By ANDY PASZTOR CONNECT
U.S. aviation regulators on Monday will propose stepped-up inspections and accelerated replacement of engine parts on about 6,000 small propeller planes, one of the most sweeping regulatory moves affecting general aviation in the past decade.

The Federal Aviation Administration will call for enhanced safety checks of some 30,000 cylinder assemblies installed as replacements parts over the years on certain widely used Continental Motors Inc. engines that power many private aircraft, including popular Beech and Cessna models.

In a preliminary copy of the proposal posted on the Federal Register website Friday, the agency said its action was prompted by multiple reports of dangerous cracks, leaks or failures of cylinders and aluminum cylinder heads, which could result in engine failure "and loss of the airplane."

Since 2000 federal air-safety officials have identified more than 70 instances of cracks or failures of cylinder assemblies manufactured by closely held Danbury Aerospace, based in San Antonio, though the majority were resolved by previous safety directives.

Continental Motors was acquired in 2011 by China's Avic International Holding Corp., but the FAA's proposal covers only replacement parts supplied by Danbury Aerospace.

The latest proposal was prompted by FAA findings of 35 fractured cylinders manufactured prior to 2009, none of which the company says resulted in accidents or injuries.

Controversy over the parts heated up last year, when the National Transportation Safety Board urged the FAA to take action.

Government and industry officials said that the new directive released by the FAA, which had been in the works for years, has no connection to Friday's crash of a small plane in Connecticut that killed four people, including two children on the ground.

Capping years of negotiations between regulators and industry officials, the proposal comes over the objections of Danbury Aerospace units that manufactured and marketed the parts.

Company officials have told the government that the latest batch of failures stemmed from excessive temperatures resulting from improper operation of the engines, rather than from alleged design or manufacturing flaws.

As recently as April, the company told the FAA in a letter that potential maintenance errors mean "the dangers of removing cylinders are significant," and are likely to "result in an increased number of accidents and injuries."

The company projects as many as 10,000 private planes could be affected by the FAA's move.

Danbury Aerospace officials previously told the FAA that such a mandate could force the company into bankruptcy proceedings, according to company documents posted as part of the agency's deliberations.

In an interview on Sunday, Ty Stoller, Danbury Aerospace's president, reiterated that potential lawsuits and customer demands to replace the parts free of charge could end in a bankruptcy-court filing.

If it becomes final, the FAA's so-called airworthiness directive is expected to cost the industry about $82 million over roughly the next two years.

The FAA will accept public comments over the next 60 days, and Danbury is urging aircraft owners, maintenance companies and other interested parties to respond.

Over the weekend, the company put out a statement calling the FAA's proposal misguided and unsubstantiated, noting that the same operational issues pose a significant safety risk "for the entire general aviation fleet." The statement also said the FAA's move threatens to "cause a significant financial hardship to thousands of aircraft owners."

The FAA and the NTSB formed a task force in 2005 to look into failures of cylinder heads, including those manufactured by Danbury Aerospace's Airmotive Engineering unit, due to metal fatigue.

The company cooperated with the government and changed manufacturing processes in 2009.

In its proposal, the FAA stressed it acted only after conducting a detailed review "to consider all aspects of the information provided" by Airmotive. For many parts, inspection and compression tests are proposed four times a year; the FAA wants some to be replaced within 25 flight hours.

During discussions with the FAA, Danbury Aerospace and agency officials scuffled over whether sensitive company-generated test data should be returned to the company.

Eleven years have passed since the last time the FAA called for safety fixes covering so many small private planes at one time.

Starting in 2002, FAA officials mandated replacement of thousands of improperly heat-treated crankshafts in engines produced by Textron Inc.'s Lycoming unit. Fatal accidents, serious engine-failure incidents and other problems, including mandated engine recalls, cost that company more than $170 million.

Earlier this year, the agency ordered enhanced inspections and repairs where necessary to cables that control tail surfaces on about 30,000 Piper Aircraft Inc. planes. But those extra checks were less costly or disruptive than the current proposal, because they were mandated to occur during annual aircraft inspections.

The FAA originally anticipated releasing its proposed fixes a year ago. In the end, agency officials took the unusual step of crafting a package that is tougher and covers more aircraft than proposals initially contemplated by agency and safety board experts.

This AD will also effect pponk o-470 big bores using the 520 cylinders as well. All of this is probably caused by high cht and or detonation,not by ECI.

VT180 wrote:This AD will also effect pponk o-470 big bores using the 520 cylinders as well. All of this is probably caused by high cht and or detonation,not by ECI.

How high is high?

