What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Prop strike and an AD question

Michael Henning

Well Known Member
Prop strike occurred, insurance mandates a full Tear down and IRAN. Connecting rods are affected by AD (replace at 1500 hours, if removed, cannot be reinstalled, engine has 200 hours). Rods had to be removed for tear down as a result of prop strike, otherwise I would have run them until 1500 hours.
Question is, should insurance cover the cost of new rods? All opinions appreciated.
 
Last edited:
I have no specific experience in this area other than a bit about the claim process in general, but if the rods were not damaged from the prop strike and they were replaced only due to a manufacturing defect, I imagine it will be difficult to get them to cover the cost eventhough they required the teardown. With the teardown, they are just forcing you to use best practices in properly inspecting the engine to reduce further liability. It's not really their fault (i.e. covered area) that the rods were defective and replacing non-defective rods during an IRAN inspection is not a standard practice. Insurance companies tend to follow industry standards when making coverage decisions.

Let us know what they say.

Larry
 
Last edited:
+1. The insurance company will only pay to replace things damaged by the prop strike. So if the connecting rods are damaged, they will pay. If they are defective but not from the prop strike, it is not reasonable to expect them to pay.
 
+1. The insurance company will only pay to replace things damaged by the prop strike. So if the connecting rods are damaged, they will pay. If they are defective but not from the prop strike, it is not reasonable to expect them to pay.


I think Bob is correct. I had some non-strike related items that were discovered during the inspection and I had to pay for them.
 
The rods are fine, until they came off of the engine, as a direct result of prop strike.

That sort of logic is not likely to work. The rods are not fine, they’re defective. Otherwise there would be no A/D. Even if they were damaged by the prop strike, the insurance company might only offer their net value, pro-rated to 1500 hours. Same as they may offer the current, used value of the prop-not the new price.
 
Last edited:
Attorney?

Rods were fine until 1500 hrs, but what made them
Be pulled early ? Prop strike, because if there was no
Prop strike then you would not be changing them out
Earlier
personally I would negotiate a reasonable price
for ?serviceable Rods?if not then bring up
Arbitration for the rods
Bottom line
you bet there would be accident with
Your aircraft and the insurance company
bet there would not
They lost.
 
To me it seems as if it's good practice to replace the rods now but it's not mandatory. Since the engine is torn down on the insurance company's dime, if it were me, I'd spring for the new rods myself and probably not bother them about it. That's a lot cheaper than putting the old rods back in and doing the job over again at your expense in 1,300 hours.

Of course if I were flying 20 hours a year I might have a different point of view....

Dave
 
Seems like they should be covered. IRAN= Inspect and repair as necessary.
Would they not pay for gaskets because they were fine until they were removed and can't be used again? What about the other items that can't be reused?

You paid for insurance to cover your whole plane and engine. Did the policy have an exception for certain parts? Can the engine be reassembled sans rods?
More importantly, will insurance rates increase b/c of the prop strike?

You may need to get more adamant with the adjuster...
-Marc
 
Last edited:
My rates had been going down, but I just renewed, and had a $100 increase. It was a named pilot on my policy. I have taken pilot off the policy. Lesson- don't let anyone fly plane.
 
Last edited:
Seems like they should be covered. IRAN= Inspect and repair as necessary.
Would they not pay for gaskets because they were fine until they were removed and can't be used again? What about the other items that can't be reused?

You paid for insurance to cover your whole plane and engine. Did the policy have an exception for certain parts? Can the engine be reassembled sans rods?
More importantly, will insurance rates increase b/c of the prop strike?

You may need to get more adamant with the adjuster...
-Marc

Yeah right. How about they pay for the replacement of the crankshaft also if it has an AD. Give me a break.
 
Yeah right. How about they pay for the replacement of the crankshaft also if it has an AD. Give me a break.

You darn tootin! ;-) They have to make the insured whole. Right up to the total amount of the coverage.

True story: I had my 2005 /C-172S parked on a ramp at LGB. I came out to fly and there's a big dent in my left wing. Right by the damage are tire tracks that match the fuel truck. The damage lined up with a part on the back of the fuel truck. It was almost $15K to repair. You would think that the insurance would go after the FBO but they didn't - it wasn't worth it.

Now they don't have to give him NEW rods, but whatever is installed has to be serviceable and at least as good as what was there.

-Marc
 
The rods are fine, until they came off of the engine, as a direct result of prop strike.

They are simply not damaged from the prop strike, therefore not covered under your claim. YOU bought an engine with substandard parts. They are just asking you to inspect it. The fact that YOUR relationship with the engine supplier requires YOU to replace them at any teardown is just not their fault. They provide coverage for damage and this simply isn't damage or damage related, anyway you cut it.

