Times have changed in aviation maintenance

[Bob_Belville]

We operated on the Mandatory Service Bulletin # 533B revised 10-4-2012.Among other required inspection is the disassembly "of the engine where the crankshaft counterweights, camshaft, connecting rods, crankshaft gears, and internal steel parts are removed."   The crankcase is to be blast cleaned w 17 grit walnut shells, etc, etc.

[Guest]

Hi Bob,

While that may be Lycoming's take on the situation, it is not the service bulletin which the FAA requires in their AD. FAA wants service bulletin 475C complied with.

Clarence

[Bob_Belville]

Hi Bob,

While that may be Lycoming's take on the situation, it is not the service bulletin which the FAA requires in their AD. FAA wants service bulletin 475C complied with.

Clarence

Clarence, maybe, but the AD and the SB you cite are older than the Mandatory SB that I referenced. I don't understand why you would ignore "Mandatory" unless you have something newer to supersede it. As I've stated about, my insurance adjuster was not interested in considering the possibility  that the engine might not need to be inspected per the SB.

 

Bob 

[fantom]

Clarence, maybe, but the AD and the SB you cite are older than the Mandatory SB that I referenced. I don't understand why you would ignore "Mandatory" unless you have something newer to supersede it. As I've stated about, my insurance adjuster was not interested in considering the possibility  that the engine might not need to be inspected per the SB.

 

Bob 

 

It was a good deal for you, Bob, and the insurance guy wasn't going to suggest anything that could incur future liability for his company.

 

There isn't any such a thing as a MANATORY Service Bulletin, is there? Then it would be an AD. Just more legal liability double talk.

 

Accidents such as the one you had, have made me more conscious of paying attention of what's directly in front of me when taxiing, and not looking too far ahead or playing with panel gizmos, or the like when attention should be focused on what's directly ahead.

[Bob_Belville]

It was a good deal for you, Bob, and the insurance guy wasn't going to suggest anything that could incur future liability for his company.

 

There isn't any such a thing as a MANATORY Service Bulletin, is there? Then it would be an AD. Just more legal liability double talk.

 

Accidents such as the one you had, have made me more conscious of paying attention of what's directly in front of me when taxiing, and not looking too far ahead or playing with panel gizmos, or the like when attention should be focused on what's directly ahead.

Gary, Lycoming called it a Mandatory Service Bulletin. Any agency (A&P) returning an aircraft to service that had not been subjected to an inspection in accordance with the SB would have some explaining to do. OSISTM. (I do not know if there is an AD incorporating the SB, there may be.)

 

www.lycoming.com/Portals/0/techpublications/servicebulletins/SB%20533B%20%2810-04-2012%29/Recommended%20Action%20for%20Sudden%20Engine%20Stoppage,%20Propeller-Rotor%20Strike%20or%20Loss....pdf

[fantom]

Gary, Lycoming called it a Mandatory Service Bulletin.

 

I understand, Bob, but my point is that  Lycoming (their legal dept) doesn't have the authority to make a SB MANDATORY. No problem if the insurance company is picking up the bill, but quite another story if you are.

 

Proceed at your own risk.

[Guest]

In the original post by Cliffy, he stated that the AD required the engine to be pulled. Here is the quote:

"With the way the prop strike AD reads today the engine and prop have to be torn down."

I've simply stated that if we are all talking about the same AD, that is not what it says. You are quoting an s/b which is Lycoming's version not the FAA's

Clarence

[Bob_Belville]

In the original post by Cliffy, he stated that the AD required the engine to be pulled. Here is the quote:

"With the way the prop strike AD reads today the engine and prop have to be torn down."

I've simply stated that if we are all talking about the same AD, that is not what it says. You are quoting an s/b which is Lycoming's version not the FAA's

Clarence

whatever

[cliffy]

Please let me add a little to my post. I guess I need to be more specific in my postings from now on. 

 

A strict reading of the AD would allow only the rear end of the crankshaft to be examined to comply BUT to get to the rear end of the crank shaft one most likely will have to pull the motor out of the airframe to remove all accessories and the rear case. This would be the least amount of "tearing down" that could be accomplished. Service Bulletin 475C is incorporated in the AD and must be followed. If any damage is observed, out comes the crankshaft. 

 

Let's look at the difference between part 91 and 135 for this. This may be "old hat" to some but it is interesting none the less.

For 91 operators only the minimum AD compliance is required. For 135 operators they must follow and adhere to ALL manufacturers service bulletins. So not only do we have to follow the AD and SB 475 BUT we have to also follow SB 533 which mandates basically a complete overhaul of the engine. 

 

There is nothing in a Service Bulletin that makes it "mandatory" by itself, only if it is incorporated into an AD.  No manufacturer can require a service bulletin to be complied with for Pt 91 operators. 

 

I don't think too many shops or A&Ps would be willing to do the minimum inspection on their own out in the field due to liability especially on a new 206.  Moreover, even if a shop did the minimum, if there ever was an "incident" later to the airplane the first thing the Attorney will ask is why didn't you do the "Mandatory Service Bulletins" ? Do you know more than the manufacturer?

 

As to the prop, an A&P can only dress small rock nicks and normal service to a prop. Straightening blades and reducing the diameter must be done by a prop shop. 

 

My original post had more to do with what the owner did not want to do today compared to what we used to do, than the AD. The owner only wants to file the prop tip and sign it off. Today we can't do that. The owner doesn't care what's legal today or not. This is why no one at this airport wants to file the prop and sign it off.