ASN Wikibase Occurrence # 290283
This information is added by users of ASN. Neither ASN nor the Flight Safety Foundation are responsible for the completeness or correctness of this information.
If you feel this information is incomplete or incorrect, you can submit corrected information.
| Date: | Sunday 26 October 2014 |
| Time: | 11:00 LT |
| Type: |  Cessna 172S |
| Owner/operator: | Justice Aviation, Inc. |
| Registration: | N353MV |
| MSN: | 172S9908 |
| Year of manufacture: | 2005 |
| Total airframe hrs: | 3544 hours |
| Engine model: | Lycoming IO-360-L2A |
| Fatalities: | Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 3 |
| Aircraft damage: | Substantial |
| Category: | Accident |
| Location: | Santa Monica, California -
 United States of America
|
| Phase: | Take off |
| Nature: | Training |
| Departure airport: | Santa Monica Airport, CA (SMO/KSMO) |
| Santa Monica Airport, CA (SMO/KSMO) | |
| Investigating agency: | NTSB |
| Confidence Rating: |  Accident investigation report completed and information captured |
The flight instructor was conducting a local instructional flight with a pilot-receiving-instruction and one passenger on board. The flight instructor stated that, after completing a normal engine run-up and upon applying full throttle, he heard a loud "bang," followed by a violent vibration. He retarded the throttle back to idle, and the engine stopped producing power. After exiting the airplane, he found that a section of a propeller blade was missing.
Examination of the remainder of the propeller blade revealed that it had failed due to fatigue cracking that had initiated from a preexisting discontinuity (defect) in the blade material. Although the defect was probably related to the blade's initial forging, this could not be confirmed.
The propeller manufacturer had issued a service bulletin (SB) for the accident propeller model and serial number, which recommended additional inspection requirements for propellers installed in aircraft, such as the accident airplane, that are used in flight schools. The SB advised that the propeller should be inspected for cracks and surface discontinuities in the area that the failure occurred every 1,000 hours. A review of the maintenance records revealed that, at the time of the accident, the propeller was about 1,630 hours past the SB-recommended inspection interval.
The propeller owner/operator's information manual required that the entire propeller be checked for corrosion cracks and other damage at each 100-hour and annual inspection and that the propeller be overhauled every 2,000 hours. The maintenance records showed that the airplane's most recent 100-hour inspection occurred slightly more than a month before the blade separation; the surface corrosion should have been visible on the blades at that time; therefore, it is likely that the propeller was not inspected as part of this inspection. Further, at the time of the accident, the propeller was 630 hours past the 2,000-hour time between overhaul interval. If the operator had complied with the manufacturer's maintenance and inspection instructions, the fatigue cracking likely would have been detected before the propeller failure.
Probable Cause: The separation of a section of a propeller blade due to fatigue cracking. Contributing to the accident was the operator's failure to comply with the manufacturer's maintenance and inspection instructions.
Accident investigation:
 |
|
Sources:
NTSB WPR15LA025
Location
Revision history:
| Date/time | Contributor | Updates |
|---|---|---|
| 06-Oct-2022 13:12 | ASN Update Bot | Added |
Corrections or additions? ... Edit this accident description
The Aviation Safety Network is an exclusive service provided by:
Quick Links:
| ASN Home | Send Correction / Feedback |
| FSF Home | Disclaimer | Copyright |
| Contact Us | Privacy Policy |
| Press / Media |
CONNECT WITH US:
©2024 Flight Safety Foundation