This is like saying that the prop strike caused me to lose work pay for a week. An understandable issue and you can ask for reimbursement. However, the fact is that your policy documents don't provide for that. If you look closely at the policy documents, I suspect you will find language like "...labor and replacment parts required to repair damage..." "Damage" will be a defined term that relates to the covered event. The policies are typically pretty clear to eliminate this type of grey area.

A similar example is prop strike requires inspection. Mechanic finds four bad cylinders, unrelated to prop strike, and won't sign off without replacement. Should that be covered under the prop strike event; They demanded the inspection, right? That isn't really fair to the insurance company. The engine clearly had an issue unrelated to the prop strike. Your situation is pretty much the same.
Larry
 
Last edited:
Seems like they should be covered. IRAN= Inspect and repair as necessary.

They require an IRAN inspection to ensure airworthiness, just as they require type training, to reduce their liability. It doesn't mean they will pay for all repairs necessary. Insurance is designed to provide coverage for accidents and their damage. It is not a general warranty. Their obligation ends at work and replacement parts directly due to covered event. In the case of the rods, the tear down simply triggered your AD, which is not really covered. I understand your argument, and I certainly would try to sell it to the adjuster. I am just letting you know that it is not likely to fly.

Larry
 
A similar example is prop strike requires inspection. Mechanic finds four bad cylinders, unrelated to prop strike, and won't sign off without replacement. Should that be covered under the prop strike event; They demanded the inspection, right? That isn't really fair to the insurance company. Your situation is pretty much the same.
Larry

I don't think so and here's why: If you had 4 bad cylinders I agree; they need to be repaired and are not the responsibility of the insurance company. But! in this case he had serviceable rods that had a lot of time left. The prop strike inspection triggered the replacement just the same as it triggered the replacement of the engine gaskets and other parts that were "serviceable" but couldn't be reused. It's not a matter of being "fair" to the insurance company, it's a matter of doing the right thing for the insured.

That's how I see it anyway. I hope it works out for the OP.
-Marc
 
1500 hrs ?

Mike,
Hope this doesn't fall into the dumm question category but ,The project I'm building has the same power plant, a 70's era angle valve, what makes certain parts of what used to be a certified engine have time limited life span ?
My motor has just come back from a propstrike inspection at quite a large sum of $
 
Are experimental engines subject to ADs? I didn't think so. While it may be wise to comply, I don't know that it's mandatory.

Rusty (I could be wrong)
 
Are experimental engines subject to ADs? I didn't think so. While it may be wise to comply, I don't know that it's mandatory.

Rusty (I could be wrong)

I was wondering the same thing. If you were comfortable running till 1500hrs then stick the rods back in and keep going; unless your insurance company requires AD compliance. So do, some don't.
 
Are experimental engines subject to ADs? I didn't think so. While it may be wise to comply, I don't know that it's mandatory.

Rusty (I could be wrong)

No... AD's and SB's only apply to certified engines (in this case). But.. Just because the engine is in an experimental plane that doesn't mean the engine is experimental. If the data tag is not marked EXP it would be subject to AD's. With that said, it would be an unwise decision to not replace the AD'd rods. The cost of a possible engine implosion will be far more expensive.
 
But.. Just because the engine is in an experimental plane that doesn't mean the engine is experimental. If the data tag is not marked EXP it would be subject to AD's.

Wait wait wait...are you saying that if I buy an IO-360, either new from Lycoming or used from someone else or whatever, NOT one marked "YIO", and put it on my RV, then it's not "experimental", thus all the rules and regulations for TC'd engines applies?

Wouldn't that mean that only someone with a "P" (A&P) can do other than minor/routine maintenance on it? That I can't change pieces and parts as I wish? etc.?

I was under the impression that once it's mounted on an E/AB plane, it's "E".
 
No... AD's and SB's only apply to certified engines (in this case). But.. Just because the engine is in an experimental plane that doesn't mean the engine is experimental. If the data tag is not marked EXP it would be subject to AD's. With that said, it would be an unwise decision to not replace the AD'd rods. The cost of a possible engine implosion will be far more expensive.

That's certainly not the way I understand it. I think once the engine is on an experimental aircraft, it is no longer certified. I'm pretty sure it would have to be overhauled by an appropriate mechanic or facility to restore "certified" status.

Cheers,
Rusty
 
If you take a Lycoming O-360-A1A and don't change anything the tag is what the engine is - a Lycoming O-360-A1A. If you take that this same engine and install a set of Lycon 10:1 cylinders this engine is no longer what the tag says it is. The tag is the type certificate for that certified engine, if changed from that it's illegal for certified use. You must stamp EXP on the tag if you change the engine from what it was certified to be (for experimental use). If you install a certified engine and prop on your experimental aircraft the engine and prop does not change. They are still subject to AD's at every annual. Don't forget that an aircraft is A & P not just an airplane. The A airframe of an RV would always be experimental and not subject to AD's but the P powerplant is a different story if you buy a certified engine and prop. Most owners don't know this and I see illegal tags all the time on experimental planes.

