Springbank Today

[Big Pistons Forever]

There will be savings in the amount of work needed to get the engine flying again. There will not be any savings in the amount of inspection needed.

I would not be charging over to CYYC with a gear problem unless I thought CYBW wouldn't cut it. It looks like in this case CYBW was the correct choice.

As for shutting down the engines short final or after touchdown, maybe, if everything else was going right. Not a requirement.

But popping the door open on the rollout might not be a bad idea workload permitting.

Looks like an excellent job done in this case though.

If the engine is still windmilling when the prop hits than all of the bearing surfaces will still benefit from positive oil pressure, not the case if the prop is stopped, therefore I dispute your contention that engine repair costs will be less with the prop stopped.

Any AME's care to comment ?

Bending the crankshaft has nothing to do with oil pressure. BPF you should take some AME courses....

Can someone show me in writing where it says you must perform a sudden stoppage inspection on an engine that has had a prop strike that is not turning? I had this happen a few years ago, and we could not find anything concrete..


STL,

If you dont know how a 310 will fly with both engines feathered, perhaps you should do some additional training.... with a 12K foot runway, you can SAFELY land with both engines feathered... Flying a 310 is not rocket science.. its an EASY FORGIVING DOCILE airplane... I wonder how much fuel was on boar the plane at YBW when this happened? To me this would be the biggest concern..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH_AzTvn ... re=related

There is a lot more than bending the crank on the list of bad things that can happen with prop strikes, Like big end bearing distress, counterweight damage, failure of the aft crank accessory gear bolt, and in 6 cylinder Continental's in particular, cracking of the front bearing support web...but then according to strega I don't know anything. Are there any REAL AME's who would care to comment ?

[Strega]

BPF, how many engines have you personally tore down? Ive done a couple

care to elaborate on the "Like big end bearing distress"


The biggest and most expensive "problem" in a prop strike/sudden stoppage engine is a bent crank.. It all my years in this buis I have NEVER seen sheard crank gear bolts, and most often the counterweights ( I still dont know why they are reffered to as counter weights as they dont counterweight anything) are damaged from running high RPM/low torque condidtions.. if you smack the crank hard enough to crack the case (which is REALLY, REALLY HARD) it will most surely be bent.. (most times when the case is craked it has to do with improper machine work to begine with and or bad castings.)

PS I am an AME and a P. Eng. (and I do have an ATPL as well )

[Big Pistons Forever]

Strega

Completely uninterested in continuing this conversation...Good bye

Ahmrim

Here is a copy of the Continental service bulletin


TELEDYNE CONTINENTAL ® AIRCRAFT ENGINE
SERVICE BULLETIN
Compliance Will Enhance Safety
SUBJECT: PROPELLER STRIKES AND HYDRAULIC
LOCKS.
PURPOSE: PURPOSE: PART I: PROPELLER STRIKE INCIDENTS:
Provides definition of propeller strike and foreign object damage (FOD),
possible resulting damage that can occur from such incidents and
required inspections and corrective actions mandated by TCM to return
the engine to service.
PART II: HYDRAULIC LOCK:
Provides definition of hydraulic lock, the conditions that can lead to a
hydraulic lock event, how to prevent it, and the inspection and
corrective actions mandated by TCM to return the engine to service.
COMPLIANCE: PART I: Anytime a propeller strike incident occurs, perform the
inspections set forth in this Service Bulletin prior to further engine
operation.
PART II: As set forth in the instructions contained in PART II.
MODELS
AFFECTED: All Teledyne Continental Motors (TCM) engine models.
PART I - PROPELLER STRIKE INCIDENTS
A propeller strike is: (1) any incident, whether or not the engine is operating, that requires repair
to the propeller other than minor dressing of the blades as set forth in Part I, B of this Service
Bulletin or (2) any incident while the engine is operating in which the propeller makes contact
with any object that results in a loss of engine RPM. Propeller strikes against the ground or any
object, can cause engine and component damage even though the propeller may continue to
rotate. This damage can result in catastrophic engine failure

[SeptRepair]

If the engine is still windmilling when the prop hits than all of the bearing surfaces will still benefit from positive oil pressure, not the case if the prop is stopped, therefore I dispute your contention that engine repair costs will be less with the prop stopped.

