Revised Strut AD Dec 10th, 2007

[Buell Powell]

Re: Revised Strut AD Dec 10th, 2007

Buell, I see my comments, I also wonder why there aren't more.

Tom,
I agree with your comment. I sent a set of 1977 F19 struts to have tested. The X-Rays show no corrosion at all-they are 4130 and had never been treated. It does not seem reasonable to have to remove them every 4 years-especially after treating them. I requested that Poly Fiber Tube Seal be included. I asked for an extension and pointed out that the Taylorcraft factory owner who instigated the AD has yet to produce any struts and there is still no direct replacement sealed struts for the F series or pre-war Taylorcrafts and in apx 70 years of service no Taylorcraft strut has ever failed so an extension should not present an immediate danger. I pointed out they had the cost for replacing struts incorrect since they did not include shippping and the cost of painting. I don't know if anything will be considered but since our opportunity to comment before the original AD was issued had been waived I thought I should take advantage of this probably last chance-hope some others will also.

[Forrest Barber]

Re: Revised Strut AD Dec 10th, 2007

YES please comment that is why WE are doing this. I comment directly to the FAA Engineer . I want to have the extension too , too many owners jumped on the band wagon to get new struts to exchange for some times better struts.
Time will sort out the truth. I do agree that more bad ones were found than I thought would show up , THIS shows that we do not Inspectors out there that know what to look for during maintenance. Perhaps an age of the STRUT needs to be addressed.

[Buell Powell]

Re: Revised Strut AD Dec 10th, 2007

Forrest,
I could be wrong but I was under the impression that X-Ray was to be done and if any problems were found then they were to be tested for wall thickness. When several sets were taken to All American Testing in San Antonio some showed that there were areas that showed problem areas on the X-Rays. Instead of testing for wall thickness they just said there was no reason to do the next test and failed them (even though they charged full price). This leads me to believe that there are probably struts that failed that may not be bad depending on where they are taken. There just seem to be no consistancy in testing. . It could be that all of them are bad but the only way to know for sure is to have all of the ones that failed tested under the same conditions-all the test preformed. Prehaps this is another problem that should be considered with the AD.

[jstall]

Re: Revised Strut AD Dec 10th, 2007

Gentlemen

I'm posting in the blind, but I just got info from my I.A. after my annual and the strut inspection, that he can't find any info from the FAA files on line that would indicate that the FAA has granted an extension to the time compiance of the A/D from 24 months to 48?? and won't sigh it off??
Dammit, where does this end?? can anyone help??

was this a pipe dream at 3:00 a.m. from Andy McAnaul, or is it fact??

JS

and if it is fact where do we find it< the most amazing deal I've ever seen
hands down

JS

[jstall]

Re: Revised Strut AD Dec 10th, 2007

[QUOTE=jstall;36721]Gentlemen

I'm posting in the blind, but I just got info from my I.A. after my annual and the strut inspection, that he can't find any info from the FAA files on line that would indicate that the FAA has granted an extension to the time compiance of the A/D from 24 months to 48?? and won't sigh it off??
Dammit, where does this end?? can anyone help??

was this a pipe dream at 3:00 a.m. from Andy McAnaul, or is it fact??

JS

and if it is fact where do we find it< the most amazing deal I've ever seen
hands down

FOUND IT?? AMOC-----

JS

[fearofpavement]

Re: Revised Strut AD Dec 10th, 2007

I don't understand what the 24 or 48 month issue has to do with him signing off the AD. Has it been more than 24 months since the inspection was done???

Also, as an IA he should have access to the ammended AD which pretty clearly spells out the 48 month reinspection interval for ultrasound and x-ray.

[T.Taylor]

Re: Revised Strut AD Dec 10th, 2007

Gentlemen

I'm posting in the blind, but I just got info from my I.A. after my annual and the strut inspection, that he can't find any info from the FAA files on line that would indicate that the FAA has granted an extension to the time compiance of the A/D from 24 months to 48?? and won't sigh it off??
Dammit, where does this end?? can anyone help??

was this a pipe dream at 3:00 a.m. from Andy McAnaul, or is it fact??

