[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 2 (Friday, January 3, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 343-347]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 94-ANE-44]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Certain Textron Lycoming 320 and 360
Series Reciprocating Engines
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice revises an earlier proposed airworthiness
directive (AD), which would have been applicable to all Textron
Lycoming 235 series and 290 series, and certain 320 and 360 series
reciprocating engines, that would have required initial and repetitive
inspections of the crankshaft inner diameter (ID) for corrosion and
cracks, and replacement of cracked crankshafts with a serviceable part.
In addition, that proposed AD would have permitted operation of engines
with crankshafts that were found to have corrosion pits but were free
of cracks, provided repetitive inspections were performed by only
certain qualified individuals until the next engine overhaul or 5 years
after the initial inspection, whichever occurred first, at which time
the proposed AD would have required those crankshafts with corrosion
pits but no cracks to be replaced with serviceable crankshafts. That
proposal was prompted by reports of crankshaft breakage originating
from corrosion pits on the inside wall. This action revises the
proposal by limiting the applicability of the proposed AD to only
certain Textron Lycoming 320 and 360 series reciprocating engines,
excluding additional engines installed in helicopters; permitting any
certificated mechanic holding an airframe or powerplant rating to
perform the Fluorescent Penetrant Inspection (FPI); permitting
continued use of a pitted crankshaft as long as repetitive FPI
inspections are performed; and deleting the five year limit on the use
of crankshafts that are pitted but not cracked. Also, the FAA has
received new cost information, and has revised the economic analysis
with respect to the initial inspection time, the time to remove and
replace crankshafts, the cost of the replacement crankshafts, and the
cost for repetitive FPI inspections. Finally, this revised proposal
introduces a public reporting survey to provide the FAA with a broader
database on the
[[Page 344]]
condition of crankshafts when observed during the initial inspections.
The actions specified by this proposed AD are intended to prevent
crankshaft failure, which can result in engine failure, propeller
separation, forced landing, and possible damage to the aircraft.
DATES: Comments must be received by April 3, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), New England Region, Office of the Assistant Chief
Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 94-ANE-44, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299. Comments may be inspected at
this location between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from Textron Lycoming, 652 Oliver St., Williamsport, PA 17701;
telephone (717) 327-7080, fax (717) 327-7100. This information may be
examined at the FAA, New England Region, Office of the Assistant Chief
Counsel, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raymond Reinhardt or Pat Perrotta,
Aerospace Engineers, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,
Engine and Propeller Directorate, 10 Fifth St., Valley Stream, NY
11581-1200; telephone (516) 256-7532 or (516) 256-7534, fax (516) 568-
2716.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications should identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 94-ANE-44.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, New England Region, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 94-ANE-44, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA 01803-5299.
Discussion
On October 18, 1993, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is
the airworthiness authority of the United Kingdom, received a report
that a Piper PA-28-161 aircraft, with a Textron Lycoming O-320-D3G
reciprocating engine installed, executed a forced landing due to an
engine crankshaft failure which caused the propeller to separate from
the aircraft. The cause of the crankshaft failure was determined to be
due to a high cycle fatigue mechanism that had initiated from a number
of corrosion pits in the crankshaft bore. After the cracks had
progressed through a substantial proportion of the crankshaft section,
the rate of advance had increased until the remaining unseparated
portion had failed as a result of overload. The cracking occurred in
high cycle fatigue and it had progressed over an extended period of
service. At the time of the accident the engine had operated for 1,950
hours time in service (TIS) since overhaul and had accumulated 4,429
hours total time since new over a period of 16 years. In addition, the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has confirmed that four other
failures in the United States and 10 in foreign countries were due to
cracks initiating from corrosion pits in the crankshaft bore on certain
Textron Lycoming 320 and 360 reciprocating engines with ratings of 160
horsepower or greater. Of the 10 failures in foreign countries, four
resulted in the propeller separating from the aircraft inflight. Three
of these four were from 1993 to 1996. The FAA utilized metallurgical
failure analysis reports and other information to conclude that these
failures were due to cracks originating from corrosion pits. This
condition, if not corrected, could result in crankshaft failure, which
can result in engine failure, propeller separation, forced landing, and
possible damage to the aircraft.
