Cessna 172S N353MV

Summary

On 26 October 2014 at about 18:00 local time, a Cessna 172S registered N353MV, operated by Justice Aviation, Inc., was involved in an accident near Santa Monica, California, United States. 3 people were on board and nobody was injured. The aircraft was substantially damaged. The NTSB has published a probable cause for this accident; it is quoted in full below.

Date

26 October 2014 at 18:00

Classification

Accident

Location

Santa Monica, California, United States

Nearest airport

Santa Monica Muni (SMO)

Coordinates

34.0158, -118.4514

Aircraft

Cessna 172S

Registration

N353MV

Category

Airplane

Year built

2005

Engines

1

Operator

Justice Aviation, Inc.

Operating rule

Part 91: General Aviation

Purpose of flight

Instructional

Phase of flight

Not recorded

Route

Santa Monica → Santa Monica

Aircraft damage

Substantial

Weather

VMC

Light

Day

NTSB number

WPR15LA025

Nobody was injured.

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.

Quoted verbatim from the NTSB record. This site does not paraphrase or interpret it.

Read the full NTSB narrative

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.

Quoted verbatim from the NTSB record.