Strut Airworthiness Directive (AD) (merged VI)

[barnstmr]

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

For those who have not seen a Maule Tester, here is what one looks like. I dont have my camera today, but this is scanned on my photocopier. I'll try to get a better photo soon

[cpirrmann]

Re: Failed Struts

The AD addresses struts that are simlilar in construction to Piper struts that failed in flight and killed aviators like you and I. Since the AD has been released, the priliminary inspections have resulted in struts that were so obviously corroded that they should be flown, and should be replaced. .

How many, where, on who's planes? Anybody here?

The failure of the strut to pass inspections should be caught at annual time, but some have slipped through undetected. We should not wait until a strut fails in flight to say there is a problem..

How many, where, on who's planes? Anybody here? This is pure conjecture. The only way to know they slipped through is to find them later on preflights, etc. (in which case, the current system works) or they fail in flight due to corrosion (none recorded so far).

The Taylorcraft factory has seen corroded struts, Forrest Barber and Kevin Mays have seen them too, and mentioned them on this forum. Some are bad, most may be ok, but it only takes one strut failure in flight to kill someone.

This has been stated, but we're still waiting to be told the background on them, where they came from, were they on planes, etc. And, most importantly, if they were on an airplane, how were they caught?

Don't get me wrong, I'm for safety and support regular, reasonable inspections and methods, but I don't see Taylorcrafts falling out of the sky and the fear mongering being used isn't going to help us swallow this bitter pill.

[Richard Boyer]

Re: Failed Struts

The AD addresses struts that are simlilar in construction to Piper struts that failed in flight and killed aviators like you and I. Since the AD has been released, the priliminary inspections have resulted in struts that were so obviously corroded that they should be flown, and should be replaced.

The failure of the strut to pass inspections should be caught at annual time, but some have slipped through undetected. We should not wait until a strut fails in flight to say there is a problem.

The Taylorcraft factory has seen corroded struts, Forrest Barber and Kevin Mays have seen them too, and mentioned them on this forum. Some are bad, most may be ok, but it only takes one strut failure in flight to kill someone.

Mike,

I'm sorry but that is a poor argument....... First, are all taylorcraft struts like the Piper struts? This AD address ALL struts over 2 years old on all models. Also, there are LOTS of things on airplanes that if they broke someone is going to get killed. This AD does not make sense. My struts are 7 years old. Thats it. But according to this AD, they are unsafe and I may be killed.

Horse hooey.

When the FAA comes out with a new AD, it should be based on SOUND scientific data and consistent with past precedent. I am not convinced that is happening in this case. I am willing to tests my struts at annual time, with the maule punch test. It is easy, non destructive and fairly painless in its procedure (although my IA says I will have to buy a punch, because testing it on the strut is hard on the tool).

[mikerice]

Failed Struts

The AD addresses struts that are simlilar in construction to Piper struts that failed in flight and killed aviators like you and I. Since the AD has been released, the preliminary inspections have resulted in struts that were so obviously corroded that they should not be flown, and should be replaced.

The failure of the strut to pass inspections should be caught at annual time, but some have slipped through undetected. We should not wait until a strut fails in flight to say there is a problem.

The Taylorcraft factory has seen corroded struts, Forrest Barber and Kevin Mays have seen them too, and mentioned them on this forum. Some are bad, most may be ok, but it only takes one strut failure in flight to kill someone.

[Richard Boyer]

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

WE have three months to get this worked out. I am going to wait to see what happens..
Here in Alaska we have one of the best places that dose eddy current and exray. Its in Anchoerage they have been working with the faa, or should i say the guy that wrote the ad, on a alternative method which is the xray as in the piper ad.
The place up here says that the xray is alot better on metal. The eddy current is mostly used on alumanum.
For us alaskans I did check on t-craft sealed struts in anchorage they have 3 rear ones and abot 8 front ones. They are from unavair price is 620 for the rear and 780 for the front. All in stock at stodderds aircraft.
I forgot to mention that alaska airframes might try to make new struts for the tcraft. It would be easy for him to get them aproved he already makes them for the supercub and he has his own heavy duty rear strut for the cub.

Ok, I have a couple of questions.......

What did I miss, why do we have 3 months?

I have heard that Xray costs more than the eddy current. I still think it's asinine that the struts have to come off (not to mention other things in the AD).

In addition to the cost of the struts, there is the cost of removing the old ones, prepping an painting the new ones and installing the new ones. Also the cost in fuel and time to get the new ones adjusted properly. I understand that most of us can do this on our own, but time is money and I have very little time for something that shouldn't be an issue in the first place!!!!! (also, very little money.......)