A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to Textron Lycoming 235
Series and 290 Series, and certain 320 and 360 series reciprocating
engines was published in the Federal Register on November 28, 1995 (60
FR 58580); the comment period was reopened in a reprinting of the
original proposal on April 8, 1996 (61 FR 15430). That action proposed
to require initial and repetitive inspections of the crankshaft inner
diameter (ID) for corrosion and cracks, and replacement of cracked
crankshafts with a serviceable part. In addition, the proposed AD would
have permitted operation of engines with crankshafts that were found to
have corrosion pits but were free of cracks provided repetitive
inspections were performed until the next engine overhaul or 5 years
after the initial inspection, whichever occurred first, at which time
the proposed AD would have required those crankshafts with corrosion
pits but no cracks to be replaced with serviceable crankshafts. Those
proposed actions would be performed in accordance with Textron Lycoming
Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 505A, dated October 18, 1994.
The FAA had determined that Fluorescent Penetrant Inspections (FPI)
were warranted if corrosion pits were found. The FPI inspection was
developed due to reports from Textron Lycoming and other approved
repair stations that most of the crankshafts that are pitted do not
contain cracks. The FAA determined that visual inspections alone were
not sufficient to detect a crack. The FPI inspection was based on crack
propagation data developed by the FAA in conjunction with Textron
Lycoming and with consideration of the technical base in the U.S. for
performing Non-Destructive Inspections. The FPI process was shown to be
reliable for detection of cracks down to 0.050 inches deep and 0.100
inches in length. The FPI inspection interval was based on the crack
propagation data such that a crack could be reliably be detected before
the crankshaft failed. If an installed engine was found to have a
pitted crankshaft, the FAA did not propose to allow the removal of
metal to remove the corrosion pits due to possible contamination of the
engine oil supply with metal filings and to ensure that the
concentricity of the crankshaft would not be compromised.
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. Over 200
[[Page 345]]
comments were received in response to the initial NPRM. The following
comment groups comprise the information received from the various
commenters from around the U.S. and overseas:
A group of commenters state that the Textron Lycoming Model 0-360-
A4A and other models that incorporate solid crankshafts should be
exempted from the proposed rule's applicability. Also, the commenters
state that the Textron Lycoming Model 0-360-J2A engine, installed in
the Robinson helicopter, should also be exempted from the proposed
rule's applicability, as the -J2A model was not specifically designed
as a helicopter engine. The FAA concurs. All these engines have been
deleted from the applicability of the revised proposal.
Another group of commenters state that inspections are too costly,
that there are not enough failures to justify an AD, and not enough
data and studies were developed before issuance of the NPRM. The FAA
does not concur. The FAA received data and studies which substantiated
the need for an AD. These data confirm the crankshaft fracture occurred
at a stress concentration caused by a corrosion pit on the inside of
the crankshaft. In addition, since the NPRM was issued, six additional
crankshaft failures on 160 horsepower Textron Lycoming engines are
being investigated. The FAA has, however, performed additional analysis
to limit the population of engines impacted by this proposed AD and has
deleted the five year life limit on pitted crankshafts undergoing
repetitive FPI inspections. These measures will decrease the cost of
this AD to the public.
Another group of commenters state that the 5-year limit on the
fluorescent penetrant inspection (FPI) after which the pitted
crankshaft must be removed from service should be deleted from the AD.
The FAA concurs, and the proposal AD has been revised to delete the 5-
year life limit on pitted crankshafts undergoing repetitive FPI
inspections.
Another group of commenters state that the crankshaft failures used
to justify the proposed AD occurred after a propeller strike, and that
the propeller strike history is the main reason for crankshaft
failures. The commenters recommend inspecting crankshafts only after a
propeller strike. The FAA does not concur. There is insufficient
evidence to show that propeller strikes were the primary cause or even
a major contributing factor in the investigated crankshaft failures.
