98 Mooney Ovation - Pushrod Tube Oil Leak.... Not Good

[Dustoff49]

Recently got the Mooney out of an extensive annual.  Fixed a bunch of small issues and 3 Major ones.  Engine Mount Assembly Repair that required engine removal, New Front Gear assembly from Laser and new push/pull main landing gear tubes.  Mooney Service Center completed the work and she flies great.  Unfortunately after 5 hours , on what seemed to be a normal runup and takeoff,  Tower states I am trailing smoke on departure and even before I had retracted the gear, the tower states it is grey in color and coming from the lower cowling.  So I immediately do a 180 tight pattern and safely land.  No engine oil pressure lose or high temps.  I taxi back to my ramp/hangar and shut down.  Exit the aircraft to be greeted with a very large oil leak covering the belly, exhaust and front landing gear.  Thank God Above no fire occurred.    Push into the hangar and let it cool down.   Pull the upper cowling not much to see but definitely oil coming from below an area under Cylinder 3.   Upon lower cowling removal I find a severely dented and cracked #3 Intake Pushrod tube.  I then find #1 Cylinder Intake tube has the same impression dent nearly identical to #3.   Pictures attached.    Suspect the Pushrods are also hurt my local mechanic removes both rocker covers and pushrods.  Both are heavily damaged and bent.   Extremely fortunate I didn't have catastrophic engine failure due to fractured pushrods etc.  

Now moving on to how this happened.   It didn't go into annual with this damage and it has flown fine for five hours until the tube fractured.  Based on the impression on the tubes it is suspect when the shop removed the engine they either dropped it or rested it improperly and the weight of the engine leaning on poor supports crushed into the tubes.  Regardless waiting for the shop to respond !  

 

[kortopates]

That wouldn’t come from sitting the engine down - the engine probably never came off the crane. My guess it’s from the wrench torquing the spark plug.
Dented tubes are not uncommon but denting one to the point it cracks is!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dustoff49]

I thought the same but the damage is inboard of the plug an inch or so,  you would have to really work hard with a boxed-in wrench to dent it this hard and damage the tube & pushrod.  Engine was removed in early July and didn't go back till early Sept almost two months waiting on the engine cradle to be fixed.   The exhaust system was removed for repairs also so it didn't have anything attached under the cylinders.  Hopefully the shop will contact me tomorrow with some answers.  

[N201MKTurbo]

I5 sucks when this stuff happens. They should have seen it. It is only a few hundred bucks to fix it. Let’s hope they do the right thing.

[GeeBee]

I always wait for "the other shoe to drop" when maintenance is performed by an unfamiliar shop,,,,and it usually does. You just hope it does not kill you. Recently I had some tank work performed and the shop emptied the tank with the electric pump. I told them not to let it run dry but I am sure they did because I arrived at the hangar the other day, one day before a fly out to find fuel leaking from the tell tale fitting on the belly. Fed-Ex'd a new pump out from AirPower but of course despite paying for first in the morning delivery it did not arrive until noon. That made it impossible to depart on time. My personal mechanic the one I trust implicitly, dropped everything to get me going but I still ended up departing a day late which is not really too bad. My wallet is 2500 dollars lighter for the experience.  Anyway it is a long way of saying it seems these days, there is a lot of maintenance induced failures that really are unnecessary if people were more conscientious in their work and inspection habits. I don't know why that is so hard. 

[GeeBee]

To follow up, for the push rods themselves to be damaged that extensively, two of them no less, it is more than a slipped wrench. Nobody should leave an engine on the hoist that long and to do so is poor work habit. That engine was set down on something, and it bent those tubes and rods.

[Dustoff49]

Thanks for the support.  I have been flying in GA over 40 years and this situation is a first for me.  Unfortunately it is a very reputable known shop.  Hopefully the DOM will call me today with a solution.  

[Yetti]

Kind of looks like the nose of a box end wrench, but does not really line up.   Did you have shorter spark plugs in it at one time?

