• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

Prop strike inspection AD2004-10-14

I saw a certain Bearhawk flier, after an event at Mile Hi, check the runout with a strategically placed fingernail on the spinner, deemed it good, and flew it outa there ..
 
The CG of a Cub suspended by lift rings won’t work under a helicopter. I’ve only watched a few recoveries and they didn’t use lifting rings. The only relocation I know of that did nearly ended in disaster when one ring failed while the plane was in the air. Maybe Scooter will chime in. When he had an accident in 7779M the damage was repairable until the recovery crew got ahold of it. That’s what led him to ask me to buy my -12. But his pick wasn’t as ideal as this one. As recoveries go, this one is pretty simple.

Repairing it on the sandbar would be my choice. And likely the insurer’s. A knock-down engine hoist would be easy to fly in. 2 days and fly away without needing a ferry permit.
 
Last edited:
Local guy here had his cub end up on a very busy tourist beach, he called the local heli company to lift it the couple miles back to the airport, and they informed him it was 26k, the insurance didn’t go for they, they took the wings off and trucked it back.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Price and right decision on what to do is all over the board. I had a call to go check on a Pacer that was landed on a cub strip, went of the end of the strip into tall grass with no damage until the pilot turned it around and hit a hole getting back to the runway. I flew over the strip/plane at least 15 times trying to access the situation then asked myself why I did not land and walk it. Then it occurred to me the inner voice was saying stay off of it!! I flew back and informed the pilot that we could get a prop and strut into the plane but that would only be so he could crash it better on takeoff (strip had standing water over 80 percent of it) that is why he hydroplaned off the end. He took my advice to called local crew for pick up and delivery to Birchwood. It cost him 1,500 bucks. Granted it was only a 30 mile trip but still a great bang for the buck. Another plane that was playing on sandbar in high wind flipped, got back over with little damage, once a new prop showed up pilot tried to taxi in the high wind and the second time it went over did it right and Helicopter brought it out for major rebuild. I know a guy that got a prop on a set of skis (It is a very advanced technique and seldom seen but possible). He was back in the air in 90 min. What to do, how to do it, and when to do it just depends on what you have on hand.
DENNY
 
Spreader bars, straps to spars, cargo nets over the entire plane and go.

It is NOT rocket science.

That said, a good pilot can pick your cub out of a lake by the tail and let it drain while lifting and rolling it upright. A medium pilot will destroy it dropping it down on the ramp when it gets back home...
 
Repairing it on the sandbar would be my choice. And likely the insurer’s. A knock-down engine hoist would be easy to fly in. 2 days and fly away without needing a ferry permit.​
I agree. It's a big pain, but doable IF you've already determined that the crank flange is within limits.


 
Sigh.... this really isn't rocket science. Sorry again for your situation, I'm done posting on this one because there are clearly many ways to skin this cat, and at this point all the noise is just adding to the your confusion.

The CG of a Cub suspended by lift rings wonÂ’t work under a helicopter. IÂ’ve only watched a few recoveries and they didnÂ’t use lifting rings.

That's funny stuff.... CG is not black magic. It doesn't know how the airplane is in the air :lol: . I didn't make the picture up, but I was there to upright the plane, hook the spreader bar to the lifting rings, and cover the wings, although a cargo net as AK suggested would work just fine as would removing the wing root fairings and wrapping straps around the spars (where the lifting rings attach by the way). But in a prior life, you and every poster on the forum got to pay me to hook the load on much more precarious deals ;-)

I only suggested using rings, because there is no doubt in my mind that if it were mine, and it had to get a ride out, that's how I'd do it. And because I just can't imagine owning a cub (land or sea) and not having lifting rings, once you've hoisted your cub up on a gantry in your barn, you'll never be without a set. A lifting ring the won't carry the weight of your cub, shouldn't be on it.
And yes, were it mine, I would have done the inspections / repairs there and flown away before the entire www... got in a titty twist over what flies and what doesn't ... :lol: the fact of the matter is, if it were mine and the crank didn't dial I'd go as far as swapping out the engine right where it sits, before I slung it home under a helicopter, and more than likely all of that would have occurred on my dime and been done and over with by now. But that's just how I roll.

Take care, Rob
 
Last edited:
If you have choices between heli companies I'd call around and find out who's the go-to for airplane pick ups and go with the best even if they have to come from further away or have a higher hourly rate. With lifting eyes, spreader bar, wing covers w/ spoilers a plane can be hooked up and ready to go in about 5 to 10 minutes and transported without damage. The wing covers with spoilers cut the lift to the wing so the plane doesn't fly under the heli. I liked the suggestion to install lifting eyes prior to the lift, if that's possible.
 
