Logbook Page Removed and not Disclosed - Criminal Misrepresentation?

[N201MKTurbo]

45 minutes ago, M20GforMe said:

Would this be legal if it’s not specified for that engine?

Interesting question. I wouldn’t have an issue with it. If it does need a shorter pushrod, I would use a shorter pushrod before I replaced your crankcase.

[Aaviationist]

Side note, I would get a new CFI. 
 

ALWAYS sump the tanks. Especially if it’s been outside. He didn’t, that’s how water got in the carb. 
 

also, as the owner / pilot, (yes it still counts as a student) YOU are the one that determines airworthiness. Your CFI cannot “ground the aircraft” and YOU ARE allowed to change the seal in the gas cap. 
 

I’d say he’s a WAY worse situation than the mechanic. 

[M20GforMe]

25 minutes ago, Aaviationist said:

Side note, I would get a new CFI. 
 

ALWAYS sump the tanks. Especially if it’s been outside. He didn’t, that’s how water got in the carb. 
 

also, as the owner / pilot, (yes it still counts as a student) YOU are the one that determines airworthiness. Your CFI cannot “ground the aircraft” and YOU ARE allowed to change the seal in the gas cap. 
 

I’d say he’s a WAY worse situation than the mechanic. 

Ahead of you on this one, found a seasoned Mooney guy to start from scratch with me on the Mooney once I have the plane back from annual.
 

2 or 3 sessions in and I realized that the original CFI wasn’t as Mooney proficient as he said he was. 

[Aaviationist]

8 minutes ago, M20GforMe said:

Ahead of you on this one, found a seasoned Mooney guy to start from scratch with me on the Mooney once I have the plane back from annual.
 

2 or 3 sessions in and I realized that the original CFI wasn’t as Mooney proficient as he said he was. 

If he mis represented his background and abilities I’d ask for my money back on that one. 
 

 

[M20GforMe]

19 minutes ago, Aaviationist said:

If he mis represented his background and abilities I’d ask for my money back on that one. 
 

 

It was on me, I didn't ask the right questions. He had 1600 hours. He was in fact "happy to teach me how to fly the mooney". He just had alot of beech, piper, and 172 time. I've been drinking from the firehose

[Scottknoll]

I agree, a new CFI was needed. Very glad you found one quickly.

The PIC is responsible to determine airworthiness (conforms to type certificate and is in safe condition for flight). It might be his “opinion” that the aircraft is unairworthy, but your old CFI definitely cannot “Ground” an aircraft. Anyone who can legally be PIC can determine the aircraft to be airworthy. Remove and replace faulty CFI, problem solved.

I’m guessing your old CFI and thinks an A&P must perform ALL maintenance.

43.3 (g) You must own or operate the aircraft to perform preventive maintenance (can’t do it to your buddies plane) 43.7(f) you must hold at least a private pilot certificate to return the aircraft to service following said preventative maintenance.

That said, fuel cap o-rings are about the simplest thing you can do and you crossed one problem of the list.

[1980Mooney]

8 hours ago, M20GforMe said:

I couldn't tell you, I bought the plane at the end of last year, and its only flown maybe 10 hours since I've had it. My CFI grounded it for a while in January because the nose gear door had some play to it (just needed new heim bearings), ....So then I "may or may not have" changed the seals on the gas caps myself (This isn't incriminating, is it?... I am a PPL student).

I was supposed to fly again with my CFI a week later, but when the day came, he said hes not comfortable flying the plane since I (a student) changed the fuel cap O-Rings myself ..

 

4 hours ago, Scottknoll said:

The PIC is responsible to determine airworthiness (conforms to type certificate and is in safe condition for flight). It might be his “opinion” that the aircraft is unairworthy, but your old CFI definitely cannot “Ground” an aircraft. Anyone who can legally be PIC can determine the aircraft to be airworthy. 

I think you missed that the OP is a Student Pilot.  When flying with the CFI, it is the CFI that is PIC.  Since the CFI has been PIC on every flight with the student OP, the CFI can definitely "Ground" the aircraft......

