What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

New (February 2020) FAA AD - Superior Air Parts Crank Shaft

Hey all. Thanks for the informative thread. It took me over an hour to read it all but worth it. Long story short, I’m in the market for a Vans RV and came across an off market deal on a 7A. You probably know where this is going. Emailed Bill Ross and confirmed the crankshaft is covered. I didn’t see where it was explicitly stated in the previous posts but Bill said, assuming the AMOC was approved, Superior intends to cover the cost of the crankshaft rework and parts required to re-assemble the engine. The labor to remove engine and disassembly/re-assembly with be at the owners expense. I followed up asking what the plan was if the AMOC was not approved. He replied and said they have no contingency plan. I’m sure he means he’s not willing to share what back office discussions are being had, which is a fair response. Anyway, the topic of insurance has come up in previous posts but I’m not sure it got fully vetted. Has anyone received positive confirmation as to whether insurance would cover damage to an aircraft following a crank case related engine out, considering this AD does not apply to experimentals? Also, I’m not trying to kick off a debate as to whether we should be flying these engines. It’s your choice based on your personal risk tolerance. Just wanting to know if anyone has personal experience on how insurance companies manage these type of issues. I’ve reached out to my agent and he is checking. I’ll follow up if I hear back.
 
No personal experience on the insurance angle, but I'll be interested in hearing about whatever you learn. I'd think an FAA AD would be a pretty big billboard for an insurance company to hide behind.
 
Been awhile

Been awhile since this thread has been updated. Anybody heard anything lately? I’m unable to attend SNF this year (to the delight of the Superior booth reps, I’m sure), but perhaps someone that is lucky enough to attend could query said factory reps on their version of the status of the AMOC and factory plan of action.
 
I haven't heard anything lately, but I'm glad you revived the thread. My aircraft will see it's first flight as soon as weather allows, and it's been keeping me very busy lately. Everyone I've talked to about the build hears my story of the infamous second engine build. Every time I tell it I'm reminded I'm still out $12K, and Superior owes me. I also hope to hear something from someone after SNF.
 
I asked at SnF

today and was told to come back later as Bill had the information and he wasn’t in the booth.
 
Glad ya all there. Unable to make it this year but will be at Oshkosh for the week

Bill Ross. Don’t know what to think. Maybe the last AMIC is still going thru the FAA
About ready to call Justin again at the FSDO
Have fun at sun in Fun.
Jack
 
Last I heard, the FAA acknowledged that the AMOC would require further testing prior to approval. I'm guessing that could take a few more years if the FAA is in charge.
 
Yep, More of the Same

I “ambushed” Bill Ross at an American Bonanza Society forum at Oshkosh and asked about the AMOC. He asked if I was from the FAA and I told him that I was just a [not so] proud owner of a $35,000 paperweight. He replied, “I understand. We are meeting with the FAA next Thursday.” I couldn’t possibly care less about the AMOC, I’m just interested in how long they’ll keep trying to feed us the same line of BS.
 
Last edited:
Wingnut said:
I “ambushed” Bill Ross at an American Bonanza Society forum at Oshkosh and asked about the AMOC. He asked if I was from the FAA and I told him that I was just a [not so] proud owner of a $35,000 paperweight. He replied, “I understand. We are meeting with the FAA next Thursday.” I couldn’t possibly care less about the AMOC, I’m just interested in how long they’ll keep trying to feed us the same line of BS.
Click to expand...

I'm on the fence. I continue to fly mine as I always have without problem. Lots of acro, plenty of high power operations, cross counties, whatever. Never a blip of a problem with it. Purrs like a kitten. 168kts true at 7.6-7.8 gph in the sweet spot.

On the other hand, I'm probably selling soon as I'm going cruising on my boat, and would like to see some conclusion.

Also have a gorgeous mildly modified 425rwhp Porsche 930 coupe for sale if anyone is into other aircooled engines lol
 
I asked Justin at the FAA for an update. Things appear to have gone backwards. Makes you wonder if there will ever be an alternative means of compliance for these crankshafts in future…

From: Carter, Justin (FAA) <[email protected]>
Sent: 08 August 2022 13:40
Subject: RE: Superior Crankshaft AD 2020-25-12

Superior is still at work on this proposed AMOC, but there are no updates at this time.

Best,

Justin H. Carter
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion (AIR-7F1)

Fort Worth ACO Branch, Compliance and Airworthiness Division
 
Superior

Yes I did get to talk to Bill Ross at Oshkosh. Same old story it was in the FAA hands and they were suppose to have a meeting the week following Oshkosh

In the mean time like so many. Still flying mine do 30 hour oil samples with Blackstone and all indicators are great.