Any AME's care to comment ?

http://www.tcmlink.com/pdf2/SB96-11A.pdf Pretty straight forward. As an AME, I have seen an I0-520 in a C-185, that had flipped over in a wind storm with the engine shut off, crack the forward crankshaft saddle mount. Fortunately during a pre-purchase inspection ( many years after the incident) I caught this when I tried to dynamically balance the prop. If left any longer it was inevitable the crankshaft would have broke just aft of the prop flange. The AME who released the aircraft for return to service after the prop replacement had done a dial out and recorded it at less than 0.010. Personally after having experienced this, I would never release an aircraft after a prop strike with out an engine tear down.

[Strega]

The AME who released the aircraft for return to service after the prop replacement had done a dial out and recorded it at less than 0.010

I would not release an engine to be installed on an aircraft if there is 0.002" runout on the prop flange,, ideally it should be less than 0.001"

could you even balance the prop if it was installed on a crank that had lets say 0.004" runout?

[Ogee]

As a newer pilot (430 hours) I am wondering if it would be better to feather both props, come in high and slip it in? Any input would be appreciated.

No, no and no. In all seriousness, why create two emergencies when you're already dealing with one.

If you come in with 2 engines and no nose wheel like that guy, you will most likely have the exact same outcome. If you're now gliding it in with only 2 good wheels, you've removed all your options. You are landing, even if you screwed up the approach and are coming up short or long.

Don't worry about the engines, that's why you have insurance. Keep yourself and your passengers safe. Insurance can't replace people.

Very good points. Ill remember that advice.

My advice to you is to forget that advice, or at least hope the insurance industry doesn't get your name. If you can't come in at 50 feet over the threshold and cut one or both engines, feather if applicable, and touch down and wait till that tinny sound stops, you don't deserve to be a pilot.

You've got a gear problem, wtf are you doing coming in "...short or long". I don't want to venture into the realm of rocket science for some here, but if you are "...short or long", power up and go around and try it again. Till you get it right. But your first clue that you should find another career is if you complicate a gear problem, which isn't even an emergency, by having to go around.

We've had this debate here before. It certainly seperated the men from the boys or the cool and competent from the absolutely scared shitless.

You have a duty to not only preserve life but to preserve your aircraft as best you can. That includes avoiding the completely needless destruction of the propellors and necessitating a teardown by exercising a landing with zero thrust coming from the engines, i.e. exactly the same as you do most of the time anyway. Yes, for some of the Rhodes Scholars here, don't shut the engines down on downwind. Anyone with the wit of a sparrow would know that the setup for this is over the runway, lots of runway left, and with 7-10 seconds left to touchdown.

Utter stupidity is not what insurance is for.

[Strega]

Ogee,

at least you get it,, we dont always see eye to eye, but I would be happy to ride in the back of anything you fly...

[Ogee]

Alt,

I agree with your point (3), do not agree with points (1,2). Springbank is quite close to Foothills Hospital (a major trauma centre) and they have excellent EMS and fire personnel there, as well as great back-up from both Calgary and Cochrane.

Brgds,
amraam

\

Sorry, I better go back and read this. I thought this guy had a dickey nosewheel, not that he was coming in inverted and on fire. What the hell would he need a major trauma center for, or fire personnel, or backup from anywhere.

[Strega]

I thought this guy had a dickey nosewheel

That just made my night !!!!!!

[Ogee]

If it was my plane,, and I was flying it...

I would have headed to YYC,, set up a high approach, then shut down and feathered both engines and moved the props out of the vert...

I know the morons here will say this is bad airmanship,, but if you cannot land deadstick on a 12k foot runway, then perhaps you should take some additional training..... mind you some jazz pilots have trouble doing the same with a dash 8, but thats a whole different can of beans...

Why would you ruin $60k worth of engines when there is no reason not to save them? not to mention if you did C&B the PLC is much closer than the foothills....

no comparing this to the moron who crashed the ho in YWG.... apples and oranges...

Thank you.

Jesus Christ, what the hell is wrong with some of these people?

[SeptRepair]

I do not know currently ( I don't have a Continental Overhaul manual in front of me) But the general rule of thumb has been anything less than .010 was deemed within limits. I remember the old E & I manual stated something around .012 as a limit if the manufacturer never stated any limits. Yes it is possible to dynamically balance a prop with a crankshaft run out of 0.004. Tell me Strega, when you are doing dynamic balancing of props what are your IPS limits? Before you perform a dynamic balance do you do a run out of the crankshaft?

[Ogee]

Strega, I was flying today and when tower offered him time to burn off fuel he declined as he had 5 hours worth!