If you look at this from the point of view of having to get the work done by someone else, this is an astronomically expensive AD.

[Ragwing nut]

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

I will be building a clipwing Swick/Cole is the reason why I will be going experimental.

astpj2: It is defined somewhere as any certificated aircraft, not just TYPE certified. Which means if it started out as TYPE certified and is now flying in EXP, AD's still apply. BD-5's never had a TYPE certificate so there is and will be no AD's on it.

You would still have to comply with AD's even if a Lycoming engine has been altered per FAR39.15. Now if you have a Superior or ECI engine then you would not have to comply with the AD.

Airworthy is not defined by the FAA. Not even in FAR 1.

Experimentals have never been given an airworthiness certificate. When they are signed off for inspection, they are NEVER deemed airworthy, only safe for operation.

Garry: I read that they are trying to enforce this ruling further, which was discussed here not too long ago, which basically meant that and pre-existing certified parts used in an ameatur built aircraft can't be considered toward the 51% rule. I don't see how they can crack down on this considering I don;t see a difference in buying a Wag Aero Cub fuselage or using a real Cub fuselage. You can't say one applies and the other doesn't.

These are these types of threads that help educate the masses and can be excellent reading.

Mike

[cpirrmann]

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

You are not exempt even if your Taylorcraft is experimental. Under Part 39, AD's must be complied with on all certificated aircraft. "Experimental" is a certification.

Mike

You misunderstood. I investigated the certified to experimental route a long time ago and found it not practical. I have heard of others having their Tcraft experimental, but I don't know how they're doing it legally without being heavily restricted. I meant selling the Tcraft and building my own airplane.

[matsuthunder200]

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

WE have three months to get this worked out. I am going to wait to see what happens..
Here in Alaska we have one of the best places that dose eddy current and exray. Its in Anchoerage they have been working with the faa, or should i say the guy that wrote the ad, on a alternative method which is the xray as in the piper ad.
The place up here says that the xray is alot better on metal. The eddy current is mostly used on alumanum.
For us alaskans I did check on t-craft sealed struts in anchorage they have 3 rear ones and abot 8 front ones. They are from unavair price is 620 for the rear and 780 for the front. All in stock at stodderds aircraft.
I forgot to mention that alaska airframes might try to make new struts for the tcraft. It would be easy for him to get them aproved he already makes them for the supercub and he has his own heavy duty rear strut for the cub.

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

Tim, I think you got just exactly right. Dave

[astjp2]

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

Dave, I just looked up the definition on the FAA website, that is the most current regs that I know of, it also matches my 2007 amt regs. This was one of the questions duing my regs class at the University of Alaska Anchorage A&P school I took back in 1995. Tim

Forrest, what do you think? Tim

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

If you look at FAR 3.5 defines airworthy as:

3.5 Statements about products, parts, appliances and materials.
(a) Definitions. The following terms will have the stated meanings when used in this section:

Airworthy means the aircraft conforms to its type design and is in a condition for safe operation.

Product means an aircraft, aircraft engine, or aircraft propeller.
For an AD to be applicable when reading FAR 39.5b, the condition must exist or develop in other products of the same type design, if the experimental aircraft is of amateur built, it will not have a type cert. or meet any type design. It would apply if the aircraft was considered experimental if it was undergoing testing for an engine modification for instance, because it did meet type design...but lets say that I buy part of a once previously certified fuselage and repair it to make a complete fuselage, build up a set of experimental wings (D&E), and build the rest of the aircraft utilizing my own design, that part of the fuselage would not be considered part of the 51% rule, but everything else would be. It could still be considered an experimental amateur built aircraft because it does not meet the type design for the original fuselage.

If I remember right, amateur built aircraft used to be given an experimental certificate, not and experimental airworthiness cert. Does anyone know if this has changed? Tim

Good info. The product definition clears up the word "product" in the owner produced parts section (21.303) dosen't it.

I pulled my definition of airworthiness from an 2006 AC and it matches your but takes more words to say. But it also claims that airworthiness is NOT defined in CFR 14. It would appear that statement (that airworthy is not defined in CFR14) is just plain wrong.

Dave

[astjp2]

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

If you look at FAR 3.5 defines airworthy as:

3.5 Statements about products, parts, appliances and materials.
(a) Definitions. The following terms will have the stated meanings when used in this section:

Airworthy means the aircraft conforms to its type design and is in a condition for safe operation.

Product means an aircraft, aircraft engine, or aircraft propeller.

