Polishing prop

[Checkout_my_Six]

so....would a serviceable part, that is used, still be airworthy?

 

[Tom-D]

Prior to about 20 years ago, there were polished props all over the bloody place and nobody seemed to give a flying ****, then suddenly a giant kerfuffle arose and that ended with condemned and repainted props across the country, which is the subject base for this part of the thread. There were 3 planes on the field that I was working on at the time that were affected, one had to replace his prop, the other two got painted. I'm wondering where that came from.

Your imagination ?

 

[Tom-D]

Hartzell specifically bans polishing their props.

Show me where?

 

[3393RP]

I'm sorry Henning but Googling "widely publicized prohibition on polishing props" produces nothing other than a link to your own post.

It's self perpetuating approval of everything he says...the perfect situation for Henning.

 

[Tom-D]

Not exactly relevant to this discussion, since the issue here is only whether the ICA must be followed by a maintainer, not how to write one and get it approved by the FAA.
It's 43.13(a), not FAA Order 8110.54A, which makes use of the ICA mandatory by persons performing maintenance under Part 43 (like Tom and the OP's mechanic).

Absolutely wrong. read the rule again.

FAR 35.4 tell me where any ICA is mandatory.

35.4 Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.
The applicant must prepare Instructions for Continued Airworthiness in accordance with appendix A to this part that are acceptable to the Administrator. The instructions may be incomplete at type certification if a program exists to ensure their completion prior to delivery of the first aircraft with the propeller installed, or upon issuance of a standard certificate of airworthiness for an aircraft with the propeller installed, whichever occurs later.

If you want a new propeller production certificate you'll write the ICAs, but you don't have to make them mandatory.


If you believe the ICA in question is mandatory, tell me if you are complying with the overhaul and life limits stated there?

 

[bnt83]

Order 8620.2A, Applicability and Enforcement of Manufacturer's Data

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...cRnTmgGnhKWbOMoVw&sig2=Uz5XWsVzeZDMc4IBfQO7bA

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Ebrz1BC6Mx3gUWRAw&sig2=n1OZl6Sks3l_xh4QSGO3HA

 

[Tom-D]

so....would a serviceable part, that is used, still be airworthy?

Determining that is totally the responsibility of the installer.

 

[bnt83]

IIRC, it was a Hartzel that was condemned and had to be replaced and McCauleys had to be etched and painted. I think it was the Senseniches that could stay polished. It was an FAA guy that came to the field and brought it all up BTW, so there was definitely something at the FAA that came up about it because he put stickers on the affected planes and came in the shop to explain that those props were not in compliance, and Hartzel didn't have a procedure for bringing a polished prop into compliance, they said, "It needs to be replaced."

Probably the same inspectors who made folks remove chromed spinners (how those holding up on EABs?) and forced folks get field approvals to install a simple 1 inch by 3 inch or so external data plate stamped with registration # to the tailcone skin via two CR3213-4-TBD blind rivets.

 

[Richard]

On my 1964 PA-28 I maintained the prop according the AFM (reference by aircraft S/N) which was to wipe it with a coat of motor oil.

 

[Henning]

Been watching old episodes of "Law and Order"??





I refuse to argue with idiots. I presented factual documents and let the reader draw his/her own conclusion.

See post #116

I did not read in the documents what would answer according to the McCaully ICA that permits a mechanic who dressed one of their props to return it to service without touching up the paint. I'm not arguing, I believe it exists, however you haven't provided a reference that makes it clear.

 

[RotorAndWing]

I did not read in the documents what would answer according to the McCaully ICA that permits a mechanic who dressed one of their props to return it to service without touching up the paint. I'm not arguing, I believe it exists, however you haven't provided a reference that makes it clear.

I realize you are not an A&P and you do not hold any mechanic (FAA) ratings. Part of being an A&P is the ability to read applicable material and make a determination on procedures to bring an item into compliance. Go back and read 14 CFR Parts 35, 43, and 91, along with the mentioned AC's in this thread, the Prop ICA's and maintenance manuals. Then make a determination.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

I realize you are not an A&P and you do not hold any mechanic (FAA) ratings. Part of being an A&P is the ability to read applicable material and make a determination on procedures to bring an item into compliance. Go back and read 14 CFR Parts 35, 43, and 91, along with the mentioned AC's in this thread, the Prop ICA's and maintenance manuals. Then make a determination.

I think you just contradicted your self.....

 

[RotorAndWing]

I think you just contradicted your self.....

No, I know what I would do in this situation. I just don't want to get into a protracted argument with people who don't understand what's involved.

 

[bnt83]

Prop DER response:

Brian,
I do not have authority to approve a deviation from FAA approved McCauley overhaul/maintenance instructions as they ensure continued airworthiness. I recommend you contact McCauley product support for further guidance on your request.

