Check out this NTSB report for a plane I rent regularly

MassPilot

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
1,089
Location
Melbourne, FL
Display Name

Display name:
FloridaPilot
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20060720X00975&ntsbno=NYC06IA143&akey=1

On June 6, 2006, about 1930 eastern daylight time, a Cessna 172S, N2138W, incurred minor damage when a propeller blade separated during a missed approach at Lawrence Municipal Airport (LWM), Lawrence, Massachusetts. The certificated flight instructor and the certificated commercial pilot (under instruction) were not injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed. The local flight was operated on an instrument flight rules flight plan from Mansfield Municipal Airport (1B9), Mansfield, Massachusetts, and was conducted under 14 CFR Part 91.

According to the flight instructor, the flight was a proficiency check for the commercial pilot. The commercial pilot had just flown the VOR RWY 23 approach, and had initiated a missed approach 1/2 mile from the runway due to traffic landing in the opposite direction. Passing through 1,700 feet, a "loud pop" was heard and the airplane began to shake violently. The flight instructor immediately took control of the airplane and shut down the engine to prevent further damage. He then made a Mayday call with his intentions, and glided the airplane to a landing on runway 32.

A postflight examination of the airplane revealed that a McCauley Propeller Systems fixed-pitch propeller blade, part number 1A170E/JHA7660, serial number XH23030, had separated about 12 inches from the center of the hub.

The flight instructor also noted that during the airplane's preflight inspection, both he and the commercial pilot visually inspected the propeller blade, and ran their hands along the leading and trailing edges with no anomalies noted.

According to maintenance records, the most recent 100-hour inspection of the propeller blade was on May 10, 2006, about 53 operating hours before the incident. No anomalies were noted.

The remainder of the separated propeller blade was forwarded to the Safety Board for metallurgical examination. According to the Materials Laboratory Factual Report, the fracture was oriented in a chordwise direction, and there were crack arrest lines along the fracture face, typical of a fatigue crack, emanating from an indentation at the blade's leading edge. The crack propagated through approximately 50 percent of the fracture face. Another crack arrest band was noted beyond the first area, which had fibrous features typical of an overstress separation. There was no mention of corrosion in the report.

A chemical analysis of the propeller blade at Cessna Aircraft Company revealed that the hardness and chemical composition of the blade met the requirements of the applicable engineering drawing.
I asked my CFI about it, and he said that all the engine mounts broke and the cowling started to split apart and open up. A few more seconds without shutting down and the engine would most likely have separated from the plane. Wonder what that would do to W&B :yikes:.

I guess the important lesson here is that if you here a loud pop followed by violent shaking, kill the mags immediately and make an engine out landing.

This incident scares me due to how random it was, and how serious it could have been.
 
Last edited:
People get hit by meteorites too. What are ya gonna do?

:dunno:
 
Reconsidering your choice of rental planes?

No, I really like this FBO for a number of reasons. This happened six years ago and I believe it was just a random incident, not a sign of shoddy maintenance or anything. You better believe that I take the "propeller free of chips and cracks" part of the preflight checklist very seriously since reading this.
 
I always check the blade edges on preflight, but also check the faces.

It could have been an old rock chip that started a stressor before it was caught and hopefully filed by an A&P. So nothing would be found on a regular preflight except perhaps a smooth indentation.

I've found evidence of rock hits on the back face of the blade, midway between leading and trailing edges. Don't just check the edges.
 
I just lost a counter weight off an old Hamilton Standard and it almost tore off before I got it shut down. I was 3' AGL when it happened.
 
Not surprised, there is a SB for 1000hr recurring NDT of the prop of 172S and 180HP 172Rs figure it exists for a reason!

In other words not likely to happen again.
 
Not surprised, there is a SB for 1000hr recurring NDT of the prop of 172S and 180HP 172Rs figure it exists for a reason!

In other words not likely to happen again.

I doubt any owner will do that SB. I have a hard time getting some owners to even do AD's.
 
This happened six years ago and I believe it was just a random incident, not a sign of shoddy maintenance or anything.

