Hartzell AD Question

[J5Cub]

I have an O-320 with a Hatzell CSP that was overhauled 69 flight hours ago. The prop is subject to some pretty expensive ADs that appear to apply mostly due to props that were not maintained well. I was wondering if the ADs have to be complied with if the prop is installed on an experimental aircraft. Anyone know for sure?

Greg

[gmcjetpilot]

Originally Posted by J5Cub

I have an O-320 with a Hatzell CSP that was overhauled 69 flight hours ago. The prop is subject to some pretty expensive ADs that appear to apply mostly due to props that were not maintained well. I was wondering if the ADs have to be complied with if the prop is installed on an experimental aircraft. Anyone know for sure? Greg

Greg, what model? what serial number? Hub identification? (see service bulletin below) When was it overhauled or is it NEW?

Bottom line impossible to answer with out model/serial #'s. From what I read you prop will FALL OFF in 31 hours! (kidding).

I think you are in good shape, but there are probably some SB's and/or AD's that apply on a typical "O-320" prop. What is required needs to be determined. It can be nothing to recurrent inspections.


First, I'll give you the BEST advice I can give you. CALL or e-mail Hartzell Monday morning. YOU WILL need model number, preferably serial number and visual ID of hub type (they changed over production run and SB shows you how to ID the difference.) If you have a NEW prop than chances are good it will have the least impact.

Email: techsupport@hartzellprop.com

Telephone: (937) 778-4379
8am - 5pm US Eastern Time
(there are nice guys and can help you greatly with the full skinny. As an experimental owner you have to do the job of a A&P and AI and check the airworthness of your FWF.)

************************************************** ****


Now for my typical long post:

You most likely have a either the: C2YL-1BF/F7663-4 -or- PROP F2YL-1F/7663-4 (but not all props of the same model of different vintage are the same. The compact hub should be ok but check with hartzell is my advice.)



Here is the good news and bad news:

Good news: Experimental aircraft, amateur built do NOT need to follow any AD's, you could nail a "two by four" on your engine if you want. However I personally respect the AD's and try to adhere to them with small exceptions, since I do have the latitude.


Bad news: Examples of significant SB's (service bulletins) and AD's for the HC-C2YL and HC-F2YL with 7663-4 blades:

AD 2006-18-15 This AD requires initial and repetitive eddy current inspections (ECI) of the front cylinder half of the propeller hub for cracks and removing cracked hubs from service before further flight. In addition, this AD allows installation of an improved design propeller hub (suffix SN ''A'' or ''B'') as terminating action to the repetitive ECI. This AD results from a report of a propeller blade separating from a propeller hub. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the propeller hub causing blade separation and subsequent loss of airplane control. 9/25/2006 (Note: See FAA web site; AD's are NOT put out by the manufacture.)

SB HC-SB-61-227 Rev. 5 An initial and recurring eddy current inspection of the propeller hub fillet radius and optional replacement of the hub as terminating action. 9/28/2006

Here is the SB: http://www.hartzellprop.com/pdfs/SB227-R05-W.pdf


(keep in mind this is a partial list; many other AD's may apply depending on serial number of hub or blade, even specific propeller shops are noted if they performed work on your prop.)


************************************************** ****


I have the HC-C2YK-1BF/F7666-4, but that is for a O-360-A1A, with the same AD and SB noted above. The latest AD is for the one time eddy current on plane inspection specified by the SB be repeated every 100 HOURS. I think its about $100 to have done? The initial eddy current inspection is needed today or immediately (but CALL Hartzell for the best scoop).

[osxuser]

There are no new AD requirements for the Compact Hub series props when installed on a NON-Aerobatic installation under 180HP. You should be fine with the O-320.

[gmcjetpilot]

Originally Posted by osxuser

There are no new AD requirements for the Compact Hub series props when installed on a NON-Aerobatic installation under 180HP. You should be fine with the O-320.