I first heard of this as I was doing the final torque sequence on our o-470k with New ECI Tittans. I called Eci and talked with them at length,good people-Awesome product. This (nprm) notice of proposed rule making does not effect any o-470 cylinders,only the 520 and 550.the good folks at Eci told me it was due to two problems,1 high cht (over 500 degrees or more. 2 outside vender manufacturing the cylinder fins too short (less than .500''. They cought most of these in house.

The thread should actually be titled 'ECI Cyl attack?' because the proposed AD encompasses their cylinders...

But having said that... I'm not entirely sure I am convinced of the rationale behind the reaction most folks I have spoke with are showing...

I have ECI's on two airplanes, and am concerned every time one of these pops up, but I'd rather know what's going on than stick my head in the sand and pretend there's not a trend. Fortunately with respect to my O-470-50, my cylinders fall outside of either brackets targeted by the AD, which causes me to question the reaction I see from most folks. If there was no real cause for concern, or if the majority of failures were only related to pilot operation, why would the failed cylinders only occur within a specific band of serial numbers? Why not all ECI cylinders of a certain model or class?
I would not be a happy camper if I had to pull 6 'good' cylinders and replace them simply due to an AD, but I would be much more sour if those 'good' cylinders started cracking, or worse yet had a catastrophic separation in flight. Often times like many (if not most) folks here, I find myself over territory, in a certain flight regime, where I am really counting on the engine to keep ticking along smoothly. I pay a premium to buy a little extra 'piece of mind', and I appreciate that someone (even if it is the govt. in this case) is doing the police work on QC. After all, how many times have we all bought the latest, greatest, based on word of mouth, only to find out that over the long term, it really wasn't all that great? Not me...

Take care, Rob

Rob wrote:...Fortunately with respect to my O-470-50, my cylinders fall outside of either brackets targeted by the AD...

Take care, Rob

Maybe I missed it in that lengthy article, but what is the affected range of ECI jugs? Thanks.

Hi dp,

I was going to just post the two models and their respective serial numbers, but if you think you might be affected it would serve you better to read though the Nprm. It (and the numbers) are here ;

https://www.federalregister.gov/article ... gines#h-14



Take care, Rob

Rob wrote:Hi dp,

I was going to just post the two models and their respective serial numbers, but if you think you might be affected it would serve you better to read though the Nprm. It (and the numbers) are here ;

https://www.federalregister.gov/article ... gines#h-14



Take care, Rob

Mine fall outside that range also up in the 70,000 numbers.

I first heard of this as I was doing the final torque sequence on our o-470k with New ECI Tittans. I called Eci and talked with them at length,good people-Awesome product. This (nprm) notice of proposed rule making does not effect any o-470 cylinders,only the 520 and 550.the good folks at Eci told me it was due to two problems,1 high cht (over 500 degrees or more. 2 outside vender manufacturing the cylinder fins too short (less than .500''. They cought most of these in house.

Thanks for posting that---now I know for sure.

Glidergeek wrote:Mine fall outside that range also up in the 70,000 numbers.

Hey Russ,
Knowing when you had your engine built, and who did it, I figured you, as well as most of the other guys on this site who recently did Pponnks were all safe. The current proposed brackets encompass cylinders made prior to 2009. I doubt Ben keeps much enough inventory to have NOS cylinders laying around

BTW, on my last leg home from AK back in June my CHT s ran up more than I like (Un checked ot would make and probably would have gone thru 400*) I was able to manage it with more gas and wide open cowl flaps to get home, but knew it wasn't right. Had two really good mechanics suggest a baffle problem, as the baffling around the airbox was less than stellar... Both also brought up the AD.
I replaced the baffle, but while there I pulled and cleaned the plugs. Things still didn't make much sense to me, but i hadn't tested again. The front two plugs were obviously reading lean. And the JPI confirmed that #6 has been the most effected.
Now things really didn't jive, because the way I see it, 6 should run coolest, even with NO baffeling! So I pulled the intake cross over and bingo, one boot, the one between the crossover and #6 was blue clear past the hose clamp. Where gas can go out air can come in... Then I recalled a start up backfire at Fort Nelson which probably broke loose the seal and started it all. A few bucks later all was good and temps as usual.

A couple thoughts.... The back two cylinders were still reasonably close to normal, so if I had stock instrumentation I would have no doubt attributed the slight increase in temp on the single pt. CHT to the July Nevada / Arizona OAT's. And had I continued to run with the leaking crossover I would have likely fried my # 6 cylinder.
I am still surprised by the guys who think multi point instruments are just unecesary 'fluff'.