[takair]

Or..were they using a crows foot on an extension? They can be awkward and flail when they pop off…

[Dustoff49]

No its always had the Tempest Plug in it.  It could have been a crow's foot 7/8" it would sort of line up.  But the impact loosening a plug would have to be massive to dent and bend the pushrod.  The impressions close up are the same on both tubes though indicating a tool was used.  Possibly the pushrod rubbing up and down initially made the bigger mark then it started rotating again once it clearanced.  

[Dustoff49]

Happy Update.  The Shop called me this morning with total transparency and owned up to it being an unsupervised intern.  He was removing the lower plugs and the Plug wire was slightly seized and rotated the plug out.   Instead of grabbing experienced help with a better solution he used a crow's foot with an extension wedged it against the pushrod tube and commenced to torqueing the other 7/8  wrench.  I guess he banged it several times.   The shop is sending DOM and IA who completed the annual up with all new parts, fixing it , performing an engine oil flush with new filters a few times after the fix and then fly it back down to them after 3-4 hours and once again change oil and filter.  After each flush send to blackstone for analysis and determine if any further maintenance is required.   I wish more shops had this stance and leadership when things go wrong and its their fault.  Hopefully crisis averted but they assured me if further engine damage was done , IE bearings, lifters , etc. they would handle the repairs with no expense to me.   Thanks for listening.  

[Ragsf15e]

Wow, that’s a good outcome (so far).  I agree, I wish more places would own up to mistakes!

[Schllc]

10 minutes ago, Ragsf15e said:

Wow, that’s a good outcome (so far).  I agree, I wish more places would own up to mistakes!

Agreed. Intern should be fired and blackballed. 
The methods he used were forgivable from ignorance, but there is no way he did not see the damage he created. 
Which means they intentionally said nothing after causing the damage. 
That’s a character flaw and has no place in those industry. 
Also concerning that the shop would not do more thorough inspections when an intern is working. 
Crazy world we are living in these days…

[takair]

Well…that explains it the strange placement of the damage.  I might suggest looking at the plug wires.  My guess is they twisted a few twists beyond their intended twist tolerance.   May function ok for a while, but may be stressed….  Not sure how I would actually test this…except to compare mush factor and stiffness compared to good ones…

[Yetti]

check the spark plug caps threads to make sure they were not cross threaded.   

The filter upon cut and inspection should have the push rod tubes shavings in there.   I would try to match estimated amounts of shavings.    If you can do that.   Then they probably did not circulate enough to do any damage.

At this point I would be personally overseeing the filter cutting and particle finding.

 

[IvanP]

I would be curious how could the IA sign off the aircraft with dented push rot tubes without noting it in the discrepancies. 

[cliffy]

Its  not only unsupervised interns-  a local  shop hired a  newly minted A&P who promptly twisted the nose gear 

of a Comanche so hard it actually split the entire oleo strut housing open.

Your shop sounds like a worthy shop with the way they have stepped up to fix the issue.  I would even use them after seeing their 

professionalism on this issue.

The mark  of a good shop is how they recover from a problem because every shop will have a problem at some time or another. 

[N201MKTurbo]

11 hours ago, IvanP said:

I would be curious how could the IA sign off the aircraft with dented push rot tubes without noting it in the discrepancies. 

The inspector could have inspected the engine before it was removed. The inspector could list the discrepancies in their inspection report. After that all the engine work could have been done by an A&P or supervised non A&P mechanics. There is no requirement for a re-inspection.

In that scenario, there should be a seperate logbook entry by the A&P who did the engine work.

[MikeOH]

8 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

There is no requirement for a re-inspection.

Ok, your words are clear but, as a non A&P, I really want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly.

Am I to understand there is NO requirement for an A&P to inspect work AFTER it has been performed by a non A&P and BEFORE the plane is approved for return to service???

If so, that is a pretty appalling "quality system" IMHO as an engineer.  Indefensible, frankly.

