I'm glad this is behind me :)
The first entry in the engine logbook is not related to the aircraft CofA.
The aircraft logbook is irrelevant.
That very first entry should be the date of installation of the engine i.e. the date it is mounted on the mounting frame and everything connected up. That happens before (possibly months or more before) the aircraft gets a CofA, because the CofA is done only on the registry of the country of the first customer.
Like hopefully all TB owners I have the original ex-Socata French-language logbooks (which probably very few pilots continued to write into and instead started their own fresh ones) and these show the engine installation date. They are fairly unlikely to show the CofA date unless the aircraft was sold directly by Socata to the end user, which was rare. Also, the majority of TB aircraft were issued with multiple CofAs, due to registry transfers, often weeks or months after the original delivery. If you have too much time on your hands, you can browse some TB regs here 
Don't ask me how that "spotter" compiled the data; it is amazingly complete (up to about 2008) and some of the stuff in there must have been obtained from a contact inside Socata, IMHO.
I saw the posting about the aircraft CofA issue but I believe there is no basis at all for that interpretation - especially as the Lycoming's customer service rep (who has been answering the same question all day long, apparently) specifically disagrees with it.
However, if your local CAA says XYZ is true, and you get that in writing, they cannot possibly prosecute you. A barrister told me once that under UK law they could prosecute somebody else (i.e. their incorrect information does not modify the law) but they cannot prosecute you because you are entitled to expect that kind of communication to be correct. In the UK, this principle has been tested many times, to the consternation of the CAA where they took somebody to court and in the court it was discovered that some low level CAA employee wrote letters to the defendant which he/she was not authorised to write
My view, which is obviously worth what you are paying for it is that while you cannot get prosecuted for flying an unairworthy aircraft, you might have hassles with insurance (the insurer is entitled to check the regs directly and is not bound by the opinion of some CAA employee) and in some other scenarios there might be problems with warranties (reason as before).
Personally, if I was in the "SB569 / AD [whatever number it is] not complied with" group I would attend to it with some urgency, because the Lyco crankshaft debacle affected something of the order of 5000 engines, the majority of the owners will not have been tracking this crazy situation by reading pilot forums on a regular basis over the past decade, and it's going to hit them hard pretty soon when their next Annual comes up and suddenly a few load of IAs in the USA will advise their client of this nice little $50k AD which needs to be complied with... The vast majority of aircraft owners take little or no interest in their maintenance, anyway, and in Europe the impenetrability of the EASA Part M system discourages doing so (while making the owner responsible for it legally!). At best there is likely to be a shortage of engines.
I also think that if the confusion over dates gets resolved to the more strict (and IMHO probably correct) interpretation, there will be a big stink because many planes will turn out to have been flying without a CofA for anything up to a year or maybe longer.
A minute ago I read at TB forum that was the date when aircraft had received factory CofA e.g. first entry to logbook.
When I had to comply with SB569 (a year ago) I got the answer: "the first engine run".
Where did that come from?
From Lycoming - I can't find this e-mail but it was also confirmed at TB forum and required by Croatian Agency. I didn't want to argue because of 3 months difference.
When I had to comply with SB569 (a year ago) I got the answer: "the first engine run".
Where did that come from?
Sure, how else could they push loads of engines to companies like Socata and collect the money right away while the engines are piling up in the customer's warehouse?
Not sure how far your tongue was stuck in your cheek 
I have no idea of what sort of credit terms Socata got from Lycoming, but Socata did have a very pressing reason to make the first engine logbook entry (the installation date) within 1 year of the date on which Lyco shipped the engine, otherwise it would have had to go all the way back to Lyco for an overhaul (lots of €€€€€ wasted). Curiously, with a number of engines, including mine, the two dates were just a few days short of 1 year
But I don't see how this 1 year gap is relevant to SB569, because the 12 years starts with the engine installation date (according to Lyco).
It is obviously farcical, IF you are going to stick a 12 year life limit on the crankshaft, to not count the time the engine sat on the shelf at Socata, but lots of things in aviation are based on bizzare principles...
The relevant date is the date of installation of the engine in the airframe.
Sure, how else could they push loads of engines to companies like Socata and collect the money right away while the engines are piling up in the customer's warehouse?
The relevant date is the date of installation of the engine in the airframe.
When I had to comply with SB569 (a year ago) I got the answer: "the first engine run". In my case first engine run was October 1999, while installation of the engine in the airframe was February 2000. Because it was not much time difference between these two dates, I didn't want to fight CCAA (our Agency) and performed engine replacement in November 2011.
I have just spoken to Lycoming USA.
The relevant date is the date of installation of the engine in the airframe.
This will normally be the first entry in the engine logbook.
The bottom line is that if the plane for sale is discounted by the right amount, the deal is a good one because the buyer will end up with a known quantity at the front of the plane.
Friends of mine bought their 550 powered aerobatic aircraft from an insurance company with an almost calendar timed out crank, discounted appropriately. Then they bought the crank kit from the previous owner of the aircraft for $2K... Long after Lycoming had stopped selling them at that price. I think he got paid out reasonably by the insurance co and must've been feeling generous!
I think after a couple of years of trials and tribulations with the aircraft, they'll end up doing OK with it.
I don't know but since an engine is a self contained component, with its own standalone certification, what might matter is when the engine was assembled, not when the engine was installed.
I certainly don't see a case for the 12 years starting with when the aircraft got its CofA.
This says
The AD requires that the crankshaft be replaced at the earliest of the following: the time of the next engine overhaul as specified by Lycoming, the next separation of the crankcase, or no later than 12 years from the time the crankshaft first entered service or was last overhauled.
What does "entered service" mean? Surely it means the first engine run.
I've tried phoning Lyco but every person I get put through to is just an answering machine - 001 570-323-6181
