Airworthiness Directive Concerns 2007

[Buell Powell]

Re: Airworthiness Directive Concerns 2007

If this AD is going to require that all Tayorcraft struts either be replaced or have expensive testing every 2 years I would think that if a large number of T/craft owners went together and submitted bids to Univar,Wag-Aero, Aircraft Spruce, and anyone else that could supply the struts for a very large order we should be able to bring the price to within reason. Also we should be able to have them made to the original size-sealed and prehaps made from thicker steel or aluminum (I have original aluminum struts on a Fairchild 24). The Fairchild struts are also open on both ends so moisture can't acumulate and you can see inside the struts even when they are installed on the plane. Also to help with the shipping cost a number of struts could be shipped to one location for those that are in that area. I would much rather keep the struts that I have because like probably every one else I checked them very carefully and sealed them with tubeseal before I installed them and keep my plane in a hanger but I don't like the idea of having to do all the testing and thought there may be a way to help with the expense. Just an idea
Buell

[Grant S. Bailey]

Re: Airworthiness Directive Concerns 2007

Service bulletin issued by Taylorcraft Aviation on April 2nd!!!!! I thought they were done and we were through that chapter in Taylorcraft history???

As for the struts, I had mine lightly blasted prior to epoxy prime and had to scrap my rear struts. The blasting blew several holes through the struts in the bottom 8 inches. Pretty scary.

[cpirrmann]

Re: Airworthiness Directive Concerns 2007

two questions:
Has anyone tried the contact numbers or information in the service bulletin?

Has anyone seen copies of those field reports?

[VictorBravo]

Re: Airworthiness Directive Concerns 2007

Here is the comment letter I sent:

Mr. McAnaul,

Congratulations for stepping into a hornet's nest with regard to the Taylorcraft wing strut questions

My name is Bill Berle and I am one of the group of Taylorcraft owners and enthusiasts who participates in the online discussion forums. I have owned and flown four Taylorcrafts, and although not a licensed mechanic I do consider myself a fairly educated owner and operator of this type aircraft.

First let me say that my personal aircraft would likely not be affected by a service bulletin due to the fact that the front struts had been replaced ten years ago with newly manufactured struts (nose-over incident). My point in contacting you now is to be part of mitigating what was possibly a "grandstand" move for financial gain by the current type certificate holder (whose business practices have caused the closure of the factory and many accusations of fraud and bad faith).

I would ask the FAA to first and foremost ascertain what the statistical data is regarding service difficulties, maintenance issues and failures of wing struts on Taylorcraft airplanes. I think you will find that the Taylorcraft wing strut overall has less problems across the board than most other similar aircraft's struts. Go ahead and take everyone's opinions, needs and wishes OUT of the equation for a moment and generate a "real-world picture" of just how many problems there have been with this aircraft's struts.

If you find that there has been any significant number of inflight failures at all, or any significant number of service difficulties over and above the average for the fleet of old steel tube airplanes, then that's one thing. If there have been fewer problems or failures of Taylorcraft struts than other similar aircraft then that's another thing. Whether the type clubs and owners like it or not, or whether the "factory" is counting how many millions of dollars it will make... has nothing whatsoever to do with the true statistical reality.

AFTER that statistical reality is identified and understood for better or worse, then an appropriate course of action can be determined.

Based on the experiences of more than one Taylorcraft owner and enthusiast in their dealings with the current TC holder, I feel comfortable saying that an unfortunate situation exists where serious doubt has been cast on the credibility of the current TC owner. This adds an unpleasant new wrinkle that can involve the FAA, possibly for the wrong reason. The TC owner's financial maneuverings, his treatment of paying customers, and his business ethics are seen as questionable by a number of people who "live and breathe" Taylorcrafts on a daily basis. The rumors and discussions regarding the TC owner "conjuring up" a not totally above boards maintenance issue (that would result in the sale of several million dollars worth of parts for him) have been going on for some time.

There may be an actual flight safety issue with Taylorcraft struts. There might actually be a statistical record of inflight failures or maintenance issues showing that Taylorcraft struts are more prone to developing corrosion or cracks or some other unsafe situation than Aeronca struts or Piper struts or Stinson struts. That is within your ability to determine, and again I ask that you do so for the sake of air safety.

However there also may NOT be a gremlin lurking in Taylorcraft struts. There MIGHT just be an unscrupulous businessman looking to use the FAA as a tool to generate parts sales. If this is found to be the case, then I would warn the FAA to not become a pawn in that scheme.

The FAA, EAA, AOPA and other entities have recently jointly released a document regarding "best practices for aging aircraft". Since most of these aircraft are 60 years old or more, in 2007 it is certainly to be expected that time will have taken its toll on the wing struts of many old airplanes in addition to the Taylorcraft.

What I do know for sure is that IF there is a higher than normal percentage of problems with Taylorcraft struts, there are several members of the online discussion forum who would work closely with the FAA to come up with realistic solutions. Please learn the facts and understand the previous experiences of owners and operators with respect to the TC holder before relying heavily on him to help you make decisions.

Bill Berle
Taylorcraft N29544 s/n 2387
Whiteman Airport KWHP
Los Angeles

[VictorBravo]

Re: Airworthiness Directive Concerns 2007

Whether the factory is "in business" or not I believe is irrelevant. The holder of the type certificate probably has full authority to issue a SB as far as the FAA is concerned, regardless of whether the TC holder is also producing airplanes or is "dormant" at the time.

Many manufacturers issue SB's and related warnings long after they have stopped actually building certain models.

