Continental O-470K, loosing compression on number 4 cylinder

[digits_]

If the SB says how something should be done, the AME has to follow it, or equivalent practices:

Persons who perform maintenance or elementary work are required to follow the manufacturer’s recommendations, or equivalent practices.

Doesn't that mean that -if the info in this topic is all correct-, the AME did make a mistake by not following the applicable SB?

Do you know what “the applicable standards of airworthiness” in a release actually refers to?

I'd say it's an intentional vague statement that declares that the person who writes it follows all CARs that are applicable. That trickles down through a variety of rules to things such as using certified parts and using current maintenance models, proper manufacturer approved repair procedures etc.


But let me rephrase my question: if the standards of work are to be defined by the owner, and the owner doesn't specify that, for whatever reason. How can the AME us that as a defense if he signs that the maintenance is performed in accordance to “the applicable standards of airworthiness” ?
Or, how can an AME declare to follow non-defined standards? If the initial premise is correct, then the AME should either ask the owner what standards to follow before he signs it, or if that information is missing, refuse to do the work. So I don't understand how this can be a defense in this particular example.

[photofly]

I'd say it's an intentional vague statement that declares that the person who writes it follows all CARs that are applicable. That trickles down through a variety of rules to things such as using certified parts and using current maintenance models, proper manufacturer approved repair procedures etc.

No, absolutely not. It has a quite specific meaning.

But let me rephrase my question: if the standards of work are to be defined by the owner

They aren’t. The standards are defined in the regulations.

The owner decides what is to be done, not the standards to which its done.

[digits_]

I'd say it's an intentional vague statement that declares that the person who writes it follows all CARs that are applicable. That trickles down through a variety of rules to things such as using certified parts and using current maintenance models, proper manufacturer approved repair procedures etc.

No, absolutely not. It has a quite specific meaning.

Does it not mean you are following this table without specifying which row in the table you are following?

https://tc.canada.ca/en/corporate-servi ... types-work

But let me rephrase my question: if the standards of work are to be defined by the owner

They aren’t. The standards are defined in the regulations.

The owner decides what is to be done, not the standards to which its done.

Ok, that's what I thought as well.

In this case, owner shows up and wants a new cylinder installed. Owner did not mention or was unaware of the aforementioned SB. Assuming the AME did not follow the SB for whatever reason, but the SB is applicable to changing a cylinder on this specific engine, would you say the AME made a mistake, or the owner?

[photofly]

It depends on the contents of the service bulletin. It’s all a bit hypothetical at the moment.