He probably realized the fuel tanks weren't in the nose gear compartment.

[Ogee]

Strega, I was flying today and when tower offered him time to burn off fuel he declined as he had 5 hours worth!

[Strega]

Last one we did on a Glassair with a Lycon IO-540 ( from a malibu) was 0.03 IPS, the crank was dialed at less than 0.001", I have heard you can get down to 0.01 IPS but Ive never seen it.

[Ogee]

Ogee,

at least you get it,, we dont always see eye to eye, but I would be happy to ride in the back of anything you fly...

Hell, ride up front.

[Strega]

He probably realized the fuel tanks weren't in the nose gear compartment.

I would have still gone joyriding to burn it off.. mind, what if I was 20 miles away and the weather all of a sudden got bad, and then I couldnt make it back anywhere? WHAT WOULD I DO? OMG!!!

[_dwj_]

If it was my plane,, and I was flying it...

I would have headed to YYC,, set up a high approach, then shut down and feathered both engines and moved the props out of the vert...

I know the morons here will say this is bad airmanship,, but if you cannot land deadstick on a 12k foot runway, then perhaps you should take some additional training.....

Uh huh...

So in the midst of an entirely manageable scenario, you're going to put your aircraft into a configuration you've never flown it in before and commit yourself to an outcome? Sounds like an excellent philosophy.

Sometimes I wonder where some of you guys get your ideas.

stl

Also, if there is any worry about the main gear, wouldn't you want to use power to have a gentle as possible touchdown?

[Ogee]

He probably realized the fuel tanks weren't in the nose gear compartment.

I would have still gone joyriding to burn it off.. mind, what if I was 20 miles away and the weather all of a sudden got bad, and then I couldnt make it back anywhere? WHAT WOULD I DO? OMG!!!

Maybe it was a rental at $350 an hour.

I have thought about the three blade scenario BPF and I suppose that you would have blade contact even if you got the bottom two in the best possible situation. I've had to do this in a 310 with two blades, so no problem, and in a Grumman Cougar with two, and few months ago in a Skymaster, but just shut down the front one as I don't think the back prop hits unless you're in a very high flare at touchdown. I have to say it did take a bit of time for that sumbitch to feather though. But it had stopped horizontal by the time of touchdown, which turned out to be a non issue.

[sky's the limit]

If it was my plane,, and I was flying it...

I would have headed to YYC,, set up a high approach, then shut down and feathered both engines and moved the props out of the vert...

I know the morons here will say this is bad airmanship,, but if you cannot land deadstick on a 12k foot runway, then perhaps you should take some additional training.....

Uh huh...

So in the midst of an entirely manageable scenario, you're going to put your aircraft into a configuration you've never flown it in before and commit yourself to an outcome? Sounds like an excellent philosophy.

Sometimes I wonder where some of you guys get your ideas.

stl

Also, if there is any worry about the main gear, wouldn't you want to use power to have a gentle as possible touchdown?

It's OK dwj,

Apparently the vast amount of chest beating that would occur in the cockpits of many on here would save the day regardless of the state of the aircraft.....

If there's one thing I've learned over the course of my career, it is to NEVER back oneself into a corner by making assumptions, and NEVER complicate a seemingly simple situation - things can go pear shaped in a hurry. Unlike many of the folks on here who fly around waiting for a red light to break the monotony, I work and have worked in sectors of the industry where things go wrong frequently, whether with aircraft, operations gear, or ground personnel. You learn very fast that complicating ANY unusual situation in an aircraft and making assumptions about those situations or their outcomes exponentially increases the likelihood for failure, and is a first rate way to hurt yourself and others.

But what do I know? I guess an ATPL is all you need to have it figured out.

stl

[altiplano]

.

[Ogee]

Fine boys, I'm sure there's valid views on both sides of this issue, or all three sides if we're talking about nearness of emergency personnel. I guess where I differ from some is that I don't think a gear malfunction is an emergency in terms of anybody getting hurt. And, I think you should be able to pull the mixtures in the start of the flare and land an airplane, as you very often do, without any thrust from the engine or engines.

Within a certain range of airplanes of course.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Fine boys, I'm sure there's valid views on both sides of this issue, or all three sides if we're talking about nearness of emergency personnel. I guess where I differ from some is that I don't think a gear malfunction is an emergency in terms of anybody getting hurt. And, I think you should be able to pull the mixtures in the start of the flare and land an airplane, as you very often do, without any thrust from the engine or engines.

