Jump to content

Lycoming Ad received last week


pkofman

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

The issue isn't that the field overhauler installed the parts wrong.  Lycoming made them wrong.

Clarence

True but that's doing business. You're assuming that liability to your customers. Did Lycoming even make them? They sub out much of their stuff.

-Robert

Edited by RobertGary1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

True but that's doing business. You're assuming that liability to your customers. Did Lycoming even make them? They sub out much of their stuff.

-Robert

Who made them not the issue, Lycoming sold them under their part number, made a profit on them and now are stiffing the consumer for the manufacturing error and the cost of testing them.  

Clarence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, M20Doc said:

Who made them not the issue, Lycoming sold them under their part number, made a profit on them and now are stiffing the consumer for the manufacturing error and the cost of testing them.  

Clarence

I guess its just opinion. But I'd say the engine shops did the same. They put them in engines they rebuilt and sold them at a profit.

-Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

I guess its just opinion. But I'd say the engine shops did the same. They put them in engines they rebuilt and sold them at a profit.

-Robert

Yes the engine overhaulers installed the parts from Lycoming assuming that the parts were manufactured correctly in the first place.  You'd think that a company who have been building engines since 1929 would have figured out by now.

Glad I don't own a factory overhauled engine, I'd be afraid of the next news from Williamsport.

Clarence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

Yes the engine overhaulers installed the parts from Lycoming assuming that the parts were manufactured correctly in the first place.  You'd think that a company who have been building engines since 1929 would have figured out by now.

Glad I don't own a factory overhauled engine, I'd be afraid of the next news from Williamsport.

Clarence

Factory overhauled (or reman in my case) shouldn't be an issue because it comes with a Lycoming warranty. I got a 2 year on mine from Lycoming. Or I could have elected to save money and use a less expensive rebuilder who wouldn't provide as much warranty.

-Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

Who made them not the issue, Lycoming sold them under their part number, made a profit on them and now are stiffing the consumer for the manufacturing error and the cost of testing them.  

Clarence

Very often parts are specified and send out for manufacturer by a sub with a set of requirements, drawings, whatever, usually with expected tolerances, material properties, etc., etc.   Usually the first batch of parts from that vendor is checked carefully to meet specs (at least the specs that can be tested easily, like dimensions, etc.), and then just spot-checked after that.   It is often very difficult to detect when a supplier  makes a non-obvious deviation from the specification, or deviates in a way that is more difficult to test, e.g., substitutes a softer alloy, uses a different process in a particular step, whatever.

Without knowing what happened, it is very difficult to know where the problem or deficiency actually came from.  Lycoming takes the hit, but it may have been a vendor that let them down.   There's no way to know from where we sit, for the most part.  As an engineer I've been on both sides of this many times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, M20Doc said:

Who made them not the issue, Lycoming sold them under their part number, made a profit on them and now are stiffing the consumer for the manufacturing error and the cost of testing them.  

Clarence

Legally, I can tell you that from a products liability standpoint the buck stops with Lycoming. All product manufacturers use sourced components but the whole is greater than the proverbial sum of the parts. Under the law Lycoming is responsible to the end user for all legally implied(as well as express) warranties of fitness and merchantability. Note that does not negate the liability of the part supplier as well.  Again, if it were my engine I would see to it that Lycoming paid for all my expenses including whatever I had to spend to make them do it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RobertGary1 said:

Factory overhauled (or reman in my case) shouldn't be an issue because it comes with a Lycoming warranty. I got a 2 year on mine from Lycoming. Or I could have elected to save money and use a less expensive rebuilder who wouldn't provide as much warranty.

-Robert

I'm sure we won't hear you complain if Lycoming goes "Oops, we screwed up a part and you need an entire new engine.  Your engine is 2 years and 1 day old, so pay us $25,000, or you can never fly your plane again."

I'm not affected by this AD, BTW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, ragedracer1977 said:

I'm sure we won't hear you complain if Lycoming goes "Oops, we screwed up a part and you need an entire new engine.  Your engine is 2 years and 1 day old, so pay us $25,000, or you can never fly your plane again."

I'm not affected by this AD, BTW.

In that case you'd be happy to have a Penn Yan engine which comes with a 3 year warranty!

Clarence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, ragedracer1977 said:

I'm sure we won't hear you complain if Lycoming goes "Oops, we screwed up a part and you need an entire new engine.  Your engine is 2 years and 1 day old, so pay us $25,000, or you can never fly your plane again."

I'm not affected by this AD, BTW.

Same happens with cars etc. I just had to replace a starter out of warranty. But it's a risk I assumed. Now if Lycoming was aware of the issue that would be different. 

 

-Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Jallen0 said:

He's a stupid question. Whay is the aircraft owner on the hook for these costs. Why isn't the company who manufactured the bad part on the hook?

Because this is general aviation, not the regular world. Here in bizarro land, the owner of an airplane always pays until they can pay no more. It's complete and utter bull crap and yet another reason people quit flying, or forgo it altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lycoming's FAQs on the the AD and 632A explain what cost they are covering for Lycoming connecting rods installed in field overhauls - see FAQ item 12. They aren't quite so forthcoming about when its just their bushings that were installed but say they are working with with engine rebuilders - see FAQ item 13.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, M20Doc said:

Typical of how they treat the consumer, it's a shame.

