VAF Forums

VAF Forums (https://vansairforce.net/community/index.php)
-   Propellers (https://vansairforce.net/community/forumdisplay.php?f=19)
-   -   MT P860-3 Prop Gov fail. (https://vansairforce.net/community/showthread.php?t=140879)

woxofswa 08-29-2016 11:40 AM

The reference for the Fed report lies within the maintenance side. I believe it is the obligation of the person holding the repairman certificate that will be signing the logbook to report a component that fails in flight.
I'll see if I can get more specific details and references.

My insurance adjuster requested a report to the FSDO. When I called them, they hadn't heard of it and said it would be a regional issue. Next day I got a call from the regional office. He said he was aware of the issue and of multiple failures. He requested pix that I sent. He was the one who told me not to send it to MT. He said that they would have preferred that it had never been removed from the aircraft in the first place. He mentioned the report that would be required and I told him that I didn't have complete information yet. He was fine with that.
He said he or someone else would get right back to me and I haven't haven't heard a another word in over a week.

Auburntsts 08-29-2016 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woxofswa (Post 1107447)
The reference for the Fed report lies within the maintenance side. I believe it is the obligation of the person holding the repairman certificate that will be signing the logbook to report a component that fails in flight.
I'll see if I can get more specific details and references.

My insurance adjuster requested a report to the FSDO. When I called them, they hadn't heard of it and said it would be a regional issue. Next day I got a call from the regional office. He said he was aware of the issue and of multiple failures. He requested pix that I sent. He was the one who told me not to send it to MT. He said that they would have preferred that it had never been removed from the aircraft in the first place. He mentioned the report that would be required and I told him that I didn't have complete information yet. He was fine with that.
He said he or someone else would get right back to me and I haven't haven't heard a another word in over a week.

Please do if you can. I can find no reference that would mandate a pilot or A&P/repairman to provide such a report where there is no accident or damage outside of the aircraft associated with an incident such as ours which occurred operating under part 91. Shoot, I didn't even declare an emergency or request priority handling.

FWIW, I have had no request by my insurance adjuster, the FAA, MT or anyone else for any kind of report. That doesn't mean that someone won't ask for one in the future, just no one has asked for one to this point. Now it could be that the claim paperwork I completed filled that purpose and whatever was germane to the FAA was extracted and forwarded on by the adjuster thereby negating any further action by me-- I dunno.

All this tells me that once again that in our community, the rules it would seem to vary from office to office. In this case we have the same insurance underwriter but different adjusters and of course the same FAA but different FSDOs and yet you had to submit a report and I didn't. :rolleyes:

BobTurner 08-29-2016 01:16 PM

I think what you guys are looking for is not the FARs, but the CFRs dealing with the NTSB (section 830 or something??). But I don't see prop governors on the list. Of course you may always make a voluntary report.

Auburntsts 08-29-2016 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTurner (Post 1107481)
I think what you guys are looking for is not the FARs, but the CFRs dealing with the NTSB (section 830 or something??). But I don't see prop governors on the list. Of course you may always make a voluntary report.

I just read through CFR part 830 Subparts A thru D and my conclusion is no NTSB report is required IAW with Subpart D, para 830.15 because the damage is not considered "substantial" by the definition in Subpart A, para 830.2 nor does the incident, as handled in the air and once on the ground, fall under one of the immediate notification criteria as listed in Subpart B, para 830.5.

EAGLE BOB 08-29-2016 01:55 PM

New MT Service Bulletin
 
Just recently MT issued a new Service Bulletin No. 31 that has this part number governor listed.

jabarr 08-29-2016 02:06 PM

Where can one see this elusive SB 31?? It's not listed on there SB list on their website.

woxofswa 08-29-2016 03:48 PM

OK, I've done more research. I hope to make the mud a little clearer. Here is the report in question:

http://av-info.faa.gov/sdrx/Submissi...lAviation.aspx

The first mention of this to me was an A&P IA who was one of the guardian angels who came up to rescue me when I was AOG on the rez. He said that it was a report that we needed to make when we got back home.

The second mention was the insurance adjuster. She asked if I had already done it and when I said I hadn't, she "strongly suggested" that I do it right away. Since she had yet to tell me if my claim would be accepted I was "strongly motivated" to keep her happy so I told her I would contact the FSDO that afternoon. (I can see how getting FAA involved helps AIG subrogate against MT).

The third reference was when the regional Fed called me. He also asked if I had done it and I told him I was still collecting information.

