Some news lately of the Feds grounding aircraft with polished props. I have one, and am thinking about an overhaul, repitching, and paint, so I looked it over today.
I've only had the airplane since July, so I don't know its history as well as I should.
My prop runs static at 2280, measured with an electronic optical tach.
The hub is stamped 1A170, and 7651. The 6, however, is overstamped with a 4, and the prop measures 73.5 inches.
The serial number doesn't match what is in the log.
I know that the TCDS says not less than 74 inches.
Do I have an illegal prop?
Any suggestions?
Wrong Prop????
Moderators: GAHorn, Karl Towle, Bruce Fenstermacher
-
Bruce Fenstermacher
- Posts: 10418
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 11:24 am
-
GAHorn
- Posts: 21290
- Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm
N73087: Actually the Type certificate states "not under 74.5 inches" for the 1A170 prop. Therefore your prop is illegal if it is as you described.
It may be used on other aircraft. You might try to exchange it.
There are a lot of polished props out there. I've seen the rumors, and I'm beginning to believe it's an Urban Legend (although the feds are capable of anything. Remember when the first Q-tips were given condition tags on public airport ramps by unknowlegeable FAA inspectors?)
The argument goes that the feds are unhappy that polished props do not have the protective treatment (paint) specified in the overhaul manual. So what? Polished airplanes don't either! Do you think they're going to ground American Airlines?
A clean, polished prop is fully exposed for inspection. So, go ahead, convince me it's unairworthy.
It may be used on other aircraft. You might try to exchange it.
There are a lot of polished props out there. I've seen the rumors, and I'm beginning to believe it's an Urban Legend (although the feds are capable of anything. Remember when the first Q-tips were given condition tags on public airport ramps by unknowlegeable FAA inspectors?)
The argument goes that the feds are unhappy that polished props do not have the protective treatment (paint) specified in the overhaul manual. So what? Polished airplanes don't either! Do you think they're going to ground American Airlines?
A clean, polished prop is fully exposed for inspection. So, go ahead, convince me it's unairworthy.
-
FredM
- Posts: 83
- Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2003 7:24 am
polished props
Unfortunately I had a recent experience that proves this is not an urban legend. I had my polished prop repitched and asked if they would polish it while they were at it. They informed me that they could not legally polish my prop because there was no approved procedure for polishing this type prop. They told me another repair station had been fined $500 for polishing a prop that it did repairs to. They told me stories about the FAA harassing pilots about polishing their props too. I would just love for someone from the FAA to say anything about my prop being polished. First i would deny that it had been polished and say it had been cleaned so thoroughly that there's nothing left but the shine. If they are stubborn and insist that a polished prop in unairworthy I would point out that that very nice looking DC-3 the FAA has been flying around on the national air tour has very nice (you guessed it) polished props on it and ask them why it is ok for the FAA to have polished props but no one else can. check it out at nationalairtour.org click on pilots,planes,people2003
Fred L. Mahan
51 C170A N1289D
51 C170A N1289D
-
Dave Clark
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2002 6:25 pm
-
GAHorn
- Posts: 21290
- Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm
A couple of years back the FAA got on the "bogus parts" crusade. They spent incredible amounts of time and money harassing folks about their use of bogus parts. Guess who's DC-3 and Sabreliner ended up being found with numerous bogus parts?
(I'm not suggesting bogus parts aren't a concern/consideration. I'm just laughing along with Fred and others about the pot calling the kettle black.)
(I'm not suggesting bogus parts aren't a concern/consideration. I'm just laughing along with Fred and others about the pot calling the kettle black.)
-
GreggHorrell
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 1:37 am
Polished Props
I just returned from an FAA symposium and the official word is no polished props unless that prop was approved from the factory...some Hartzells were factory polished and the S/N ends with a "P". A lot of Hamilton Standard propellers have a factory approved polish procedure as well. McCauley & Sensenich have no approved procedure for polishing. Part of the overhaul manual for these propellers lists the required preservative coatings and paints. By polishing the propeller you've removed those coatings and, technically, the propeller does not meet its manufacturer's instructions for continued airworthiness. I encourage anyone who doubts the above contact the propeller manufacturers directly to get their questions answered. Or, contact your local FSDO.
-
N73087
-
Bruce Fenstermacher
- Posts: 10418
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 11:24 am
Check out Item number: 2442790010 on ebay. 2 days to go on this.
I have flown the Sensenich standard prop on my 170 and didn't notice much difference if any over the McCauley. If you check out the performamce charts in the POH carefully you'll notice Cessna says the McCauley slightly outperforms the Sensenich. From my experience, if you find a Sensenich for a good price buy it.
