TTE log book entry

[stingray]

I am going over the log books on a 172 and see that the engine was replaced by Penn Yan Aero. Their log book entry "Been overhauled to manufacturer's new parts tolerances and limits." "This engine has been remanufactured to Zero Time Tolerances." Previous time in service 1355.6.

First log entry by A&P Tach 8120/SMOH 27/ TTE 1382.

I don't think that is right. Should it not be; Tach 8120/SNEW 27/ TTE 27.

It is hard to say because they use both terms OH and Reman.

I thought I had heard once that Penn Yan was authorized by Lycoming to Reman engines according to (j), (2.) http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/tex...xt;node=14:1.0.1.3.21.0.363.3;idno=14;cc=ecfr

The log book is a new Textron Lycoming Engine log book. If I am not right Penn Yan cannot have in the log book "Remanufactured" as per FAR above. On Textron web site they say that with a reman you get a new log book. Do they also sell Lycoming log books to anyone?

Dan

 

[TMetzinger]

I believe that if Penn Yan actually replaced your old engine with a factory reman they purchased from Lycoming on your behalf, then you should have gotten an entirely new logbook (perhaps with a new serial number?), and then yes, the engine is zero timed.

On the other hand, if the engine was overhauled by Penn Yan, regardless of the limits they chose (factory new or servicable), the engine time is NOT zeroed.

The statements in your log are confusing, saying the engine was both overhauled and remanufactured.

 

[Tom-D]

I am going over the log books on a 172 and see that the engine was replaced by Penn Yan Aero. Their log book entry "Been overhauled to manufacturer's new parts tolerances and limits." "This engine has been remanufactured to Zero Time Tolerances." Previous time in service 1355.6.
First log entry by A&P Tach 8120/SMOH 27/ TTE 1382.

That entry did not ZERO the TT for the engine.

I don't think that is right. Should it not be; Tach 8120/SNEW 27/ TTE 27.

NO

It is hard to say because they use both terms OH and Reman.

terms are given in FAR 43.2, they can say what they want. but the term does not set the time continuing issue.

I thought I had heard once that Penn Yan was authorized by Lycoming to Reman engines according to (j), (2.) http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/tex...xt;node=14:1.0.1.3.21.0.363.3;idno=14;cc=ecfr

they are, but they didn't zero this engine.

The log book is a new Textron Lycoming Engine log book. If I am not right Penn Yan cannot have in the log book "Remanufactured" as per FAR above. On Textron web site they say that with a reman you get a new log book. Do they also sell Lycoming log books to anyone?

Dan

I can give yu a new log book with any engine and describe it as remanufactured but continue the TTE.

 

[poadeleted20]

Only the Lycoming factory can "zero-time" the engine and issue a new log showing zero time on a rebuilt engine. A field overhauler (i.e., anybody other than the manufacturer) cannot issue a log showing zero-time even on a rebuilt engine (which implies new engine tolerances). However, nobody, even Lycoming, can describe the engine as "new" unless it's really factory-fresh new with all new parts never used before. Thus, the entry Penn Yan put in that log is correct.

Also, Lycoming quit using the term "remanufactured" to describe engines they rebuilt several years ago, and it never had any meaning within the FAR's. Even Lycoming used the word "rebuilt" in the logbook when you had an engine "remanufactured." Thus, the use of the term "remanufactured" by Penn Yan has no meaning to the FAA -- it is totally extraneous in the log entry. Their use of the term "overhauled" means the engine is "overhauled," not "rebuilt," per 14 CFR 43.2, even if they overhauled it to new rather than overhaul tolerances. Rebuilding requires more than just that -- see 43.2 for the details.

Section 43.2: Records of overhaul and rebuilding.

(a) No person may describe in any required maintenance entry or form an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part as being overhauled unless—
(1) Using methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator, it has been disassembled, cleaned, inspected, repaired as necessary, and reassembled; and
(2) It has been tested in accordance with approved standards and technical data, or in accordance with current standards and technical data acceptable to the Administrator, which have been developed and documented by the holder of the type certificate, supplemental type certificate, or a material, part, process, or appliance approval under §21.305 of this chapter.
(b) No person may describe in any required maintenance entry or form an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part as being rebuilt unless it has been disassembled, cleaned, inspected, repaired as necessary, reassembled, and 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.

 

[stingray]

OK I see where I went wrong. Confusing the "Remanufactured" with "rebuilt". Funny how one word can totally change everything.

Thanks Dan

 

[Tom-D]

Only the Lycoming factory can "zero-time" the engine and issue a new log showing zero time on a rebuilt engine. A field overhauler (i.e., anybody other than the manufacturer) cannot issue a log showing zero-time even on a rebuilt engine (which implies new engine tolerances). However, nobody, even Lycoming, can describe the engine as "new" unless it's really factory-fresh new with all new parts never used before. Thus, the entry Penn Yan put in that log is correct.

Also, Lycoming quit using the term "remanufactured" to describe engines they rebuilt several years ago, and it never had any meaning within the FAR's. Even Lycoming used the word "rebuilt" in the logbook when you had an engine "remanufactured." Thus, the use of the term "remanufactured" by Penn Yan has no meaning to the FAA -- it is totally extraneous in the log entry. Their use of the term "overhauled" means the engine is "overhauled," not "rebuilt," per 14 CFR 43.2, even if they overhauled it to new rather than overhaul tolerances. Rebuilding requires more than just that -- see 43.2 for the details.

Actually the rule is 91 .421 and it reads

91.421 Rebuilt engine maintenance records.
top
(a) The owner or operator may use a new maintenance record, without previous operating history, for an aircraft engine rebuilt by the manufacturer or by an agency approved by the manufacturer.

(b) Each manufacturer or agency that grants zero time to an engine rebuilt by it shall enter in the new record—

(1) A signed statement of the date the engine was rebuilt;

(2) Each change made as required by airworthiness directives; and

(3) Each change made in compliance with manufacturer's service bulletins, if the entry is specifically requested in that bulletin.

(c) For the purposes of this section, a rebuilt engine is a used engine that has been completely disassembled, inspected, repaired as necessary, reassembled, tested, and approved in the same manner and to the same tolerances and limits as a new engine with either new or used parts. However, all parts used in it must conform to the production drawing tolerances and limits for new parts or be of approved oversized or undersized dimensions for a new engine.

But that is a small nit, because the only one I'm sure that works that way is Rolls Royce built some Cont. engines on license from Cont.

Direct factory represenitives are not always legal to zero time an engine, usually they are getting the engine from the factory.