I'm certainly not the expert on this, but why would a teardown be "mandatory" when the engine wasn't running? The purpose of the teardown is to find out if an internal engine part was damaged by the sudden torsional impact due to due to a prop strike. In this case there was no internal movement and therefore no reason to look into the engine. I would think that a check of the flange runout should be all that is required. (and I also just got a call like that. Shorter story, but
similar)
Gary Casey
ES 157, now with a damaged nose wheel pant
The line crew was moving the airplane to another tie down after I had departed the FBO. Apparently they attempted to pull the ship onto the nose gear platform of the tug with the propeller lower blade in a near vertical position. As they winched the plane on to the machine the propeller contacted some structure on the machine. They kept pulling until they realized (too late) that something was
wrong.
The attached picture is the type of tug involved but not the specific model.
One does not really want to get a call from an FBO beginning with "there is a problem with your airplane."
David
Propeller Vs. tug. Tug wins!
Time since new 260 hours. Propeller repair/over haul starting at around $2,000 could be very much higher. Engine tear down inspection and mandatory replacement parts starting at $10,000
could be very much higher not counting removal and re installation and shipping. Down time 4 weeks minimum. No lawyers involved, yet.