Grounded PA-31's????

[RFZ]

Believe a service bullitien was issued this morning that requires aircraft within a serial number range to ship the engines back to the States. I think it is a crankshaft problem. Just wondering how many operators out there this will effect???

[Zarg]

From Avflash 8.06a:

. .ANOTHER CRANKSHAFT RECALL -- THIS TIME, IT'S LYCOMING.... .At least four crankshaft failures in big turbocharged Lycoming engines. .-- at least two of them in new Cessna T206H airplanes -- have prompted. .Textron Lycoming to issue a recall of TIO- and LTIO-540 engines rated. .300 hp or higher. Textron Lycoming Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 550. .presently applies to about 400 of these engines, identified by serial. .number. It requires that the affected engines be returned to the. .Lycoming factory for crankshaft replacement within the next 10 hours of. .operation, with the cost (including engine removal and replacement). .being picked up by Lycoming.

...GROUNDING HUNDREDS OF AIRCRAFT FOR WHO KNOWS HOW LONG.... .On Friday, Cessna estimated that 116 T206H Turbo Stationairs are. .affected by the recall. Other affected aircraft include Piper Aerostar,. .Navajo, Chieftain and T-1020 twins (including Colemill Panthers), Piper. .Turbo Lance, Turbo Saratoga and Malibu Mirage singles, and some. .homebuilts. The failures occurred in crankshafts manufactured from two. .specific lots of crankshaft forgings, and Lycoming believes that the. .steel in those lots may have been substandard. Unlike the big TCM. .crankshaft recalls of 1999 and 2000, Lycoming says that there's no way. .to test the engines in the field to determine whether their crankshafts. .are flawed -- all the engines covered by the Service Bulletin must be. .shipped back to Williamsport for teardown.

[Travelling Toolbox]

One wonders why the whole engine and not just the crank? Seems like an awfully expensive exercise shipping from OZ all the way to the US and back when an accredited Lyco shop could do the job for them here.

Just a thought <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[RFZ]

Thanks for that info Zarg. I just hope this does not mean more pilots, engineers and the like will be out of work!!!

[TwinNDB]

Just one more thing for a strugling GA company to deal with <img src="frown.gif" border="0"> The mind boggles as to why some operators still bother to do business.

Lets hope not too many are greatly affected

[gaunty]

In the real world they don't use these types for purposes other than for what they were intended.

Private recreational and business.!

Now tell me again why GA operators can't afford to run turbine equipment? . .If they were charging what it REALLY costs and running their businesses' as businesses rather than a hobby, then it would be a schuper but not financially fatal.. .And why isn't AOPA demanding the Government or someone, anyone, take action against Lycoming for building piston engines in the first place. <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

[RFZ]

Gaunty I am familiar with several piston engined operators in the country. And I can assure you they do charge the correct amount to ensure a profit. The problem is that profit is generally a lot smaller than what is required to make the leap into larger turbine aircraft. While I do agree that the day's of piston engined aircraft used for charter and small capacity RPT are indeed numbered, I do not believe this country is capable to make the plunge now. Piston engined aircraft perform a vital role within the transport network of this country, and while they will never be as good as turbine aircraf they are better than no service at all. I do not wish to start a slanging match, I am only trying to find out how many people this receent problem is going to effect.

[nasa]

gaunty.....Here we go again NOT

I had a call from an owner effected by the recall a day or so ago, and I'm of the understanding that it only applies to some 6 or 8 engines here in Australia.....However, I stand to be corrected.

Just a quick sum for you gaunty me old.....one X L/TIO540J2BD (average O/H)= AUD$60K (approx).....one X 3600 Hour TBO PT6A-42 CT Disk = USD$80K (AUD$156,250.00 approx) and you know how often the gods smile and say, nahhh don't worry about the crack in the Vane Ring or the wear or FOD on the CT Blades (58 of them by approx USD$800.00 each), she'll do another life

[ 05 February 2002: Message edited by: nasa ]</p>

[G.A. Boy]

Just as a matter of interest, I suffered an engine failure after take off in a Chieftain last year. Reason being, crank shaft broke in two places. Report is now in ATSB's website, but a lot of technical jargon in the report.

[Hardon deGeare]

Gaunty, old chum, we have all heard your reasoning before.

