I was piloting an airplane that had engine failure on short final. When I went full pitch with the propeller the crankshaft broke. The propellor had been replaced with a new one, with no other log entries, and no reason to replace the propellor. We suspect undocumented prop-strike that left a small crack in the crankshaft. Luckily I was in the flat-lands of Texas and was able to put the aircraft down in a pasture, off the end of the runway, with no damage other then the broken engine. Very real, very serious situation.
It’s such a culture shift going from 121 to 91. 121 documents everything in the log book or on a non-routine. Nothing is thrown away. A coworker who is also an IA in the GA world called it the Wild, Wild West. I wonder what lawyers try to pin on unsuspecting A&P’s.
In regard to signing off Parts that were changed, I was working in maintenance for a large airline while I was based in Las Vegas. I was doing consulting work for an air taxi that provided tours of the grand canyon and worked on other aircraft as a repair station. I would help them with problems that they needed someone with more experience to fix. A company who had a Ford Tri Motor need the brakes on one MLG changed had a mechanic from the air taxi that I was consulting with. The mechanic changed the brake assembly and made the log book entry. Something went wrong with that brake and the Tri Motor ran off the runway. The FAA violated the mechanic because he did not sign off the logbook entry stating the the brake was functional checked and working properly and he also did not state that the aircraft was returned to service. This would have been a 43.09 sign off. Thereafter, I always sign off the work that I have done as that work was functional checked OK, if it was a system part such as brakes, and also state that the aircraft is released from maintenance and returned to service. CYA, some FAA Inspectors are not all that knowledgeable.
I LOVE your presentations! Just one minor quibble. I would suggest that old Mooneys are often totaled by a gear up. But that involves the constant speed prop as well as an engine teardown.
I disagree about the previous mechanic that changed the prop. When that work was done, the early shop had to sign off a return to service. They knew it was not legal for return to service. Not "only if he is engaged to do the AD research and annual inspection." FAR 43.9 (4) "If the work performed on the aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part has been performed satisfactorily, the signature, certificate number, and kind of certificate held by the person approving the work. The signature constitutes the approval for return to service only for the work performed." Example: If the earlier A&P had put the prop on a visibly damaged/usable crankshaft flange, could he make the same entry that Mike recommends? Where does the ability of the A&P to ignore evidence of unairworthiness start?
Some people don't have a clue. I don't know if they still have it or if that Prop Shop is still in business, but in the 1980s, around 1986, I saw in a good Prop Shop, in Anchorage, Alaska, a single Propeller Blade that was mounted on a display plaque with a HOLE drilled about mid way in the length and chord of the Blade and an obvious crack. The air taxi had waited until they received another repaired Propeller for the airplane and the story goes that they flew the airplane with the stop drilled Prop for around 50 hours before removing it. The air taxi sent the Prop in to be welded.
I wonder alot of times if the people asking these questions are A&Ps at all, everyone seems to ask the same question about log entries and sign offs, but in differant ways, like nobody is getting it. You can here the frustration in Mike's tone as he again and again trys to explain it in as many differant ways as he possibly can.
I had a fairly nice 1962 172B that was totaled by the insurance due to the value of the airplane at auction for the insurance company, it was insured for 25 grand and the cost of getting the engine off inspected and the prop rebuilt was about 16 grand (6 cylinder Cont. O-300D). This was an Idle power prop strike while taxiing at a grass strip with a soft spot I didn't know about. In the end the auction brought in about 12 grand from a Korean A&P school who bought it for training work, I did have to find someone to take the airplane apart and pack it in the shipping container they delivered to me ($2400 to the mechanic who did that). The insurance company did do the sale and export/deregistered with FAA, after I told them I didn't know how to do it and would not do it. I did a lot of helping the Korean guy to get the airplane out of my hangar that should have been on the insurance company not me. Word to the wise is if you really like the airplane and want to keep it get a lot of insurance on it, if I had insured it for 30 grand or more they would probably have repaired it and returned it to me. I fly a 182 now.
What makes you unique and special is twofold. One, you have VAST knowledge of the subjects at hand coupled with being a common sense reasonable man. I salute you. Too many AP/IA's act like God's and force people to spend untold millions on satiating their egos.
