{"id":"F2006B06226","name":"AD/PHZL/69 Amdt 2 - Hartzell X and V Shank Propellers","slug":"ad-phzl-69-amdt-2-hartzell-x-and-v-shank-propellers","collection":"legislative_instrument","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":47148,"registerId":"commonwealth-F2006B06226-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-02","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1. Hartzell Propeller Models With Hub Mo","sectionType":"part","heading":"1. Hartzell Propeller Models With Hub Models ( )HC-(1,4,5,8)(2,3)(X,V)( )-( )","content":"# 1. Hartzell Propeller Models With Hub Models ( )HC-(1,4,5,8)(2,3)(X,V)( )-( )\n\n    Initially perform a fluorescent dye penetrant and eddy current inspection of the blade, an optical comparator inspection of the blade retention area, a dye penetrant inspection of the blade internal bearing bore, and a visual and magnetic particle inspection of the blade clamp and of the hub.\n\n    b. Perform repetitive fluorescent dye penetrant and eddy current inspection of the blade, an optical comparator inspection of the blade retention area, and a visual and magnetic particle inspection of the blade clamp.\n\n    c. Perform a repetitive visual and magnetic particle inspection of the hub.\n\n    d. Perform repetitive dye penetrant inspections of the blade internal bearing bore.\n\n    e. Shot peen the propeller blade shank area in accordance with Hartzell SB No. HC-SB-61-217, Revision 2, dated October 7 1999.","sortOrder":0},{"sectionNumber":"2. Hartzell Propeller Models With Hub Mo","sectionType":"part","heading":"2. Hartzell Propeller Models With Hub Models ( )HC-(A,D)(2,3)(X,V)( )-( ), and HA-A2V20-1B, Except HC-A3VF-7( )","content":"# 2. Hartzell Propeller Models With Hub Models ( )HC-(A,D)(2,3)(X,V)( )-( ), and HA-A2V20-1B, Except HC-A3VF-7( )\n\n    Initially perform a fluorescent dye penetrant and eddy current inspection of the blade, an optical comparator inspection of the blade retention area, a visual and magnetic particle inspection of the blade clamp, and a dye penetrant inspection of the blade internal bearing bore.\n\n    b. Perform repetitive fluorescent dye penetrant and eddy current inspection of the blade, an optical comparator inspection of the blade retention area, and a visual and magnetic particle inspection of the blade clamp.\n\n    c. Perform repetitive dye penetrant inspections of the blade internal bearing bore.\n\n    d. Shot peen the propeller blade shank area in accordance with Hartzell SB No. HC-SB-61-217, Revision 2, dated October 7 1999.","sortOrder":1},{"sectionNumber":"3. Hartzell Propeller Models with Hub Mo","sectionType":"part","heading":"3. Hartzell Propeller Models with Hub Models HC-A3VF-7( )","content":"# 3. Hartzell Propeller Models with Hub Models HC-A3VF-7( )\n\n    Initially perform a fluorescent dye penetrant and eddy current inspection of the blade, an optical comparator inspection of the blade retention area, a visual and magnetic particle inspection of the blade clamp, and a dye penetrant inspection of the blade internal bearing bore.\n\n    b. Perform fluorescent dye penetrant and eddy current inspection of the blade, an optical comparator inspection of the blade retention area, and a visual and magnetic particle inspection of the blade clamp.\n\n    c. Perform dye penetrant inspections of the blade internal bearing bore.\n\n    d. Shot peen the propeller blade shank area in accordance with Hartzell SB No. HC-SB-61-217, Revision 2, dated October 7 1999.\n\nNote 4: FAA AD 97-18-02R1 Amendment 39-13212 refers.","sortOrder":2},{"sectionNumber":"Compliance: 1. Hartzell Propeller Models","sectionType":"part","heading":"Compliance: 1. Hartzell Propeller Models With Hub Models ( )HC-(1,4,5,8)(2,3)(X,V)( )-( )","content":"# Compliance: 1. Hartzell Propeller Models With Hub Models ( )HC-(1,4,5,8)(2,3)(X,V)( )-( )\n\n    Unless previously accomplished in accordance with Hartzell SB No. HC-SB- 61-217, Revision 1 or 2, prior to further flight.\n\n    b. At intervals not to exceed 500 hours propeller Time In Service (TIS) or 60 calendar months, whichever occurs first, since last inspection.