But a SL is not mandatory MooneyDriver – unless your CAA makes it so.
Hartzell has now also invalidated the private ops beyond TBO (kalendar) for a variety of their props, which is why I have to overhaul my prop every 6 years now regardless of the time actually flown.
With the explanation that there was no FAA or other government AD, the details of what the prop shop and Hartzell wanted to do after they received the prop appear irrelevant in relation to the original quote from Mooney Driver. Hartzell has no legal authority over private property, so they can’t validate or invalidate operation of anything. Unless the Swiss government forced compliance with a service bulletin recommending a 6-year overhaul cycle, the prop shop would never have seen the prop. Hartzell may or may not be the best in their business conduct, but its not their doing if self-serving service bulletins are made mandatory by foreign governments outside of either Hartzell or FAA control.
I agree that once the prop is in the shop all kinds of coercion can take place. When my MT was overhauled, the (factory affiliated) prop shop refused to do the job without sending the hub off to be machined for a new type of seals. This was not an AD, and there was no paper trail I’m aware of. The legality of machining an existing certified hub without giving it and maybe the assembly a new (government approved/certified) part number is beyond me. The prop was just “overhauled” according their maintenance logbook entry. I think they just ‘do it’… and it seems to work fine. No leaks so far where the previous MT seal design was problematic.
Mooneydriver,
My point is that there is no TBO (hours or years) on the MT props, so you per difinition operate it on condition. I would therefore assume that can be operated as such within all the juristictions that have approved it?
Probably a question to ask MT.
At least on my Hartzell Prop on HB reg I can ignore the calendar TBO limit for private ops, but not the hours TBO limit.
I considered replacing the 2 blade Hartzell with a 3 blade MT, but while climb would be somewhat improved, cruise would suffer by 7 kts, so that even though they have an STC, MT strongly recommended against that.
mmgreve, it’s not true MTs do not have TBO limits, see eg here. I’m pretty sure in HB reg you’d have to obey at least the hourly TBO limit.
tom
check with your maintenance organisation. I can only repeat what I said: I was told that Hartzell has indeed made the 6 year calendar limit obligatory and we confirmed with the FOCA that I have to send my prop for revision. Therefore the FOCA has declared this SL as binding. Or you have a prop which is not affected by it.
Also, this is relatively new, as of end 2013. My maintenance shop discovered it when doing my 100 hrs yearly check. We had one year left to go at that time, which now expires.
MT Propeller, who are a prop overhaul shop as well as a manufacturer told me the exactly same thing. I suppose they know what they are talking about. According to them, it is for everyone, so at least also valid in Germany.
Urs,
at the risk of sounding like a broken record…I would know of numerous reasons why you should have gone N-reg (and saved $$$$$) when you got that plane…. 
Urs, welcome to a European reg.
Silvaire,
With the explanation that there was no FAA or other government AD, the details of what the prop shop and Hartzell wanted to do after they received the prop appear irrelevant in relation to the original quote from Mooney Driver. Hartzell has no legal authority over private property, so they can’t validate or invalidate operation of anything.
I don’t know what the implications are in the US and for N-Reg airplanes. What I was told is, that Hartzell no longer RECOMMEND but MANDATE the calendar limit. The change in wording in the service letter has obviously led to it becoming obligatory here. The person I talked to from MT told me that this service letter and it’s implications have caused quite a frustration and anger not only in Europe but elsewhere as well. Whether in the US, like Adam said, Hartzell now uses other strategies to pull this one through or whether it is simply ignored there, I don’t know. According to the specialists here, the instruction leaves no room for interpretation whatsoever. So the question would be, what would the legal implications be, if a thus overtime prop would fail in the US and cause damage of any kind. Would your insurance cover claim you violated an instruction by the manufacturer which makes you grossly negligent? I also don’t know if Hartzell seeks to turn this into an official AD in the US, as they have done with the hubs Adam mentions. I have one of those affected and the check costs about 300$ each year.
If this goes any further I will start a Hartzell thread
If this is not an AD it is not binding on a Part 91 N-reg.
What happens in Europe is a separate thing. The CAAs can do what they like and the prop shops can do what they like. For example I am very familiar with a fairly big maintenance company which does turboprops and they absolutely refuse to implement Part 91. They always do the full MM, cover to cover (and unlike many they do actually do it all) and their reason is that they are in business to make money.
What I have come across, on my 3B prop, is that if two or more blades have to be removed for repair, the hub has to be scrapped. That is in the MM which I guess is FAA approved. NDT of the hub is not good enough. It costs £2.5k (10 years ago, so more now). I don’t know whether a maintenance shop has discretion on this. I know a guy in the US who runs a forum for a certain aircraft type and he says the CMM (component maintenance manual) has to be followed, with no exceptions. I do know he makes up a lot these interpretations but there may be some truth in it. For example a prop shop is clearly not allowed to hack the last 100mm off the end of each blade ( following a prop strike) and decide using their own A&P authority that that is OK….
check with your maintenance organisation
I did, also around 2013 timeframe. If your maintenance organisation told you this, I’d seriously start asking questions there.
