IO 520 Mandatory Service Bulletin

Lance F said:
I have one of my TSIO520NB engines being overhauled now, so this one can be taken care of without a lot of additional cost..just the gear and some minor machining. For the other engine I'm with a Ted. I don't want to be forced to do anything to an engine that's just running fine. The initial buzz is that all the owner associations of marques that use these engines intend to fight this quite hard along with AOPA. Hope so. This is what I pay the dues for. All we can do is hope common sense wins this one.
Click to expand...

My thought is the FAA is setting themselves up to have a lot of civil disobedience going on between the ECi AD and now this, if this one ends up being non-common-sense. At some point people will just lose any respect for the regulatory authority if they fail to show any reason.

A lot of ADs really are reasonable. None of us like them, but they exist for a reason. The ECi cylinder AD was a complete load of BS. And if this shapes up to lack any logic, well, you'll see a lot of cheap planes for sale and I suspect a lot of people going "What AD?"

Not saying I'd fall into this category as the 414 is actually in a lot of ways better off given its old engines already, but I could see people with newer engines telling the FAA to shove it.
 
yup....kinda like the Lycoming crank AD too. :rolleyes:


so....how does one tell the FAA to shove it? :D
 
/rant on
As a nation we've told our elected officials and bureaucrats to give us zero-risk rather than managing risk.
/rant off
 
MD11Pilot said:
I am very close to purchase of of a plane that has this engine with 700 hours and over sixteen years old...I am hoping the FAA will show some sense and say at the next overhaul or case split, whenever that might be,

Continental Engines Mandatory Service Bulletin MSB 05-08B
Click to expand...
I hope you are correct. The only thing worse than buying a plane with these effected engines is buying one with two of them. I closed about 1 1/2 weeks before Continental released the MSB. (Through all my research, type specific site reading, conversations with multiple mechanics, annual inspection and pre-purchase...this never came up as a possibility.) My engines have ~390/440 and so far over the first 10 hours flying her, they run well. I naively thought I would fly for many many years and overhaul when the engines told me it was time. Guess our hope is in the FAA right now and that's a little unsettling
 
Looks like Continental is backtracking now. A "new" inspection will be approved soon, time limits have not been set, that will allow the owner to do an inspection to determine the camshaft gear number and condition on an ongoing basis. Savvy just put out an update if you are on their mailing list.
 
I saw that over at TTCF (Twin Cessna). They, AOPA, Mike Busch and others held a meeting with the FAA and excluded Continental from the meeting. Seems that after that meeting Continental got their feelings hurt and decided to try to save face by backing down before they ended up looking as though they were trying to force this for money rather than safety. Money well spent on those organizations as far as I'm concerned. We will re-evaluate when the publish the final AD but things are looking up.
 
Am I right to think that if this became an AD, it would not apply to EXP?
 
wsuffa said:
/rant on
As a nation we've told our elected officials and bureaucrats to give us zero-risk rather than managing risk.
/rant off
Click to expand...

"We" might be a bit overstating it. I know I sure as hell haven't.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Am I right to think that if this became an AD, it would not apply to EXP?
Click to expand...

AD notes do not apply to Experimental aircraft. If you have done any modifications at all to the engine it is considered experimental too. An AD note can however specifically state that it applies to any aircraft the equipment is installed in TSO'd or non TSO'd. If it does not specifically say that then you aren't legally bound to do it.

What the lawyer will say if you injure someone as a result of not complying with an AD note is that you are responsible for maintaining an airworthy aircraft and by not complying with the AD you are knowingly not doing so. There will always be a loophole when Lawyers get involved.
 
Guessing it's going to be a SB not a AD, the AD was reaching at a minimum.
 
Meh...I think it will be an AD , but, will be lessened from the original. Some thing requiring inspection on a 100 hr interval. I hope. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top