Mike Spera wrote:


Ah, but here is where the disconnect appears to be. They said the
evaluation was at their sole discretion. I understand your
disappointment that all signs pointed to reuse. Your observed conditions
did not appear to have any impact on how they arrived at their
conclusion. They may look at journal alignment, case mating surface
condition, surface fractures at known stress points, etc. I think your
concern is that simply saying "reject" does not go a long way to
customer satisfaction when thousands of your dollars hang in the
balance. Cannot argue. Seemingly arbitrary and costly decisions will
rile most folks.

You make it sound like they actually inspect the engine. They "inspect"
the logbooks, if somebody else worked on the case then it automatically
fails. I have no doubt they still use a large percentage of these
cases. That's their policy, they should have the decency to tell us that.