Strut Airworthiness Directive (AD) (merged VI)

[Frank DeBartolo]

Re: Strut Airworthiness Directive (AD) (merged V)

This is a reply to Sabrina.

As I understand the AD, we have five hours of service from August 20 to get a visual test and after that we can go (fly as many hours as we want) till November 20 to either get the approved sealed struts installed or get either the eddy current test or the Ultra sound test. If someone sees it different let us or me know.

N43684
Frank D

[flymac]

Re: Strut Airworthiness Directive (AD) (merged V)

this is bogis and if we dont stick together so poor guys probley going to crash due to a out of rig bird . the punch test is far better or the drill a hole and useing boroscope . taylorcraft inc not going to see my 4000 dollers .
and if its not bogis how come the bigest suppler of aircraft parts are not on the ad unavair? dam after all taylorcraft was belly up this summer .







mac mcfarland
40 bc65 tcraft n26633
rand kr2 n1055a

[Forrest Barber]

Re: Strut Airworthiness Directive (AD) (merged V)

HE is watching and WE need to respond with facts and good data to him I have posted everything that I can and MORE so ! and still get blasted that we did not issure notice to the owners..... only about 25% of the owners BELONG to the Foundation or Owner's Club. Tune in and listen up; also if your own IA did not contact you then shame on him!!i

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: Strut Airworthiness Directive (AD) (merged V)

Then he should have made at least one post on this Forum to say he is watching, and he is going to consider everyone's viewpoint.

(made a small edit, hopefully without changing your meaning)

He may not have been "allowed" to respond on a web site. I was doing military work and I wasn't, but I don't know the restrictions he is under. (There were a few times I was ASKED by officials to talk to the press. I HATED that! They ALWAYS screwed up the quotes!)
I'm going to wait patiently too, and hope my faith in the system is justified. I have a great recipe for BBQ crow if I am wrong. I have had it before, and it isn't my favorite food, but I'm sure I will have it in the future. Needs a good BBQ sauce.
Hank

[taylorcraftbc65]

Re: Strut Airworthiness Directive (AD) (merged V)

I have a question guys. I have been traveling around a LOT the last three months, and try as hard as I might, I can't stay on top of the developments of this strut AD thread.
WHEN do I have to start spending a TON of money to either routenely X-ray my struts, or go out to Univair and BUY a set. I'm not going to be able to afford new struts till late next year.
I went and tapped on the struts with a wrench, and no thuds, then an IA friend of mine (who smells a rat in the woodpile) did the Maule test on both struts, and they checked out fine.
Is it true that after the end of September we can put another five hours on the planes, and still be legal? Talk about the REVERSE of "pencil time" in a logbook.
Manu Sina is being annualed as I speak, and that should hold me till I can afford the new univair struts. Brie

[VictorBravo]

Re: Strut Airworthiness Directive (AD) (merged V)

I'm SURE he wants to give the STRAIGHT skinny and the correct answers in the timeliest manner.

Guys, it JUST ISN’T DONE that way!

we need to give him some breathing room.
Hank

Then he should have at least shown that he wants to operate in good faith, made at least one post on this Forum to say he is watching, and he is going to consider everyone's viewpoint, and he does understand there may be better NDT and that he does understand the concerns about how the factory ramrodded a faulty SB down the FAA's throat, and he WILL get with us as soon as it is feasible to do so. THAT would have saved a lot of ranting (especially on my part).

Hank if you say wait it out then I will cheerfully show you the respect you have earned and give it a little time, but the fact is it would not have taken much for the FAA to at least dispel most of the fears without showing their cards if they HAD to not show them.

