teardown inspection after prop strike?

zero.one.victor · Post by **zero.one.victor** » Thu Feb 20, 2003 6:41 pm

What is the LEGAL requirement with regards to a teardown inspection after a prop strike/sudden engine stoppage,as pertains specifically to a Continental C-145/O-300?
I know of an airplane that was damaged in a groundloop/prop strike accident. The damaged airplane was sold as is,and the new owner repaired the airframe damage (or hired it done).However,the crank flange "dialed OK",so the new owner just replaced the prop and called it good. He then put the airplane up for sale.
The airplane was then sold (for more than I thought it was worth before the wreck!). The buyer arranged for an experienced ferry pilot to fly the airplane to it's new home. The ferry pilot,after checking out the airplane and examining the logbooks,refused to fly the airplane. I guess the above-described "repair job" was pretty clearly spelled out in the logbooks. It could be that the airframe repairs aren't quite up to snuff either.
The buyer is now squawking to the FAA and anyone else who'll listen that the airplane was misrepresented by the seller,he was cheated,he was de-frauded(airplane was signed off as airworthy but isn't),etc etc. I don't know exactly what they can or will do about it.
I had misgivings about the first buyer selling the airplane without a teardown inspection--I felt if he wanted to fly behind that engine,that was fine,but I didn't like the idea of someone buying the airplane who didn't know what it had been thru. Luckily,the ferry pilot was on the ball,at least the new owner knows now. Could be that he's very inexperienced,doesn't know what to look out for.
So what are the legalitites? I know I would want a teardown inspection but what is required by the FAR's?

Eric

lowNslow · Post by **lowNslow** » Thu Feb 20, 2003 8:08 pm

I agree that a tear down should probably be done. I certainly would want one if I were buying this airplane, or at least have it reflected in the price. It sounds like the buyer did not have pre-buy inspection, big no-no in my book given all the pencil whipping (or lack of penciling) that goes on in aircraft logbooks. I have heard the opinion that a tear down is not necessary if the strike occurred at or near idle, I guess that is judgement call, but I would imagine if you talked to Continental, they would suggest a tear down. I don't think there is any FAA mandate for this.

Karl

funseventy · Post by **funseventy** » Thu Feb 20, 2003 9:14 pm

I am used to hearing the terms "Dialed OK" and that has been an accepted practice. Lycoming knows this is a common occurance and that is why they issued an AD requiring an inspection of a pin in the gear on the back of the cam. It doesn't fail but it shifts enough to cause problems with the valves abotu 75 hrs later. Continental doesn't have any such AD and that would be the only Mandate. Now for me I have a differnet set of mandates I live by and that is that I want to know what I am trusting, so I'd tear it down. The buyer srewed up on the purchase if it was written up enough that the ferry pilot found it to be a problem. I tell everyuone to get a Pre-buy by an impartial party, and get a title search. Impartial party is important. If its the same guy who's been annualling it for 20 years, he's going to tell you its airworthy to cover himself, plus if he missed something 20 times he'll miss it again. I hope the FAA doesn't hurt the mechanic because of the buyers ignorance.

Kelly

Tom Downey · Post by **Tom Downey** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 1:50 am

Eric, said
"I know I would want a teardown inspection but what is required by the FAR's?""

NOTHING. the tear down instructions are in a Service bulletin and those are not mandatory in part 91.

Dave Clark · Post by **Dave Clark** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 12:46 pm

Eric

I looked at that plane while in Bellingham last summer for our weekly grocery trip. (It was in an open hangar and had a for sale sign on the windshield). I talked with the owner and that's when I found out it was the Port Townsend wreck. There was a number of airframe repairs and things that I wouldn't be proud of. The right door fit so bad I believe the fuselage was tweaked in the wreck. It was obvious the owner just bought it for resale and wanted to get it fixed as cheaply as possible.

When I was looking for my 170 I flew to Bend to look at a 180 Lyc powered one a fellow was asking $35k for. It had been groundlooped and rebuilt properly once, then ran off the end of a private runway and nosed into a bunch of rough stuff. It had been rebuilt poorly with huge wrinkles in the skins that were not replaced around the gearbox, the flange "dialed ok" but when asked the prop needed to be overhauled because of the bent tip. It was the first airplane I ever refused to fly in when he offered a ride. It went to Stancil on consignment for $55k and sold fairly quickly. I was amazed.

