Strut Airworthiness Directive (AD) (merged VI)

[Guest]

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

I have not yet received the AD in the mail.

Has everyone else received theirs?

Dave

[mhorowit]

Ad 2007-16-14

Am I behind the power curve and not realizing the group is talking about this AD, or is this the shoe dropping; came in today's mail. effective Aug 20, 07, "applies to all models unsafe condition... inspections where several diff. struts were found with mod to severe corrosion and required strut replacement. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct corrosion or cracks in the right and left wing front and aft lift struts, which could result in failure of the lift strut and lead to in-flignt ....

Do - I. visual inspection lower 12 inches within next 5 hours time-in-service after Aug 20 unless a) replaced with parts specified in ... b) been replaced with ...
Follow Part 1 of the Instructions in Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC Service Bulletin No. 2007-001, Revision A, dated Aug 1, 2007.

II. Initial Eddy Current or Ultrasound Inspection... Follow Part 2 of (see above)

III. REpetitive Eddy Current or Ultrasound INspection... Follow Part 2 of ....
IV. Repacement. replace the orii9nal design(Vented) front [and aft] lift strut with one of the following: new sealed front/aft lift struts or new original design(vented)......

AMOCs .... - MikeH

[tabranch]

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

Mine showed up in a few hours, same day. (Re: Strut Airworthiness Directive (AD) (merged I)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How long does it take for a comment to show up?

[Frank DeBartolo]

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

I got my AD yesterday. Bill Berle said it all...I can't improve on his comment, however, I will submit a comment of my own to the site that Rob Lees directed us to.

Frank D
N43684

[Guest]

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

Mine showed up in a few hours, same day.

lol

ok I'll bite.

Same day as what?

[Richard Boyer]

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

They do show up...... I posted this morning around 9:30 am and it just now showed up. So expect a 10 hour delay. I think VB's write up is excellent.

*rant on*
I tried VERY hard not to sound angry in mine, which is very difficult since my Struts are only 7 freakin years old (and oversized). They have been kept only in dry climates and hangared (ok, the occasional trip to Houston, But it was hangared there!!!!). The repetitive part of the AD is really really really enraging. If you want to make it repetitive, have it every 5 or 10 years. If you have a 7 year strut, with no rust, the odds of it starting are astronomically low.

If they are trying to be proactive by preventing aircraft accidents, maybe they should ground every GA aircraft ever made. Then, no one would ever get hurt!
*rant off*

Well. I have to say I don't feel much better. I think I'll go fly for 5 very Unsafe hours!

[Guest]

Re: Ad 2007-16-14

Am I behind the power curve and not realizing the group is talking about this AD, or is this the shoe dropping; came in today's mail. effective Aug 20, 07, "applies to all models unsafe condition... inspections where several diff. struts were found with mod to severe corrosion and required strut replacement. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct corrosion or cracks in the right and left wing front and aft lift struts, which could result in failure of the lift strut and lead to in-flignt ....

Do - I. visual inspection lower 12 inches within next 5 hours time-in-service after Aug 20 unless a) replaced with parts specified in ... b) been replaced with ...
Follow Part 1 of the Instructions in Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC Service Bulletin No. 2007-001, Revision A, dated Aug 1, 2007.

II. Initial Eddy Current or Ultrasound Inspection... Follow Part 2 of (see above)

III. REpetitive Eddy Current or Ultrasound INspection... Follow Part 2 of ....
IV. Repacement. replace the orii9nal design(Vented) front [and aft] lift strut with one of the following: new sealed front/aft lift struts or new original design(vented)......

AMOCs .... - MikeH

Hi Mike,

Your A&P inspects the bottom of the struts IAW factory SB within 5 operating hours of 8/20 and signs off that part of AD compliance.

Then within 90 days your A&P will have eddy current test OR ultra sonic test done per the factory SB instructions OR replace the struts with new sealed PMA struts from ANY source.

The A&P then signs the aircraft records indicating compliance. If you decide to comply by inspection then the A&P has to re-inpect every 24 months or less.

