What I was alluring to is the fact the FAA will say parts are being produced at the moment. I know they've been on back order for a long time you are certainly correct on that. Carl
HG, thanks for the answer I didn't have the SB in front of me out of town for another week or so but that's exactly The statement you need to see on approved equivalents... Based on that ,tokirbymd, they would be an approved replacement. Carl
You have to be very careful on the term equivalent that's not exactly the statement you want to base a replacement part on
I promised an update on the Turbo V Band Coupling discussed in AD 2023-09-09.
We test flew a friend’s Piper Seneca today that had a new V Band Coupling installed.
His Coupling had failed at the Spot Weld. It was discovered at the AD required inspection of “every 50 hours or 6 months TIS”. It OP’s Checked OK.
Apparently there has been a bit of confusion on this part, as the PN’s differed. Aero Mach has the part in stock, runs $500 and ships quickly. The attached documents highlight the Aero Mach PN as being a suitable sub for the TCM PN. They are identical parts.
Many Pilots A&P’s have previously ordered these and they went Backorder. Broken Couplings can ground the airplane, TIS may ground the airplane in July of 2025.
My IA will install 2 on my Seneca this December. The part, installation and paperwork are all safe and legal.
I ordered and received the same v bands. However, I am having difficulty finding where 24540-300 is a PMA approved alternate PN. Yes, the RAM SB states the 2177-300 is an approved replacement for both 653332 OR 24540-300. However is this proof that those 2 parts are equivalent? Also, I saw on another forum that the 24540-300 is stainless, and the 653332 is inconel? If so, then they aren't technically the same part, even if both fit? Lastly, is an AMOC required for this substitution, or just a log entry?
In speaking with my IA yesterday, he installed these V Bands on another Seneca with a Log Book Entry. No FSDO Field AMOC Approval being required. We Test Flew my friends airplane and it worked fine.
Now, you bring up a good question and I don’t know the answer, but will try to find out. I do not know if these V Bands, PN 24540-300, are Stainless Steel vs PN 653332 being Inconel. Both obviously “do the job” in a High Heat Environment, with both Parts being FAA-PMA. As far as this application of Suitable Sub PN’s, I’m thinking the Undergraduate logic of… If A=B and B=C, then A=C applies. 🧐
OK thanks, I may hold off on installing these and see if I get the 65332 delivered before July since they "may" be Inconel. Not that there is any data that shows this is required since I heard they changed to that material from stainless a while back, so either stainless was ok from the beginning, or they determined there was a problem and changed without notifying anyone.
Consider expanding the audience a bit by sending a copy to your Representative and Senator with a cover letter nicely stating the expectation of a timely response (mere reply is insufficient). Might even add the OIG to the mix. AOPA as well given that chances are good that many of the members on this forum also pay for AOPA's advocacy. This is far too easy for the Agency to put in the bucket and let it age.
Point is, I have first hand experience with trying to get response from a single well known Agency (not naming names) and impatiently waited 3 years for what should have proven a simple signature on a complete package. After 3 years, I sent a letter to the local Senator, the Senator directly engaged that Agency, and one month later my package miraculously worked is way to the top of the pile and got approval.
While it does appear that the Piper Owner's group found an acceptable substitute, at a minimum, I'd expect the FAA to update documentation to explicitly allow the substitute part rather than have individuals attempt to self-lawyer their way through.
The FAA is aware there are part shortages and long lead times. The FAA did reach out to some of the OEMs who are aware of the issue. Some companies are working on alternate designs which would provide alleviation. An Alternative Method of Compliance (AMOC) can be requested, however sufficient data would have to be provided to the FAA in order for the FAA to make a decision regarding the Alternative Method of Compliance.
AD 2023-09-09 does provide an alternative to removing the v-band coupling from service as long as repetitive inspections are done every 6 months or every 100 hours TIS, whichever occurs first. If the v-band coupling fails to meet any inspection criteria in paragraphs (k)(1) through (7) or (l) of this AD, it must be removed from service before further flight. This alleviation is applicable until July 17, 2025, and was incorporated into the AD to allow time for the v-band clamps to become available.
Sincerely,
Tom Teplik
FAA Central Certification Branch, AIR-765
(316) 946-4196
___________________________________
Regards,
Mike
Michael Jay Jones (MikeJJ)
Piper Owners Aviation Director, Forum Moderator, Author
Hey Mike I guess it was probably worth a try but I probably could have written That myself and told you it was from the FAA. Your reply actually better than the contact conversation I had earlier in the year on another critical issue.
