Fuselage strut fitting - FAA Airworthiness Concern Sheet (merged)

[N96337]

Re: Fuselage strut fitting - FAA Airworthiness Concern Sheet (merged)

It does get a bit overwhelming at times... and they get very sarcastic in my opinion... reason #1 I don't join the foundation. There's so much great information on here, and I feel very fortunate to be able to access it...something that wasn't possible when I first bought my Tcraft, so I just try to ignore it and glean the good. (and there's LOTS of good!!)
John

[alwaysoar]

Re: Fuselage strut fitting - FAA Airworthiness Concern Sheet (merged)

Thanks for the conciliatory comments though I do not feel picked on. The success of a participatory membership like this one requires the leadership finding out who the membership is and speaking to them. What set me off in this thread was the comment about famous drainhole, so like dozens of other references that you have to be on the inside to know about. That's not anywhere that I could find in the search, or in Taylorcraft manuals, or anywhere else. I asked about it on this thread, and got a sarcastic comment back that said READ (in caps) the eight pages (I had already read them) that said nothing about the drainhole. That is not the way to bring a newcomer on board this organization. Forrest doesn't care about that. I am done complaining. Thank you for your offer. I'm sure I'll take you up on it.

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: Fuselage strut fitting - FAA Airworthiness Concern Sheet (merged)

Ed,
We have all been in your place to some extent. The scarred up old timers seem to use an obscure language that is secret to them only. No one expects you to understand like the guys who have been here 35 years (actually I have only been playing with Taylorcrafts for a little over 20 years) but by the same token, the rest of us can’t really be expected to go back to our first year level communications either. We DO want the new guys to feel welcome and I would be glad to help explain anything that is giving you problems if I can. I’m NOT trying to be sarcastic or condescending, but you can’t reasonably blame Forrest because you haven’t been here from the beginning. I haven’t been to Alliance once (yet) and the information when I started was as confusing to me then as I’m sure it is to you now. You WILL start to get it and the postings will become less obscure with time, just be patient. Honest, Forrest isn’t being sarcastic, it’s a problem of perspective. The majority of those reading his posts don’t have any problem and understand fine. Let us help bring you along and you will start thinking we are using straight forward language in no time. Shoot me a PM if something throws you and I’ll be glad to help. Forrest is really NOT picking on you or any of the other new guys.
Hank

[alwaysoar]

Re: Fuselage strut fitting - FAA Airworthiness Concern Sheet (merged)

I am the fellow who cannot keep up with Forrest speak, and I will call on my own dime. I do not blame the foundation at all as you say; on the contrary, the members of this foundation have been and are immensely knowledgable and helpful for which I am very grateful. Following the post to which you, Forrest, refer, I received a number of PM's of support of my comments. No, I blame you Forrest for your assumptions that we have all been around for 35 years, that you have communicated effectively about all these points of interest, that we have all been able to attend the flyins at Alliance, and that we have been able to interpret and comprehend your sometimes obscure postings. You do work hard on behalf of the membership, but your understanding of the composition of the membership and the membership's basic knowledge is lacking the sufficiency to be able to communicate effectively. And, at times you are VERY sarcastic (and defensive, I might add, re-reading your post with the disclaimer. I don't recall saying I held the Foundation liable--where did that come from?). The strut fitting drain hole to which you referred for the first time in my memory of four years of membership in the Club and the Forum is painted over on my (actually, I just sold it) airplane. Maybe its come up and I've missed it. Thank you for pointing it out. I'll call next week.

Ed@BTV VT
TF 527

[barnstmr]

Re: Fuselage strut fitting - FAA Airworthiness Concern Sheet (merged)

A manual? Now there's an idea for you Harry. Since you hold all of the data and by the way - all of the rights to it - you are accountable to support the continued airworthiness of these airplanes. How about publishing something useful like a MANUAL instead of creating havoc over issues that should be normal maintenance and inspection items?

My service manual was put out by Univair many years ago. I applaud them for exercising due diligence for the time they held the TC in doing so. Times have changed and the old manual from Univair is outdated. The airplanes are older and now have perhaps some different issues. The time is prime for doing your part, Taylorcraft Aviation LLC!

FAA - are you listening? Hold Harry accountable for sound ICA documentation.

