Prop strike

flyingcheesehead

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
24,252
Location
UQACY, WI
Display Name

Display name:
iMooniac
Luckily, I was not the pilot, nor was I even in the plane, or in the same state... But, one of our club Archers had a little incident up at KILL (A bad omen! That's Willmar, MN) over the weekend.

He found the landing light was operative during preflight, but failed sometime during the flight. He touched down uneventfully and taxied back on the runway. Unfortunately, there were some issues with the airport lights (and quite possibly lack of maintenance because the airport is closing in favor of a newer one soon).

That all conspired to create an illusion that the taxiway was in a slightly different place than it really was, and the plane went off the runway and struck a runway sign with the prop. :(

Lesson: If you go off the runway, pull the mixture IMMEDIATELY. Then, pull out your trusty tow bar to get the plane back on the runway. If unable, call for help.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
That all conspired to create an illusion that the taxiway was in a slightly different place than it really was, and the plane went off the runway and struck a runway sign with the prop. :(

So, will this require your club to pull the engine and have it examined?
 
Bill Jennings said:
So, will this require your club to pull the engine and have it examined?

Yep... I don't know the exact regulation, but IIRC any time there's a prop strike resulting in engine stoppage, you have to tear down the engine. :(
 
flyingcheesehead said:
snip

Lesson: If you go off the runway, pull the mixture IMMEDIATELY. Then, pull out your trusty tow bar to get the plane back on the runway. If unable, call for help.

A question for you.

If you kill the engine, and the prop still hits some thing,(lets assume that it is turning 1 RPH) does it require tear down?
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Yep... I don't know the exact regulation, but IIRC any time there's a prop strike resulting in engine stoppage, you have to tear down the engine. :(

As far as I am aware, there is no specific regulation... just industry standards, AD's, Manufacturer's SB's and insurance policy practically dictates that "it will be done":

http://www.amtonline.com/publication/article.jsp?pubId=1&id=905
 
NC19143 said:
A question for you.

If you kill the engine, and the prop still hits some thing,(lets assume that it is turning 1 RPH) does it require tear down?
A friend of mine pulled his 210 out of the hangar as the door was going up and (don't ask me how) hit the prop on the door. Obviously the engine was stopped. My understanding is that it required a tear down. In any event I know he had it torn down and had the prop at least inspected - maybe overhauled (I can't remember now). Seemed like overkill to me at the time, but he and his mechanic both thought it was required. Maybe it was.

Chip
 
I thought the deciding factor was sudden rotation stoppage or decrease in rotational velocity caused by impact. I can easily see how a spinning prop slamming into something could damage the engine, but not just a gentle bump into the wall when its not turning...
 
The current regulating AD for Lycoming engines is 2004-10-14 which is attached...excerpt definition of prop strike appears below. Len​



Definition of Propeller Strike

(i) For the purposes of this AD, a propeller strike is defined as follows:

(1) Any incident, whether or not the engine is operating, that requires repair to the propeller other
than minor dressing of the blades.
(2) Any incident during engine operation in which the propeller impacts a solid object that
causes a drop in revolutions per minute (RPM) and also requires structural repair of the propeller
(incidents requiring only paint touch-up are not included). This is not restricted to propeller strikes
against the ground.
(3) A sudden RPM drop while impacting water, tall grass, or similar yielding medium, where
propeller damage is not normally incurred.
(j) The preceding definitions include situations where an aircraft is stationary and the landing
gear collapses causing one or more blades to be substantially bent, or where a hanger door (or other
object) strikes the propeller blade. These cases should be handled as sudden stoppages because of
potentially severe side loading on the crankshaft flange, front bearing, and seal.​
 

Attachments

  • FAA AD 20041014 Lycoming Prop Strikes.pdf
    37.5 KB · Views: 683
gibbons said:
A friend of mine pulled his 210 out of the hangar as the door was going up and (don't ask me how) hit the prop on the door. Obviously the engine was stopped. My understanding is that it required a tear down.

Chip,

For the Lycoming engine AD (2004 10 14) it specifically calls out the prop hitting the door as a time when complying with the AD is required.

Do 210's have Lycoming's in 'em?

Len

P.S. AD 2004 10 14 is attached in another reply.
 
NC19143 said:
A question for you.

If you kill the engine, and the prop still hits some thing,(lets assume that it is turning 1 RPH) does it require tear down?

Tom,

You would know better than any but rules are rules. The AD (2004 10 14)specifies what is required when.

Len
 
Len Lanetti said:
(j) The preceding definitions include situations where an aircraft is stationary and the landing
gear collapses causing one or more blades to be substantially bent, or where a hanger door (or other

object) strikes the propeller blade.​


Like a Saberliner?​

:(
 

Attachments

  • PDVD_002.jpg
    PDVD_002.jpg
    32.8 KB · Views: 357
  • PDVD_011.jpg
    PDVD_011.jpg
    27.9 KB · Views: 364
Greebo said:
What exactly happened to cause that picture?

Somone pushed the little button on the top of the camera but that's not important now. I'd like to know how that jet hit the little airplane.

:<)

Len
 
Len Lanetti said:
Somone pushed the little button on the top of the camera but that's not important now. I'd like to know how that jet hit the little airplane.