Too bad someone can't stick a prop on it and it magically appear back at the airport early one morning ready for the prop strike inspection.
 
FWIW......it's never a good idea to try to straighten the prop some by pulling on it with a pickup that's anchored by a tractor.

Funny, I saw pictures of just such an event the other day..but it was two pickups and the “driver” had a beer in his hand. [emoji3]

You must be thinking of ANOTHER time this happened? [emoji3]

sj
 
This was re a helo recovery:
.... My advice? Stand back and let them do what they’re hired to do.

IMHO that's great advice...
if you're talking about hoisting an A/C unit, logs, or shake bolts.
About airplanes...not so much.
I'm guessing most helo guys don't know **** about rigging & hoisting aircraft.
I think a lot of airplanes get damaged worse from improper recovery actions than the original crash--
remember that PBY that got broken in two when it was being recovered from the surf?
 
If you're getting helo'd out as far as im concerned its the insurance companies airplane, start looking for a new one. And if it makes it to your home unscathed that's a bonus. Very likely with a 20k heli lift, engine teardown, 10k and then wing repair, nose bowl, borer prop and spinner, depending on how much coverage you have it's close to being totaled. Shooting from the hip, you're probably around 40-50k.
 
Funny, I saw pictures of just such an event the other day..but it was two pickups and the “driver” had a beer in his hand. [emoji3]

You must be thinking of ANOTHER time this happened? [emoji3]

sj

Sounds like the good old days of supercub.org when I first remember
 
Well, glad to report the cub flew out under its own power and is safely back in my hangar.
And it was done with a ferry permit and AD2004-10-14 was not required. Thanks to some
digging by my FSDO, they came across a SAIB issued out of a NE FAA office that allows issuance
of a SFP without AD compliance (see 2nd to last bullet point)
We did a through inspection including dialing the crank. All good. Bolted a borrowed Borer on
good run up and flew it out. Back in my hangar :30 later.

IMG_3670.jpegIMG_3674.jpegIMG_3676.jpegView attachment NE-06-32R1propstrike.pdf
Now I have a winter project. But I will get to fly MY plane again.
Mikey
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3676.jpeg
    IMG_3676.jpeg
    76.5 KB · Views: 32
  • IMG_3676.jpeg
    IMG_3676.jpeg
    24.3 KB · Views: 681
  • IMG_3674.jpeg
    IMG_3674.jpeg
    33 KB · Views: 710
  • NE-06-32R1propstrike.pdf
    250.1 KB · Views: 61
  • NE-06-32R1propstrike.pdf
    250.1 KB · Views: 30
  • NE-06-32R1propstrike.pdf
    250.1 KB · Views: 26
  • IMG_3670.jpeg
    IMG_3670.jpeg
    42.8 KB · Views: 701
  • NE-06-32R1propstrike.pdf
    250.1 KB · Views: 44
Congratulations, on the return home, and for having the fortitude to stick it out, where most people throw in the towel in the face of challenge and adversity.

Take care, Rob
 
I hope someone else can use that ammo w their FSDO.
Despite that guidance from the SAIB, issuing is still at the discretion of the FSDO.
IMHO, there are a lot of good people at the Agency and most of
those are frustrated by the regulatory handcuffs they are stuck with.
Building positive relationships can be the key to getting a positive outcome.
Mikey
 
Do a close inspection of the webs between the lightning holes on the prop flange. I found 3 or 4 of them cracked during an annual inspection on a TriPacer. They just looked like a pencil line between the holes. I never learned what the cause was, though it could have been from a sudden stoppage.
 
Good job Chris!
I'm sure you breathed a big sigh of relief once the plane was back home.
Good luck with the repairs.
 