Bill stated that there were only about 80 affected aircraft in the experimental category

If there were more problems with the crankshafts other than the 3 recorded by Justin I would be more concerned.
 
EdH said:
I asked Justin at the FAA for an update. Things appear to have gone backwards. Makes you wonder if there will ever be an alternative means of compliance for these crankshafts in future…

From: Carter, Justin (FAA) <[email protected]>
Sent: 08 August 2022 13:40
Subject: RE: Superior Crankshaft AD 2020-25-12

Superior is still at work on this proposed AMOC, but there are no updates at this time.

Best,

Justin H. Carter
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion (AIR-7F1)

Fort Worth ACO Branch, Compliance and Airworthiness Division
Click to expand...

Great. Now I'm furious all over again.
 
Just wondering

How many of our RV’s are affected by this.

A list would be good so we would know if we’re waiting on a ship that will never come in

If there is in less than 20 aircraft what do you think the chances are. I bet nill!
 
Maybe set up a poll. I gave up on the AMOC. My engine is at Barrett right now for a new crank ($$$$).
Stewart Willoughby, 6 final assembly
 
lsissom said:
... Superior Air Parts owes me about $10,000.
Click to expand...
Owes me $12000. I've been thinking of contacting the FAA again and seeing what they have to say. I might have to settle for the stinking $750 Bill Ross offered to buy my old crankshaft back. I've been holding out for a potential $1500 for the refurbished crank, but without AMOC approval it remains a useless chunk of metal. :mad:
 
I'm in the same situation as Larry and Martin except Bill owes me over $14000 for my new crank!
Stewart Willoughby, 6
 
Six guys that we know of here in the U.K. - probably all owed an average of $14k.
 
I've decided I want closure on this long, painful and very expensive debacle. I've been in touch with Rhonda at Barrett; she's had no news on the AMOC but said she'd reach out to Bill Ross at Superior. I've left voice and webmail messages at Aircraft Specialties (who were supposed to do the AMOC overhauls) and sent emails to Justin Carter at the FAA and Bob Ross and Scott Hayes at Superior. I may take the pittance offered by Superior (parts supplied for the IRAN done by Barrett and the cost of a crank overhaul that can't legally be done yet) because it's better than nothing. If and when I receive any replies, I'll let y'all know.
 
don't hold your breath

I purchased a new crank and after the installation called Aircraft Specialties. The response was "hold onto it for now because we have no instructions on what we're supposed to do with it".
Not to use this as an opportunity to rag on SAP.....I feel like we're on a list that just does not exist as far as "the fix".
danny
IO-360 with new crank
and old paperweight crank in a box
 
I did receive a rapid reply from Bill Ross but it reads like a old boilerplate stating the established three options they are willing to accept. The first two sentences of the first option made me laugh out loud:
"For those customers who have not replaced their crankshafts and wish to have them reworked, Superior Air Parts agrees to rework the customer crankshafts in accordance with the submitted Alternative Method of Compliance (AMOC). We anticipate Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approval of the AMOC in the next few days."
I find it incredulous that they can keep using the phrase "in the next few days" over the course of more than two years.
 
Somewhere in a parallel universe....

In an alternate universe, the note from Bill would say, "For those customers who have not replaced their crankshafts and wish to have them reworked, Superior Air Parts agrees to rework the customer crankshafts in accordance with an Alternative Method of Compliance (AMOC). I have to be honest, however, and tell you that the draft AMOC is sitting on someone's desk and getting it moving toward FAA submission and approval seems to be above my pay grade. I will continue to do my best to get this done, and eventually, get your crankshafts reworked to a condition fully safe for flight."

Surely Bill realizes the damage he is doing to the "brand" by not being transparent about what the hang-up with the AMOC is.
 
Well, at least I'm getting responses...
I talked to Rhonda a little while ago; she has spoken with Bill Ross at Superior and Steve Willis at Aircraft Specialties. Without going into detail that cannot be corroborated, it would seem that there is a great deal of bureaucratic maneuvering going on between the FAA, Superior Air Parts and Aircraft Specialties. I am given the impression that the FAA is making it very difficult for either Superior or Aircraft Specialties to move ahead with an effective AMOC. I haven't heard from Justin Carter yet, but I did get this cryptic response from Steve Willis:
"Good afternoon, unfortunately there is no approved process yet to repair them."
Everyone is cagey with the customers while they continue their wrangling. I can't blame Superior or Aircraft Specialties for not being more candid because they have to play ball with the FAA and not aggravate their relationship with an agency that has power over them. Based on this and the field evidence that's been presented, I can't help wondering if the FAA is the biggest problem in all this. I hate to think that; I love the FAA! They let me FLY! (grovel grovel grovel...) Anyway, you get the point. I wish they could all come together and get to the point.
 
