Engine overhaul log entries.

James331 said:
Talk about nit picking for the sake of nit picking.
Click to expand...
Yeah ... some days are like that.
Apparently the Inspector doesn't know what this statement means " this engine complies with FAR 43.2 as rebuilt".
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
and there was the statement....."All ADs complied with to date".... :D
Click to expand...

Unless they are documented somewhere, I never believe that either...I had that same statement everywhere on my 1965 Cherokee, and couldn't find documentation for a couple of them. I spent 3K having them go back through every single one of the AD's and signing off on them and guess what? There was one from the 1960's that was never done. But, the A&P's had been signing off on them at annual every year since. Even the guy that did my pre-buy missed it.

Had to do with the main landing gear bolts...sheesh..
 
My Lord you spent three grand because you couldn't find compliance entries for two AD's? :confused:
 
new parts?...or new tolerances?...and/or an approved STC?

.........tested to the same tolerances and limits as a new item, using either new parts or used parts that either conform to new part tolerances and limits or to approved oversized or undersized dimensions.
Click to expand...
 
Caramon13 said:
Unless they are documented somewhere, I never believe that either...I had that same statement everywhere on my 1965 Cherokee, and couldn't find documentation for a couple of them. I spent 3K having them go back through every single one of the AD's and signing off on them and guess what? There was one from the 1960's that was never done. But, the A&P's had been signing off on them at annual every year since. Even the guy that did my pre-buy missed it.

Had to do with the main landing gear bolts...sheesh..
Click to expand...
I hope you now have AD log in play.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
new parts?...or new tolerances?...and/or an approved STC?
Click to expand...
So, any old overhaul will be to "REBUILT" tolerances ?

Would a service limits overhaul be the same as a "REBUILT" ??
 
If i am reading what you said right, you bring up a very good point. I take it you used a crank that was undersized and approved under an stc, correct? so saying IAW the overhaul manual would not be accurate because the crank does not meet the limits called out for in the manual. now if you used factory jugs then i would think that it would be IAW because they were replacement parts, but if you uses say ECI then again, they would not be IAW the manual. I agree you cant state that it was IAW and that you did state what was done and that met the requirements of the FAR's that you quoted. I assume that you also entered the stc data and filed the 337 that goes with that.

bob
 
Ah, and here is why on my most recent IA renewal the lawyers foot stomped soooooooooooooooooo many times that most of the time you do maintenance the only time you write In Accordance With (IAW:) is when complying with a FAR, or other hard/fast rule. All other times, you should sign off maintenance as Referencing to (REF:)whatever guidance is acceptable.

IAW: means that you followed the guidance EXACTLY, and STEP by STEP as written (even when the procedure is impossible as written, lol). (43.11 Inspection Records are in this category)

REF: means that you used methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator. --This could mean that you followed the book exactly, or it might mean that you read multiple sources of data and used your best judgement on how to do it correctly. Both methods can be acceptable. (43.9 Maintenance records fall in this category)

Of course, YMMV! -I'm sure that I'm wrong on something... Maybe you know where, maybe you don't...

-Dana
 
unsafervguy said:
If i am reading what you said right, you bring up a very good point. I take it you used a crank that was undersized and approved under an stc, correct? so saying IAW the overhaul manual would not be accurate because the crank does not meet the limits called out for in the manual. now if you used factory jugs then i would think that it would be IAW because they were replacement parts, but if you uses say ECI then again, they would not be IAW the manual. I agree you cant state that it was IAW and that you did state what was done and that met the requirements of the FAR's that you quoted. I assume that you also entered the stc data and filed the 337 that goes with that.

bob
Click to expand...
Think about it, doesn't saying it complies with FAR 43.2 cover all that ?
 
GlennAB1 said:
All that's required is a description of the work performed, OR reference.
Click to expand...
Far 43.9 requires a lot more than that.
Can you tract time since major with out noting the date and time of the engine/aircraft?
 
Tom-D said:
Far 43.9 requires a lot more than that.
Can you tract time since major with out noting the date and time of the engine/aircraft?
Click to expand...
um...aircraft and engines date? Not each other, I hope. That would just be....unnatural!:eek:
 
MauleSkinner said:
um...aircraft and engines date? Not each other, I hope. That would just be....unnatural!:eek:
Click to expand...
How so? If the time that the engine was overhauled isn't noted, how do you tract TSMO? Remember the overhaul of the engine goes in the engine log, not the aircraft log. So in fact the engine overhaul should be tracked by engine TT.
The entry returning the aircraft to service should show that the engine was installed after overhaul at the aircraft TT.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
How so? If the time that the engine was overhauled isn't noted, how do you tract TSMO? Remember the overhaul of the engine goes in the engine log, not the aircraft log. So in fact the engine overhaul should be tracked by engine TT.
The entry returning the aircraft to service should show that the engine was installed after overhaul at the aircraft TT.
Click to expand...
Aircraft should only date other aircraft...engines should only date other engines.

Call me old-fashioned, but I just can't see dating out of species. ;)
 
MauleSkinner said:
Aircraft should only date other aircraft...engines should only date other engines.

Call me old-fashioned, but I just can't see dating out of species. ;)
Click to expand...
I don't understand what you are trying to say? With out the times of when the engine was removed, overhauled, or installed, how can know when any AD could be due? or when how many hours it has since overhaul?
 
Skip Miller said:
Tom, see post #59. They are making a joke.
Click to expand...
Yeah I get it now. dumb. and useless post, rendering this page useless for any thing but chit chat.
YET the mods do nothing about thread creep.
 
Well, let me provide a little more chit chat so you can start a new, useful, page.
 
After reading this thread, I cracked open the engine logs and found the entry for the latest overhaul. The entry took 3 pages, detailing all that which was done, along with AD compliance, and part numbers etc. The first words were overhauled in accordance with Lycoming overhaul manual....
So, curiosity got the better of me, and I read the entire lycoming overhaul manual, all 145 pages of it, last night. And found that the leading statement in the logbook entry (based upon all the descriptive entries) to be a true statement.

In answer to Toms OP, I think so:
7-46. If itis necessaryto make astandard shaft journal
surface more than 0.003 inch undersize or a renitrided
0. 003 inch undersize more than 0.006 inch
undersize, the crankshaft must be ground to undersize
and renitrided. Standard shafts may be ground to 0. 006
inch or 0.010 inch undersize, renitrided 0.003 inch
undersize shafts must be ground to 0. 010 inch undersize.
Shafts must be fitted with the corresponding
undersize bearing inserts. Grinding the crankshaft is
a delicate operation requiring adequate grinding facilities
and a great degree of skill. A properly dressed
wheel (Carborundum (GA54-J5-V10 or equivalent) must
be used with generous amounts of coolant. The wheel
must be fed to the journal or pin very slowly and the
final ground finish maintained during the complete operation.
This procedure must be followed to eliminate
possibility of grinding cracks. After grinding, the
crankshaft must be carefully inspected by the magnetic
particle method. If any cracks or checks are found, the
shaft must be rejected.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top