CPA Suggestions Rejected
The Cessna Pilots Association (CPA) objected to the proposed AD, saying there should be no calendar time mandated and compliance should be determined based on the type of operations for which the aircraft is used. The FAA did not agree. The CPA also said "the FAA has been used by Lycoming to spread out over time the costs to the company for the removal of their flawed parts." John Frank, CPA executive director, wrote, "The crankshafts that the FAA will require to be replaced at owner expense under this NPRM are equally and identically as flawed as those that were replaced at Lycoming's expense under AD 2002-19-03." Frank added, "The FAA's delay in taking action because of the supposed lower risk factor of the lower horsepower engine simply helped Lycoming get out from under a portion of the expense and basically stuck it to the individual owner."