 Savvy
Owner Notebook:
Right Engine, Wrong Cylinders
The new owner of an older Cessna 182 was delighted that his
airplane had such exceptional performance ... until the first annual
inspection, when he discovered why.
by Mike Busch,
A&P/IA (mike.busch@savvyaviator.com)
 Every
month, I correspond with dozens of aircraft owners about various
problems they're having with their aircraft, and do my best to help
them troubleshoot and resolve those problems. Most of the problems I
deal with are relatively routine and unremarkable, but once in
awhile I encounter one that is particularly unusual and interesting.
One of those came my way this month.
When the new owner of an older Cessna 182 first contacted me, he
declined to reveal his name and identified himself only as "A
Distraught Skylane Owner":
"Mr. Busch,
I have a situation that has come up during the first (owner
assisted) annual of my airplane and I could really use your
advice. Please excuse the anonymity of this letter, as you read
on I think you'll understand why (for now) I wish to remain
anonymous.
I am the relatively new owner of a 60's vintage 182, one of the
first years of the wider-body Skylanes with the O-470-R
engine. After having rented for a number of years, I finally
fulfilled my dream of aircraft ownership; this is my first
airplane.
 "I purchased the airplane from a partnership on my home field.
This particular partnership consisted of two members: an A&P
mechanic (who did all the work on the airplane) and one other
partner (who was generally not involved in maintenance of the
aircraft). I was told that the partnership was dissolving
because one of the owners was getting out of flying.
"At the time of purchase, the aircraft was advertised as
approximately 4,500 hours total time, just 25 SMOH, recent paint and interior,
and adequate
avionics. I test-flew the airplane, found that the plane flew hands-off, and I was very impressed with the performance of the new
engine. I decided to buy the plane, and paid the owners asking price.
I asked around the field and determined
that the A&P owner had a good reputation and had owned the
airplane for more than 11 years. The logs were complete. There did not appear
to be any corrosion issues or other serious issues. All in all,
I felt reasonably comfortable about this plane. In addition, I was able to sub-let the hangar
from the sellers after the purchase--since there's a 7 to 10 year
hangar waiting list at my field, this was a huge plus.
"The first few months I had some issues to contend with (flap problem, breakers, tach, etc.),
but nothing really serious. I
put a few hours on the airplane and did a few oil changes. I
was very happy about the plane's performance. At one time I was
in club with a 182, so I had some prior experience in a P-model Skylane. My airplane seemed to outperform the P-model 182 in every respect. I was seeing 1,500 fpm climb rates in
the wintertime and 1,000 to 1,200 fpm in the
summer, and cruise speeds in the 140-knot range. I attributed
this to the lighter weight of my old
girl vs. the P-model.
"About six weeks ago I downed the aircraft for its annual first
annual inspection on my watch. I'm doing an owner-assisted
annual, and I chose not to use the prior owner's IA for the
annual. Instead, I elected to work with an IA on the field that I've known
for a number of years, mostly through other aircraft-owner friends. The inspection phase went very well.
Except for a crack in one aileron, the IA found no major
airframe squawks. The powerplant inspection went even better:
compressions were all 76/80 or better. The engine is about 75
SMOH and oil consumption has been almost nil.
"I gave my maintenance logbooks to my IA this past weekend. He and I were
supposed to get together on Sunday to go over the AD's.
Unfortunately, he had a family emergency and had to go out of
town for a week. I had some things to finish up on my end and I
figured it would give me an opportunity to do just that.
 "One of my remaining tasks was spark plug maintenance, so I pulled, cleaned,
inspected, and gapped the plugs. They looked good, but I wanted
to order an extra set just to have on hand. That's when I
noticed something odd: The spark plugs in my engine were
Champion RHB32Es, but according to TCM Service Bulletin SIL03-2B
the correct plugs for my engine are RHM40E, REM38S or RHM38S.
"I was puzzled about why my engine seemed to have the wrong
spark plugs. I called a friend and we went over all the specs and numbers
together.
On a hunch from my friend (who always wondered about my engine
because my Skylane can almost keep up with his Mooney), we went out to
my hangar to have a look at my cylinders. Sure enough, the spark plug
holes were about 5/16-inch deeper than they would have been for the
short-reach spark plugs specified for my engine by TCM. We looked at the jugs some more,
and now
theorized that the prior A&P owner had installed IO-470 or O-470-U jugs
and high-compression pistons on
my O-470-R.
