Fuselage strut fitting - FAA Airworthiness Concern Sheet (merged)

[Ed O'Brien]

Re: Fuselage Fitting Airworthiness Concern / SB / AD

VictorBravo;
Didn't you get the emergency "shop rag AD?" We need to count the total number of shop rags sold to Taylorcraft Members and then deduct the total number of rags left in our individual shops, then calculate those that might have been disposed of... account for those being used on other purposes... figure how many have been accidentally used by neighbors borrowing tools... then come up with the total number of shop rags accidentally welded into our airframes. I think the initial paperwork was supposed to be in last Tuesday. Eventually, I'm sending my plane for a full body scan MRI. I'm surprised you haven't gotten the word on this one. Better get to it!
With regards and satire from;
ED OBRIEN

[Forrest Barber]

Re: Fuselage Fitting Airworthiness Concern / SB / AD

I do not see a shop rag, I think that is fabric my other photos show fabric moved and used to illuminate the area, drop the rag bit till we check with NTSB, that will be done on Tues...... have a good week-end.

[Guest]

Re: Fuselage Fitting Airworthiness Concern / SB / AD

Thanks for the pictures Forrest.

Wow, it appears that fitting had not gone under any kind of examination for a long time doesn't it?

The fabric looks like recovering cloth that was pushed into the fitting cavity best I can tell.

[VictorBravo]

Re: Fuselage Fitting Airworthiness Concern / SB / AD

Based on a post in another thread (struts), it appears that Danny found out the FAA is actually looking to an AD on the fuselage fitting. Rightfully so, I must admit, although the seaplane-landplane argument may or may not be valid.

Ladies and gentlemen, I think we need to band together on this issue NOW and come up with a strong set of suggestions on how to best inspect this fitting for corrosion, in a way that gives a safe, reliable result and minimizes the difficulty.

Forrest, Rob, Bob, and any other of the de facto leadership in the group, forgive me for taking your thunder if you were about to ask the group for this and I accidentally beat you to it...

ENGINEERS and experienced IA's please get your thinking caps on and tighten the straps. This is a matter for the trained, degreed, and real-world expert folks to take charge of, and would y'all take charge of it immediately please.

PLEASE immediately come up with your ideas and proposed methods for how to inspect the lower strut attach and associated longeron/tube clusters. Determine whether a full, safe, and accurate inspection can or cannot be made with the struts bolted on. If the struts have to come off, then so be it. If not, we need to know that too.

Come up with your expert opinion on whether this inspection is a job for the small Eddy Current probe, an X-ray, Ultrasound, Dye Penetrant, an ice pick, or a fortune teller.

PLEASE figure out if the Oregon seaplane crash was caused by a crack (made possible by the corrosion) or whether the corrosion simply broke it all at once. I. E. if we were to rule out serious corrosion in the fitting would it be not necessary to use expensive methods of finding cracks... or could you say with some confidence "no corrosion- then no cracks - meaning no safety risk". This is vital for you to get to the bottom of, so whatever we are inspecting for will be the right thing (this time).

Figure out if it is truly better and safer to remove a small patch of fabric around the fitting, poke at it with an ice pick, whatever the REALITY is.

You experts should REALLY try to come up with something like :

1. Method A is the best possible way, but requires removing fabric and full disassembly of the joint.
2. Method B is almost as good, and is more than good enough for this type of metal/load/geometry, and you don't have to take the fabric off. But you do have to take the bolt out.
3. Method C will give you a full and complete inspection but it is very expensive and requires you to take the fuselage to a test facility.
4. Method D can be a very acceptable alternative and it's cheap, but you have to spot sandblast the metal.
5. Method E is very tempting and doesn't disturb anything at all, but it is not good enough for you to risk the aircraft on because of how critical this joint is.

et cetera, et cetera...

By having this information, we can approach the FAA as a group with all of our facts straight, and have them adopt OUR suggestion instead of anyone else's suggestion.

