Fixed pitch prop annual?

I'm on my 6th plane, and I can say that I've never even worried about such a thing...although I've never had a prop log either. I've always trusted my mechanics, and they have (so far) not done me wrong.
 
GlennAB1 said:
Do you document engine and prop p/n & s/n with your A/F log entry? What happens a month after annual when the prop is damaged and an unscrupulous individual replaces it with another (used) prop, of lesser quality than the one you annualed, and without making a logbook enty. You assume responsibility or it?
Click to expand...
The return to service entry is on them. FAR 43.13.
 
thomasdr72 said:
I'm surprised your FP prop plane has a separate log for the prop... But that's just me...
Click to expand...
Great many aircraft do not have a separate maintenance records for the prop.
 
Tom-D said:
Great many aircraft do not have a separate maintenance records for the prop.
Click to expand...
I think if I "accidently" lost a prop log for a Cherokee, I might even "forget" that I lost it...just saying.
 
Tom-D said:
no ...

Well.... it does man the IA does not know the rules.
Click to expand...
James also does a Annual on his C-185 on Amphibious floats in 2 days, takes most people 2 days just on the Amphibious floats alone to do what edo says should be serviced and done.
 
brien23 said:
James also does a Annual on his C-185 on Amphibious floats in 2 days, takes most people 2 days just on the Amphibious floats alone to do what edo says should be serviced and done.
Click to expand...
Well,, there in it's self, lies the problem.
His IA has their own inspection criteria, there is no requirement to comply with the manufacturer's requirements.FAR 43.15 (c)

How stupid is it to not do what the manufacturer suggests? How often do we see threads about buying an aircraft that has not been maintained properly.
 
tawood said:
I think if I "accidently" lost a prop log for a Cherokee, I might even "forget" that I lost it...just saying.
Click to expand...
Some times it is better to throw away the old logs and start over.
specially if you are selling a 15,000 hour aircraft.
 
GlennAB1 said:
Not if you send the prop somewhere for repair or overhaul.
Click to expand...
Placing it back on the A/C doesn't require a return to service ?

The Prop record is where the Propeller repair service will make their entry.
the AF maintenance record is where you as the A&P will make the return to service for the A/C ---- Replace Prop S/N _____ on NXXXX IAW YADA YADA . and so forth.
 
There is ZERO requirement for separate prop and engine logbooks. It's a convenience in the case that these things get separated from the aircraft. Tom and Jim (oddly enough actual A&Ps) nailed it.
 
flyingron said:
There is ZERO requirement for separate prop and engine logbooks. It's a convenience in the case that these things get separated from the aircraft. Tom and Jim (oddly enough actual A&Ps) nailed it.
Click to expand...
See AD-Log, all in one 3 ring binder, but you can remove the section you want.
I've seen many A/F log books with a prop section as the first few pages.
 
SkyDog58 said:
By the way, there is a chief counsel opinion on this matter. So there is really no disagreement within the FAA.
Click to expand...

Well gee, I wish that letter existed when I took my CFI checkride at the FSDO.

The airworthiness inspector (not my examiner for the checkride) wouldn't let me fly it because it didn't have separate annual inspection endorsements for the engine and propeller (nevermind the endorsement that it did have explicitly stated that airframe, engine, and propeller had been inspected). Furthermore, the dude harassed me and admonished me for not "knowing" that it needed separate stickers as if it was part of my test. His exact words, "if you want to be a flight instructor, you're supposed to know this." What a complete jerk.

The records were "corrected" and I passed.
 
GlennAB1 said:
And if there's no prop logbook an 8130-3 will suffice.
Click to expand...
Maybe, Every prop shop I've used has always started a new log prior to returning the prop.
And yes they use a 8130-3 also.
 
ircphoenix said:
This isn't a "should" thing. There are a lot of things that SHOULD be done certain ways but are done in ways that are technically legal/compliant.
Click to expand...

Just pointing out that Chief Council used the word "may" when AC 20-37E uses "should".

AC 20-37E
CHAPTER 2.
200.
f. "...A propeller logbook is an appropriate document for recording total time in service and time since overhaul... Damage as well as details of maintenance to the propeller should be entered into the logbook..."

