Strut Airworthiness Directive (AD) (merged VI)

[mhorowit]

Re: Wonderful FAA

Has anyone considered using the Freedom of Information Act to get the
data the FAA used to justify the AD. I know there would be cost
involved as they can charge for copying. I know we have two camps. One is the AD is good for safety and the other is we don't need an AD to require
maintenance and inspections on our AC to keep them safe. At least those of us who believe the AD is unnecessary should be willing to re imburse someone in Texas the cost of getting the FAA AD supporting data via the Freedom of Information Act. If the data dosen't support the AD then perhaps we could raise the dollars to get an attorney.

L - from what I've read on the forum, I don't think you'll get a lot of takers.
My take is no one thinks inspection is a bad idea and an AD isn't the wrong instrument to require that inspection. Again my take is the frequency and method of inspection, considering precedence has been established, is what is at issue. - MikeH

[VictorBravo]

Re: Strut Airworthiness Directive (AD) (merged III)

Today we had the mobile X-ray tech come out and X-ray FIVE Taylorcrafts at our local airport.

I am glad to say that all five airplanes (one L-2, a 1940 and a 1941 B model, two '46 BC-12D's) did not show any evidence of significant corrosion.

Each airplane got four pictures. Left and right lower 12 inches of both struts (including attach fitting), and left/right inside fuselage tubes at the lower attach cluster just inboard from the attach fitting.

What I'd like to point out here is that the X-ray showed a perfect visual record of the inside of the struts, and a perfect visual record of the inside of the cluster. The X-ray tech was FAA certified inspecting everything up to and including jet airliners. He pointed out that any corrosion would appear as dark colored blotches, cracks would appear as dark jagged lines, and then explained the minor blemishes on the films that were due to the processing machine and had nothing to do with the structure.

The test was performed with the struts in place. The films were very clear and would have showed any corrosion that was "hiding" in the nooks and crannies of the fittings, bolt holes, etc. The X-ray tech was even able to comment on the quality of the welds when the strut was built.

All five of us invested the money (less than $250 each) because we were convinced that (regardless of the SB and AD) X-ray would deliver the best and most useful indication of the primary enemy we were hunting - corrosion inside the struts and fuselage structure. We were not concerned with wall thickness or internal flaws in the steel. The reason is that if no corrosion showed on the X-ray, then there would be nothing to reduce or diminish the wall thickness.

We five have gambled a small amount of money on the bet that we would eventually get X-ray accepted as an alternate method of compliance. Even if it was not accepted (we'll fight like hell, I'm here to tell you), the X-ray apparently will still have given us the most peaceful night sleep of all the test methods, and we would likely know more about the level of safety in our individual aircraft structures than what the FAA-approved method would give us.

If the FAA does not have a legitimate reason to bar X-ray as an acceptable compliance on this, then they should accept the X-ray because it appears to be a better tool for finding corrosion. If they do have a legitimate reason for barring X-ray, (my mind is open to listen, Mr. MacAnaul) the time for them to explain it is NOW.

If I can figure out how to use my scanner to scan what is essentially a negative, I'll try to post the films in a day or so.

[Buell Powell]

Re: Strut Airworthiness Directive (AD) (merged III)

Bill,
Thanks for the effort! Please let me know if I can help in any way. If you are sucessful is convincing the FAA that this is the best method of stut inspection(and it sure looks like it is to me). I can already picture a T/craft fly-in at the old La-Grange airport where they have one once a month anyway. We could have some great Bar-B Q. and get the AD inspections done at the same time and check out some fine T/crafts. Something positive may come out of this yet -
Buell

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: Strut Airworthiness Directive (AD) (merged III)

I guess REPEATING the message is the only way to get it through to those in charge of this inspection, so let's make it as simple ands clear as possible.

1) X-ray will tell you IF there is corrosion. If there IS NONE there is no reason to inspect further. If there IS corrosion, then you need to do something to determine how much.

