New Wing Spar AD
Moderators: Rick, Lance Murray
- rwtucker
- 5 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 1283
- Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:24 pm
- First Name: Rob
- Aircraft Type: DA40
- Aircraft Registration: N831BA
- Airports: KFFZ KEUL
- Has thanked: 100 times
- Been thanked: 110 times
Re: New Wing Spar AD
I do my own annuals with my IA monitoring/assisting. His prior job was in carbon fiber aircraft fabrication. When I showed him the AD at my last annual, his comment was "Sell the plane before 2023."
I heard (unconfirmed) that the rationale for the AD was a minor anomaly in the inspection of a single aircraft. This reminds me of the PA28 control wheel pin AD. Of the tens of thousands of PA28s in the world, one was found to have a yoke pin that did not go all the way through the shaft. Even if there were to be a loss of control, the pilot is 18 inches from the other yoke. (Most of us have flown with a hand on the opposite yoke while we were doing something in the cabin.) By actual report, compliance with the Piper AD has resulted in hundreds of damaged aircraft, especially avionics and wiring (it is a crowded space, upside down, back breaker to get at the pin). So far as I know, all airworthy PA28 have complied with the AD and not a single problem was detected.
I wonder what damage will be accidentally done by complying with this AD in cases where there is no evidence of separation or cracking?
I heard (unconfirmed) that the rationale for the AD was a minor anomaly in the inspection of a single aircraft. This reminds me of the PA28 control wheel pin AD. Of the tens of thousands of PA28s in the world, one was found to have a yoke pin that did not go all the way through the shaft. Even if there were to be a loss of control, the pilot is 18 inches from the other yoke. (Most of us have flown with a hand on the opposite yoke while we were doing something in the cabin.) By actual report, compliance with the Piper AD has resulted in hundreds of damaged aircraft, especially avionics and wiring (it is a crowded space, upside down, back breaker to get at the pin). So far as I know, all airworthy PA28 have complied with the AD and not a single problem was detected.
I wonder what damage will be accidentally done by complying with this AD in cases where there is no evidence of separation or cracking?
- Don
- 4 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 377
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:15 pm
- First Name: Don
- Aircraft Type: DA40
- Aircraft Registration: N623DS
- Airports: KTOA
- Has thanked: 123 times
- Been thanked: 162 times
Re: New Wing Spar AD
rwtucker wrote:By actual report, compliance with the Piper AD has resulted in hundreds of damaged aircraft, especially avionics and wiring (it is a crowded space, upside down, back breaker to get at the pin). So far as I know, all airworthy PA28 have complied with the AD and not a single problem was detected.
Agreed. Sometimes these things do more damage with unintended consequences than good.
I always kind of thought the same regarding the DA40 five year rudder cable replacement requirement.
Diamond Star XLS, N623DS, SN40.1076
- Chris B
- 5 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 843
- Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 1:52 am
- First Name: Chris
- Aircraft Type: DA40
- Aircraft Registration: N171CB
- Airports: KRHV
- Has thanked: 210 times
- Been thanked: 215 times
Re: New Wing Spar AD
Hi Robert -rwtucker wrote:I do my own annuals with my IA monitoring/assisting. His prior job was in carbon fiber aircraft fabrication. When I showed him the AD at my last annual, his comment was "Sell the plane before 2023."
(snip)
I wonder what damage will be accidentally done by complying with this AD in cases where there is no evidence of separation or cracking?
Unwarranted meddling can certainly create issues. The rudder cables were Exhibit A on this score!
But from what I can see, this wing spar fix is quite straightforward. Once the rear seats are out (not particularly difficult or risky), the application of these small four-layer patches looks simple. The only moderately tricky part is controlling the temperature for curing, but a hair dryer with a Johnson Controls A419 and some simple cardboard box "enclosures" should make this quite manageable.
So what is the basis of your IA's comment??