"My Mooney-owner friend asked the A&P who overhauled his motor come out to have a look
at my cylinders. This engine builder's opinion was that they
were IO-470 or O-470-U jugs. We've also figured that the O-470
jugs with high compression pistons would probably yield an
additional 20 HP. This would certainly account for my excellent
performance.
"Now, what should I do? It looks like I was sold an unairworthy
airplane. Should I approach
the prior owner about this? I really don't want to have to bear
the cost of a full top overhaul to make this right. I feel like the prior
owner misrepresented this airplane. While I don't feel as
thought the airplane is unsafe, I can't in good conscience sell
this airplane to someone else or ask my IA to sign off the
annual inspection. I'm
thinking about asking the prior owner to purchase the airplane
back from me, or at least asking him to do the top at
his expense. Could I possibly get field approval on these
cylinders?
"Any advice you have would be greatly appreciated. Thanks ...
A Distraught Skylane Owner"
Two things struck me upon reading this owner's email: First, this first-time aircraft owner must be remarkably
astute to have discovered this discrepancy after one A&P and two IAs missed it.
Second, I was duly impressed by the owner's obvious desire
to make things right and legal rather than to look the other way or
sweep things under the rug.
How do you handle a situation like this?
After giving this rather unusual and interesting predicament some thought, I
responded to the anonymous owner:
"Dear Distraught, I think the first thing I would to is to seek out the IA
who signed off the prior annual inspection and try to determine
if that IA was aware of the non-standard pistons and cylinders
and whether or not he knows of any valid approval basis for that
alteration.
 "If the IA professes ignorance (and thereby admits to
approving the airplane for return to service after performing an
annual inspection last year), I would suggest asking the IA to
accompany you to confront the previous owner (the A&P who
performed the overhaul), and ask him what approval basis he has
for the alteration and where that alteration is documented.
"It seems to me that the best possible outcome would be
for one of these two mechanics (the former owner and his IA) to come up with an approval basis
for the alteration and to clean up the paperwork to make the
airplane legal. I wouldn't be too optimistic about this scenario
coming to fruition, but
it should be pursued first because you never can tell -- there
are quite a lot of STC'd modifications for the Cessna 182 and
the O-470.
"If the A&P/owner concedes that he knows of no approval
basis for the alteration, then I believe it would be fair of you
to ask him to remove the unapproved alteration by replacing the
nonstandard cylinders and pistons with standard ones and signing
off the work. In fairness, I think you should offer him the
opportunity to perform the work himself and to receive the
low-time cylinders and pistons back. This way, his net cost is
substantially reduced and you wind up what you want: a legal
airplane.
"I would NOT get the FAA involved at this point (or permit
your current IA to do so) until you've made every possible
attempt to resolve the problem privately along the lines I've
outlined above. The A&P/owner and the IA who signed off the
prior annual will be well aware that you are likely to report
this situation to the FSDO unless it is resolved to your
satisfaction, and will probably be highly motivated to get the
problem resolved quickly and quietly. The implicit threat of you
going to the FAA will work better for you than actually doing
so.
"I would be EXTREMELY interested in hearing how this works
out, so I hope you'll drop me an email and let me know. If I can
be of further assistance, do not hesitate to ask.
"Best...Mike
"P.S. I admire you for deciding to "come clean" on this
with your IA, knowing full well that he probably would not have
picked up on the discrepancy had you not brought it to his
attention. You are my kind of aircraft owner. Congratulations!"
The owner takes command
A few weeks passed and I didn't hear anything from the owner.
Finally my curiosity overcame me, so I sent him a one-line email
asking him for an update. Here's the owner's reply:
"Hi Mike, my name is Fred and at this stage there's
probably no reason for me to remain anonymous, as I've put all
the cards on the table (so to speak) with the A&P. Here's an update on where I am with my situation.
"I got my
logs back and last night I did some additional research. Here is
what I found out: The A&P former owner installed onto the O-470-R case
six
overhauled CermiNil cylinder assemblies from ECi, part number ECN646144CN. The
piston
part number was AEC648029. I have all the yellow tags for these
parts and there is a logbook entry indicating that these parts
were used in the overhaul. Looking at the ECi
Class Reference Manual, it looks as though he
did in fact install high-compression cylinders and pistons appropriate for a
O-470-U or IO-470 (class 70A); the O-470-R calls for a
cylinder class of 68A (642410 cylinder and 646263 piston). Interestingly enough, his logbook entry indicates RHM40E
plugs, which would be appropriate for a normal O-470-R ...b ut
these were not the plugs that were actually installed (which
discrepancy predicated my research
into this whole situation).