2) Ultra-sonic seems to be able to tell you how much material has been lost to corrosion (IF you know where to look (EXACTLY where to look, which is why you start with X-ray).

It is now incumbent on the FAA to decide HOW MUCH corrosion is too much. I have 30 years at the engineering side of this kind of problem, and analysis only gets you so far. There HAS TO BE PULL TESTS on the worst corroded struts (to the max design load + a safety factor) to determine how bad the corrosion has to be before they are not safe to fly. If X-ray shows no corrosion WE SHOULD BE DONE! No corrosion, no loss of strength, YOU SHOULD BE DONE! If they want to require a follow-on X-ray in the future, fine (till we show properly preserved struts don't suddenly corrode because of their age).

That gets the clean struts OFF THE TABLE.

Corroded struts that don't corrode further (as shown by follow-on X-ray) and have PROVEN they are good through pull test, should ONLY require X-ray unless that shows MORE corrosion (shame on you for letting that happen).

THIS IS A GOOD, WORKABLE, CONTINUING INSPECTION PROCESS THAT SHOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE FAA! Taking the struts off or leaving them on is a matter for the NDI tech and IA signing off the job to determine. It doesn't need to be part of the requirement. IF there is new corrosion, YES, because you probably will need to do the pull test, but otherwise, if your IA is satisfied he can tell there is no corrosion with the NDI tech, we should be able to fly the plane in and get it inspected (could I suggest this would be a great excuse for regional fly-ins?).
Hank

[Buell Powell]

Re: Strut Airworthiness Directive (AD) (merged III)

Does anyone know if the FAA did pull tests on the rusted struts that were presented to them

[VictorBravo]

Re: Strut (AD) (merged III)

Does anyone know if the FAA did pull tests on the rusted struts that were presented to them

It would be an educated guess that if they did pull tests they would have said so in the AD, to prevent the type of complaints they have likely been getting.

What bothers me the most on this is that the "factory" and the FAA are both probably fully aware of the questions which have been raised about which type and frequency of inspection is appropriate... and have not responded promptly.

Granted the FAA has a right to not want to jump into a big broo-haa-haa from a bunch of whining,cheapskate, uneducated and angry owners... BUT in this case that is not what they would be jumping into. It's clear that our internet group is comprised of a higher percentage of forward thinking people, with a good percentage of engineers, technically competent people, educated owners, experienced aircraft mechanics, etc.

Although several pointed and irritated comments have been made (by me and others), this group has more often than not kept their anger toward one perceived "bad guy" at bay at least enough to offer the FAA a reasonable forum in which to give and receive information.

HERE'S AN IDEA THAT MIGHT BE WORTH DOING:

I would dare to say that if the FAA engineer and/or the "factory" would accept an invitation to participate in this discussion group (on ONE DEDICATED thread), the three administrators of this group would likely be willing to put in the time to moderate the discussion, and keep it on-topic and flame-free.

Forrest, I sincerely think that you should invite Mr. MacAnaul and Mr. Ingram to participate on a dedicated thread on the strut AD. With the permission and involvement of yourself, Bob O. and Rob Lees, I believe that a highly moderated (100% necessity) public discussion would be VERY valuable (assuming that everyone involved had the intention and willingness to arrive at workable solutions).

Forgive the 'salesmanship' on my part, but I think this could become a very good model for the exchange of information and ideas on all future AD's, on any type of aircraft, in addition to the previous "normal" means of communication. It seems that there have been some questions raised about proper notice and communication on the strut issue.

