Hi all,

With the recent topics on Annuals hitting the group, I figured I'd
relate my own, indulge myself in a short rant, and ask a question of you.

Just got the call from our A&P today and our 172 w/180HP Avcon
Conversion came through the annual in pretty good shape. Unfortunately,
we did manage to get caught on one thing -- in spite of having spent
almost $3K to overhaul our Hartzell CS prop in 2003, we just learned
that it was hit with an AD issued in September 2006 for hub cracks.

We have to fly out to our prop shop and have them do an eddy current
inspection within the next few flight hours to determine if the hub can
remain airworthy (ironic that they ask us to FLY it there), and then we
have two choices:

1) Do the inspection again every 100 hours or 12 months, whichever comes
first. It costs about $200 + the flight time to go out there, or about
$400.

or

2) Spend about $2500 to replace the hub to terminate the reoccurring
inspection.

When I read the service bulletin on which the AD is based, it looks like
some kind of CYA letter. They provide specific technical information
and examples of WHY the SB has been issued (that I can't debate since
I'm not an aeronautical engineer), but then they go on to declare that
"all pre-1991 hubs" are suspect. In my opinion, that's a bit of a broad
stroke.

Of course, we have to comply with the AD terms, so we will. But it
comes to mind that if our prop was truly susceptible to this condition I
figure it would have thrown a blade in the first 30 years and 2000 hours
in service -- or at the very least failed the inspection at the recent
overhaul. I have the distinct feeling that this is just another way for
Hartzell's attorneys to cover their ass and to make a few bucks for the
company at our considerable expense.

Our prop shop empathized and said that this is a common problem with
Hartzell. They like to write service bulletins and appear all too happy
to help the Feds issue ADs to force owners to clean up their messes.
Then when owners bitch about the lack of data to support the
manufacturer's claims, the ADs are eventually rescinded. This rang true
with me because an earlier AD on this prop that involved the blade
shanks was in effect for almost 10 years before the Feds rescinded it
due to a lack of supporting data. I can't help but think the new AD is
another example of this brain-dead approach to airworthiness.

The shop also said the AD was issued due to "several" blade separations
in the field. This is news to me. I mean, I haven't been living under
a rock the last 10 years. I know full well, for example, that neither
Lycoming nor Continental's low-bid manufacturers can make a crankshaft
to save anyone's life and I recall hearing about several catastrophic
engine failures that resulted from those defects, but I haven't heard
anything about these alleged blade separations.

Anyone else affected by this AD?

http://tinyurl.com/v68jk

-Doug

--
--------------------
Doug Vetter, ATP/CFI

http://www.dvatp.com
-------------------

"Doug Vetter" > wrote in message
...
> Hi all,
>
> Anyone else affected by this AD?
>

Me. Although, I've done such little flying lately that I have yet to come
close to 50 hours since the AD became effective. But, since I'm planning to
cross the threshold before my annual in May, I was just thinking of finding
a prop shop in the area. Anyone have a good recommendation in the Chicago
area?

--
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

I'm in the same boat. We overhauled the prop on our Mooney in 2005,
just before the AD. We're going for the $5500 option of replacing the
entire prop. Its a good deal, the blades alone would normally cost
that. Do you recall how much was left on the blades after your 2003
OH?

-Robert, CFII

Doug,

> Anyone else affected by this AD?
>

Yup, our Tobago is. Apparently, one can negotiate discounts with
Hartzell for the replacement. Also, there has been at least one fatal
crash in the UK, IIRC.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 21:21:03 -0500, Doug Vetter > wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>With the recent topics on Annuals hitting the group, I figured I'd
>relate my own, indulge myself in a short rant, and ask a question of you.
>
>Just got the call from our A&P today and our 172 w/180HP Avcon
>Conversion came through the annual in pretty good shape. Unfortunately,
>we did manage to get caught on one thing -- in spite of having spent
>almost $3K to overhaul our Hartzell CS prop in 2003, we just learned
>that it was hit with an AD issued in September 2006 for hub cracks.
>
>We have to fly out to our prop shop and have them do an eddy current
>inspection within the next few flight hours to determine if the hub can
>remain airworthy (ironic that they ask us to FLY it there), and then we
>have two choices:
>
>1) Do the inspection again every 100 hours or 12 months, whichever comes
>first. It costs about $200 + the flight time to go out there, or about
>$400.
>
>or
>
>2) Spend about $2500 to replace the hub to terminate the reoccurring
>inspection.
>

>
>Anyone else affected by this AD?
>

Just went through it with my Mooney. I opted for the hub replacement.

