Continental O-300

[c170b53]

Stuff happens to 50 year old cranks.....seriously new stuff can fail just as readily.

[KS170A]

I also learned the value of a qualified A&P (as opposed to "any") the hard way, albeit not as hard as the Piper guy. First airplane my family owned was a C-120. When it came time to overhaul the C-85, the "A&P" removed and disassembled the engine, told my unsuspecting father to take the crank & cam to the local auto shop to have machined & inspected. This was out in the middle of nowhere West Texas, so it seemed okay (after all, the "A&P" said to do it...). After "overhaul" was complete, my father and I both flew the airplane around 100 hrs or so until finally the crankshaft broke in two. Interestingly, it was not the crank that got my attention nearly as much as the generator drive gear that sheared off the generator and rattled around in the accessory case! Upon disassembly in front of the friendly FAA inspector, we pulled the gen off, fished out the gear with coupling still attached. Airworthiness Directive 49-50-01 requires inspection of the generator drive coupling rubber disc. That disc was not in the coupling, nor was there any evidence anywhere in the engine that it had disintegrated (as the AD implies could happen). As for the crankshaft, we elected to install a new O-200 crank per STC. When I compared the new and old cranks, it was evident what had happened. The auto machine shop had cut the radii of the crank journals way too tight, thus increasing the stress and causing the fracture. I lucked out...had a nice open road on which to land, and it happened while I was in A&P school, so that became my powerplant overhaul project.

Incidentally, that "A&P" had died a couple years before the failure, but I doubt his authenticity to this day.

[GAHorn]

You could always have your local A&P do it, or you can under the supervision of any A&P.
It isn't like you must have all the machining tools, I send out everything to Aircraft specialities in Tulsa OK, and the case goes to Chuck Ney Enterprises. and buy all the new parts at aircraft specialities. and the cylinders I use are ECI.
http://www.aircraft-specialties.com

I am not sure I would let "any A&P" supervise it. We just had a serious accident up in the Sierras where a Lycoming engine (PA28) failed 20 hours after the owner "overhauled" it under the supervision of an "A&P". Initial investigation suggests a gasket was improperly installed. Sound familiar? The A&P is not coming forward either. In fact, he is nowhere to be found. The pilot signed off his own return to service in the engine log and his records of work/overhaul performed on the engine components are strewn about a hangar somewhere. This poor guy's wife is not really anxious to round all that up. When he was able to talk with the NTSB investigator, he reported the engine ran great for the first 20 hours. Hmmm.

A qualified mechanic should be involved in any assembly of an aircraft engine and supervision should be full time meaning every step in the process. These engines are deceptively simple. There are Ads, updated service bulletins that supersede the old manufacturer's manual and if you don't know what you are doing you are asking for trouble. There is nothing wrong with building your own engine but my advice is to have someone like Downey involved every step of the way. "Any A&P" who isn't regularly involved/experienced in engine assembly may miss something and should also have assistance from a Downey or someone who knows what he/she is doing. For me, I would send it to a qualified Repair Station like Lycon or Skyways period.

Incidentally, the PA28 pilot had his transponder on 1200 but did not squawk 7700 when his engine quit over the most inhospitable terrain in the US. The only way to reach that wreck was by long line. Fortunately, an alert Fresno ATC controller heard a radio call and found the guy's transponder readout in his computer. This gave him a fix where the code was lost and he was able to send a CHP helicopter to rescue the pilot who ended up in intensive care for a few days. He would have died if there had been any further delay. To his credit, this pilot did have a flight plan but it would have been hours before that would have come in to play. This controller asked me why pilots are reluctant to declare emergencies or recognize when they are in deep trouble. Good question, because it happens more often than you might think. We need to be more careful and that is the reason I posted this. I apologize to those who may be offended.

I see so many mistakes in your post that it's no wonder the LYCOMING quit.

What happened to the out of overhaul test? that surely was not complied with. I'll wager the engine was test run on the aircraft, check the manual.

The 0-300 series is a brick simple engine, and all you must do, is follow the book, test it properly.

What "mistakes" do you see in his post, Tom? What specific "mistakes" do you see?

I suspect you do not mean what is written...I see no "mistakes" in Harlow's post. I also see absolutely no reason anyone should be "offended". I see good advice and well-founded too.

I suspect, Tom, what you meant was that you did not see any reference to a post-assy operational test of the engine in Harlow's post. But lack of reference to that in Harlow's post does not constitute an actual mistake. (Such test may have actually occurred and not mentioned by Harlow.)

Also, it is common to test a fresh overhaul on the aircraft (in lieu of a test cell) with field overhauls and it is not prohibited to do so. While not ideal, actual testing and running-in the engine upon the aircraft is not disqualifying.

I think the point to be taken from Harlow's post is that "supervision" by an A&P is often misunderstood (and even eagerly promoted by some) as meaning that after the work was completed, someone with an A&P certificate strolled by, saw the work completed, and signed the logbooks.
That is NOT supervision.