If you do the numbers on an RPT business the fact is that only small communities need RPT services in the 9-12 seat range. In fact I think Yanda needed 5 or 6 small communities strung together to make it work.

These small communities ain't, economically, what they used to be and you need to charge the smallest possible fares to get bums on seats. Yanda was only able to charge these low fares because they owned their aircraft outright and didn't need to make repayments on them. The repayments on an aircraft, even a Chieftain (up to $500,000 worth in the last AvTrader) are no more or less crippling than any of your other costs UNLESS your competition already

a) Owns his aircraft outright

and

b) isn't worried about putting aside money for Upgrades, repaints, replacements, or any other of the contingencies you or I might like, in an ideal world, to plan for.

9-12 seat Turbine RPT (SE or ME) is a pipe dream in this country, sacrificed, one might argue, to the gods of economic rationalisation about 19 years ago.

I'll give you a call one of these days and send you all the numbers, it is very very depressing.

cheers.

[T]

OK Gaunty, tell me, I need to know, has there never been a recall on PT6 or TPE 331. Including the essential ancillaries,gear box,FCU,starter generator.

[High Altitude]

Nasa - yep I think your right.

Gaunty in a perfect world you would be correct. Tell me what replaces the following:-

Cessna 210 /Cessna 206 - C208, what 6 place single?. .B58 / C310R - Meridian, what 6 place twin?. .C402 / PA31 - C406

Don't forget that just cause its turbine don't mean client don't want 2 things spinning...

Now in a scr*wed up climate like up here where funded companies can do whatever and $$$ talks how and when will that step ever be taken? For now its go piston go... At least Lycoming will fix for free if that was read correctly.

[Freek Flyer]

Anyway, Back to what this thread was meant to be about, I beleive Airlines of SA in Adelaide has a chieftain with one of these engines, grounded as of yesterday i beleive (5-2-2). Anyone know of other companies?

[gaunty]

snide remark, put down that red and help me out here.

To praphrase nasa.

Here we go again. CAN

RFZ. .I do share your concern in regard to the continuing employment of pilots and engineers.. .It is indeed appropriate that you raise the issue of the effect of the recall on some operators and I accept your assurance that those of your aquaintance charge what they believe is the "correct" amount to make a profit.

You say;. . [quote] The problem is that profit is generally a lot smaller than what is required to make the leap into larger turbine aircraft. While I do agree that the day's of piston engined aircraft used for charter and small capacity RPT are indeed numbered, I do not believe this country is capable to make the plunge now. Piston engined aircraft perform a vital role within the transport network of this country, <hr></blockquote>

both completely encapsulates the problem overall and contains part of the reason as to why it is so.

Problem is that their "correct amount" is premised on an incorrect assumption. . .It is based on an assumption that their aircraft will last forever, and that if they need to add or replace aircraft, they do not need to pay more, give or take a bit, than what they assume is the current value of their existing aircraft.. .That is they do not, or have given up, have aspirations beyond hoping that they can find future replacements that are a bit tidier than the one that they have worn out.. .The correct "correct amount" should be based on an assumption that unfortunately is no longer available to them in piston types, that is, the replacement of old for new on a regular basis driven by the blindingly obvious economies of new v old. They therefore have to charge on the basis of what is available. Other wise why do the world airlines turn their fleet over.. .Trust me the size of the turbine step did not use to be nearly as abyssal as it now is, being a relatively painless progression from one to the other.. .Neither is it "fair" to burden them completely with responsibility for this state of affairs.

Suffice it to say that the reasons are fairly well known to a few and the subject of much intense, but not very well informed, speculation to most.

Trust me I spent most of the early 90's working for most of the major financial institutions working through over $200,000,000 worth of GA reconstructions (very few were worth the effort), liquidations and recovery of assets.. .Almost without exception the reasons for the failures ranged from, predominantly that the deficit was about equal to the difference in what they should have been and were charging, to just plain dumbosity.. .It was heartbreaking in its long predicted, but much pooh poohed inevitability.

You are absolutely correct that aviation performs and will continue to provide an absolutely vital role in this countries transport network.

Problem is the GA aviation industry has successfully taught Govt and passenger alike for well over 20 years now, that it gets cheaper every year, year on year and] that the impossibility that revenue passenger mile costs on LCRPT can be the same as HCRPT. <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> That is, it is cheaper in any form that you want to measure it, to run a PA31 say from here to there than it was in the mid seventies. If you think this defies imagination then you are correct.