By the way, IF you opt for the hub replacement, you won't necessarily have
to do that first eddy current inspection you mentioned above, unless you
want to wait to do the replacement. And your regular shop can pull the
prop and send it off to the shop (that's what we did).

Also, Hartzell, in their infinite wisdom, would send ME a hub, but would
not send it to my prop shop. Fortunately, the shop had a post-AD new hub
on the shelf; so we were able to do a swap with minimum down-time.


--ron

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> I'm in the same boat. We overhauled the prop on our Mooney in 2005,
> just before the AD. We're going for the $5500 option of replacing the
> entire prop. Its a good deal, the blades alone would normally cost
> that. Do you recall how much was left on the blades after your 2003
> OH?

I don't happen to have the specs (mechanic still has the airplane and
the logbooks -- sorry) but when I called the prop shop while it was in
for overhaul they commented that both blades were in very good shape and
near "new" specs. He expected that both would have good life left in
them after the overhaul. No sense in tossing what works, right?

-Doug

--
--------------------
Doug Vetter, ATP/CFI

http://www.dvatp.com
--------------------

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
> Just went through it with my Mooney. I opted for the hub replacement.
>
> By the way, IF you opt for the hub replacement, you won't necessarily have
> to do that first eddy current inspection you mentioned above, unless you
> want to wait to do the replacement. And your regular shop can pull the
> prop and send it off to the shop (that's what we did).

Good point, however we've decided to go the inspection route for now as
we don't know how much longer we'll have the airplane, and it would be
6+ years before we'd pay as much in inspections as we would in the case
of hub replacement.

And in a strange sense, I think I'll feel safer doing the routine
inspection. No matter whether the part is new or old, affected by an AD
or not, they can all develop cracks, and the ones you don't find in time
are the ones that will kill you.

> Also, Hartzell, in their infinite wisdom, would send ME a hub, but would
> not send it to my prop shop. Fortunately, the shop had a post-AD new hub
> on the shelf; so we were able to do a swap with minimum down-time.

My prop shop told me I could buy the hub directly from Hartzell at the
shop's price and that way they wouldn't mark it up. That struck me as a
bit strange, but I bet has something to do with the burden of liability
shifting to the owner or to Hartzell for the owner-supplied part.

-Doug

--
--------------------
Doug Vetter, ATP/CFI

http://www.dvatp.com
--------------------

On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 11:32:35 -0500, Doug Vetter > wrote:

>Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>> Just went through it with my Mooney. I opted for the hub replacement.
>>
>> By the way, IF you opt for the hub replacement, you won't necessarily have
>> to do that first eddy current inspection you mentioned above, unless you
>> want to wait to do the replacement. And your regular shop can pull the
>> prop and send it off to the shop (that's what we did).
>
>Good point, however we've decided to go the inspection route for now as
>we don't know how much longer we'll have the airplane, and it would be
>6+ years before we'd pay as much in inspections as we would in the case
>of hub replacement.

For my amount of flying, I'd be doing a few inspections per year. And I
did not want to deal with the down time for that.

>
>And in a strange sense, I think I'll feel safer doing the routine
>inspection. No matter whether the part is new or old, affected by an AD
>or not, they can all develop cracks, and the ones you don't find in time
>are the ones that will kill you.
>
>> Also, Hartzell, in their infinite wisdom, would send ME a hub, but would
>> not send it to my prop shop. Fortunately, the shop had a post-AD new hub
>> on the shelf; so we were able to do a swap with minimum down-time.
>
>My prop shop told me I could buy the hub directly from Hartzell at the
>shop's price and that way they wouldn't mark it up. That struck me as a
>bit strange, but I bet has something to do with the burden of liability
>shifting to the owner or to Hartzell for the owner-supplied part.
>

Interesting. My prop shop (and also Hartzell themselves) told me that
Hartzell would not sell them a hub.
--ron

On Feb 17, 8:16 am, Doug Vetter > wrote:

> I don't happen to have the specs (mechanic still has the airplane and
> the logbooks -- sorry) but when I called the prop shop while it was in
> for overhaul they commented that both blades were in very good shape and
> near "new" specs. He expected that both would have good life left in
> them after the overhaul. No sense in tossing what works, right?

