ECI Cylinders Redux

smigaldi said:
That was my decision. I have new lycomings on.
Click to expand...

Did you get any compensation at all from ECI?

What a FU situation. It's not like this is cutting edge tech, these engine designs date back to the '40s or even earlier. But it's not just ECI and Titan with problems, Lycoming was having problems with cranks failing not that long ago...I just don't get it, it's not rocket surgery.


Trapper John
 
Trapper John said:
What a FU situation. It's not like this is cutting edge tech, these engine designs date back to the '40s or even earlier. But it's not just ECI and Titan with problems, Lycoming was having problems with cranks failing not that long ago...I just don't get it, it's not rocket surgery.
Click to expand...

No, it's called the FAA.
 
Trapper John said:
What did the FAA have to do with Lycoming crank failures?


Trapper John
Click to expand...

Didn't say they did. But people are complaining about part manufacture and why better technology is not being used. You can attribute that to the archaic FAA.

Think about it. Look at manufacturers of automobiles such as Toyota and Honda. They mass produce engines that have long service life and few if any problems. Just imagine if you could transfer that technology over to aviation engines.

But the FAA is not alone in their quest to subdue technology. Couple in our society of mass litigation for anything and everything and this to helps keep manufacturers away from GA.

Remember when Toyota developing a GA aircraft engine a few years ago? That project got dumped after dealing with the endless bureaucracy of the FAA along with the liability issue in the US.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
No, it's called the FAA.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. It's easy to blame them, but they are not at fault for poor quality manufacturing. What I do blame the FAA for is not enforcing that the manufacturers fully take care of quality related ADs as the auto manufacturers are required to do. If the AD business wasn't so profitable, I bet that there would be fewer problems like this.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Didn't say they did. But people are complaining about part manufacture and why better technology is not being used. You can attribute that to the archaic FAA.

Think about it. Look at manufacturers of automobiles such as Toyota and Honda. They mass produce engines that have long service life and few if any problems. Just imagine if you could transfer that technology over to aviation engines.

But the FAA is not alone in their quest to subdue technology. Couple in our society of mass litigation for anything and everything and this to helps keep manufacturers away from GA.

Remember when Toyota developing a GA aircraft engine a few years ago? That project got dumped after dealing with the endless bureaucracy of the FAA along with the liability issue in the US.
Click to expand...

The technology and stress engineering as well as metalurgy to make these parts properly is available to the manufacturers right now. If Toyota could do better, they wouldn't have pulled their engine in the early 90s because it was less efficient and less reliable than the Lycoming on the other wing of their Revlon Pink Aztec. It had nothing to do with beaurocracy, I know the people from that project and talked to them regularly.
 
Henning said:
No, it's not. It's easy to blame them, but they are not at fault for poor quality manufacturing. What I do blame the FAA for is not enforcing that the manufacturers fully take care of quality related ADs as the auto manufacturers are required to do. If the AD business wasn't so profitable, I bet that there would be fewer problems like this.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The FAA has oversight of the manufacturing process and any changes to the process have to be approved by the FAA. When a problem is discovered it takes time and books of paperwork to make the effective changes. I have had numerous phone conversations with 2 aircraft manufacturers back when I had my business about this very subject.

And the FAA cannot force the manufacturers to take care of quality related AD's. There is no enforcement action in place for this.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
I disagree. The FAA has oversight of the manufacturing process and any changes to the process have to be approved by the FAA. When a problem is discovered it takes time and books of paperwork to make the effective changes. I have had numerous phone conversations with 2 aircraft manufacturers back when I had my business about this very subject.

And the FAA cannot force the manufacturers to take care of quality related AD's. There is no enforcement action in place for this.
Click to expand...

Correct, and that is where I find fault, that they have never put this mechanism into place. While the FAA technically has oversight of the manufacturing, they have no ability to physically oversee it. In order to do so the cost of the FAA would be extremely high and we would definitely be looking at multiple fees and an increase in cost. They review the application of those seeking the PMA and trust that they under threat of the tort legal system will do the job correctly as stated. It is up to the PMA to do the physical quality control. That may not be the best way of going about it, but it does help keep the cost of aviation down to a less unreasonable level. Personally, I put the fault exactly where it lies IMO, with the manufacturer putting out a shoddy product. If the cylinders were manufactured properly to the approved design, they would be fine as many of them are. They produced bad batches of them though, and that has nothing to do with the approval process.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
They produced bad batches of them though, and that has nothing to do with the approval process.
Click to expand...

Well, it does. Once a product is approved, any changes to the product or process once again has to migrate through the bureaucracy of the FAA. So once a part is in the field and a problem is found, now the manufacturer is faced with expense and time to "right" the process.

While I agree that any business that sells a product should stand behind it irregardless, the FAA makes the proverbial "mountain out of a molehill" to fix the problem.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Well, it does. Once a product is approved, any changes to the product or process once again has to migrate through the bureaucracy of the FAA. So once a part is in the field and a problem is found, now the manufacturer is faced with expense and time to "right" the process.

