECORDS FOR AD COMPLIANCE.
AC 39-7, Airworthiness Directives for General Aviation Aircraft, current edition. A separate AD record may be kept for the airframe and each engine,propeller, rotor, and appliance, but is not required. [COLOR] This would facilitate record searches when inspection is needed, and when an engine, propeller, rotor, or appliance is removed, the record may be transferred with it. Such records may also be used as a schedule for recurring inspections. The format, shown in Apdendix 1,isasuggestedor0.and adherence is not mandatory. Owners should be awaret hat they may be responsible for non-compliance with AD’s when their aircraft are leased to foreign operators. They should, therefore, ensure that leases should be drafted to deal with this subject.

 

[poadeleted20]

There is no requirement to compile a list of ADs, each one can be complied with at the time of compliance. Many aircraft records reflect the AD compliance on the log book page at the date time it occurred.

While it is not legally required, good IA's compile an AD list at each annual, confirm compliance for each one. New ones and those requiring recurring compliance will be dealt with, and then the list is appended the list to the aircraft's maintenance records. That makes it a lot easier to confirm compliance with all applicable AD's next year. In any event, how can an IA performing an annual inspection confirm compliance with all applicable AD's without compiling an AD list?

And you're still not showing me anything in the AD which says it only applies to engines with Continental cylinders.

 

[German guy]

Great news - the Cessna Center compared the dates in the logbook with the AD.
It turned out, other than initially stated, that the cylinders which were repaired, had been removed before the AD was issued. After the release of the AD, two other cylinder were removed, both were however replaced with new parts.

This means, according to the Cessna Center and also by my understanding, that the plane is in full compliance with the AD!

We are already looking forward to picking her up.

Thank you very much again for all your repsonses and the very interesting discussion. I certainly learned a lot from it.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

I love happy endings.....