Take care, Rob

Rob Corona Engine doesn't have that kind of inventory (cyls) Im pretty sure he buys as needed. My number 3 runs hot and 6 is second place. I can usually keep temps easily below 380 I use carb heat right after I break ground other wise I see EGT go over 1500 and it keeps going if I don't pull heat on.

About a month ago I was out at Parker Az on one of those 120* days and took off I saw CHT over 400 on 2 or 3 cyls for about 5 mins until I could get to cooler air and oil temps over 200 which brought my oil pressure down to 30 psi. Kinda unnerving looking down at that desert knowing its 9000 degrees on the floor and no beer in the cooler.

Hope everybody else fairs well with this NPRM

Russ,
The 'company' 180 runs 1250-1300 egt on climb out but a solid 400 on EGT regardless of jow fast y fly it. Mine runs 1450-1550 and I never give it a second thought. My CHTs stay below 400 on the climb and that's all I worry about. If the 1550 concerned me I'd just move the probe down an inch or two on the stack what kind of climb speed? Do you think y could have got it to climb cooler if you accepted a higher speed and less climb, or was that as cool as it was gonna get without cooler air?

Take care, Rob

I got this from Continental this morning,

Dear Customer,

The purpose of this communication is to provide clarity to the recent FAA proposed cylinder Airworthiness Directive (AD) involving Danbury Aerospace and its subsidiaries, Engine Components International (ECI) and Airmotive Engineering Corporation (AEC). AEC is a sister company of ECI and the Parts Manufacturing Approval (PMA) holder of the TITAN cylinder.

Please be aware that Continental Motors has never used AEC nor ECI as a supplier of cylinder parts or components. If you have any concerns regarding your cylinders, you can be confident that no AEC or ECI cylinder(s) has ever shipped from Continental Motors on engines or aftermarket spare parts. Continental Motors factory new/rebuilt engines and parts are not affected.

However, if aftermarket cylinders produced by a source other than Continental Motors were installed after your engine shipped from the factory, verification with ECI should be made.

Additionally, in an attempt to negate the effect this proposed AD will have on our customers and the industry as a whole, Continental Motors is increasing production of the 520/550 cylinders in order to meet potential demand. Continental Motors will also waive any AOG fee during the next few months on 520/550 cylinders that are ordered as a result of this proposed AD.

If you have questions or are unclear about the proposed AD, you may contact a member of Continental Motors’ Customer Service Team at 888-826-5465 or 251-436-8299.


Best Regards

Continental Motors’ Factory Services Team

This isn't going to be the first AD against ECI cylinders AD 2004-08-10 was along similar lines along with ECI's SB 06-2. Superior cylinders where also targeted in AD 2007-04-19. Starting to see a trend in PMA cylinders here. There are subtle differences in manufacturing and QA. I myself just ended in January a civil suit against a PMA manufacturer of turbine blades, their QA was awful, and my suit resulted in changes in manufacturing and QA at Doncasters/Turbine Products. I just filed a second suit against the same repair station for my gearbox failure. The blades used in that failure where the same and inspection during the process showed exactly the same pre-failure pattern, so I replaced them. However, I didn't sue them this time, as I really just want the money back to repair the gearbox and the repair station should have rejected the blades with issues at overhaul.

So whats the point, there are some problems with some PMA manufacturers. They have most likely changed some aspects of their manufacturing process as a result tot the earlier AD. It still left a large population installed with the earlier processes. The risk factor is actually quite low, 74 failures over a base of 10,000 cylinders, affecting a population of roughly 3500 engines. Assuming a life average of 1800 hours, means the population would fly 630,000 hours in the life of the parts for a failure rate of 1 in 85,135 hours, pretty scary (!). When I flew in T-28, with good old R-1820 radials we had a cylinder failure rate of about 1 in 60 hours.

Well, I would be kind of torqued if I had ECI cylinders installed, naturally the owner will have to pick up the costs. Thank whatever deity I am worshipping this week I don't have those installed in my engine, I just did a top end and don't relish doing another anytime soon.

dogpilot wrote: The risk factor is actually quite low, 74 failures over a base of 10,000 cylinders, affecting a population of roughly 3500 engines. Assuming a life average of 1800 hours, means the population would fly 630,000 hours in the life of the parts for a failure rate of 1 in 85,135 hours, pretty scary (!). When I flew in T-28, with good old R-1820 radials we had a cylinder failure rate of about 1 in 60 hours.

Thank you for this perspective Dog Pilot! Things have certainly changed.

ECI's reply to proposed AD

http://www.eci.aero/pages/PR-nprm-AEC63 ... nders.aspx