AdamFrisch
8th Sep 2012, 19:47
I just want to warn everyone of the practices that are going on in silent at Hartzell, aimed at forcing you to upgrade your hubs and props out of sheer greed.
Recently, Hartzell have been issuing frequent Service Bulletins and convinced FAA to issue AD's. They lobby hard that every SB shall become an AD with FAA, so as to force the matter even upon part 91 operators. More are to come. The MO is very simple, they start with the props and hubs that have the least support and base - and where it can be reasonably safe to assume the owners won't put up too much of a stink. Quite similar to the Cessna SID debacle. Or like your garden variety school bully, really. Pick on the smallest you can find.
Many Hartzell props and hubs have recurring AD's. That's normal. But the newly issued SB's forces the overhaul shops that do Hartzell props to comply with a bulletin preventing them from servicing hubs and props in a multiude of series. Now, a SB is not mandatory under part 91 (private use), but it is advisable and often mandatory for commercial use and will probably become an AD sooner rather than later. The SB is not based on any safety issues, as there have been no blade separations recorded, it's just a way to force new sales. Case in point:
My HC-83V20 hubs and props have a 250hr AD and a 500hr AD on them. In April Hartzell published a SB saying that the V and X hubs are no longer serviceable and need to be upgraded to MV hubs. At a cost of about $50-70K for a twin! This affects most Twin Bonanzas, most older Commanders, most Grumman Widgeons, most Navions, most Helio Couriers, most Pilatus P-3's, Saab Safirs, Queen Air's etc. This new hub has a shank removed, so would arguably be more susceptible to blade separation than the earlier ones with two shanks. Now, an SB, as mentioned, doesn't need to be complied with if you find a prop shop that isn't too affiliated with Hartzell - fully legal under FAA. The problem comes when one day it fails inspection. But the real problem comes elsewhere in the world - how are people going to comply in EASA land where everything from the manufacturer is treated as law and gospel? It's a bit like the Cessna SID's - a mild pain for many on the N reg, but an absolute aircraft-ending disaster in EASA land.
Don't feed the monster. There are alternatives out there who don't treat their customers like dumb walking cash machines. Use them if you can.
Recently, Hartzell have been issuing frequent Service Bulletins and convinced FAA to issue AD's. They lobby hard that every SB shall become an AD with FAA, so as to force the matter even upon part 91 operators. More are to come. The MO is very simple, they start with the props and hubs that have the least support and base - and where it can be reasonably safe to assume the owners won't put up too much of a stink. Quite similar to the Cessna SID debacle. Or like your garden variety school bully, really. Pick on the smallest you can find.
Many Hartzell props and hubs have recurring AD's. That's normal. But the newly issued SB's forces the overhaul shops that do Hartzell props to comply with a bulletin preventing them from servicing hubs and props in a multiude of series. Now, a SB is not mandatory under part 91 (private use), but it is advisable and often mandatory for commercial use and will probably become an AD sooner rather than later. The SB is not based on any safety issues, as there have been no blade separations recorded, it's just a way to force new sales. Case in point:
My HC-83V20 hubs and props have a 250hr AD and a 500hr AD on them. In April Hartzell published a SB saying that the V and X hubs are no longer serviceable and need to be upgraded to MV hubs. At a cost of about $50-70K for a twin! This affects most Twin Bonanzas, most older Commanders, most Grumman Widgeons, most Navions, most Helio Couriers, most Pilatus P-3's, Saab Safirs, Queen Air's etc. This new hub has a shank removed, so would arguably be more susceptible to blade separation than the earlier ones with two shanks. Now, an SB, as mentioned, doesn't need to be complied with if you find a prop shop that isn't too affiliated with Hartzell - fully legal under FAA. The problem comes when one day it fails inspection. But the real problem comes elsewhere in the world - how are people going to comply in EASA land where everything from the manufacturer is treated as law and gospel? It's a bit like the Cessna SID's - a mild pain for many on the N reg, but an absolute aircraft-ending disaster in EASA land.
Don't feed the monster. There are alternatives out there who don't treat their customers like dumb walking cash machines. Use them if you can.