Well, it's six years, the recommendation for prop overhaul is 6 years or 2000hrs, so they are about due for another one :) .

You better believe that I take the "propeller free of chips and cracks" part of the preflight checklist very seriously since reading this.

That blade was cracked through 50% of its cord before those two got on board. A lot that can lurk under a layer of paint.
 
Is that an approved AMOC for the SB?

I don't know, I'm assuming Eddy Current would be acceptable so unless they specify the eddy current equipment to use I can't see the problem. Since the SB is non mandatory for PT 91 all it really would have to satisfy is me.
 
I don't know, I'm assuming Eddy Current would be acceptable so unless they specify the eddy current equipment to use I can't see the problem. Since the SB is non mandatory for PT 91 all it really would have to satisfy is me.

Since you don't have an A&P you can't sign off the inspection anyway.

Going outside of the MOC or the AMOC and signing it off leaves the person signing with liability issues.
 
I don't know, I'm assuming Eddy Current would be acceptable so unless they specify the eddy current equipment to use I can't see the problem. Since the SB is non mandatory for PT 91 all it really would have to satisfy is me.

Liquid penetrant

SB02-61-02

Also states that the crack originated from a forging defect at the trailing edge.
 
Well, it's six years, the recommendation for prop overhaul is 6 years or 2000hrs, so they are about due for another one :) .



That blade was cracked through 50% of its cord before those two got on board. A lot that can lurk under a layer of paint.
Is that true for all propellers? I've owned mine for 12 years and 2 engine replacements (2000+hrs) with no propeller overhaul. C-172M. Am I overdue?
 
Since you don't have an A&P you can't sign off the inspection anyway.

Going outside of the MOC or the AMOC and signing it off leaves the person signing with liability issues.

I was just talking about doing it on ones own airplane to save the cost. It's an SB so no real need for most people to get it signed off right, heck, how many people even bother to get it done? Is the information gathered from a home made eddy current test rig less informative than from a store bought one?
 
Liquid penetrant

SB02-61-02

Also states that the crack originated from a forging defect at the trailing edge.

:confused::confused: Dye pen is both cheap and easy to do in any shop, why is there a 'PITA' issue with doing this?
 
Mad props to that CFI for getting the plane down in one piece.

(D'oh! Yeah, I had to go there!)
 
Is that true for all propellers? I've owned mine for 12 years and 2 engine replacements (2000+hrs) with no propeller overhaul. C-172M. Am I overdue?

Sensenich used to be 1000hrs. Some props are 2000, some are 2400, often there is a 'or 6 years whichever comes first' attached. In fixed pitch props, the calendar time limits are probably less important as those are mostly for corrosion. As this case shows, getting the prop looked at without paint using nondestructive testing every once in a while may not be a bad idea (it doesn't have to be a complete overhaul where they grind material off the blades, just stripping the paint and doing eddy current or dye penetrant inspection should pick up a crack).
 
Last edited:
Is that true for all propellers? I've owned mine for 12 years and 2 engine replacements (2000+hrs) with no propeller overhaul. C-172M. Am I overdue?

IIRC, most props have TBOs specified. Most are not mandatory for Part 91, some are called out in the type certificate (meaning they are mandatory).

Sensenich used to be 1000hrs. Some props are 2000, some are 2400, most if not all have a recommended overhaul interval. In fixed pitch props, the calendar time limits are probably less important as those are mostly for corrosion. As this case shows, getting the prop looked at without paint using nondestructive testing every once in a while may not be a bad idea (it doesn't have to be a complete overhaul where they grind material off the blades, just stripping the paint and doing eddy current or dye penetrant inspection should pick up a crack).

For certain Hartzell constant-speed props, Hartzell went back to the FAA and got the type certificate modified to include the TBO in the TC, including both calendar and hour/usage limits. That makes the OH at those limits mandatory even for Part 91 as it is required for continued airwworthiness.
 
I heard this story that relates:

A rancher hired a local pilot to take him up an shoot coyotes on his property. The went up and the rancher was taking pot shots and getting quite a few coyotes. He had just got his groove figuring out exactly how much to lead the coyote when he fired a little too far forward.

There was the 'BANG' of the gun and then the plane started to shake very violently. The pilot fought the plane all the way down and just managed to set it down in the field they were flying over. The rancher had taken about a foot off one of the props. The pilot, nerves shot, started walking towards town over 5 miles away.

The rancher asked, "Where ya going?" to which the pilot responded, "To town, we can't fly out with the plane like that!". The pilot turned around to continue to town. He had only taken a few steps when he heard another, "BANG!".

He spun around and saw the rancher at the front of the plane with his riffle smoking. The rancher had blown the tip off the other prop blade and more or less evened things up. They got back in and the vibration was mostly gone, so the pilot revved it up and flew them both back to the home airport.
 
For certain Hartzell constant-speed props, Hartzell went back to the FAA and got the type certificate modified to include the TBO in the TC, including both calendar and hour/usage limits. That makes the OH at those limits mandatory even for Part 91 as it is required for continued airwworthiness.

The issue which manufacturers limitations spelled out in instructions for continued airworthiness are binding is as I understand it somewhat open to discussion. Maintenance inspectors at some FSDOs seem to think so, others dont. If there is a regulation (a FAR or AD) that requires adherence to a limitation, they are mandatory, without such a regulation they are not.
 
The issue which manufacturers limitations spelled out in instructions for continued airworthiness are binding is as I understand it somewhat open to discussion. Maintenance inspectors at some FSDOs seem to think so, others dont. If there is a regulation (a FAR or AD) that requires adherence to a limitation, they are mandatory, without such a regulation they are not.

If the Type Certificate (as opposed to a separate ICA) says "Prop must be overhauled at 6 years or 2000 hours in service, whichever comes first" is the plane airworthy and in compliance with it's type certificate if it's been 7 years since last prop overhaul?

Agree that there may be a question as it relates to ICAs that are not spelled out in a TC. I'm speaking solely of a limitation in the TC.
 
A pilot once showed me a step which I added to my pre-flight routine. It involves the way I inspect my prop.

Starting in the center, I make a fist and gently tap on the prop, making my way to the outside edge. I repeat for the other side.

Kind of like licking your finger and running it around the rim of a wine glass to "hear" if it is made of crystal . . .

This "prop sound test" is supposed to let me know about structural issues (fractures).

Have any of you heard of this? Do you bang your propeller before flight like I do?
 
A pilot once showed me a step which I added to my pre-flight routine. It involves the way I inspect my prop.

Starting in the center, I make a fist and gently tap on the prop, making my way to the outside edge. I repeat for the other side.

Kind of like licking your finger and running it around the rim of a wine glass to "hear" if it is made of crystal . . .

This "prop sound test" is supposed to let me know about structural issues (fractures).

Have any of you heard of this? Do you bang your propeller before flight like I do?

My CFI taught me to do the same thing. He said it was unlikely to detect any defects, but worth the extra 10 seconds in case it did.
 
My CFI taught me to do the same thing. He said it was unlikely to detect any defects, but worth the extra 10 seconds in case it did.

Cool, thank you. I've never actually confirmed this with other pilots (but I have showed many people). Interesting to hear it is being used elsewhere.
 
A pilot once showed me a step which I added to my pre-flight routine. It involves the way I inspect my prop.

Starting in the center, I make a fist and gently tap on the prop, making my way to the outside edge. I repeat for the other side.

Kind of like licking your finger and running it around the rim of a wine glass to "hear" if it is made of crystal . . .

This "prop sound test" is supposed to let me know about structural issues (fractures).

Have any of you heard of this? Do you bang your propeller before flight like I do?

Stolen from another form
;)
After reading this thread, I went out to my lowly 177RG and did the dowel tap test. Sure enough, one blade "rang" and the other was "dull". I then tried rotating the engine. Putting the dull blade up. That changed things a good bit. Now the dull blade rang and the other rang less.

Conclusions:

1) clock position matters on my aircraft
2) I'll keep doing it and generate a "history"
3) I don't believe my prop has any large cracks.
4) runs as smooth as ever, one duller blade or not.
 
Back
Top