[N201MKTurbo]

38 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Ok, your words are clear but, as a non A&P, I really want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly.

Am I to understand there is NO requirement for an A&P to inspect work AFTER it has been performed by a non A&P and BEFORE the plane is approved for return to service???

If so, that is a pretty appalling "quality system" IMHO as an engineer.  Indefensible, frankly.

You are twisting my words. You are conflating the duties of an IA and an A&P. An IA is responsible for inspecting the airplane. He is not responsible for repairing it. The IA is not responsible for the airworthiness of your airplane, you are. On the flip side, if an A&P does maintenance on your airplane, he is expected to do it in an approved manor. This by definition would leave the things he worked on airworthy. If they are not, then he didn’t do his job properly. 
 

The way it normally works, the IA and A&P are the same person, that performs both roles. Instead of finishing the inspection with discrepancies, they will fix the issues and then reinspect so they can complete the inspection with no discrepancies. In most shops the airplane is inspected, repaired by any number of people and when it is done, the IA signs off all the work. This is not what the regs say. They say that if an A&P works on an airplane, they must make an entry in the log and sign it saying what work they did. That rarely if ever happens. In reality, you should have a log entry from everyone who touched your plane.

[MikeOH]

@N201MKTurbo

Not trying to twist your words; I'm trying to understand in the CONTEXT of this discussion where a NON A&P worked on the plane and dented the push rod tubes, yet the damage was NOT discovered.  I was under the impression that an A&P or IA is REQUIRED to inspect and sign off the work of a NON A&P.  Is that correct, or not?

[N201MKTurbo]

1 minute ago, MikeOH said:

@N201MKTurbo

Not trying to twist your words; I'm trying to understand in the CONTEXT of this discussion where a NON A&P worked on the plane and dented the push rod tubes, yet the damage was NOT discovered.  I was under the impression that an A&P or IA is REQUIRED to inspect and sign off the work of a NON A&P.  Is that correct, or not?

There are two ways a non A&P can legally work on your plane. They either work under the supervision of an A&P or they work for a repair station that has specific work instructions for every task. And the worker must be trained on every task.

In the first case, the A&P is responsible for any work done by the worker he is supervising. In the second case the organization is responsible for the work being done properly.

 

[MikeOH]

6 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

There are two ways a non A&P can legally work on your plane. They either work under the supervision of an A&P or they work for a repair station that has specific work instructions for every task. And the worker must be trained on every task.

In the first case, the A&P is responsible for any work done by the worker he is supervising. In the second case the organization is responsible for the work being done properly.

 

Am I to understand, in either case, that NO inspection by an A&P post work is actually required?  That is, if the A&P, or repair station, chooses to sign off the non A&P's work WITHOUT inspecting it, that is perfectly legal?

[N201MKTurbo]

26 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Am I to understand, in either case, that NO inspection by an A&P post work is actually required?  That is, if the A&P, or repair station, chooses to sign off the non A&P's work WITHOUT inspecting it, that is perfectly legal?

No inspection by an IA is required. The work the A&P does should be done properly, so he should look it over. And another set of eyes ever hurts.

[MikeOH]

4 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

No inspection by an IA is required. The work the A&P does should be done properly, so he should look it over. And another set of eyes ever hurts.

I appreciate your patience on this, but I'm still not clear on if INSPECTION is REQUIRED by an A&P (or IA) after a NON A&P performs work on an aircraft.  I don't how much clearer I can make my question.

The real point of my question is that while I've always assumed non A&Ps may well work on my aircraft while in a shop, certified repair station, or not, I've also assumed that an A&P (or IA) INSPECTED their work BEFORE signing off the work in my logs as airworthy/approved for return to service.

This discussion has raised the ugly question, IMHO, if that isn't even required???  Which bothers me considerably as what happened here poignantly illustrates!  Maybe I'm the only one so naive to have not realized no inspection of a non-certificated mechanic's work is even required.