What chance then does an operator have to provide even an early model turbine of the same vintage, (some have gone to even earlier vintages with the inevitable tragic consequences), at realistic rates.. But you've heard all this before.

[quote] and while they will never be as good as turbine aircraf they are better than no service at all. <hr></blockquote>

Too true. Those communities that rely on aviation for the day to day communication taken for granted by the rest of the community, were NEVER AND STILL AREN'T able to afford the service which WAS subsidised by Government as part of the social contract AT THE GOING RATE, FULL WHACK NEW AIRCRAFT REPLACEMENT. . .Until the "I can do it cheaper, without subsidy even" brigade got going. Tell me which Government is going to ignore that?

The rest is history.

So who is going to be able to explain to Govt now, that not only do we need subsidy to these places, but a humungous one to make the step from 1970 prices to 2002. <img src="eek.gif" border="0">

. .Hardon de Geare (sorry old buddy) demonstrates the futility of trying to get the message through;

[quote] These small communities ain't, economically, what they used to be and you need to charge the smallest possible fares to get bums on seats. Yanda was only able to charge these low fares because they owned their aircraft outright and didn't need to make repayments on them. The repayments on an aircraft, even a Chieftain (up to $500,000 worth in the last AvTrader) are no more or less crippling than any of your other costs UNLESS your competition already <hr></blockquote>

Since when was it businesses "obligation" to provide a service that isn't profitable at the "smallest possible fare to get bums on seats".. .Are we running a business here or a refuge for pilots building hours. Yanda had it right re ownership. Repayments or no has nothing whatsoever to do with the total equation, that is a capital issue, which is something that is conspicuous by its absence in most operations.

Government hold the key to solving this dilemma, it is up to industry to get them to understand.

It is industry working together, that has to get on its soapbox and do the mea culpa and work with Government to solve the social contract problems.

Lycoming or any other manufacturers recall problems are as a gnat bite on the a&se of an elephant for a properly resourced and capitalised aviation business.

T. .As far as I can recall none, plenty of AD's and Service Bulletins, but no factory recalls. But that's only my memory of the matter.

HA

Simple mon ami

Cessna 210 /Cessna 206 - C208, what 6 place single?

Why, what is wrong witth the C208, is there some law or reg that says you have to fill ALL of the seats, every flight, if it can operate profitably on 6 pax (which it can) and then go out later with 12 or whatever, why not. Charge it out on a 5 pax seat basis when you have to. Easy. If they want to put on more than agreed, as they will, you charge the applicable rate, no pay, no put on.

B58 / C310R - Meridian, what 6 place twin?, what's wrong with the F406, . .Same principle as above.

C402 / PA31 - C406.. .What can I say.

From there it's like falling off a log.

I used a policy of judicious upgrading of type, say from C310 to C414A Chancellor (pressurised, aircon), or from C404 to C441 when the opportunity arose, no charge to pax whom I thought would respond favourably. Fairly soon after they would start booking "that other" one. It hardly ever failed. . .You see, the reason why they don't want you to have sex or drink until you are mucho old or read really interesting books that go against the accepted grain, is that once you've had/done it you can't stop.

Cup of coffee for me now.

[JayJay]

Now see what happens when you take a long lunch

I'm with you all the way on this one Gaunty and at the risk of repeating myself from earlier threads.. oops, that reef and beef is repeating too

It's chicken and egg (food again) theory largely.

What came first? The fact is that a number of manufacturers, not just Gaunty's favorite, did all the R&D and actually went to production with kero powered bug smashers.

It's not just an Australian thing but the concept was largely rejected by the market place because the selling of the collective soul to the lowest bidder had already begun.

IMHO Partenavia was a classic example. The venerable P68 took the world by storm. In short order, from memory, there were 52 on the Aust. register. The same company also produced the Victor on steroids as the Spartacus with the kero burners. Any here? No! Why? Because the likely purchasers were flogging the ring out of the Victors to the lowest bidders with no thought for tomorrow.

Undeterred, presumably due to USA, Europe and South African sales they went ahead and built the Viator. Retractable gear, 10-11 seats and reportably could be landed downhill on a goat track in force 10 gales in the dark.

