Strut Airworthiness Directive (AD) (merged VI)

[DannyDot]

Re: Strut AD compliance

If you can visually determine the struts are sealed then you should be able to terminate the AD on that strut. It will still apply to any others that are vented

Mike

I just put in a comment on the www.dms.dot.gov web site to allow for sealed struts of any type to remove the need for further NDT. I think others here should do the same. A sealed strut of any type should be allowed. The AD should probably give directions on how to inspect the strut to see if it is sealed. In my case I have sealed struts, but it didn't get documented in the logs. I bet I am not the only one.

Danny Deger

[3Dreaming]

Re: Strut AD compliance

I just put in a comment on the www.dms.dot.gov web site to allow for sealed struts of any type to remove the need for further NDT. I think others here should do the same. A sealed strut of any type should be allowed. The AD should probably give directions on how to inspect the strut to see if it is sealed. In my case I have sealed struts, but it didn't get documented in the logs. I bet I am not the only one.

Danny Deger

Just to make sure you have checked for the bushings and plugs in the top end of the strut, and not just looking at the lack of a drain hole on the bottom? I have seen many struts where the drain hole has not been drilled that were not sealed struts. Tom

[DannyDot]

Re: Strut AD compliance

I just put in a comment on the www.dms.dot.gov web site to allow for sealed struts of any type to remove the need for further NDT. I think others here should do the same. A sealed strut of any type should be allowed. The AD should probably give directions on how to inspect the strut to see if it is sealed. In my case I have sealed struts, but it didn't get documented in the logs. I bet I am not the only one.

Danny Deger

I just talked to the FAA guy and he is putting in an Alternative Method Of Compliance (AMOC) for Univar Struts and using X-ray. I mentioned to him that instead of AMOCs, he might consider modifying the AD to allow for these two items. A problem for him doing this is that at this time the AD calls out the Service Bulletin.

He did say the Maule punch test is not good enough. The wall thickness would have to be around .010 before it would fail the test and this is already too thin.

He is still looking into an AD on the fitting attachment. He didn't think x-ray would detect a crack in time and ultra-sound might have trouble from reflection -- eddy current might be the way to go. I mentioned the failed fitting was a float plane and it might not be a fleet problem.

I found him very willing to talk facts of the matter. If you have an idea on these two issues, call him up. His name and number is in the AD itself.

Danny Deger

[VictorBravo]

Re: Strut AD compliance

I just talked to the FAA guy and he is putting in an Alternative Method Of Compliance (AMOC) for Univar Struts and using X-ray.

Let's all sing together now... "FOR he's a jolly good fellow..."

[Forrest Barber]

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

I do not think that is "preventative Maintenance" use a mechanic.
WE ahve been trying to assist in the formulation of the next Service Lettter, some to become a Service Bulletin . Just got off phone with Andy McAnual. The newest Service Letter No. 102-T is on the Factory web site www.taylorcraft.com Dated Sept 3, 2007

Check it off their web site, my comments are that it should address not only the attach fitting but the tubing it is welded to on the fuselage, look it all over real well. The failure was the attach fitting pulling away from he rusty and corroded tubing. I will post pcitures tomorrow.

[DannyDot]

Re: FAA Airworthiness Concern Sheet

This is a truly an emotional thread- and I have waited a couple of days to try and be really objective. I have been doing my homework and know the following:

1. The struts are expensive (~3k including disassembly, paint, reassembly)
2. The strut availability is going to be very scarce (if it isn't already)
3. There is no way the factory or Univair is going to get all the strut made for all of us in a short period of time (3 months) assuming all of us just buy new ones because of the following:

4. I have called no less than 4 NDT facilities in the Western New York area.
All of them have told me the same thing.....