[Forrest Barber]

Re: Fuselage strut fitting - FAA Airworthiness Concern Sheet (merged)

That was my exact position in the beginning, that under Part 43 App. D , any good annual or 100 hr would include the attach fittings and in fact is on my Inspection sheet posted here somewhere.
It was felt by the FAA and others that this had been neglected, some mechanics & inspectors ( & owners of course!) were not even aware of the drain holes and lubrication points, plus ships had been improperly covered in that area. I have proposed a more complete service manual then we do not have to spell out each step on this STRUT AD , and probable attach fitting SB ; however we can now see that they may need to be done at the same time. The rotation of the lower bolt when moving the step became an issue.
Life goes on.... yes times may be extended and maybe even another commenting period.

[barnstmr]

Re: Fuselage strut fitting - FAA Airworthiness Concern Sheet (merged)

An airworthiness directive for the strut attach fitting is NOT necessary. INSPECTION OF THE STRUCTURE IS ALREADY REQUIRED AT EACH ANNUAL INSPECTION! Whats next? ...an AD to flush the fuel system if any fuel contamination is suspected?

WHEN DID WE STOP USING COMMON SENSE AND TRAINED MECHANICS' KNOWLEDGE FOR ROUTINE PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION?

DOES THE FAA THINK THAT EVERYTHING HAS TO BE DUMBED DOWN TO THE LEVEL OF IDIOTS WHO NEVER LEARNED A THING ABOUT AIRPLANES? OR ARE THOSE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE LEADING THE FAA DOWN THIS ROAD?

THIS IS GETTING OUT OF HAND. COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS!!!!

[Forrest Barber]

Re: Fuselage strut fitting - FAA Airworthiness Concern Sheet (merged)

The final rev on AD & SB comes out real soon if not now! WE have the procedure down to do the visual inspection of the attach fitting sometimes bare metal is not the way to go!
Dave Whitaker has the prototype of the inspection plate, he has drawn it up and it is being considered today. I will post and send to factory soon.
Sorry to have neglected this thread. For the fellow who cannot keep up with Forrest speak, call me sometime on your dime , I have been doing this for 35 years and cannot believe anyone does not know about the "drain" holes. Don't blame the Foundation.

Perhaps a good report each year by the Owner's Club regarding the walk arounds at the Fly-In and other times should have been done, remember the Owners Club started in 1973 , the Foundation in Oct 1998 , The Foundation was not meant to be the safety arm nor the advisor of how to do things. The discussion forumn is totally the results of the Foundation's agreement with Bob Ollerton to form it and host it!

READ IT SOMETIME:::
Disclaimer
The Taylorcraft Foundation and Taylorcraft Owners Club (TF/TOC) does not project or accept any responsibility for participation by any Web site or newsletter reader, member, customer, contributor or groupie at any fly-in functions, forums, or events that may be publicized by newsletter, web site, email, email list, sky writing, newsletter or any other method. All material herein of a technical nature is for reference and historical use only and is not necessarily recommended or approved by the editor of this web site, TF/TOC and its officers and board, unless specifically stated.

It is up to the individual reader, his/her Certified Aircraft Mechanic, Government agency, and the Sky Gods to determine the legality and veracity of anything appearing within TF/TOC Internet media such as web pages, newsletters, email mail lists, and email. This Internet media is produced only as a medium of communications amongst owners/aficionados of Taylorcraft aircraft and history. Make your own decisions, and take responsibility for your own actions.

&copy 2007 Taylorcraft Foundation
Powered by: Adaptive Enterprise Solutions

whew I feel better again. NOW I am going up to the Whitaker ship and finish the inspection procedure. bye Forrest

[barnstmr]

Re: Fuselage strut fitting - FAA Airworthiness Concern Sheet (merged)

Why do we continue talking as if the AD is a sure thing?? Last communications (about a month ago) I have had with Andy McAnaul and with Joe Perez at FAA is that there is currently no necessity for an AD on the strut attach fitting. Have there been any comments otherwise by FAA???

[DannyDot]

Re: Fuselage strut fitting - FAA Airworthiness Concern Sheet (merged)

I live in Houston, so getting an x-ray might not be too hard for me. I think I would rather do an x-ray than remove fabric and paint. Would an x-ray catch the problem?

But I would hate to do an x-ray if an AD comes out requiring something else.