Within a certain range of airplanes of course.

I tell all my students to to disabuse themselves of the notion that "real pilots do not call for emergencies services for the little emergencies" The whole purpose of CFR is to be ready to help you so where is the down side in calling them ? And from personal experience I have seen where a little emergency went to a really big one in about 2 seconds. With respect to pulling the mixtures in the flare I guess I do not see what the difference is in just pulling them after touchdown. In either case the props will still be windmilling as the elevator runs out of authority and the nose drops to the pavement.

[Strega]

BPF

Have you ever owned a ME airplane with engines worth over $60k? I do and I will do my best to save them.....

[Ogee]

Fine boys, I'm sure there's valid views on both sides of this issue, or all three sides if we're talking about nearness of emergency personnel. I guess where I differ from some is that I don't think a gear malfunction is an emergency in terms of anybody getting hurt. And, I think you should be able to pull the mixtures in the start of the flare and land an airplane, as you very often do, without any thrust from the engine or engines.

Within a certain range of airplanes of course.

I tell all my students to to disabuse themselves of the notion that "real pilots do not call for emergencies services for the little emergencies" The whole purpose of CFR is to be ready to help you so where is the down side in calling them ? And from personal experience I have seen where a little emergency went to a really big one in about 2 seconds. With respect to pulling the mixtures in the flare I guess I do not see what the difference is in just pulling them after touchdown. In either case the props will still be windmilling as the elevator runs out of authority and the nose drops to the pavement.

I've never heard of that notion, BPF, but if that's what you want to tell your students, fill your boots. I don't think students learn much of anything from sayings like that, because what is an emergency is subjective in many cases, and to many students, a transponder going US might be an emergency. The issue in this thread is whether you are going to turn minor damage into major damage and prove to some insurance broker that you're the biggest goddamn duffus north of the Panama Canal. Not you personally, but our hypothetical "I paid for insurance now I'm going to damage this airplane needlessly" kind of guy.

This was a thread about a specific event. A Cessna 310 with a nosegear problem. Buddy is going to have directional control, and his wings, and fuel tanks, are still going to be supported by functioning mains. My comment about an emergency was in response to the post about burn and trauma units at YYC and a longer runway. Call it an emergency if it is in your mind, but a dickey nosegear is not something that the services at Sprinbank couldn't handle or for which a burn and trauma unit would be necessary in the mind of anyone whose head wasn't full of LSD or some such thing. Longer runway? Like YYC? You're going to be Gobshite of the Year to the folks there if you come in, skid to a stop in the first 1500 feet, and close their main runway for three or four hours with 8000 totally unnecessary feet of pavement ahead of your collapsed nosegear.

Now a Cessna 310 with a main gear problem is a different kettle of fish. You are going to have a difficult time maintaining directional control, and you have your main fuel tanks on the ends of the wings, one of which is going to be doing a bit of a firedance along the ashphalt. It might take you off the runway, you might hit something and knock that tank loose, and it might be electrical like a runway or taxi light, so I don't dispute an elevated level of emergency service there. Long runway still doesn't come into it though.

No matter what ain't green in the panel, you still shut down and feather when you're in the comfort zone.

No, you don't have to have windmilling props. I guess I should have said mixture, feather. They stop pretty quick when you do that. Certainly by the time the scraping starts if you initiate the sequence at the right time. Single engine, non feathering? Even a cessna 172 without power will stop windmilling at about 20 knots above stall speed, which hopefully will happen in the flare and before touchdown. Well not in a 172 cause it ain't going to have a gear problem. But most high compression engines on retractable gear singles will stop moving very early on in the flare, or even when speed drops below 80 or so.

I'd venture to say that if you were looking to get insurance on a 310 and you told them you'd land with engines under power after a nose gear failure, you wouldn't get insurance and your name would go in some book somewhere. And with good reason.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I do not have a Cessna 310 POH handy but my C340 manual has a section on landing with defective nosegear in the emergency section. It directs the mixtures be selected to idle cutoff but does not require the props to be feathered therefore feathering the props would not be in accordance with the POH emergency procedures. If the prop is a 3 blade like in this example there is no way to avoid having at least one blade hit the runway even if the prop is stopped. It would seem to me if the blade is going to be dragged on the surface it would be better if it were in the unfeathered position and thus bending through the thinest part of the blade rather than edge on resulting in the blade bending through its entire width and therefore presumably placing more bending forces on the prop hub and crankshaft flange