Airplane with prop strike and no documented overhaul

T

toncatruck

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jun 22, 2022
Messages
5
Display Name
Display name:
toncatruck
Hi all! I am looking at buying an m20J with a mid-time engine and noticed an incident on the FAA database noting a collapsed gear on rollout in 2014. Looking at the logbooks, it appears that only the prop was replaced and the fiberglass on the belly was repaired. No overhaul is noted. It has flown 500 hours since that incident with numerous different IAs approving it as airworthy. It has an engine monitor on as well. It looks like this has been sold a few times since the incident occurred.

I have been perusing the internet trying to figure out what the risks are at this point given how long the engine has run since the prop strike. If there was engine damage from a prop strike, would this be something that would have shown up by now? Would this be an immediate pass on the purchase?
 
An overhaul is not required, but an inspection of specific parts is required. Many choose to do the overhaul because the inspection is so painful already.
 
Too bad the previous owner lost the option of engine removal, crating, shipping, teardown and inspection, then crating, shipping, and installing back on the airframe. When insurance picks up that tab, it's not too hard to rationalize putting in new parts, particularly since some of the existing parts may not be serviceable based on normal wear.
 
Salty said:
An overhaul is not required, but an inspection of specific parts is required.
Click to expand...

So I see nothing in the logs of a proper inspection of the engine.

This is the wording on the 100h inspection after the prop strike:

Decowled A/C. Dialed C/S ,OK .C/W A.D. 2004-10-14C1 and M58 475C,with new bolt and locktab. Changed oil and filter ,filter check, . Serviced engine 7 QTS Phillips 66 100.Runup and leak check, OK .Compression as follows 1 79/80 2 79/80 3 75/80 4 79/80.Checked engine and compartment for service ,operation and defect, 0K. Magneto 500 hr inspection due tach 3154.Checked Ads thru this date, 5 e list. l certify this engine has been inspected IAW A 100 hr inspection and found Airworthy this date.
 
dbahn said:
Too bad the previous owner lost the option of engine removal, crating, shipping, teardown and inspection, then crating, shipping, and installing back on the airframe. When insurance picks up that tab, it's not too hard to rationalize putting in new parts, particularly since some of the existing parts may not be serviceable based on normal wear.
Click to expand...
I kind of wonder if the airplane just wasn't insured by the previous owner.
 
toncatruck said:
C/W A.D. 2004-10-14C1 and M58 475C
Click to expand...
Both of those refer to Lycoming actions subsequent to prop strike or sudden engine stoppage.

That sounds good although the wording is quite terse and it would have been nice to have a more full description. In any event, if it was me, I would take these log books to the mechanic I planned to use for the aircraft and find out what my mechanic's opinion is and if they would be OK in terms of passing this through an annual with all that taken into account or if this was simply not going to be satisfactory for my mechanic. Talking it over with your mechanic could be time well spent regardless of your ultimate decision.
 
toncatruck said:
C/W A.D. 2004-10-14C1 and M58 475C,with new bolt and locktab
Click to expand...
This is the "proper" inspection of the engine after a prop strike per Lycoming. However, you may want to discuss this with A&P IA you plan to use to maintain this aircraft as it would be their decision on issue that matters.
 
The docs refer to using a Dial Indicator to check for a bent Crankshaft and

removing the Accessory Case to check the Crankshaft Gear. This would be

considered “ Minimum Action “.

Someone must have considered it a “ Light Prop Strike” vs “Sudden Stoppage”.

Lots of opinions on this.

,
 
Magman said:
The docs refer to using a Dial Indicator to check for a bent Crankshaft and

removing the Accessory Case to check the Crankshaft Gear. This would be

considered “ Minimum Action “.

Someone must have considered it a “ Light Prop Strike” vs “Sudden Stoppage”.
Click to expand...

That is exactly the information I was looking for. So in theory, the crankshaft is still at a higher risk of premature failure? I will contact a mechanic for a pre-buy if I end up making an offer.
 
Magman said:
Someone must have considered it a “ Light Prop Strike” vs “Sudden Stoppage”.
Click to expand...
Given the AD covers all prop strikes (light or heavy) and sudden stoppage, I assume you are referring to MSB 533?
 
To me a Prop Strike is very light damage to the prop.

A Sudden Stoppage is a hard hit where only 1blade is bent. But badly.

While compliance is required per AD or SB in either case my thought is only a

complete tear down is sufficient in the latter case.

At one time Engine Mfg would make a determination of action needed based pix

or drawings of the damaged prop.

Some insurance companies would not pay for ANY engine damage unless it read

a “ Supervised Teardown” with their Rep. No damage = Zippo.

Times have changed.

Two concerns:

Safe to fly?

Will Crank need to be replaced at MOH?
 
Is there an AP violation database the public can search? Or some other way to determine if the AP who did the work is good? It’s hard to know much about Joe AP who did an annual five hundred hours ago and x states away.
 
Randomskylane said:
Is there an AP violation database the public can search?
Click to expand...
No. But theres no database for private pilots or owners either. However when it comes to determining the skill level/abilities of your mechanic it starts with your knowledge level. In general, understanding the basics and your responsibilites as an owner go a long way in making that determination on a mechanic you plan to use or inquire with. The more knowledge you have of the process the more you can ask the right questions and agree or verify the right processes are needed or followed. Afterall as owner its your show to command and not the mechanics. And theres plenty of free info out there to get you down that path.
 
I have more faith in signed entries being correct than just finding evidence with no

documentation.

OP may want to have his Tech dial Crank at pb.


Random: why is your question in this thread?

Can you be more specific?

500 hrs?

“ Good” means different things to different folks.
 
Magman said:
I have more faith in signed entries being correct than just finding evidence with no

documentation.

OP may want to have his Tech dial Crank at pb.


Random: why is your question in this thread?

Can you be more specific?

500 hrs?

“ Good” means different things to different folks.
Click to expand...
500 hours in original post

Anyone considering this purchase is probably interested in the quality of the AP who did the inspection 500 hours ago

you can look up aviation accidents and some are caused by AP error and many by pilot error. Seems logical to check an AP against the accident database.
 
It’s to bad the A&P did not put the Dial readings in the entry.I think any concerns

could result in dialing the Crank prior to purchase. Since only the accessory case

was apart there is not much to get into. The entire engine was not apart.

What else would you have wanted him to do? After 9 years and 500 hrs nothing

has showed up. Addressing these concerns could only be resolved by a complete

tear- down.


For whatever reason the Owner opted to go the “ minimum” but legal route.

No insurance? This does happen . My recommendation to folks having prop work

done is to have “no prop strike” added to the Work Order. Perhaps an engine shop

has knowledge of damages in cases like this. Could ultra- sound or other NDT be

used “on-wing”? The Tech can’t do much more without owner ok.
 
IIRC one of the docs states that if the prop is damaged by closing the hangar door

then the Accessory Case must be pulled to check the Gear. So any damage to the

prop that requires it to be removed for repairs mandates that action. At least one

Insurance Co. does not agree and refused to pay for the procedure. What do you

expect the Tech to do in this situation?


It would be nice it an organization with no vested interest had a compilation

of Strike pix and damage found.

In this particular case my Safety Concern would be focused on the

Impulse Coupling Spring rather than the Crankshaft.

Crank would be a financial concern .
 
@toncatruck Run like a scalded cat. Find another plane, from what is reported here this one says short cuts and trouble. Doesn't sound like a top rated specialist was involved.

Remember YOU are buying his liability.
 
Question - was the incident while the current owner owned it? If so, I'd ask about it.

I'm not going to recommend a decision but if I were going to buy an airplane with apparent damage what is not documented in the logs, I would (a) be very suspicious and (b) have a very thorough pre-buy done by a very reliable mechanic unrelated i any way to the seller.

Yeah, I have heard of gear up landings with nothing documented in the maintenance logs, with the latest owner first learning of it, and the nonstandard repair job - during ordinary maintenance after it was purchased.
 
The regulations are fairly clear on what needs to be documented in the logs. With what we know in this thread, I suspect that there was adequate documentation but the people reading it aren't necessarily understanding it because they think there should be more.

In the case of a Lycoming with a prop strike that is being operated under part 91 rules, the only obligation an owner has is to do document compliance with AD 2004-10-14, and it sounds like that has occurred. Anything beyond that is at the owner's discretion. A prospective buyer can either pass on the aircraft or do whatever inspecting they want in order to be comfortable with the aircraft/engine. Whether that happens before or after purchase is up to the buyer and seller to figure out.
 
Not sure I'm following this. It started out with the claim that a prop strike occurred and no record of anything having been done but then it is revealed that AD 2004-10-14 and MSB 475C were complied with which is exactly what needs to be done following a prop strike. There seems to be a misconception that a prop strike requires an overhaul. It doesn't.
 
Silvaire said:
Not sure I'm following this. It started out with the claim that a prop strike occurred and no record of anything having been done but then it is revealed that AD 2004-10-14 and MSB 475C were complied with which is exactly what needs to be done following a prop strike. There seems to be a misconception that a prop strike requires an overhaul. It doesn't.
Click to expand...

That or an implication that something must have been covered up, because in some minds the brevity of the entry "C/W A.D. 2004-10-14C1 and M58 475C...and found Airworthy this date" must be hiding something.

That entry confirms the inspections performed complied with FAA and engine manufacturer mandated actions. Whether those actions satisfy the standards of the potential purchaser of an aircraft is a decision entirely left that person. After all, the Code of Federal Regulations 14 CFR 91.7(b) states: “The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight.”

Some of the comments above assign speculative and unfounded malfeasance to the mechanic. As 91.7(b) states, the PIC ultimately decides if an aircraft is in condition for safe flight. For some pilots, "C/W A.D. 2004-10-14C1 and M58 475C" is sufficient positive information for flight to occur or for purchase to be made. For others, it's not. The decision to purchase the subject aircraft ultimately rests on the interpretation of that logbook entry.
 
Last edited:
The prop strike and documentation after the fact do not bother me.
 
3393RP said:
...because in some minds the brevity of the entry "C/W A.D. 2004-10-14C1 and M58 475C...and found Airworthy this date" must be hiding something...
Click to expand...

From an A&P's perspective this brevity is appreciated. The meat of the statement lies in the text of the AD and the SB, there is no need to rewrite it verbatim on the logbook page. One of the more tedious chores of doing an annual inspection is having to read through decades worth of long winded and unnecessarily wordy hand written entries just to find the statement that a specific AD was complied with. The simple statement that an annual inspection was done expressly means that all of the items listed in Appendix D were completed because that is the only place in the regulations where "annual inspection" is mentioned. There is no need to add that you did a compression test or checked the tires for wear because you have already stated that those things were done.

Think of it like pilots who talk too much on the radio.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top