The FARs require that each and every step, procedure, and activity be performed under the DIRECT supervision/observation/participation...in effect, each step must be under the direction and control.... of a properly qualified A&P. I believe that is the intent of the post.

Furthermore, I would add that the selection of WHICH A&P to utilize for a supervisor or for outright overhauls/repairs is CRITICAL.
There are lots of holders of A&P certificates who have absolutely no business working on airplanes and engines.... just like there are many persons who do NOT have the certificate but who DO have the expertise and knowledge to do so very well. (It's just not legal for them to perform the work they do so fine without also being supervised and documented....Gary Hanson comes to mind, a master machinist and accomplished aircraft mechanic who spent an entire career working under the certification of his employer but never personally applied for the A&P certificate. I'd sooner fly behind an engine he assembled than I would many others who happen to have passed a test for an A&P certificate.)
Anyway...the point is, choose who does your repairs/overhauls carefully. Not everyone with a certificate knows what they're actually doing.

[T. C. Downey]

Yes George there are service bulletins that allow engines to be tested on aircraft but Lycoming requires the engine be fitted with a test club not a prop made for flight. How many A&P mechanics do you know who own such a prop? they also require instrumentation not installed in the aircraft, and a test period that would have over heated the engine on the aircraft with out a special cowl made for the purpose. Twice in my tenure as an A&P I have seen the FAA grab an A&P's ticket for not being able to prove the test was completed correctly. Simply by asking the A&P to show them the test club & cowl, or prove they rented one.

Yes again, there are mechanics that are not proficient in their jobs, but it not difficult to find one that is.

It's not difficult the read between the lines and know the A&P in this case was not doing their job and was the cause of the accident resulting in the in-flight failure.



OBTW, You wouldn't nit pick an old Mech on word usage would you?

[c170b53]

There are lots of holders of A&P certificates who have absolutely no business working on airplanes and engines.... just like there are many persons who do NOT have the certificate but who DO have the expertise and knowledge to do so very well.

That's gold.

Yes again, there are mechanics that are not proficient in their jobs, but it not difficult to find one

Likely easy to spot If an individual knows what you know Tom, but a newbie may not be able to(and weren't we all, at one time, really new ).
Tom, I'm thinking you might have forgotten the road you've traveled.

[GAHorn]

Tom, I was not picking on you or your writings...(or wordings), I was just thinking that what you wrote appeared to find fault with voorhees comments (rather than the actual target...the "mechanic" we all know was likely at fault) when you said, "I see so many mistakes in your post...", when you meant, "I see so many mistakes in the engine work you talk about in your post..".

And I'd never knowingly try to pick a fight with you because I know I'd likely be wrong.

[T. C. Downey]

No Way George, I simply use a wrench better than I use this key board.

[voorheesh]

Tom, I appreciate your posts and understand your point of view. I would fly behind any engine you built or supervised. General aviation is fortunate to have people of your experience just like us 170 owners are also fortunate to have George and Bruce who come up with a lot of good answers for us and spend considerable time with too little recognition it seems. I was just pointing out that things don't always work out and we need to learn from other's misfortunes.

I also should have mentioned that the pilot in the accident I described did a few things really right. He never stopped flying his airplane right up to the point of impact. Some would have freaked out facing that terrain and lost control with a fatal outcome. Aviate Navigate Communicate. Dial in 7700 if you have time, but never stop flying the ship.

[T. C. Downey]

The most important thing to learn from the incident is simply pick an A&P that knows their stuff.

[voorheesh]

Quick update on this accident primarily in fairness to all A&Ps. There was no A&P involved with this airplane. This pilot and a buddy modified it with experimental aircraft parts from EFII. O-320 was modified with fuel injection, automotive ignition, batteries, etc. No evidence of an annual. The fuel system was drastically altered. These guys were operating completely outside of the rules. There was no insurance on this airplane and when it was removed from BLM land at taxpayer expense, the true story came out. What failed was a simple coupling from the oil pressure line to an illegal transducer/pressure gauge. This was an improper fitting that severed due to vibration. It was not equipped with a restrictor to minimize oil loss and the engine stopped due to oil depletion/starvation. There were other problems with internal components of the engine installed by these characters but these had nothing to do with the engine failure.

In fairness, this project was carefully executed and the workmanship was ok, while the concept was completely illegal. It was also a life changing event for this poor pilot and, at least for me, a lesson on how not to succeed in aviation. I only write it here to give you guys something to think about (in case this stuff is of interest).

[GAHorn]

Harlow...were these guys named Manny, Moe, and Jack? (dig directed at bluEldr)

[blueldr]

I always managed to get one of the pep boys to do my annuals for me until I got my own stamp made.

[voorheesh]

Go BL!

[blueldr]

Harlow,
I'm glad that you seem to realize that some of my comments are stuffed with consideral BS, even though I have been known to cut corners at times.

[voorheesh]

Always a pleasure hearing from you BL. Merry Christmas and Happy new year!! Damn, I forgot you said Bah Humbug the other day. So have a good one!