Prop Strike

[Waterboy]

Yes I had a prop strike. I need some advice and help from others who have had experience dealing with an insurance claim.

The damage was relatively minor. I removed less than a 1/8 of an inch from the tip of both propeller blades. It has been overhauled and repaired.

My problem is with the teardown inspection of the engine. The insurance company is refusing to pay for the inspection related to AD 94-05-05. To do the prop strike inspection on the engine the cylinders have to be removed. To reinstall the cylinders they have to be inspected according to AD 94-05-05. The insurance company adjuster says the AD is not related to the prop strike so they don't have to pay for it. I can't put the engine back together without doing the AD inspection so I say it is related. I would not be required to do the AD inspection if it were not for the prop strike requiring the engine to be dismantled.

In my insurance binder states;

"What we will pay
Damaged Aircraft,
If your aircraft is damaged and not destroyed, we will pay the reasonable cost of repair."

There is no specified definition of "reasonable cost of repair' in the binder, nor is there an exclusion for AD inspections.


What do you guys think? I do not expect the insurance to pay for anything found when doing the AD inspection, But if there is nothing wrong I expect the insurance company to put my engine back together without having to pay more than my deductible. I have been quoted an additional $1900 to do the AD inspection and to hone the cylinders and install new rings. My engine shop says its standard procedure to hone the cylinders and replace the rings when they have been removed. Would you say this is true?

Thanks,

Ken

[T. C. Downey]

If that is an 0-300 there is no requirement for tear down. the Continental has only a service bulletin saying the engine should be disassembled and all steel parts be checked for cracks.

That Prop tip looks like minor damage to me.
http://www.tcmlink.com/pdf2/SB96-11B.pdf

[170C]

Your insurance carrier should put you back into as good as, not less than nor better than, you were prior to your prop strike (IMHO). Honing the cylinders with new rings is part of the tear down and reassembly and should be covered by the insurance co. According to Mike Bush in an article in AOPA PILIOT, a prop strike shouldn't be looked upon with disdane, rather as an opportunity to actually end up in better condition than before the prop strike. (I paraphrased his comments! ) Prior to the prop strike you had X many hours on your rings (for example) and now you will have newly honed cylinders and new rings (better compression, etc) As far as the AD, you may want to check with AOPA (you are a member aren't you?) and get their feedback on that issue. If, for some reason, your insurance carrier doesn't pay for the AD compliance, you still are likely better off than you were prior to the prop strike depending upon how many hours your engine had on it and whether or not you got a new prop out of the incident. Good luck and let us know your results.

[T. C. Downey]

I have been quoted an additional $1900 to do the AD inspection and to hone the cylinders and install new rings. My engine shop says its standard procedure to hone the cylinders and replace the rings when they have been removed. Would you say this is true?

Thanks,

Ken

That AD has nothing to do with the prop strike, it has to do with the old continental cylinder rocker shaft boss cracking.

Your insurance company has no responsibility to replace worn parts such as the rings in your engine, that is why they pro-rate the cost of overhauling when prop strikes occur.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

I disagree Tom. The AD compliance is a requirement regardless of wear. Kind of like saying they will repair any damage caused by the strike but they won't pay for new gaskets.

Waterboy the AD according to my earlier research does not apply to ECI or Superior cylinders. Do you actually have Continental cylinders that the AD does apply to.

BTW the AD is not that big of a deal and can be done (last I read the AD) by an A&P with dye penetrant). If you do end up paying if should not be a significant bill.

As for my experience with my prop strike with an A-65 the insurance payed for ALL inspections and required new parts like gaskets and those inspections required to affirm the used parts being reinstalled were meet minimum airworthiness standards. I paid for a few additional inspections required to call the teardown inspection a overhaul.

[Waterboy]

My engine is a C-145. It runs well and the compressions are all around 70/80. Its TSOH 1100 hours and that was done in 1977. Total time 3300 hours. The engine log book does not state what type of cylinders were installed then only that they were new and chromed. I am told in 1977 Continental was the only supplier of cylinders for their engines. That being said there is a PMA number etched into the side of most of the cylinders. If its has a PMA number would it be from another manufacture?

The engine comes out this week. I am still haggling over this AD issue and am trying to decide if its worth fighting for. Or am I fighting a loosing battle. I have estimates both with and without the AD work. Without leaves me paying to put it back together. I have yet to pass that one on to the insurance adjuster.