Yea, sounds like in your case the new hub is the way to go. Send your
old blades in and have them attach them to the new hub. I believe they
are required by the FAA to reoverhaul the blades again but it
shouldn't be a big deal.
I know that some people who live in the South have gotten really good
deals on the eddie inspection and will just do that. I live in
California and pay up to $400 each time so its a no-brainer to dump
the old hub.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Yea, sounds like in your case the new hub is the way to go. Send your
> old blades in and have them attach them to the new hub. I believe they
> are required by the FAA to reoverhaul the blades again but it
> shouldn't be a big deal.

My prop shop only said that as long as the blades are within TBO (flight
and calendar time), all they'd have to do is a reseal.

> I know that some people who live in the South have gotten really good
> deals on the eddie inspection and will just do that. I live in
> California and pay up to $400 each time so its a no-brainer to dump
> the old hub.

Total costs for us will be around $350 (including flight time out
there), but it still makes sense for us to get another 5 years or so out
of things as they are. By that time it will either be someone else's
problem or it will be ready for another overhaul.

Who knows...next year we might change our mind, but for now it's
inspections for us.

-Doug

--
--------------------
Doug Vetter, ATP/CFI

http://www.dvatp.com
--------------------

We're affected as well. Our prop likely won't make it through another
overhaul though...so...replacing the hub is not really a viable option.
Got an e-mail from a guy at Hartzell and they're discounting 2-blade
replacement prop/hub through September of this year. Something North of
$5K when you add shipping. This is likely the route we'll go but we
have yet to make a final decision. For the time being, it's repetitive
eddy current inspections at around $400/pop when you figure in fuel and
flight time. Here's to hoping the AD gets rescinded.


--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL-Instrument Airplane

"To become a Jedi knight, you must master a single force. To become
a private pilot you must strive to master four of them"
- Rod Machado

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

On Feb 18, 7:53 pm, Jack Allison >
wrote:
> Here's to hoping the AD gets rescinded.

Is there a chance of that? I've not heard anything about it. I have
yet to drop my $6K for the prop.

-Robert

Check out MT propeller. See if they have a prop that will go on your
airplane. They fit quite a few now. It is a lighter, more efficient,
composite prop.

On Feb 19, 10:06 am, "Doug" > wrote:
> Check out MT propeller. See if they have a prop that will go on your
> airplane. They fit quite a few now. It is a lighter, more efficient,
> composite prop.

Isn't that the one that's $12K though? I have a hard time spending
that much on a prop. I like the theory that the composites have
"infinate" life because at overhaul they get built up, not just shaved
down. However, the possible ADs that could come out of a new
technology worries me.

