Fuselage strut fitting - FAA Airworthiness Concern Sheet (merged)

[lfries]

Re: Fuselage Fitting Airworthiness Concern / SB / AD

The way the AD is written you don't get credit for anything. I assume if you bought and installed a new strut on Aug. 19 you would have to inspect . If you waited one day you wouldn't.

[Richard Boyer]

Re: Fuselage Fitting Airworthiness Concern / SB / AD

Bill,

I agree with most of what you said. I guess one thing that I am concerned with is that if an aircraft has undergone a complete restoration would you also subject it to this rigorous of an inspection (a few years after completion). Not to say I don't visually inspect the attach fittings, but the odds of it rusting or failing should be exactly the same as any aircraft that rolled off a factory floor today.
Isn't the point of a complete restoration to make sure nothing like this has occured and to put a plane into better than new condition??

[Ed O'Brien]

Re: Fuselage Fitting Airworthiness Concern / SB / AD

Bill Berle;
You are a master SIR! Your to the point and clear examination and your equally precise discription was good enough that even I understood what you were speaking about. Given my small brain capacity to visualize these things in the abstract... I think this speaks highly of your efforts. You Have my ---
Thanks and regards;
ED OBRIEN

[dedrekon]

Re: Fuselage Fitting Airworthiness Concern / SB / AD

A couple of further points on this one:

A: Wiley's Taylorcraft was on floats and had been on floats continuously (to the best of my knowledge) for a number of years. Much like the typical rusted lower longerons (which are the low point on a wheeled plane) referenced by Mike Redpath, on a float plane that attach fitting becomes the lowest point on the fuselage, thus rust causing condensation and any other water that gets to the fuselage will end up there. That doesn't happen with the vast, vast, vast majority of the airplanes that make up the T-Fleet.....and that's why we diligently poke at and around the lower longerons when inspecting ALL tube and fabric taildraggers.

2: Wiley's airplane was NOT a Taylorcraft, at least not by the FAA's definition. It was an experimental airplane and was flown under the rules that govern experimental airplanes. They have different standards of inspection....and any AD's that would be issued for Taylorcrafts would not legally have applied to his airplane.

regards,
Vincent

[VictorBravo]

Fuselage Fitting Airworthiness Concern / SB / AD

I looked at the Airworthiness Concern Sheet put out by the FAA on the fuselage attach fitting. The engineer asked for comments relating to inspections anyone has done on this fitting. I think this one MIGHT be done with more common sense than the last time around... IF we all submit comments ahead of time... and BEFORE somebody else has a chance to get in there and charm the FAA's pants off of them like a drunk cheerleader in the back seat of a Buick...

This is what I sent him:

Mr. McAnaul,

I am in receipt of the Airworthiness Concern Sheet on the subject. Pursuant to the related inspection on the Taylorcraft lift strut for corrosion and cracking, a group of five local Taylorcraft owners including myself had a mobile FAA Level III X-ray NDT inspector come out and perform an X-ray inspection last Saturday August 25th.

Since it was known that the Oregon seaplane crash was due to a failure of the fuselage attach fitting, we instructed the X-ray technician to capture an image which included both the lower 10 to 12 inches of the wing lift struts AND the fuselage attach fitting, and then a SECOND X-ray from inside the aircraft capturing the longerons and welded tube cluster at the lower wing attach area.

As I have pointed out previously regarding the presence of corrosion in the lift struts, it is the consensus of a very qualified group of engineers, IA's and NDT-qualified inspectors that X-ray inspection is the most accurate tool for a primary determination of whether there is or is not corrosion inside a steel tubular structure. The X-ray will indicate clearly whether corrosion is present. If so, then other measurements such as Eddy Current and/or Ultrasonic NDT can determine whether the LEVEL of cossorion is within safe flimits, wall thicknesses, etc.

I am pleased to report to you that the X-ray showed clearly that there is no significant corrosion in the attach fitting. The vertical axis X-ray was able to "see" the fitting, the strut attach bolt inside the fitting, and the attachment to the struts. The Horizontal axis X-ray also showed clearly there was no significant corrosion in the tube fuselage structure in the vicinity of the attach fitting.