:<)

Len
And don't call me Shirley!
:rofl:
 
Troy Whistman said:
As far as I am aware, there is no specific regulation... just industry standards, AD's, Manufacturer's SB's and insurance policy practically dictates that "it will be done":
AD's are regulatory -- same weight as FAR's in that regard, and there is an AD about post-prop-strike inspections of Lycoming engines which Len mentioned above, so for Lycomings, the requirements of that AD are regulatory, and further flight before fulfilling them is a violation of 14 CFR 91.7.
 
Len Lanetti said:
The current regulating AD for Lycoming engines is 2004-10-14 which is attached...excerpt definition of prop strike appears below. Len​




Definition of Propeller Strike


(i) For the purposes of this AD, a propeller strike is defined as follows:​


(1) Any incident, whether or not the engine is operating, that requires repair to the propeller other
than minor dressing of the blades.

Hmmm...so according to Lycoming, if I take my propellor off for some reason, and it gets dinged really good while all off the plane, it requires an engine teardown. It never said the propellor had to be attached to the engine, just said that any repair to the propellor requires an engine tear down.

Brilliant!
Brilliant!
 
Len Lanetti said:
Chip,

For the Lycoming engine AD (2004 10 14) it specifically calls out the prop hitting the door as a time when complying with the AD is required.

Do 210's have Lycoming's in 'em?

Len

P.S. AD 2004 10 14 is attached in another reply.


""Do 210's have Lycoming's in 'em?"" NO.
 
Ron Levy said:
AD's are regulatory -- same weight as FAR's in that regard, and there is an AD about post-prop-strike inspections of Lycoming engines which Len mentioned above, so for Lycomings, the requirements of that AD are regulatory, and further flight before fulfilling them is a violation of 14 CFR 91.7.

You are absolutely right about AD compliance,

BUT

does it require a total tear down? answer NO

It says

""e) Compliance with this AD is required as indicated before further flight if the engine has experienced a propeller strike as defined in paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD, unless already done.

(f) Inspect, and if necessary repair, the crankshaft counter bored recess, the alignment dowel, the bolt hole threads, and the crankshaft gear for wear, galling, corrosion, and fretting in accordance with steps 1 through 5 of Lycoming Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 475C, dated January 30, 2003.

(g) Remove the existing gear retaining bolt and lockplate from service, and install a new bolt and lockplate, in accordance with steps 6 and 7 of Lycoming MSB No. 475C, dated January 30, 2003.

Prohibition of Retaining Bolt and Lockplate

(h) Do not install the gear retaining bolt and lockplate that were removed in paragraph (g) of this AD, into any engine.

That is not a teardown, it requires the accessory case be removed to comply with the AD.

IT doesn't say any thing about the rotating group, nothing about inspecting the crank other than the drive pin. and removal of the gear.

It doesn't say anything about removing the cylinders, it doesn't say any thing about removal of the crank, cam, or anything else.

Lycoming engines that meet the requirements of a prop strike, only require the AD be complied with. Nothing more, nothing less.

Your insurance requirements are a different story.
 
N2212R said:
[/LEFT]

Hmmm...so according to Lycoming, if I take my propellor off for some reason, and it gets dinged really good while all off the plane, it requires an engine teardown. It never said the propellor had to be attached to the engine, just said that any repair to the propellor requires an engine tear down.

Brilliant!
Brilliant!

If the prop was removed and the log entry made, is the prop a part of that aircraft?
 
Len Lanetti said:
Tom,

You would know better than any but rules are rules. The AD (2004 10 14)specifies what is required when.

Len


Correct! it doesn't say tear the engine down.
 
gibbons said:
A friend of mine pulled his 210 out of the hangar as the door was going up and (don't ask me how) hit the prop on the door. Obviously the engine was stopped. My understanding is that it required a tear down. In any event I know he had it torn down and had the prop at least inspected - maybe overhauled (I can't remember now). Seemed like overkill to me at the time, but he and his mechanic both thought it was required. Maybe it was.

Chip

Continental only has a SB to cover the reccomended maintenance to be complied with after a prop strike.

If your friend had brought his 210 to me I would have removed the prop sent it in for repair, and dialed the crank, if it passed the requirements in the overhaul manual I would not have reccomended overhaul. The only thing we are concerned with is a bent crankshaft flange, dialing it out would tells us if it was within limits.
 
NC19143 said:
You are absolutely right about AD compliance,

BUT

does it require a total tear down? answer NO

It says

(g) Remove the existing gear retaining bolt and lockplate from service, and install a new bolt and lockplate, in accordance with steps 6 and 7 of Lycoming MSB No. 475C, dated January 30, 2003.

Prohibition of Retaining Bolt and Lockplate

(h) Do not install the gear retaining bolt and lockplate that were removed in paragraph (g) of this AD, into any engine.

That is not a teardown, it requires the accessory case be removed to comply with the AD.

IT doesn't say any thing about the rotating group, nothing about inspecting the crank other than the drive pin. and removal of the gear.

It doesn't say anything about removing the cylinders, it doesn't say any thing about removal of the crank, cam, or anything else.

Lycoming engines that meet the requirements of a prop strike, only require the AD be complied with. Nothing more, nothing less.

Your insurance requirements are a different story.
We had to replace that bolt by AD anyway. My guess is this is the powers that be taking advantage of one more opportunity to replace it.

In my case I ended having the accessory case removed twice because immediately after havign the work dones I had a low power problem which wasn't a low power problem, which we didn't figure out until my A&P removed the case to double check. *sigh*
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top