G

gottawork

Well Known Member
Question:
Is the recurring Hartzell AD a necessary task if running an experimental engine? I'm sorry if this has been kicked around already; I just didn't see it.
Thanks, Lorne
 
This is probably a question for Mel, or one of the other DAR's here, but consider what failure to comply with the AD can cause in the way of creating a dangerous condition......................Prop's are kinda important to have in good shape.
 
Mike S said:
This is probably a question for Mel, or one of the other DAR's here, but consider what failure to comply with the AD can cause in the way of creating a dangerous condition......................Prop's are kinda important to have in good shape.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct. I'm speaking of a prop that was complied with about 40 hours ago. It's was on certified A/C. It was removed 2 years ago.
Can this be used to finish a project and go fly as an experimental prop?
Thanks
 
gottawork said:
Question:
Is the recurring Hartzell AD a necessary task if running an experimental engine? I'm sorry if this has been kicked around already; I just didn't see it.
Thanks, Lorne
Click to expand...
I found this, dated 3/12:

http://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/advisory_circular/ac 39-7d.pdf

9. APPLICABILITY OF ADs. Each AD contains an applicability statement specifying the product (aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance) to which it applies. Unless stated otherwise (see subparagraph 9b of this AC), ADs only apply to type-certificated (TC) aircraft, including ADs issued for an engine, propeller, and appliance.

b. Non-TC?d Aircraft and Products Installed Thereon. Non-TC?d aircraft
(e.g., amateur-built aircraft, experimental exhibition) are aircraft for which the FAA has not issued a TC under part 21. The AD applicability statement will identify if the AD applies to non-TC?d aircraft or engines, propellers, and appliances installed thereon. The following are examples of applicability statements for ADs related to non-TC?d aircraft:

(1) ?This AD applies to Honeywell International Inc. Auxiliary Power Unit (APU)
models GTCP36-150(R) and GTCP36-150(RR). These APUs are installed on, but not limited to, Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0100 and F.28 Mark 0070 airplanes, and Mustang Aeronautics, Inc. Model Mustang II experimental airplanes. This AD applies to any aircraft with the listed APU models installed.?

This statement makes the AD applicable to the listed auxiliary power unit (APU) models installed on TC?d aircraft, as well as non-TC?d aircraft.

(2) ?This AD applies to Lycoming Engines Models AEIO-360-A1A and IO-360-A1A. This AD applies to any aircraft with the listed engine models installed.?

This statement makes the AD applicable to the listed engine models installed on TC?d and non-TC?d aircraft.

So, it looks like it all depends on how the AD was written.
 
Quoted from AD 2009-22-03

Applicability
(c) This AD applies to Hartzell Propeller Inc. ()HC-()2Y(K,R)-() series propellers with nonsuffix serial number (SN) propeller hubs and propeller hubs suffix SN letter ''E'', installed on Lycoming O-, IO-, LO-, LIO-, TO-, LTO-, AIO-, AEIO-, and TIO-360 series reciprocating engines.
These propellers and engines could be installed on, but not limited to:
 
If there is a potential fault, worthy of an AD do you think standing on some macho high moral ground about what applies to you is really a smart idea?

I do not think any smart owner would think that way.
 
But who decides if it's worthy of an AD? The guy who died because of the defect? The FAA? The company that just borrowed a lot of money & bought the rights to the product?

That's the dilemma in deciding whether to comply with (instead of addressing) an AD.

Charlie
 
Thanks for the responses. I've been looking for a "yes or no" answer.
What do ya think.....legal or not?
Lorne
 
you will NEVER get a yes or no answer out of the FAA. they can't even agree between departments internally on most issues.

bob burns
N82RB RV-4
 
gottawork said:
Thanks for the responses. I've been looking for a "yes or no" answer.
What do ya think.....legal or not?
Lorne
Click to expand...

If you ask me the answer is NO.... (but everyone knows I'm pretty conservative when it comes to maintenance issues).

I would just go ahead and comply with the AD, it's really not that big a deal. Fly the aircraft to prop shop that can do the inspection "on wing" and let them do it. Probably set you back less than 2 "airplane bucks" (under $200).
 
Last edited:
The question should not be if it is legal or not. As has been posted before, the question should be whether it is "safe" or not. The affected prop is not safer because it is installed on an experimental aircraft.
If you brought the aircraft to me for a condition inspection, I would not sign it off without the AD compliance.

Hypothetically let's say you don't perform the AD requirements.
You sign off the condition inspection stating that the aircraft is "in a condition for safe operation." A month later, the prop comes apart in flight. The airplane crashes. You survive but your passenger dies. The judge asks you how you can sign off the aircraft as "in a condition for safe operation" knowing there is an Airworthiness Directive that has not been complied with.
What is your answer?
 
Under what conditions did the first prop "come apart", and how many of the fleet suffered the same failure?

In other words, like ALL aspects of aviation, what is the probability of failure?

Yes, a prop coming apart is a serious thing, but the actual PROBABILITY of having a prop come apart is likely much less than a midair during formation flight, or birdstrikes during the low pass. Funny how we jump on a boogeyman like this AD, yet willingly plunge headlong into behavior that is likely far more dangerous.
 
Toobuilder said:
Under what conditions did the first prop "come apart", and how many of the fleet suffered the same failure?

In other words, like ALL aspects of aviation, what is the probability of failure?

Yes, a prop coming apart is a serious thing, but the actual PROBABILITY of having a prop come apart is likely much less than a midair during formation flight, or birdstrikes during the low pass. Funny how we jump on a boogeyman like this AD, yet willingly plunge headlong into behavior that is likely far more dangerous.
Click to expand...

When I was at the prop shop last summer, the operator told me that they do the test on the hubs and he has never found one with cracks.
 
skybolt31 said:
When I was at the prop shop last summer, the operator told me that they do the test on the hubs and he has never found one with cracks.
Click to expand...

Thanks skybolt, this is the kind of information that is useful. If anyone has actually had or has heard of a failure that would be great if they could chime in.

I know of one other guy that had the 100hr inspection, nothing found. That was about 5 years and 500 hrs ago.

Christopher.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.