Buying a plane with prop strike

[bflynn]

But you certainly were adament the "legal stuff" applied in your earlier posts.

Actually, I wasn't thinking legal. I was thinking me, in the situation of considering purchasing an airplane which had a prop strike without a teardown. I wrote it very poorly because this is a flawed method of communications and despite having done this for nearly 30 years, I still fail at it.

They are mandatory (to me). They are not optional (to me). The aircraft is not airworthy (to me) and (I think) every operator should know that. The fact is, a prop strike leaves the engine in an unknown state. I do not fly an airplane when there is a good reason there could be a problem with the engine. That puts it in the realm where the outcome of the flight is uncertain. I don't need the FAA to mandate that this needs to be fixed.

Yes, I wrote it in a way that didn't convey my thoughts at all. Sue me.

Meanwhile, If your future contributions to this thread is to harangue me more, know that I'm out. You'll be playing with yourself from here on out.

 

[Juliet Hotel]

They are mandatory (to me). They are not optional (to me). The aircraft is not airworthy (to me) and (I think) every operator should know that.

You think every operator should know your personal thoughts on prop strike engine inspections?

 

[JAWS]

You think every operator should know your personal thoughts on prop strike engine inspections?

Everyone else has an opinion, why not him? I applaud his level of care for his aircraft.

 

[Juliet Hotel]

Everyone else has an opinion, why not him? I applaud his level of care for his aircraft.

I think his level of care is outstanding. I'm not sure why he feels everyone else should be required to know what his level of care is but if its important to him that we all know so be it.

 

[weilke]

You will need to discuss with the seller and get super deep discount. I've heard engine inspections to be between 5-15k for small 4 cylinders. With a sudden stoppage without the proper inspection/repairs that airplane is not airworthy and therefore should be considered salvage/parts airplane. I would only buy it If I could get it for very cheap, knowing that you would have to spend the money for the engine/repairs to get it airworthy again.

Yeah prop strikes, accident history, etc... will decrease the overall resale value of your airplane, but it's certainly not a deal breaker if repaired correctly.

my 2 cents.

Did you read the rest of the thread ?

 

[Witmo]

Airworthiness Directives are mandatory, Service Bulletins are not (even when the manufacturer says they are) unless they are accompanied by an AD.

We (POAers) tend to look at every issue with blinders on based on the country and regulation under which we normally operate. Service Bulletin compliance, even though the manufacturer includes words like "mandatory", "shall", "before flight", etc. are generally not required to be complied with, if you fly under part 91 in the US. They may be, in fact, mandatory if your aircraft is registered in Canada or some other country or the aircraft is operated under Part 135 and others here in the US. As mentioned, SBs, can be mandatory for everyone if they are included in an AD.

 

[3393RP]

Service Bulletin compliance, even though the manufacturer includes words like "mandatory", "shall", "before flight", etc. are generally not required to be complied with, if you fly under part 91 in the US. They may be, in fact, mandatory if your aircraft is registered in Canada or some other country or the aircraft is operated under Part 135 and others here in the US. As mentioned, SBs, can be mandatory for everyone if they are included in an AD.

The first word in the title of the SB that bflynn posted is "Recommended".

 

[3393RP]

Actually, I wasn't thinking legal. I was thinking me, in the situation of considering purchasing an airplane which had a prop strike without a teardown. I wrote it very poorly because this is a flawed method of communications and despite having done this for nearly 30 years, I still fail at it.

They are mandatory (to me). They are not optional (to me). The aircraft is not airworthy (to me) and (I think) every operator should know that. The fact is, a prop strike leaves the engine in an unknown state. I do not fly an airplane when there is a good reason there could be a problem with the engine. That puts it in the realm where the outcome of the flight is uncertain. I don't need the FAA to mandate that this needs to be fixed.

Yes, I wrote it in a way that didn't convey my thoughts at all. Sue me.

Meanwhile, If your future contributions to this thread is to harangue me more, know that I'm out. You'll be playing with yourself from here on out.

LOL...

 

[Witmo]

The first word in the title of the SB that bflynn posted is "Recommended".

And the word "Mandatory" is plastered in red letters on the top of the page.

 

[weirdjim]

And the word "Mandatory" is plastered in red letters on the top of the page.

And so long as the words FAA APPROVAL don't appear on the document, they can write it in Klingon for all I care.

Jim

 

[Jsalter]

My perspective as an aviation claims adjuster is that I would probably consider it if it is discounted for a full overhaul with some caveats. If not, I’d walk away. I see propstrikes all the time, and a full power propstrike on asphalt could yield no damage to the crank, gears or case whatsoever, while a prop turing through an inch of soil could cause cracks in any of those parts. It really is a roll of the dice. Now, once an IRAN inspection is done, many times there is a ton of wear/corrosion in the engine that is found and the shop won’t put it back together unless it is addressed. If the airplane lives outside and flies less than 100 hours a year, this is a common issue on propstrike claims. The oil really needs to circulate to protect the engine.

So, if it has less that 500 hours since TBO and is flown 100+ hours a year, I’d consider a discount for the IRAN, which runs $12-15k for that engine, and I’d be gambling with the risk of a damaged crankshaft. If the time is higher and/or flown less than 100 hours a year, I’d request a $35k discount minimum. Of course the seller would laugh at me and think I’m insane, so I’d walk without looking back.

These are my personal thoughts, and I’ve had insureds say that crankshaft runout looks good, and that’s is just fine with them and therefore they DEMAND that no IRAN inspection be performed. That’s fine with us claims guys, but good luck in finding an IA to sign that off if they know you had the propstrike. And, some do in fact sign it off......which is opening up a whole other can of worms.