Severe propeller strikes are normally associated with stress rupture or
low cycle fatigue failures, whereas the corrosion failures addressed in
this proposal are associated with high cycle fatigue.
Another group of commenters state that any AD should allow airframe
or powerplant rated mechanics to perform the required FPI inspections,
not just specially rated individuals. The FAA concurs and the proposed
AD has been revised accordingly.
Another group of commenters state that instead of the proposed
initial and repetitive inspections, the inspections should be required
at the next overhaul or 2000 hours TIS since last overhaul, and
reinspection accomplished at reasonable TIS intervals. The FAA does not
concur. Most overhauls do not include a detailed examination of the
crankshaft internal bore for corrosion and cracks. The proposed initial
inspection at 1,000 hours TIS since remanufacture or overhaul is
necessary due to service failures which have occurred shortly after
1,000 hours TIS since new or overhaul. With regard to the repetitive
inspection intervals, the 100 hours TIS interval is based on the crack
propagation rate when the crack, detectable by FPI, exists in the
internal bore.
Another group of commenters state that the proposed inspections may
cause more problems by, for example, improper plug replacement, a rag
left in the shaft bore, improper torque on propeller bolts, or metal
particles falling into the oil system. The FAA concurs. The NPRM and
Textron Lycoming's Mandatory SB cautioned operators about some of these
conditions, and the proposed AD has been revised to require, for
example, removal of cloths used during the FPI inspections.
Another group of commenters state that all new crankshafts should
be exempt from the inspections required by the proposed AD for 10
years. The FAA concurs in part. The original proposal recognized this
issue and already incorporates this provision. Paragraph (b) of the
current proposal allows initial inspection within 10 years of the
original ship date, or 6 months from the effective date of the AD,
whichever occurs later. However, there are other events that may
require crankshaft inspection prior to reaching 10 years, for example,
an overhaul or engine disassembly as specified in Paragraph (b) of the
proposed AD.
Another group of commenters state that FPI inspection chemicals may
interfere with corrosion prevention treatments being initiated. The
commenters recommend delaying FPI inspection for 1 year. The FAA does
not concur. When corrosion protection treatments are available, the FAA
will evaluate the need for future rulemaking.
In addition, the FAA has removed from the proposed AD's
applicability engines with less than 160 maximum rated horsepower (hp)
because the lower power engines, which utilize the same size
crankshaft, develop lower stress levels at the location of the
corrosion pitting. The lower stress levels result in predicted fatigue
life which will not initiate cracking from the stress concentrations
associated with the corrosion pitting. In addition, service history of
cracks developing from the location of corrosion pitting has been
limited to the higher rated power (160 hp and above) engines.
Also, the FAA has determined the need to acquire more data on the
extent of crankshaft corrosion. A crankshaft inspection survey has been
included as an appendix to this proposed AD. The inspection survey will
be utilized by the FAA to determine: the number of engines under
repetitive FPI inspections, the number of crankshafts that are found to
be cracked, if another failure mechanism is contributing to the
crankshaft failures, and possible adjustment of the repetitive
inspection interval. The information obtained by this survey may lead
to future rulemaking.
Finally, the economic analysis of this proposed AD is revised to
address the changes in the scope of the proposal. The total number of
engines impacted worldwide has dropped from 77,100 to 16,357 (11,000,
160 hp, 320 series; and 5,357, 360 Series). The FAA estimates that 60%
of that number, 9,814 engines are installed on aircraft of U.S.