In the case of this engine the OP's thread is about, if it were experimental he would not be required to do anything. He could change the prop and go flying, he could use those AD'd rod forever. The key is type certificate.
 
If you take a Lycoming O-360-A1A and don't change anything the tag is what the engine is - a Lycoming O-360-A1A. If you take that this same engine and install a set of Lycon 10:1 cylinders this engine is no longer what the tag says it is. The tag is the type certificate for that certified engine, if changed from that it's illegal for certified use. You must stamp EXP on the tag if you change the engine from what it was certified to be (for experimental use). If you install a certified engine and prop on your experimental aircraft the engine and prop does not change. They are still subject to AD's at every annual. Don't forget that an aircraft is A & P not just an airplane. The A airframe of an RV would always be experimental and not subject to AD's but the P powerplant is a different story if you buy a certified engine and prop. Most owners don't know this and I see illegal tags all the time on experimental planes.

In the case of this engine the OP's thread is about, if it were experimental he would not be required to do anything. He could change the prop and go flying, he could use those AD'd rod forever. The key is type certificate.

Forgetting about ADs (that's another long discussion) applying to experimentals...

I don't think this is true at all. I'm with the other poster...once you hang it on an E/AB, it's experimental. What you have to do with the dataplate, I dunno, but IIRC, by virtue of being installed on an E/AB, it's E.

Perhaps Mel or someone could chime in here.
 
I've been an A&P for a long time. That's the way the rules are. What people do is up to them. A certified part doesn't change because it's location changes.

Maybe it?s time for a refresher course.
Once installed on an EAB, anyone may work on the engine, or modify it. Because of that it may no longer be in conformance with its type certificate, hence not ?certified?. ADs are not mandatory. If the engine is pulled, an appropriately rated person may inspect the engine and, if found in conformance to its TC, it is once again ?certified? and may be installed on a normal catagory airplane. OTOH ?XIO? engines never had any paperwork showing conformance, so they can never be installed on normally certified aircraft.

Same rules for all other parts.
 
Well, it's been a few months since we had this discussion... Should we just provide links to the earlier stuff or do it again and see if the outcome changes?

And for the record, I'm with Bob. A "certified" engine is effectively poisoned the second it flies on an E-AB.
 
Last edited:
There is an EAA webinar about modifying EAB aircraft which includes a discussion about engines. Bob basically nailed it.
 
You all can believe whatever you wish but don't be so sure you're right. I've been down this road with the FAA and they make the rules not the EAA.
 
You all can believe whatever you wish but don't be so sure you're right. I've been down this road with the FAA and they make the rules not the EAA.

Yes, and we all know how they're *always* right and no FSDO ever has a different (or wrong) interpretation of the rules.

q.v., e.g., compass requirements.
 
I've been an A&P for a long time. That's the way the rules are. What people do is up to them. A certified part doesn't change because it's location changes.

Case in point: http://www.superiorairparts.com/xp-series-engine/engine-models/ These are not certified engines nor are they tagged as such

Why is this a "case in point"? As you said...*these are not certified engines*.

We're talking about "certified" engines, a la IO-360, IO-540, etc., with all the paperwork and extra added expense.

NOT something called "Experimental XP-whatever".
 
You all can believe whatever you wish but don't be so sure you're right. I've been down this road with the FAA and they make the rules not the EAA.

I know of cases where FAA Inspectors licensing a homebuilt required the owner to remove the dataplate from the engine and replace it with something homemade because "once the engine was hung on an experimental, it is no longer configuration controlled, and therefore not compliant with its TC". So yeah - believe whatever you want, but it depends what FAA you have gone down the road with.....
 
. So yeah - believe whatever you want, but it depends what FAA you have gone down the road with.....

+1. There's a lot of truth there....

[completely different topic, but when it came to getting a waiver to give type specific training in my RV, I had to educate the local FSDO abut their own rules, and even then, they only said okay after checking with some other FSDO]
 
"once the engine was hung on an experimental, it is no longer configuration controlled, and therefore not compliant with its TC".

I think that's what drives it...sometimes it's "once installed", other times you hear "once *operated*", but bottom line is really once it's on an experimental, it no longer complies with it's type certificate. (I supposed you could install one, then remove it without ever having run it, and might still be certified...maybe).

