FAA Pressing Forward With ECI Cylinder AD

flyingriki

flyingriki

Ejection Handle Pulled
Joined
Nov 25, 2008
Messages
910
Display Name
Display name:
flyingriki
"The FAA has rejected widespread industry criticism and appears to be going ahead with an Airworthiness Directive affecting the cylinders on 6,000 engines. In what appears to be a response to the overwhelmingly negative industry feedback it has received, the FAA has taken another look at options to buffer the $82.6 million cost of a proposed airworthiness directive (AD) covering Engine Components Inc. (ECi) and Airmotive Engineering “Titan” cylinders found on 6,000 Continental 520 and 550 model engines—and denied that the industry complaints were valid."

Now who has been arguing that the FAA is doing positive, sensible things for GA? Or even might be considering such moves?

My guess is that Continental (!) has a powerful congressman.
 
Last edited:
flyingriki said:
My guess is that Lycoming has a powerful congressman in their pocket somehow.....? Maybe a little slap to a Texan company to benefit an East Coast company? Who knows, stranger, uglier things have been happening in DC.
Click to expand...

Seeing as this impacts Continental engines, it would make more sense to me that Continental was pushing it. After all, ECi takes cylinder sales away from Continental with these cylinders.

This is a tremendous negative for the FAA if they pursue it. I have talked to multiple pilots who've outright said they won't comply with the AD.
 
The FAA has missed the boat again. The issue isn't cost. The issue is it's safer to leave the cylinders as is (with dubious causality presented) than the risk pulling them to comply with the AD will result in.
 
Gosh, why can't the safety objectives be accomplished with periodic inspections?
 
The FAA mistakes ownership issues for airworthyness issues, and we all suffer.
 
I'm just now hearing about this and after a brief google search this seems like utter garbage. Has the FAA released any data on these failures? How often do they crack compared to factory continental cylinders?
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I have talked to multiple pilots who've outright said they won't comply with the AD.
Click to expand...

Because the FAA has, to date, completely failed to present any proper statistical assessment of the risk of compliance vs. a "no action" alternative, and there is a legitimate fear that the fix is worse than the problem, I really hope AOPA or other groups will step in an try to seek some type of administrative-law injunction against this AD.
 
tehmightypirate said:
I'm just now hearing about this and after a brief google search this seems like utter garbage. Has the FAA released any data on these failures? How often do they crack compared to factory continental cylinders?
Click to expand...

Read the comments on the NPRM. They go into great detail regarding how flawed the FAA's analysis is on this one. Not even NTSB supports the extent of this AD.
 
If you like your cylinders you can keep them. Not
 
Jeff Oslick said:
Because the FAA has, to date, completely failed to present any proper statistical assessment of the risk of compliance vs. a "no action" alternative, and there is a legitimate fear that the fix is worse than the problem, I really hope AOPA or other groups will step in an try to seek some type of administrative-law injunction against this AD.
Click to expand...

Oh, I fully agree with them. The danger for the FAA is they may have a revolution on their hands going down this path, at which point we all lose.
 
The one thing the government doesn't worry about is your money.
 
In other related news........

the FAA predicts a continued downward trend in GA over the next 10 yrs................
 
brien23 said:
If the AD is on the engine experimental or not it's a safety of flight issue and you have to comply with it.
Click to expand...

No you don't. We get to read between the lines and decide which make sense and which are hooey. Still can't believe they won't come after us soon with a bunch of nonsense regulation. Just a matter of time.....:yikes:....:hairraise:
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Seeing as this impacts Continental engines, it would make more sense to me that Continental was pushing it. After all, ECi takes cylinder sales away from Continental with these cylinders.

This is a tremendous negative for the FAA if they pursue it. I have talked to multiple pilots who've outright said they won't comply with the AD.
Click to expand...

Hope they have friendly IAs who will overlook it on annual.
 
Henning said:
Hope they have friendly IAs who will overlook it on annual.
Click to expand...

I think that'll be the catch, since it will depend on how much the IA is concerned about losing his ticket if he gets caught. It'll be easier for people who have their own A&P/IA.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I think that'll be the catch, since it will depend on how much the IA is concerned about losing his ticket if he gets caught. It'll be easier for people who have their own A&P/IA.
Click to expand...

Or if you're gonna rebel, go all the way and say **** the annual.
 
Henning said:
Or if you're gonna rebel, go all the way and say **** the annual.
Click to expand...