Last edited:
strahler13 said:
I don't have a dog in this fight, and this is a bit of thread drift, but when you call into the FAA for something like a registration change issue, the recording states: "We are currently working on documentation received August 16, 2022"

WTH is going on at the FAA? I'm sure the majority are working from home, post COVID, and have no real interest in serving their customers. Crazy.
Click to expand...

Ain't it great working for the gubmint?
 
The latest news, and it isn't good...

Just received this reply from Justin Carter:
"Martin,
At this time Superior does not have an AMOC for AD 2020-25-12. Their prior submittal was rejected.
Best regards,
Justin H. Carter"

I'm so tired of being infuriated. Now I have to present this to Bill Ross and grovel for $750... and once I give him the bad crankshaft back and take his paltry settlement my total loss jumps from $12000 to $16250.

I am just so tired of being infuriated.

MJF
 
Like a few others. I too am infuriated with the lack of transparency by Superior.
I have continued to fly as mine is an experimental engine made up of Superior parts from JJ airparts. Assembled by Gann Aviation in Barwick,Ga.



Talking to Justin a while back and there we’re still only the 3 failures. It would be nice to of all the ones replaced were their any cracks discovered in the removed
Cranks

I am trying to find a new crank. And see if I can get this process started.

Seems like Continental has a big AD too now.
And it is amazing they already have AMOC’s in place.

Pretty soon these cranks will be priced at what I paid for my engine
Jack
 
This is my ending to this tale

After delays caused by a Texas ice storm, the crankshaft was shipped back to Superior at their cost; they received it on February 7 and I received proof of delivery. After a week of silence I sent Bill Ross an email requesting his own acknowledgment of receipt; I received no reply. After another week I sent another strongly worded letter to Bill Ross and Scott Hayes. Bill replied quickly and explained he had been traveling for a week and was just getting caught up. He sent me a release to fill out, sign and have notarized. The release read like it had been written (poorly) two years ago, providing nonexistent options that cited a nonexistent AMOC, nonexistent SB numbers and missing option qualifiers. I edited my own copy to point out the errors in the aged release and submitted two notarized versions: the edited one that, if accepted, would get me a few more dollars, and an unedited one for the minimal amount.
I finally received a check today for $750.00 and deposited it.
The final score: a net loss of $16,260.00 which includes the $10.00 notary fee but does not include all the travel costs incurred in driving a total of 3800 miles back and forth to Tulsa twice, dropping the engine off for rebuild and then returning to pick it up. This story has been a terrible tale from the beginning, but at least it's over now. My thanks to Rhonda Barrett for all of her assistance in this matter, and for everyone here who has helped me get through this debacle.
 
I aint settling ...

I'm not settling ...
Not for no $750 I'm not ...no way.
I'm insulted if that's the offer from Superior and will NEVER take it.
I don't need closure that bad.
 
Last edited:
I'm not any happier than anyone else about Bill Ross, but I suspect his overlords at Superior Aviation China bear as much, if not more, responsibility for the terrible customer support through this AD. Had I done my homework before selecting an engine and saw that Superior was Chinese-owned since 2010, I'd certainly have gone with Lycoming.

That's a mistake I won't make again now that building an RV-15 becomes a possibility/probability.

ds
 
ab1900 said:
Did anyone have their cranks tested? We’re there any cracks found?

Has there been any more failures?
Click to expand...
From one of the articles: the crankshaft assembly cannot be inspected without destroying it. The FAA concluded that there is no acceptable safety alternative to the replacement of the crankshaft assembly.
 
afii58 said:
They are offering to pay shipping and give you 2k for crankshaft...reach out to Teresa Ballard at Superior
Click to expand...

I talked with Bill Ross today about mine. What I understood him to say it that they would work it one of two ways. But the end result is you get all one-time-use/consumables needed to replace the crank shaft plus $750 for returning the old crank to them. So, total value, according to Bill today, is about $2k.

And, just to bump my original question: has anyone ever heard of ANY ADDITIONAL failures of crankshafts identified in the AD? I have only heard of 3. All 3 were in Lycoming engines installed on late model Cessna 172 aircraft.
 
Last edited:
I guess I have had my head in a bucket the past few years as I only became aware of the SAP crankshaft AD this past week, and then only by happening upon a mention of it in a Member Central article in the March Issue of Sport Aviation. I have an RV-7 which I completed in March of 2016 that has a Superior XP-IO-360 in it, so this was obviously a concern.

