Caution : Older type 2-blade Bolly prop hubs.

[facthunter]

That's very reasonable of them Ross. So ALL's well and the processes were worked through as they should be. Regards Nev

 

 

[fly_tornado]

is Jabiru listening? Taking decisive action like this is a great way to inspire confidence in buying Bolly props.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

is Jabiru listening? Taking decisive action like this is a great way to inspire confidence in buying Bolly props.

Sure is...I think Peter and his team are really trying and I am happy to continue recommending and supporting their Aussie products whenever I get the opportunity.

 

 

[Oscar]

Lucky for them they use cast and forged, not billet, manufacture then. Oh, wait....

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Lucky for them they use cast and forged, not billet, manufacture then. Oh, wait....

Billet on a prop hub is not subjected to anywhere near the same heat stress as it would be say on an engine case.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Billet on a prop hub is not subjected to anywhere near the same heat stress as it would be say on an engine case.

As far as I know, which is largely based on assumption admittedly, they use billet 6061T6. However they have a remarkable history of safe operation and hso is the foundation on which Experimental aircraft are built.

 

I'd certainly agree that forged castings might be better but if the billet is working fine why go to the additional expense? High costs are already killing us, why add more to the costs, when what we have is already working well?

 

The hub that is the subject of this thread appears to have worked fine for a good and long life, then showed that it's tired and 'had it' without failing and shedding a blade. Who could ask for anything more?

 

Also I don't think Bolly needed to have replaced it after all these years but it does show their good faith and determination to protect their brand. All kudos to them.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Quite amazing.....heaps of negativity from some when I initially shared this problem on this site.....for safety reasons.

 

When things turn out successfully it it should thanks to the boys at Bolly...very little comment (0r thanks) from those same detractors, and the thread rapidly disappears.

 

Where are our priorities here ......?.......thanks for those who supported the thread and the safe way to do things.

 

And you wonder why only a couple of board members take the time to share info on here.

 

 

[facthunter]

You have to work with what you have, not what you want. ( That's with people, not aeroplanes. People are the hardest ) Nev

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

I think people aren't clear on business responsibility.....If I buy business X Props Pty Ltd as a going concern then in addition to the going concern I also now own all previous warranty and liability for everything the business has produced in its lifetime unless that is specifically excluded from the sale and even then you may still be exposed if the previous owner doesn't honour the agreement...By that I mean that if the original owner still owned the business and someone felt the need to sue him to do or make good Y and they would be successful in court then as a subsequent owner I have exactly the same exposure. The fact that Bolly has changed hands probably means exactly zero to their exposure....

 

However if they buy the Assets of the business ( and as such don't buy it as a going concern and don't buy the goodwill in the business) and start over using a different name or even close to the same name ACME pty Ltd trading as X Props for example then in that case, generally the obligations of the previous business are ruled off and you start again.....

 

Look at Ozito Power tools...sold with a lifetime guarantee, but the business closes down after 5 years and then a phoenix arises from the ashes trading as Ozito power tools ....no previous warranty obligations honoured......

 

 

[jetjr]

They had no responsibility to do anything much, yet they supplied new unit. Great support and was what a few expected

 

Claims of responsibility and what would happen in court actions, rarely gets what you want.

 

By doing what was suggested here, your customer got a new hub, good outcome.

 

No one was negative except for the way you publicised the problem without even talking to them.

 

Maj, what do you want people to say?

 

Had you submitted required info and talked to manufacturer first, their name would not be associated FOREVER (via google search) with a hub failure.

 

 

[facthunter]

Jet I don't think that is a "reasonable " option. A history of service problems is what determines inspections and life expectancy, in the field. Even IF a new part is supplied free, the report should be made, for someone responsible to inform other users of required inspections /replace hours. If I was operating one of those props I wouldn't like to be kept in the dark of a cracking event. I think the prop has done good service, but no doubt the later ones are better. There aren't many metal props that don't crack after a while due to the nature of the job they do. I know we are only talking about the hub here which is the only metal part. You would also not know if it was ever overtensioned at ANY time during it's life. Nev

 

 

[jetjr]

Always suggested the defect should be reported, but suggested contacting maker before unofficially reporting on the website forums

 

If theres a serious issue it will come out - after assessment - from either CASA, manufacturer or RAA

 

Just tired of trial by internet. Mostly with a portion of the facts and these partial accounts, correct or not, sticks around for life

 

 

[facthunter]

I think you will find reporting is sort of "mandated". "Any person observing... hazard to aviation must .. report. If you are in the business of servicing an aircraft and something has cracked it would be illegal not to report it.

