Critical Component Failures

This article, by Mike Busch, originally appeared in the March 2010 issue of Sport Aviation as part three in the series “Reliability-Centered Maintenance.” We are reprinting it with the permission of the author.

To properly apply reliability-centered maintenance (RCM) principles to the maintenance of our piston aircraft engines, we need to analyze the failure modes and failure consequences of each major component part of those engines.

In this article we’ll examine the critical components of these engines, how they fail, what the consequences are of those failures on engine operation and safety of flight, and what sort of maintenance actions we can take to deal with those failures effectively and cost-efficiently.

Crankshaft

It’s hard to think of a more serious piston engine failure mode than a crankshaft failure. If it fails, the engine quits. Yet crankshafts are rarely replaced at overhaul. Lycoming says their crankshafts often remain in service for more than 14,000 hours and 50 years! TCM hasn’t published this sort of data, but TCM crankshafts probably have similar longevity.

Crankshafts fail in three ways: 1) infant-mortality failures due to improper material or manufacture, 2) failures following unreported prop strikes, and 3) failures secondary to oil starvation and/or bearing failure.

We’ve seen a rash of infant mortality crankshaft failures in recent years. Both TCM and Lycoming have had major recalls of crankshafts that were either forged from bad steel or were physically damaged during manufacture. Those failures invariably occurred within the first 200 hours after a newly manufactured crankshaft entered service. If a crankshaft survives the first 200 hours, we can be pretty confident that it was manufactured correctly and should perform reliably for many engine TBOs.

Unreported prop strikes seem to be getting rare because owners and mechanics are becoming smarter about the high risk of operating an engine after a prop strike. Both TCM and Lycoming state that any incident that damages the propeller enough that it has to be removed for repair warrants an engine teardown inspection. This applies even to prop damage that occurs when the engine isn’t running. Insurance will pay for the teardown and any necessary repairs, no questions asked, so it’s a no-brainer.

That leaves us with failures due to oil starvation and/or bearing failure. We’ll talk about these when we look at oil pumps and bearings.

Crankcase

Crankcases are also rarely replaced at major overhaul, and they often provide reliable service for many TBOs. If the case stays in service long enough, it will eventually crack. The good news is that case cracks propagate slowly, so a detailed annual visual inspection is sufficient to detect such cracks before they pose a threat to safety. Engine failures caused by case cracks are extremely rare.

Camshaft and lifters

The cam/lifter interface endures more pressure and friction than any other moving parts in the engine. The cam lobes and lifter faces must be hard and smooth in order to function and survive. Even tiny corrosion pits (caused by disuse or acid build-up in the oil) can lead to rapid destruction (spalling) of the cam and lifters and the need for a premature teardown. This is the number one reason that engines fail to make TBO. This problem mainly affects owner-flown airplanes because they tend to fly irregularly and sit unflown for weeks at a time.

Camshaft and lifter problems seldom cause catastrophic engine failures. The engine will continue to make power even with severely spalled cam lobes that have lost a lot of metal, although there is some small loss of power. Typically, the problem is discovered when the oil filter is cut open and found to be full of metal.

If the oil filter isn’t cut open and inspected on a regular basis, the cam and lifter failure may progress undetected to the point that ferrous metal circulates through the oil system and contaminates the engine’s bearings. In rare cases, this can cause catastrophic engine failure. A program of regular oil filter inspection and oil analysis will prevent such failures.

If the engine is flown regularly, the cam and lifters can remain in pristine condition for thousands of hours. Some overhaul shops routinely replace the cam and lifters with new ones at major overhaul, but other shops use reground cams and lifters and most knowledgeable engine experts agree that properly reground cams and lifters are just as reliable as new ones.

Gears

The engine has lots of gears: crankshaft and camshaft gears, oil pump and fuel pump drive gears, magneto and accessory drive gears, prop governor drive gears, and sometimes alternator drive gears. These gears typically have a very long useful life and are not usually replaced at major overhaul unless obvious damage is found. Gears rarely cause catastrophic engine failures.

Oil pump

Failure of the oil pump is occasionally responsible for catastrophic engine failures. If oil pressure is lost, the engine will seize quite quickly. The oil pump is very simple, consisting of two gears in a close-tolerance housing, and is usually trouble-free. When trouble does occur it usually starts making metal long before complete failure occurs. Regular oil filter inspection and oil analysis will normally detect oil pump problems long before they reach the failure point.