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: Strut Airworthiness Directive (AD) (merged V)

As a retired government engineer who did a couple of decades of crash investigations for the Navy (I know that is a "little" different than here) I can tell you there are a LOT of incentives for the engineer to WAIT before he tells all and almost none to give the world a "blow-by-blow".
I'm SURE he wants to give the STRAIGHT skinny and the correct answers in the timeliest manner. Most important is the desire to NOT hear “The Chief Engineer would like to see you in his office…..NOW”, followed by the loud “WHAT THE H**L ARE YOU DOING GIVING INFORMATION OUT ON A SAFETY INVESTIGATION THAT HASN’T BEEN PEER REVIEWED……ON THE INTERNET!!!!!!”. Guys, it JUST ISN’T DONE that way!
I take great comfort in the delay right now because it is telling me there ISN’T as serious a problem as we thought at first and the engineer is trying to make a nice steak from the stinking slab of fat that got dropped on his desk. If we were about to fall out of the sky he would have pushed for an immediate grounding. I would have, AND DID, SEVERAL TIMES. You have no idea what it is like to go to NAVAIR and ground EVERY A-6 in the world. The powers that be WILL let him do that, they did let me, but not if he is a hot head or blabbermouth who has lost his credibility. He HASN’T grounded us and is taking a careful, measured path to a good solution. Have a beer, watch some TV, do some of that cosmetic stuff you have been wanting to do on your baby (I’m re-upholstering my interior and getting all of my instruments off to Keystone (Yea, the whole stinking panel will get new yellow tags!).
It’s hard to wait, but I have been in his shoes and in this case, we need to give him some breathing room.
Hank

[Ed O'Brien]

Re: Strut Airworthiness Directive (AD) (merged V)

Once again I'd like to state that Terry Bowden, Bill Berle, and numerous others have added monumentally to this discussion and to our collective knowledge. Dave Wiley's unfortunate death was one month ago yesterday. This thread got rolling about one week after that. There have been over 10,000 views of this thread (personally about 1,000 have been me) and over 8,000 views of parallel threads regarding this issue. I'm not sure how fast the system can work... I'm assuming it's a near flank speed right now. We've added 2 or 3 strut providers... much new information... tons of opinions... and a library of knowledge. GOOD FOR ALL OF US.

We now collectively know more than any other humans on the planet about this issue. DOUBLE GOOD FOR US ALL!

It's just going to take some more time, probably another month or two to sort it all out. When the Citabria wing AD came up in the late 90s everybody thought that the new American Champion factory was at the heart of the matter. It probably was... that didn't make my wings any stronger just my vinegar, blood pressure, and bile production. By cutting more holes in my wing... which I hated... we found a couple of soft spots on my 7GCBC never seen during any annual. I rebuilt the wings and was happier and if poorer for it. I've never written the American Champion Factory a letter to thank them... but they may have saved my life. Sanity and logic will prevail, eventually. In the meantime... let's talk and chill and appreciate our accomplishments... from this board and our fellow Taylorcrafters.
With regards;
ED OBRIEN

[VictorBravo]

Re: Strut Airworthiness Directive (AD) (merged V)

.take a deep breath and try to relax.........

I'm actually a little more relaxed than it may sound... I have Univair front struts and an X-ray just showwed that my airplane is very much free of any significant corrosion. So even more so than many others, I have no need to spend money in Brownsville.

Perhaps lost in all my ranting was the concept that I realize the FAA engineer has no legal requirement to participate on the internet. But they had no legal requirement to offer CD-ROM discs when the old Microfilm system was in existence. They had no legal obligation to allow online testing when the old paper tests worked OK, and no legal obligation to approve glass cockpits when the vacuum tube instruments worked.

The have no legal requirement to be on this forum but IMHO they do have a moral obligation to be on the front lines of a battle they helped create. And in 2007 the front lines of a Taylorcraft lift strut battle are pretty much right here unless I miss my guess.

It's the silence and unwillingness of several interested parties to get down here in the trenches and work it all out sooner than later that is the core of my complaints. It is the APPARENT indifference to all the educated opinions that have been brought to bear. It's the absence of D&E or whoever is the court appointed keeper of the Harry Ingram Fertilizer Company. It is the absence of anything meaningful from the Foundation president. It is the totally false and unjustified notion that some of these things have to bekept secret for the time being. It is the notion that the majority of Taylorcraft owners apparently feel like they are on the outside of an issue rather than on the inside.