Spoiled sport, making it so easy. You are probably right, but are you sure you can say that without model or serial number? May be you can? I suggest he find the model/serial and check with Hartzell. Just saying I'd feel better if I was him knowing 100%.

[J5Cub]

This is one of the older props that has the clamp AD. My understanding is that they had a couple of failures on props that were not maintained and spent a lot of time outside. I don't have the id handy but I have the complete list of ADs at the office. This prop and engine was on my Swift but originally was on a twin Commanche I believe. It was overhauled by a certified shop with new blades 69 hours ago but the cost of compliance makes the prop scap, at least for certified aircraft.

I have a friend that wants to put the engine and prop on a Glastar and I wanted to see if he could really do it without having to comply with all the inspections and changes required. Seems like you should be able to but I thought I read someplace that Experimentals had to comply with ADs also.

Thanks again,
Greg

[gmcjetpilot]

Originally Posted by J5Cub

This is one of the older props that has the clamp AD........I thought I read someplace that Experimentals had to comply with ADs also.
Thanks again, Greg

CLAMP!!!!!!!! OUCH! Yea if you have a clamp you have an old prop (very old HC-82XG-2) and it is not any of the ones I mentioned above. The above props do not have clamps.

My old Piper Apache (PA-23-160) had clamps and know all about the clamp issues and steel hub. It is likely this is the same prop you're talking about. I doubt it's off a twin Comanche (PA-30). Twin Comanche props are the the HC-E2YL. It could be a single engine Comanche (PA-24), which used the same prop as the Apache, with the steel clamps and the short 250hr/60month recurring inspections AD.

As far as experimental and AD compliance you read it above, I wrote it. You do not need AD compliance. However there is some issue that people in the know have brought up, if you are not the builder of the plane regarding AD's.

If you build the plane you can sign off the condition inspection every year. If you did not build the plane you need an annual condition inspection from an A&P, right. The A&P may NOT want to sign it off if there are any AD's on prop, engine or accessory, but the FAA regs do not say you must comply. However you can understand an A&P may want to CYA and his.

An experimental can have an experimental prop and engine off a lawnmower, so no you don't need to comply with AD's............... However wisdom and common sense says may be you should comply with SB's and AD's or at least not ignore them completely. I'd not ignore a clamp prop, they are real old. Also they are real heavy, not a good thing.

If you really have a steel hub prop with clamps........throw it away, it is trash or a wall trophy. Go out and buy a new Hartzell from Vans or Glasair for $5500 (or what ever) with out any AD's. You might find used later model Hartzells as mentioned for $2,500-$4,000. Overall its a bad idea, even if its free. If money and budget are the concern, he would even be better served a million times over with a Fixed Sensenich. Check their web site out. The Sensenich on the RV's have been nothing less than a super value and great performer (about $2,000). Plus you save another $1,200 on the governor and less weight. Constant speed is cool but not a old crusty one.


To answer your question:

Can your friend use it? First, if its a Twin Comanche prop (which I doubt) it's a feathering prop (what are you going to do about that?). You will need to jury rig something (red flag alert) or get a feathering governor. Feathering prop on a single? "Danger, Will Robinson!" Second, it's going to weighs a ton with those big counter weights, it's an anchor. Third, Safety, he will have a prop with a boat load of AD's on it, very restrictive AD's. If you call Hartzell and ask them, they will tell you (BEG YOU, CAUTION, THREATEN and SCARE YOU) not to use it. It was a GREAT prop in 1958, but Grandpa needs to retire. Does your friend come up with a lot of strange ideas and is real cheap?

IF HE MUST, I'm not going to tell you what to do, that is your decision. At least MAKE sure you have the latest and best clamps. If it was overhauled with 69 hours in the last year or so, than its basically airworthy. The next inspection is 250 hours / 60 months (which he can ignore if he has a death wish ). What does it cost to inspect it? Needs to taken off, torn apart, inspected and reassembled. 10-15 years ago it was $1,000, figure $1,500 each time.

