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]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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 :D
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Please make comments to FAA. It is easy to do. Take some time to get educated (I suggest starting here http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=103006&highlight=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.
 
Last edited:
Please comment

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
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Data

Bill,
In the Dockets section there is a presentation by AEC (ECI's parent company) that has some models and also I think in the joint NTSB/FAA/ECI meeting they presented some model information. Mostly what I remember is no issues below 460 deg CHT (the limit for Continental) and then as temps increase above that the joint weakens depending on how much the interference fit is.

Bob,
Although you may be right about the AD, I've put a lot of research and energy into my comments asking for real data and solid certification data that supports this action. I don't think the FAA will respond to just comments that express an opinion, but they area a data driven engineering outfit so hopefully questioning if the data supports the actions we may be successful. I hope folks will participate.

VR,
Tom
 
I have a relative who is retired from the FAA and he told me that the two big engine manufactures did everything they could to stop ECi from producing cylinders and hurting their business. Of course, this was a long time back.

When this NPRM came out, he commented that it sounded like a push to get ECi out of the business.

If that is true, and I'm not saying it is, that would be a frightening precedent.
 
rocketbob said:
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.
Click to expand...

I regret to say you are probably right Bob. But I had to render my two cents. I'm good friends with two amigos operating the affected engines. The proper care and operation of their engines is NOT high on their agenda. Other than filling with fuel & oil, "crank up & go" is their standard operating procedure. I've tried to enlighten them and realized I may as well lecture fire plugs. :(

I assure you, folks like this do exist. Maybe there are only two of them...if so; well, I know them.:rolleyes: Poor ole ECI cannot do anything to correct that situation. Mike Busch and forums like this try.

I think this is a sad situation for ECI. I like them myself. I hope they survive this onslaught.
 
There is a gentleman who keeps his 182 in one of our tee hangars behind our home who has replaced a number of cylinders. His standard operating procedure: fire up the airplane, taxi out, and go. No preheat, no warm up, quick mag check, and go.
 
The other thing worth mentioning is the internal politics of the FAA. It is not a nice place to work, and I have that first hand from a couple of inspectors that have since retired. The ones I know were generally tired of dealing with it. Frequently the middle management are people with no technical skills who routinely make poor decisions and don't give a hoot about the public they serve because they're not accountable to them. For a group of inspectors to work on an AD for months and end up not having it come to fruition is bad juju for their careers. The higher ups are the ones they're account to and its too bad because there are a lot of good people in the FAA that can't do the right thing because of internal politics, and they freely have admitted it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.