 

[Silvaire]

My McCauley manual states the following - 61-00-06 Page 709 March 13/2013:

McCauley strongly recommends that all blades be painted

Now if you feel compelled to call the FAA to determine what exactly that means then so be it. If you have a polished prop and are afraid of the FAA then I'd say carry a four dollar rattle can of flat black in the baggage compartment so that you can be within anyone's perceived interpretation of compliance within a matter of minutes and be on your merry way.

 

[timwinters]

I'm not sure about props but I've always enjoyed a good spinner polishing.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

I think I'm gonna paint my prop today.....

 

[Henning]

I realize you are not an A&P and you do not hold any mechanic (FAA) ratings. Part of being an A&P is the ability to read applicable material and make a determination on procedures to bring an item into compliance. Go back and read 14 CFR Parts 35, 43, and 91, along with the mentioned AC's in this thread, the Prop ICA's and maintenance manuals. Then make a determination.

I know how to read it, I am not arguing the point. The thing is, lawyers, and Ron, are not mechanics, and the way this was all written does not clarify the matter to the conclusion we come to.

The only argument that works is the minor/major maintenance/repair distinctions, and those are ambiguous and unaddressed in either the ICA or the references you provided.

The words as written say "You dress the prop, you touch up the paint." There is no verbiage to indicate an exception. You have to make an assumption that the ICA was referring only to Major Repairs.

 

[Henning]

I think I'm gonna paint my prop today.....

I never really saw the big issue, props are simple to maintain. If you have a three blade you can make a cool swirly with the stripe pattern.

 

[Jimmy cooper]

I think I'm gonna paint my prop today.....

East coast propeller, Lancaster, penna. Randy is manager. He will explain the polished prop syndrome and the filing of a metal prop. Painting it yourself is not a good idea, that is if it is currently not painted but rather polished metal.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

East coast propeller, Lancaster, penna. Randy is manager. He will explain the polished prop syndrome and the filing of a metal prop. Painting it yourself is not a good idea, that is if it is currently not painted but rather polished metal.

thanks Jimmy.....I'll see them when it starts leaking.

Until then, I ain't gots time for dat.

 

[arkvet]

Hate to resurrect such and old thread but since it’s the correct subject I figured it was better than starting a new one. From reading back through the posts it appears about as clear as mud on whether a prop can be polished or not. The thread is reminiscent of the led panel light bulbs topic. Yeah I do find there to be a big difference between the words “should” and “must” and that’s what the past 4 pages have beaten to death.

Anyways, the thread is a little dated and I was wondering if there was any new clarification on the subject? Let me toss out the real world scenario that prompts the question:

Have a good buddy with a bonanza 79 36 I think. Beautiful plane. 3 blade prop. Not sure of mfg. He bought it a couple years ago. Prop was polished at the time. It’s immaculate. Keeps it looking great. He’s asked multiple mechanics / prop shops over the last coupon years and they all agree “it should be painted”. There’s no notation in the books of when it was stripped or if it started that way. Engine is around TBO and prop is same age. Everything in good order.

Every person that has suggested it needed to be painted has said they’d simply do it at time of prop overall considering that not going to be too far off. Until then just keep it nice and polished. No one mentioned a concern over airworthiness until that time, other than the prop shop that said IF they do work on the prop they’d have to paint it in order to sign it off as back into service. Otherwise, not an issue.

Here’s the concern. He wants to fly into Oshkosh this year. He’s concerned that there is a herd of FAA reps that just scour the field like a kid in a candy store looking for anything like that. Legit concern? I am probably going to go with him so would share that concern to some degree.

So without wading through all the minutia of the previous 4 pages what would your level of concern be in the above scenario?

 

[Mtns2Skies]

.

Here’s the concern. He wants to fly into Oshkosh this year. He’s concerned that there is a herd of FAA reps that just scour the field like a kid in a candy store looking for anything like that. Legit concern? I am probably going to go with him so would share that concern to some degree.

So without wading through all the minutia of the previous 4 pages what would your level of concern be in the above scenario?

That would be the least of my concerns.

A) the FAA doesn't do this.
B) even if they did there are sooo many planes there where would they even start?
C) even if they did (which again, they don't) they would have bigger fish to fry.

 

[JAWS]

As long as the prop remains airworthy on the aircraft, I would say carry on.

Once it comes off and goes to the prop shop, it will come back painted. The prop shop will/should follow the latest manufacturers ICA's.

 

[GRG55]

That would be the least of my concerns.

A) the FAA doesn't do this.
B) even if they did there are sooo many planes there where would they even start?
C) even if they did (which again, they don't) they would have bigger fish to fry.

Ditto.
If something like this was going on it would be all over the airfield in minutes. I've never heard of any such thing from the FAA any of the years I've been camping there.
I have heard about the repo guys wandering around though.