Danny Deger

[jmvolpp]

Re: Fuselage strut fitting - FAA Airworthiness Concern Sheet (merged)

Randy, I used pocketknife, screwdriver, small utility knife, emery cloth, Scotch Brite pad, large hemostat, safety wire, wire brush, and a cordless Dremel tool. Also masking tape and cardboard to protect the fabric. A creeper to lay on and roll-about stool help, too. I suspect paint remover would speed the process up, but I resisted using it for fear of getting it someplace I didn't want and/or being unable to remove all of it. Be sure to include a couple gallons of elbow grease!

Mike V.

[rcefird]

Re: Fuselage strut fitting - FAA Airworthiness Concern Sheet (merged)

Thanks Mike V. for the picture of your inspected strut attach fitting. A picture is worth a thousand words. I have cut back the fabric on mine and have almost the exact same view. Any tips, shortcuts on getting old paint off and new on? Anyone else have tips on making this as easy as possible, and ending up with a good, safe repair? Thanks again.
Randy E.

[robbie]

Re: Fuselage strut fitting - FAA Airworthiness Concern Sheet (merged)

We (my IA and myself) checked the strut fittings today.
I got carried away and pulled up the floor to look at all of the tubing under the seat and floor.
Didn't look bad for 23 years since rebuilt.
We were able to inspect the underside of the fitting using a mirror and light.
It was a little dirty around the fitting which I cleaned. The paint was holding well on the tubing and fittings. After checking the fittings it was noted they were in good shape and now we can move on to the struts fiasco.

[jmvolpp]

Re: Fuselage strut fitting - FAA Airworthiness Concern Sheet (merged)

In response to rcefird's query of a week ago as to how much fabric to remove to inspect the strut/gear fitting, attached is picture of one of N44305's after completion of the inspection as per the TC factory service letter. Someone opined that it wasn't much of a job, but I would beg to differ - it was a tedious chore cleaning the fittings and tubing to bare metal, and required several hours to do so, not helped in the least by the D-1 model having only one door! In addition to removing fabric (remember to mask the area to protect the paint), the seat needs removal, including the front rail of the sling, as does the side kick panels and the floor. You'll find that not 100% of either of the fittings can be visualized unless the gear is removed, especially on the left side, but the 90+% that is visible is plenty enough to satisfy the intent of the inspection. Once bare metal was exposed, the rest was pretty quick and easy, with no cracks or corrosion found. The new opening at the rear of the fitting will require cover with a fairing, yet to be fabricated. Anyone out there about to recover his bird would be well advised to avoid covering the fitting with fabric, or stuffing loose ends of fabric into the fitting, both of which apparently is common practice, and had been done on N44305. Hopefully, enough positive reports will be accumulated to dash any notion of another ill advised AD.

Mike V.

[DanBrown]

Re: Fuselage strut fitting - FAA Airworthiness Concern Sheet (merged)

I sent the following email to [email protected]:

"I am a Taylorcraft owner of a 1940 BC-65, N26625. In reviewing the
photographs and commentary (posted on the Taylorcraft internet forum) on
the seaplane strut attachement failure of July 28, 2007, where the left
wing of a Taylorcraft Model BF12-65 seperated in flight I would like to
make the following comments:
1. Corrosion at that point is much more likely in seaplane than
landplane operation of a Taylorcraft.
2. The corrosion of the fitting was so blatant that it is hard to see
how it would not have been seen on an adequate pre-flight inspection,
let alone on a proper annual inspection of the aircraft.
3. There seems to be no necessity for additional inspection of
non-float equipped Taylorcrafts beyond taking out the seat of the
aircraft and probing the fitting for cracks and corrosion at annual
inspection time. If any indication of problems are found, then
replacement and/or repair would be indicated.
4. My aircraft had some internal corrosion of the struts after visual
inspection, so they are being replaced according to AD 2007-16-14, but
there is no indication of corrosion in any of the strut attachments or
other structural parts of the aircraft.

I submit that an AD on the strut fittings in not needed. In my opinion,
the proper regulatory response to the accident would be to follow up on
the quality of maintenance and inspections of this particular aircraft."

Less than one hour later, I received the following email:

"Mr. Brown,

Thank you for your email. You bring up some good points, many shared by
others as well. The NTSB and FAA are evaluating the evidence and
circumstance of the accident. While a final determination has not been
made, your comments, as well as those of others, will be considered in any
decision that proposes further action. Thank you again for taking the time
to send your comments.

Andy McAnaul"

This rapid and reasoned response deserves thanks and a :bravo: