a64pilot wrote: A DER and I were discussing today how the FAA has changed in recent years. He said that the FAA charter used to say "to foster and regulate aviation" and now simply says "to regulate aviation" Is this true?

Someone told me once that the FAA is there basically to protect the public from the pilots and airlines. They have some safety programs for us pilots, true, and I'm not questioning the integrity of inspectors and ATC, but when you think about it most of the regs and rules are there not to prevent you from killing yourself but to prevent you from killing your passengers or those on the ground

I was told, once I got home, that I had "substantial damage", due to my front landing gear and a minor bend in the fire wall. I never considered it an "accident". I put it off as an incident (I have since learned it was not)

My judgement to fly home was my very own and I have learned it was the wrong choice. Had I been in the middle of nowhere it would have been a really good fix they said. Given you can walk out of Big Creek in a matter of a long day or so, I made the wrong choice.

Both the NTSB and the Feds said I needed a fairy permit to fly out... And given the fact I dont turn wrenchs for a living on planes I could not make the choice myself to fly or not to fly.

So for advice, when in doubt, you better stay put until big brother can decide for you.

The tricky part as PIC, what you are comfortable with?, and can you make a correct desision on what is non-airworthy or not?

I have seen guys fly into lake hood with 2/4's strapped to the wings holding them in place. I have also seen much worse being flown in. A big part of this comes down to what is remote or not?

I guess had I not been at Big Creek, say maybe a different place in Idaho, at a non published strip, maybe it would have taken 3 days or even a week to walk out, would that be considered remote and ok to fly out, given I felt as though it was airworthy, not being a mechanic?..... After all, I am PIC correct?

Or on the other hand, the fact that a boy scout troop is close by, or the city is on the other side of the Mountains that I am grounded on, is that not considered remote because I can get there in a week by walking?

The whole thing can certainly get confusiing, needless to say.

Dot your I's and cross your T's, then hope for a good outcome...

Its been a learning lesson that I am glad to have had. I think thats what they call experience.....

a64,

Could you cite the Airworthiness Directive that REQUIRES a teardown of an engine that has encountered a minor prop strike, please, and reference which engine that applies to? I'm talking FAR 91 operations here, by the way, not 135.

MTV

Substantial damage?

Funny thing. I heard that BackcountryBoyScout or someone like him once had a gear up landing in a light twin.

Folks said that the props were wiped out, requiring a tear down and new props, the flaps were damaged and the belly skin ripped. Someone said that the aircraft was out of service for months and repairs ran around $80,000.00.

It was rumored that the FAA inspected the aircraft and deemed it "minor" damage.

Local hanger talk suggested that the PIC got a 30 day suspension for "careless and reckless." Its been a while since I heard about this....can't say for sure if it is true.

As Chuck Yeager once said..."thats the way it is remembered, not necessarily the way it happened."

Bob

A64 is this what you where referring to?


SPECIAL AIRWORTHINESS
INFORMATION BULLETIN
Aircraft Certification Service
Washington, DC
U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Aviation
Administration
NE-06-32
February 27, 2006
http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/safety/alerts/SAIB
This is information only. Recommendations aren’t mandatory.
Introduction
This Special Airworthiness Information
Bulletin alerts you, owners, operators, and
certificated repair facilities that, all Lycoming
Engines (Lycoming) direct-drive
reciprocating engines, including VO-360
and IVO-360; except O-320-H, O-360-E,
LO-360-E, TO-360-E, LTO-360-E, and
TIO-541 series engines, must be in
compliance with Airworthiness Directive
(AD) 2004-10-14 if they have had a propeller
strike. The local FAA Flight Standards District
Office (FSDO) may issue a Special Flight
Permit (SFP) even though compliance with the
AD is, “before further flight”. In addition to
the AD requirement, Lycoming requires
engine disassembly and inspection.
Background
• Lycoming issued Mandatory Service
Bulletin (MSB) 475, dated October 31,
1986, to provide the proper instructions
for installing the crankshaft gear bolt
located at the rear of the crankshaft.
• In 1991, the FAA issued AD 91-14-22,
making sections 1 through 7 of
Lycoming MSB 475A, dated July 16,
1990, mandatory, “at each engine
overhaul, after a propeller strike,
sudden stoppage, or whenever gear
train repair is required.” It also
contained the words “prior to further
flight” and the standard SFP paragraph.
• In June 1993 the Lycoming Direct
Drive Overhaul Manual incorporated
the requirements and installation
instructions contained in Lycoming
MSB 475C, October 31, 1986 and
Supplement No. 1 to MSB 475 dated
May 24, 1988.
• On March 25, 2003, the FAA
published a Notice of proposed
rulemaking, (NPRM) to supercede AD
91-14-22. That NPRM contained the
SFP paragraph, although it should have
been removed, based on the FAR 39
rule change.
• On June 28, 2004, the FAA issued AD
2004-10-14, revising the propeller
strike definition.
o This AD removed the
requirements “at each engine
overhaul” and “or whenever
gear train repair is required”
because the Lycoming Direct
Drive Overhaul Manual
incorporated them, effectively
making AD 2004-10-14 a “Prop
Strike AD”.
o This AD was one of the first to
eliminate the provision for an
SFP and did not include a
statement prohibiting one from
being issued. This is because
of a revision to FAR Part 39.
�� FAR Part 39 revision,
effective August 21,
2002, removed certain
provisions from all
ADs. FAR Part 39.23
provides for an SFPs to
fly an aircraft to a repair
facility. However,
when an SFP will not be