[waltermrich]

Visual strut inspection

Im in the process of an annual inspection on our aircraft and the IA wanted to know what a visual inspection entails on the struts since it is not spelled out on the AD. I think the AD refers to the service bulliten , but any help would be appreciated. Thanks N94961

[NC95842]

Re: Wonderful FAA

I do like using that stupid “freedom of information act” for something useful. I also think that this strut bull shit was started by Harry. And by the way if I ever see him again, I would not mind punching him in the face.
I was an engineer and can understand how a bunch of guys in an office feel trying to keep us and the public safe when the part that holds on the wings is 60 years old. But I will say from experience that the strut is way over built. I had to replace one on my plane on my first annual and it was rusted through. Before that I was pushing the plane really hard and it held up fine.

I will support anyone trying to limit this useless AD. But when it comes to our day in court, We will be the only ones there who is not paid to be there.

Now, lets look at a good side to all this. 1. As everyone knows, not every owner has plans to fallow this AD. But they will now have easy access to some really good used struts at a reduced rate. That will make us safer. 2. If anyone in any country needs or wants new struts, the price has just dropped from $3,400 a set with one supplier, to $1,800 a set and 3 suppliers. All of this makes us a little safer and for all the guys who own and maintain there old bird on there own field, life just got a little easer.

We all know that the FAA can be a total pain in the ass. And that sometimes there input makes our planes less safe. But there intentions are well meant.

Also, these guys have the ability to make our lives much more difficult! Let’s just stay as far from them as we can. Keep our planes safe so we don’t have to speak with these folks. And, I am willing to bet these guys know exactly how we feel… Because they read all of this.

[robbie]

Re: Strut Airworthiness Directive (AD) (merged III)

REMINDER: for every one to post your comments to the FAA on the AD.
The docket number is 28478, the address is back a couple of pages.
Everyone needs to make their comment.
Thanks

[lfries]

Re: Strut Airworthiness Directive (AD) (merged III)

Do we have EAA or AOPA on board for helping rid the AD
of the unsatisfactory inspection methods. Also the fact that we are
being discriminated against by the limited and controversial inspection methods. I assume that we are a smaller no. than the Piper folks so we are easier to discriminate against.

[Dano"T"]

Re: Strut Airworthiness Directive (AD) (merged III)

Guys,

I had my struts inspected.....I have a BC12D-85 on floats. It lives outside all summer on my lake and has not been re-covered since 1981. The struts did not have even a hint of corrosion in them. My IA started by taking some stainless wire and probing into the vent holes.....the wire never even showed a discoloration on the tip from surface rust of any kind. My IA said the struts looked like new. So I wonder again....If my plane sits outside on the water all summer (and sometimes in the winter on skiis....then where did these rusty struts (with rust through the thickness) come from....Salty seaside areas? Alongside a barn where the filled up with water as the seasons passed and corroded from the inside out? My plane has 26 years on a re-cover.....has spent 10 summers outside on floats in Minnesota and Upper Peninsula of Michigan.....and my struts look like new. Please report to all of us on the condition your planes as they are inspected......Makes me wonder where these rusty struts come from....and how many actually came from a flying plane.

[cpirrmann]

Re: Wonderful FAA

Well said too. There is some good to come of this. I don't foresee the FAA changeing anything without a lot of lobbying and tooth pulling. Just ask AOPA and EAA. Maybe it's time to put the stars and bars on my plane

[flyguy]

Re: Wonderful FAA

I wonder if it will be possible to find our where the struts they examined and used as justification came from. That is, whether they were from a scrap pile that was piled out in the weather by the ocean or if they came from reasonably representative active, maintained aircraft.

Has anyone been able to get the FAA engineer to comment on this specific point?

[Guest]

Re: Wonderful FAA

I wonder if it will be possible to find our where the struts they examined and used as justification came from. That is, whether they were from a scrap pile that was piled out in the weather by the ocean or if they came from reasonably representative active, maintained aircraft.

Has anyone been able to get the FAA engineer to comment on this specific point?

It is an interesting question but I suspect that the answer makes no difference since the FAA looks out for the fleet not an individual a/c.

What do you think?

[flyguy]

Re: Wonderful FAA

Yeah, probably right about that.
DC