FAA Continental Cylinder proposed AD

kinger · #1 08-12-2013, 09:07 AM

The FAA proposed an Airworthiness Directive (AD) to limit the allowable time-in-service of more than 30,000 TITAN brand 520- and 550-series cylinder assemblies installed on about 6,000 Continental IO-520, TSIO-520, IO-550 and IOF-550 engines.

http://www.aviationpros.com/news/111...ers-83-million

grub0927 · #2 08-13-2013, 10:35 AM

Eliminate a PMA'r and the OEM raise prices. This can't be good for GA.

DanH · #3 08-13-2013, 11:46 AM

ECI is offering very good arguments as to why the AD is unnecessary and counterproductive. If you agree file a comment with the FAA.
[ed. I believe this link will work for comments on line]

Buggsy2 · #4 08-13-2013, 12:00 PM

Few if any of these engines are used in RVs, right? What engine does Vans recommend for the RV-10 and -14?

The article cited is interesting, I'd like to see the FAA's side of it. But, with a Lyc IO-320 in my RV-9A, I probably won't bother

grayforge · #5 08-13-2013, 11:26 PM

I don't think there are many Continentals in RV's :-)

SHIPCHIEF · #6 08-13-2013, 11:44 PM

Continental today, Lycoming tomorrow. Don't hold back on commenting, cylinders have not previously been time limited parts. Once removed from an engine they are judged by their condition. This starts a whole new beaurocratic nightmare that needs to be stopped right now.
Mike Busch (sp?) has pointed out some statistical anomalies in previous cylinder failure ADs that wouldn't pass with current research. Severly abused products that failed should not be used as proof of manufacturers defect. Also, aftermarket parts that fail at a lower statistical rate that OEM equipment are being AD'd here.
Improved condition inspection during servicing or rebuilding is a much better path to improved service.

gereed75 · #7 08-14-2013, 06:41 AM

Please make comments to FAA. It is easy to do. Take some time to get educated (I suggest starting here http://www.vansairforce.com/communit...ight=cylinders ) Form an educated opinion. Make a comment. It's important!

ECI is at the forefront of cylinder development. Don't believe me? Go read their website. They have done a lot of good engineering from which we all benefit whether you have a Continental or a Lyc.

Who knows if they can survive another heavy handed recall. We do not want to lose suppliers in this already too small industry.

Tom Horne · #8 08-22-2013, 07:54 PM

Search Google for 'ECI NPRM'. There you can find the links to all the data. If you read the comments and the materials presented it's hard to see why this
AD is supported by solid data. I agree totally that we in the aviation community need to stick together in this era of more government influences regardless of whether it's a Lyc or Continental. What may even be scarier is that Continental and Superior are now owned by the Chinese. The only remaining source for US Continental style cylinder parts is ECI. I think they're doing a great job and hate to see the cost, reduction in safety, and possibly reduction in suppliers with this AD that I feel is not justified by the data presented.

Thanks,

Tom Horne

BillL · #9 08-22-2013, 08:49 PM

I looked at several of the links and did not find the projected failure rate of these components. I did not look at them all but did find the raw data. Has anyone seen a Weibull plot with confidence bands plotted for the raw failure data to see what we are really dealing with here? This would seem to be the proper way to assess the failure rate and "life" of the cylinders.

rocketbob · #10 08-22-2013, 08:53 PM

The FAA doesn't care about comments for AD NPRM's. Once their mind is made up to pursue an AD the NPRM process is nothing but that, a process. Last year there was an stabilator horn AD on my Comanche and many good common sense arguments were made against it, the FAA ignored them all with terse responses to each commenter along the lines of no data to support your claims.