Narrative:

Airworthiness directive 2000-18-53. Textron lycoming, oil filter converter plate. Part number lw-13904, gasket part number lw-13388 required replacement to prevent complete loss of engine oil and subsequent seizing of engine. The owner and I read the airworthiness directive 2000-18-53 note and both of us felt that this airworthiness directive did not apply to his aircraft because of the statement 'applies only if the engine was repaired or overhauled after 1999.' since his engine did not meet this criteria, I signed his logbook as airworthiness directive not applicable per yr. Had the airworthiness directive note stated in the beginning, 'apply to all lycoming with dual magnetos' I would not have misinterped, but because of the service bulletin 543A, I felt it didn't apply and no further action was necessary. As a result of not complying to this airworthiness directive note, the engine lost oil and seized causing an off airport landing. However, the aircraft was able to make a safe landing on a road in the desert 8 mi short of the airport with no damage or injuries. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter stated the decision to not accomplish the airworthiness directive was based on the revision 543A which excluded the owner's engine. The reporter said a thorough reading of the airworthiness directive states that any lycoming engine equipped with a dual single shaft magneto with a 'V' preceding the engine number requires accomplishment. The reporter said this statement should have been highlighted in the directive to avoid confusion.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A C182 IN CRUISE HAD THE ENG SEIZE AND AN EMER OFF-FIELD LNDG WAS MADE. SEIZURE DUE TO LOSS OF OIL PRESSURE AND QUANTITY.

Narrative: AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE 2000-18-53. TEXTRON LYCOMING, OIL FILTER CONVERTER PLATE. PART NUMBER LW-13904, GASKET PART NUMBER LW-13388 REQUIRED REPLACEMENT TO PREVENT COMPLETE LOSS OF ENG OIL AND SUBSEQUENT SEIZING OF ENG. THE OWNER AND I READ THE AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE 2000-18-53 NOTE AND BOTH OF US FELT THAT THIS AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE DID NOT APPLY TO HIS ACFT BECAUSE OF THE STATEMENT 'APPLIES ONLY IF THE ENG WAS REPAIRED OR OVERHAULED AFTER 1999.' SINCE HIS ENG DID NOT MEET THIS CRITERIA, I SIGNED HIS LOGBOOK AS AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE NOT APPLICABLE PER YR. HAD THE AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE NOTE STATED IN THE BEGINNING, 'APPLY TO ALL LYCOMING WITH DUAL MAGNETOS' I WOULD NOT HAVE MISINTERPED, BUT BECAUSE OF THE SVC BULLETIN 543A, I FELT IT DIDN'T APPLY AND NO FURTHER ACTION WAS NECESSARY. AS A RESULT OF NOT COMPLYING TO THIS AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE NOTE, THE ENG LOST OIL AND SEIZED CAUSING AN OFF ARPT LNDG. HOWEVER, THE ACFT WAS ABLE TO MAKE A SAFE LNDG ON A ROAD IN THE DESERT 8 MI SHORT OF THE ARPT WITH NO DAMAGE OR INJURIES. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED THE DECISION TO NOT ACCOMPLISH THE AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE WAS BASED ON THE REVISION 543A WHICH EXCLUDED THE OWNER'S ENG. THE RPTR SAID A THOROUGH READING OF THE AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE STATES THAT ANY LYCOMING ENG EQUIPPED WITH A DUAL SINGLE SHAFT MAGNETO WITH A 'V' PRECEDING THE ENG NUMBER REQUIRES ACCOMPLISHMENT. THE RPTR SAID THIS STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN HIGHLIGHTED IN THE DIRECTIVE TO AVOID CONFUSION.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.