Prop Strike? Action?

Magman said:
Do you think the fact that the noise was LOUD enough to have folks come running is a clue?
I’m unsure of the pre-strike form of the cardboard. Box or large sheet is unknown.
The trash can contained a lot.

Pilot was Airline Pilot /CFI.
Click to expand...

Loud is not an indicator of damage. Lots of things can be loud that cause no damage. I can make a sheet of paper sound extremely loud while being 'ripped', and not even tear it.

And if folks "came running" how did he "get away with it" ?

Story is starting to have holes.
 
The Luscombe guy that did the long border-run trip had a minor prop strike, and that yielded to a recollection about a guy whose plane hit an orange cone, and the strike was enough to give damage.

I'm too preoccupied to look up the references at the moment. That said, it's a prop-strike to me, and is worthy of the appropriate inspection.
 
EdFred said:
And that's why I asked what are they going to tell them, because now no one is gonna believe it because they are "obviously trying to cover something up," except maybe the didn't mention anything because, well, nothing happened. So nothing to tell. Honestly, I probably would have been "caught" too. Because, well, yawn. That's my take on it on the outside, that would be my take on the inside.
Click to expand...
That’s why I started with “IMO”. You (or anyone else) can handle it how you see fit.
 
Had a friend hit a deer on runway on rollout after landing, engine @ idle. The insurance was involved as the carcass came around and hit the wing, so they tore the engine down, all was good except for a shaft key that was almost sheared but still in one piece in the accy case. Did the deer cause it? No one knows.
 
Magman said:
Other courses of action other than banning CFI from the area?
Click to expand...
From the information presented, no course of action can yet be determined because we're missing a key piece of information necessary to determine what action is necessary: Was there a sudden drop in engine RPM? So I'd suggest that the owner actually investigate what happened, beyond relying on a version of the story from the airport bums who heard a noise and found trash.
 
Mxfarm said:
all was good except for a shaft key that was almost sheared but still in one piece in the accy case.
Click to expand...
That's the sort of stuff a sudden RPM drop does. The dowel that keys the crankshaft gear to the crankshaft is the one that the AD is specifically concerned with, along with the retaining bolt:

upload_2022-6-29_15-12-41.png

That dowel keeps the gear indexed to the crankshaft. If it shears, it not only puts the camshaft and ignition all out of time, but because of the direction of rotation of the crank, it can loosen that bolt as the cam, magnetos, oil pump, vacuum pump and so on all drag on that gear. All the rotating masses of all those things shock that dowel if the crank is suddenly decelerated or stopped. It's small, big enough to drive everything, but not big enough to take big overloads.

The gears themselves can suffer cracks in the roots of their teeth. From the Lycoming Direct Drive Overhaul Manual:

upload_2022-6-29_15-21-38.png

Lots of rotating mass there, and all of it is driven by that crankshaft gear, with its dowel.
 
Lindberg said:
From the information presented, no course of action can yet be determined because we're missing a key piece of information necessary to determine what action is necessary: Was there a sudden drop in engine RPM? So I'd suggest that the owner actually investigate what happened
Click to expand...

The owner may want to hook the CFI up to a polygraph first, as I'd expect the answer to be along the lines of 'it was nothing, not even a blip on the RPM reading'.
 
RyanB said:
If it didn’t cause any sudden stoppage, than it’s *probably* okay. Heck, a deer ran through my prop and got sliced in two and the engine didn’t suffer any damage after being evaluated by a teardown and inspection. These engines are a lot more stout than some folks give credit for!
Click to expand...
I'm going to 100% disagree. We had a cone left in front of a Cardinal one time in a blind spot. We didn't catch it and neither did the ground crew. Didn't even leave a scratch on the prop. Mechanic almost told us to go fly it, but one of us twisted one of the blades and lo and behold even though there wasn't a speck of visible damage, enough damage was done internally to break one of the pieces that governed the prop rotation. If we'd have taken off, we would have had BIG problems on our hands.

I'd have that thing looked at very, very carefully.
 
RyanShort1 said:
I'm going to 100% disagree. We had a cone left in front of a Cardinal one time in a blind spot. We didn't catch it and neither did the ground crew. Didn't even leave a scratch on the prop. Mechanic almost told us to go fly it, but one of us twisted one of the blades and lo and behold even though there wasn't a speck of visible damage, enough damage was done internally to break one of the pieces that governed the prop rotation. If we'd have taken off, we would have had BIG problems on our hands.