NOTHING beats a good pre-purchase inspection! There's enough airplanes out there to get a good one.

zero.one.victor · Post by **zero.one.victor** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 6:14 pm

Well,I didn't want to identify the airplane in question but Dave let the cat out of the bag! I was kinda blasted on this site last year by the guy who bought/repaired/had for sale that 170,for implying that the repair job might be a bit ,er,inadequate. Turned out he was among us at the time and I didn't know it til after I had shot off my big mouth (again!). I assume that he's no longer visiting this site since he sold the 170.
What's really hard to believe is that I heard the airplane sold for around $40K. From what I heard,the logbooks on the airplane & engine only go back a few (10?) years,plus the airframe appeared to be a hybrid--serial-numbered as a 52,with a 52 cowl,but with a 54 and later panel and 55-56 style tailwheel steering. I woulda guesstimated the value at around $35K or a bit less BEFORE the groundloop.
I'm trying to remember what I heard about that Lycoming powered 170 Dave referred to. He had told me about checking it out and refusing to fly in it. I seem to recall that I later met or talked to whoever ended up buying it from Stancil (the "skywagons-R-us" wheeler-dealer in Placerville California,for those who don't know of him),but I can't remember the specifics.
Caveat emptor or whatever the old line is ("let the buyer beware") are sure words to live by.

Eric

R COLLINS · Post by **R COLLINS** » Sat Feb 22, 2003 4:11 am

I'm not a mechanic and what I'm about to print was told to me by a repair shop in Dallas Tx. no names given. I took a crank in for inspection out of a C-85-12f from my 120 project, that did not pass because of a crack in the flange. The engine did not have a prop strike so I was suprised it did not pass. The repair station said this was not uncommon with the early Continentals because they could be prone to fatigue cracks due to the nitriding process. He said that Lycomings were'nt as prone to crack but would bend, thats why he felt it would be permissible to dial them, but Continentals should be magnafluxed. Have any of you guys heard any thing like this or is this part of my learning curve? Randal N1745D

zero.one.victor · Post by **zero.one.victor** » Sat Feb 22, 2003 5:46 am

I talked this subject over with a friend of mine the other day. He related an old-pilots-wive's tale that he'd heard several times,to the effect that Lycoming cranks will bend rather than break but the Continental cranks are harder (more brittle) and will break rather than bend. Therefore a "dialed OK" return to service would be more acceptable for a Lyc than a Continental.
Some people consider the counterbalance weights on the crank of the C-145/O-300 a possible weak point. Could be that even if the crankshaft itself is OK after a prop strike,the sudden engine stoppage might throw the counterweights out of whack?
Tom,do I understand you as saying that there IS a Continental service bulletin that sez sudden stoppage requires a teardown inspection--even if the SB is not mandatory for part 91 ops?

Eric

Tom Downey · Post by **Tom Downey** » Sat Feb 22, 2003 4:04 pm

Eric said,
"Tom,do I understand you as saying that there IS a Continental service bulletin that sez sudden stoppage requires a teardown inspection--even if the SB is not mandatory for part 91 ops? "

What I meant to convey was this type of information usually comes out in SB form, and NO there is no SB for Contenental Engines, and Lycoming did it in an AD to be sure every one complies.

Believe it or not the crank is not the part that is damaged in most cases. The rods and Accessory gear train is damaged more often than the crank.

David Laseter · Post by **David Laseter** » Sat Feb 22, 2003 6:30 pm

Randal,
Did you get all them Shuttle Pieces out of your yard? Thanks for the pics.
My Uncle found parts as well.

My engine turned off once, resulting in a bent prop.
Prop was not turning upon impact. However, there was no way I was going to trust that engine to transport my family, even though I was encouraged to not worry about it.
Magnafluxed the Crank in a full inspection - No damage.
However found, rod, gear train, and thousands of $'s in other damage.

Post by **GAHorn** » Sat Feb 22, 2003 11:28 pm

Tom Downey wrote:Eric said,
"Tom,do I understand you as saying that there IS a Continental service bulletin that sez sudden stoppage requires a teardown inspection--even if the SB is not mandatory for part 91 ops? "

What I meant to convey was this type of information usually comes out in SB form, and NO there is no SB for Contenental Engines, and Lycoming did it in an AD to be sure every one complies.

Believe it or not the crank is not the part that is damaged in most cases. The rods and Accessory gear train is damaged more often than the crank.

