The International Cessna^® 170 Association

Why are owners of new Slick Mags (Less than 12 months and 85 hours) having to pay for inspections on the defective mags? SB2-08A concerns premature wear of the breaker point cam. This should be the responsibility of the manufaturer which after a lengthy and heated phone conversation refused to offer any support whatsoever. Suggest affected owners call Unison and demand they stand behind their product.
Unison Industries 904-739-4000 Tech support (Joe Logie 904-739-4081) or ( Dave Conklin 904-739-4211)

The above post was probably made by Bob Coats rather than his wife Carol. On the other hand perhaps Carol did posted it for Bob. In any case he called me to ask how he could spread the word. Apparently Slick customer support is lacking according to Bobs recent experience.

We also discussed how manufacturers of airplane parts don't seem to stand behind their product.

It is a said commentary on the state of affairs in the airplane business.

You are right Bruce, It's Bob's secretary posting for him

Slick Service Bulletin SB2-08 is a breaker point inspection. I do not have a copy of this SB, but SB3-08 is a similar bulletin and it specifies that Unison magnetos have a one-year warranty period. (See below) An inspection is normally the responsibility of the operator. If the inspection discovers defective materials, etc., then a warranty claim may be made under the provisions of the warranty. (I don't recall any situation where any mfr will pay to accomplish an inspection mandated by an AD note, even tho' they may cover defects uncovered by such inspection.)


The warranty honored by Unison/Slick is stated here:
http://www.unisonindustries.com/docs/SB3-08.pdf

"WARRANTY
INFORMATION: If damage or premature wear listed in this Service Bulletin is discovered during inspection,
and the magneto is within Unison's 1-year warranty period, the magneto may be returned
through your point of sale for warranty replacement. For magnetos outside the 1-year
warranty period in which components listed in this bulletin have failed, those components
may be returned under warranty through your point of sale."

Hope this info helps.

Ok lets get this straight.

Slick SB2-08A is a SB which requires the inspection of the breaker point cam for a abnormal wear rate. Times for the inspection are dependent on the amount of time on the mag at present but after 200 hours with no abnormal wear to the cam the SB is terminated unless a new cam is installed then it starts all over. The inspection for cam wear is to check for unusual drift of engine timing in other words a simple timing check.

Slick SB3-08 is a SB which requires the inspection of the carbon button for abnormal wear as well as a few other points in the mag. This one calls for the different inspection interval depending on mag total time but eventually is a 250 hour inspection. Inspection requires splitting the mag. There in no terminating action for this SB at this time.

Each SB lists the mags by serial number that are effected and in the majority of the cases it is the same mags for both SBs.

Warranty is the same in that if a defect is found while under the 1 year warranty you return the entire mag to Slick for total replacement. If outside the warranty period Slick will replace just the worn parts and you will have to have them installed in the mag.

I've attached both SBs.
I understand from Bob that Slick will not pay for any inspection or removal and re-installation of any mags and that is the rub with him and it does not sit very well with me either. Yes I know it is not normal procedure for any manufacture to pay for inspections and work required to replace defect parts and that is the sad commentary in the industry which I alluded to in my first post.

Many people went to Slick because for a long time their mag had no ADs (and still technically don't that I know of) and the Bendix did. This was a selling point with Slick. This is no longer the case now and that also adds to the disappointment.

Of course there are only two manufactures of magnetos, like many other aviation products, and if you want your engine to run you will need to use one of these manufacturers mags. We are pretty much at their mercy and that compounds the disappointment.

How many times can an aircraft owner take it in the shorts and proclaim he is still having fun in aviation?

Thanks for posting the SB's, Bruce.

I did not mean to imply that an AD note exists for Slick magnetos, I only wanted to offer a similar situation in which mfr's will pay for defective parts under a warranty program, but will not pay for labor to make an inspection to determine if a defective part exists. (I'm not defending them one bit, but I'm trying to assist in preventing more frustration than already exists in such matters.)

The two SB's certainly are different and inspect for different parts. The reason I chose SB3-08 to use as an illustration was because I had a copy of it. It was used only as an illustration to how an inspection may reveal a defective part that might be replaced under warranty. The labor in such inspections is not covered, only the part.