I think that would defeat the purpose of civil disobedience. The purpose is not to rebel so much as to say "We reject this particular rule." I certainly think annuals are worthwhile (they always seem to find at least one thing I'm glad to have fixed), but this AD is not.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I think that would defeat the purpose of civil disobedience. The purpose is not to rebel so much as to say "We reject this particular rule." I certainly think annuals are worthwhile (they always seem to find at least one thing I'm glad to have fixed), but this AD is not.
Click to expand...

Well, civil disobedience is rebellion. "You want to press us with this BS? Then I won't play your game at all, bust me if you can." Government bodies only have the level of control they do because we allow it, plain and simple, it is our own fear of them that does us in.

BTW, you don't need an annual signed off to get an inspection.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
Well, civil disobedience is rebellion. "You want to press us with this BS? Then I won't play your game at all, bust me if you can." Government bodies only have the level of control they do because we allow it, plain and simple, it is our own fear of them that does us in.
Click to expand...

Correct. But simply ignoring all the regs doesn't do yourself any good and mostly makes you look like an idiot. It's like saying "I disagree with speed limits, so I'll drive drunk while I'm speeding."
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Correct. But simpl ignoring all the regs doesn't do yourself any good and mostly makes you look like an idiot. It's like saying "I disagree with speed limits, so I'll drive drunk while I'm speeding."
Click to expand...

But you don't have to get "An Annual" to get a good inspection. We can operate perfectly safely without logbook signatures.
 
Henning said:
But you don't have to get "An Annual" to get a good inspection. We can operate perfectly safely without logbook signatures.
Click to expand...

This is true, I thought you were implying to just fly it without going in for the work. You also could get a logbook entry for everything that was done, it would just lack the "I certify this aircraft has received an annual inspection IOW blah blah blah".
 
Ted DuPuis said:
This is true, I thought you were implying to just fly it without going in for the work. You also could get a logbook entry for everything that was done, it would just lack the "I certify this aircraft has received an annual inspection IOW blah blah blah".
Click to expand...

Actually the IA can sign off the annual inspection with a discrepancy list.

I certify that this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with an
annual inspection, and a list of discrepancies and unairworthy
items dated March 22, 20XX, have been provided for the aircraft
owner.


Joseph B. Mechanic
A&P 1123456789 IA

It's now up to the owner to find a A&P (doesn't have to be an IA) to correct the discrepancy list.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Actually the IA can sign off the annual inspection with a discrepancy list.

I certify that this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with an
annual inspection, and a list of discrepancies and unairworthy
items dated March 22, 20XX, have been provided for the aircraft
owner.


Joseph B. Mechanic
A&P 1123456789 IA

It's now up to the owner to find a A&P (doesn't have to be an IA) to correct the discrepancy list.
Click to expand...

Even better. That would be the route to go.
 
I heart Lyco. :D

Seriously though, primary non-commercial can't get here soon enough. My Piper Arrow is begging for an experimental PFD facelift :)
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Even better. That would be the route to go.
Click to expand...
The best way is to simply do the AD and move on.
Lots of owners do not want a UN airworthy entry in their logs.

Beside aren't we mechanics looking for work, that is how we get paid.
 
hindsight2020 said:
I heart Lyco. :D

Seriously though, primary non-commercial can't get here soon enough. My Piper Arrow is begging for an experimental PFD facelift :)
Click to expand...

Why would you love Lycoming any better? Have you seen the ECI ADs that apply to their Lycoming cylinders?
 
Henning said:
Why would you love Lycoming any better? Have you seen the ECI ADs that apply to their Lycoming cylinders?
Click to expand...

Are Lyco cylinders are just as prone to cracking and blowing as Conti cylinders? Forget ECI for a second, that's what my comment was directed at. I didn't say I heart ECI....:)
 
Tom-D said:
The best way is to simply do the AD and move on.
Click to expand...

Typically, I agree. The vast majority of ADs make sense to some degree and have safety as a best interest, or are simple and cheap enough to comply with that it's fine. This one does not. When even the NTSB made comments against the NPRM, that should tell you something.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Typically, I agree. The vast majority of ADs make sense to some degree and have safety as a best interest, or are simple and cheap enough to comply with that it's fine. This one does not. When even the NTSB made comments against the NPRM, that should tell you something.
Click to expand...

I agree this is a bad AD TCM/Lycoming doing a part sales protection act.

But why would a sane IA sign off an annual because of a AD not complied with?

The A&P customers I have I give them a chance to comply with the AD and sign them off as Airworthy.

For my Non A&P owners they have the choice of me doing the AD, or them working under my supervision to get it done.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top