Tango Mike
Well Known Member
First, let me announce that I haven't yet donated to the forum. Second, I promise to do so today, in cash, even though I am exempt from donating based upon two combat tours in Vietnam in the F-4 Phantom. After reading Doug's donation page, I decided that he's a guy who deserves the support. Thanks for all your effort. And now to the business at hand.
The issues surrounding the subject AD may have been discussed so much that it’s strictly old news. I apologize in advance if that’s the community opinion, but I’m looking for any and all comments from anyone who wishes to share them.
I purchased my RV-6 about 10 days prior to the publication of the original version of the subject AD and subsequently learned that it applied to my prop. Bad timing.
With the issue of applicability to experimental airplanes ultimately settled in favor of Hartzell and the FAA and another ECI due, I’m trying to decide how best to proceed: 1) continue with the ECIs, 2) terminate the requirement with the alternate method, 3) terminate with an overhaul with a replacement “B” suffix hub, or 4) replace the prop. I’m able to fly airplanes only by adhering to a fairly tight budget, so the decision isn’t a casual one.
From everything I can gather, very few ECIs have discovered cracks. Assuming that I don’t have a time bomb hauling me through the sky, and based solely on cost/benefit analysis, continuing with repetitive inspections appears to be the best option. I currently have two ways to do that by flying the airplane to an international airport about 80 miles away where a shop will conduct the inspection on-airplane for a mere $400, or taking the prop to them for an in-shop charge of $200.
In my opinion, removing and replacing the prop every 100 hours TIS for an inspection (especially one that takes less than five minutes once the spinner is removed) opens the door to a host of unintended consequences. To double the hourly cost of the inspection from $2 to $4 by flying there isn’t all that much considering the overall cost of owning an airplane, but it’s still hard to swallow.
I’ve been trying to find a less costly on-airplane ECI source, even to the point of exploring the possibility that a local A&P could provide the inspections. The procedure is covered by an SB, which does not have to be done by a certified repair station. Any A&P with an eddy-current tester and certification from Hartzell to perform the ECI can do it. I have little doubt that the effort will end up being a waste of time, but it’s something I feel the need to do.
Then there’s the fact that the service bulletin has been updated to include an Optional Terminating Action for the hub inspection by "modification of the propeller hub to the oil-filled configuration in accordance with Hartzell Service Letter HC-SL-61-273." I’ve looked into that option, and based on an extensive discussion on another forum, I’m not at all confident that it’s an acceptable solution. It would be like opening up a whole different can of worms.
If I’m going to remove the prop, there’s a strong temptation to bite the significant financial bullet of an overhaul and replacement of my “E” suffix hub with a “B” hub. That, however, reminds me of the saying that “Prop shops have never met a prop that doesn’t need more work than what you brought it to them for.” It’s like handing them a blank check. Once again the owner bears the financial burden of a product with a problem. And in this case, it’s a problem long since proven to be an example of shouting “Fire!” when there is none.
I’d love to abandon Hartzell altogether. One of the discussions on this forum has a post by a company rep who defended everything they do as being marvelous and all in the interest of safety and support of their customers. If they really felt that way, they’d step up to the plate and pay the cost of fixing their problem. Even something so simple as offering no- or low-cost ECIs at authorized repair stations. Or how about offering training to A&Ps and thereby expand the availability of ECIs? What a novel concept: support the customer who purchased your product in good faith. Welcome to corporate America.
The decision to purchase an alternate prop wouldn’t be an easy one. At least with a hub replacement, the cost-to-benefit ratio includes a component that to the best of my knowledge has eliminated any concerns about cracks.
One lingering thought, however, involves the issue of bad timing. It’s as if I expect to replace the hub or prop and a week later, the Hartzell/FAA coalition finally accepts the reality that the experience of years of flight hours and completed ECIs on the affected hubs prove that they do not expose owners to sufficient potential for blade failures to warrant continuation of the AD. That’s probably never happened, but just wait until I spend the money. It’d be like washing a car and bringing rain.