When you say 69 hours that is great, but if it was 5 or 15 years ago than forget it, its scrap metal. If it has prohibited clamps its trash and not airworthy, but those bad clamps should be out of circulation by now (but who knows what you have with out serial numbers, which are on the clamp).

This prop is from the late 1950's. Also this is going on a SPORT plane and you are likely to put more force on it flying around. Aerobatics? Forget it.

I would run, not walk, from a steel clamp prop personally on a new homebuilt. They are out there still today flying, but the 250 hr AD for very short tear down inspection will cost more than buying a new prop in short order.

Throwing a blade could ruin you whole day. If you can get it FREE, for example it comes with an engine you are buying, take it. You can part it out and sell it to a prop shop or Piper Apache/Comanche (single) guy trying to milk his existing old props for a little longer.

I would not pay anything for an old prop. Now that I think of it, I bought an engine off an Apache Geronimo (O360A1A-180HP) for my RV; the engine came with the damaged prop for free, same Apache/Comanche prop we're talking about; I ended up selling it for parts. It worked out well, got about $250 for it I recall, but that was a long time ago. Not sure what the prop is really worth today. If its FREE, take it and part it out or trade it. Usually the blades are worth a few hundred bucks if there is no corrosion and they have meat (material) on them. These parts are old and not made any more. Someone is milking these old props and needs the parts. When Hartzell did the prop trade in exchange deal, they chop the old props up.

I was an Apache owner and sold the plane a few years before the 250hr AD came out. New modern replacement props for the Apache where about $16,000. The Hartzell replacement program is long over; they probably cost closer to $20,000 (pair) now. You can buy a whole Apache with old props for $20-$30,000; the prop replacement is a big nugget. Some guys (I know one) shell out the inspection each time. As much as he flys he hits the 60 month limit and its cheaper for him than buying new props.

In the big scheme of things, the Apache's are a great plane. For less than the cost of a cheap RV you can have a twin with new props. I hate to see them go. Ugly may be, but sweet flying; and they actually have the same wing as the RV's. You can carry 108 gal of gas, so with the O320's leaned to 7.5 gal/hr, do the math, almost 7 hours @ 160 mph TAS, not to bad. The cockpit is huge. You can walk to the back, hunched over of course. It's a big plane and could fly 4 big adults and bags. Has a fifth seat in the large baggage area.


If you have model number that would help. Really can't guess any more. Good luck, Happy Easter You All

[vic syracuse]

My intent is not to start another thread here, as I believe the subject of AD compliance for Experimentals has many opinions. It is true that Experimentals are not technically required to comply with AD's. However, there are a couple of points to consider. First, during the initial DAR inspection, the DAR may choose to not issue the airworthiness if the AD's are not complied with. From there forward, it is the responsibility of the owner/operator to insure that the yearly condition inspection is entered into the logbook. This entry must contain the words that this aircraft "has been found to be in an airworthy/safe for operation" type statement. It would be really hard to argue that the aircraft is in an airworthy condition if there has been an AD issued against a component which is installed on the aircraft. It also might be hard to defend against the insurance company's refusal to pay. As of this point in time The FAA is not mandating compliance. My thoughts are that discretion is the better part of valor.

Vic

[gmcjetpilot]

Originally Posted by vic syracuse

My intent is not to start another thread here, as I believe the subject of AD compliance for Experimentals has many opinions. It is true that Experimentals are not technically required to comply with AD's. However, there are a couple of points to consider. First, during the initial DAR inspection, the DAR may choose to not issue the airworthiness if the AD's are not complied with. From there forward, it is the responsibility of the owner/operator to insure that the yearly condition inspection is entered into the logbook. This entry must contain the words that this aircraft "has been found to be in an airworthy/safe for operation" type statement. It would be really hard to argue that the aircraft is in an airworthy condition if there has been an AD issued against a component which is installed on the aircraft. It also might be hard to defend against the insurance company's refusal to pay. As of this point in time The FAA is not mandating compliance. My thoughts are that discretion is the better part of valor.