Edited June 21 by 1980Mooney

[1980Mooney]

9 hours ago, M20GforMe said:

Then when I got it back, I checked the fuel tanks and they had water in them.  They fixed the water in the carb problem, but not the root cause, which made me decide to not do my annual with them. So then I "may or may not have" changed the seals on the gas caps myself (This isn't incriminating, is it?... I am a PPL student).

I was supposed to fly again with my CFI a week later, but when the day came, he said hes not comfortable flying the plane since I (a student) changed the fuel cap O-Rings myself (even though he was there watching me and talking to me when I did it...).  The silver lining in all this is that I did tell the A&P to check the gas caps during the annual, he said I did a good job at that at least.... 

It's been a tough 8 months of plane ownership... 

Just curious - did you replace both o-rings on each cap?  The big outer one and the small one around the shaft?

I know you are new to ownership and things may appear simple. You removed the cotter pin and nut, then decompressed the spring in order to disassemble?  And you reassembled, didn't lose that half moon clip and adjusted with proper spring tension so that is stays closed but does not bind?

Great job if you did both.  It's a learning experience....

From SB (Service Bulletin) M20-229A, 

 

Edited June 21 by 1980Mooney

[1980Mooney]

@M20GforMe  Since you are taking an active role in the Annual and repair, do you have the Service Manual and the Parts Manual for your G and the Lycoming manuals for the O-360?

These, along with others, are in the "Downloads" Section here on Mooneyspace.

 

Edited June 21 by 1980Mooney

[M20GforMe]

41 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

Just curious - did you replace both o-rings on each cap?  The big outer one and the small one around the shaft?

I know you are new to ownership and things may appear simple. You removed the cotter pin and nut, then decompressed the spring in order to disassemble?  And you reassembled, didn't lose that half moon clip and adjusted with proper spring tension so that is stays closed but does not bind?

 

From SB (Service Bulletin) M20-229A, 

 

I did, I found a good write up on csobeech (I found the link here on MooneySpace) and purchased one of the fluorosilicone Shaw O-Ring kits from Gallagher

https://www.gallagheraviationllc.com/Gallagher-Aviation-Shaw-431531-Fluorosilicone-Fuel-Cap-Kit_p_161.html

The write up was here

https://www.csobeech.com/files/O-RingChange.pdf

[Aaviationist]

7 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

 

I think you missed that the OP is a Student Pilot.  When flying with the CFI, it is the CFI that is PIC.  Since the CFI has been PIC on every flight with the student OP, the CFI can definitely "Ground" the aircraft......

I did not miss that. They can choose not to fly it as the PIC can determine airworthiness before each flight, but they cannot ground the aircraft and make that determination for others. 
 

what one person finds unairworthy (like a gear door with some play in it) another would not. (Like a gear door with some play in it). 

[1980Mooney]

1 hour ago, Aaviationist said:

I did not miss that. They can choose not to fly it as the PIC can determine airworthiness before each flight, but they cannot ground the aircraft and make that determination for others. 
 

what one person finds unairworthy (like a gear door with some play in it) another would not. (Like a gear door with some play in it). 

Odd.  My comment above was in response to a post and quotes by @Scottknoll yet you responded to it and defended  Scottknoll's comments as if they were your own comments/post.  

 

 

[Aaviationist]

1 hour ago, 1980Mooney said:

Odd.  My comment above was in response to a post and quotes by @Scottknoll yet you responded to it and defended  Scottknoll's comments as if they were your own comments/post.  

 

 

I must have been confused when the tag notification sent me to a post. 
 

Either way you were still incorrect. 
 

Edited June 21 by Aaviationist

[Slick Nick]

I remember your original issue with the CFI and the gear doors debacle. Glad you got rid of that guy and found someone more knowledgeable. 
 

 

[M20GforMe]

On 6/20/2025 at 3:11 PM, N201MKTurbo said:

You can see there are shorter pushrods. There is a -33. It isn't specified for that engine, but it will work.

