On 12-Dec-2004, Newps wrote:

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.


I do not believe that Lycoming's decision as to whether to reuse a case or
crank is based on what is in the logbooks. In our situation, there were no
complete logs for our old engine, and while Lyc refused the case (supposedly
for some cracking problems) they took the crank. Of course, if the logbook
indicated a repair that Lycoming deems to render the case or crank unusable,
or that would make it uneconomical to refurbish, then they would and should
reject it.

My beef with Lycoming is that they apparently do not have a mechanism for
providing adequate documentation to the customer as to reasons for
rejection, and that they will scrap parts they deem unusable without giving
the customer the option of retaking possession.
--
-Elliott Drucker