Thanks,
Chris
-
- 5 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 801
- Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 10:48 am
- First Name: Tommy
- Aircraft Type: DA40
- Aircraft Registration: N591CA
- Airports: KCGF
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 33 times
Re: New Wing Spar AD
Your comments are right on Chris. I had the AD performed and it's pretty much a non-event and taking out the back seats is a yawner.Chris B wrote:Hi Robert -rwtucker wrote:I do my own annuals with my IA monitoring/assisting. His prior job was in carbon fiber aircraft fabrication. When I showed him the AD at my last annual, his comment was "Sell the plane before 2023."
(snip)
I wonder what damage will be accidentally done by complying with this AD in cases where there is no evidence of separation or cracking?
Unwarranted meddling can certainly create issues. The rudder cables were Exhibit A on this score!
But from what I can see, this wing spar fix is quite straightforward. Once the rear seats are out (not particularly difficult or risky), the application of these small four-layer patches looks simple. The only moderately tricky part is controlling the temperature for curing, but a hair dryer with a Johnson Controls A419 and some simple cardboard box "enclosures" should make this quite manageable.
So what is the basis of your IA's comment??
Thanks,
Chris
Now, replacing the rudder cables was just plain ridiculous and if you weren't careful you could do a lot of damage very easily. I also work with and along side my AP. I would not have it any other way.
I learn a lot.
By the way, if you take out the back seats and already see evidence of cracking or separation on the spar where the AD is supposed to be installed, I don't think I'm going out on a limb by saying the AD would not adequately address that issue nor is it supposed to. If that were to occur, I would hazard to guess the plane would have to be disassembled and sent back to the factory for the fix.
-
- 5 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 801
- Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 10:48 am
- First Name: Tommy
- Aircraft Type: DA40
- Aircraft Registration: N591CA
- Airports: KCGF
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 33 times
Re: New Wing Spar AD
Just pulled this off of the AOPA web site. Not exactly sure what it means.
The FAA has proposed a new airworthiness directive that would supersede an AD issued in 2013 requiring modification of the aft main spar in the cabin area of some Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH DA40 and DA40F airplanes.
The proposed AD would change an incorrect compliance time given in the existing AD for inspections related to the spar modification. Structural fatigue testing had shown that the measures were necessary to ensure the structural integrity of the airplane.
Members may submit comments on the proposed AD until May 29 as provided below.
The FAA explained in its notice of proposed rulemaking that "inspections required by AD 2013-24-13 are tied to calendar time and the Major Structural Inspection (MSI) identified in Chapter 5 of the airplane maintenance manual." The provision mirrored "the mandatory continuing airworthiness information issued by the State of Design for these products.
"However, U.S. operators are not required to comply with the requirement to inspect before the next MSI since the Limitations in Chapter 4" of the maintenance manual "are mandatory and the MSI in Chapter 5 of the AMM is not mandatory." Instead, the superseding AD proposes to tie compliance to the time-in-service of airplanes subject to the AD.
The FAA estimates that the proposed AD will affect 747 products of U.S. registry, and cost $610 per product.
Members may submit comments online or by mail by May 29 to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Please include "Docket No. FAA-2014-0226; Directorate Identifier 2014-CE-009-AD" at the beginning of your comments.
It cost me about $800.00 for this AD and I helped. It's very easy but very time consuming.
The FAA has proposed a new airworthiness directive that would supersede an AD issued in 2013 requiring modification of the aft main spar in the cabin area of some Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH DA40 and DA40F airplanes.
The proposed AD would change an incorrect compliance time given in the existing AD for inspections related to the spar modification. Structural fatigue testing had shown that the measures were necessary to ensure the structural integrity of the airplane.
Members may submit comments on the proposed AD until May 29 as provided below.
The FAA explained in its notice of proposed rulemaking that "inspections required by AD 2013-24-13 are tied to calendar time and the Major Structural Inspection (MSI) identified in Chapter 5 of the airplane maintenance manual." The provision mirrored "the mandatory continuing airworthiness information issued by the State of Design for these products.