I have spent a number of hours this week reviewing this lengthy thread, reading the text of the AD and reviewing the various documents assigned to the AD Docket. Below is a listing of my findings and thoughts. I welcome any additions, clarifications, or corrections.

  • There have been three failures of the affected crankshafts over a 19 month period, one on 3/6/17, another on 8/3/17, and the last on 10/31/18.
  • There were no failures in the 28 months from last failure to the effective date of the AD, and no failures in the 3+ years since the AD was issued.
  • All three failures occurred in overhauled Lycoming engines where the SAP crankshaft was installed under PMA.
  • All three failures occurred in C172S aircraft used for flight training.
  • One failure occurred during ground run-up, another in cruise, and I was not able to determine the phase of operation on the third failure. None of the failures resulted in an NTSB Report.
  • The three failed crankshafts had 627hours, 1400 hours and 2100 hours on them.
  • No failures have occurred in Superior XP engines.
  • At the time of the AD there were 192 affected crankshafts. 115 were installed in Certified aircraft (presumably Lycoming) and the remaining 77 in Experimental aircraft (probably XP?).
  • I am not an engineer or metallurgist, but reading through the reports it struck me that white layer was mentioned almost as an aside, not as the proximate cause. Excessive white layer was the reason given by the FAA for the AD issuance.
  • FAA and SAP seem to conflict on what the allowable level of white layer is for this part. SAP says parts were acceptable, FAA says not.
  • I am curious if the FAA talked directly with the testing engineers or was their conclusion based solely on the written reports.
  • In the Benefits section of the AD the FAA has assumed that 100% of the affected crankshafts would fail if they were allowed to remain in service. I find that curious.
  • SAP has said that an AMOC for refurbishing affected crankshafts was eminent, but over three years after the AD it has not been approved.
  • SAP is offering to provide consumable items required for the crankshaft replacement plus $750 for the affected crankshaft. It is my impression that the $750 number came about as that was what SAP estimated the cost of refurbishment to be under the still-not-approved AMOC.
  • Reading through this thread it is obvious that there has been a great deal of frustration with this (understandably) and especially with SAP’s response. It does not appear that they have done anything to try to aggressively get ahead of this situation.
  • At $10,000 per crankshaft the cost of replacing all affected crankshafts would have been just shy of $2 million. I am guessing that the reputational hit that SAP has inflicted on itself is far greater than $2 million.
All this said, when I checked the parts listing for my engine I found that my crankshaft is included in the affected parts. But because my airplane is Experimental and had been issued its Airworthiness Certificate prior to the AD it is not covered by the AD. I have flown the last three years unaware of the AD. Time in service is about 250 hours.

The justification for the AD strikes me as a bit sketchy, but obviously I have a bias. I will continue to fly my airplane but expect I will go ahead and make the crankshaft swap at some point.

If any of you are attending Sun ‘n Fun over the next week and are able to glean any additional information from SAP on this subject, please post it to this thread. Maybe a bunch of folks showing up at their booth with AD’ed crankshafts would make an impression.
 
Last edited:
DragonflyAero said:
...
  • At $10,000 per crankshaft the cost of replacing all affected crankshafts would have been just shy of $2 million. I am guessing that the reputational hit that SAP has inflicted on itself is far greater than $2 million.
Click to expand...

The NPRM discussion quoted an average cost per unit in excess of $14K. Including parts and labor.

Before the AD, a SAP PMA'd crank was running just over $4K. Now, if you can find one, they're north of $9K. And I think Lyc/Cont equivalents are more.

This receipt was dated 10/16/2019. On that day, the website said it was in stock. When I called to ask why it was suddenly back ordered and when it would be in stock, I was told there was no restocking date. But, unofficially it would be at least 9 months out.

53632698700_4e7e10515b_c.jpg
 
DragonflyAero said:
I have spent a number of hours this week reviewing this lengthy thread, reading the text of the AD and reviewing the various documents assigned to the AD Docket. Below is a listing of my findings and thoughts. I welcome any additions, clarifications, or corrections.
Click to expand...

You summarized all the materials perfectly.

DragonflyAero said:
If any of you are attending Sun ‘n Fun over the next week and are able to glean any additional information from SAP on this subject, please post it to this thread. Maybe a bunch of folks showing up at their booth with AD’ed crankshafts would make an impression.
Click to expand...

I would not hold my breath for any change at sun & fun. The situation is what it is at this point. I rebuilt my engine 2 years ago with a new crank and just shipped my crank back to Superior to close out thinking about it anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top