Note to other readers take note on how the FAA regards an AMOC. If you think you're going to get one you're going to need lots of data from your mechanic to provide to the local FAA person you're talking to these are nowhere near automatic. Carl
I also asked our association A&P/IA Erich Rempert to offer his suggestions after reviewing this thread. Here is what Erich had to say about a RAM replacement clamp:
_________________________________________
Ok,
So if they want to use the RAM 2177-300 clamps; they need to call RAM and ask if they are FAA-PMA approved as a blanket replacement for the 653332 clamp.
RAM will know the answer, since many of us have standing orders with RAM for the back ordered part, it would stand to reason that they’d mention they have an approved alternative on hand if that was the case.
Since these clamps are subject of an AD, everyone will now be understandably timid about signing off of a “alternative PN” clamp for that use. (how will lawyers spin that decision in court if it came to that?)
For clamps in non AD subject areas- fine (probably); but regarding that location , if they were a legal replacement they’d be sold out too….
Call and find out.
Just the view from my hangar ~
~Erich Rempert, IA Consultant
_________________________________
Regards,
Mike
Michael Jay Jones (MikeJJ)
Piper Owners Aviation Director, Forum Moderator, Author
I have a Seneca II and have had 2 clamps on order from Spruce since July of 2023. They are saying delivery next April. This will beat the date of July 2025 when the 6 month inspection window closes. If that date isn't met I guess I will go the RAM route unless the FAA extends the inspection window.
Comments
What I was alluring to is the fact the FAA will say parts are being produced at the moment. I know they've been on back order for a long time you are certainly correct on that. Carl
48 yrs A/P IA DAL aircraft inspector. 172N
But at least reading the RAM SB the 24540-300 is the equivalent part to the 653332. So can we use 24540-300 as a replacement?
Hi All,
Clamp PN 24540-300 is FAA-PMA and is approved to replace PN 653332.
I’ll check in with my IA tomorrow and see what he says. I’ll report back guys….
George
N8434M KLPR
If possible can you link a reference for this that I can print for my IA? Thanks.
HG, thanks for the answer I didn't have the SB in front of me out of town for another week or so but that's exactly The statement you need to see on approved equivalents... Based on that ,tokirbymd, they would be an approved replacement. Carl
You have to be very careful on the term equivalent that's not exactly the statement you want to base a replacement part on
48 yrs A/P IA DAL aircraft inspector. 172N
Hi All,
I promised an update on the Turbo V Band Coupling discussed in AD 2023-09-09.
We test flew a friend’s Piper Seneca today that had a new V Band Coupling installed.
His Coupling had failed at the Spot Weld. It was discovered at the AD required inspection of “every 50 hours or 6 months TIS”. It OP’s Checked OK.
Apparently there has been a bit of confusion on this part, as the PN’s differed. Aero Mach has the part in stock, runs $500 and ships quickly. The attached documents highlight the Aero Mach PN as being a suitable sub for the TCM PN. They are identical parts.
Many Pilots A&P’s have previously ordered these and they went Backorder. Broken Couplings can ground the airplane, TIS may ground the airplane in July of 2025.
My IA will install 2 on my Seneca this December. The part, installation and paperwork are all safe and legal.
So, I hope this all makes some sense and helps!
Stay Safe, Fly Fun!
George
N8434M KLPR
I ordered and received the same v bands. However, I am having difficulty finding where 24540-300 is a PMA approved alternate PN. Yes, the RAM SB states the 2177-300 is an approved replacement for both 653332 OR 24540-300. However is this proof that those 2 parts are equivalent? Also, I saw on another forum that the 24540-300 is stainless, and the 653332 is inconel? If so, then they aren't technically the same part, even if both fit? Lastly, is an AMOC required for this substitution, or just a log entry?
Hi T,
Glad you were able to get the V Bands!
Heres what I know…or what I ~think~ I know 😜
In speaking with my IA yesterday, he installed these V Bands on another Seneca with a Log Book Entry. No FSDO Field AMOC Approval being required. We Test Flew my friends airplane and it worked fine.