 

Trial by internet happens if rumour and incorrect info are put about, and the best cure is facts..

 

There are cracks all the time in aircraft components.. Sometimes you drill a hole to reduce the rate of travel and other times you inspect and set a time to next inspection. It depends where it is and how far it's gone . You do it from reference material from the manufacturer or an authority, not how your purse is Nev

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Regardless of how things were done...and I'll stand by my methods ultimately, the final outcome is the way it should have panned out. The owners is happy, the manufacturers is happy, the Tech manager is happy and we have all been made aware of a potential future problem.

 

As FH has pointed out, I am required to file a defect report as an L2 doing the inspection, and this was expected of me by the hub owner.

 

Had I only contacted the manufacturer there are many who may not now be aware of the potential problem. They possible view it as a onetime thing, ( which it may be) and may or may not have made a big deal about it. The contact with the manufacturer was made as was appropriate by our Tech manager, which really is his job in this instance, not mine. We now have the whole thing in our safety statistics system, and if another pops up we'll then have a trend.

 

There can be no grey area with props....way too serious an outcome if they fail. They must be 100%.

 

 

[jetjr]

No one said you shouldnt report it as required,

 

Not sure how else to say it....

 

All my comments were about posting info on online forums.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Jetjr understand your point re potential damage to a supplier, and personally, if there was no chance of someone being killed/injured/ or even just suffering economically would agree to try and do everything to not damage someone's business reputation even peripherally...... That however was not the case and I believe Ross acted appropriately. He did nothing in his original post except post photos and facts as he knew them. He posed no personal judgement on the supplier current or previous owners and asked only that people do what was prudent and necessary to protect their own interests.

 

Anyone who has been around the internet for any time now knows that if you search for a supplier name and keywords like "problems" "issues" "poor service" etc knows you'll get hits. The internet is merely a way of giving everyone a voice cost effectively.....So, as a researcher of a supplier your task is to sort out the quantum of issues and to determine if the complaints present are reasonable/expected or unreasonably high and in turn if the supplier acted reasonably towards the original reporter.

 

In this case I presume the supplier has understood this and in my opinion gone well beyond what is reasonable to make good.......I personally noted that so that tells me 2 things. 1) Bolly as a supplier is likely to be a good experience when it comes to support and after sales service, and 2) posting to the internet with facts and photos in addition to hopefully preventing someone killing themselves, is a good way to get something beyond what you might reasonably expect.....Its then up to your own ethics/morals as to whether you accept or try and move things back to a middle ground position......

 

imho, Goodonya Ross!

 

BTW Ross.....I'm astounded at the quality of some of the existing Bolts/Nuts etc.....for something that is safety critical they sure have degraded a lot in the last 100 hours...... Makes me wonder what the rest of the aircraft looks like! Hopefully its just bad photos and the real things don't look as though the entire cad plating was gone years back....

 

 

[Nobody]

This discussion gives an interesting perspective on what we expect from the manufacturers of parts for our aircraft. In this instance a long time ago they sold a prop. It appears to have worked successfully for many years on a number of aircraft. There appears to be no propeller logbook to confirm exact time in service but it has been used for over 1000 hours, in obviously aggressive corrosion conditions by looking at the bolts. Are they really expected to replace the hub without charge after all this time? I am all for manufacturers replacing things that are defective but is this the case here? Do you take a tooth brush back to the shop after 6 months and ask for a new one?