I find it odd that the AC was not sighted in the Chief Councils letter.
 
Last edited:
The amusing thing on this thread was I thought I lost my prop logbook. My mechanic for the past 12 years (since I bought the prop) had been printing out stickers for the prop each year at annual. Since there was no prop log in the little satchel of log books, they've just been accumulating in the pocket of case. When I had the accident and the FAA/NTSB/Insurer wanted various log book pages I figured I better get that straight so I amazon-primed a generic prop log book so I could paste all those things in. It would be missing the first page where the prop was installed but that was a long time ago.

Anyhow, one last check before I did all that I went and looked at my book shelf. There was a Hartzell Propeller Owner's manual. Open that up and sure enough there are log book pages in the back. Spent an hour sticking down 12 years worth of stickers in.

It's amusing that Hartzell (who I'm not a big fan of to begin with) makes a real nice binder for the logs and documentation, and Continental gives you the cheasiest of things for the log for the engine that costs four times as much.
 
GlennAB1 said:
Good one Tom. Why was AC 43-9 sighted?
Click to expand...

1. PURPOSE. This advisory circular(AC) describes methods,procedures and practices that have been determined to be acceptable means of showing compliance with the general aviation maintenance record making and record keeping requirements of Title 14of the Code of Federal Regulations(14CFR) parts 43 and 91. This material is not mandatory, nor is it regulatory and acknowledges that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will consider other methods that may bepresented. It is issued for guidance purposes and outlines several methods of compliancewith the regulations.

Subject: AIRCRAFT PROPELLER Date: 9/9/05 AC No: 20-37E MAINTENANCE Initiated By: AFS-350 Change:

1. PURPOSE. This advisory circular (AC) provides information and describes maintenance procedures for owners, operators, and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)-certificated maintenance personnel during the service life of aircraft propellers. It further recommends minimum requirements for propeller field maintenance and provides a checklist for propeller annual inspection.

See the difference ??
 
Tom-D said:
1. PURPOSE. This advisory circular(AC) describes methods,procedures and practices that have been determined to be acceptable means of showing compliance with the general aviation maintenance record making and record keeping requirements of Title 14of the Code of Federal Regulations(14CFR) parts 43 and 91. This material is not mandatory, nor is it regulatory and acknowledges that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will consider other methods that may bepresented. It is issued for guidance purposes and outlines several methods of compliancewith the regulations.

Subject: AIRCRAFT PROPELLER Date: 9/9/05 AC No: 20-37E MAINTENANCE Initiated By: AFS-350 Change:

1. PURPOSE. This advisory circular (AC) provides information and describes maintenance procedures for owners, operators, and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)-certificated maintenance personnel during the service life of aircraft propellers. It further recommends minimum requirements for propeller field maintenance and provides a checklist for propeller annual inspection.

See the difference ??
Click to expand...
Yeah, I do.

AC 43-9 is a general reference and "is not mandatory."

AC 20-37E is propeller specific and "recommends minimum requirements"
 
GlennAB1 said:
Yeah, I do.

AC 43-9 is a general reference and "is not mandatory."

AC 20-37E is propeller specific and "recommends minimum requirements"And not required either (AC)
Click to expand...

FTFY>>
 
Notice you didn't put that in the quotes for what's actually in AC 20-37E.

Yet, AC 20-37E states: details of maintenance to the propeller should be entered into the logbook (propeller logbook)

And, AC 43-9 does state: AC 43-9 is not mandatory.
 
GlennAB1 said:
Notice you didn't put that in the quotes for what's actually in AC 20-37E.

Yet, AC 20-37E states: details of maintenance to the propeller should be entered into the logbook (propeller logbook)

And, AC 43-9 does state: AC 43-9 is not mandatory.
Click to expand...
since when is any AC mandatory for part 91
 
Tom-D said:
since when is any AC mandatory for part 91
Click to expand...

Choose to ignore them and do whatever the hell you want, and something bad happens, you'll see how mandatory they are.

Probably why Wikipedia has this statement: Generally informative in nature, Advisory Circulars are neither binding nor regulatory; yet some have the effect of de facto standards or regulations.
 
Last edited:
GlennAB1 said:
Choose to ignore them and do whatever the hell you want, and something bad happens, you'll see how mandatory they are.

Probably why Wikipedia has this statement: Generally informative in nature, Advisory Circulars are neither binding nor regulatory; yet some have the effect of de facto standards or regulations.
Click to expand...

So... you're saying the AC supersedes chief counsel?
 
Is that what I wrote? I'm just pointing out why so many have it wrong. Obviously a great number of individuals in aviation haven't seen that Chief Council ruling. You don't think the Chief Council letter and AC 20-37E contradict?
 
The word is "cited" if you're talking about a legal reference.
The lawyer at the FAA who gives opinions is the chief COUNSEL (counsel being a synonym for attorney).
 
The FAA uses the word SHOULD in the AC pertaining specifically to propellers, it's still there, unaddressed, the problem/confusion won't totally go away.

Was that an oversight on the part of COUNSEL?

Attorney's are human, we read about their piloting errors quite often, and I can tell you about the $120k+ legal blunder one made for my brother-in-law.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
Well,, there in it's self, lies the problem.
His IA has their own inspection criteria, there is no requirement to comply with the manufacturer's requirements.FAR 43.15 (c)

How stupid is it to not do what the manufacturer suggests? How often do we see threads about buying an aircraft that has not been maintained properly.
Click to expand...

Ah, but LOOK at it, Tom. He says Inspection AND SERVICE. You and I have been preaching so long that these are two separate functions. How long for the actual INSPECTION and how long for the SERVICE. Of COURSE an airplane (even on floats) can be INSPECTED in two days. A day if you start early, gobble lunch, and work late. Doing all the service can take double or triple that.

Jim
 
weirdjim said:
Ah, but LOOK at it, Tom. He says Inspection AND SERVICE. You and I have been preaching so long that these are two separate functions. How long for the actual INSPECTION and how long for the SERVICE. Of COURSE an airplane (even on floats) can be INSPECTED in two days. A day if you start early, gobble lunch, and work late. Doing all the service can take double or triple that.

Jim
Click to expand...
The float manufacturers are the best example I know of that really know what they re talking about in their maintenance manuals. I do follow their instructions as every one who flys on floats should do too.
To get a set of floats off the ground high enough to get a wheel set out is a half day job for me. Unless you have a hangar with a overhead lift to raise the aircraft, you must have little jacks and bunch of shoring. Then getting the wheel set out is a bunch of fun when they have not been out for a long time, after that, the wheel assembly must be disassembled cleaned inspected for corrosion (they are mag wheels) bearings cleaned re-greased, Axel assembly cleaned inspected for cracks. after all that it must be reassembled installed, and a gear retraction test be done. If you can do that in one day you are better than all the A&P's I know.
Now when you have an A&P customer that has all the above done already, might be a different story.
 
Tom-D said:
Great many aircraft do not have a separate maintenance records for the prop.
Click to expand...
I've been told by a number of A&P/AI's that some folks keep separate logs just in case they ever sell the prop (independent of the plane). Definitely not required, but no harm (except more trees killed for the extra logbooks/stickers :)
 
GlennAB1 said:
mag particle inspection? LOL (just funnin' ya). But seriously, what inspection method is used on mag wheels?
Click to expand...
You can really see it with the naked eye, even with out my glasses.
 
DGlaeser said:
I've been told by a number of A&P/AI's that some folks keep separate logs just in case they ever sell the prop (independent of the plane). Definitely not required, but no harm (except more trees killed for the extra logbooks/stickers :)
Click to expand...
Why would the lack of a prop log be a deal breaker? having a prop with a long list of ADs and no record of them might but that's about all.
 
I wouldn't think you'd want magnesium subjected to that environment at all.

I find it hard to believe wheels aren't all treated as wheels and inspected for nicks, cracks, corrosion, and other damage with penetrant or eddy current inspection used to evaluate defects.
 
GlennAB1 said:
I wouldn't think you'd want magnesium subjected to that environment at all.

I find it hard to believe wheels aren't all treated as wheels and inspected for nicks, cracks, corrosion, and other damage with penetrant or eddy current inspection used to evaluate defects.
Click to expand...
Why.. visual will show any reason to investigate farther.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top