Bearings

Bearing failure is responsible for a significant number of catastrophic engine failures. Under normal circumstances, bearings have a very long useful life. They are always replaced at major overhaul, but it’s quite typical for bearings that are removed at overhaul to be in excellent (sometimes even pristine) condition with very little measurable wear. Bearings fail prematurely for three reasons: (1) they become contaminated with metal from some other failure; (2) they become oil-starved when oil pressure is lost; or (3) they become oil-starved because the bearing shells shift position in the crankcase saddles to the point where the bearing’s oil supply holes become misaligned (“spun bearing”).

Contamination failures can be prevented by using a full-flow oil filter and inspecting the filter for metal on a regular basis. So long as the filter is changed before its filtering capacity is exceeded, particles of wear metals will be caught by the filter and won’t contaminate the bearings. If significant metal is found in the filter, the aircraft should be grounded until the source of the metal is found and corrected.

Oil starvation failures are fairly rare. Pilots tend to be well-trained to respond to loss of oil pressure by reducing power and landing at the first opportunity. Bearings will continue to function properly even with fairly low oil pressure (e.g., 10 psi).

Spun bearings are usually infant mortality failures that occur either shortly after an engine is overhauled (assembly error), or shortly after cylinder replacement. Failures can also occur after a long period of crankcase fretting (which is detectable through oil filter inspection and oil analysis), or after extreme cold-starts without proper pre-heating. These are usually random failures, unrelated to hours or years since overhaul.

Connecting rods

Connecting rod failure is responsible for a significant number of catastrophic engine failures. When rod fails in flight, it often punches a hole in the crankcase and causes loss of engine oil and subsequent oil starvation. Rod failures have also been known to result in camshaft breakage. The result is invariably a rapid loss of engine power.

Connecting rods usually have a very long useful life and are not normally replaced at major overhaul. (The rod bearings, like all bearings, are always replaced at overhaul.)  Some rod failures are infant mortality failures caused by improper torque of the rod cap bolts. Rod failures can also be caused by failure of the rod bearings, and these are usually random failures unrelated to time since overhaul.

Pistons and rings

Piston and ring failures can cause catastrophic engine failures, usually involving only partial power loss but occasionally total power loss. Piston and ring failures are of two types: (1) infant mortality failures due to improper manufacture or installation; and (2) heat-distress failures caused by pre-ignition or destructive detonation events. Heat-distress failures can be caused by contaminated fuel or improper engine operation, but they are generally unrelated to hours or years since overhaul. Use of a digital engine monitor can usually detect pre-ignition or destructive detonation episodes and allow the pilot to take corrective action before heat-distress damage occurs.

Cylinders

Cylinder failures can cause catastrophic engine failures, usually involving only partial power loss but occasionally total power loss. A cylinder has a forged steel barrel mated to an aluminum alloy head. Cylinder barrels normally wear slowly, and excessive wear is detected at annual inspection by means of compression tests and borescope inspections. However, cylinder heads can suffer fatigue failures, and occasionally the head can separate from the barrel, causing a catastrophic engine failure. Cylinder head failures can be infant mortality problems (due to improper manufacture) or can be age-related. Age-related failures seldom occur unless the cylinder is operated for more than two or three TBOs. Nowadays, most major overhauls include new cylinders, so age-related cylinder failures have become quite rare.

Valves and valve guides

It is quite common for valves and guides (particularly exhaust) to develop problems well short of TBO. Valve problems can usually be detected prior to failure by means of compression tests, borescope inspections, and surveillance with a digital engine monitor (provided the pilot knows how to interpret the engine monitor data). If a valve fails completely, a significant power loss can occur.

Rocker arms and pushrods

Rocker arms and pushrods (which operate the valves) typically have a very long useful life and are not routinely replaced at major overhaul. (Rocker arm bushings are always replaced at overhaul). Rocker arm failure is quite rare. Pushrod failures are caused by stuck valves and can almost always be avoided through repetitive valve inspections and digital engine monitor usage, as discussed earlier.

Magnetos

Magneto failure is uncomfortably commonplace. Fortunately, aircraft engines are equipped with dual magnetos for redundancy, and the probability of both magnetos failing simultaneously is extremely remote. Mag checks during pre-flight run-up can detect gross magneto failures, but in-flight mag checks are far better at detecting subtle or incipient failures. Digital engine monitors can reliably detect magneto failures in real time if the pilot knows how to interpret the data. Magnetos should be disassembled, inspected, and serviced every 500 hours—doing so drastically reduces the likelihood of an in-flight magneto failure.