If anyone wants to add their $.02, I’m all ears.
The issues surrounding the subject AD may have been discussed so much that it’s strictly old news. I apologize in advance if that’s the community opinion, but I’m looking for any and all comments from anyone who wishes to share them.
I purchased my RV-6 about 10 days prior to the publication of the original version of the subject AD and subsequently learned that it applied to my prop. Bad timing.
With the issue of applicability to experimental airplanes ultimately settled in favor of Hartzell and the FAA and another ECI due, I’m trying to decide how best to proceed: 1) continue with the ECIs, 2) terminate the requirement with the alternate method, 3) terminate with an overhaul with a replacement “B” suffix hub, or 4) replace the prop. I’m able to fly airplanes only by adhering to a fairly tight budget, so the decision isn’t a casual one.
From everything I can gather, very few ECIs have discovered cracks. Assuming that I don’t have a time bomb hauling me through the sky, and based solely on cost/benefit analysis, continuing with repetitive inspections appears to be the best option. I currently have two ways to do that by flying the airplane to an international airport about 80 miles away where a shop will conduct the inspection on-airplane for a mere $400, or taking the prop to them for an in-shop charge of $200.
In my opinion, removing and replacing the prop every 100 hours TIS for an inspection (especially one that takes less than five minutes once the spinner is removed) opens the door to a host of unintended consequences. To double the hourly cost of the inspection from $2 to $4 by flying there isn’t all that much considering the overall cost of owning an airplane, but it’s still hard to swallow.
I’ve been trying to find a less costly on-airplane ECI source, even to the point of exploring the possibility that a local A&P could provide the inspections. The procedure is covered by an SB, which does not have to be done by a certified repair station. Any A&P with an eddy-current tester and certification from Hartzell to perform the ECI can do it. I have little doubt that the effort will end up being a waste of time, but it’s something I feel the need to do.
Then there’s the fact that the service bulletin has been updated to include an Optional Terminating Action for the hub inspection by "modification of the propeller hub to the oil-filled configuration in accordance with Hartzell Service Letter HC-SL-61-273." I’ve looked into that option, and based on an extensive discussion on another forum, I’m not at all confident that it’s an acceptable solution. It would be like opening up a whole different can of worms.
If I’m going to remove the prop, there’s a strong temptation to bite the significant financial bullet of an overhaul and replacement of my “E” suffix hub with a “B” hub. That, however, reminds me of the saying that “Prop shops have never met a prop that doesn’t need more work than what you brought it to them for.” It’s like handing them a blank check. Once again the owner bears the financial burden of a product with a problem. And in this case, it’s a problem long since proven to be an example of shouting “Fire!” when there is none.
I’d love to abandon Hartzell altogether. One of the discussions on this forum has a post by a company rep who defended everything they do as being marvelous and all in the interest of safety and support of their customers. If they really felt that way, they’d step up to the plate and pay the cost of fixing their problem. Even something so simple as offering no- or low-cost ECIs at authorized repair stations. Or how about offering training to A&Ps and thereby expand the availability of ECIs? What a novel concept: support the customer who purchased your product in good faith. Welcome to corporate America.
The decision to purchase an alternate prop wouldn’t be an easy one. At least with a hub replacement, the cost-to-benefit ratio includes a component that to the best of my knowledge has eliminated any concerns about cracks.
One lingering thought, however, involves the issue of bad timing. It’s as if I expect to replace the hub or prop and a week later, the Hartzell/FAA coalition finally accepts the reality that the experience of years of flight hours and completed ECIs on the affected hubs prove that they do not expose owners to sufficient potential for blade failures to warrant continuation of the AD. That’s probably never happened, but just wait until I spend the money. It’d be like washing a car and bringing rain.
If anyone wants to add their $.02, I’m all ears.
Last edited:
