Strut Airworthiness Directive (AD) (merged VI)

[VictorBravo]

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

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

He may not have been "allowed" to respond on a web site.

I have a great recipe for BBQ crow if I am wrong.

If he is watching and is being TOLD not to participate, then I'll have a large plate of that Crow when it's about medium well done, Hank.

But that only shifts the blame to whoever is telling him not to participate, knowing that a whole bunch of airplane owners are puckered up and losing sleep while others are waiting it out.

Beer's on me Andy if it turns out that you're the good guy. Make that steak and beer...

Forrest I already know you're the good guy... except when you don't pipe up and join the fun Oh hell, beer's on me anyway.

[Ron Coleman]

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

First I got the AD. Generally it says to follow the service bulletin. So I downloaded the Service bulletin. It says to clean the lower 18" of each strut and inspect the lower 12" for cracks and corrosion etc. I decided that to inspect the metal I would have to remove the paint. Did that. The primer under the paint was perfect except for a couple of places where the paint had been chipped this summer and there was a little surface rust. After removing the primer I discovered that the metal looked like it was new. We ran some "tap" tests with a steel watchmakers hammer and a brass ball peen hammer. The metal "rang" with a clear tone varying only in close proximity to welds. There was no sign of cracking, corrosion, or otherwise suspect metal. The drain holes were open and there was no sign of rust at the drain holes. The struts began to yellow from rust in only a few minutes, so quick like a bunny I wiped them down and put a temporary prime on them. These struts looked like they are new.

Put me down as having done due dilligence and in the case of N96995 the AD is well within reason for it's first requirement of visual inspection. Unless there is indication of corrosion, cracking, or a suspect condition impact testing should be sufficent.
At this time I believe that ultrasound or eddy current testing would be excessive.

RonC
N96995

[tawadc95]

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

9 days since the a.d. was official. That is not much time.
How long has the service bulletin been out? You all knew it was there and did not make a plan for this very scenario(apparently) so put the blame squarely on yourselves.
In this microwave and fast food period in which we live we tend to forget that in order for some things to be done CORRECTLY it takes time.
And further, if you really want your comments to the FAA and Mr. Mc Anaul in particular to be heard,you might try using proper spelling and grammar that reflects the collective intelligence that some say exists here.
For crying out loud if you can't spel correctly how can you be taken seriously as an expert on ultrasound or Maule testing.
Think about it please before you shoot us all in the foot!!!

[Ron Coleman]

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

I am in deep sympathy with those of you that are in shock over the disrespect that the Taylorcraft Company has for us.
I have the same problem with the Studebaker Corp., Indian Motorcycle Co., and the maker of the Doodle Bug. I guess that since I have no money invested in the companies, I already have their vehicles and am not likelly to buy any more of them and won't buy enough parts from them to pay their taxes, then they couldn't give a rat's ass what I want.
Who the hell do they think they are to ignore me! After all it is me I'm talking about!
I'll bet that they are only trying their best to make money. Dirty bastards!

I feel better now. I think that I'll just mellow out and fly until November when I may have to go outlaw.

Ronc
N96995

[Ron Coleman]

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

First I got the AD. Generally it says to follow the service bulletin. So I downloaded the Service bulletin. It says to clean the lower 18" of each strut and inspect the lower 12" for cracks and corrosion etc. I decided that to inspect the metal I would have to remove the paint. Did that. The primer under the paint was perfect except for a couple of places where the paint had been chipped this summer and there was a little surface rust. After removing the primer I discovered that the metal looked like it was new. We ran some "tap" tests with a steel watchmakers hammer and a brass ball peen hammer. The metal "rang" with a clear tone varying only in close proximity to welds. There was no sign of cracking, corrosion, or otherwise suspect metal. The drain holes were open and there was no sign of rust at the drain holes. The struts began to yellow from rust in only a few minutes, so quick like a bunny I wiped them down and put a temporary prime on them. These struts looked like they are new.

Put me down as having done due dilligence and in the case of N96995 the AD is well within reason for it's first requirement of visual inspection. Unless there is indication of corrosion, cracking, or a suspect condition impact testing should be sufficent.
At this time I believe that ultrasound or eddy current testing would be excessive.

RonC
N96995

[Dano"T"]

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

9 days since the a.d. was official. That is not much time.
How long has the service bulletin been out? You all knew it was there and did not make a plan for this very scenario(apparently) so put the blame squarely on yourselves.
In this microwave and fast food period in which we live we tend to forget that in order for some things to be done CORRECTLY it takes time.
And further, if you really want your comments to the FAA and Mr. Mc Anaul in particular to be heard,you might try using proper spelling and grammar that reflects the collective intelligence that some say exists here.
For crying out loud if you can't spel correctly how can you be taken seriously as an expert on ultrasound or Maule testing.
Think about it please before you shoot us all in the foot!!!