JS

and if it is fact where do we find it< the most amazing deal I've ever seen
hands down

JS

found this:
Since issuing AD 2007-16-14, we received several comments concerning the AD. We reviewed all comments submitted to the docket. The following are significant comments that influenced our decision to propose superseding AD 2007-16-14 with a new AD:

We approved the radiograph inspection procedure as an AMOC for the repetitive inspections required in AD 2007–16–14, and the manufacturer has added the procedures for the radiograph inspection to their revised service bulletin.

We received several requests to increase the compliance time between repetitive inspections because the Taylorcraft service information requires the application of corrosion inhibitor to the interior of the strut at each inspection. The commenters also requested a longer compliance time between repetitive inspections for land planes compared to float equipped planes. Based on the inspection methods used and the requirement to apply corrosion inhibitor to the strut interior at each inspection, we believe there is not an increased safety risk to the public by increasing the compliance time between the repetitive inspections from 24 months to 48 months for all airplanes. We do not have sufficient information to determine if a different inspection interval for land and float equipped airplanes is valid.
this was found at: www.airresearch.com/data/not-07/07CE086.RTF
it looks like the FAA is update the AD real soon, in fact at the top of the page it stated AD 2007-16-14 is superseded. Hope this may help, T.

[robbie]

Re: Revised Strut AD Dec 10th, 2007

How do you view comments?
I posted one yesterday, but I can't find the comments.
I still think its a done deal, It's as good as its going to get.
We got xraying approved, and it extended to 48 months.
I beleive the only thing out there thats left for us is getting it entended 90 or 120 days because the new struts availablity.
Just my throughts, you know the goverment.

[T.Taylor]

Re: Revised Strut AD Dec 10th, 2007

How do you view comments?
I posted one yesterday, but I can't find the comments.
I still think its a done deal, It's as good as its going to get.
We got xraying approved, and it extended to 48 months.
I beleive the only thing out there thats left for us is getting it entended 90 or 120 days because the new struts availablity.
Just my throughts, you know the goverment.

did you go to www.regulations.gov ??,i went there got a goole place, first click was it, under comments put in FAA-2007-0286 saw a post from Buell Powell and Thomas A. Butler, and others. Don't know if that was where you were, best wishes, T.

[Buell Powell]

Re: Revised Strut AD Dec 10th, 2007

Hi Robbie,
Glad to see that you have posted a comment too. I don't know if posting a comment will help either but I think there have been problems the FAA should know about-especially with the factory not being able to supply new struts and other sources haveing trouble getting approvals and AMOC's and there are some other ways to make the AD better and can't see any reason not to at least try.
Buell

[Buell Powell]

Re: Revised Strut AD Dec 10th, 2007

Well-this is the last day to comment. Since Monday it has gone from 2 to 14 so thats a lot better. Reading the revised AD all the changes state "we have recieved several requests for" so I think it does help. If you havent sent a comment you might want to read the ones that others have sent. I will probably put new struts on my T/craft so some wont affect my plane directly but I can sure see the reasoning for the other requests. I really think the FAA should not have waived the oppertunity for us to comment before the last AD was issued. I think they may have realized that the owners, A@P's, and IA's are who fly and maintain these old planes are the ones who have the most knowlege about them and they should have done more to seek it. I think this because they did change some things that needed to be changed because of recomendations of the comments(even after the AD was issued) on the AD and by Forrest directly. Even if you totaly agree with the AD and the way it was issued (personally I didn't like it at all).a comment will show that we should have a say in how we need to preserve our great little pieces or aviation history. May be I'm wrong and our comments wont change anything but we may be able to convince them of the importance of our input on the next AD.