Option 3 is an option / but also kind of not. The annual inspection needs to be stated as incomplete, I have read. I was reading this earlier this week, it may have been in the AMT, 43, or the IA handbook.
(And here, inlays the problem with the FAA) The FAA wants all the control and NONE of the responsability. I.E. Pass the buck and put the onus of liability onto some legal subordinate and deny that person any legal protection within their format. The power and the importance of the WORK ORDER with i's dotted, t's crossed and mostly, signed by the requester. With this Fred or Rick are free to document what it was ALL about on their shop paper work. ALL OF THIS IS JUST LEGAL SPARING and for me it boils down to the Moral and Professional right thing to do and has to do with me/you as a buyer of an aircraft depending on absolutely accurate maintenance records, confidence in purchase and MOST OF ALL CONFIDENCE IN FLIGHT. If I had been the duped pilot on the second annual attempt, I would have called the owner and told him where to find the plane and that it just made it's last flight until repairs had been made.
Discrepancies after an annual still each need to be recorded in logbooks as repaired items when they are repaired. Mike made it sound like the list of discrepancies never get dealt with after the annual is complete, they get remedied by signing off each one as repairs In logs.
I got one for you. This is an engine installed on an experimental aircraft. This engine is is a Lycoming D2A. This engine is now in a pusher configuration and because of such the original propeller was replaced with a pusher, wooden one. Apparently the propeller and the crush plate combinations are thicker than the original propeller. My question is how many threads must extend past the threaded crank shaft propeller flange to be considered legal and or safe? Part two to this question; How do you determine the correct size of propeller bolts to replace the existing ones knowing AN bolts thread lengths are not variable in length and that the wooden propeller will crush which does not duplicate the tension which the bolts might be subjected to in a non-crushable metal propeller? Do any AN bolts have a thread count which will match that of a Lycoming propeller crankshaft flange?
Owners need to understand that they (we all) pay lots of money for insurance premiums, whether it be aircraft, boat, car, home, RV, etc.. An insurance claim for a pricey repair should be considered, even if you premium will increase.
The Q&A demonstrates how many mechanics are under the misconception that they are some sort of policeman working for the FAA. If I am to take on that role then the FAA needs to start paying me.
It's a great discussion, but I did feel that it went around and around in circles covering the same thing. Mike's explanation during the presentation seemed pretty simple to me. Not sure why it kept coming up during the Q&A.
For the mechanic replacing the propeller: Would it be pertinent to ask the owner if he would be willing to state in writing that he has no knowledge of a prop strike or a situation that would require complying with the AD or MSB and leave it at that? Just a CYA if something should ever happen
Mark Phillips I would think your ok. I would be at peace as an A&P because I had no knowledge at the time. It’s why I would prefer written proof. At that point it would be 100% out of my hand at present time or future (and I could prove so).
yes but you should have had your suspicions that something occurred. Aircraft owners will lie to you as a mechanic. I've had plenty of liars or they have a bad memory. @@TheReadBaron91
tshelby10 Yeah, I have ran into situations where I had my suspicions about it, but I have gotten signatures to state from the owner that my suspicions were incorrect, at least in writing. I can’t control what they do, only what I do
another GREAT ONE I sure hope I got set up for the next live showfor some reason I don't get the notifications humm.. I've built many "tools" for bring back the dead, ie: no Dry starts AND CAMS being our biggest worry Continental's you can over fill ( submerging bump stick) then drop level before starting LYC's a bit tuffer I have a procedure/ritual for rockers valve guides puchrods & galleys are full w/ Oil pressure showing on gauge BEFORE I every Move a piston..
This was a fascinating discussion. Is there a gaping Amoral hole here in the regs? Or, is the onus of compliance in this particular matter being ultimately on the owner of the airplane directing repairs an absolution? Prerogative in airworthiness seems extremely subjective. Appears to me to be to some minor extent passing the buck. Well, at least we know why insurance is so damn expensive 😂
Remember 91.7, where it states that it's ultimately up to the owner/pilot about what is airworthy. A&Ps are there to fix stuff, and they can tell you that something is out of whack, but it's not their job to determine airworthiness. 14 CFR 91.7, Civil aircraft airworthiness: (a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition. (b) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur.
well he didn't do the work, there's no requirement under regulation to go above and beyond the the inspection requirements. suspicion is not part of the regs. So legally he's in the green so I think.
