NPRM A-A11 for the Proposed AD

[Forrest Barber]

Re: NPRM A-A11 for the Proposed AD

THERE IS A NPRM ( notice of proposed rule making) on the Attach Fitting, make your comments...... I stayed up late to post it the first day... READ the first post to this thread....

YES if you ( correction , your IA) complys with the service bulletin. which WE got it made very simple and visual , then you will be fine for the AD ; IF it comes out!

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: NPRM A-A11 for the Proposed AD

Whether an AD comes out or not you owe it to yourself to inspect the fittings. It isn't that hard and it only takes one plane (more) failing to ruin all our days. I hope no official inspection ever comes out, but I am darned sure looking at mine at every annual. It's just cheap insurance, like the "Taylorcraft Terrible Triangle" back in the tail, pulling off the tail wheel leaf springs for a good look and inspecting the tail wires. All cheap insurance. My plane is one of a few things I have that is actually older than I am. I want to keep it in better shape than I am.
Hank

My wife is older than I am, but everybody that knows us both knows she is in better shape than me.

[dennispip]

Re: NPRM A-A11 for the Proposed AD

Excellent Post, Hank. Inspection Ready Every Day makes for a lot less anxiety night or day.

[VictorBravo]

Re: NPRM A-A11 for the Proposed AD

Here is what I attempted to post on the government website in the comments:

Although the FAA is justifiably attempting to show an immediate response to any questions raised regarding flight safety, in this case I believe the FAA is failing to recognize several important factors and is also allowing itself to be influenced by a very questionable entity. I believe this will expose the FAA to far more potential liabilities, questions and criticisms than are necessary in this case. It is now very well known that the unfortunate accident which precipitated this NPRM (and a related recent AD) was an extreme example of many years of poor maintenance and several instances of poor judgment by an IA. If the FAA is truly concerned about flight safety, it should be putting effort into improving maintenance practices and educating mechanics about this type of failure, rather than hastily pointing a finger at one specific type of aircraft. The subject aircraft was a Taylorcraft, but the airworthiness problem that actually caused these fatalities was a failure of one or more mechanics, operators, and Authorized Inspector(s). The FAA should beware of a scenario where an emergency AD is issued on Taylorcrafts, congratulating itself on a job well done, and three months later a Super Cub or Cessna flying out of the same location crashes... because the same maintenance, repair, operation, and inspection people were involved. Again, I sincerely thank the FAA for doing the thankless job of trying to keep aviation safe... but you may be barking up the wrong tree by focusing your efforts on an imaginary and non-existent design flaw in the Taylorcraft. The extreme unsafe maintenance condition of the Wiley Taylorcraft floatplane WOULD HAVE crashed ANY steel tube aircraft. It is an incorrect and misguided decision to address this flight safety matter as if it were a Taylorcraft issue... you could be opening the door for needless fatalities in Aeroncas, Pipers, Maules, and other similar aircraft by allowing their owners and inspectors to think that the Wiley crash was a Taylorcraft-specific problem!!! It has been CLEARLY shown that the root cause of this crash was a problem with the fabric covering technique, a problem with corrosion protection, failure to follow LONG-ESTABLISHED inspection and maintenance procedures, a failure of the IA to notice an obvious safety issue, and finally a problem with an operator not seeing something obvious on many many pre-flight inspections. I do not want the FAA to think that my motive for writing this is to save a few dollars. I believe that the Taylorcraft lift strut attach fitting SHOULD and MUST be inspected. However I also believe that an inspection every five years for landplanes and two or three years for floatplanes should be more than sufficient. MORE importantly, I believe that the ROOT causes of this tragedy should be addressed in two ways: First, a mechanical solution to reduce corrosion and make inspection easier should be implemented. This should involve removal of fabric that could trap water, removal of fabric to allow full inspection, and installation of a very simple removable cover to prevent water and debris from collecting in the affected area. Second, it is imperative that the FAA immediately issue a statement that the subject crash and airworthiness concern is not a Taylorcraft-specific problem, and that all inspectors of aircraft operating in these conditions pay far greater attention to critical areas on older aircraft during inspections. Lastly, the FAA has already been RECENTLY and COMPLETELY embarrassed by its reliance on, and belief in, the current Taylorcraft type certificate holder as a source of accurate information. The FAA was led astray by the Taylorcraft "factory", which was and is not a factory at all. In this instance, the FAA is on the verge of being led astray once again. The proper repair of steel tube structures and welded fittings has been long-established by AC 43.13, and there is absolutely no reason that Taylorcraft, LLC has to be consulted for an approved repair. If Taylorcraft wants to offer replacement fittings they can do so, however simple steel fitting repairs are able to be made using 43.13 without Taylorcraft, LLC having its hand in my pocket... or their influence being exerted over a federal agency.

[Forrest Barber]

Re: NPRM A-A11 for the Proposed AD

Very good Bill, I will add that the initial insistence came from the NTSB wanting to be assured by the FAA that all aircraft would have a mandatory inspection ( AD) of this area.
As we all know the SB will not insure inspection.

If this area has a lot of corrosion and needs an "approved repair" I am 90% sure that the whole fuselage is shot, just replace it.

[Forrest Barber]

Re: NPRM A-A11 for the Proposed AD

Just posted on FAA site re: NPRM for the attach fitting situation. There has been one report of corrosion aft of the fitting in the tubing .... I have done four they are all okay so far!

[Guest]

Re: NPRM A-A11 for the Proposed AD

Just posted on FAA site re: NPRM for the attach fitting situation. There has been one report of corrosion aft of the fitting in the tubing .... I have done four they are all okay so far!

Hi Forrest,

Do you have a picture or more details about the rusted one? Sounds interesting, Dave.

[Forrest Barber]

Re: NPRM A-A11 for the Proposed AD

I have been told it was very obvious, been outside for a while ( 6 yrs) facing uphill, tail low , water laid in that area. Again an abused aircraft.

[Robert Lees]

Re: NPRM A-A11 for the Proposed AD

I'm unsticking this thread. 4 weeks and no response.

Rob