Prop strike inspection vs smoh

[N601RX]

Approved, but not mandatorty. If you don't believe me google it or read the link above. The FAA has issued guidance stating that several times.

Here is the link FAA interpetation. Read the last paragraph of the 1st page and continued onto the 2nd page.

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/060828sb-letter.pdf

[PTK]

Wow Byron! Where did you order this engine?! If I may ask?! That is a great price!

[jetdriven]

Air Power

[PTK]

That's awesome! I tried sending you pm but unable.

[PTK]

Approved, but not mandatorty. If you don't believe me google it or read the link above. The FAA has issued guidance stating that several times.

Here is the link FAA interpetation. Read the last paragraph of the 1st page and continued onto the 2nd page.http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/060828sb-letter.pdf

I read it and I hear you. I don't have an opinion however, because I simply don't know. It is an interesting question though because it's stamped in red "MANDATORY." Besides we all know what happens when one expresses their opinion!

[Alan Fox]

RX should listen to smiles , He says he doesnt know........All ADs and service bulletins are required per Lycoming to specify an Overhaul, This has no bearing on airworthiness ,TBO is just a reccomendation , but the manufacturer mandates what is or is not an overhaul.....  RX not only are you wrong , you you cant even admit you are wrong....The worst part is that you are advising people that think you know what you are talking about , and you dont.... You can dissassemble an engine and inspect everything and reassemble without replacing anything , and it is legal to fly , it is not considered an overhaul , it is an IRAN inspection....IRAN is not an overhaul , it is an inspection....Prop strike inspections are IRAN inspections not overhauls...IRAN = Inspect And Repair As Necasary........ 

[jetdriven]

Perhaps N601RX should sign it off as an overhaul, or find a mechanic willing to do so.  If he can't, then he has his answer.

[N601RX]

RX should listen to smiles , He says he doesnt know........All ADs and service bulletins are required per Lycoming to specify an Overhaul, This has no bearing on airworthiness ,TBO is just a reccomendation , but the manufacturer mandates what is or is not an overhaul.....  RX not only are you wrong , you you cant even admit you are wrong....The worst part is that you are advising people that think you know what you are talking about , and you dont.... You can dissassemble an engine and inspect everything and reassemble without replacing anything , and it is legal to fly , it is not considered an overhaul , it is an IRAN inspection....IRAN is not an overhaul , it is an inspection....Prop strike inspections are IRAN inspections not overhauls...IRAN = Inspect And Repair As Necasary........ 

What your saying would apply equally to you also. Below is what the FAA says about overhauls and the associated log entry. Read item 1. Also section 3-48 of the current version of the direct drive overhaul manual clearly says that SB240 is recommended. To me recommended does not mean required. If you can show me anything crediitable that says different I'll be happy to admit that I'm wrong.

Code of Federal Regulations

Sec. 43.2

Part 43 MAINTENANCE, PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE, REBUILDING, AND ALTERATION

Sec. 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 [part 21 of this chapter.]

( 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.

Amdt. 43-43A, Eff. 4/16/11

Comments

Document History

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Actions:

Not Applicable.

Final Rule Actions:

Final rule. Docket No. FAA-2006-25877; Issued on 10/6/2009

Final rule; correction. Docket No. FAA-2006-25877; Issued on 2/24/2010

[tony]

All engine oil hose

All oil seals

All gaskets

All circlips, lockplates and retaining rings

Piston rings

All exhaust valves (except Inconel alloy valves)

All exhaust valve retaining keys

Crankshaft sludge tubes (where applicable)

Cylinder fin stabilizers

All bearing inserts (main and connecting rods)

Magneto drive cushions

Stressed bolts and fastenings

Camshaft gear attaching bolts

Connecting rod bolts and nuts

Crankshaft flange bolts

Damaged ignition cable

All laminated shims

Crankshaft counterweight bushings

Piston pin plugs

A.C. diaphragm fuel pump........................... Here is the list of parts that I copied from Tonys link that have to be replaced reguardless of condition.....  Try reading your own post GENIOUS.........section 3 of LYCOMING overhaul manual...

 

I’m sorry if I bruised your tender ego, and I must have made you angry; however, your derogatory comment doesn’t change the fact that you’re still wrong.

[PTK]

May I call another timeout please !! back to your corners!

How do you very knowledgeable folks interpret paragraph labeled (2) in 601RX's above post, considering FAA approval of SB 204W ? Does 204W qualify as "...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..." ?

In other words, does it necessarily mean that the FAA issued approval of 204W by relying on Lycoming's expertise and technical data, or not? Because IF so, then 204W cannot be anything less than mandatory to the FAA.

You may resume!!

[Marauder]

So, Aaron, how's your engine?

[Alan Fox]

I am illiterate.....Iliterate ......... A Dumbass.......

[aaronk25]

Engine is running great and I have a call into Darrell Buldoc that he will return Monday. I'm gonna ask him what it would cost to have it count as a smoh. He basically IRANd the motor from what I could tell.

Thanks for all the info guys.

[PTK]

You are wrong! No YOU are wrong!

...and the winner is........!!!

where did everybody go?!

[Alan Fox]

I went flying today!!!!!    Got tired of arguing.....

[tony]

i did too, wasn't it a gorgeous day to fly?

[PTK]

I did too. Was windy up here in south Jersey today. Nice day otherwise.