Now where the gray seeps in. This report mirrors a similar report that licensed repair stations are required to submit on failed components. There is debatable school of thought that as the repairman certificate holder of this aircraft, we become the station required to report. Some say yes, some say no. As merely owners/pilots we are allowed and encouraged to report, but perhaps not required.

When I spoke to the shop that has my propeller (Hartzell authorized repair and distribution center) they told me that they had already made their report on the issue and that a report by me would just go in the same file as their report.

Sorry if I confused anyone with previous posts. I'm not sure if the mud is clearer or not.

My primary concern is just making sure that this thing is resolved before anyone gets hurt or worse.

Aggie78 08-29-2016 05:19 PM

Another data point in all this...
 
So, I've been curious to see if the MT governor in my RV-7 would be affected by all of this and when the SB didn't hit the wire today (again), I took matters into my own hands and called MT-USA and was connected to Peter.

Up to this point, my governor has operated with no issues. (Fingers crossed that continues.)

I gave him my model and serial number (P-860-4 and 11G146-G) and I was relieved to find I will be unaffected by the bulletin, even with a production date in 2011-around when some of the bad ones came off the line.

I did ask him (had I been affected) would sending the unit in for the SB service have also satisfied the 72 month overhaul requirement and was told it would not have...that's a separate service not included in the fix.

Next question was..(for those that are close to the O/H time limit and DO need the SB performed)...what is the "upcharge" to do the O/H if done while it's already apart and getting fixed for the SB and the response was "we haven't decided on pricing yet, but since it's already apart it wouldn't be much...a couple of hundred bucks maybe?"

Like I said above...a data point for others with these things installed.

Thanks to the folks posting on this thread who have had governor failures for all the info shared-it is very much appreciated!

Rob

rv4bill 08-30-2016 06:18 AM

Not on the naughty list!
 
Just got off the phone with Peter at MT after giving him my serial number. There were a few earlier than my serial number and a bunch after. He looked up my individual number and said mine was OK!

He is forwarding to me an email document this am with the SB 31 as it is not showing on MT's German site yet.

If someone gives me their email, and is proficient at posting a doc, I will forward the email so it can be posted here on the site for all interested to see.

Lenny Iszak 08-30-2016 08:02 AM

MT governor SB 31
 
Just received the SB doc from Bill. Here it is:

http://www.311lz.com/docs/SB_31.pdf

Lenny

DanH 08-30-2016 08:27 AM

Marvelous. They changed the design of the flyweight assembly in July of 2013. Somebody had concerns, theoretical or actual, and there were only 175 serial numbers with the problematical design. How hard would it have been to declare a fix three years ago?

BobTurner 08-30-2016 10:32 AM

I see the SB applies only to engines modified with electronic ignition or high(er) compression pistons.
Have there been any failures on stock engines?

Auburntsts 08-30-2016 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTurner (Post 1107740)
I see the SB applies only to engines modified with electronic ignition or high(er) compression pistons.
Have there been any failures on stock engines?

Yes--mine for one (2 mags, 8.5 pistons), Myron's for 2, a third did have lightspeed and one mag. MT was made aware of this from multiple sources to include both Vans and BPE -- disappointing that they chose to publish that misconception in the SB even after they were told it was false.

rv4bill 08-30-2016 11:23 AM

Bob

I asked Peter about the compression/EI part of the SB.

He stated that if your serial number is on the list AND you have either electronic ignition OR higher compression Pistons then you should not fly until repaired. If you have standard / stock engine ( no EI and no higher compression) then follow SB as shown.

Didn't make sense to me either as some of the failures seemed to be "stock".
I asked Peter to join the discussion to put rumors to rest and tell us straight up, "what's up". He said his company policy doesn't allow anyone to participate in forum discussions as they tend to turn ugly.

He seemed very willing to take any calls about the SB or prop governor question anyone may have.

woxofswa 08-30-2016 11:46 AM

It was amusing to me to see my serial number on the SB list.

I find the whole EI/High comp thing to be curious as none of the recent failurees apply. Something smells to me that there was a previous failure(s) that was quietly investigated. They sure seem confident about the weights assembly fix and yet they have not even inspected the two specimens that breached the case wall. I've sent them two emails that they've never answered.

I would be very curious to know what PG Van has on his personal 10

GaryK 08-30-2016 11:46 AM

Cost
 
Did MT mention what the cost would be to comply with the SB.