Clarence

And this is why there is a dwindling number of people supporting general aviation. It is bad enough that we have to pay UNGODLY amounts of money for engines made with 1940's level technology. But on top of that we as aircraft operators also have to pay for the mistakes of those companies who cant put out airworthy parts as well? The only industry with lower standards of customer care and service is the marine industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, FlyWalt said:

And this is why there is a dwindling number of people supporting general aviation. It is bad enough that we have to pay UNGODLY amounts of money for engines made with 1940's level technology. But on top of that we as aircraft operators also have to pay for the mistakes of those companies who cant put out airworthy parts as well? The only industry with lower standards of customer care and service is the marine industry.

Precisely my sentiment. I'd  be damn if I just got done paying lycoming ~63k for my Bravo engine and they portend to leave me holding the bag for any part of the expense for their quality control mishap. They are like insurance carriers. They rely on people tucking their tails between their legs and going away. If half or more of the affected folks do that the company saves tons of money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, M20Doc said:

Note that under FAQ item 15 the special tool has to be purchased from Lycoming. 

Clarence

Indeed, and I've heard it cost $3700 for the tool. Which should keep most all but the engine shops from performing these inspections which isn't such a bad thing when connecting rods need to be replaced given the specialized nature of torquing the rod bolts to a precise measurable stretch.

Its way too soon to tell, but surely some percentage of the rods replaced under this AD will eventually suffer failure from the fix due to improperly torqued rod bolts; likely performed by tech's that lack experience with the procedure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kortopates said:

Indeed, and I've heard it cost $3700 for the tool. Which should keep most all but the engine shops from performing these inspections which isn't such a bad thing when connecting rods need to be replaced given the specialized nature of torquing the rod bolts to a precise measurable stretch.

Its way too soon to tell, but surely some percentage of the rods replaced under this AD will eventually suffer failure from the fix due to improperly torqued rod bolts; likely performed by tech's that lack experience with the procedure.

If that price is correct it's just another example of Lycoming and their rip off.  It's a spring, a bolt and a driver cup and a receiver cup.

Clarence

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, DaV8or said:

Because this is general aviation, not the regular world. Here in bizarro land, the owner of an airplane always pays until they can pay no more. It's complete and utter bull crap and yet another reason people quit flying, or forgo it altogether.

But what other industry covers replacing parts out of warranty? If your Lycoming engine is still under Lycoming's warranty they pay for it. Otherwise you're out of warranty.

-Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Marcopolo said:

I believe the auto industry does, its called a recall.  They send bad crap out and then after threats of a class action suit they recall it and fix it on their dime (most of the time)!

But the the DOT wouldn't mandate a recall for something like this. If you're expecting Lycoming to essentially warranty an engine forever you're going to see IO-360's going for $100K

-Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure the DOT absolutely would mandate a recall in a case like this that is safety-critical, hence the 10 hour limit for compliance. This is a big deal, and a huge black eye for Lycoming to let critical parts out into the wild that do not meet the specs.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your question was "what other industry covers replacing parts out of warranty"  I was just answering your question not debating the logic.  

 

  My opinion does differ from yours though, I think that if Lycoming is willing to come forward and admit that there is a part in their supply chain that is substandard then they should cover the costs of replacing with known good parts no matter who installed them.  They should be resposable for the due diligence of vetting these deficiencies on any parts they are willing to put their name on.  You say that the cost of an engine should be much higher if the warranty went on forever but I don't think this is a case of warranty as much as their "miss".  They should step up.  The prices of these 70 year old technology lumps is already high enough due to their "liability" this should be covered under their liability.  I choose to fly so I apparently accept the process, doesn't mean it's right.

 

my .02

 

Ron

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is something else to consider:

When I get a few things off of my desk, I am going to get into a snit with Continental about false advertising. They are putting out banners talking about the reliability of "Genuine Continental Parts". Well guess what, my TSIO-360 was overhauled by a shop that claims to be a "Continential Distributor". And wouldnt you know it, the damned push rod seals have been replaced, repaired re whatever 4 TIMES NOW !!!!. And they STILL LEAK!!!! And I have all of 150 SMOH.

My engine shop recommended switching to something called "Real Gaskets". I retorted back, "Why did you use the Fake Cheap Ass Gaskets" to start with. He was not amused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RobertGary1 said:

But what other industry covers replacing parts out of warranty? If your Lycoming engine is still under Lycoming's warranty they pay for it. Otherwise you're out of warranty.

-Robert

Respectfully, you are missing the mark. There's a difference between being out of warranty with respect to items that are properly designed and manufactured that for some reason have worn out prematurely versus  affirmatively defective parts that can cause catastrophic failure that were installed in new and rebuilt engines in the last couple of years.

if you want to put it in automobile terms, this situation is really more analogous to a recall than a warranty issue.

Edited by Bravoman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, KSMooniac said:

Sure the DOT absolutely would mandate a recall in a case like this that is safety-critical, hence the 10 hour limit for compliance. This is a big deal, and a huge black eye for Lycoming to let critical parts out into the wild that do not meet the specs.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk
 

Sure but by that logic any issue with an aircraft engine would always be a recall. The purpose of the automotive analogy is that this would not be a safety recall because the DOT wouldn't mandate a recall for this type of issue. 

-Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.