Here is summary of the AD 2004-10-14

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) that supersedes an existing
AD, for Lycoming Engines (formerly Textron Lycoming), direct-drive reciprocating engines (except
O-145, O-320H, O-360E, LO-360E, LTO-360E, TO-360-E, O-435, and TIO-541 series engines).
That AD currently requires inspection of the crankshaft gear installation and rework or replacement
of the gears where necessary after a propeller strike, sudden stoppage, at overhaul, or whenever gear
train repair is required. This AD requires the same actions but makes the correction that the existing
gear retaining bolt and lockplate be removed from service and new hardware installed, and revises
the definitions for sudden stoppage and propeller strike. This AD removes the requirement to perform
inspections at overhaul and during repair of the gear train, because Lycoming has incorporated those
procedures from their Service Bulletin into their Overhaul Manual.This AD results from a change to
the definition of a propeller strike or sudden stoppage. We are issuing this AD to prevent loosening or
failure of the crankshaft gear retaining bolt, which may cause sudden engine failure.
DATES: This AD becomes effective June 25, 2004. The Director of the Federal Register approved
the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations as of June 25, 2004.

mtv wrote:a64,

Could you cite the Airworthiness Directive that REQUIRES a teardown of an engine that has encountered a minor prop strike, please, and reference which engine that applies to? I'm talking FAR 91 operations here, by the way, not 135.

MTV

There are no more minor prop strikes. Once the big suit ended with Cont lycoming got on the band wagon as well. They explain it quite well on there website.

If the sun casts a heavy shadow on the prop you need to pull the accessory cover and check the bolt and gears

Well if water prop strikes mean a tear down, you better ground all float planes and take the files away from the mechanics. They all get roughened up a little after a season of normal float use. Better quit flying in the rain too.

How about dust or smoke. Smog is what I worry about.

Tim

Thanks, Mr. Scout, you did a far better job than I could.

I walked into my prop the other day in the hangar....I'll call FAA on Monday and have my A&P start the tear down on Monday too.

Okay, thanks--that's what I was looking for. The point is, however, that the AD does not require a full "tear down" of the engine, only replacement of the crank gears. Does that require splitting the case, and removing the crank? I'm not sure--so just asking.

As to AKTahoe's question regarding whether you're in a "remote" spot or not, that is irrelevant according to the FAA. The airplane is NOT airworthy until a mechanic has inspected it, and then it requires a ferry permit to move it if it was found to be unairworthy, and clearly anything with a collapsed nosegear and bent firewall would be unairworthy, NO MATTER WHERE it happened.

I suspect that if you argued that "well, I was out there, and couldn't walk back" the FAA would probably ask you why you didn't file a flight plan. Just guessing, mind, but..

I too have seen a lot of strange looking messes flown in from the bush in Alaska. In fact, I've flown at least two of those, though I wasn't the one who did the damage, just the guy asked to do the ferry flight, after careful inspection by an IA and a proper ferry permit.

I also have seen a couple of these arrive in places in Alaska with backcountry fixes and subsequently get violated for failure to get a ferry permit. THere was one in Fort Yukon a while back, in fact.

Point is, the FAA says (and I agree) that it is REALLY easy to have what a pilot might consider "minor damage" by the FAR definition, yet actually have substantial damage which is harder to see. Consider that many of the single engine Cessna aircraft have their nosegear attached to the firewall. Bend the firewall just so, and you can compromise the control circuit of the airplane.

THAT would be a bad thing to discover on a landing approach during a ferry flight in gusty winds.....

MTV

MTV,
You get into a catch 22 of course. No you don't have to do a complete teardown, but, at least in my airplane the engine essentially had to come out to get to the bolt to replace it. Now, I don't want to get into any arguments here, but let's just say it's prudent to have ALL ferrous metal magnafluxed if you have had a significant prop strike, you know the kind that there is no question if the prop can be fixed or not. Insurance usually drives the train here and insurance will pay for a tear down, so do you do a tear down if insurance pays? You decide, it wasn't a hard decision for me.
In my case my engine had more than 1800 hours on it and a 2,000 TBO. I elected to put all new parts back into it (at my expense, not insurance) and have an overhauled engine. Shame really as there wasn't any real wear anywhere in the engine.
Also in order to protect the resell value of your airplane you want to comply with any SB's and SL's while you are there. Again you may not have to, but it's prudent.

Rhyppa wrote:Well if water prop strikes mean a tear down, you better ground all float planes and take the files away from the mechanics. They all get roughened up a little after a season of normal float use. Better quit flying in the rain too.

Fellows...lets get real...smog, smoke, clouds rain

As i said, it has to hit something that has the potential to cause damage. Grass stains on the prop could be from simply clipping tall grass or from dragging it accross the ground...There is no way for anyone to look at it and tell you how it got there so it constitutes a propstrike. Water can cause damage as well...not in rain form, vapor (clouds) or mist. As Rhyppa stated above it will rough up a prop just from the spray, but it does not necessarily constitute a prop strike. Hit the water in other than spray form and find out what happens. Hitting a bird would be considered a strike, hail, hitting a hangar door while pulling it out of the hangar...etc..

If you go by the letter of the law it can get ridiculous, but if you go by the intent of the law (safety) it makes perfect scense.

AKTahoe1- The good in all this is that you are safe, and we have a situation (without injury) that we can all learn from.

In my opinion, if you are in a situation where it can be life threatening then you make whatever repairs are necessary and get to safety. Better to be alive and explain your decisions...as PIC that is your responsibility. If there is a clear way to safely survive, albeit inconveniently, then the law should be followed. If it is simply a matter of convenience or legality, then legality is the clear choice.

I love and value;

The lives, health and well being of my family, friends, dogs and myself.
My Home
My pilot's license
My airplane
My country

I hate;
Most regulations
Bureaucracy & Bureaucrats - FAA, IRS etc
Lawyers
Insurance Companies
Nancy Pelosi
Crosswinds
Annuals