If there is a conflict between the SB and the AD at any point the AD takes precedence that's why ANY source for PMA struts is ok.

Dave

[VictorBravo]

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

Forgot to mention this while I was ranting on the NTSB/FAA docket...

Yesterday I spoke to the chief inspector at a big repair station and fabrication shop that is FAA approved to work on big airliner engines and thrust reversers. This shop has all the different types of testing and then some, and when they test it's for high stakes on major airline carrier engines. This person was not an aero engineer, he is an IA and chief inspector.

The guy was crystal clear in his opinion:
1. Eddy Current is good and reliable for figuring out wall thickness, but X-ray will deliver a more useful visual image of the actual corrosion that exists inside a structure.

2. If you mark out a 1/2 inch grid on the strut and use a portable Eddy Current device, you will get a comparable thickness measurement of all those points, but nothing between the points. so you will get ".049 wall thickness at coordinate X123 Y789". But Eddy Current will not say that there is severe pitting between those points. There is a question that Eddy Current could also tell you that you have .049 wall thickness there, but forget to mention that half of that .049 was corroded.

3. X-ray will let you have a visual picture, so you would see pitting, flaking, and the different "texture" of corroded metal.

The inspector's opinion is that X-ray, fiber optic, and the Piper style "punch test" should have been included in the AD, or if the FAA wanted to exclude any of them they should have explained why. This inspector owns a Cherokee and as such he has first hand knowledge of an emergency AD that was too hastily written and later found to be less than appropriate.

I feel for the sincere FAA folks who may think they have stumbled into a bee's nest with this AD, but the bees are buzzing for a reason.

[Richard Boyer]

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

I forgot to mention that I spoke with EAA this morning about this and they were somewhat suprised by the AD themselves. I don't think they have an official position yet, but they are looking into this as well. I'll give them a call, if they don't call me first, later this week to see if they have an update....

[flyguy]

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

I think we might want to do some organizing of our inputs to the FAA. For example: write up a document/reply here that combines/summarizes all of the possible points that everyone concerned has mentioned and let everyone comment as to what we should emphasize or delete.

I propose that we might use the document, when finished, as a guide for each person when they send in their comments. They could select and include those items that they personally felt were most important from the "list." That way the FAA would see that there is a strong backing for the most important points that we all agree upon.

I further propose that any one of us who is not comfortable with dealing with the comment process be helped by volunteers in filling out and submitting their form and comments.

I may not be the most computer savy guy in the world, but I have done quite a bit of Mil-Spec. technical writing and put together a FAA Repair Station Manual at one time and I hereby volunteer to help on the above project.

Darryl

[Len Petterson]

Re: Forrest..... Strut Question Tf#733

Yeaster day I resived the AD from the Canadian Dot.
It reads the same as Robert Lee listed on Taylorcraft.org.
I think she is going up for sale.
I am pricing the testing of the struts and posisbly new once.
Mine sounds solid and we punsh tested them 2 years ago they where solid when. I do have a repair on one front strut above the support struts.
This plus Prop zero time and Engine work!
Len

[Robert Lees]

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

Darryl, you say you have some experience of Mil-Spec. Can you find out about MIL-C-52, which is the spec quoted for Paralketone as a corrosion inhibitor for struts, in the Service Bulletin. This spec doesn't come up on any search that I've tried, apart from the Aircraft Spruce website.

The reason for asking: If products such as Paralketone, as mentioned in the Service Bulletin, are only suitable for 2 year corrosion protection inside struts, then perhaps Taylorcraft have been falling out of the sky for decades, and none of us have ever noticed.

So your research on "durability" of such products that meet the spec might provide some ammunition for an increase in the inspection interval.

Rob

[Len Petterson]

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

I resived mine in the mail yestrday from the Canadian DOT.
Consider selling!
Len

[N96337]

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

Dave,
Got mine from FAA in the mail yesterday (NW MT). (Good thing I don't have to rely on the paper service to maintain aircraft anymore!!)
JH

[lfries]

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

Its there now Bill