I would like to suggest that the FAA take MORE TIME and do a more thorough job of collecting data in this instance than it did on the recent strut AD. The recent disagreements and rancor over the lift strut AD happened for a valid reason: The FAA was unduly influenced by the current Type Certificate holder and the FAA was the victim of scare tactics... and the FAA acted in haste where it might not have been appropriate.

I do agree that a safety inspection should be mandated for the lower fuselage strut attach fittings on ALL of the 60+ year old steel tube/fabric airplanes. I have the FAA's "best practices for aging aircraft" pamphlet and I agree with the vast majority of it. We need to start paying closer attention to old airpalnes... AGREED.

But you must understand that a reasonably accurate inspection of the lower strut atach fitting can be made on the Taylorcraft (and most others) with a small inspection mirror and a strong light. The reason is that I believe this is mostly an "open" structure (not welded closed). If any fabric is covering or blocking access to a full inspection of this fitting, then you should allow mechanics a CHOICE of whether to have it X-ray inspected, or a small amount of fabric removed to permit direct visual access, the possibility of a Maule Tester punch test, or Eddy Current, etc. etc. Removing fabric will not see inside the metal structure like X-ray will.

In short, The Taylorcraft comunity has resources and very very qualified people who know more about these airplanes than anyone else. We stand ready to assist the FAA in coming up with reasonable, effective methods to inspect our aging aircraft.

Bill Berle
1940 BC-65 s/n 2387 N29544
Whiteman Airport, CA

[N96337]

Re: FAA Airworthiness Concern Sheet

David, the AWCS was posted on OUR website before any body else got it....It was discussed at the Fly-in ..... I asked all to comment.

Forrest, thanks for posting the AWCS. My question is how long ago was the fly in, and why wasn't there any word about it on here then? Not that it would've made that much difference, we couldn't stop anything, but info is info and the sooner we recieve it, the better, in my opinion.
Thank you,
John

[Robert Lees]

Re: FAA Airworthiness Concern Sheet

I've moved some posts from this thread (which is about strut/fuselage fittings) to the Strut AD thread to try to keep subject matter together.

Rob

[jdoran]

Re: FAA Airworthiness Concern Sheet

Dear FAA,

If you are reading this, please make the photos of the failed attachment bracket available to us.

We own these airplanes, and can benefit from seeing what failed, and how we can look for the same type of problem that may be developing.

Note several of us are flying float equipped planes similar to the accident plane.

[mikeg]

Re: FAA Airworthiness Concern Sheet

I don't need praise just patience....... THE DAMN fuselage fitting pulled off the fuselage, IT WAS a RUSTY PIECE OF CRAP.
I will try for the photos tomorrow. We have a two fold thing here, inspect the struts , inspect the attach fitting area. One is now an AD , the other will likely be a SB IMHO.
As to the notifications , YES the FAA sends AD's to owners by regular mail, sometimes they get it before the IA's do. In my case I got it by my AD service within hrs of the issuance. I use ATP-NAV.
The FAA engineer felt this discussion group was the quickest way to get it to owners, I explained to him that only 30% of the registered owners belong to the Type Club or Foundation.
It has always been a problem. faa.gov gets me a lot of info...

RUSTY PIECES OF CRAP DON'T HAPPEN OVERNIGHT, OR EVEN IN MONTHS. WHEN WAS THE LAST ANNUAL ? WHO DID THE PREFLIGHT ?
Sorry, read all this for days now and the blood is finally beginning to boil
Mike Girdley
A&P/IA

[Ed O'Brien]

Re: FAA Airworthiness Concern Sheet

May I offer a scenerio and comment? With the original factory gone and the new factory with less than a stellar record of perfomance this "NEW" system is to our benefit and probably being handled rather well. Given that none of us have seen this system before we are critical. It worries us greatly. Some of us are showing psyche cracks that would ground our planes.

In the old days, the strut problem would have been taken up immediately with the factory and then the results would have been confirmed independently at the FAA lab or another engineering firm working for the FAA.