To RE-certify it, it would have to be inspected by an IA and signed off as being compliant, etc. Others can comment, but that doesn't seem to be a very common path (certified engine -> experimental installation -> REcertification of engine for installation on a TC'd plane).
 
Well with that kind of thinking I guess I can put a non certified engine on, lets say a Comanche, and now the plane is automatically experimental. Or ANY ADS-B on an experimental and it's now no long required to have FAA certification. No, folks you're wrong, but again it don't matter to me what you do.. Unless I'm inspecting it.
 
Well with that kind of thinking I guess I can put a non certified engine on, lets say a Comanche, and now the plane is automatically experimental. Or ANY ADS-B on an experimental and it's now no long required to have FAA certification. No, folks you're wrong, but again it don't matter to me what you do.. Unless I'm inspecting it.

You're just being argumentative. The first situation isn't remotely like what we're talking about, and in the second, ADS-B has got nothing to do with it (and in fact, has *specific* requirements in 91.225, 227, etc....and even then, it may be possible to install NON-TSOd equipment if it meets the performance specs).
 
Well with that kind of thinking I guess I can put a non certified engine on, lets say a Comanche, and now the plane is automatically experimental...

Nope, it's automatically unairworthy - because it no longer conforms to the TC.
 
No... AD's and SB's only apply to certified engines (in this case). But.. Just because the engine is in an experimental plane that doesn't mean the engine is experimental. If the data tag is not marked EXP it would be subject to AD's.

The FAA's legal department has officially addressed both of these issues.

An engine installed in an Experimental aircraft is not certified... regardless of what data tag it has on it.

Which is why AD's don't apply to the engines in experimentals.

You are correct when you say "the FAA makes the rules". The problem is that some of the regional offices don't fully understand the rules (though they may think they do). The thing that matters is what the FAA's legal dept thinks. The have already issued official positions on these issues.
 
Last edited:
David,
The insurance has told me to pound sand on the connecting rods. I have written an appeal email to the adjuster, and have not yet heard back. I have spoken to a friend of mine who is an Aviation Lawyer with 37 years experience, and he said it is a "no brainer", the insurance is on the hook for the rods as they were removed as a "direct " result of the prop strike. If I am told to pound sand again, my friend will take it from there.
My logic is the rods were good until the prop strike rendered them unusable by activating the AD.
 
Last edited:
ECI is the manufacturer. They were sold, so that would be difficult.

Actually it's not. When you buy a company all of it's previous liability comes with it, part and parcel. The acquiring company is equal as responsible as the acquired company.

I think Bob was being sarcastic. The Rod company will laugh harder than the insurance company. It is a well established industry standard in Aviation engines, that the consumer pays for all safety related engineering defects, post warranty. Also, the insurance co. understands that you will invest far more in lawyer fees than the cost of the rods before reaching a settlement. The Insurance company has attorneys on staff to deal with your complaint without incremental cost. You're circumstance are not as "cut and dried" as you think.

Larry
 
Last edited:
My logic is the rods were good until the prop strike rendered them unusable by activating the AD.

I don't believe that logic is sound. Clearly your rods are not good and that is why the manufacturer issued a mandatory replacement. They are a ticking time bomb. The manufacturer clearly believes that 1500 hours is not fully adequate to cover 100% of failures, otherwise they would not have added the requirement to replace at tear down.

Anyway you cut it, you have defective rods that are being replaced because they have a design flaw and will likely or possibly fail, not because you had a prop strike.

I don't mean to harp here, but wanted you to see the counter argument. That is what your lawyer will have to prove is BS to win. You are the plaintiff and are required to prove that your argument has more merit than theirs.

Larry
 
Last edited:
Also, the insurance co. understands that you will invest far more in lawyer fees than the cost of the rods before reaching a settlement. The Insurance company has attorneys on staff to deal with your complaint without incremental cost.

Larry

I disagree, the insurance company will spend a lot more than the value of the rods defending this, and when they lose, they will be on the hook for the plaintiff's legal cost and possibly punitive damages.

Its typical for them to deny coverage initially, then when the claim gets "elevated", cut their losses and settle.
-Marc
 
The rods in question have never failed. There is one part that is not perfectly round that was discovered not through a failure, but a different type of wear. None have failed.
 
Here?s what should happen:
The engine is installed on an RV (right?).
Strictly speaking the AD does not apply.
The insurance company should recommend, in the strongest terms, that you pay for new rods. If you say no, they should ask you to sign a waiver, then re-assemble your engine, with the old rods.
 
I have only carried liability on my -4 the past 29 years. So how will this claim impact further insurance premiums in the case of the prop strike settlement. Will the carrier continue with the customer at former rates or will an increase be a condition for further hull insurance?

Cheers, Hans
 
Back
Top