The bottom line

The “bottom-end” components of these engines—crankcase, crankshaft, camshaft, bearings, gears, oil pump, etc.—are very robust. They normally exhibit very long useful lives that are many times as long as recommended TBOs. Most of these bottom-end components (with the notable exception of bearings) are reused at major overhaul and not replaced on a routine basis.

When these items do fail prematurely, the failures mostly occur shortly after engine manufacture, rebuild, or overhaul, or they are random failures that are unrelated to hours or years since overhaul. The vast majority of random failures can be detected long before they get bad enough to cause catastrophic engine failure simply by means of routine oil filter inspection and laboratory oil analysis. There seems to be no evidence that these bottom-end components exhibit any sort of well-defined steep-slope wear-out zone that would justify fixed-interval overhaul or replacement at TBO.

The “top-end” components—pistons, cylinders, valves, etc.—are considerably less robust. (The “top end” of a piston engine is analogous to the “hot section” of a turbine engine.) It is not unusual for top-end components to fail prior to TBO. However, most of these failures can be prevented by regular inspections (compression tests, borescope, etc.) and by use of digital engine monitors (by pilots who have been taught how to interpret the data). Furthermore, when potential failures are detected, the top-end components can be repaired or replaced quite easily without the need for engine teardown. Once again, the failures are mostly infant-mortality failures or random failures that do not correlate with time since overhaul.

The bottom line is that a detailed failure analysis of piston aircraft engines using RCM principles strongly suggests that what the airlines and military found to be true about turbine aircraft engines is also true of piston aircraft engines: The traditional practice of fixed-interval overhaul or replacement is counterproductive. A conscientiously applied program of on-condition maintenance that includes regular oil filter inspections, oil analysis, compression tests, borescope inspections, and in-flight digital engine monitor usage can be expected to yield improved reliability and much reduced maintenance expense and downtime.

Magnetos are an exception. They really need to go through a fixed-interval major maintenance cycle every 500 hours, because we have no effective means of detecting potential magneto failures without disassembly inspection.

By |2026-06-05T16:09:47-04:00July 18, 2023|Aircraft, Articles|Comments Off on Critical Component Failures

Under Pressure! (Part 2)

In Part 1 of this saga, our flying club’s newly installed O-360 lost oil pressure in flight with a student pilot at the controls. After a brief landing then an immediate a go-around (you read that right), and a fair amount of sweat and tears – but fortunately no blood – we found the engine had digested an errant paper towel, which was blocking the suction screen.

Crud in the pan

The hard part begins

Now that we knew the engine actually did suffer a loss of oil pressure (it wasn’t just the gauge) and the filter analysis showed that some damage had been done, our next step was to figure how to proceed.

We consulted as many experts as we could and received suggestions ranging from “just go fly it” to “pull a cylinder and look for damage” to “overhaul it” and everything in between. The jury was out, and we had to decide whose suggestion to follow.

Lycoming has a convenient Service Bulletin about what to do if you find metal in the oil filter, so we started there. Service Bulletin 480F suggested, based on the amount and size of metal in the oil filter, that we remove the oil pan and check for metal. That seemed like a good idea; not only were we still troubleshooting mechanical wear, but also, we didn’t know how much paper towel was still in the engine.

It took two solid days of work to remove, inspect, clean, and reinstall the oil sump, which still had paper towel in it. Once that was done, after finding no large pieces of metal in the sump and being sure there weren’t any leftover paper towels in the engine, we did a 30-minute ground run then drained the oil, and cut the filter to check for metal.

Intestinal fortitude

The oil analysis was unremarkable, but the oil filter report noted 10-15 non-ferrous metallic flakes per pleat with a few dozen larger pieces that had scrape marks on them. So – a little better than

Metal from the filter, magnified in analysis

before, but certainly not clean. But this was only a 30-minute ground run compared to the 20-some hour sample. Were the improvements from the shorter oil change, or an actual improvement? We didn’t know.

Now, I’ve been an analyst at Blackstone for over a decade. I’ve helped countless customers diagnose their own engine issues and told people to go fly it and check back. But there isn’t any amount of intestinal fortitude that prepares someone for the reality of experiencing a problem, diagnosing engine damage, doing what you can to fix it, and know that the next step is to go flying and see how it goes.

The two A&Ps on the field agreed that if we made it past the first 10 hours (if) without any oil pressure issues, then we should be fine. “But watch that oil pressure,” they cautioned.

Going up

We took all the precautions we could: we went up in pairs (so one person could watch the oil pressure), we selected calm days, affording us four runway options for an emergency landing, and we stayed within glide distance of the airport for 10 long hours.