Now, you bring up a good question and I don’t know the answer, but will try to find out. I do not know if these V Bands, PN 24540-300, are Stainless Steel vs PN 653332 being Inconel. Both obviously “do the job” in a High Heat Environment, with both Parts being FAA-PMA. As far as this application of Suitable Sub PN’s, I’m thinking the Undergraduate logic of… If A=B and B=C, then A=C applies. 🧐
Hope that helps!
Stay Safe, Fly Fun!
George
N8434M KLPR
Hi T,
Sorry so long in getting back to your question, my IA was off on a TDY job…
He says these V Clamps, PN 24540-300, are infact Stainless Steel, and are a suitable sub.
Hope that helps!
George
N8434M KLPR
Thank you for your updates George. No response from the FAA to my letter about this issue. It seems our members are more responsive than the FAA.
Regards,
Mike
OK thanks, I may hold off on installing these and see if I get the 65332 delivered before July since they "may" be Inconel. Not that there is any data that shows this is required since I heard they changed to that material from stainless a while back, so either stainless was ok from the beginning, or they determined there was a problem and changed without notifying anyone.
Consider expanding the audience a bit by sending a copy to your Representative and Senator with a cover letter nicely stating the expectation of a timely response (mere reply is insufficient). Might even add the OIG to the mix. AOPA as well given that chances are good that many of the members on this forum also pay for AOPA's advocacy. This is far too easy for the Agency to put in the bucket and let it age.
Point is, I have first hand experience with trying to get response from a single well known Agency (not naming names) and impatiently waited 3 years for what should have proven a simple signature on a complete package. After 3 years, I sent a letter to the local Senator, the Senator directly engaged that Agency, and one month later my package miraculously worked is way to the top of the pile and got approval.
While it does appear that the Piper Owner's group found an acceptable substitute, at a minimum, I'd expect the FAA to update documentation to explicitly allow the substitute part rather than have individuals attempt to self-lawyer their way through.
I have received a reply from the FAA:
______________________________________
Dear Mr. Michael Jay Jones,
The FAA is aware there are part shortages and long lead times. The FAA did reach out to some of the OEMs who are aware of the issue. Some companies are working on alternate designs which would provide alleviation. An Alternative Method of Compliance (AMOC) can be requested, however sufficient data would have to be provided to the FAA in order for the FAA to make a decision regarding the Alternative Method of Compliance.
AD 2023-09-09 does provide an alternative to removing the v-band coupling from service as long as repetitive inspections are done every 6 months or every 100 hours TIS, whichever occurs first. If the v-band coupling fails to meet any inspection criteria in paragraphs (k)(1) through (7) or (l) of this AD, it must be removed from service before further flight. This alleviation is applicable until July 17, 2025, and was incorporated into the AD to allow time for the v-band clamps to become available.
Sincerely,
Tom Teplik
FAA Central Certification Branch, AIR-765
(316) 946-4196
___________________________________
Regards,
Mike
Hey Mike I guess it was probably worth a try but I probably could have written That myself and told you it was from the FAA. Your reply actually better than the contact conversation I had earlier in the year on another critical issue.
Note to other readers take note on how the FAA regards an AMOC. If you think you're going to get one you're going to need lots of data from your mechanic to provide to the local FAA person you're talking to these are nowhere near automatic. Carl
48 yrs A/P IA DAL aircraft inspector. 172N
I also asked our association A&P/IA Erich Rempert to offer his suggestions after reviewing this thread. Here is what Erich had to say about a RAM replacement clamp:
_________________________________________
Ok,
So if they want to use the RAM 2177-300 clamps; they need to call RAM and ask if they are FAA-PMA approved as a blanket replacement for the 653332 clamp.
RAM will know the answer, since many of us have standing orders with RAM for the back ordered part, it would stand to reason that they’d mention they have an approved alternative on hand if that was the case.
Since these clamps are subject of an AD, everyone will now be understandably timid about signing off of a “alternative PN” clamp for that use. (how will lawyers spin that decision in court if it came to that?)
For clamps in non AD subject areas- fine (probably); but regarding that location , if they were a legal replacement they’d be sold out too….
Call and find out.
Just the view from my hangar ~
~Erich Rempert, IA Consultant
_________________________________
Regards,
Mike
I have a Seneca II and have had 2 clamps on order from Spruce since July of 2023. They are saying delivery next April. This will beat the date of July 2025 when the 6 month inspection window closes. If that date isn't met I guess I will go the RAM route unless the FAA extends the inspection window.
Al Brightwell