I can see it now, Taylorcraft Aviation SB 2007-2, "Removal of fuselage from aircraft and replacement with new sealed factory fuselage. Please specify part number $$$-1 when ordering, operators are standing by!"

[Forrest Barber]

Re: Fuselage Fitting Airworthiness Concern / SB / AD

YOUR thunder is always appreciated. I am stumped about the proper inspection. I have just gotten off the phone with Andy McAnaul, FAA engineer, we discussed a lot of stuff. I have some low resolution photos taken to day of the A-A11 fitting , I have more in the computer. I keep getting conflicting opinions on Eddy Current, Ultrasonic , etc.....
Yes I agree how do we inspect ? I thnk I know what to look for and it is certainly not okay to pass corroded, rusty material along to the next inspection. I scrape, wire brush, look, tap, feel etc..... It appears we need to use NDT method on the whole area. IF any abuse is detected by a visual inspection .

attached are A-A11 pictures and maybe the part that tore out of the Wiley ship.

I got involved in the glider accident here at 4G3 and the ship that went into Lake Erie. keep up the good work Bill and all others. WE need a definative method of inspection to present to the factory and the FAA. I did not ahve time to rename the oictures they should be self evident. I will rename soon. bye have to deliver aerial photos, hope it rains tomorrow. f

[lawheelock]

Re: Fuselage Fitting Airworthiness Concern / SB / AD

A quick look at the photo of the failed strut fitting appears to me to be the result of a previous very poor weld job more so than internal corrosion. I admit that making such a judgment from the photo is risky, but on every T-Craft I have inspected, the original factory welds were truly a work of art. This appears to be a cobbled weld to me.
Larry Wheelock, P.E., IA

[DannyDot]

Re: Fuselage Fitting Airworthiness Concern / SB / AD

The Experimential certificate was PROBABLY issued to comply with the testing of Auto Fuel.... Bless you Bill any many others, I too have voiced these thoughts to the FAA engineer, I am one voice, Bill is one voice, petitions do not work in this matter, continue to voice your thoughts, all will be condensed for a final appeal to common sense .

I have been away since Friday, back from MERFI EAA Mid Eastern Regional Fly-In) , set up two BC12D fuselages for research on pending SB on attach fitting, one F-22 also. Had to fly with four students, CFI Spin awareness, two TW transition, put new blades on both mowers, immediately broke the belt on the little one, did some welding on Ryan Newells ship ( yes Ryan we fixed it). have been reviewing the photos of the strut attach fittings that failed on the Wiley ship. Boy I hope I don't push the wrong button on this keyboard..... Disregard plea for help Bob! back later.

Based on what I can see from the pictures, it looks to me like a blind man could have looked at the fitting area and seen a corroded mess. The FAA guy implied to me the corrosion was covered up with paint, the picture tells me this fitting showed corrosion without having to remove the paint and the fabric.

I agree we need to hit the FAA with a unified voice on what inspection is needed. Is pulling the seat to look inside with a visual good enough? Do we non-float planes need to worry at all? Was the failure 100% corrosion, or was there also a bad weld or a crack?

Danny Deger

Danny Deger

[DannyDot]

Re: FAA Airworthiness Concern Sheet

IMHO, this should only affect seaplanes. The fitting on a seaplane becomes the lowest point where moisture runs to. I have never seen this as a problem on non float equipped aircraft. They will rot at the tail. I have fixed my fair share of fuselages of all makes and models. The only time I have ever ran into the issue of rot arounf that area was on a Tri-Pacer. The carry thru tube betwwen the attachpoints had rot and had to be repalced.

Mike

Can you contact the FAA guy, Andrew McAnaul, 210-308-3365, and let him know this? I am also of the opinion this a float plane only issue. Water does not collect to this location on a plane that is still dragging its tail. Even for a float plane, it looks like a simple visual inspection by removing the seat would have found this problem.