What were we doing when this equiptment was new and shiny? Flogging the ring out of Islanders to the lowest bidder with no thought for tommorrow.

So we stand here now wringing our hands and asking what will replace what we still have. But Partenavia's are crap I hear the call. Ten thousand AD's I hear. YES! and there has been no R&D for nearly 20 YEARS. They were a fine, fine aircraft when newish. They were cheap to operate when newish. But instead of moving up to the Spartacus or Viator or the slippery Cessna twins or the Riems product we kept on flogging the cash cows in diminishing profit conditions, due discounting and rising CPI, and into rising base costs due maintenace on ageing fleet.

Who really believes that a 25-28 year old Partenavia with 10-15,000 hours total time is a viable charter aircraft? Turned over to private owners or shipped to the 3rd. world mid way through the 3rd engine life there wouldn't be the thousand AD's because the limits wouldn't have been so soo tested. We and our passengers should never have been testing those limits.

The industry built the expectation of cheap flying by our own foolishness. The regular charter customers CAN afford the proper rate for modern equiptment. Ask a medical specialist, barrister, engineer or mining magnate what an hour of their time is worth.

Gaunty is spot on to suggest that there is no compulsion to fly missions without the full measure of profit and allowance for re-capitalisation, unless of course you are under capitalised now!

This thread started on the tale of the crankshaft thingy. Cast you mind back, not very far, and see if you can figure what might have brought on this flurry of activity in downtown Williamsport.

Take one Coroner, eight families, one defunct operator, already well stirred, add more barristers and government officials than you can poke a stick at, the mooted Part 119, turn on the blender, and if you think what comes out the other end will be the world as we now know it then you are indeed courageous.

[Torres]

Hear, here! Hail Gaunty!

nasa, . ."one X L/TIO540J2BD (average O/H)= AUD$60K (approx).....one X 3600 Hour TBO PT6A-42 CT Disk = USD$80K (AUD$156,250.00 approx)"

What are you on about? From memory, the life of a PT6A-42 CT Disk is over 20,000 cycles!

Would not a fair comparison be:

PA31-350:. .2 TIO540 O/H @ Aus$60K each/2,000 hours = $ 60 per hour

C208B:. .1 PT6A-114 Avge O/H US$150K/5,000 hours = $ 60 per hour

The US$150K overhaul cost of the -114A would be the average over three lives (15,000 hrs) and include the cost of HSI's, starter generators and replacement of rotating components.

I would think your average Aus$60K overhaul cost of a TIO 540 would be the bare overhaul cost and exclude the cost of replacement components during the life of the engine, including turbos, cracked cylinders, etc.

I think your count is out - I thought there were 57 CT blades on a small PT6 (57 bolts in the C Flange, 14 nozzels and two igniters?) Anyhow, overhauled CT blades start at US$250 - and unlike the old -20, the -114 doesn't chew up CT blades. I'd sooner have O/H CT blades in a PT6 than O/H pots on a TIO 540!!!

We agree not to agree? As usual........ . .

[ 06 February 2002: Message edited by: Torres ]</p>

[jdriver]

Just A bit of cost comparison . .Prices quote in December 2001

off a Navajo. .TIO-540A2C. .Each. .Green seal AUD$55k. .Blue seal AUD$65K. .Gold seal AUD$74k. .Plus GST

I imagine the other serial No's are about the same cost.

[gaunty]

snide remark

Thank you, the example put, as usual, as elegantly as it can be.

A good red and a fine meal does clear the mind wonderfully. I 'm a bit torn between the Meshach and Shadrach right now for dinner tonight, though might save them and have a 1998 Russet Ridge Cab Sav instead, very good, way under priced and very excellent drinking right now. <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

Torres

Touche' mon ami.

Hope the new gig is going down real good.

[JayJay]

Gaunty,. . Snide and elegant in same sentance? Mrs. Remark has just had a nasty turn

I'll have whatever you're on thanks!

[JayJay]

Just an aside,

I see after a short surf that the current Type cert. holder for the P68/68TC and Observers (Vulcan Air) has a thing called the Canguro SF600 under development or in production.

Looks like the bastard child of a union between an Islander and Spartacus with two Allison's, stiff legs, 11 seats, 171 kts cruise, 1575 kgs load and 998 litres useable.

Now if only the tail stays on....