Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

New Cylinder AD's released by FAA

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

New Cylinder AD's released by FAA

Old 22nd Apr 2014, 01:06
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,955
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Problem for Australia is that there may be no one with sufficient time, expertise and objectivity in the regulator to properly analyse the data and refuse to adopt this AD verbatim.
Creamie,
Too true.
The last engineer (as opposed to LAME) who had serious knowledge and experience with piston engines retired quite some time ago.
The AOPA US developed failure statistics showed the illogical position of the FAA clearly, why a proper cost/benefit analysis was bypassed has never been explained.
Sadly, high level administration of the FAA is seeing fever and fever people of serious aviation expertise, and more and more "career" public servants.
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2014, 01:39
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,079
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You may remember the Bell47 Main Rotor grips that were downgraded to 1200 hour life. In Australia we convinced CASA that an eddy current inspection of the threads allowed us to retain the original hour timex.

So it has been done before
Yes, but how many decades ago?

There is no doubt it could be done again, but it would require a level of unanimity and commitment that, sadly, I think no longer exist in GA in Australia.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2014, 02:06
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
They used to look at all ADs and make there own judgement now they don't and we lost a great deal of good ones when they started that allowed everyone to know where they should. Now it's just a mess a system that is useless and still not common to anything or any where. It's a disgrace.
Cheers
yr right is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2014, 03:33
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Iraq
Age: 35
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Compliance with Airworthiness DIRECTIVE of the NAA of the OEM or TC or STC holder is a requirement of Australian regs. CASA promulgates the foreign ADs in Part 39. Note they are no longer issued as Aust ADs.
Indeed Creampuff, time passes in the blink of an eye, was in the 1990s

Last edited by No Hoper; 22nd Apr 2014 at 07:03. Reason: Advice from Creampuff - should be Airworthness Directive
No Hoper is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2014, 03:47
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,079
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Compliance with Airworthiness Data of the NAA of the OEM or TC or STC holder is a requirement of Australian regs. …
Did you mean ‘Airworthiness Directive’ rather than ‘Airworthiness Data’?

If you meant ‘Airworthiness Data’, what is your definition of that term?
Creampuff is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2014, 06:11
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Iraq
Age: 35
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Creampuff
Airworthiness Directive is what I meant
At the risk of thread drift and tailwheel taking us all out the back of the hangar for a damn good flogging I am willing to discuss the differences. Remember though I am just a dumbass mechanic from Tennant Creek who failed matriculation
No Hoper is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2014, 06:34
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,079
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In that case, you are correct: There is an automatic obligation to comply with what the CASRs call a ‘foreign State of Design airworthiness directive’ (as well as comply with an ‘Australian airworthiness directive’). That’s because CASR 39.002 imposes an obligation to comply ‘airworthiness directives’, and the definition of ‘airworthiness directive’ in CASR 39.001A covers both ‘Australian airworthiness directives’ and ‘foreign State of Design airworthiness directives’.

I merely reiterate that CASA has the discretion to approve a means of compliance with an AD other than that set out in the AD, and CASA has the discretion to exclude a particular kind of aircraft or aeronautical product from the operation of an AD: see CASRs 39.004(2) and 39.004(3).

Read all about it here: Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998

The approved maintenance data for an aircraft and the maintenance schedule applicable an aircraft are related but different regulatory concepts. Read all about them here: Civil Aviation Regulations 1988

And BTW: I too am just a dumbass who left school at 15 to start an apprenticeship.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2014, 06:57
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,955
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
And BTW: I too am just a dumbass who left school at 15 to start an apprenticeship
Creamie,
Such excessive modesty !!
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2014, 08:16
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,079
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No Hoper and Leaddie: Check your PMs!
Creampuff is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2014, 12:12
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What amazes me is at what cost do you put on safety. You seam more worried that FAA is using it powers for evil. I would think that the cost should not be brought into it. I known the FAA dose costing and have done for a long time which is a lot different to what we have here.
Dick smith had a affordable safety. I know how dangerous that was when a pilot that was normally bright and bubbly was as white as a ghost. He nearly had a mid air late at night. When I ask how close was it he pointed to the top of the hangar wall. Luck was riding with that night as we'll as the crew down the back.

So at what point dose it stop. I think this is a very basic AD. Not much to it. As I've said earlier at what point have they being failing. If first life I can see why. I never seen or heard of an OEM cly failing at a 1st life.
yr right is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2014, 20:40
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What amazes me are the idiotic decisions that are made in the name of safety. When a decision is made that can't be backed by data the powers that be bellow "SAFETY" to shut down any further discussion. Those who think there is no such thing as affordable safety have a very poor understanding of risk management.
If "affordable safety" is abandoned it follows that even a cessna 150 should be fitted with a zero zero ejection system and that Malaysian Jet should have had personal ejection seats for every passenger + a life raft equipped with VHF and HF radios and 2 weeks of food. If you think this is nonsense then you actually do believe in affordable safety and the discussion then becomes where to draw the line.
Cheers RA
rutan around is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2014, 20:55
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Iraq
Age: 35
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Rutan
That is what is called an Absolute
Have been considering Walter's bait
Without the screw thread the head would depart on the first runup
It is a combination of the screw thread and interference fit that retains and locks the head to the cylinder
No Hoper is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2014, 21:33
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No Hoper
Without the screw thread the head would depart on the first runup
It is a combination of the screw thread and interference fit that retains and locks the head to the cylinder
Do you have Data that shows this to be true? I always thought the above to be true. In fact I didn't even know there was a shrink fit involved.
Having now read Mike Busch's article (Link post 10 ) I tend to believe a cylinder manufacturer probably knows more about how they work than I do. I do know that train wheels seldom fall off and they don't have a threaded section to help hold them on.
rutan around is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2014, 21:34
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,079
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I agree with Rutan: It’s amazing how the word ‘safety’ can turn some people into gibbering idiots.