Danny Deger

[Robert Lees]

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

The Taylorcraft Service Letter 102 is here (200kb pdf)

[N95334]

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

For what it is worth, My 1946 Taylorcraft BC12D had to have the lower tubing replaced in 1981 due to rust. That is the lowest point of the tail dragger.
Question, If I clip the wings, does that make my Taylorcraft expermintal and in doing so the AD does not apply?

[DannyDot]

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

The Taylorcraft Service Letter 102 is here (200kb pdf)

Thank you for this link. What does this group think of this inspection? Is it too much for a non-float plane? At least it looks like you guys not close to a major airport can do this without any expensive (and not available everywhere) NDT equipment.

Keep in mind the FAA pretty much said "comply with the strut SB" on the strut AD. They may be inclined to put out an AD that says "comply with the fitting Service Letter".

Danny Deger

[Guest]

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

ya know, I just realized, this whole set of events is making me grumpy

[Ragwing nut]

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

For what it is worth, My 1946 Taylorcraft BC12D had to have the lower tubing replaced in 1981 due to rust. That is the lowest point of the tail dragger.
Question, If I clip the wings, does that make my Taylorcraft expermintal and in doing so the AD does not apply?

Previously type certified parts even if in experimental class still need to comply to some level, because the same issue/promblem still exists. Read FAR Part 39.

Mike

[Ragwing nut]

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

Something isn't right with that failure. I can't from that pic exactly, but it should not have failed in that manner.

[DannyDot]

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

I just sent this email to the FAA engineer, Andrew McAnaul, [email protected]. The more I think about it -- based mainly on how bad the corrosion in the failed fitting was -- the less I think we need to remove paint and fabric to make sure our planes are not like the failed plane.

As soon as I post this, I am headed to my plane to remove the seat, clean the dust away, scrape with a pointed object and look for corrosion. I am certain if my plane is like the failed plane, this simple inspection will find the problem. I will not find a crack this way, but it looks to me like LOTS of corrosion was the failure mechanism of the plane that went down.

Danny Deger

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I have talked to you a couple of times on the phone, mainly about the strut AD. I live close to Houston and had no trouble finding an eddy current inspector and I have completed the AD. I just had an idea for people out "in the middle of nowhere". Take off the strut and turn it end over end and listen for loose corrosion rattling around. If no noise, the strut is good for another two years. Anything rattling around would mean the wall thickness must be measured.

I am writing today about the fuselage fitting concern. I am not going to fly at all until I do an inspection that is good enough for me. Looking at the photos of the failed fitting, it looked to be a "corroded mess". If this is the case, I don't see the need for removing paint and fabric for a close look. You told me on the phone during our first conversation, the corrosion was covered with paint. My look at the failed part makes me believe the corrosion was evident without removing paint and if covered, scrapping with something like the end of a screw driver would have revealed the corrosion underneath -- paint over rust comes off if scraped. Is this a reasonable description of the failed fitting?

Or was the failure primarily a propagated crack. If this is the case, a look at the area for massive corrosion is obviously not going to be adequate. Even if a crack was the "straw the broke the camels back", it looks to me the primary reason for failure was massive corrosion that should be simple to inspect for.

Last question is the affect of being on floats. First of all float operations is going to have a lot of moisture -- but being stored outside allows for moisture in the form of rain. Even more importantly maybe the way moisture drains when on floats. I have heard many places a Taylorcraft tends to corrode at the bottom of the very end of the tail because water drains to this point. While on floats this is not the case. Water will tend to drain to the fuselage fitting area because this is the lowest point. If this is the case, are non-float planes at risk for the extreme corrosion apparent in the failed plane.

Thank you for you consideration in this matter. I want to do what is safe for my plane. Like I said, I am going to do some type of inspection before my next flight. But I don't want to perform an expensive inspection to look for cracks if the failure was massive corrosion that might have been the direct result of float operations causing water to pool in this area.