Whoa Rich...I was just clarifying industry standard in my post above.
But since I've opened up a new post here, and so that we're not just bashing TCM in this, let me relate a past issue that certain Piper aircraft dealt with and with which I had the distinct displeasure in dealing with:
Back during the "turn of the century", turbocharged IO-540's started having defective crankshafts left and right, some leading to in-flight catastrophic failure and loss of life. Here are some details I culled from another website:
NEWS HEADLINE - Tuesday 20 August 2002
LYCOMING POWERED AIRCRAFT GROUNDED
"Lycoming has received several field reports of broken crankshafts in six-cylinder turbocharged engines rated at 300 horsepower or higher," Textron said in a service bulletin.
"The problem is related to the material used in these crankshafts." Textron Lycoming said the engines had to be removed from aircraft, dissembled and their crankshafts replaced.
It warned aviation operators against using existing crankshafts from other engines as these also could be defective.
The latest recall by the company follows the recall in February of 400 TIO-540 engines because of crankshaft failures.
The latest recall is expected to ground almost 3000 aircraft across the world. Textron Lycoming issued a media release in April saying it had been forced to put on an extra assembly line to cope with the repair of the 400 engines initially identified with defective crankshafts.
The company has offered to pay the full costs of grounding the aircraft and overhauling their engines.
I'll repeat that last part:
The company has offered to pay the full costs of grounding the aircraft and overhauling their engines.
Further:
The new AD was issued after the fatal crash of a Piper Malibu Mirage in Michigan earlier this month, plus reports of 17 crankshaft failures. The FAA said variations in the heat treatment process results in metallurgical deficiencies that cause the cranks to fail.
Reports quoted a Textron spokeswoman saying that the recall does not just apply to new engines purchased in the past three years. Faulty cranks might also have been installed in rebuilds during that period. The FAA is estimating it will take up to eight months to replace all the crankshafts. Lycoming will cover the cost of removal, shipping, repair and reinstallation of the engines. Many of the affected aircraft are in commercial service and a company spokeswoman said there might be compensation for business losses.
"That will be handled on an individual basis," she said.
A subcontractor makes the potentially faulty cranks but Bishop refused to identify the company. She did say that Lycoming would negotiate a cost-sharing arrangement with the subcontractor. Insurance might cover much of the costs, which could reach $15 million.
I'll reiterate a part of that:
Lycoming will cover the cost of removal, shipping, repair and reinstallation of the engines
I worked for a Piper dealer back then, the same one that I work for today. Did we have a lot of irate customers? You betchya! Did we help every one of them to the best of our abilities? Definitely. Were we ultimately responsible for the failures and responsibility to correct? No, Lycoming was.
It doesn't work like a car dealership folks. And that is a fundamentally flawed analogy regardless. In the case of your Ford, or Chevy, or Honda, the manufacturer of the car made the engine as well. So yes, you would take your defective Chevy engine into a Chevy garage and fully expect Chevy to fix it.
In our industry, rather the manufacturer of the component product installed on the airframe is responsible for correcting the discrepancy. Its just how it is. I'm not defending CC or anyone else here, just stating fact. IF TCM has a faulty design, then they are responsible for correcting, most usually by working with the shop or service center that has diagnosed the problem, in conjunction with the owner. Now when it becomes a fleet problem, then yes, the airframe manufacturer should step in, more as a good faith gesture than anything else, standing behind there finished product. I agree with that. And we have no reason to believe that CC isn't doing that. Problem is that ultimately it is hard to please people. Especially Type A aircraft owners and operators. I know because I am one of them, went to a meeting just last night...
So its hard to have a quick solution that makes everyone happy, even more so in this case because the engine manufacturers are notoriously difficult to budge. Its just the way the business works. It is unfortunate, but we didn't get any meaningful support with the Lycoming issue until the fella in Michigan crashed his Malibu and lost his life.
We can hem and haw here all we want, but the fact of the matter is that the issues with TCM here, whatever they may be, will be corrected behind closed conference room doors and via phone calls between them and the owners and their mechanics, and ultimately if need be with CC as well.