I'd have that thing looked at very, very carefully.
Click to expand...
Was the cone shredded?
 
RyanShort1 said:
I'm going to 100% disagree.
Click to expand...
Fine to disagree, as I’ve said more than once now, my opinion was based on my own experience and I haven’t suggested to do any one specific thing in this situation. As always YMMV.
 
EdFred said:
Was the cone shredded?
Click to expand...
Two or three slices as I recall, still able to stand up... not shredded at all. Still usable. Our prop literally didn't even have a scratch in the paint, and I've got pics somewhere.
 
Magman said:
A CFI taxied a friends aircraft into the hangar. Some type of cardboard was sucked into the Prop and was shredded. The LOUD noise caused some folks to investigate. They later found that a substantial amount of the cardboard was tossed in a trash can. The owner was not notified.

A bud asked me of what action he would advise the owner to take. I have not seen it but I believe it to be a Lyc 172. Initial reports say no visual damage anywhere. My thoughts are:

At a MINIMUM ; verify Propeller Track is correct.

Lycoming AD 91-14-22 ( or revision) required inspection of the Crankshaft Gear IF the Prop had to be removed for repairs. That does not appear to be the case here though.

Other courses of action other than banning CFI from the area?
Click to expand...

I would start with an ass kicking of the idiot CFI.
 
RyanShort1 said:
Two or three slices as I recall, still able to stand up... not shredded at all. Still usable. Our prop literally didn't even have a scratch in the paint, and I've got pics somewhere.
Click to expand...
I could see that doing some damage. Thick rubbery plastic. Can give quite a bit which means it can cause some change in momentum of the blade until
It tears through.
 
benyflyguy said:
I could see that doing some damage. Thick rubbery plastic. Can give quite a bit which means it can cause some change in momentum of the blade until
It tears through.
Click to expand...
Another friend did that. Caught the cone with the prop. It bent the prop blade.
 
I'm kinda wondering if the answer is "call the insurance company". No idea what the answer will be, or who's responsibility it is. But if the pilot knows the airplane hit the cardboard, and doesn't have the engine checked, and something else fails later for any reason, I think that would be difficult to explain. And maybe tough to live with.

Flying into a hanger doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Storing flat cardboard on the floor, if that's what it was, doesn't either. I don't know how else the prop would've pulled in boxes, but then again I don't know what happens when you fly an airplane into a hanger. Never thought to try that.

Reading the above, though, I'm thinking there is a market for 4" tall, extra wide, orange traffic cones. Never occurred to me that they could be a serious hazard to aircraft.
 
FWIW, I think the required Lycoming inspection can be accomplished from the rear of the engine through the accessories case (re: the figures that Dan Thomas posted above), but does not require a complete teardown/crankcase split. (disclaimer: I'm not an A&P)
 
Jim Carpenter said:
FWIW, I think the required Lycoming inspection can be accomplished from the rear of the engine through the accessories case (re: the figures that Dan Thomas posted above), but does not require a complete teardown/crankcase split. (disclaimer: I'm not an A&P)
Click to expand...

The AD mandated inspection on the crank gear and dowel can be, but you would not be able to complete Lycoming's recommended inspection without disassembly.

https://www.lycoming.com/sites/defa...r Loss of Propeller_Rotor Blade or Ti (1).pdf

The Lycoming AD requiring the inspection to the crank gear and dowel is the only forced compliance there is on any of the garden variety opposed aircraft engines.
 
Albany Tom said:
I'm kinda wondering if the answer is "call the insurance company". No idea what the answer will be, or who's responsibility it is. But if the pilot knows the airplane hit the cardboard, and doesn't have the engine checked, and something else fails later for any reason, I think that would be difficult to explain. And maybe tough to live with.

Flying into a hanger doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Storing flat cardboard on the floor, if that's what it was, doesn't either. I don't know how else the prop would've pulled in boxes, but then again I don't know what happens when you fly an airplane into a hanger. Never thought to try that.

Reading the above, though, I'm thinking there is a market for 4" tall, extra wide, orange traffic cones. Never occurred to me that they could be a serious hazard to aircraft.
Click to expand...

I leave flat cardboard on the floor so oil from the "fun meter" doesn't get on the concrete.
 