That information is not correct. Continental is very specific about propeller strikes.
TCM SB 96-11 addresses Propeller Strikes, and in that bulletin it stipulates that in any propeller strike that requires the propeller to be removed for repair, the engine MUST be completely disassembled for inspection, as well as all accessories such as magnetos, pumps, etc.
If you have insurance, then the insurance company will pay for the inspection. If you choose to "dial" the prop flange instead, not only are you performing an unapproved repair, the only person you are saving money for is the insurance company. On top of that, if you were merely running the engine up as a "test", then the incident would be categorized as not-in-motion damage and would likely have lower (or no) deductible. It would not be reportable as an accident either. If the prop strike occured between the time the aircraft "first moved for the purpose of flight" and the time it ended it's motion following a flight, then it would be an "in motion" event.
Either way, Continental requires a tear-down inspection if the prop is damaged enough to require removal for repair. There is no lesser inspection approved. "Dialing" the flange is BS.
The FAA? They require an A&P to declare it airworthy. That's all. How much responsibility the A&P feels with regard to following a mandatory Service Bulletin issued by the manufacturer is entirely up to him in a Part 91 operation. The FAA will not get involved in civil issues surrounding aircraft sales. The only avenue of relief to a buyer will likely be in court, against the mechanic, most likely, and the burden of proof of malfeasance will likely remain upon the owner. In any case, operating the airplane without compliance with SB 96-11 shifts the burden of responsibility to the operator, whether or not he agrees with the A&P who signed it off based upon some cheap inspection with a "feel-good" dial indicator.
The reason I recommend to everyone to only accept a full-blown annual inspection for a pre-buy inspection is in order to set the standards of the inspection at a high level of accountability for the inspector. If he prounounces an airplane as airworthy and it's not, then he risks his reputation, license, and livelihood unless he's willing to open his wallet to correct his errors. Your buddy who tells you the airplane is OK, ...or the inspector who uses some ad hoc pre-buy "inspection" form cannot be held to accountability. Unless you intend to use it as a static display, the only airplane to own for flight is an airworthy airplane. The only inspection that determines airworthiness of the whole airplane is an annual inspection.

Tom Downey · Post by **Tom Downey** » Sun Feb 23, 2003 3:11 am

Welcome back George, How's your Dad?
Would you share your source for SB 96-11? My service at --> http://www.aftd.com ---> does not show any MSB 96-11. Due to Continental not servicing the engine any more. I would think the MSB was removed from the C-145 list.

Back to my answer:

MSB's are not applicable to part 91, thus no tear down is required.
Now IF the aircraft in Question was sold AS IS WHERE IS The new owner is on his own.
Any legal case would be based upon sellers warantees, and if they are not in writting,,,, well, have a nice day.

If you brought this aircraft in for annual, and told me that the engine had been quick stopped during a ground accident, What valid information could I use to force you to overhaul the engine if you did not want to?

What enforceable grounds would I have to not sign it off as airworthy?

IF you did not tell me any thing,
What Clues would I have that any thing was wrong?

If it has good oil pressure, no oil leaks, good compression, and makes the Proper RPMs at full throttle it's airworthy.

When you place this in proper perspective the seller really did not do anything illegal.
I would really like to have his name, cause I would not like doing business with him, but this time he was legal.

As far as getting the insurance to pay for a overhaul now, I don't think so, it is WAY too far after the fact.
If you could get them to pay, I would like your help in getting my insurance company to pay for my Fairchild Restoration, it had an accident back in 55.

zero.one.victor · Post by **zero.one.victor** » Sun Feb 23, 2003 4:29 pm

Insurance is not an issue in this case--the original owner had none,neither did his CFI who borrowed the plane & wrecked it.

Eric

frainiea · Post by **frainiea** » Sun Feb 23, 2003 8:03 pm

I had a prop strike in my airplane and it went straight into the shop, like most of the thoughts in the replies here I did it for safety. I got an engine tear down and a new prop with insurance picking up most of the tab and EAA paid the deductible. So other than a red face it cost me nothing.

What was disappointing to me that as a novice I thought a â€œcomplete tear down and inspectionâ€ would result in a major overhaul entry in the book. As I understand it all the "friction" parts like bearings and rings were replaced. Only when it came time to pick up my logbook did I discover I didnâ€™t get the entry I thought. I would have gladly paid the difference to get to a zero time engine.

So if you have a prop strike be sure and ask the right questions!!!!

David Laseter · Post by **David Laseter** » Sun Feb 23, 2003 8:52 pm

When your engine reaches TBO, I wonder if the cost of the rebuild will be as much. If you had the engine torn down and all the lower case parts replaced (Overhauled) at say 1400 hrs, it's seems that only the top half would need the Overhaul at recommended TBO? What's the thinking here?
frainiea, did you're oil pressure increase after this?
Mine went up to 52psi, 582 hrs SMOH.
Dave