I talked with AOPA, they handed me off to their insurance broker who only sells insurance and does not deal with claims. I asked if their legal services devision could help, they only deal with medical and enforcement issues.

1000 google searches and I have not come up with anything regarding AD compliance and insurance claims. My engine shop thinks it should be covered.

If you remove a cylinder should it be honed and have new rings installed before reinstallation on the engine. Is this a standard practice? Or can you just pull the jug, have a look and pop it back on with good results?

Thanks for your replies.

[T. C. Downey]

I disagree Tom. The AD compliance is a requirement regardless of wear. Kind of like saying they will repair any damage caused by the strike but they won't pay for new gaskets.

There is a lot of difference between replacing parts destroyed during disassembly, due to a AD compliance than replacing worn parts like rings that have nothing to do with the AD compliance.

And remember the insurance company is only required to return the engine to a condition as good as it was prior to the incidence. Honing, re-ringing, or reworking a cylinder is not a part of that.

[minton]

Your problem is system wide (Claims) It might be wise to get a aviation lawyer involved.

Those insurance guys know full well the problems associated with prop strikes and still choose to fight you. SAD at best.

As for the strike, Continental crankshafts are like glass as their heat treat/temper processes are not like Lycoming. You must teardown and go through all of the recertification hoops,(crankshaft and crankcase). This requires a complete teardown. Not a bad time to look over the cam/magneto drive train either! If you are careful not to expose the rings when the cyls are pulled they can go back on with a clean up/lube and new O ring. BUT then you have an engine with two different times going forward as you have essentially overhauled the lower end and the top end goes forward on time per last overhaul/top log book entry.

FSDO knows as well and would at least refer you to more strike info.

Good luck.

[hilltop170]

My O-300-D engine had a prop strike in 1968 when it was on a C-172. It was torn down, inspected, repaired as necessary, and put back together as a major overhaul, then installed in my 170. It flew 1750 hours until its next overhaul in 2006. When the crank was NDT inspected in 2006, it was cracked 1/3 of the way around between the prop hub and front main bearing journal. Who knows if the prop strike did the damage, how long it had been cracked, or how much longer it would have run before it broke. Just make sure your crank is inspected carefully and correctly with the best available techniques.

[GAHorn]

If that is an 0-300 there is no requirement for tear down. the Continental has only a service bulletin saying the engine should be disassembled and all steel parts be checked for cracks.

That Prop tip looks like minor damage to me.
http://www.tcmlink.com/pdf2/SB96-11B.pdf

I don't know how you might accomplish the SB, Tom, if you don't tear it down. How else would you magnetic particle inspect the connecting rods and dye penetrant check the crankcase? ?
"The crankcase must be stripped and fluorescent penetrant inspection performed, paying particular attention to the forward crankcase bearing support and adjacent structure.
4. Connecting rod bolts and nuts must be replaced regardless of condition.
5. On counterweight equipped engines, replacement of all counterweight pins, bushings, end plates and snap rings is required regardless of their condition. Counterweight bushing bores in both counterweights and crankshaft must be inspected in accordance with the criteria contained in the latest revision of SB00-3.
6. Inspect all engine-driven accessories in accordance with the accessory manufacturer's instructions.


Waterboy, the AD states, " At the next cylinder removal from the engine, or engine overhaul,
whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD, inspect the
cylinder rocker shaft bosses for cracks,,,"

Ask your insurance man the following: "Exactly HOW do you suggest to reassemble this engine (which was mandatorily disassembled) without complying with this AD... and please place your proposal "IN WRITING", and include how you propose to continue to insure the aircraft when your plan is followed, in light of the fact that the ins. co. proposed plan is in contradiction to the mfr's instructions and the certifying authority's directives?"

While it is not the insurance underwriters obligation to IMPROVE your engine unnecessarily... it IS the responsibility of the underwriter to pay for all costs required to minimally accomplish the required work of repairs. Since the engine MUST be completely disassembled in order to accomplish the work (see the quoted instructions above), and since the AD inspection is a requirement of any disassembly/reassembly of the engine, ...then the insurance is obligated to pay all those reasonable costs. IMO. The cylinders are being removed to accomplish the mandatory prop strike inspection and in order for the engine to be returned to service, the AD must be complied.

