Enforce logbook entry

[Doc Holliday]

Setting aside for a moment the morality of whether a 3rd party should step in to the transaction or not, suppose the engine did grenade and the new owner did die in the ensuing accident. Could the cause of the failure be traced back to the prop strike? And would the seller be liable for it? If so, what would be the penalty?

I would actually disagree.

A simple teardown inspection would reveal that sudden stoppage had occurred in the engines life cycle if it was extensive enough. Would you be able to conclusively prove that the engine failure was a result of that? Maybe - Maybe not.

Using the situation posted by asicer, you would have a difficult time tearing down an engine that “grenaded” and determining that a previous prop strike was the culprit.

But asicer asked about a penalty, which I took is someone seeking legal relief. Litigating something like this would be extremely difficult, and very expensive.

 

[Flybuddy]

Hmmm..OP posted as a guest, prop hit a pole that maybe reduced RPM and has a "little damage". Dressing the prop is going to hide this? He also somehow knows exactly what the diabolical owner did and is going to do. Is this prop, metal, wood or composite? Going by the stated "facts" is what's driving this discussion.
There's no doubt that it's morally wrong to misrepresent the aircraft to a potential buyer especially when it's a question of airworthiness. The other side of the coin is that prior to certified prop strike A.D.s, mandating that even high grass could count as a prop strike, many owners fixed the props, dialed the cranks and kept flying with no issue. If he keeps the plane and doesn't do a tear down that's one thing but misrepresenting it is another.

 

[Ravioli]

@Ted DuPuis - Could be a banner day for thread locking!

As to "anonymity," many of us know who each other are, real names and Logins alike. It's been opined before that those who use their actual name are more real, but that's a bunch of hooey.

 

[RyanB]

Using the situation posted by asicer, you would have a difficult time tearing down an engine that “grenaded” and determining that a previous prop strike was the culprit.

But asicer asked about a penalty, which I took is someone seeking legal relief. Litigating something like this would be extremely difficult, and very expensive.

I could be wrong, but I don’t think @asicer meant for the term ‘grenaded’ to be taken literally in the sense that the engine explodes into a million pieces; but rather experiences catastrophic engine failure due to previous sudden stoppage from an unreported prop strike.

 

[Palmpilot]

@Ted DuPuis - Could be a banner day for thread locking!

As to "anonymity," many of us know who each other are, real names and Logins alike. It's been opined before that those who use their actual name are more real, but that's a bunch of hooey.

In general, I don't care what names people post under. I just find it odd when anonymous posters complain about anonymous posters.

 

[Doc Holliday]

I could be wrong, but I don’t think @asicer meant for the term ‘grenaded’ to be taken literally in the sense that the engine explodes into a million pieces; but rather experiences catastrophic engine failure due to previous sudden stoppage from an unreported prop strike.

I didn’t take it that way. But as stated, it’s not easy taking an engine with a catastrophic failure and pin pointing that a prop strike was the culprit. Now, if one is willing to spend the money, send the engine off to say the manufacture and have them do an analysis involving lab analysis, then perhaps they could narrow it down, but then there is still going to be uncertainty. And a good lawyer can exploit that uncertainty to his advantage.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Which ones?

The annual doesn't apply to experimentals; 91.409(c)(1) says so in coordination with 43.1(b). But that a condition inspection substitutes for the annual, doesn't mean, for example, that an experimental may fly IFR without meeting the altimeter/pitot-static tests required by 91.411.

And check out 91.327 - the regulatory operating limitations for experimentals. Although 43.1 does not apply generally to experimentals, notice that 91.327(b)(7) incorprates the recordkeeping requirements in 43.9(d). A

It's nice how the FAA regulations are so carefully laid out and easy to follow.

91.327 appears to apply to "Aircraft having a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category"

 

[Fiveslide]

If you're going to call people out for being anonymous and pound your chest about it, at least own up to it as a non-anonymous person..

No forum tough guy here, people actually know in person who I am.

But since you state things as facts (there's more to the story) please share with us who you are, so it can be corroborated you in fact were there for both cases and KNOW what went on.

Talk about the tough guy routine...at least when I call people out, they know who it is.

You're name is Marvin, right?

I'll reveal my name to appropriate people at appropriate times, like if we meet in person. For now I'll remain named after a defunct cover band that broke up 17 years ago. But a motivated person could probably find my identity from things I've posted here and other forums.

 

[midlifeflyer]

It's nice how the FAA regulations are so carefully laid out and easy to follow.

91.327 appears to apply to "Aircraft having a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category"

Duh. Sorry. There isn't one which deals with the experimental group.

Many of the maintenance requirements for experimentals are a byproduct of 91.319, and specifically 91.319(i) which allows the FAA to specify other operating limitations. Standard limitations include the annual condition inspection, inspection of instruments required for IFR flight per Parts 43 and 91, and recording maintenance performed in the logbooks.