I would not have been a happy pilot to learn that the owner was trying to hide a potentially ticking time bomb. It's morally decrepit people like this owner deliberately circumventing safety measures that justify the ugliness of litigation when their maliciousness is uncovered by catastrophe.
Pre check of the maint history prop,airframe log books, question, why was prop replaced ? suspicious, check prop shop replaced as new prop ? why damage. No question, static or rotating prop damage is engine manufacture vote is a mandatory engine " tear down " ' ? This A&PIA. Air Force, general, heavy, 60 years. I worked with lying and truthful owners. Careful, the FAA is government, and takes no responsibility for help the A&P, be sharp, keep records of work, you insurance yourself. Have fun. Every airplane is different.
At what point is it here-say evidence ???.........if you did not witness it yourself , it is not allowed as evidence........you cannot say someone told you such and such , and then run off and claim it as the truth.......did the owner remove the prop and then asked them to install a new one?????.........lots of different scenarios if you were not there to witness it..
Wrong, the AP replacing prop has no obligation to do anything but replace prop and sign off that the work was done properly. Only IA on annual inspections can make aircraft unairworthy.
Change the video speed to 1.25x and save some time.
Thank you so much for these videos, they are fascinating.
The playback speed is a user selected function on RUclips
I was piloting an airplane that had engine failure on short final. When I went full pitch with the propeller the crankshaft broke. The propellor had been replaced with a new one, with no other log entries, and no reason to replace the propellor. We suspect undocumented prop-strike that left a small crack in the crankshaft. Luckily I was in the flat-lands of Texas and was able to put the aircraft down in a pasture, off the end of the runway, with no damage other then the broken engine. Very real, very serious situation.
Excellent webinar. Lots of helpful information. Thank you for putting them on!
It’s such a culture shift going from 121 to 91. 121 documents everything in the log book or on a non-routine. Nothing is thrown away. A coworker who is also an IA in the GA world called it the Wild, Wild West. I wonder what lawyers try to pin on unsuspecting A&P’s.
I completely agree, part 91 is the Wild West compared to Part 121, maybe that is why the safety record of both are so different?? Hint, hint…
I like the contrast of regulatory and ethical and what is really written in the logs.
In regard to signing off Parts that were changed, I was working in maintenance for a large airline while I was based in Las Vegas. I was doing consulting work for an air taxi that provided tours of the grand canyon and worked on other aircraft as a repair station. I would help them with problems that they needed someone with more experience to fix. A company who had a Ford Tri Motor need the brakes on one MLG changed had a mechanic from the air taxi that I was consulting with. The mechanic changed the brake assembly and made the log book entry. Something went wrong with that brake and the Tri Motor ran off the runway. The FAA violated the mechanic because he did not sign off the logbook entry stating the the brake was functional checked and working properly and he also did not state that the aircraft was returned to service. This would have been a 43.09 sign off. Thereafter, I always sign off the work that I have done as that work was functional checked OK, if it was a system part such as brakes, and also state that the aircraft is released from maintenance and returned to service. CYA, some FAA Inspectors are not all that knowledgeable.
I LOVE your presentations! Just one minor quibble. I would suggest that old Mooneys are often totaled by a gear up. But that involves the constant speed prop as well as an engine teardown.
I disagree about the previous mechanic that changed the prop. When that work was done, the early shop had to sign off a return to service. They knew it was not legal for return to service. Not "only if he is engaged to do the AD research and annual inspection."
FAR 43.9 (4) "If the work performed on the aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part has been performed satisfactorily, the signature, certificate number, and kind of certificate held by the person approving the work. The signature constitutes the approval for return to service only for the work performed."
Example: If the earlier A&P had put the prop on a visibly damaged/usable crankshaft flange, could he make the same entry that Mike recommends? Where does the ability of the A&P to ignore evidence of unairworthiness start?