In the SB2-08 being discussed (which regards point cams) the warranty statement says:

"If damage or premature wear listed in this Service Bulletin is discovered during inspection,
and the magneto is within Unison's 1-year warranty period, the magneto may be returned
through your point of sale for warranty replacement. For magnetos outside the 1-year
warranty period in which the replacement cam, or the cam as part of the contact point
assembly kit has failed, the cam may be returned under warranty through your point of
sale."

From Unison's point of view, their parts/products are warranteed for 1-year. The discovery of defective parts (i.e. a warranty claim for the parts) lay with the owner. Not all cams are defective, but Unison obviously feels the liability which exists if defective cams are out there and they don't make owners aware of the possibility. Therefore Unison issues a SB to advise owners of the possibility.

Since Service Bulletins are not required or "mandatory" for Part 91 owners, the inspection is not required. It is up to the owner to decide if he wishes to make the inspection... and incur the cost of making the inspection. If the inspection reveals a defective part that is under warranty, they will replace it in accordance with the warranty provisions.

While I agree with Bob and Carol that such a convoluted process does not adequately address all the costs involved in complying with service bulletins, ... it may be helpful to realize this is not an automobile safety-recall program. It's a Service Bulletin. (Lots of SB's are issued against our autos but we typically do not subscribe to the publications and therefore do not know about them, and even if we did we likely would not comply with them unless some obvious failure occurs to bring defects to our attention.)

The similar action to an auto safety-recall program is the AD note, a maintenance action which is mandatory for every aircraft in order to maintain legislated airworthiness. It's not an apples-to-apples comparison since there's no gov't mandated safety-recall program which applies to aircraft such as applies to autos. And that's equally infuriating to the aircraft owner, but the AD system pre-dates the auto-recall system and the AD system affects far fewer aircraft owners than auto owners. (There simply aren't enough airplane owners to influence gov't to force mfr's to treat aircraft like autos, nor is there precedence since the AD note precedes the safety-recall programs. I could go on about corporations versus little guys but that'd be another venture off topic.)

I'm sorry to say it, but unless inspections are made mandatory by an AD note, and unless the product falls within a warranty period during the effectivity of that AD note, then it's unlikely a mfr will cover an inspection under warranty.

Additionally, mfr's don't want AD notes issued against their products because that would adversely affect sales. Mfr's heartily fight the issuance of AD notes for that reason, and many times owners/purchasers of products make purchasing choices based upon the existence (or lack thereof) of AD notes. This is not always the entire picture, as this example illustrates.

N9149A wrote:...Warranty is the same in that if a defect is found while under the 1 year warranty you return the entire mag to Slick for total replacement. If outside the warranty period Slick will replace just the worn parts and you will have to have them installed in the mag....

I don't read it quite the same. If outside the warranty period I don't think Unison will replace the worn parts. The way I read it, regardless of the age of the magneto, if the CAM has been replaced, and if the CAM is still within one-year, then it will be warranted.

Yes George after rereading the warranty I agree. It seems Slick will replace cams found defective with less than 1 year in service by one method or another and they will replace carbon buttons by one method or another regardless when they are found. I wonder if that is what Slick intended?

Why are aviation recalls different than automobiles? You make a product, you warranty it and then you sell it to a customer. The product has a problem, under warranty you take it in and inspect it to see if it is faulty or not. If it is they replace it. If it is not faulty you pay nothing, and the manufacturer pays for the inspection. You have a satisfied customer. Now you have created one of the best selling tools in the business who is going to recommend that product to other customers. It is no different than auto recalls. There are fewer airplanes than automobiles so therefore the expenxe is not near the cost of an automobile recall. When a customer pays somewhere between $600 to $800 for a product you damn sure won't be happy when you have to fork out money ($50-100 per hour) for an inspection on the newly purchased product.

As pilots we just need to stand up and fight. A good example is when you purchase a brand new engine for your airplane why in hell do you have to turn in your old core? You just paid for everything new.

You don't have to give them your core unless you wish them to honor the price they quoted to you for their exchange program. All mfr's will sell engines outright with no core required.

Thanks for letting me vent my frustrations. I appreciate the response, it just seems to me that in the aviation business that manufacturers ought to be held accountable for recalls the same as other manufacturers

I think most of us agree that the AD system and the Mandatory Service Bulletin systems should be "recall" programs similar to the auto industry. I'm pretty sure there'd be a cost-to-benefit adjustment, however.