-Robert

Doug Vetter wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> With the recent topics on Annuals hitting the group, I figured I'd
> relate my own, indulge myself in a short rant, and ask a question of you.
>
> Just got the call from our A&P today and our 172 w/180HP Avcon
> Conversion came through the annual in pretty good shape. Unfortunately,
> we did manage to get caught on one thing -- in spite of having spent
> almost $3K to overhaul our Hartzell CS prop in 2003, we just learned
> that it was hit with an AD issued in September 2006 for hub cracks.
>
> We have to fly out to our prop shop and have them do an eddy current
> inspection within the next few flight hours to determine if the hub can
> remain airworthy (ironic that they ask us to FLY it there), and then we
> have two choices:
>
> 1) Do the inspection again every 100 hours or 12 months, whichever comes
> first. It costs about $200 + the flight time to go out there, or about
> $400.
>
> or
>
> 2) Spend about $2500 to replace the hub to terminate the reoccurring
> inspection.
>
> When I read the service bulletin on which the AD is based, it looks like
> some kind of CYA letter. They provide specific technical information
> and examples of WHY the SB has been issued (that I can't debate since
> I'm not an aeronautical engineer), but then they go on to declare that
> "all pre-1991 hubs" are suspect. In my opinion, that's a bit of a broad
> stroke.
>
> Of course, we have to comply with the AD terms, so we will. But it
> comes to mind that if our prop was truly susceptible to this condition I
> figure it would have thrown a blade in the first 30 years and 2000 hours
> in service -- or at the very least failed the inspection at the recent
> overhaul. I have the distinct feeling that this is just another way for
> Hartzell's attorneys to cover their ass and to make a few bucks for the
> company at our considerable expense.
>
> Our prop shop empathized and said that this is a common problem with
> Hartzell. They like to write service bulletins and appear all too happy
> to help the Feds issue ADs to force owners to clean up their messes.
> Then when owners bitch about the lack of data to support the
> manufacturer's claims, the ADs are eventually rescinded. This rang true
> with me because an earlier AD on this prop that involved the blade
> shanks was in effect for almost 10 years before the Feds rescinded it
> due to a lack of supporting data. I can't help but think the new AD is
> another example of this brain-dead approach to airworthiness.
>
> The shop also said the AD was issued due to "several" blade separations
> in the field. This is news to me. I mean, I haven't been living under
> a rock the last 10 years. I know full well, for example, that neither
> Lycoming nor Continental's low-bid manufacturers can make a crankshaft
> to save anyone's life and I recall hearing about several catastrophic
> engine failures that resulted from those defects, but I haven't heard
> anything about these alleged blade separations.
>
> Anyone else affected by this AD?
>
> http://tinyurl.com/v68jk
>
> -Doug
>
> --
> --------------------
> Doug Vetter, ATP/CFI
>
> http://www.dvatp.com
> -------------------

I also have the Avcom (aka Doyn) on my Skyhawk. I check the log books
and this does NOT apply to me. :)

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

Ross wrote:
> I also have the Avcom (aka Doyn) on my Skyhawk. I check the log books
> and this does NOT apply to me. :)

Surprising, since the newer hubs that aren't covered didn't come out
until 1991 and I don't think Avcon or its successor has sold any
conversions since then.

-Doug

--
--------------------
Doug Vetter, ATP/CFI

http://www.dvatp.com
--------------------

Doug Vetter wrote:
> Ross wrote:
>
>> I also have the Avcom (aka Doyn) on my Skyhawk. I check the log books
>> and this does NOT apply to me. :)
>
>
> Surprising, since the newer hubs that aren't covered didn't come out
> until 1991 and I don't think Avcon or its successor has sold any
> conversions since then.
>
> -Doug
>
> --
> --------------------
> Doug Vetter, ATP/CFI
>
> http://www.dvatp.com
> --------------------
I had a prop overhaul several years ago, but it seems to meet the
requirements of the AD. I plan to take it to a prop shop later for a
good look over anyway.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

Doug Vetter wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> With the recent topics on Annuals hitting the group, I figured I'd
> relate my own, indulge myself in a short rant, and ask a question of you.
>
> Just got the call from our A&P today and our 172 w/180HP Avcon
> Conversion came through the annual in pretty good shape. Unfortunately,
> we did manage to get caught on one thing -- in spite of having spent
> almost $3K to overhaul our Hartzell CS prop in 2003, we just learned
> that it was hit with an AD issued in September 2006 for hub cracks.
>

What's the AD ID number for that AD?

I'm having trouble getting to it on the FAA website.

-thanks

On 24 Feb 2007 07:29:47 -0800, "JD" > wrote:

>
>Doug Vetter wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> With the recent topics on Annuals hitting the group, I figured I'd
>> relate my own, indulge myself in a short rant, and ask a question of you.
>>
>> Just got the call from our A&P today and our 172 w/180HP Avcon
>> Conversion came through the annual in pretty good shape. Unfortunately,
>> we did manage to get caught on one thing -- in spite of having spent
>> almost $3K to overhaul our Hartzell CS prop in 2003, we just learned
>> that it was hit with an AD issued in September 2006 for hub cracks.
>>
>
>What's the AD ID number for that AD?
>
>I'm having trouble getting to it on the FAA website.

Are we talking about Hartzell SB HC-SB-61-269 (incorporated to AD
2006-18-15) for eddy-current inspections on a bunch of hubs installed
on Lycoming ( )o-360 engines?