I contacted AOPA 2-3 months ago. Gave them all the info and requested help. The said they would investigate and get back. Never heard back and they have not returned follow up questions.
I just got off the phone with Continental's Region Rep Michael Yousik. He said that these clamps have not been produced in a while. He did say that they have a new clamp in the works, was just at the factory, has seen them and TCM is expecting a release of these in July. And with that, I have decided not to support RAMs Price gouging strategy of charging $1355 each for their PMA'd 2177-300. Mine will come off now for annual and one more time on or before July 16th for the inspection, which should allow continued operations through July 2026.
Hi Mickey, and all members who were considering the PMA 2177-300 from RAM.
I just spoke with a manager at RAM about the $499 price of the PMA 2177-300 V-Band Clamp in April and the $1355 current price. They said they had a price increase on April 11. When I asked why would this clamp now cost nearly three times as much, they basically said because management decided. A non-answer. Then, they noted that the part is PMA for specific engines as if that was a reason for the price. I pointed out the $499 price was also PMA so why the increase? In the end, there were no concrete reasons given to justify the nearly 3X price increase for this clamp. Hopefully a more cost effective solution will come from a competitor, perhaps Continental?
Regards,
Mike
Michael Jay Jones (MikeJJ)
Piper Owners Aviation Director, Forum Moderator, Author
The AD requires a clamp with more than 500h time in service to be replaced by the July 2025 deadline. So unless yours has less than 500h, an inspection does not give you until July 2026 to replace.
I think you are maybe only partially right. I incorrectly stated that I would have until July. The AD says 6 months or 50 hours after the last inspection. The inspection window for clamps over 500 hours ends 24 months after the AD. The way I read it is you have 2 years to do the 50 hour inspections. I do not read a requirement saying you must replace the clamp (with non-existent parts) on or before 24 months. The wording is that you are not allowed to "Install" a clamp with said times over 500hrs after 24 months... With that said, I think I can install an inspected clamp with 500+ hours on 23 months and 29 days after the date of the AD and be in compliance, and run that for 50 hours or 6 months past its last inspection...
Specifically Paragraph (M) of the AD states...
(m) Installation Prohibitions
(1) From the effective date of this AD until two years after the effective date of this AD, do not install a v-band coupling that has accumulated more than zero hours TIS on any turbocharged airplane, helicopter, or engine, unless it has passed all inspections required by paragraph (k) or (l) of this AD. (2) As of two years after the effective date of this AD, do not install a v-band coupling that has accumulated more than zero and less than 500 hours TIS on any turbocharged airplane, helicopter, or engine, unless it has passed all inspections required by paragraph (k) or (l) of this AD. (3) As of two years after the effective date of this AD, do not install a v-band coupling that has accumulated 500 or more hours TIS on any turbocharged airplane, helicopter, or engine.
Email sent. Although I suspect this will fall on deaf ears. Bureaucrats care only about their own rear end, not the potential inconveniences for those pawns they rule over.
Update - I actually received a call from and engineer with the FAA. I did not catch his name. He gave me a good bit of double talk and referred me to the FAA Dynamic Regulatory System (DRS) to search for approved PMA parts (I went to the website and if you can get anything useful from it, you are a better man/person than I am). He did not offer any indication that the FAA would back off the existing AD requirements despite the looming deadline.
Comments
I contacted AOPA 2-3 months ago. Gave them all the info and requested help. The said they would investigate and get back. Never heard back and they have not returned follow up questions.
Ben
I just got off the phone with Continental's Region Rep Michael Yousik. He said that these clamps have not been produced in a while. He did say that they have a new clamp in the works, was just at the factory, has seen them and TCM is expecting a release of these in July. And with that, I have decided not to support RAMs Price gouging strategy of charging $1355 each for their PMA'd 2177-300. Mine will come off now for annual and one more time on or before July 16th for the inspection, which should allow continued operations through July 2026.
Hi Mickey, and all members who were considering the PMA 2177-300 from RAM.
I just spoke with a manager at RAM about the $499 price of the PMA 2177-300 V-Band Clamp in April and the $1355 current price. They said they had a price increase on April 11. When I asked why would this clamp now cost nearly three times as much, they basically said because management decided. A non-answer. Then, they noted that the part is PMA for specific engines as if that was a reason for the price. I pointed out the $499 price was also PMA so why the increase? In the end, there were no concrete reasons given to justify the nearly 3X price increase for this clamp. Hopefully a more cost effective solution will come from a competitor, perhaps Continental?
Regards,
Mike
The AD requires a clamp with more than 500h time in service to be replaced by the July 2025 deadline. So unless yours has less than 500h, an inspection does not give you until July 2026 to replace.
I think you are maybe only partially right. I incorrectly stated that I would have until July. The AD says 6 months or 50 hours after the last inspection. The inspection window for clamps over 500 hours ends 24 months after the AD. The way I read it is you have 2 years to do the 50 hour inspections. I do not read a requirement saying you must replace the clamp (with non-existent parts) on or before 24 months. The wording is that you are not allowed to "Install" a clamp with said times over 500hrs after 24 months... With that said, I think I can install an inspected clamp with 500+ hours on 23 months and 29 days after the date of the AD and be in compliance, and run that for 50 hours or 6 months past its last inspection...
Specifically Paragraph (M) of the AD states...
(m) Installation Prohibitions
(1) From the effective date of this AD until two years after the effective date of this AD, do not install a v-band coupling that has accumulated more than zero hours TIS on any turbocharged airplane, helicopter, or engine, unless it has passed all inspections required by paragraph (k) or (l) of this AD. (2) As of two years after the effective date of this AD, do not install a v-band coupling that has accumulated more than zero and less than 500 hours TIS on any turbocharged airplane, helicopter, or engine, unless it has passed all inspections required by paragraph (k) or (l) of this AD. (3) As of two years after the effective date of this AD, do not install a v-band coupling that has accumulated 500 or more hours TIS on any turbocharged airplane, helicopter, or engine.
As an EAA member, this just arrived in my mail box. Those who wish to comment directly to the FAA can use the link provided in this announcement.
Regards,
Mike
Thanks Mike. I will reply and send my two 18 month old backorder invoices from Spruce and Boeing.
--mick
Email sent. Although I suspect this will fall on deaf ears. Bureaucrats care only about their own rear end, not the potential inconveniences for those pawns they rule over.
I also sent an email (Thanks Mike) although I echo Mick's comment that it will likely serve no purpose.
Ben
Update - I actually received a call from and engineer with the FAA. I did not catch his name. He gave me a good bit of double talk and referred me to the FAA Dynamic Regulatory System (DRS) to search for approved PMA parts (I went to the website and if you can get anything useful from it, you are a better man/person than I am). He did not offer any indication that the FAA would back off the existing AD requirements despite the looming deadline.
Ben
Hi greygoose,
Thank you for the update. Disappointing though. This was a perfect opportunity for the FAA to really help the pilot community.
Regards,
Mike