@Malibuflyer got the point. Noone will know if the engine was glued from a crashed plane. That’s why I was rather looking for swap engine. Airplane has expired ARC, when I bought it, I brought here in pieces and bolted together. I was also hoping for any inspection of engine by shop, but from first time I was ready to swap the engine for any with history. Let’s see what CAA will say, they are also trying to find solution with this engine. Anyway this thread was posted also with little hope I can find here suitable engine for me. :)
Hi guys, so news are here. Bad news. CAA wants engine overhaul. Shockload inspection, and internal inspection is not satisfactory for them. There is no other chance to get it airworthy, only overhaul.
So if you ever lost engine logbook, you are doomed. My only chance now is to get any engine with logs.
Have a nice day, since I don’t.
Jelen wrote:
So if you ever lost engine logbook, you are doomed.
At least if you lost the logbook and the receipt and the installing work documentation and …
If “only” the engine log is lost, there are typically means to reconstruct the history. If no documentation is left at all, then things get difficult, indeed.
I am sorry for you. I hope you can find another engine.
I don’t understand what is going on here.
I have Continental IO360D in C172, with lost logs, tbo is on it’s limit, nearly 1500hrs.CAA requires FORM 1 of engine to issue ARC
This is a complete nonsense requirement. The national CAA cannot just tell somebody with a 20-30 year old plane to pull out a Form 1 for the engine, to renew the CofA – if the country permits running on-condition. Nobody could get their hands on a Form 1.
There must be something else happening.
Country permits running on condition, but this is import. Even if you are importing from another easa state. Anyway it is interesting, if I had airplane with CofA, and engine will die, I buy another engine, with no log book, and put it inside. Is it same situation? Is it case to revoke CofA? I don’t understand that on condition conditions. Maybe we can run on condition, but condition has to be documented. Then I will understand.
You cannot install a “major part” on a certified aircraft without paperwork.
Some big concessions here (a hot topic since many maint companies in Europe refuse to accept this) but an engine will always need “top paperwork”, whether bought new, overhauled, and if you have a new engine (that you owned since new) overhauled then you are effectively buying a used engine (your previous ownership is irrelevant).
That’s for EASA-reg. On N-reg you have options; an FAA A&P has the authority to inspect a part and declare it airworthy (again, most European maint shops refuse to operate that).
Surprising that Czech CAA is demanding how the EASA-1 form is issued. They have no right to do that. They are required to accept an EASA-1 form without question; that’s how the “system” works, otherwise it would collapse because x% of aviation maintenance is done by shady people, and everybody knows that 
Can you go back to D-reg?
Clearly understand I can’t install unknown major part. I wanted check engine by shop. But they do not accept shop check, they say company can’t issue form1 just because inspection. And shop said also they will do it, if CAA will approve. They don’t so only option is overhaul. Overhaul means new crankshaft, because my is non-var, so 40k€. No option for me. Only possibility is used engine with log and last form1. Case closed…
I think you should ask EASA for clarification to confirm that the requirements from Czech CAA is really valid.
Fly310 wrote:
I think you should ask EASA for clarification to confirm that the requirements from Czech CAA is really valid.
This. Or register it somewhere else.