\n\n    c. At intervals not to exceed 250 hours propeller TIS or 60 calendar months, whichever occurs first, since last inspection.","sortOrder":3}],"analysis":{"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":7,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"This Amendment remains focused on addressing the original safety issue reported by the manufacturer (blade/hub/clamp cracking and blade separations). It tightens and formalises inspection and treatment requirements (more frequent checks, specific inspection techniques, and a shot‑peening remedy) rather than expanding the regulation to unrelated matters. In other words, it narrows and intensifies the maintenance regime around the same underlying hazard rather than materially changing the legislation's substantive scope beyond that original safety purpose."},"complexity_factors":["Three separate propeller/hub model groups with different procedural requirements","Multiple inspection methods required (fluorescent dye penetrant, eddy current, optical comparator, visual inspection, magnetic particle inspection, dye penetrant of internal bore)","Different recurring intervals across groups (examples: 250 hours TIS, 500 hours TIS, 3,000 hours TIS and a common 60 calendar month cap)","Conditional language referencing prior compliance with Hartzell SB No. HC‑SB‑61‑217 Revision 1 or 2 (exceptions for 'unless previously accomplished')","Cross‑references to an external service bulletin (HC‑SB‑61‑217) including specific revision dates and to FAA AD 97‑18‑02R1","Procedural requirement (shot‑peening) tied to a specific service bulletin revision and to conditional repair/ wear states","Effective date specified (25 Dec 2003) and background material about reduced TBO that affects maintenance planning"],"plain_english_summary":"**What this instrument does (mechanics)\n\n- It requires owners/operators of specific Hartzell propeller models to carry out a set of initial and recurring inspections and, in many cases, a shot‑peening treatment of the blade shank area.  The inspections named are: fluorescent dye penetrant, eddy current, optical comparator of the blade retention area, dye penetrant of the blade internal bearing bore, and visual plus magnetic particle inspection of the blade clamp and hub.  The shot‑peening must be done in accordance with Hartzell Service Bulletin HC‑SB‑61‑217 (Revision 2, 7 Oct 1999).\n\n- The rule is split into three groups of propeller/hub model combinations. Each group has slightly different repeating intervals and some small procedural differences (for example, one group has longer hours between certain inspections).\n\n- It cross‑references Hartzell Service Bulletin HC‑SB‑61‑217 (Revision 1 and 2) and notes FAA AD 97‑18‑02R1. The amendment became effective 25 December 2003.\n\nWho is affected\n\n- Aircraft owners and operators who use the listed Hartzell propeller models fitted to piston‑engine aircraft. That includes private owners, charter operators, maintenance organisations that service these propellers, and any third parties contracted to perform the inspections or shot‑peening.\n\nWhy it matters (the stated rationale and practical consequence)\n\n- Stated rationale: the manufacturer reported several blade separations caused by cracks in hubs, blades or blade clamps and has said cracks are difficult to detect. To address that risk, the manufacturer reduced the Time Between Overhaul (TBO) for certain models and introduced extra inspection procedures. The Directive enforces those inspection and treatment requirements.\n\nPractical effects, incentives and trade‑offs\n\n- Who pays: the aircraft owner/operator pays for inspections, non‑destructive testing (eddy current, dye penetrant), shot‑peening, any repairs or part replacements, and for aircraft downtime while work is performed.\n\n- Who decides/implements: maintenance organisations and certificated repair stations perform the inspections and shot‑peening; compliance is demonstrated by following the specified Hartzell service bulletin revisions and the inspection intervals set out in the Directive.\n\n- Behavioural change: operators will have to increase inspection frequency, submit blades/hubs to more detailed non‑destructive testing, and have the blade shank area shot‑peened where required. Operators may also choose to accelerate overhauls, replace propellers with different models, or retire aircraft if running costs rise.\n\n- Costs vs benefits: the rule aims to reduce the safety risk of blade separation by catching cracks earlier and by applying a fatigue‑mitigating shot‑peen treatment. The direct costs are inspection labour, specialised testing (eddy current, optical comparator), shot‑peening, parts and possible downtime. Indirect costs include scheduling complexity and potential scarcity of shops with appropriate capability. Those costs are concentrated on the operators of affected propellers; the safety benefit is concentrated on users and third parties that would be endangered by blade separation.