Some people don't have a clue. I don't know if they still have it or if that Prop Shop is still in business, but in the 1980s, around 1986, I saw in a good Prop Shop, in Anchorage, Alaska, a single Propeller Blade that was mounted on a display plaque with a HOLE drilled about mid way in the length and chord of the Blade and an obvious crack. The air taxi had waited until they received another repaired Propeller for the airplane and the story goes that they flew the airplane with the stop drilled Prop for around 50 hours before removing it. The air taxi sent the Prop in to be welded.
thats a nightmare
I wonder alot of times if the people asking these questions are A&Ps at all, everyone seems to ask the same question about log entries and sign offs, but in differant ways, like nobody is getting it. You can here the frustration in Mike's tone as he again and again trys to explain it in as many differant ways as he possibly can.
most are pilots inexperienced in the realm of maintenance.
I had a fairly nice 1962 172B that was totaled by the insurance due to the value of the airplane at auction for the insurance company, it was insured for 25 grand and the cost of getting the engine off inspected and the prop rebuilt was about 16 grand (6 cylinder Cont. O-300D). This was an Idle power prop strike while taxiing at a grass strip with a soft spot I didn't know about. In the end the auction brought in about 12 grand from a Korean A&P school who bought it for training work, I did have to find someone to take the airplane apart and pack it in the shipping container they delivered to me ($2400 to the mechanic who did that). The insurance company did do the sale and export/deregistered with FAA, after I told them I didn't know how to do it and would not do it. I did a lot of helping the Korean guy to get the airplane out of my hangar that should have been on the insurance company not me. Word to the wise is if you really like the airplane and want to keep it get a lot of insurance on it, if I had insured it for 30 grand or more they would probably have repaired it and returned it to me. I fly a 182 now.
What makes you unique and special is twofold. One, you have VAST knowledge of the subjects at hand coupled with being a common sense reasonable man. I salute you. Too many AP/IA's act like God's and force people to spend untold millions on satiating their egos.
Spoken like a true dipshit pilot. Are you a pilot?
Option 3 is an option / but also kind of not. The annual inspection needs to be stated as incomplete, I have read.
I was reading this earlier this week, it may have been in the AMT, 43, or the IA handbook.
It is happening g here in England that aircraft are being written off by insurance companies due to the cost of rebuilding engines.
(And here, inlays the problem with the FAA)
The FAA wants all the control and NONE of the responsability. I.E. Pass the buck and put the onus
of liability onto some legal subordinate and deny that person any legal protection within their format.
The power and the importance of the WORK ORDER with i's dotted, t's crossed and mostly, signed by the
requester. With this Fred or Rick are free to document what it was ALL about on their shop paper work.
ALL OF THIS IS JUST LEGAL SPARING and for me it boils down to the Moral and Professional right
thing to do and has to do with me/you as a buyer of an aircraft depending on absolutely accurate
maintenance records, confidence in purchase and MOST OF ALL CONFIDENCE IN FLIGHT.
If I had been the duped pilot on the second annual attempt, I would have called the owner and told
him where to find the plane and that it just made it's last flight until repairs had been made.
Discrepancies after an annual still each need to be recorded in logbooks as repaired items when they are repaired. Mike made it sound like the list of discrepancies never get dealt with after the annual is complete, they get remedied by signing off each one as repairs In logs.
I got one for you. This is an engine installed on an experimental aircraft. This engine is is a Lycoming D2A. This engine is now in a pusher configuration and because of such the original propeller was replaced with a pusher, wooden one. Apparently the propeller and the crush plate combinations are thicker than the original propeller. My question is how many threads must extend past the threaded crank shaft propeller flange to be considered legal and or safe? Part two to this question; How do you determine the correct size of propeller bolts to replace the existing ones knowing AN bolts thread lengths are not variable in length and that the wooden propeller will crush which does not duplicate the tension which the bolts might be subjected to in a non-crushable metal propeller? Do any AN bolts have a thread count which will match that of a Lycoming propeller crankshaft flange?
Owners need to understand that they (we all) pay lots of money for insurance premiums, whether it be aircraft, boat, car, home, RV, etc.. An insurance claim for a pricey repair should be considered, even if you premium will increase.