I have flown the Sensenich standard prop on my 170 and didn't notice much difference if any over the McCauley. If you check out the performamce charts in the POH carefully you'll notice Cessna says the McCauley slightly outperforms the Sensenich. From my experience, if you find a Sensenich for a good price buy it.
CAUTION - My forum posts may be worth what you paid for them!
Bruce Fenstermacher, Past President, TIC170A
Email: brucefenster at gmail.com
Bruce Fenstermacher, Past President, TIC170A
Email: brucefenster at gmail.com
-
GAHorn
- Posts: 21290
- Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm
Bruce is correct in that the performance data on our airplanes indicate the Sensenich is a slightly poorer performer (in a 170, at least.)
I want to caution anyone purchasing any aircraft item at online auction sites: Many un-airworthy parts are sold there with claims like "working when removed"...or "removed for upgrade"....
(Oh, yeah? Well,....just exactly WHY did you upgrade? Because the item is unairworthy perhaps? Buyer, beware! And also be aware that it is illegal to install such parts without a "yellow tag" (Form 8130)
I want to caution anyone purchasing any aircraft item at online auction sites: Many un-airworthy parts are sold there with claims like "working when removed"...or "removed for upgrade"....
(Oh, yeah? Well,....just exactly WHY did you upgrade? Because the item is unairworthy perhaps? Buyer, beware! And also be aware that it is illegal to install such parts without a "yellow tag" (Form 8130)
-
Tom Downey
- Posts: 285
- Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 4:50 am
""And also be aware that it is illegal to install such parts without a "yellow tag" (Form 8130)""
That is untrue GA. other wise the salvage yards would be out of business.
the person who returns the aircraft to service declares air worthiness of the parts.
All the 8130 - 3 tag shows is a legal aircraft part with FAA/PMA not airworthiness.
That is untrue GA. other wise the salvage yards would be out of business.
the person who returns the aircraft to service declares air worthiness of the parts.
All the 8130 - 3 tag shows is a legal aircraft part with FAA/PMA not airworthiness.
Tom Downey A&P-IA
-
GAHorn
- Posts: 21290
- Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm
That's a good point, Tom, but one which bears careful consideration. My previous comment had items such as avionics in mind, and was based upon the SAT FSDO ruling on that matter.
An item such as a propeller is being discussed here, so I'll give an example of how the local mechanic is unqualified to determine if it's airworthy or not.
An airplane noses over and suffers a prop strike. The prop is bent beyond mfr's limits, but is straightened anyway as a "wall hangar" by some local guy (qualified or otherwise) and then the item is offered on pubic online auction such as ebay "working when removed".
It looks good. It fits. The new buyer's mechanic installs it. Is it airworthy?
Who actually "returned the aircraft to service"? The owner/pilot did. Not the mechanic. The owner/pilot.
Who bears responsibility when that prop sheds a blade in flight and Joe's too busy flying and his passenger is too small to kick out the windshield, and the crash occurs in the schoolyard?
I stand by my previous caution to beware of parts found at online auctions. I would not personally purchase parts found there that are airworthiness considerations.
Salvage yards are better places to buy airworthy parts because of they are in for the long haul, desireous of repeat business, with a physical location where they can be found again, and who can better represent the actual condition of the part. (Removed from Cessna 170A, N1478D due to bird strike, from the rear!)
An item such as a propeller is being discussed here, so I'll give an example of how the local mechanic is unqualified to determine if it's airworthy or not.
An airplane noses over and suffers a prop strike. The prop is bent beyond mfr's limits, but is straightened anyway as a "wall hangar" by some local guy (qualified or otherwise) and then the item is offered on pubic online auction such as ebay "working when removed".
It looks good. It fits. The new buyer's mechanic installs it. Is it airworthy?
Who actually "returned the aircraft to service"? The owner/pilot did. Not the mechanic. The owner/pilot.
Who bears responsibility when that prop sheds a blade in flight and Joe's too busy flying and his passenger is too small to kick out the windshield, and the crash occurs in the schoolyard?
I stand by my previous caution to beware of parts found at online auctions. I would not personally purchase parts found there that are airworthiness considerations.
Salvage yards are better places to buy airworthy parts because of they are in for the long haul, desireous of repeat business, with a physical location where they can be found again, and who can better represent the actual condition of the part. (Removed from Cessna 170A, N1478D due to bird strike, from the rear!)
-
Tom Downey
- Posts: 285
- Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 4:50 am
§43.13 Performance rules (general).
(a) Each person performing maintenance, alteration, or preventive maintenance on an aircraft, engine, propeller, or appliance shall use the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the current manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness prepared by its manufacturer, or other methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator, except as noted in §43.16. He shall use the tools, equipment, and test apparatus necessary to assure completion of the work in accordance with accepted industry practices. If special equipment or test apparatus is recommended by the manufacturer involved, he must use that equipment or apparatus or its equivalent acceptable to the Administrator.