Gary

GaryK 08-30-2016 12:02 PM

SB Cost
 
I called them on the SB cost.
No charge other than shipping.

Since mine would be due for an overhaul in 18 months or so, I asked what that cost would be if they did it at the same time as the SB. Since they have it apart the OH cost is $250.

Gary

woxofswa 08-30-2016 12:29 PM

I just got off the phone 1 minute ago with Peter. I told him that not a SINGLE one of the recent failures would apply to the SB as written.

His answer was "we are just a service center, all inquiries of that nature must be directed back to the factory."

Now we know that they've known about the problem since 2013.

Excuse the melodrama, but my wife and I had 2-3 minutes of sustainable oil left when I landed. If I had been just a few miles further south I would have been off airport and choosing between sheep trails, lava rock, or forest. Having not known that I was going to be dead stick until it seized. (Not that an abandoned airport on the Rez is far from off airport).

Rant off. Thank God nobody has gotten hurt (that we know of).

Weasel 08-30-2016 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Auburntsts (Post 1107742)
Yes--mine for one (2 mags, 8.5 pistons), Myron's for 2, a third did have lightspeed and one mag. MT was made aware of this from multiple sources to include both Vans and BPE -- disappointing that they chose to publish that misconception in the SB even after they were told it was false.

The copy that has been produced as we have it, was not "published" on the MT website. Maybe there are still changes being made?

bruceflys 08-30-2016 01:35 PM

FAA Report Not Mandatory
 
The Service Difficulty Report form in Post #127 cites a FAR 121.703 requirement. Part 121 applies to Air Carriers (scheduled airlines), not to experimental aircraft operating under Part 91. That said, informing the aviation community of a product defect is a good thing even if not mandatory.

woxofswa 08-30-2016 02:51 PM

That's true, but the link was sent to me from the Feds, and the title on the link said "general aviation". Typical Fed way of paper tracking.

Larkrv10 08-31-2016 08:02 AM

MT Governor failure
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Auburntsts (Post 1107742)
Yes--mine for one (2 mags, 8.5 pistons), Myron's for 2, a third did have lightspeed and one mag. MT was made aware of this from multiple sources to include both Vans and BPE -- disappointing that they chose to publish that misconception in the SB even after they were told it was false.

FWIW, my narrow deck engine has 9.0:1 compression and dual Slick impulse mags. Obviously nothing in SB#27 wrt the bushing issue.
Rick
Southampton, Ont

Kellym 08-31-2016 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woxofswa (Post 1107803)
That's true, but the link was sent to me from the Feds, and the title on the link said "general aviation". Typical Fed way of paper tracking.

Not unusual for the feds. From the IA test guide:
Malfunction or Defect Reports
All malfunctions or defects that come to the attention of the holder of an IA should be reported on FAA Form 8010-4. (Refer to appendix 1, figure 7.) Copies of the self-addressed form are available at all Flight Standards District Offices (FSDOs), easy to fill out and require no postage. Prompt reporting will contribute much toward improving air safety by helping correct unsafe conditions.
On an OBAM aircraft the repairman or A&P doing the condition inspection is performing the function of an IA.
There are other reporting requirements buried around the regs. How many know that an EFIS failure in flight is a reportable event?
While not strictly a reporting requirement, would you tell the FAA if the cylinder head on your engine departed when the engine was at 50% of TBO?
Point being, unexpected failures at low in service times indicate an engineering or manufacturing problem. In the case of these governors, they are type certificated parts, in some cases installed on type to certificated engines. The SB referring to experimental aircraft with electronic ignition and higher compression is bogus on all three items. They are doing the SB on my governor because its serial number is on the SB, but the model number is not, it is on an RV-10, but the engine is certified, with stock compression and mags. Only the Mt prop and the airframe are not type certificated.

Weasel 08-31-2016 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weasel (Post 1107779)
The copy that has been produced as we have it, was not "published" on the MT website. Maybe there are still changes being made?

OK OK.... You win. The SB31 is now public on the MT site with the same wording...:eek:

woxofswa 09-02-2016 01:54 PM

MT is now finally gathering our actual data. Their past assumptions have been quite wrong, as evidenced by the wording of the SB, among other things.

If you've had a failure, or know someone who has, please send the information, serial number, installation, engine type, failure type, etc, to the following.

Martin.albrecht@mt-propeller.com

This could save lives.