Take your own advice and spell "spel" correctly......for crying out loud.

[alwaysoar]

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

I would never say this at a Taylorcraft fly in with scores of angry owners milling around, but I have no objection to the AD. And I do not think the FAA was duped by Harry Ingram. Harry, who was bluntly criticised for years on this forum for being a bungling idiot, is now being criticised for being a clever, duplicitous, underhanded sneak who has manuevered the FAA into his pocket for his own gain. Not realistic. I have a serious issue with the methods of compliance, but that is really a separate issue.

The members of the forum who over the years criticised Harry for being a lousy business man who should be making and selling parts instead of airplanes are now criticising Harry for making and selling parts. If Harry is making a mistake here, it's selling the struts at a high price. Competitive pricing is driving business to other suppliers.

[cpirrmann]

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

I agree with Ron and his reasonable recommendation. This event probably got many of us to look at our struts. Everything is up to us. How we fly, how we inspect, how we maintain, how we react to events, how we respond to the AD, what we choose to do. I will agree that we had the idea the AD was coming, I just don't believe that thought or understood that we wouldn'tve been given the opportunity for input, unless I missed it. Having a tent at Oshkosh or the Tcraft Fly in is not getting input from the community. Many of us are/were in a position to provide data, experience and material as has been proven. I will ask, who was contacted by the FAA or factory for that matter, to provide tests and data? From what I've learned with my research, this AD was derived from the SB which was also derived from thin air. Removing bad parts and replacing them is not evident of impending disaster. We remove and replace bad parts all the time. That's called pre-flight, 100 hour and annual inspections or maintenance if you will. If the FAA called for inspections and results then concluded that an AD was necessary due to the number of non-airworthy struts found on AIRWORTHY,CERTIFIED, NON-EXPERIMENTAL aircraft in a given period, that'd be a different ball game. If, as has been stated, we all new was coming, what could we have done? The WAY IT WAS WRITTEN, the only thing we could've done to avoid being affected was to have previously bought new struts from the factory. Could we have petitioned the FAA before the AD? I don't know, I was never contacted about the issue until I received the AD in the mail. I was never notified about the SB. If I'm told that the info was available from here or on the internet, then Mr. Berle's argument would be reasonable, that the same medium should be used by the instigators to contact us. It is not incumbent upon me to seek and find information that the factory or the FAA puts out, in order to provide input. If they initiate an action, it's incumbent upon them to contact us and seek our input or , at least, interaction. This was not done and has the appearance of a 'back room' or cloak and dagger operation. That is what's wrong with the AD. It was 'ram-rodded' plain and simple whatever the effects are. We've learned from the government, that whenever they say 'it's for the children' or 'it's for safety', grab your wallet or your backside.

P.S. I can spell. I just can't type 100% correctly.

[Dano"T"]

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

I agree that getting everybody to look at their struts was a good thing.....I am also thankful that the airworthiness concern sheet came out on the attach fitting....that one really scared me. I guess the point is....an AD probably wasn't necessary...the concern sheet would suffice.....and I too have issues with the methods of compliance. I think that is the general feeling aside from the complaining and hollering. My struts look good, so I'll just get them tested for compliance and hope the testing method gets amended.

[tawadc95]

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

DanoT,
Can't recognize a pun? Spel.
Chris, it is too incumbent upon US to be vigilant about what the FAA is up to in regards to our aircraft or for that matter, congress with our country.
That is why we are in this discussion now,we waited for the FAA TO APPROACH US and we all know by the time the fed approachs you it is way past to late.
It is called pro activism.

[taylorcraftbc65]

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

Well folks, Manu Sina is good for another year. My IA found the FAA paperwork, and we tapped, punched, removed paint, inspected, and all looks fine. It should, the plane was taken all the way down nine years ago, and completely corrosion treated, new wings built, and the engine recieved a total rebuild. (I think I have the only Taylorcraft with a wing tank that does NOT leak to hear the talk on this site). It then sat in a West Texas hanger for six years till I bought it. Brie

[stormman]

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

I have the only Taylorcraft with a wing tank that does NOT leak to hea

MUST be EMPTY

[tawadc95]

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

mine don't either ,must be lucky.

[Dano"T"]

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

DanoT,
Can't recognize a pun? Spel.
Chris, it is too incumbent upon US to be vigilant about what the FAA is up to in regards to our aircraft or for that matter, congress with our country.
That is why we are in this discussion now,we waited for the FAA TO APPROACH US and we all know by the time the fed approachs you it is way past to late.
It is called pro activism.

Sorry.....I thought you were hollerin' at us. I'm sometimes slow at getting a pun.

[tawadc95]

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

N.P. Dano T....little rhyme there