After reading that FAR, Think how many A&P mechanics have the proper manuals and or the proper tools to return a prop to service. So we are bound by FAR to see a work order stating what was done to any appliance to inable us to return it to service.
It is a very sore subject when we open the discussion as to what each and every FSDO reads into the FARs, but even OKC has stated the fars will stand as they are written.
E-Bay is a buyer beware market,, If one of my customers asked me to return any prop to service they better be able to show me a fresh overhaul WORK ORDER. and a fresh signature in a prop log.
I bought it from a friend don't get it.
(a) Each person performing maintenance, alteration, or preventive maintenance on an aircraft, engine, propeller, or appliance shall use the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the current manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness prepared by its manufacturer, or other methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator, except as noted in §43.16. He shall use the tools, equipment, and test apparatus necessary to assure completion of the work in accordance with accepted industry practices. If special equipment or test apparatus is recommended by the manufacturer involved, he must use that equipment or apparatus or its equivalent acceptable to the Administrator.
After reading that FAR, Think how many A&P mechanics have the proper manuals and or the proper tools to return a prop to service. So we are bound by FAR to see a work order stating what was done to any appliance to inable us to return it to service.
It is a very sore subject when we open the discussion as to what each and every FSDO reads into the FARs, but even OKC has stated the fars will stand as they are written.
E-Bay is a buyer beware market,, If one of my customers asked me to return any prop to service they better be able to show me a fresh overhaul WORK ORDER. and a fresh signature in a prop log.
I bought it from a friend don't get it.
Tom Downey A&P-IA
-
GAHorn
- Posts: 21290
- Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm
Which is the statement I made earlier with which you seemed to find fault,....i.e....I suggest that one get a form 8130-3 (Airworthiness Approval Tag) with the part or don't install it. The 8130-3 does not merely specify a part to be FAA-PMA, ...it also provides Work Order, Remarks (type of work performed, Item 13) and condition (item 14) and most importantly, Item 19, which is approval for return to service.Tom Downey wrote:§43.13 Performance rules (general).
(a) Each person performing maintenance, alteration, or preventive maintenance on an aircraft, engine, propeller, or appliance shall use the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the current manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness prepared by its manufacturer, or other methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator, except as noted in §43.16. He shall use the tools, equipment, and test apparatus necessary to assure completion of the work in accordance with accepted industry practices. If special equipment or test apparatus is recommended by the manufacturer involved, he must use that equipment or apparatus or its equivalent acceptable to the Administrator.
After reading that FAR, Think how many A&P mechanics have the proper manuals and or the proper tools to return a prop to service. So we are bound by FAR to see a work order stating what was done to any appliance to inable us to return it to service.
It is a very sore subject when we open the discussion as to what each and every FSDO reads into the FARs, but even OKC has stated the fars will stand as they are written.
E-Bay is a buyer beware market,, If one of my customers asked me to return any prop to service they better be able to show me a fresh overhaul WORK ORDER. and a fresh signature in a prop log.
I bought it from a friend don't get it.
-
Tom Downey
- Posts: 285
- Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 4:50 am
This is what I disagree with.
The 8130-3 does not merely specify a part to be FAA-PMA, ...it also provides Work Order, Remarks (type of work performed, Item 13) and condition (item 14) and most importantly, Item 19, which is approval for return to service.
First, a 8130-3 tag gives the work order number, no discreption of work accomplished.
(type of work performed, Item 13) yep "inspected".
If block 19 is "new" then yes use it as refference for return to service.
All of the parts I handle each year I have yet to see a 8130-3 tag on any used part.
read AC 20-62D the summary says it all.
8130-3 tags are just a tool used for tracability of parts and are not used as sole documtation for return to service. unles the parts are new.
The 8130-3 does not merely specify a part to be FAA-PMA, ...it also provides Work Order, Remarks (type of work performed, Item 13) and condition (item 14) and most importantly, Item 19, which is approval for return to service.
First, a 8130-3 tag gives the work order number, no discreption of work accomplished.
(type of work performed, Item 13) yep "inspected".
If block 19 is "new" then yes use it as refference for return to service.
All of the parts I handle each year I have yet to see a 8130-3 tag on any used part.
read AC 20-62D the summary says it all.
8130-3 tags are just a tool used for tracability of parts and are not used as sole documtation for return to service. unles the parts are new.
Tom Downey A&P-IA
Cessna® is a registered trademark of Textron Aviation, Inc. The International Cessna® 170 Association is an independent owners/operators association dedicated to C170 aircraft and early O-300-powered C172s. We are not affiliated with Cessna® or Textron Aviation, Inc. in any way.