For an AD to be applicable when reading FAR 39.5b, the condition must exist or develop in other products of the same type design, if the experimental aircraft is of amateur built, it will not have a type cert. or meet any type design. It would apply if the aircraft was considered experimental if it was undergoing testing for an engine modification for instance, because it did meet type design...but lets say that I buy part of a once previously certified fuselage and repair it to make a complete fuselage, build up a set of experimental wings (D&E), and build the rest of the aircraft utilizing my own design, that part of the fuselage would not be considered part of the 51% rule, but everything else would be. It could still be considered an experimental amateur built aircraft because it does not meet the type design for the original fuselage.

If I remember right, amateur built aircraft used to be given an experimental certificate, not and experimental airworthiness cert. Does anyone know if this has changed? Tim

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

I hope I did the right thing.

I already have a sealed oiled Univair front strut I bought in 2004 (they were $600 at that time, now $740 for the front and just over $600 for the rear). I just ordered the other three new struts I needed from Univair. I hope it enhances the marketability of my plane when I decide to sell (never I hope). The fact that this AD goes away for me when the new struts go on is the reason I decided. What with the cost of the test plus not knowing if one or two of those 60 year old struts will or won't pass the test--and then having to repeat the test in a couple of years...I just placed the order before the price of the struts goes up again. He// if you do and He// if you don't.

Frank D
N43684

Hi Frank,

I did the same thing as you.

Univair called me Monday and said they were shipping them.

I am cheap.

It bothers me to pay more than I could but I had been thinking about buying 2because I have two now that have been repaired. And while the repairs are safe and legal they add weight and they make people look twice so I figured it would help resale.

The AD drove me o buy the other two.

In the long run we won't care about the ~$900 difference.

Frankly I 'll be happy to have this off my radar later this week when the struts come. I'll have to refit the jury clamps on 3 of the 4 but that will only be annoying for a little while.

I don't think this AD is going away. The FAA engineer is convinced about this. He may grant AMOCS (alternate methods of compliance) but they will make it more convenient for the inspections won't drop the cost musch in my opinion.

He didn't sound like he was going to buckle on the NDT test versus punch test.

I think we will be quite happy about this.

Dave

[Frank DeBartolo]

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

I hope I did the right thing.

I already have a sealed oiled Univair front strut I bought in 2004 (they were $600 at that time, now $740 for the front and just over $600 for the rear). I just ordered the other three new struts I needed from Univair. I hope it enhances the marketability of my plane when I decide to sell (never I hope). The fact that this AD goes away for me when the new struts go on is the reason I decided. What with the cost of the test plus not knowing if one or two of those 60 year old struts will or won't pass the test--and then having to repeat the test in a couple of years...I just placed the order before the price of the struts goes up again. He// if you do and He// if you don't.

Frank D
N43684

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

Mike, an experimental is not a TYPE certified aircraft. It is issued an experimental certificate. Since it does not meet type design it is not required to comply with any AD's, (IAW FAR 39.5b)..... look at the BD-5, probably killed more people than anyother airplane and not 1 single AD that I can find. The only regulatory requirement is for either the manufacturer or an A&P to perform the condition inspection. There are NO limitations on who can perfrom any maintenance on said experimental aircraft. I have not seen an AD on any experimental aircaft yet, and I have not found a regualtion that requrires an AD to be complied with because an experimental aircraft is not issued an STANDARD AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE because it does not meet type design. If I peel the data plate off of a Lycoming what ever and put my own on with my specs, then I would not have to comply with any Lycoming AD's because the engine is of my own design. Tim

Can Anyone quote what the FAA considers airworthy?

Thanks Tim for the info.

You inspired me to read parts or part 39.

I cheated I knew where to look it up;

b. Airworthy. The term “airworthy” is not defined in Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C.), or in 14 CFR; however, a clear understanding of its meaning is essential in making an airworthiness determination. Furthermore, the definition of airworthy applies to type-certificated products (aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller), and parts thereof. Title 49 U.S.C. section 44704(c) and 14 CFR section 21.183(a), (b), and (c) state that the two conditions that must be met for issuance of an airworthiness certificate are:
(1) The product must conform to its type certificate (TC). A product conforms to its TC when its configuration and the components installed are as described in the drawings, specifications, and other data that are part of the TC, which includes any Supplemental TypeCertificates (STC), Airworthiness Directives (AD), and field approved alterations incorporated into the product; and
(2) The aircraft (product) must be in a condition for safe operation.
NOTE: If one or more of these conditions are not satisfied, the product would be considered not to be airworthy.

I also noticed that the wings with spring plane that Perry Virgin has is still subject to the AD because of this;

39.15 Does an airworthiness directive apply if the product has been changed?
Yes, an airworthiness directive applies to each product identified in the airworthiness directive, even if an individual product has been changed by modifying, altering, or repairing it in the area addressed by the airworthiness directive.