Our FSDO is saying AD 2004-10-14 must be complied with prior to flight, and that includes a ferry flight.
The hole purpose of a Special Flight Permit is to move an unairworthy aircraft that is reasonable fit for flight.
Does ANC FSDO have another interpretation of the AD applicability to a ferry flight?
I'm pulling my hair out over this as my airplane sits unsecured on a gravel bar......
Mikey

The FSDO is incorrect. The AD does not need to be complied with for a Ferry Flight. [FONT=&quot]

Sec. 39.23[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Amendment Number: 39-9474[/FONT][FONT=&quot], [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Effective Date: 08/21/2002[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]TITLE:[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [May I fly my aircraft to a repair facility to do the work required by an airworthiness directive?][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]SECTION RULE:[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Yes, the operations specifications giving some operators authority to operate include a provision that allow them to fly their aircraft to a repair facility to do the work required by an airworthiness directive. If you do not have this authority, the local Flight Standards District Office of FAA may issue you a special flight permit unless the airworthiness directive states otherwise. To ensure aviation safety, FAA may add special requirements for operating your aircraft to a place where the repairs or modifications can be accomplished. FAA may also decline to issue a special flight permit in particular cases if we determine you cannot move the aircraft safely.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]]

AD 2004-10-14 has no prohibition from ferrying an aircraft to a location where repairs may be completed. If it did, there would be a separate paragraph in the AD indicating that ferry flights for repair or maintenance were not authorized. The statement in the Compliance paragraph applies to making the aircraft Airworthy. A ferry flight is expressly for the purpose of operating an unairworthy aircraft.
[/FONT]
 
The FSDO is incorrect in their interpretation. For all ADs issued prior to 8/21/2002 the default was a statement that the aircraft could be ferried for repairs and if the statement was not there it needed the AD to be complied with prior to operating. When Part 39 was rewritten in 2002 they did a 180 degree reversal. The AD now needs an explicit statement that it cannot be ferried. Since this AD was issued after 8/21/2002 and since the AD does not have an explicit statement prohibiting ferry flights a ferry permit could be issued to allow the operation of the aircraft to a place where it can be repaired or inspected.
 
The FSDO is incorrect in their interpretation. For all ADs issued prior to 8/21/2002 the default was a statement that the aircraft could be ferried for repairs and if the statement was not there it needed the AD to be complied with prior to operating. When Part 39 was rewritten in 2002 they did a 180 degree reversal. The AD now needs an explicit statement that it cannot be ferried. Since this AD was issued after 8/21/2002 and since the AD does not have an explicit statement prohibiting ferry flights a ferry permit could be issued to allow the operation of the aircraft to a place where it can be repaired or inspected.

I find it hard to reconcile that with AD 2023-04-08 which states -

"(k) Special Flight Permit
Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199 to only permit a one-time, non-revenue ferry flight to operate the aircraft to a location where the maintenance actions can be performed, provided that the engine first undergoes, or has undergone within the previous five flight hours, an oil change and filter/screen replacement that was accomplished by an appropriately rated mechanic or repair station, and any material found in the spent oil and oil filter pleats or oil screen has been evaluated to assess the engine’s condition."

If, by default, a special flight permit can be issued with an outstanding AD, why wouldn't the text of AD 2023-04-08 read "A special flight permit may not be issued unless ......"?
 
All I know is in the end I did get a Special Flight Permit w/out prior compliance with AD 2004-10-14 and my -12 is home safe in the hangar. :smile:
Mikey
 
All I know is in the end I did get a Special Flight Permit w/out prior compliance with AD 2004-10-14 and my -12 is home safe in the hangar. :smile:
Mikey


I'm curious who you worked with at the FSDO?
In m y experience, our most recent PMI was not responsive or very helpful--
esp compared to the one before that, who was awesome.
I guess you don't realize how good something is til you don't have it any more.
The most recent one passed away not long ago, I don't even know who we've got now (if anyone).
 
Charlie Center just called and emailed me the FAA Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin NE-06-32R1 dated Sept 10,2008. He was hopping to help but was a little late to the party I guess. It was good to catch up with him none the less.
 
I find it hard to reconcile that with AD 2023-04-08 which states -

"(k) Special Flight Permit
Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199 to only permit a one-time, non-revenue ferry flight to operate the aircraft to a location where the maintenance actions can be performed, provided that the engine first undergoes, or has undergone within the previous five flight hours, an oil change and filter/screen replacement that was accomplished by an appropriately rated mechanic or repair station, and any material found in the spent oil and oil filter pleats or oil screen has been evaluated to assess the engine’s condition."

If, by default, a special flight permit can be issued with an outstanding AD, why wouldn't the text of AD 2023-04-08 read "A special flight permit may not be issued unless ......"?

Likely because there are inspection requirements identified for the SFP issuance. By the way, that AD has been superseded by 2023-05-16. As for SFPs for aircraft with Lycoming prop strikes and AD2004-10-14, I've issued many SFPs just to move the aircraft where the AD can be complied with. Part 39 is very cl=ear on what words need to be in the AD to prohibit a ferry permit.
 
Back
Top