If I have my facts right, Boeing can issue a SB saying that every DC-3 in the field should have the wings removed and replaced, even though they had nothing to do with the design or construction of the DC-3. Boeing bought McDonnell-Douglas which is what Douglas Aircraft became. Assuming that the DC-3 TC was part of the assets bought by Boeing, Boeing would be seen by the FAA as the factory and entrusted with whatever authority goes along with it.

THEN, if Boeing went bankrupt and Jim Bede bought the DC-3 type certificate on ebay for ten dollars, then Jim Bede could issue another SB requiring immediate removal of the Pratt & Whitney engines and installation of Bede brand liquid fuel rockets... even if Jim Bede was not producing airplanes and happened to be swinging from a tree by his neck with about ten thousand chanting BD-5 customers waving torches at him.

Mr. Ingram, are there any good size trees down there in Brownsville?

[Pearson]

Re: Airworthiness Directive Concerns 2007

Bill,

I think your letter to the FAA is well written and right on. I know it certainly expresses my thoughts on the subject. I hope they will consider what you say when deciding how to handle the sitiuation.

Cheers,

[Richard Boyer]

Re: Airworthiness Directive Concerns 2007

I am a little confused on this.........

A Service Bulletin is somewhat irrelevant. It is just a recomendation. Of course this can lead to an AD, but that is a much bigger step (or it should be!!). There are TONS of Service Bulletins on my Mooney, but far far far fewer AD's.

I recently had a prop governor rebuilt that had a very expensive Service Bulletin on it. I didn't apply it as it was irrelevant to a single engine airplane. The only draw back was that I had to use the term IRAN instead of overhauled/yellow tagged in my logs.

Has there been an inflight breakup of a Taylorcraft due to the "strut problem"? If not, the SB is irrelevant. Having said that, if I had 60 year old struts, I would test them for peace of mind.....

[astjp2]

Re: Airworthiness Directive Concerns 2007

Well if you look at the legal issue of the "Administrator vs. Law" from a couple of years ago, An IA signed off an overhaul of a lycoming O-360 but did not comply with the SB's since the aircraft was being flown part 91. The FAA violated the IA for not complying with the SB's because the Lycoming service manual required that all SB's be complied with during the overhaul. The IA protested to the NTSB and the NTSB upheld the violation....and they also commented that SB's must be complied with when any maintenance is performed.....That was a BIG shocker to even the FAA, which was not thier intent....so the Administrator ruled that SB's were required because of the reference that the IA used for the overhaul, and was not MANDATORY like an AD. It was pretty wild reading about this violation! Just some food for thought...Tim

[Richard Boyer]

Re: Airworthiness Directive Concerns 2007

That is why you mark it as IRAN (Inspect and Repair as Necessary) and not overhauled. Then you avoid the stink.

[Ragwing nut]

Re: Airworthiness Directive Concerns 2007

Well if you look at the legal issue of the "Administrator vs. Law" from a couple of years ago, An IA signed off an overhaul of a lycoming O-360 but did not comply with the SB's since the aircraft was being flown part 91. The FAA violated the IA for not complying with the SB's because the Lycoming service manual required that all SB's be complied with during the overhaul. The IA protested to the NTSB and the NTSB upheld the violation....and they also commented that SB's must be complied with when any maintenance is performed.....That was a BIG shocker to even the FAA, which was not thier intent....so the Administrator ruled that SB's were required because of the reference that the IA used for the overhaul, and was not MANDATORY like an AD. It was pretty wild reading about this violation! Just some food for thought...Tim

The reason I won't touch a Lycoming hardly anymore

Mike

[Ragwing nut]

Re: Airworthiness Directive Concerns 2007

Whether Taylorcraft is "in business" or not, as the TC holder he is required to maintain the TC. If he feels like issuing a bunch of SB's, he can do so. He will have to show a saftey problem to get an AD passed, which usually means someone has to die unfortunately. That is what caused the Piper strut AD

Mike

[Forrest Barber]

Re: Airworthiness Directive Concerns 2007

Right on Bill, I will be talking with the FAA next week for a follow up. WE now know that the Taylorcraft factory is back in business. www.taylorcraft.com
I really would like to see them use the TC and not PMA but oh well , who am I to offer suggestions.

[alwaysoar]

Re: Airworthiness Directive Concerns 2007

We do? Since when? How come, with all the problems we all have heard about? How do we "now know"? What does this mean for the every day Taylorcraft owner?

This is an odd way to find out this kind of information. As I look back through this thread, and others, what I see is a lot of comments like, "stay tuned," or "I'll let you know after SNF." I'm always tuned, but I'm not getting the information. Is there someone in the know out there who can write a synopsis of the factory situation and the lift strut SB? What is the factory going to manufacture? Are they in parts production now? Will the leadership please step up and fill us in. Thanks!

[mhorowit]

Re: Airworthiness Directive Concerns 2007

We can also get rid of them that "rattle" with rust .

I have a strut that if you up-end it, you can hear something (I assume rust flakes) rolling downhill. Is Forrest suggesting those struts get trashed without considering how much damage there is? I'm fully in agreement with checking them with any practical method, but IMHO "rust rattle" is an indicator that further checking is needed, not the signal to toss it - Am I interpreting Forrest incorrectly? - MikeH

[alwaysoar]

Re: Airworthiness Directive Concerns 2007

I just found a small pebble rattling in an aft strut, probably there from some time when it had been stored somewhere w/out the adjustment screw, or whatever. Made a lot of noise. Read what Crispy wrote about checking the drain holes. See if you can get whatever it is near a drain hole and poke around at it. Maybe it would be best if you got them NDT'd.

Ed