We are now all (most) things to the FAA. It seems:
1. Our feedback will be the basis for many future decisions, (such as) mitigation, testing, adherence to the standards, further AD notes, etc.
2. Our colective knowledge base as owners, mechanics, pilots, and even some engineers is genuinely needed by the FAA.
3. The number of planes in this owner's group is large enough to be an adequate test sample of all AD provisions and inspections on the various T-Craft models.
4. Insulting those working on the issue, asking for our input, and developing solutions is not good. Assuming alternate agendas by those parties is at our own peril.
5. Mutual respect for and among the members of this
online community is to our benefit.
6. It seems that we are in a comment mode. It will take a bit of time to work this out with all parties (factory, PMAs, Forrest, owners, IAs, members of the board.)
7. Don't let your anxiety build to the point of clouding your better judgement. Don't blame the messengers, the worker bees, the factory, or your planes. Be responsible. I figure we have 3months... which seems enough time to figure this out. In this 3 months certainly discuss the issue but don't condemn those attempting to hear you, do what's right, or otherwise resolve the situation. Hang in there... this will work out, soon.

Do the following:
A. Be respectful. No use chasing or chastising people who here to help.
B. Do the work, inspect the planes, talk about the results.
C. Comment to the FAA. This is a golden opportunity to shape the future.
D. Help answer questions. Get to know one another. Be good to the fleet and the other T-Craft owners.
E. Remember you are pilot in command here. You're at the controls. Your word is good. We must act responsibly.

With respectful regards;
Ed O'Brien

[Forrest Barber]

Re: FAA Airworthiness Concern Sheet

David, the AWCS was posted on OUR website before any body else got it....It was discussed at the Fly-in ..... I asked all to comment.

[cpirrmann]

Re: FAA Airworthiness Concern Sheet

I'll kind of repeat myself. This is good information that should be put into a comprehensive inspection manual for us and our IA's to use. The more recent maintenance manuals have step by step , piece by piece instructions for doing just about anything. We can have that too.

[Buell Powell]

Re: FAA Airworthiness Concern Sheet

Bill,
I think your idea of a clear fairing would be one good way if someone has reason to suspect the fittings would be corroded due to excessive moisture such as the one that failed. However making it an AD for all T/crafts regardless of the conditions would not be necessary as Mike has stated.I don't want to contradict anyone but the thought having to install clear plastic fairings on my little original 41 Deluxe gives me the shudders. Really- nearly all of the fittings can be seen and checked from insides the fuselage and with a little extra care when painting and covering almost all of the outside can be inspected. I do think an SB is very important because I dont think most pull the seat to check the rear fittings or cable covers to check the front from the inside and see if debris or moisture has collected there and check the outsides.

[dewhitaker]

Re: FAA Airworthiness Concern Sheet

I want to make some comments about the timely dissemination of information. First of all, Thank You Forrest for passing this on to the tribe, well done!

However, that being said, here is what I find very offensive: The Airworthiness Concern Sheet that was published for the struts has a date on it of 4/12/2007. Why did most of us not find out anything about this until August when the AD came out?

Look closely at the bottom of the page at the routing of notification. It would seem that the AOPA was the only group officially notified of this. Why did they not pass this information on? As a dues paying member, I will be asking them that question.

The boxes for the EAA and type clubs are not checked. Why were they left out? They could have been very helpful in getting the word out.

The last sentence of the ACS states: "The FAA endorses dissemination of this technical information to all owners / operators and requests association and type club comments." Well, Andrew McAnaul, the FAA has all of our contact information as registered owners. Why were we not notified in April when the strut ACS was published? The FAA certainly has the ability to notify owners if they should choose to.

I urge all in the tribe to make your voice heard to the FAA on these two issues.

[Richard Boyer]

Re: FAA Airworthiness Concern Sheet

Forest,

I appreciate the posting of this and that Mr. McAnaul is interested in getting the info out to us. The problem is that the write up is inconsistent with the actual AD.......

The facts are that a strut didn't fail but that is what this very costly AD is saying it addresses.

There should be a one time check of the wing strut attach fitting. Maybe once every 5 to 10 years after that, but the majority of us check that sucker EVERY ANNUAL.

But, I'm preaching to the Choir here........