SI1060U20Rods.pdf 295.87 kB · 4 downloads

Going over the the Superior Air Parts site, their 33 pushrod does have the O-369-A1D listed as an eligibility. 
 

https://www.superiorairparts.com/~superior/SuperiorEligibilities/SuperiorPart.php?strPartNum=SL15F19957-33
 

I’m waiting on savvy MX to get back to me, but my inclination at this time is to have them finish the annual as “unairworthy”, have them put the engine back together, and get a ferry permit to take it to G&N or Poplar Grove to have them look at it. I also asked the shop owner to speak with me tomorrow to make sure they’ll give a ferry permit if we go down that avenue. Seems like the 33 pushrod would potentially solve our problem though if I could get them to install them. I’m just afraid they won’t sign off on the Ferry Permit and I’ll be stuck having them pull the engine and shipping it out

[Paul Thomas]

Savvy may hold more sway than you in convincing a shop to do something they are not inclined to do. If you're going to retain Savvy, let your advisor communicate with the shop. If you try first on your own, it may make getting a yes tougher if they've already told you no.

I can already see the Savvy article if they work this one out.

[N201MKTurbo]

It doesn’t have to be them who signs off on the ferry permit. Any A&P will do.

[M20GforMe]

12 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

It doesn’t have to be them who signs off on the ferry permit. Any A&P will do.

Spoke with them again today. They are not in Savvy's program, but said they would be willing to work with Savvy. Theyre still convinced the Case is milled beyond acceptable tolerances.

Savvy's initial response was

"Dry lifter clearances that are too tight will result in a failed camshaft due to the excessive load on the valve train. Something's not adding up here.

Have them inspect the hydraulic lifters in accordance with attachment 2 of Lycoming Service Instruction 1011N (link below), then verify and adjust the dry valve clearance in accordance with Lycoming Service Instruction 1060U. (link below)

https://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/attachments/SI1011N%2520Tappets%2520and%2520Lifters.pdf

https://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/attachments/SI1060U%2520Push%2520Rods.pdf

Let me know what they find."

The A&P shop said they had followed those instructions when doing it initially. Savvy is reaching out to the A&P Shop to become one of their partner shops I believe, if they sign up, I will have Savvy work directly with them to give a second opinion before any brash decisions are made.

The bad news is that the A&P shop said they're not comfortable signing a ferry permit, according to them, if they put the engine back together, even with the shorter pushrods, or the original parts, they think it'll tear itself apart. 

In other news - I did see that there were shorter pushrods on Superior Air Parts that said they were eligible for this engine

https://www.superiorairparts.com/~superior/SuperiorEligibilities/SuperiorPart.php?strPartNum=SL15F19957-33

I called superior to ask if they could actually be used on a certified O-360-A1D, and they said it could. They directed me to a PMA that shows eligibility for this engine, (seen below), but I believe this only means it can be substituted for the original 15F19957-33 part, correct? The Lycoming Push Rod Identification Service Bulletin only calls out the -34, -35, and -36 lengths to be used on the O-360-A1D engine. 

The below is an excerpt from the Lycoming Push Rod Identification Service Bulletin

(Image Source: https://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/attachments/SI1060U%20Push%20Rods.pdf)

Since I can not find anything saying this -33 size pushrod can fit in my O-360 outside of this PMA, I cannot legally have them use it on a certified aircraft, correct? 

[M20GforMe]

I think I answered my own question, but will always welcome more information (hopefully posting here saves the next sucker that goes through the same thing as me some pain)

Source Document: https://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/attachments/SI1060U%20Push%20Rods.pdf

Looks like lengths -34 through -37 are allowed on the O-360-A1D engine with the Flat Tappets

 

and -28 through -34 lengths would have been allowed on the engine with Roller Tappets

 

I called, and the shop told me that half my original pushrods were -34, the other half were -35, and all of them were allegedly bent a bit so that could explain why there were no metal shavings. They bent themselves into fitting apparently.