registry, and would be affected by this proposed AD. The FAA estimates
that it would take approximately 8 work hours per engine to accomplish
the proposed initial visual inspection, and that the average labor rate
is $60 per work hour; therefore the estimated cost impact for the
proposed initial visual inspections would be $4,710,720. The FAA also
estimates, based on information received from the UK CAA regarding the
number of engines undergoing repetitive inspections in the UK due to
the UK CAA AD on the same subject, that 12%, or 1,178, of the affected
engines would contain crankshafts that require FPI. The FAA estimates
that each FPI would take approximately 8 hours, and that operators with
corroded crankshafts would perform one FPI per year. The estimated cost
for the repetitive FPI, therefore, is $565,286 annually. Lastly, the
FAA estimates that 5 crankshafts will require replacement per year due
to cracks, and that it would take 38 work hours per engine to replace
cracked crankshafts. Assuming that a replacement crankshaft would cost
[[Page 346]]
approximately $6,000 per engine, the estimated cost for replacement of
5 crankshafts would be $41,400 annually. Therefore, the total estimated
cost impact of this proposal is $5,317,406 for the first year, and
$606,686 each year thereafter.
Since these changes expand the scope of the originally proposed AD,
the FAA has determined that it is necessary to publish this
Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to provide an opportunity
for public comment on the revised proposal.
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact,
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
Textron Lycoming: Docket No. 94-ANE-44.
Applicability: Textron Lycoming 320 series limited to 160
horsepower, and 360 series, four-cylinder reciprocating engines with
fixed pitch propellers; except for the following installed in
helicopters or with solid crankshafts: HO-360 series, HIO-360
series, LHIO-360 series, VO-360 series, and IVO-360 series, and
Models O-320-B2C, O-360-J2A, AEIO-360-B4A, O-360-A4A, -4G, -A4J, -
A4K, -A4M, and -C4F. These engines are installed on but not limited
to reciprocating engine powered aircraft manufactured by Cessna,
Piper, Beech, American Aircraft Corporation, Grumman American
Aviation, Mooney, Augustair Inc., Maule Aerospace Technology
Corporation, Great Lakes Aircraft Co., and Commander Aircraft Co.
Note 1: This airworthiness directive (AD) applies to each engine
identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of
whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in the area
subject to the requirements of this AD. For engines that have been
modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the
requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request
approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with
paragraph (g) of this AD. The request should include an assessment
of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the
unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition
has not been eliminated, the request should include specific
proposed actions to address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent crankshaft failure, which can result in engine
failure, propeller separation, forced landing, and possible damage
to the aircraft, accomplish the following:
(a) For engines shipped new from Textron Lycoming prior to and
including December 31, 1984, and that have never been overhauled, or
any engine remanufactured or overhauled and that has accumulated
1,000 hours or more time in service (TIS) since remanufacture or
overhaul, visually inspect the inner diameter (ID) of the crankshaft
for corrosion pits within the next 100 hours TIS after the effective
date of this AD, or 6 months after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs first, in accordance with Textron Lycoming
Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 505A, dated October 18, 1994.
(1) The propeller must be removed in accordance with the
aircraft manufacturer's procedures to perform this inspection.
(2) If corrosion pits are found during this inspection, prior to
further flight perform a Fluorescent Penetrant Inspection (FPI) in
accordance with paragraph (e) of this AD.
(3) Within 48 hours after these inspections, report the finding
of the inspection in accordance with paragraph (f) of this AD.
(b) For engines shipped new from Textron Lycoming after December
31, 1984, and that have never been overhauled, or any engine
remanufactured or overhauled and that has accumulated less than
1,000 hours TIS since remanufacture or overhaul, visually inspect
the ID of the crankshaft for corrosion pits, at the earliest
occurrence of any event specified in subparagraph (4) of this
paragraph, and in accordance with Textron Lycoming MSB No. 505A,
dated October 18, 1994.
(1) The propeller must be removed in accordance with the
aircraft manufacturer's procedures to perform this inspection.
(2) If corrosion pits are found during this inspection, prior to
further flight perform an FPI in accordance with paragraph (e) of
this AD.
(3) Within 48 hours after these inspections, report the finding
of the inspection in accordance with paragraph (f) of this AD.
(4) Visually inspect the ID of the crankshaft for corrosion pits
at the earliest of the following:
(i) The next engine overhaul or disassembly.