\n\nImplementation risk and compliance burden\n\n- Complexity of compliance: multiple inspection methods and different repeat intervals across three model groups increase administrative burden for maintenance planning. The requirement to follow a particular service bulletin and to refer to particular revisions creates dependence on those documents and on authorised maintenance facilities able to meet them.\n\n- Capacity risk: eddy current testing, optical comparator work and proper shot‑peening require specialised equipment and trained personnel; limited local availability could increase aircraft downtime.\n\n- Enforcement and proof: compliance is demonstrated by completing the mandated inspections and treatments in accordance with the cited service bulletin revisions and recording the work in maintenance logs.\n\nConcrete trade‑offs and opportunity costs\n\n- Operators face a choice between (a) paying recurring inspection and treatment costs to keep existing propellers in service, (b) replacing propellers with models not subject to the same requirements (if compatible), or (c) retiring or reducing use of affected aircraft. Those choices affect operating costs, residual aircraft value and scheduling.\n\n- The Directive lowers the operator’s risk of an undetected crack by increasing inspection frequency and mandating a remedial (shot‑peen) process, at the expense of higher maintenance costs and increased downtime.\n\nRelevant sections: the substantive requirements are set out in the three model group blocks (labelled 1–3) and their corresponding Compliance paragraphs; the shot‑peen prescription references Hartzell SB No. HC‑SB‑61‑217 (Rev. 2)."},"flash_summary_failed":{"failed":true,"reason":"A positive credit balance is required for all requests, including BYOK, so fallback providers remain available. Add credits at https://vercel.com/d?to=%2F%5Bteam%5D%2F%7E%2Fai%3Fmodal%3Dtop-up to continue.","source":"analysis-cron"},"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":4,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"This amendment maintains the original safety purpose of the Airworthiness Directive — preventing propeller blade failures through enhanced inspection and modification requirements. The scope remains tightly focused on the specific Hartzell propeller models identified as having crack-prone components."},"complexity_factors":["Three distinct propeller model groups with different inspection intervals and requirements","Cross-references to external manufacturer documents (Hartzell Service Bulletin HC-SB-61-217, Revisions 1 and 2)","Multiple inspection methodologies specified (fluorescent dye penetrant, eddy current, optical comparator, magnetic particle, visual)","Conditional compliance language ('unless previously accomplished', 'whichever occurs first')","Nested exceptions within model categories (e.g., 'Except HC-A3VF-7')","Mixed time-based and flight-hour-based compliance intervals (calendar months vs. Time In Service hours)","Specific reference to FAA AD 97-18-02R1 for additional context"],"plain_english_summary":"This AD mandates enhanced non‑destructive inspections (dye‑penetrant, eddy‑current, magnetic‑particle, optical comparator and visual) and required shot‑peening of certain Hartzell X‑ and V‑shank propellers to detect and arrest cracks that have caused blade separations. It affects owners/operators of piston‑engine aircraft with the listed Hartzell hubs; shot‑peening is required before further flight and inspections recur every 250–3,000 flight hours or up to 60 months, by model."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/ad-phzl-69-amdt-2-hartzell-x-and-v-shank-propellers","history":"/api/acts/ad-phzl-69-amdt-2-hartzell-x-and-v-shank-propellers/history","analysis":"/api/acts/ad-phzl-69-amdt-2-hartzell-x-and-v-shank-propellers/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/ad-phzl-69-amdt-2-hartzell-x-and-v-shank-propellers/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/ad-phzl-69-amdt-2-hartzell-x-and-v-shank-propellers/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/ad-phzl-69-amdt-2-hartzell-x-and-v-shank-propellers/documents"}}