X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:16:07 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from blu0-omc3-s35.blu0.hotmail.com ([65.55.116.110] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0c1) with ESMTP id 5735418 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 20:47:45 -0400 Received-SPF: neutral receiver=logan.com; client-ip=65.55.116.110; envelope-from=frederickmoreno@bigpond.com Received: from BLU0-SMTP206 ([65.55.116.73]) by blu0-omc3-s35.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 29 Aug 2012 17:47:09 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [124.184.171.253] X-EIP: [kzV2aulxpTQuXYdWWScv9yOWIKs+o0rJWexBSABAafU=] X-Originating-Email: [frederickmoreno@bigpond.com] X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: frederickmoreno@bigpond.com Received: from Razzle ([124.184.171.253]) by BLU0-SMTP206.blu0.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 29 Aug 2012 17:47:06 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 08:46:47 +0800 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; charset="us-ascii"; boundary="------------Boundary-00=_Z5MJQ7B2QL8000000000" X-Mailer: IncrediMail (6295203) From: Frederick Moreno References: X-FID: FLAVOR00-NONE-0000-0000-000000000000 X-Priority: 3 X-Original-To: "Lancair Mail (lml@lancaironline.net)" Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Performance Engine TSIO 550 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Aug 2012 00:47:07.0612 (UTC) FILETIME=[FB5659C0:01CD8648] --------------Boundary-00=_Z5MJQ7B2QL8000000000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Why has the FAA not shut these guys (Performance Aero Engines Inc.) down = ? ?=0D =0D The FAA is involved and has been since I screamed bloody murder about my engine failure in 2010 and sent broken parts to Continental via the FAA b= ack then for examination. (They were ancient, with 1968 revision numbers.)= =20 The (probably continuing) investigation is being carried out of the FAA F= SDO Van Nuys office, and they have been in touch with Barrett Performance Engines as I confirmed via some emails to Barrett. So the FAA is involv= ed, and we need to keep them involved.=0D =0D Preliminary findings with my engine showed paperwork from vendors showing that all the work done on my crankcase, for example, was done by top qual= ity shops and met all requirements. Yet when my crankcase was inspected, it = was out of spec, over machined, and scrap. So one becomes suspicious of fals= e paperwork prepared in advance of the FAA visits. But the shop practices used seem consistent as reported here: recycle out of spec or junk parts= to save money, and pass them off as high performance engines.=0D =0D Also these engines are EXPERIMENTAL, and so not subject to certified eng= ine rules. I think that is the gap that was jumped through to allow PE to produce the products that have been reported here. I suspect they are under much scrutiny from the FAA, but the FAA can only do what the regs require, and is dependent on us to report what we have found. They remai= n silent on their investigations and actions as they must. =0D =0D Those of you that use Barrett for engine rebuilds (or anyone else, for th= at matter), be sure to ask them to document and report all findings to the appropriate FAA authorities. The Barrett folks know who to contact. =0D =0D That is the best we can do short of showing up in person and raising hell= , and getting the word out as far and wide as possible. No magazine will touch it because of legal implications, so spreading the word far and wid= e is the best we can do.=0D =0D Fred=0D =0D =0D =20 --------------Boundary-00=_Z5MJQ7B2QL8000000000 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Why has the FAA not shut these guys (Per= formance Aero Engines Inc.) down ? ?
 
The FAA  is involved and has been since I screamed bloody = murder about my engine failure in 2010 and sent broken parts to Continent= al via the FAA back  then for examination.   (They were an= cient, with 1968 revision numbers.)  The (probably continuing) inves= tigation is being carried out of the FAA FSDO Van Nuys office, and they h= ave been in touch with Barrett Performance Engines as I confirmed vi= a some emails  to Barrett.  So the FAA is involved, and we need= to keep them involved.
 
Preliminary findings with my engine showed paperwork from vendors sh= owing that all the work done on my crankcase, for example, was done by to= p quality shops and met all requirements.  Yet when my crankcas= e was inspected, it was out of spec, over machined, and scrap.  So o= ne becomes suspicious of false paperwork prepared in advance of the FAA v= isits.  But the shop practices used seem consistent as reported= here:  recycle out of spec or junk parts to save money, and pass th= em off as high performance engines.
 
Also these engines are EXPERIMENTAL, and so not subject to  cer= tified engine rules.  I think  that is the gap that was jumped = through to allow PE to produce the products that have been repo= rted here.  I  suspect they are under much scrutiny from the FA= A, but the FAA  can only do what the regs require, and is dependent = on us to report what we have found.  They remain silent on their inv= estigations and actions as they must.
 
Those of you that use Barrett for engine rebuilds (or anyone else, f= or that matter), be sure to ask them to document and report all findings = to the appropriate FAA authorities.  The Barrett folks know who= to contact. 
 
That is the best we can do short of showing up in person and raising= hell, and getting the word out as far and  wide as possible.  = No magazine will touch it because of legal implications, so spreading the= word far and wide is the best we can do.
 
Fred
 
  
 
--------------Boundary-00=_Z5MJQ7B2QL8000000000--