I am glad to say that those first 10 hours were uneventful. Oil pressure remained strong, the engine ran great, and we had no issues. With each hour that passed, our confidence grew, so we eagerly sent another oil and filter sample for analysis, hoping for hard data to bolster our confidence.

The oil analysis was unremarkable, but the filter – not great. Approximately 30 variously sized non-ferrous flakes were present per pleat, along with one piece of steel.

Not what you want to see

This wasn’t what we were hoping for, but this oil run was 10 hours long as opposed to the previous 30-minute ground-run sample. There was bound to be more metal, right? Regardless, there was still more metal after 10 hours than there was in our previous 50-hour samples, so we weren’t in the clear yet.

Our solution? Do another 10-hour oil run for an apples-to-apples comparison. At this point, with 10 hours of uneventful flying under our belt, our confidence was starting to grow, so we ventured out a little from the airport environment. After 10 hours, we sent the oil and filter for analysis, fairly confident that this second sample would reveal the improvement that was bound to come.

Instead, we received the disheartening news that “the overall quantity and size of the non-ferrous flakes was similar to the previous filter.” Dang.

Hard discussions

We debated what to do next. Are we throwing money away on oil and filters when we might need an overhaul anyway? Do we keep wasting filters when the nationwide filter shortage might ground us anyway? Do we run 25 hours, despite not seeing an improvement in the metals?

We reconsidered an earlier suggestion to pull a cylinder and look for crank/bearing damage, but that might raise more questions than answers: what should a 1500-hour crank/bearing look like? How will we know if the damage is excessive without pulling all four cylinders and comparing? And at that point why not just overhaul?

Opinions varied among our club members. One thought we were overreacting and that a paper towel couldn’t cause engine damage. Others of us were more cautious, remembering how little metal our engine used to make in 50 hours. As a group, we exchanged some vibrant text conversations as we decided how to proceed.

With our concern about irreversible, ongoing damage, we opted to do another short 10-hour oil change to try and limit further damage and get another good comparison to gauge progress. I was afraid that if this sample didn’t come back cleaner, we’d start considering exploratory surgery and watch the summer tick by from the ground.

Baby steps

We knocked those 10 hours out in less than a week and had results early the following week. I jokingly told my coworker that I’d bribe him with beer if he gave us a good enough report that we wouldn’t have to ground the aircraft for the summer.

Still with the metal

As it turned out, no bribery was needed: the oil analysis came back clean and the filter report contained good news: less metal than before. Finally! Maybe everything was going to be okay. Granted, we’re not totally out of the woods yet – we’re still monitoring and we’re going to change the oil in 25 hours, but at least we’ve got data that suggests we’re past the worst of it. If the numbers are good in 25 hours, then we’ll try 50. That night of the improved report was the best night’s sleep I’d gotten in months.

Lessons learned

Hindsight is always 20/20, as they say, but looking back I think there are several lessons to be learned.

First, when you’re troubleshooting a problem, do your research and get as much data as you can. It honestly shocked me how many different opinions we received. At one point I called Lycoming. They called me back several days later, and after listening to my story the tech said we needed an overhaul.

I replied, “Well in the week I was waiting for you to get back to me, we did a 30-minute ground run, tested the oil and filter, and we’ve since flown a couple of uneventful hours, as per SB 480 and we’re planning on flying a total of 10 hours before retesting.”

He said, “Okay, that’s good. Do that and proceed as planned.”

In less than five minutes he went from telling me to overhaul to “go fly.” There’s a vast dichotomy there. I get that there’s a lot of liability in aviation, but that just makes it harder to make good, educated decisions. We did a lot of research, gathered data, and consulted with as many people as we could to make the best decision for us. Do your homework.

Second, remember that you have many tools in your toolbox for diagnosing problems. Our oil reports came back clean all along – it was the filter analysis that was showing metal. Oil analysis measures the microscopic particles in the oil; the filter/screen is where you’ll see visible metal. Always cut your filter open, and use oil analysis in conjunction with other tests (like borescope and compression checks). The more data you have, the better decision you can make.

Third, as we said last time – trust your gut. If your intuition tells you something is wrong, don’t ignore it. But the reverse is also true: after all those hours of flying the pattern with strong oil pressure, good RPMs, and normal oil temps, we had a strong feeling that our engine was going to be okay – we just had to wait a few oil changes for the data to support our intuition.

And last but certainly not least – keep the damn paper towels far away from your engine!

By |2026-06-05T16:12:54-04:00July 18, 2023|Aircraft, Articles|Comments Off on Under Pressure! (Part 2)
Go to Top