"Following your advice, I confronted the A&P former owner
about this issue. At first he was very defensive about it.
He pulled out the overhaul manual to try and convince me that
the cylinders and pistons he installed were the right ones for
the engine, but my documentation was pretty
clear and convincing, and I ticked and tied everything with a colored pencil
(plus
I had already reviewed the info with my IA).
"After the A&P former owner's initial denial wore off, his first suggestion
was that he would pull the jugs, send them off to the machine
shop, and those same jugs would come back with a different part number. We argued about that for a while. He called
his friend at a local engine shop, put me on the phone with him, and
after I asked a few questions his friend basically ended up
agreeing with my position that this was not a viable solution to
this problem.
"At this point, I offered the A&P former owner three options:
(1) come up with an approval
basis for the high-compression cylinders and pistons; (2) replace the existing cylinders
and pistons with the correct ones; or (3) buy back the airplane.
He immediately rejected the third option. I gave him some time to look into
the first option (finding a certification basis), but he was unsuccessful
just as you suspected.
 "That left option two: replace the cylinders and pistons. What he's currently offered
me are chrome exchange
cylinders from a local shop that he deals with frequently. There
are two things about this that I don't like:
"1. I don't like the idea of exchange chrome cylinders. When I purchased the
airplane it had low-time (<25 hour) ECi overhauled CermiNil
cylinders. Now these are still overhauled exchange cylinders,
but at least
they come with a warranty.
"2. I don't trust that I'll get quality cylinders. Who's to
say that his buddy over at the cylinder shop does not just throw
a yellow tag on any old cylinder? There is something about the
whole thing that makes me suspicious.
"I'd like to give A&P former owner the benefit of the doubt, but based
on how he's acted so far I fear I'm being played a fool. I
asked him to price what it would cost me to go with new
Millenniums instead (offering to pay any difference) and it's
been over a week and he can't give me a price. I had a friend
call the shop and ask for a price on the same cylinders and he
had an email quote from the shop within 12 hrs.
"I'm a little unsure on what to do next. How would you
proceed?
"Thanks ... Fred""
Impressive work, Fred. If this isn't an example of what I've been
calling "owner in command," I don't know what is.
Some final advice
I responded to Fred's report:.
"Hi Fred, it sounds to me as if you've handled everything exactly right
so far. Nice job!
"I think the "option two" offer that the A&P has
made to you is reasonable. Having said that, I don't blame you a bit
for wanting to go with new jugs instead of chromed exchange jugs of
unknown heritage. I would estimate the difference at roughly
$600/cylinder or $3,600 total. If you offer to pay the $3,600
difference, it's hard for me to see how the A&P can refuse --
especially if you make it clear that this is your best and final
offer, and that if he refuses the next things he'll get are a demand
letter from your attorney and a Letter Of Investigation from the FSDO.
"I'm sure you'd prefer not to have to pay the $3,600
difference, but in the overall scheme of things I don't think it's
unreasonable. After all, you'll be getting back an airplane that's
better than the one you bargained for when you bought it.
"Also keep in mind that if you get new Millenniums, no cores are
required so the A&P gets back his low-time high-compression
cylinders that presumably have some significant core value.
 "If it were me, I think I could probably live with either the
chromed reconditioned jugs or the new Millenniums. If you take the former route, you
do have some risk that one or two of the reconditioned jugs will go
south at some point in the future, but you also have a $3,600 "war
chest" to cope with that eventuality (and that's more than enough to
pay for two replacement jugs including labor). And if the
reconditioned jugs do go the distance (which is not at all
unlikely), you wind up money ahead. To my way of thinking, $3,600 in
the bank is better than a warranty.
"Best...Mike"
I don't yet know precisely how this will all come out, but it's
pretty clear that it will have a happy ending. Fred will wind up
with a legal, airworthy airplane. The former owner will bear the
lion's share of the cost of rectifying the mistake. No lawyers or
FAA inspectors will get involved. And GA will have one more owner in
command.
Way to go, Fred! I think we can all learn something from how you
handled this potentially messy predicament.
| Do you have a maintenance-related
"war story" that you'd like to share with fellow
aircraft owners? If you do, I'd
love to hear from you. The most interesting stories
I receive each month will be rewarded with highly prized Savvy
Aviator coffee mugs, so please include your
shipping address. Also be sure to let me know if you'd like
me to "change the names to protect the innocent"
when sharing your story. |
|
This
unique weekend course for aircraft owners has received