Thanks for the link.
But delay the entire process by another 2 months? I?m sure most operators would rather just like to get this resolved as quickly as possible?
If I knew the risk is minimal, I would still be flying, but getting up in the air now feels like playing russian roulette - knowing you have a potential issue, choose to ignore it and then just ?hope for the best?... not the way I think a good aviator should take to the skies.
Aviation, especially general aviation, is a game of risks and when we take to the skies we take calculated risks, be it with weather, fuel reserves, runway lengths, takeoff weight or mechanical dependability. Maintaining the aircraft I fly to the highest standard has always been my goal to know I can trust the machine I carry myself and loved ones in. Knowing there is a potential flaw (probably fatal) in the system and going for a flight is borderline reckless in my opinion.
We spent tens of thousands of dollars of our hard earned money buying a ?Superior? engine that now turned out to be ?inferior?. I think it?s time for Superior to step up to the plate and give a decent response as to how we are going to get this resolved ASAP.
The FAA won?t send a serious note like this out ?for the fun of it?. I?m sure they will have valid reasons for their evaluation of the flaw in the crankshafts. AOPA extending the comment time won?t make the crankshafts fix themselves over said period. They have to be replaced at one stage or another anyway.
Maybe my view on this is flawed, but it is how I see it and I truly hope it can be resolved for once and for all.