They said I had Flat Tappet's so I wouldn't be able to use the shorter pushrods unless I was able to show they were approved for that engine configuration.

[EricJ]

1 hour ago, M20GforMe said:

The bad news is that the A&P shop said they're not comfortable signing a ferry permit, according to them, if they put the engine back together, even with the shorter pushrods, or the original parts, they think it'll tear itself apart. 

How long had it been running before they touched it?

 

[N201MKTurbo]

I have to assume that when the engine was rebuilt, the dry tappet clearance was properly set. This is a routine part of engine assembly. The only thing I can think of that would cause the valve lash to go away would be valve recession. Have they borescoped the valves? Your case didn’t get milled since it was overhauled. 

[Aaviationist]

24 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I have to assume that when the engine was rebuilt, the dry tappet clearance was properly set. This is a routine part of engine assembly. The only thing I can think of that would cause the valve lash to go away would be valve recession. Have they borescoped the valves? Your case didn’t get milled since it was overhauled. 

Based on the fact that the case was milled below limits (allegedly, but it looks that way based on the video) I would guess that this shop (if it was a shop) probably cut some other corners and just slapped it together. 
 

if all your rods were slightly bent, I think what the mechanic is saying is probably true. If they were all bent I think it’s pretty lucky it made it 800hrs and unfortunately you have now bought this mess of a situation. 
 

consider your options carefully. 

[M20GforMe]

44 minutes ago, EricJ said:

How long had it been running before they touched it?

 

Don’t recall the exact number, but it was somewhere in the very high 700’s/very low 800’s range

 

33 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I have to assume that when the engine was rebuilt, the dry tappet clearance was properly set. This is a routine part of engine assembly. The only thing I can think of that would cause the valve lash to go away would be valve recession. Have they borescoped the valves? Your case didn’t get milled since it was overhauled. 

I agree that it seems odd. The engine shop is still in business, Aero Engines of Winchester, but they were useless when I called. They’re called Aero Services of Winchester now.

 

6 minutes ago, Aaviationist said:

Based on the fact that the case was milled below limits (allegedly, but it looks that way based on the video) I would guess that this shop (if it was a shop) probably cut some other corners and just slapped it together. 
 

if all your rods were slightly bent, I think what the mechanic is saying is probably true. If they were all bent I think it’s pretty lucky it made it 800hrs and unfortunately you have now bought this mess of a situation. 
 

consider your options carefully. 

I’m fearful of this, but going to have savvy give a second opinion. The pushrods all being bent at least gives some answer if true. It feels insane to think an engine shop would do this though and put it out in the world in a certified aircraft

[EricJ]

57 minutes ago, M20GforMe said:

Don’t recall the exact number, but it was somewhere in the very high 700’s/very low 800’s range

I would suggest that it is unlikely to fly apart now due to something that they seem to be saying has been there for the last 700+ hours.    I'm very skeptical of the current explanations.   A case being milled past limits at an engine overhaul 700+ hours ago seems less likely than the many other explanations for what may be going on.  

+1 that somebody else can sign off a ferry permit.

[MikeOH]

Not an A&P, so maybe one here can explain the different ways it is possible to bend a pushrod on a Lycoming.

Short of a badly stuck valve: cam pushes on lifter, pushes on pushrod, pushes on rocker, pushes on STUCK valve that doesn't move...pushrod is weakest link and bends, I don't see how it can happen.

Hydraulic lifters are designed to take up ALL clearance in a running engine, so even if the pushrod is so long as to bottom out the lifter to the point the valve is on the ragged edge of opening (if the valve was actually held open the engine would barely/not run) I don't see how the pushrod can get bent. IOW, even in that scenario I don't see how the valve is going to hit the piston, or fully collapse the valve spring to where it binds.

Maybe the question is: are valves fully open when the piston is at TDC, and what is the clearance between the two, if so.  A too long pushrod would need to open the valve past that clearance.  Then, we are back to how did the engine run for a minute, let alone 700-800 hours???