While I agree that any business that sells a product should stand behind it irregardless, the FAA makes the proverbial "mountain out of a molehill" to fix the problem.
Click to expand...

Agree. The FAA process is numbing.

Here's an example: it took 18-months/2 years for the new owners of a certain small aircraft to get PMA to SELL parts for the aircraft. That's even with the TC, the drawings, the jigs, the specs, AND the specs for parts available from others for resale. The FAA demanded an independent part quality control process by the manufacturer for stuff purchased from others, EVEN if the others had their own QC process and/or PMA.

Even a small change to the manufacturing process (or parts process) requires FAA approval. And months of delay. And even with a regulatory process that's supposed to help limit liability, the manufacturer is STILL liable. It's the worst of both worlds.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Well, it does. Once a product is approved, any changes to the product or process once again has to migrate through the bureaucracy of the FAA. So once a part is in the field and a problem is found, now the manufacturer is faced with expense and time to "right" the process.

While I agree that any business that sells a product should stand behind it irregardless, the FAA makes the proverbial "mountain out of a molehill" to fix the problem.
Click to expand...

True, my issue though is that the problem didn't necessarilly lie with the approved process though, rather that the manufacturing deviated from the approved process and created a defective part. In that case, no reapproval of change is required, just a tightening up of QC by the manufacturer to bring the parts in line with the already approved spec. I don't believe all the cylinders were effected, just certain batches.
 
Henning said:
.... If the AD business wasn't so profitable, I bet that there would be fewer problems like this.
Click to expand...

Right! If GM could get the government to order them to make car buyers park the car until they come in for new engines - that the customer gets to pay for - they wouldn't be in the trouble they're in now. :nono:
 
Henning said:
Correct, and that is where I find fault, that they have never put this mechanism into place. While the FAA technically has oversight of the manufacturing, they have no ability to physically oversee it. In order to do so the cost of the FAA would be extremely high and we would definitely be looking at multiple fees and an increase in cost. They review the application of those seeking the PMA and trust that they under threat of the tort legal system will do the job correctly as stated. It is up to the PMA to do the physical quality control. That may not be the best way of going about it, but it does help keep the cost of aviation down to a less unreasonable level. Personally, I put the fault exactly where it lies IMO, with the manufacturer putting out a shoddy product. If the cylinders were manufactured properly to the approved design, they would be fine as many of them are. They produced bad batches of them though, and that has nothing to do with the approval process.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The FAA has nothing to do with poor QC at the factory. The fact that the factory can turn the **** out, and let the buyer suffer the consequences practically without recourse is an outrage. The AD system needs fixin.
 
flyersfan31 said:
Exactly. The FAA has nothing to do with poor QC at the factory.
Click to expand...

In some instances it's not a matter of bad QC, but rather a flaw in the design. It can be a small flaw that doesn't come to light until the units are in the field accumulating time. Then when the problems erupt it's not a matter of simply fixing the flaw but rather getting back into the moronic bureaucracy of the FAA to fix the problem, which can take up to 2 years to do.

flyersfan31 said:
The fact that the factory can turn the **** out, and let the buyer suffer the consequences practically without recourse is an outrage. The AD system needs fixin.
Click to expand...

The reason some of these suppliers can turn out defective merchandise and let the buyers suffer the consequences is once again, they have the PMA and no one else does. Don't like their quality? What's your alternative?

If the FAA process for PMA wasn't so archaic and more manufacturers could get in the market place, then the free market takes effect and now you have competition. Competition improves customer service and the inferior companies fall by the wayside.

A good example that comes to mind is Schwiezer Aircraft. They produce the what was the Hughes 269 line of helicopters. Several years ago there was a company named "Kinzies" that held several PMA's for the 269 series. Kinzies quality and prices were always better than the factory. The Kinzies retired and sold their PMA's to a company in New Zealand ( The new company didn't want to deal with US laws) and now SAC is the only place to get parts. Prices have gone up dramatically, numerous quality control issues and service is extremely poor. I had an aircraft that was AOG and I needed a part ASAP, and the factory was the only ones that had it. I requested overnight shipping and after several phone calls got the part 3 weeks later (they still charged me overnight shipping and a $50 "AOG Fee")
 
The top is done and the plane was ground run for an hour. Today I will go over and put a couple of hours on the tach by flying a high pattern while ensuring everything is tight and working.

If all goes well I will be putting some XC hours this week by going to Fort Wayne and then the Ames fly-in, followed by an oil change.

I heard from my mechanic yesterday that another person, at our airport, son had a close call involving non-AD ECI cylinders. Seems he was flying with ECI Titan cylinders not affected by the AD and was down in Florida when he heard a loud pop and the fan stopped. He declared an emergancy and was able to land on an airport. Inspection of the damage showed a hole in the cowling and a complete seperation of the head from the cylinder. This is the exact same failure that the AD was supposed to uncover.

I am going to look for the NTSB report this weekend and will post it here if I can find it.

But for all of you with ECI cylinders be careful!! I am really glad that I no longer have them at all. Now I just gotta keep my fingers crossed the Lycoming will not have issues either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top