Vic

Good points Vic. Mel and I had a discussion about this in another thread, and he made the same point. You bring up the new point of Insurance and liability. I want to say I agree with you, that AD compliance on certified props and engines are key to safety, nuff said.

The debate is does airworthy and safe mean all AD's MUST be complied with?

I'll make it clear there is nothing in the FAR's or required by the FAA that makes AD compliance mandatory. We can debate what you think safe and airworthy means, but SB's and AD's on inspections are not required, bottom line, period. Ask the FISDO.

Vic wrote:
"It would be really hard to argue that the aircraft is in an
airworthy condition if there has been an AD issued against
a component which is installed on the aircraft."

Vic you know me, it would not be hard to argue. Alternate "experimental" inspection method? Or just call the Prop or Engine Experimental, not a Hartzell or Lycoiming. Again IT IS EXPERIMENTAL, and does NOT MEET ANY AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS OR FARS. This means YOU TAKE YOUR LIFE IN YOUR HANDS IF YOU FLY THIS. If the prop, engine or wings fall off you have no one to blame. I know your back ground and you have built more planes than I ever will dream of, no disrespect. I agree with you. However there is THE LAW and what makes sense. We have huge freedom and latitude in Amateur built planes that blows me away. Of course complying with AD's volintarily is one way we don't screw ourselves out of this freedom.


If the repairman thinks it is safe regardless of AD's than its good to go. However if you crash because say an AD on the prop was ignored, defined or "approved by alternate means" that is another whole can of whoop a$$ worms on you.

As a "repairman" of and experimental there is no training or requirement to know what an AD is. Safe and airworthy, means just that. There is no mention of AD's.

I agree that if the DAR or A&P doing a Cond-Insp might CYA and yours and not want to sign it off. Fair enough and a valid point. It all depends on what you think Airworthy and Safe is. Don't ask a A&P or AI, they mostly don't know experimentals. The real authority is the FAA. As a home builder and Repairman, YOU are the authority that decides what Airworthy and safe means.


A WHOLE OTHER TOPIC - INSURANCE

You make a great point that was not made about insurance. Yes its a tangled topic. If an accident happened and it had nothing to do with the prop, I bet there would be liability and possibly the insurance company would not pay. I have heard of insurance companies not paying on certified planes if the pilots medical or bi-annual was out even one day, or the planes annual was out of date by a week. Also some insurance companies will not even cover Experimentals if you have an auto engine or an "experimental clone" non-Lyc Lyc. Insurance is its own thing. You are right best check with them. Making sense of insurance companies is a whole different topic.

If its a BIG pay off, you can bet the insurance company may try to wiesel out of paying if they can, so CYA. Using Certified Props and Engines and Magnetos and Carbs or FI and Flight instruments and Avionics could be a good move. It takes all the fun out of Experimentals but that is your choice.


What about adding electronic ignition onto your RV? Say you crash because of the ignition? Lets say you convert to AFP Fuel injection. Again they could say we thought you had a Carb with a O-360-A1A so NO PAY! What if you drill out the main jet on your Carb to solve the lean carb problem many RV's have? You could go crazy worrying what the insurance company will pay for or not.

I am not cavalier or recommending it, but I just don't buy the FAA or the FAR's require an experimental comply with AD's. You can always RE NAME the Prop or Engine to
Super Sky Scooter Joe Smith 3000". No AD's apply to the SKY SCOOTER 3000.