[Ed O'Brien]

Re: Revised Strut AD Dec 10th, 2007

Regarding the Strut AD: We are talking about 2 different concepts and divided among 3 different groups. One the FAA is used to hearing and working with a factory full of experts supporting it's fleet... Say, Boeing sees a problem in one of their static flying 737s and predicts
a tail issue at 25,000 hours of service. When Boeing runs to the FAA and needs an emergency AD... the FAA should listen. However, when working with a factory which has shown no such expertise, never built anything, is a factory in name only, has never been licensed to manufacture aircraft, etc. etc. I would think the FAA policy might want to be a bit more circumspect and in doing so, and therefore ask for more comment. The FAA shouldn't shoot first and ask questions later, so to speak. Such is the current status of the Taylorcraft AD/SB.
1. Except for a few members of this discussion board who said they wouldn't comply... most members have been helpful, courteous, knowledgable, and compliant. Forrest, Bruce, Eric, Terry, Bill B. and many others have added to the collective knowledge of the fleet owners and the FAA... have provided genuine services to the fleet and should be commended as good citizens, members, owners, and pilots. Give us an A minus.
2. The factory has been goofy, on again off again, non communicative, hard to work with and perhaps has again cheated some people out of their money by offering things for sale that the factory can't sell... give the factory
an F.
3. The FAA seems to lack some interior collective knowledge on light, rag-wing, taildraggers. They seem to have initially been caught off guard and nearly panicked. That said, they did come through will a reasoned backside, approachable, listen-friendly, we're here to help attitude. Give the FAA a C. Hopefully, with the knowledge accumulated they'll be up to a B soon.
4. Wag-Aero, Univair, Alaskan Struts, and the PMAs (not including the factory) summoned their manufacturing expertise and skill and came forward at a critical moment
to join the fray, bring some order, settle many issues, and save the fleet. Give them a B-plus.

Hopefully through this process the Taylorcraft owners group has forged a new respect inside the FAA and will be taken seriously in the future. AS SUCH, the factory will be discounted in the future and the FAA will not be so easily pannicked by anything the factory says... give the Future
a B.
With regards; ED OBRIEN

[Buell Powell]

Re: Revised Strut AD Dec 10th, 2007

Ed,
That about sums it up and better than anything I could have stated for the importance of posting a comment. It isn't so much about this AD-it may be a done deal- but about the next one. Many more emergency AD's where we have have to spend thousands on something most don't need may make it just unaffordable for some of us to keep our planes. Most take very good care of our planes and one size fits all AD is what may be needed for Boieng but just is not right for us. Almost every Antique plane is owned by a different person and is maintained under completly different circumstances.Harry is just not the most qualified person to control how we maintain our planes -period.
Buell

[1938BF50]

Re: Revised Strut AD Dec 10th, 2007

Tribe,

I am sorry for letting you all down but it looks like my comments were not accepted in time. I fell into the "tomorrow" trap without realizing the date involved. I borrowed several very valid comments from some of you....thanx for wording it better than I. FWIW here is what I sent:


As others have already noted, a big concern to me is the lack of availability of
Pre-war Wing Struts available for my 1938 aircraft. I am several hundred hours into restoring my 1938 B model NC20407 and am extremely disappointed that should one of my ORIGINAL struts fail someone’s interpretation of acceptable, (per FACTORY SB engineering attempts) that I will have to replace my struts with grossly oversize modern AMOC replacements. Please also note that those of us who are maintaining pre-war aircraft do not have direct replacements available to us. This is an important issue, as we do not want to alter the original appearance of our VERY WELL engineered aircraft.

If it is Andrew M. reviewing these comments please remember my nearly 100 hours of tensile pull testing on (6) wing strut samples indicated that even severe corrosion had limited effect on ultimate load, and that even MODERATE CORROSION HAD LITTLE to NO EFFECT ON ULTIMATE LOAD in all samples tested.

AD 2007-16-14 should be withdrawn completely.

General Comment:
I am in agreement that for safety reasons these struts should be inspected. However, I feel that the time between inspections should be extended. Therefore, I am requesting that you consider: Extending the time for compliance to one year from the date of the AD. Also, after the initial inspection and treating of the struts, increase the time between inspections to 10 years.

[flylo]

Re: Revised Strut AD Dec 10th, 2007

I posted my comments about three hours ago,but they haven't shown up yet?