 

 

[facthunter]

I agree the maker was not obligated to make a replacement. He has no control over the use it is subject to. Twin two strokes don't balance perfectly, and that transmits loads to the prop and it's done over 3x the legal life of the engine.. I wouldn't think this prop owed anyone anything. At least this might make people more inclined to inspect their props before each flight which should be the norm and do it more carefully if your plane has a pusher installation, as it can cut the plane in half. Nev

 

 

[dazza 38]

After reading this whole thread, I think Bolly has been outstanding with their customer service, going above and beyond what is expected. They would definitely be my first contact if I was looking for a prop.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Jetjr understand your point re potential damage to a supplier, and personally, if there was no chance of someone being killed/injured/ or even just suffering economically would agree to try and do everything to not damage someone's business reputation even peripherally...... That however was not the case and I believe Ross acted appropriately. He did nothing in his original post except post photos and facts as he knew them. He posed no personal judgement on the supplier current or previous owners and asked only that people do what was prudent and necessary to protect their own interests.Anyone who has been around the internet for any time now knows that if you search for a supplier name and keywords like "problems" "issues" "poor service" etc knows you'll get hits. The internet is merely a way of giving everyone a voice cost effectively.....So, as a researcher of a supplier your task is to sort out the quantum of issues and to determine if the complaints present are reasonable/expected or unreasonably high and in turn if the supplier acted reasonably towards the original reporter.

 

In this case I presume the supplier has understood this and in my opinion gone well beyond what is reasonable to make good.......I personally noted that so that tells me 2 things. 1) Bolly as a supplier is likely to be a good experience when it comes to support and after sales service, and 2) posting to the internet with facts and photos in addition to hopefully preventing someone killing themselves, is a good way to get something beyond what you might reasonably expect.....Its then up to your own ethics/morals as to whether you accept or try and move things back to a middle ground position......

 

imho, Goodonya Ross!

 

BTW Ross.....I'm astounded at the quality of some of the existing Bolts/Nuts etc.....for something that is safety critical they sure have degraded a lot in the last 100 hours...... Makes me wonder what the rest of the aircraft looks like! Hopefully its just bad photos and the real things don't look as though the entire cad plating was gone years back....

Andy, We operate in a coastal area and this prop had a spinner. Yes obviously the hardware is now u/s and will be replaced. Some owners aren't as vigilant as they should be at times. The same hardware may well have been serviceable 100 hours ago.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

After reading this whole thread, I think Bolly has been outstanding with their customer service, going above and beyond what is expected. They would definitely be my first contact if I was looking for a prop.

And that in a nutshell is why I see this whole exercise as being very positive in my opinion.

I know of at least one local customer who is also ordering a new Bolly.

 

Bolly have indicated that this particular prop hub was made before they purchased the current company, and that there could be more out there like it. So keep checking those older Bollys folks.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

This discussion gives an interesting perspective on what we expect from the manufacturers of parts for our aircraft. In this instance a long time ago they sold a prop. It appears to have worked successfully for many years on a number of aircraft. There appears to be no propeller logbook to confirm exact time in service but it has been used for over 1000 hours, in obviously aggressive corrosion conditions by looking at the bolts. Are they really expected to replace the hub without charge after all this time? I am all for manufacturers replacing things that are defective but is this the case here? Do you take a tooth brush back to the shop after 6 months and ask for a new one?

By bringing this to the manufacturers attention I or the owner were not at anytime requesting a replacement. Bolly took it upon themselves to make the offer of a replacement in this case. The offer has been gratefully accepted...thank you Bolly. You have shown great goodwill and integrity as a supplier as I see it.

 

 

[old man emu]

Well, procedures have been followed and RAAus has been formally informed. Bolly is aware of the matter.

 

My questions are:

 

1. Does CASA know about this in case there are any of these props on VH registered aircraft?

 

2. Has RAAus issued any sort of warning bulletin for the information of people who do not use this forum?

 

OME

 

 

[DrZoos]

Thanks Maj...this in no way tarnishes my view on Bolly or any other props

 

But it certainly highlights the fact I might pull my spinner off every 25 hours and take a good look

 

Good educational post thanks ...there should be a lot more of this...I dont see it as a name and shame...its very educational to those of us that have far less experience than some.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Tha

 

Thanks Maj...this in no way tarnishes my view on Bolly or any other propsBut it certainly highlights the fact I might pull my spinner off every 25 hours and take a good look

 

Good educational post thanks ...there should be a lot more of this...I dont see it as a name and shame...its very educational to those of us that have far less experience than some.

Thanks Dr Zoos.......your welcome.