Weasel 09-04-2016 01:17 PM

Myron, Did MT contact you requesting this information? They have made no effort that I know of so-far to request information about the failure of my governor.

petersb 09-04-2016 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woxofswa (Post 1108640)
MT is now finally gathering our actual data. Their past assumptions have been quite wrong, as evidenced by the wording of the SB, among other things.

If you've had a failure, or know someone who has, please send the information, serial number, installation, engine type, failure type, etc, to the following.

Martin.albrecht@mt-propeller.com

This could save lives.

I read that there is no difference other than clocking between the various MT units. If so then why is only the 860-3 and not the 860-4 in the SB

Kellym 09-04-2016 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by petersb (Post 1108988)
I read that there is no difference other than clocking between the various MT units. If so then why is only the 860-3 and not the 860-4 in the SB

I don't know if MT has a good grip on the situation My 860-5 was listed by serial number under some other model designation. My up-grade was done because of the s/n being listed and because mine is on an RV-10.

woxofswa 09-04-2016 10:24 PM

Joel,

When my first email to MT in Germany went unanswered, I called Peter and asked for a best contact.
He directed me to Martin Albrecht.
I wrote him with my concerns about the verbiage of the SB, especially the part about EI and high comp cylinders. He answered me next day and asked my details which I sent to him. He answered me back asked for the details of those that I was aware of. That's why I made the post for submissions, but personally think that everyone else should send their info if/how they see fit. I'm not even sure how many of us there are.

Send me your email and I'll forward you a copy of all correspondence.

paul330 09-09-2016 04:46 AM

I have just been in contact with MT in Germany. I told them that my governor was on the list but I had 8.5:1 pistons and Slick mags. Did I need to comply with the SB? ....... YES.......

I suggested to them that the wording was confusing and they might want to re-issue the SB - no response.

woxofswa 09-09-2016 11:10 AM

This is the back of a current generation Hartzell PG.
The process for converting the ratio between wide deck and narrow deck involves moving the plug between hole A and hole B,
and then adjusting the clocking and Max RPM.

Tim Lewis 09-12-2016 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woxofswa (Post 1110280)
This is the back of a current generation Hartzell PG.
The process for converting the ratio between wide deck and narrow deck involves moving the plug between hole A and hole B,
and then adjusting the clocking and Max RPM.

Neat. Where'd you get the info on converting the Hartzell from wide to narrow deck configuration? I'd like to look in to this some more.

Tim Lewis 09-17-2016 02:12 PM

According to Kevin Ryan, Hartzell tech support (kryan@HartzellProp.com), the following is the case:
- The max rpm of the S-1-26 is 2570 rpm.
- The correct governor for the IO-540-D4A5 narrow deck with max rpm 2700 is actually the Hartzell S-1-79.
- Kevin told me that Van's actually does sell this part number...

According to Van's, the Hartzell Governor they sell as "Part Number = PROP GOV HZ IO-390" is Hartzell S-1-79.

Finally, Kevin confirmed that the low RPM limit on the S-1-79 is around 1700 rpm. Below this rpm the governor won't drive the prop to coarse pitch. This has been mentioned as a drawback in this thread: http://www.vansairforce.com/communit...light=governor

Dustyone 09-17-2016 03:17 PM

Australian Air Props
 
Just a shout out and thanks to Eric at

Australian Air Props in Bankstown NSW.
PH: 02 9790 5295

Eric was great at dealing with MT Germany and getting the required parts for the SB31.

Very knowledgeable chap with a lot of experience in Governors.

Anyway, I received my gov back on Tuesday ,refitted and I am back flying again.

It was great getting this good service at home and not having to send the governor overseas.

Thanks Eric

woxofswa 09-17-2016 04:53 PM

The cited specs are for the given model number.

Kevin, the same guy you spoke with, is also the same guy who told me that they can be reconfigured to different specs. He is the one who told me about changing which hole the plug is in. That was confirmed to me by Ottosen's propellor who are an authorized Hartzell repair shop and distributor.

From a manufacturing standpoint, it make total sense. You want to design and build core elements as universal as possible with allowances for modifications as necessary.
If you don't have a PG, it makes sense to buy what you need out of the box, but that doesn't mean that you can't convert what you need from what you already have.

As an extreme example, some unique part number codes merely differentiate the color of the paint.

Janekom 11-07-2016 12:34 AM

Quote:

the IO-540-D4A5 narrow deck
According to my information the IO-540-D4A5 is a wide deck?

woxofswa 11-14-2016 05:35 PM

According to my insurance adjuster, there has been a new prop governor failure recently. They just became aware of it today.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:13 AM.