[Craig-RV8a]

I would agree that the subject of AD?s being mandatory on experimental has different opinions, and even within the FAA, the opinions differ. However, I would respectfully disagree with the statement that there?s nothing in the regulations that make AD?s mandatory. FAR 39-3 (http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...256BFE0056971B ) says, ?FAA's airworthiness directives are legally enforceable rules that apply to the following products: aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and appliances? It does not say ?CERTIFIED aircraft, engines, etc???? True you could say that?s an interpretation of the reg., but then where?s the statement that experimental?s are exempt ? Advisory Circular 39-7C, (http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...2569B500508099 ) paragraph 8 says,,, (and the sentence is even underlined in the AC) ,,, ? Unless specifically stated, AD?s apply to the make and model set forth in the applicability statement (of the AD) regardless of the classification or category of the airworthiness certificate issued for the aircraft?. Again, true an AC by itself is not regulatory, but AC are interpretations of the regulations that are.
To me, that?s pretty clear and in the FAR?s; but again, I?d also agree that the FAA is not mandating compliance, and opinions differ depending on which FSDO, or Inspector you talk to. (No, I don?t work for the FAA).

[gmcjetpilot]

Originally Posted by Craig-RV8a

I would agree that the subject of AD?s being mandatory on experimental has different opinions, and even within the FAA, the opinions differ.

Part 39 does NOT apply to experimental aircraft, done deal. It is so easy with experimental aircraft..............does not meet FAA regulations. You can do almost anything you want. Really. I know hard to believe.

Experimental aircraft have no airworthiness and THEY do not meet FAA requirements for certified airplanes. It says so right there on the instrument panel. They don't have airworthiness (certificate and comply to regulations) but must be airworthy and safe. Who decides if its safe. The person doing the condition inspection. The condition inspection does not require you to meet part 39 or any other certified aircraft regulation, just airworthy and safe.

Experimental = Does not meet FAA regulations. It gets no more complicated than that.


I know its hard to wrap your mind around, but we have a blank check with almost unlimited funds, and we can forge the signature. There is no debate or confusion in my mind. If the FSDO or inspector knows his stuff than the answer is the same. "What? Its experimental right? AD's don't apply." The grey area is, IS IT SAFE. That is up to YOU, the builder.

The FED's are much better today about NOT guessing. Ask one of the more active FSDO's or the one in the EAA's back yard, they'll know. I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I highly recommend you ask the FAA on all these controversial topics regardless. I always find the answer is the same, "ITS EXPERIMENTAL RIGHT?"

If you call the FAA and say you have a prop with an AD on it and its on an experimental aircraft, they should not care. If you call the FAA and say, I have a prop with a big crack in it with oil coming out of it, AD or not, THAN, its NOT airworthy and flying with it is reckless operation. We are all subject to part 91. I think the confusion is in airworthiness and airworthy. Trying to apply certified verbiage to our condition inspection is not necessary or proper.

The AD still covers the company and the FEDS. If you crash they can say, we told you. So the issue Vic brought up is REAL. Liability is ON YOU. Which is where is should be.

If an individual DAR or AI says NO to a specific AD on an item, mounted on and experimental aircraft, than you have a battle. Same with the home made engine or prop or experimental turbine, its NOT AIRWORTHY (per the FAR's). However when anything is mounted on an experimental its experimental and not subject to any FAR regarding certification. MEL? Chime in.

At times I find it unbelievable the latitude we have in America with Experimental aircraft, WIDE; If you want to make your RV a Bi-plane with JATO bottles, you can do it with no permission, well a little permission. They may want you to put it back in phase I, but they may say you're crazy. Even if crazy they are unlikely to say, NO. It's not the governments job to protect you from yourself. We are lucky to live here, especially if you want a RV with JATO assisted bi-plane .

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, be quite, there are many freedoms and loop holes. Lets not point them out to the FAA or be TOO authoritarian on ourselves or other builders. If you want to use only certified props, engines, accessories and avionics and comply with all AD's, SB's and SI's, I say that's a good thing. I don't disagree. I think its wise. I understand you the logic, it was a certified part so it should/must stay a certified part. No don't think so, not when on an experimental.

However if you have it your way, say you are right, demanding airworthiness regulations apply to experimental than where does it end? Let's not give the FAA, public and government ideas.