(ii) Within 10 years of the original shipping date or 6 months
from the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(iii) Within 1,000 hours TIS since remanufacture or overhaul, or
6 months from the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(c) Thereafter, if no corrosion pits or cracks are found on the
ID of the crankshaft during the initial visual inspection, perform a
visual inspection at intervals not to exceed 5 years since last
inspection, or at the next engine overhaul or disassembly, whichever
occurs first, in accordance with Textron Lycoming MSB No. 505A,
dated October 18, 1994. If corrosion pits but no cracks are found on
the ID of the crankshaft during the initial visual inspection,
repeat the FPI at intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS since last
FPI inspection until a serviceable crankshaft is installed in the
engine..
(d) Prior to further flight, remove from service and replace
with a serviceable part any crankshaft found cracked during FPI
performed in accordance with paragraph (e) of this AD.
(e) An engine, installed in the aircraft having a corroded
crankshaft, may be returned to service without disassembly provided
an FPI confirms the bore to be crack free. The process and materials
utilized for the FPI must comply with the classification contained
in MIL-I-25135. The FPI must be fluorescent solvent removable
(Method C) utilizing a Type 1 penetrant system with a penetrant
sensitivity Level 3 or higher and a Form D-Nonaqueous Developer.
Spray containers of the materials are acceptable for this
inspection. An individual having a mechanic certificate with at
least an Airframe or Powerplant Rating who has the capability to
perform the FPI inspection method is authorized to perform the FPI
inspection. This FPI process involves the removal of penetrant
material from the inspection surface. To ensure that contaminants
from the cleaning process and the FPI do not enter the engine oil
supply, block off the area of the crankshaft bore that is aft of the
area being inspected by using a clean, dry, lint- free cloth. When
the FPI is completed remove the lint-free cloth from the crankshaft
bore before installing the front crankshaft plug. The FPI must be
performed using the following steps:
(1) Cleaning--The crankshaft bore surface must be cleaned of
visible corrosion prior to the FPI process using Scotchbrite or an
[[Page 347]]
equivalent material. Metal-removing processes must not be used for
visible corrosion cleaning. In addition, clean all surfaces to be
inspected utilizing a cleaner, such as Magnaflux Spot Check Cleaner/
Remover SKC-NF or equivalent, on the ID of the crankshaft bore. Let
the cleaner/remover dry for 5 minutes minimum. Wipe clean with a
lint-free cloth.
(2) Penetrant Application--Spray penetrant, such as ZYGLO ZL-22A
Magnaflux Corp. or equivalent Type 1 with a penetrant sensitivity
Level 3 or higher, on the ID bore.
(3) Penetrant Dwell--Allow a minimum of 10 minutes dwell. For
dwell times exceeding 60 minutes the penetrant shall be reapplied to
prevent drying.
(4) Penetrant Removal--Remove all bulk surface penetrant by
wiping with a clean, dry lint-free cloth. Make a single wipe and
then fold the cloth to provide a clean surface for succeeding wipes.
(i) Solvent Wipe--After the bulk of the surface penetrant has
been removed, lightly moisten a fresh lint-free cloth with cleaner/
remover and again wipe the surface. The cloth must not be saturated
and the inspection surface must not be flooded with solvent.
Excessive solvent will wash penetrant from defects.
(ii) During wiping, the inspection surface shall be illuminated
with black light. Repeat the solvent wipe as necessary until no
residual trace of penetrant remains on the inspection surface.
(5) Nonaqueous Developer (solvent suspended)--Following the
cleaner/remover wipe apply nonaqueous developer by spraying a
developer, such as Magnaflux Spot Check Developer SKD-NF or Form D-
Nonaqueous equivalent, on the ID bore. Apply a thin uniform layer to
the bore surface. The optimum coating thickness is indicated by the
visibility of the part surface. If the metallic luster cannot be
seen the developer is too thick.
(6) Dwell--Developer dwell is required to allow the developer
time to draw entrapped penetrant from any small defects. The minimum
development time shall be 10 minutes. The maximum dwell time for
nonaqueous developer shall be 60 minutes.