I’ve posted this in the threads about DAMP and the proposed SS terminal AD, but it’s about this ECi Cylinder AD. Well known expert and aviation journalist Mike Busch said this, in part, in response to the NPRM for the AD:
On August 12, 2013, the FAA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register for a proposed Airworthiness Directive (AD) that would basically legislate more than 30,000 ECi cylinders out of existence, forcing the owners of about 6,000 Continental IO-520, TSIO-520 and IO-550 engines to perform $14,000 top overhauls. The total cost to affected aircraft owners would be $83 million, making this one of the most costly general aviation ADs in history. The FAA’s rationale for this Draconian AD is that they’ve received reports of 30 head-to-barrel separations in ECi cylinders (out of a population of 30,000, a failure rate of 0.1%).

This proposed AD is one of the most unwarranted, inappropriate, punitive and generally boneheaded rulemaking actions I’ve ever seen come from the FAA. Here’s why:

- At 0.1%, the reported head separation rate of ECi cylinders is the lowest in the industry, lower than for Continental factory cylinders. Why is the FAA picking on ECi jugs?

- There have been ZERO accidents and ZERO injuries resulting from the reported head separations of ECi cylinders.
My all-time favourite comment on this proposed AD (and any other one for that matter) is:
I am an emergency physician of 35 years experience with extensive involvement in helicopter EMS and a private pilot flying in the back country of Idaho. I understand, in detail, risk mitigation.

I wish to point out that based on available information the risk of appendicitis in FAA employees is much higher than having a ECI cylinder fail inflight. Following the FAA's assessment model, immediate prophylactic appendectomy is indicated for all 47,000 FAA employees.

Immediate appendectomy is particularly indicated for the 30,000 FAA employees involved air traffic control, as an appendix "failure" while on duty can affect the lives of hundreds people inflight.

I can provide the supporting calculations if desired.
You see, yr right, if the probabilities and consequences of ECi cylinder failures justify this AD, it follows that other risks with similar probabilities and similar consequences must justify similar regulatory action.

For example, people with learning difficulties should be prohibited from conducting maintenance on aircraft. Even though there may have been zero accidents and zero injuries from their activities, they could cause a big accident by misunderstanding some important maintenance data. All in the interests of ‘safety’, old boy. Surely it’s a cost you’d be willing to pay? I’d be amazed if you disagreed.
Have been considering Walter's bait
Without the screw thread the head would depart on the first runup
It is a combination of the screw thread and interference fit that retains and locks the head to the cylinder
Is that your guess, No Hoper, or a conclusion supported by data?
Creampuff is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2014, 21:57
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Iraq
Age: 35
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Seems basic engineering
A screw thread retains and then it is locked if in a high load situation.
Lock nuts come to mind, wouldn't work without the screw thread
Although in the olden days was split pinned or wire locked.
One can also wire lock the bolt heads in a blind bolt situation
No Hoper is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2014, 22:13
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,079
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
My guess is you are correct. However, I don’t have any data to back that up and, like many things in life, the correct answer could be counter-intuitive.

I’m hoping Walter A or John D will enlighten us with the results of their research.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2014, 23:06
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well everyone has leaning problems for a start. You may be an academic but can you true a screw driver generally no. I know off a very clever fella that once fixed his 210 in to a 182 buy glueing his u/c handle into the down position or one friend that I will assure you all that make you like a primary school kids but put a nut on and his lost.
Where is the data that these are failing at are they 1st life, like ive said cly failure on general don't happen on a 1 st life engine OEM and separation happens at the end of the screw thread.
Now this also proves that it is a between the inter fit and the screw thread that hold the head on. With out either that don't stay on. Manufacture's wont do unnecessary work like fit a screw thread for know other reason. Also there is nearly always a sign before separation, you need to know the signs.
Why did we never use R1340 engines cause when they have a head separation the engine stops and in a R985 the engine looses performance and allows you to get back. We never had a head separation because we always always always checked during the day on shut down and ever night on return to base.


So why do you think that FAA wont these cly out of service.


And why don't I have a problem because I check recheck and check again that's why im good at my job. That's why im get ask all the time what im doing , that's why im sent all over the place to work.


Cheers
yr right is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2014, 23:19
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,079
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So why do you think that FAA wont these cly out of service.
That’s what most of the world’s experts are wondering.
At 0.1%, the reported head separation rate of ECi cylinders is the lowest in the industry, lower than for Continental factory cylinders.
Something stinks… to high heaven.
And why don't I have a problem because I check recheck and check again that's why im good at my job. That's why im get ask all the time what im doing , that's why im sent all over the place to work.
But going on the logic that has resulted in this AD, your zero accident and zero injury history is not enough. You have a known problem that could cause accidents and injuries in the future. You must be stopped, in the interests of 'safety'.

And BTW: I reckon you work for CASA.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2014, 23:30
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Me casa I think not. My family would disown me if I went to the dark side. Soypu also should be stopped as your own disability is far worse than mine.

So once again go f yourself. I deal in common sence you still not said when these cly are failing
yr right is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2014, 23:40
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,079
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yep: You and me both should be stopped in the interests of ‘safety’.

You and I know why the cylinders are failing: Excessive leaning.

Pilots of aircraft with engines fitted with ECi cylinders run them excessively lean. When one of those cylinders fail, the pilots do a forced landing and sneak over to another aircraft with engines fitted with stock CMI cylinders and sledge hammer the heads off two cylinders. Thus the logical regulatory response is to mandate replacement of ECi cylinders. It all makes perfect sense ...

... on the Planet Coosbane.
Creampuff is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.