There's a reason - or rather reasons - why this is somewhat complex. If you look at FAR 21.191, yo see a variety of very different reasons for issuance of an experimental certificate. The limitations (including maintenance limitations) for an RV6 being used for personal transportation (amateur or kit built) including IFR, are going to have very different limitations, including maintenance requirements) imposed than one being used solely to test the design concept for a new type. It's actually a pretty good example of the FAA being flexible.

 

[steingar]

I suspect if we don’t police our own someone will do it for us...

 

[DFH65]

Is it a Rotax or Continental or Lycoming?

 

[mondtster]

You have to log the condition inspections and that you completed phase 1. Period.

How about documentation of compliance of any applicable ADs? And before it starts, there have been threads on this board where reputable posters all agree that ADs apply to experimentals.

Depending on the engine in the experimental in question, the strike being discussed may indeed invoke an AD.

More on point, an aircraft logbook of any airplane is there to document inspection status and work performed. It’s not the place to provide opinion or fact about what happened to an airplane other than what work was done.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Standard limitations include the annual condition inspection, inspection of instruments required for IFR flight per Parts 43 and 91, and recording maintenance performed in the logbooks.

While the operating limitations change from time to time...
http://www.faa-aircraft-certification.com/amateur-built-operating-limitations.html

"Compliance with FAR 91.319(b) must be recorded in the aircraft records with the following, or a similarly worded, statement: “I certify that the prescribed flight test hours have been completed and the aircraft is controllable blah blah blah"

Missed this part:
"9. Aircraft instruments and equipment installed and used under FAR 91.205 must be inspected and maintained in accordance with the requirements of FAR 91. Any maintenance or inspection of this equipment must be recorded in the aircraft logbook and maintenance records."

"19. After incorporating a major change as described in FAR 21.93,...
Following satisfactory completion of the required number of flight hours in the flight test area, the pilot must certify in therecords that the aircraft has been shown to comply with FAR 91.319(b)."

"22. No person must operate this aircraft unless within the preceding 12 calendar months it has had a condition inspection...
This inspection will be recorded in the aircraft logbook and maintenance records."

"23. Condition inspections must be recorded in the aircraft logbook and maintenance records showing the following, or a similarly worded, statement:..."

And that's about it.

 

[Chip Sylverne]

But is it as scary as when the A/C goes on on a Buick? I think not!!!

No brakes, no steering, wheel comes off...lots of scary shiz'll kill ya in a car too. but unless I witnessed the "prop strike", I don't know that I'd say anything. My partner once hit a traffic cone with the prop, put a small nick in it that dressed right out. Did rpm drop? Dunno, didn't see it.

 

[bluerooster]

Is it a Rotax or Continental or Lycoming?

Won't matter one whit, if the prop shucks a blade due to stress rizer formed by the strike. Engine will depart airframe, and smokin' hole will ensue.

 

[EdFred]

"Let prospective buyer do their own due diligence"
- won't let prospective buyers pull cylinder to inspect crank.

 

[mryan75]

Guy at my local field hit a pole. Propeller is only a little damaged but the RPM did reduce. He is saying that he'll get the prop dressed and sell airplane and not make entry in book (experimental). Is there a way to enforce this? I see this as a safety issue for the next owner who has no idea what he's buying into.

This is why I will never, ever fly in something that someone built in their garage.

 

[DFH65]

Won't matter one whit, if the prop shucks a blade due to stress rizer formed by the strike. Engine will depart airframe, and smokin' hole will ensue.

It matters what you need to look at and test.

 

[jonvcaples]

To weigh in on this from the witnessing a fist fight, no you don't have to place yourself in danger (breaking up the fight. But like a car accident that you see happen there is a moral stance that you should report the event and be prepared to give testimony.

 

[James331]

Guy at my local field hit a pole. Propeller is only a little damaged but the RPM did reduce. He is saying that he'll get the prop dressed and sell airplane and not make entry in book (experimental). Is there a way to enforce this? I see this as a safety issue for the next owner who has no idea what he's buying into.

Can you please show me on the doll where his action hurt YOU?
‭‬
If you REALLY think this is going to result in a loss of life, go tell the feds, just be a honorable man about it, FIRST tell him what you’re going to do, next do it and put your name to it. If you arnt willing to FULLY own it, including any and all ramifications it may have to you, stay in your own lane.

 

[bbchien]

wowie wowie. This is why you can't get your "investment" out of an EAB.

 

[Kansas Flyer]

Talk about a grenade poster

@SixPapaCharlie could use this thread as an example for his next internet pilots video.

 

[Stevea621j]

I do not think a prop strike should be ignored and unreported, but I have a question for mechanics out there who may have experience doing teardowns. How often do you find something damaged when doing a teardown?

 

[steingar]

I do not think a prop strike should be ignored and unreported, but I have a question for mechanics out there who may have experience doing teardowns. How often do you find something damaged when doing a teardown?

My crankshaft was busted good.