Detonation can't be good for the engine either...

No, it certainly isn't. Happily, if you've used the correct fuel it's near impossible to have detonation on a type approved engine installation. If a CS prop engine is operated anywhere near its recommended temps and power settings, there is no risk of detonation either. The margins are very good, I've done the testing on O-470's and O-520's. A pilot would be horrified as to what you had to do to begin detonation. I have no fear that a rental pilot would ever get an engine in that state.

I guess the one of the most costliest problems presented to owners by renters is from engine mismanagement/abuse.

Tech logs can still help decipher the culprit even if an electronic fuel management system s not equipped. I operated a PA28RT201 with the Lycoming IO-360-C1C6. I only rented to what I thought to be experienced pilots. Nevertheless one 600 hour PPL decided to take the aircraft away into Europe for a week touring. The tech log/tacho suggested that he had flown 20 hours but only burnt about 170USG. The flight times in the tech logs also gave things away. Suffice to say, not only had the engine been starved of fuel, very recent cracks were found by engineers on compression tests due to shock cooling which the EDM also later confirmed

A PA28RT201 is certainly an aircraft type for which greater than normal care in engine operating technique is vital to maintain good engine condition. Failure to do so will not result in an immediately unsafe condition (or for the next pilot) but it will cause added maintenance expense down the line.

Operation of these types of faster aircraft in controlled airspace adds to the problem, when ATC request quick descents, and pilots close the throttle to comply. Sometimes better to reply "it's not a turbine, I cannot comply". The worst is an orbit, while you slow down easily.

You can certainly hurt the engine quite quickly if you go to full power to climb but leave the mixture in the cruise leaned position. Even at full rich you can still have excessive and damaging CHT's on prolonged ful power climbs at low airspeeds on hot days.

Look in the logs and maintenace records - just as we are supposed to do before every flight;)

Well, yes, the maintenance logs are the source of the information hours in service, and work accomplished information. Extra points to the pilot if he/she knows what the maintenance requirements for the engine are to begin with, particularly out of phase items. That information is nearly never in the logs, as it is not required to be there.

It's sort of like driving down a road, watching your speed carefully, but having no speed limit signs along the way to tell you what you're supposed to be limiting yourself to!

I'm delighted to think that a pilot would take the interest to delve into the the maintenance records for the aircraft they are about to fly. Once you have those records in your hands, a thorough job of that will be at least an hour or so. I certainly have done this when I have bought aircraft, or test flown them for suspected maintenance defects. I can't say I have ever done it when I just took one for a flight.

Informed, knowledgeable pilots are great. Yet a huge amount of our flying safety depends totally on trusting someone else, that they have done what they should. We trust that the most recent recorded maintenance was accomplished correctly and completely, we trust the the parts and materials were correct for the application, and in suitable condition, and we trust that the pilot before us they detected (or caused).

If every pilot who snapped closed the throttle to begin a descent, made a defect entry in the maintenance logs saying: "throttle closed too quickly, please inspect for possible cracked cylinders", I would be stunned....

Research as much as you like, but still choose aircraft whose "people" you have faith in.....

Steepturn,

Am I the only one who is totally lost with the point you are trying to make? All I can glean from it is either check the records or trust the renting organisation.

Are you one of these paranoid types who mistrusts everything in life? Must make for a pretty sad existence?

When I rent a car I asume its legal. When I rent an aircraft I do the same.

We have to have a little faith in others in order to make our way in life.....

Nope, anything but.... I have ferried many dozen planes cross continent, having nothing more than the location of the aircraft, and the keys to start with. Looking at logs was not offered, I just looked at the plane and ran it - never a problem I could not handle. About 20 of those planes went on to fly Transatlantic to the UK right after I dropped them off in Maine. Never a problem.

The point I am making is that if one is not willing to trust those who went before with the plane, you should buy your own plane, or give up flying. 95% of pilots are entirely unable to make a meaningful assessment of the condition of the plane more than one or two defect reports back in the logs.

Have faith in the provider of the aircraft, or don't fly it. There's little a pilot can do beyond a good walk around check, and engine run up. So don't worry, just go and fly it......

I'm still curious as to the source of that "alternator tin/ferrous material". How did metal from an external accessory get in the engine oil?

Some accessories, like vacuum and hydraulic pumps are pad mount. Isolated from the inner of the engine. Others, like gear driven alternators, gear drive starters, and mags have a part of the accessory in the engine (more common on Continentals), so the failure of a part on the "engine" side of the accessory can put metal into the engine.

SHOCK COOLING

yup...and at one little outfit I flew at over 30 years ago we had "STAGE COOLING" descents.

Yes, a reduction in power, each and every 1000' timed perfectly all the way to idle at touchdown.

YES, it was almost impossible to do in IFR reality. But we tried and the engines kept working. You know the type of place, flying bank checks way back when.

I seem to recall that any airplane used FOR HIRE in the USA has to comply with the TBO (time between overhauls) indicated by the manufacturer.

Not sure what you guys do in England. Why not ask your CAA inspector and get a straight, LEGAL answer? Have you tried?

We already have the 'LEGAL' position, which is that aircraft offered for hire must have engines within their TBO, plus any extensions allowed.

The problem is that owners are no longer obliged to provide any paperwork to you to show that the aircraft is flying legally. You just have to take their word for it.


MJ:ok:

... Which is fine if everyone trusts everyone else. If a rental pilot is not confident the aircraft is safe and legal, they don't have to fly it!

Duty of care
 

If someone offers an aircraft for hire it is their responsability to ensure that the aircraft is fit for purpose, not having an engine that complys with the law for aircraft rental would in any UK court be at the very minimum breaching the duty of care that one has to the customer ( as well as the ANO ).

Any problems that occurred during the rental would eventualy bounce back to the rental company who would not have a leg to stand on in court.

IF your rental company will not allow you to see the MX logbooks, you should not fly the plane. PERIOD.

I wouldn't in the USA and screw em if they won't!

Glendalegoon
 

It is usual for the maintenance company to hold the log books and the rental company to use a Technical log for day to day operations, it depends on the type of log system they are using if total engine hours are shown. ( hours to next maintenance check or time critical maintenance task are)

This system is not a problem with most companies who are reputable but I can see how the bottom feeders in the industry could corupt the system.

Having said that the sort of people who would corupt a log without the total engine time shown would likely do the same to a log book that had the total engine time shown in it !

I've worked for about half a dozen flying schools on and off and I've never come across one of them that operated and aircraft out of years or hours. And I do check.

I am only familiar with three non-equity aircraft and all of their engines were " on condition"

Mach Jump as to why nothing gets done about it well I wonder if the CAA actually took an operator to court would they actually win?

An on condition o-320 with say 2500 hours on it is actually safer than one with 100 hours on it and this evidence for this is well published.

Mickey Kaye

If those 3 aircraft are really non-equity with on condition engines they are operating illegally.

Dishonesty
 

One flying club at Cardiff was prosecuted by the CAA for not keeping accurate log books.

This came to light when the aircraft was sold and it became clear from the condition of the engine did not match the log book hours, this was reported to the CAA.

They checked the aircraft logs against the airfield movements log and found that only one in three flights had been recorded, this practice was reflected across the club fleet so the owner was convicted of two counts of log book faulsification for each aircraft ( lucky for him the aircraft did not have VP props or it would have been three counts ). If i remember the total fine was IRO £25 K ten or so years back.