Ad 23-09-09

[Notrog112TC#]

Any updates to AD 23-09-09 and alternative part, than to pay $3750 to Lycoming? If yes, Where available?
N49AB 112TC/A

 

[Commander91gm]

Yes there are alternatives. In addition the ad allows for annual inspections rather than replacement unless the one that you have is un-serviceable.
This topic has been discussed quite a number of times and the best way to get information is to do a search on the website.

Who are you? Where are you? What's your serial number?

 

[CapnJake]

Hey Notrog112TC#,

The post you're looking for is "Help - Turbo to Tail Pipe Clamp" on this site. My part number on my TC is NH1000897-30. Used by Cessna 421 turbos. Good for 2000 hours.

Read through and if you have more questions we're here.

Cheers.
Jake

 

[Circle C Aviation]

Owners with the affected clamps please note that AD inspection allowance runs out & Mandates replacement of all clamps at 500 hrs or more beginning July 17 2025.


(a) EFFECTIVE DATE This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective July 17, 2023.

(2) As an alternative to initially removing the v-band coupling from serv- ice as required by paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, you may perform the inspections required by paragraphs (k)(1) through (7) or (l) of this AD. Do the initial inspections at the time the v-band coupling would have been removed from service and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6 months or 100 hours TIS, whichever occurs first, for a period not to exceed 2 years after the effective date of this AD. If the v -band coupling fails to meet any inspection criteria in paragraphs (k)(1) through (7) or (l) of this AD, it must be removed from service before further flight. Removing the v-band coupling from service and installing a new v-band coupling does not terminate the requirement to do these repetitive inspections.

 

[Notrog112TC#]

Yes there are alternatives. In addition the ad allows for annual inspections rather than replacement unless the one that you have is un-serviceable.
This topic has been discussed quite a number of times and the best way to get information is to do a search on the website.

Who are you? Where are you? What's your serial number?

Richard Gorton, Beaverton, OR, 13066 N49AB

Checked with local FSDO. Stated that in order to approve the RayJay RJ0193, Have to have a stmt from RJ, the 0193 is an equivalent. RayJ Will not provide stmt as such. They require original exhaust dwgs and then would get to work on the PMA. As it is now, this part 0193 is not approved for 112TC.

 

[Notrog112TC#]

Hey Notrog112TC#,

The post you're looking for is "Help - Turbo to Tail Pipe Clamp" on this site. My part number on my TC is NH1000897-30. Used by Cessna 421 turbos. Good for 2000 hours.

Read through and if you have more questions we're here.

Cheers.
Jake

Hi Jake - Thank you for you the help will check it out. The question is if it's approved STC and PMA. Local FSDO will not approve a field inspection without an approved part. My A&P will not sign off without a part being PMA/STC approval.

 

[CapnJake]

Hi Notrog112TC#,

I'm an A&P, not an IA. But -- I've been studying.

So the part is an approved aircraft part under 21.8, and can be put on the aircraft in accordance with FAA regulations. It's entirely up to the A&P doing the install to determine suitability. 21.9 a (3) talks about standard parts. So, I would consider this to to be a standard aircraft part (such as nuts and bolts).

It is not necessary to get an STC (Supplemental Type Certificate) as you are not making a major alteration (as defined and inferred by 43, Appendix A. You ARE making a minor alteration using a standard part. Minor alterations do not require STC, or field approval.

I don't know the specific PMA approval number (as I don't have it in my hand), but I do know it is an aircraft part used on twin-cessnas. It is made by Eaton, and they have many authorizations to manufacture FAA approved parts. I did not install it, but the A&P years ago did, and I and my annual IA and I both agree that the part is suitable. Someone years ago made a good decision, and I agree with it.

Doing a quick google search shows that the part number is shared by Textron Beechcraft, Cessna, and manufactured by Eaton's Aeroquip. I would have no trouble installing this as an A&P, I would just insure fitment (as always), but looks solid on my aircraft. If you are using your aircraft for 135 or (obviously not) 121 operations, then everything I've just said does not apply.

I would have a discussion with your A&P, if (s)he is hesitant, then have him discuss it with an IA or FAA representative to gain further understanding. Much like medicine, you can find another opinion -- such as mine. I've dealt with FAA and different opinions for 39 years as a pilot, and 29 as mechanic. FAA is frequently wrong, and if you don't understand their objections, then you need to have them explain in regulation or written reference why it is unsuitable. Mike Busch and his team at www.savvyaviation.com can help. They seem very switched on and frequently object to FAA's policies when it is nonsense.

In one of our previous forum discussions on this site, I see Moazzam Ali had his engine returned from Lycoming. They installed a spot-welded clamp on the turbo flange. The FAA specifically prohibits installing spot-welded clamps there after the AD was issued, they should be removed even with a zero timed engine. It seemed Lycoming was more fearful of using a different part number, than the failure of the clamp and loss of the aircraft. That type of logic is nonsense.

Keeping aircraft and people from accidents or failures is what all of us from FAA to PMA to OEMs to pilot/mechanic operators should be working towards. As always there are different opinions and decisions made along the way.

I hope that helps.

Cheers.
Jake

 

[Commander91gm]

Just a quick comment to note that this is in a public forum. I would really suggest keeping detailed responses on the member side of the forum. They're already is a lot of information there and if one was serious they would pay the money and become a member.