Again, I stand by my reasons for the complaints, but Richard is right... it's Miller Time

[Richard Boyer]

Re: Strut Airworthiness Directive (AD) (merged V)

VB.........I need you to step back from the edge......take a deep breath and try to relax.........

someone get that man a drink. quick........

[Robert Lees]

Re: Strut Airworthiness Directive (AD) (merged V)

My own personal view (i.e. not the view as a Moderator of this forum), and as an outsider to the USA methods of doing things in Civil Aviation ways, is that the FAA have offered several methods of communication between Taylorcraft owners and the FAA.

I therefore think they are therefore under no obligation, despite what we might wish, to participate in discussions on the internet. I'd have to say that I wouldn't, if I were in their shoes.

And no, Bill, I am not aware of any grand conspiracy going on. I'd suggest you copy your valuable texts written here to a letter to the FAA Engineer, and get a receipt for delivery (in the UK we call this "Recorded Delivery", I'm sure you have the equivalent in the US). And yes, I do think your writings and opinions are of TREMENDOUS value.

When I put my Moderator's hat on, the text is in blue font

No word here from the UK CAA...but we wait with bated breath...

[VictorBravo]

Re: Strut Airworthiness Directive (AD) (merged V)

and maybe there is a smoke filled room of bribe taking thugs hoping to corner the Taylorcraft strut market,

The FAA is limited by Congress,

the NTSB, Possible Lawsuits,

The FAA speaks in the exotic language of the "Washington-ese."

The factory, Forrest, probably Univair, and some engineers are working for various enities and are limited to discuss the issue at the moment.

I think this explains VictorBravo's problem.

ED OBRIEN

Bribery and thuggery was not exactly what I was alluding to. Keeping people out of the loop when they are directly affected, and not having all your cards on the table even by those with the best of intentions is what I was referring to. We already know that there is a thug trying to corner the strut market, and like any dumb thug's scam it is backfiring on him, and he'll have 100% of nothing.

The FAA is mandated to communicate with the people affected by their rules, as part of their overall mandate regarding air safety. Regardless of whether they are legally required to explain their actions, they are morally obligated and technically obligated by the fact that the owners, pilots and mechanics are part of air safety. There is a strong precedent of the FAA listening to the ideas and options presented by the other 3/4 of the pie in aviation, and their being very willing (rightfully so) to argue back and forth to defend, drop, uphold, or modify their position as appropriate. That's the way it HAS to be, and the way it SHOULD be. I'm only pissed that they are not taking the fastest road to doing that, and not taking the opportunity that the internet affords to sort this out sooner than later.

Although I can't see the NTSB being at fault for anything here, I can sure see the possibility of some legal action on one or two fronts. Supplying false or misleading information to a federal agency, for the purposes of using that agency to coerce the public into a profitable business transaction with the person supplying the misleading information... or a federal agency closing ranks and burying their head in the sand after they discovered the aforementioned misleading information (when they could have acted in the best interest of the public by working with the public to get to the bottom of it all)?

The FAA is mandated to speak clearly and fluently in AVIATION language and to be responsive to others speaking that language. The fact that they have started paying more attention to speaking legal-ese is an example of what has gone wrong with the FAA.

The factory, Forrest, Univair, and the other folks who are supposed to be sitting at that table have NO REASON whatsoever to keep all of the discussions secret. Period! There is no proprietary or confidentality issue here that would be affected by making 90% of the discussions among those entities public. (If some guy in Anchorage is working on making $5,000 struts out of Titanium, and Univair is trying to produce a thousand $500 struts before the Titanium guy can get to market, then the exact details of that are not the business of the Forum participants).

BUT... what the FAA engineer was thinking when he wrote the AD, or whether the FAA engineer is listening when other qualified experts say X-ray is better than Eddy Current... THAT IS MY BUSINESS. It became my business when someone said my airplane could fall out of the air. It became my business when some sonofabitch sends out a Service Bulletin that is overly complex and intentinonally difficult, and then offers the suggested new part numbers to order a few thousand dollars worth of parts on the same damn page. And it is absolutely my business when that sort of tomfoolery is more or less made official by a federal employee. You're goddamned right it smells fishy, and if the FAA engineer wanted to show good faith he would be participating on this forum at some minimum level.