If the ins. co. still refuses to accomplish the work properly, then ask if your policy provides for arbitration ...?? ... or does the ins. co. provide for attorneys costs for defense against prosecution by the federal authorities when the improperly performed work comes to their attention... ???

Insist upon written responses. BTW, who exactly IS your insurance agent/underwriter?

[c170b53]

There sure to be a difference in opinion as to the severity of the strike, Also opinions may differ as to the extent of the engine tear down required and who will pay for what. I understand Toms opinion in his post that the insurance would not pay for wear. I doubt they would be required to come up with new cylinders but I would expect the rings and cylinder prep costs to be covered. Those parts and processes are cheap in the big picture. But prop strikes even minor ones can cause some of the little parts, those found in mags, governors and the engine itself to be damaged so although I agree with Tom in that it's minor, the toughest part is saying everything is ok and then signing for it when there has not been visual conformation.
Pilots pay good dollars for in motion coverage and after an accident they will be paying even more for the same.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Waterboy,

A PMA is a good indication they might not be Continental.

Your insurance should pay and mine has paid for ALL costs for ALL new parts and or services required to remove, disassemble, inspect, reassemble, install, adjust and return your aircraft to airworthy condition so far as the engine rotating parts and propellor are concerned.

You can not inspect the crank without removing the cylinders. Removal of the cylinders invokes the AD. They should pay for the AD. They should also pay for any servicing required such has honing of the cylinders if called for, to reassemble the engine. I would not submit any bill that did not include every part or service required.

They will not pay for any damage or wear not related to the prop strike. So they will not pay for a cam regrind or new pistons or a valve job or if the cylinder is found to be cracked.

[GAHorn]

According to the SB, anytime the prop requires removal for repair from the strike, it requires the (teardown inspection) SB be complied.

[Metal Master]

While at the last FBO & “flying club” I worked for as director of Maintenance for 17 & ½ years. We had many prop strikes from gear collapses, inadvertent gear retractions, ground loops, porpoised and hard landings. I would say easily over two per year. Never once did any of the insurance companies pay for extra performance of AD’S or maintenance that was above and beyond the scope of the sudden stoppage inspection or what was required to return the aircraft to before the accident condition. If the prop had had two overhauls on it and the blades were worn to two thirds of the allowable useful condition they would only pay for the reduced value of the prop.
Every engine shop we used never removed the pistons from the cylinders. They removed the pistons and cylinders as an assembly from the engine thus the rings were not disturbed nor were the valves and rockers disturbed. If the engine required machining after the internal parts were inspected and found to be warped or fretted they would have had to remove the rocker covers to check dry tappet clearance. It never happened once in my experience. In all of those sudden stoppage inspections only in one was any damage ever discovered? That was on a Cessna 414A that had a nose gear retraction actuator airframe lug fracture and fail on a takeoff. The nose gear would not retract after takeoff. A precautionary landing was made just after takeoff and the nose gear collapsed. Both engines were at idle power. One engine had a crack between the crank shaft propeller flange holes. the insurance company covered that. I never got to talk to the charter customer on the flight. I have always wondered what their thoughts were. Another story. The insurance company did cover the cost of the ferry flight after the gear and props were repaired and replaced from Red Bluff Ca. to Waco Tx. where Ram Aircraft performed the sudden stoppage inspections.
That being said many times we and or the owner of the aircraft (We had 47 of our own aircraft) would choose to perform at additional cost upgrades such as complete overhauls, top overhauls, and or engine upgrades thus reducing the cost of doing so by the engine shops estimate of performing the sudden stoppage inspection and or prop repairs. The insurance would not pay for betterment such as baffling repairs An example would be choosing to upgrade to an IO 550 & prop rather than have the sudden stoppage performed on the old IO 520 & prop.
Hiring attorneys to battle these issues always ended unfavorably for the owner something the owner of the company I worked for only tried once, it went to arbitration and was decided unfavorably. He ended up with more out of pocket expenses paying for his aviation attorney.
Regards,
Jim

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Never once did any of the insurance companies pay for extra performance of AD’S or maintenance that was above and beyond the scope of the sudden stoppage inspection or what was required to return the aircraft to before the accident

So tell me how you reinstall cylinders subject to an AD without performing the AD. They have to be removed for the inspection, they have to be inspected before reinstallation. No different than new gaskets. This is not about improving anything.