5. Eddy current inspection is not used and doesn't work on steel tubing- it is ideal for aluminum

6. Ultrasound is great but almost nobody does .020- .060 (I may not be quoting the SB accurately) thick as specified

7. It is not perfectly clear if the inspector has to be FAA approved to sign the log, or if the inspector publishes a report for the IA/ AP to approve and sign off

8. None of the FAA repair stations I have spoke to so far in WNY area know how to or where to get eddy current/ ultrasound inspection done.

9. Many of us are freaking out about this.

Either way it looks like a great many of us will be essentially grounded until we can find an inspection service, afford new struts, wait until these struts exist, or find an alternate method of compliance!

Please comment. I will post the same comment on the AD thread.

Jeff LaChausse
1946 BC12-D

Can you get to an x-ray machine? The FAA guy has told me an x-ray should pass as an Alternative Mean Of Compliance (AMOC)? I am lucky that I am very close to Houston. I have already gotten an eddy current done and am good for another 2 years. My thoughts and feeling go out to you guys out in the middle of nowhere.

Danny Deger

[Guest]

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

I do not think that is "preventative Maintenance" use a mechanic.
WE ahve been trying to assist in the formulation of the next Service Lettter, some to become a Service Bulletin . Just got off phone with Andy McAnual. The newest Service Letter No. 102-T is on the Factory web site www.taylorcraft.com Dated Sept 3, 2007

Check it off their web site, my comments are that it should address not only the attach fitting but the tubing it is welded to on the fuselage, look it all over real well. The failure was the attach fitting pulling away from he rusty and corroded tubing. I will post pcitures tomorrow.

Forrest what is "that"?

Can we put the link to the fitting bulletin in the fitting thread?

Dave
Done.

[Robert Lees]

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

As a matter of interest, if an inspection fails to meet the requirement of an AD (any AD, not just this one), does the owner/mechanic/IA etc have a legal obligation to notify the FAA or other authority?

[cpirrmann]

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

As a matter of interest, if an inspection fails to meet the requirement of an AD (any AD, not just this one), does the owner/mechanic/IA etc have a legal obligation to notify the FAA or other authority?

I don't believe so, it just can't be passed as airworthy and cannot be returned to service.

[Guest]

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

As a matter of interest, if an inspection fails to meet the requirement of an AD (any AD, not just this one), does the owner/mechanic/IA etc have a legal obligation to notify the FAA or other authority?

Not that I am aware of.

Merely an entry by an A&P mechanic in the aircraft records is all that is required.

Part 91.417 requires that the status of ADs be mantained, exerpt below.

(iv) The current inspection status of the aircraft, including the time since the last inspection required by the inspection program under which the aircraft and its appliances are maintained.

(v) The current status of applicable airworthiness directives (AD) including, for each, the method of compliance, the AD number, and revision date. If the AD involves recurring action, the time and date when the next action is required.


The current status of an aircraft can be "not airworthy"

[Ragwing nut]

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

There is no legal requirement, but there is a form called an SDR (Service Difficulty Report). They are suppose to be filled out and turned in on parts that fail before there life expectancy is up, but it is not mandatory.

Mike

[3Dreaming]

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

As a matter of interest, if an inspection fails to meet the requirement of an AD (any AD, not just this one), does the owner/mechanic/IA etc have a legal obligation to notify the FAA or other authority?

Some AD's require reporting to the FAA if problems are found. This requirement will be in the text of the AD. If memory serves the Lycoming AD on crankshafts is that way. Tom

[cpirrmann]

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

I received a reply from the EAA/VAA and they are commenting on the AD and take about the same stand this forum has settled on. They are not opposed to the AD but would like to see alternate methods of compliance such as X-ray and are concerned about the short time between inspections. They have been getting a lot of calls about it. Just an update.

[alwaysoar]

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

Danny Degar posted that Univair struts are being put in as an AMOC. The AD specifically reads ..."or FAA-approved equivalent P/N." Univair struts are FAA/PMA, or was I sold a bill of goods?

Ed@BTV VT
TF 527

[alwaysoar]

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

ps. Note that Taylorcraft struts are FAA/PMA.