"VictorBravo's problem" is that these people are NOT limited to discuss this issue, because the specter of public safety has been raised, and the specter of unfair trade practices, and the specter of undue financial harm, and the specter of grounding airplanes that should not be grounded... and instead of doing it the right way some people are clamming up while a whole lot of other peple are being affected negatively.

That's VictorBravo's problem.

(Rob, Bob, Forrest... Sorry to rant like this but my reasons are valid)

[VictorBravo]

Re: Strut Airworthiness Directive (AD) (merged V)

I recommend you call the FAA guy mentioned in the AD. His phone number is in the AD. I found him to be willing to listen when I talked to him about struts and strut attachment points.

Danny Deger

I wrote e-mails to him and have not received a reply. Although replying to me personally would be a nice gesture, the bigger problem is that he is not taking part in any public discussions where his views, reasoning, and decision making can be explained.

[Ed O'Brien]

Re: Strut Airworthiness Directive (AD) (merged V)

Not that I know anything on the topic, specifically... but when the Citabria/Champion/Aeronca wood wing AD and the Bonanza V-tail brace AD came up... both planes... both ADs... both comment periods... both advisories... both rumor mills... both sets of FAA offficials... both rising and falling owner anxiety levels... looked EXACTLY like this one. Maybe there is a big conspiracy, although I doubt it ... and... and maybe there is a smoke filled room of bribe taking thugs hoping to corner the Taylorcraft strut market, although I doubt it... I think people trying to work out the various issues looks the same everywhere. Oblique, goofy, opaque, fitful, distorted, strange, and inhuman.

The FAA is limited by Congress, the NTSB, Possible Lawsuits, interested 3rd parties, dis-interested 3rd parties, and a party on the 3rd floor, etc. The FAA speaks in the exotic language of the "Washington-ese." Likely only your local IRS agent can translate for you. The factory, Forrest, probably Univair, and some engineers are working for various enities and are limited to discuss the issue at the moment. Such is the nature of these things.

I think this explains VictorBravo's problem. Who would have ever thought that non-destructive-testing would have become the major preoccupation of all American Taylorcraft owners? I'll bet'cha no one saw that coming. However, If you did... could you tell me where the stock market will be in 6 months?
With regards;
ED OBRIEN

[DannyDot]

Re: Strut Airworthiness Directive (AD) (merged V)

Bill,

I concur! I too am tired of the silence, promises of updates and minimal lack of input from those most positioned to do so.

I have offered several times to help in whatever capacity that I can, on several issues in the past, with little or no feedback from those in “authority”. Concerning the lift strut issue…..to date it seems that we “worker bees” are the only ones contributing to the safety of the colony. I will continue to help any way that I can. I spent an entire weekend “testing” my lift struts for integrity and DOCUMENTING the results. I asked for known corroded struts and got offers from two very regular contributors on this forum(sincere thanx!). As soon as those strut sections arrive, I will prep them for more ultrasonic testing and then prepare and pull standard dogbone tensile test specimens from documented areas of corrosion. Results will document the remaining strength of various degrees of corrosion. My intent is to provide baseline data to help determine approved test method(s). The ultrasonic tester that I am using is portable and easy to use. Struts AND fuselage tubing can be checked for material thickness (an excellent indicator of remaining material thickness) on the plane and very quickly with minimal disturbance.

So far, I feel like I am all alone in the dessert. Right or wrong, I feel like others are just waiting to see what sifts out from all of this. We need to work together on this issue or we will just get steamrolled. Correct me if I am wrong, but we have heard not a single word from the factory on this strut issue! That fact alone should weigh heavily with those reading and listening. ANY REPUTABLE FACTORY WOULD BE HEAVILY INVOLVED WITH END USERS IN AN ISSUE AS POTENTIALLY SERIOUS AS THIS ONE.

I will post a lengthy comment to the FAA docket, including documented test results as they become available.

How else can I help?

I recommend you call the FAA guy mentioned in the AD. His phone number is in the AD. I found him to be willing to listen when I talked to him about struts and strut attachment points.

Danny Deger