The Q&A demonstrates how many mechanics are under the misconception that they are some sort of policeman working for the FAA. If I am to take on that role then the FAA needs to start paying me.
It's a great discussion, but I did feel that it went around and around in circles covering the same thing. Mike's explanation during the presentation seemed pretty simple to me. Not sure why it kept coming up during the Q&A.
For some reason I think I heard this presentation before somewhere or read about it somewhere before.
"(e) Compliance with this AD is required as indicated before further flight" How do you get a ferry permit with an AD due prior to further flight?
The entire point of a ferry permit is to authorize flight by an unairworthy aircraft. If the aircraft is airworthy, it never needs a ferry permit.
Also the ferry permit is signed by the FAA or FAA designee.
For the mechanic replacing the propeller:
Would it be pertinent to ask the owner if he would be willing to state in writing that he has no knowledge of a prop strike or a situation that would require complying with the AD or MSB and leave it at that? Just a CYA if something should ever happen
Caleb, I wonder what could happen later the mechanic finds out the engine did incur a prop strike. What should his response be or action taken?
Mark Phillips I would think your ok. I would be at peace as an A&P because I had no knowledge at the time. It’s why I would prefer written proof. At that point it would be 100% out of my hand at present time or future (and I could prove so).
yes but you should have had your suspicions that something occurred. Aircraft owners will lie to you as a mechanic. I've had plenty of liars or they have a bad memory. @@TheReadBaron91
tshelby10 Yeah, I have ran into situations where I had my suspicions about it, but I have gotten signatures to state from the owner that my suspicions were incorrect, at least in writing. I can’t control what they do, only what I do
Dents are stretched aluminum, holes required for repair.
another GREAT ONE I sure hope I got set up for the next live showfor some reason I don't get the notifications humm.. I've built many "tools" for bring back the dead, ie: no Dry starts AND CAMS being our biggest worry Continental's you can over fill ( submerging bump stick) then drop level before starting LYC's a bit tuffer I have a procedure/ritual for rockers valve guides puchrods & galleys are full w/ Oil pressure showing on gauge BEFORE I every Move a piston..
This was a fascinating discussion. Is there a gaping Amoral hole here in the regs? Or, is the onus of compliance in this particular matter being ultimately on the owner of the airplane directing repairs an absolution?
Prerogative in airworthiness seems extremely subjective. Appears to me to be to some minor extent passing the buck.
Well, at least we know why insurance is so damn expensive 😂
Remember 91.7, where it states that it's ultimately up to the owner/pilot about what is airworthy. A&Ps are there to fix stuff, and they can tell you that something is out of whack, but it's not their job to determine airworthiness.
14 CFR 91.7, Civil aircraft airworthiness:
(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition.
(b) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur.
well he didn't do the work, there's no requirement under regulation to go above and beyond the the inspection requirements. suspicion is not part of the regs. So legally he's in the green so I think.
Right. That's the owners problem
I would not have been a happy pilot to learn that the owner was trying to hide a potentially ticking time bomb. It's morally decrepit people like this owner deliberately circumventing safety measures that justify the ugliness of litigation when their maliciousness is uncovered by catastrophe.
Pre check of the maint history prop,airframe log books, question, why was prop replaced ? suspicious, check prop shop replaced as new prop ? why damage. No question, static or rotating prop damage is engine manufacture vote is a mandatory engine " tear down " ' ? This A&PIA. Air Force, general, heavy, 60 years. I worked with lying and truthful owners. Careful, the FAA is government, and takes no responsibility for help the A&P, be sharp, keep records of work, you insurance yourself. Have fun. Every airplane is different.
At what point is it here-say evidence ???.........if you did not witness it yourself , it is not allowed as evidence........you cannot say someone told you such and such , and then run off and claim it as the truth.......did the owner remove the prop and then asked them to install a new one?????.........lots of different scenarios if you were not there to witness it..
Rick should have called the FAA instead of you. fry the sob who installed the propeller. some mechanics have NO standards.
Wrong, the AP replacing prop has no obligation to do anything but replace prop and sign off that the work was done properly. Only IA on annual inspections can make aircraft unairworthy.
don't be a safety police or go work at FAA haha. 100%