I think everyone can sit here and second guess the situation, and provide all types of anecdotal evidence either way. The truth is no one knows if the engine sustained damage or not.

From a risk management standpoint, the possibility of damage is probably low. However the severity of the consequences is high if there was damage. Even if the chance of damage is 1%, meaning 99% chance its fine, you have now introduced the chance, even slight, of a catastrophic engine failure in flight. Statistics don't lie that those don't always end well.

I guess its all in the risk one is willing to accept. Granted, even a newly rebuilt engine comes with some built in maintenance induced risk itself.
 
3393RP said:
Cut up a large cardboard box. Is that a "substantial amount" of it?
Click to expand...

It guess that depends on the size of the trash can you are putting it in. Answer: I have no idea ...
 
The CFI is so fired at this point, so I don't think that's an issue. He's shown his craven stripes.

I presume this CFI does not have sufficient scratch to cover a deductible, much less pay for a teardown out of his threadbare pockets..

So the owner needs to decide if HE wants to file the claim and get the motor torn down, and if HE wants to be out the deductible.

If the motor is high-time, it's a betterment opportunity to get a contribution of about 10 grand from insurance to a new overhaul. If the motor is low-time, well... the owner may want to do the same as the CFI and file this whole thing into the trash like it never happened.
 
Jim Carpenter said:
FWIW, I think the required Lycoming inspection can be accomplished from the rear of the engine through the accessories case (re: the figures that Dan Thomas posted above), but does not require a complete teardown/crankcase split. (disclaimer: I'm not an A&P)
Click to expand...
Getting the accessory case off is no small job. In some airplanes it can't be done with the engine in the airplane. And in some, the oil sump has to come off as well.

You can't check the gear, bolt and dowel with the accessory case on.
 
Ironically; there was a similar incident nearby last summer.

The pilot was taxiing the borrowed Cherokee into the hangar. He noticed the path was obstructed by a tug. He then let the passenger exit in order to move the tug. The pax did not move it quite far enough. As the aircraft moved further into the hangar the prop struck the tug. This was a solid hit so the engine was torn down per prop strike requirements. The cost to restore to flight status was about $35K. This was only partially covered by insurance.

The Crank was replaced due to corrosion (SB 505 I think) and all 4 cylinders were cracked. None of this was covered by the Insurance Co. The pilot had offered to address the situation via his Insurance. The decision had been reached to submit the claim to the Owners Insurance Co. Subsequently; that premium increased by 50%.

Folks should realize that rust and wear are never covered by Insurance, Also to research the complete financial consequences prior to to submitting the claim.
 
The other confounding factor is that it's about 6mo to get in for an IRAN right now, and cylinders are like a year out. Worst time in history to be doing engine work.
 
Magman said:
Ironically; there was a similar incident nearby last summer.

The pilot was taxiing the borrowed Cherokee into the hangar. He noticed the path was obstructed by a tug. He then let the passenger exit in order to move the tug. The pax did not move it quite far enough. As the aircraft moved further into the hangar the prop struck the tug. This was a solid hit so the engine was torn down per prop strike requirements. The cost to restore to flight status was about $35K. This was only partially covered by insurance.

The Crank was replaced due to corrosion (SB 505 I think) and all 4 cylinders were cracked. None of this was covered by the Insurance Co. The pilot had offered to address the situation via his Insurance. The decision had been reached to submit the claim to the Owners Insurance Co. Subsequently; that premium increased by 50%.

Folks should realize that rust and wear are never covered by Insurance, Also to research the complete financial consequences prior to to submitting the claim.
Click to expand...
So has anyone figured out what happened in this case?
 
Ref #72. In this case yes . Hope this answers.

Non owner pilot recuperating from shoulder surgery and did not want to pull aircraft.

Prop strike, engine tear down , crank ok per prop strike but n/g for rust ,cylinders cracked. Crank n jugs not covered by insurance so owner pays as well as 50% increase in premium. Owner should have let non- owner Pilot handle via his insurance as offered.
 
Magman said:
Ref #72. In this case yes . Hope this answers.

Non owner pilot recuperating from shoulder surgery and did not want to pull aircraft.

Prop strike, engine tear down , crank ok per prop strike but n/g for rust ,cylinders cracked. Crank n jugs not covered by insurance so owner pays as well as 50% increase in premium. Owner should have let non- owner Pilot handle via his insurance as offered.
Click to expand...
I meant the situation this thread is about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top