(7) Inspection shall be performed within the allotted dwell
time. Components that are not inspected within the allotted dwell
time must be reprocessed.
(i) Examine crankshaft bore in a darkened enclosure under
ultraviolet (black) light. Allow 1 minute for eyes to adapt to
darkened environment prior to inspecting crankshaft bore. Use of
photochromic lenses or permanent darkened lenses is prohibited.
(ii) During inspection make sure that the black light intensity
is a minimum of 1200 microwatts/cm2 at the bore surface. This
can be accomplished by positioning the black light as close as
necessary to the bore to achieve 1200 microwatts/cm2. White
light background shall not exceed 20 1 x /m2 (2 foot-candles).
A photographic light meter may be used to determine the white light
background reading.
(iii) Crankshaft bores having no crack indications are
acceptable.
(iv) Magnification (10X maximum) and/or white light may be used
to determine discontinuity type. Indications, on parts exhibiting
fluorescent background which interferes with evaluation of
questionable indications, shall be evaluated as follows:
(A) Lightly wipe the area once with a soft brush or cotton swab
applicator dampened with ethyl alcohol. Do not permit alcohol to
flood the surface.
(B) After the alcohol evaporates from the surface, re-inspect.
If an indication reappears, evaluate it immediately. If the
indication does not reappear, reapply developer. The redevelopment
time shall equal the original development time. Thereafter, re-
inspect.
(8) After inspection, clean residual penetrants and developers
from the crankshaft bore. Remove the lint-free cloth from the
crankshaft bore prior to installing front crankshaft plug. Failure
to do so may result in oil restriction within the engine and in turn
cause engine failure. Reinstall the front crankshaft plug in
accordance with Textron Lycoming MSB No. 505A, dated October 18,
1994. Failure to install the plug properly may result in engine oil
loss and in turn cause engine failure.
(f) After accomplishing the initial visual inspection and, if
necessary, the FPI, required by this AD, complete Appendix 1 of this
AD and submit to the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification
Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 10 Fifth St., Valley
Stream, NY 11581; fax (516) 568-2716. Reporting requirements have
been approved by the Office of Management and Budget and assigned
OMB control number 2120-0056.
Appendix 1
Textron Lycoming Crankshaft Inspection Survey
AD DOCKET NO. 94-ANE-44
Date of Inspection-----------------------------------------------------
Inspector's Information
Name-------------------------------------------------------------------
Address----------------------------------------------------------------
State ____________ Zip Code ____________
Telephone No.----------------------------------------------------------
Facsimile No.----------------------------------------------------------
Engine Model Number----------------------------------------------------
Engine Serial Number (S/N)---------------------------------------------
Date of Manufacture ________ (M/D/YR)
Total Time (TT) ________ hrs
Time Since Major Overhaul (SMOH) ________ hrs
Crankshaft Part Number (located on prop flange) ________ S/N
________
Aircraft Make and Model
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequency of Flights ________ per month (average) Duration ________
hrs per Flight
How was aircraft being utilized? ________ Training, ________
Personal, ________ Banner Towing, ________ Glider Towing, ________
Agricultural, Other (please explain)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Propeller Make and Model
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Has the aircraft ever experienced a propeller strike during
service? ________ Yes ________ No
Was propeller ever removed for servicing or overhaul? ________
Yes ________ No
If yes, describe reason for removal in detail.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What was the condition of the crankshaft internal bore?
Corroded ______ Yes ______ No
If corroded, how many pits? ____ 1 to 5, ____ 6 to 10, ______
More than 10
Was a crack found? ______ Yes ______ No
If crack was found, complete the following: ______ Distance from
crankshaft end (Inches) ______ Crack Length (Inches)
Comments:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(g) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification
Office. The request should be forwarded through an appropriate FAA
Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the
Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this airworthiness directive,
if any, may be obtained from the New York Aircraft Certification
Office.
(h) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the aircraft to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on December 26, 1996.
Jay J. Pardee,
Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 97-32 Filed 1-2-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U