PA-32 down Brentwood, TN

AV8R_87 said:
I couldn't find an ownership history. Did he purchase the plane recently and put 100 hours on it in a year or two, or did he only fly it 10 hours/year?

I wonder if he overhauled the engine, or if it was the previous owner's shade tree overhaul, to sell the plane with a "freshly overhauled" engine.
Click to expand...
The overhauler is in the public docket. A shop in Georgia. They still seem to be in business too.
 
AV8R_87 said:
Sorry, I meant it as in did he contract the engine shop or was that done by a previous owner.
Click to expand...
Looks like the certificate to the plane was issued in 2011. That usually means last ownership change. Overhaul was 2012. Make your own conclusions.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Have there been wrongful death lawsuits filed in this case? Figured that ntsb narrative (yes I know, not admissible), it would be prime picking for such a suit.
Click to expand...
Way I understand that is ‘the probable cause’ is not admissible but any factual data in it is.
 
AV8R_87 said:
Sorry, I meant it as in did he contract the engine shop or was that done by a previous owner.
Click to expand...
Per the docket, the local mx shop performed the prebuy, installed the OH'd engine, and performed all the annuals on the aircraft since the owner bought it.

luvflyin said:
Way I understand that is ‘the probable cause’ is not admissible but any factual data in it is.
Click to expand...
Yes. There is a legal notice at the end of every NTSB Final Report that states this with its reference.
 
I'm asking the below not because of any question about liability, but rather safety/due diligence. In part because I have a friend who was unharmed but crashed because of an engine failure caused by an engine reassembled with a part missing as part of an overhaul.

In this case, it seems to me that the shop that installed the engine would have no way of knowing about the camshaft problems in the rebuilt engine without effectively rebuilding it again. Or in other words, based on the NTSB report that engine was an engine failure waiting to happen, and the only way to avoid that is to be sure whomever is doing the rebuilds is following all the standard best practices. Does that sound accurate?

I know, it's a sample size of one, but still gives me yet another thing to think about, with respect to risk.
 
The overhaul shop is known and highly regarded in this area, and is even considered by some to be a premium engine rebuilder.

I suppose the big question is, did the owner come to them with an overhauled engine and say °install this°, or was the shop inside the engine and use improper parts?

Edit: The logbook sticker does seem to indicate that the shop did install the crankshaft. :-(
 
Last edited:
Albany Tom said:
Or in other words, based on the NTSB report that engine was an engine failure waiting to happen, and the only way to avoid that is to be sure whomever is doing the rebuilds is following all the standard best practices. Does that sound accurate?
Click to expand...
Yes. There is a level of "trust" in the industry when you receive a component with paperwork showing the method it was repaired. This is why its important to perform due diligence in who does work for you. But as shown here, even top shops have their moments.

Bill said:
I suppose the big question is, did the owner come to them with an overhauled engine and say °install this°, or was the shop inside the engine and use improper parts?
Click to expand...
Per the docket, there were several shops/vendors involved with the replacement engine. The local shop installed it and had maintained it since 2012. Another CRS shop performed the OH but had a several other shops supply or repair/inspect various components. For example, the crankshaft was an exchange from a separate vendor, but the use of the wrong rod bearings was solely on the OH shop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top