"However, U.S. operators are not required to comply with the requirement to inspect before the next MSI since the Limitations in Chapter 4" of the maintenance manual "are mandatory and the MSI in Chapter 5 of the AMM is not mandatory." Instead, the superseding AD proposes to tie compliance to the time-in-service of airplanes subject to the AD.
The FAA estimates that the proposed AD will affect 747 products of U.S. registry, and cost $610 per product.
Members may submit comments online or by mail by May 29 to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Please include "Docket No. FAA-2014-0226; Directorate Identifier 2014-CE-009-AD" at the beginning of your comments.
It cost me about $800.00 for this AD and I helped. It's very easy but very time consuming.
- rwtucker
- 5 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 1283
- Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:24 pm
- First Name: Rob
- Aircraft Type: DA40
- Aircraft Registration: N831BA
- Airports: KFFZ KEUL
- Has thanked: 100 times
- Been thanked: 110 times
Re: New Wing Spar AD
Chris - I'm not sure why he made that comment. As I recall, he also made an off-hand remark questioning how much strength the AD would actually add if there were an underlying problem. I'll check and post.
Tommy - When you did your AD, did you see any signs of fatigue?
Tommy - When you did your AD, did you see any signs of fatigue?
-
- 5 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 801
- Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 10:48 am
- First Name: Tommy
- Aircraft Type: DA40
- Aircraft Registration: N591CA
- Airports: KCGF
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 33 times
Re: New Wing Spar AD
No. No sign of any type of failure whatsoever.rwtucker wrote: Tommy - When you did your AD, did you see any signs of fatigue?
If there had been any sign of failure in the slightest sense, I don't know how it could be viewed
as anything else other than catastrophic. Quite honestly, the spar in this location is probably stronger than a telephone poll. I don't quite understand the engineering behind the AD, then again, I'm not an engineer.
We just followed the AD to the letter. For me, it's a done deal.
-
- 5 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 2043
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:00 pm
- First Name: Antoine
- Aircraft Type: OTHER
- Aircraft Registration: N121AG
- Airports: LSGG
- Has thanked: 87 times
- Been thanked: 220 times
Re: New Wing Spar AD
Tommy I think it is quite bad news. Here is the FAA document. They are plugging the "time-hole".
https://www.federalregister.gov/article ... -airplanes
I think we should comment on it and question its usefulness. Don't know how this is done. Anyone does here?
https://www.federalregister.gov/article ... -airplanes
I think we should comment on it and question its usefulness. Don't know how this is done. Anyone does here?
- hoyaj
- 2 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 1:38 pm
- First Name: Bob
- Aircraft Type: DA40
- Airports:
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 3 times
Re: New Wing Spar AD
We absolutely should all comment.
The FAA is "making shtuff up" and most importantly the amendment proposed deviates significantly from the intent and timeframes indicated in the manufacturer's MSB:
Members may submit comments http://www.regulations.gov/#!searchResu ... ue;ns=true or by mail by May 29 to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Please include "Docket No. FAA-2014-0226; Directorate Identifier 2014-CE-009-AD" at the beginning of your comments.
Unique comments are better, by the way - NPRM comments must be addressed individually. Form letter comments only need one official answer. For example, those who have done the MSI, they should comment accordingly that they should be allowed to follow the guidance in the MSB.
Generally, it seems practical that this issue can be monitored using the MSI items required for the main cabin fuselage and wing spar.
Let's help the FAA get this as right as feasibly possible.
The FAA is "making shtuff up" and most importantly the amendment proposed deviates significantly from the intent and timeframes indicated in the manufacturer's MSB:
As for how to comment:Within the next 2000 hrs since new or since the last Major Structural Inspection from the
date of effectivity, but not later than 31-Dec-2022.
Members may submit comments http://www.regulations.gov/#!searchResu ... ue;ns=true or by mail by May 29 to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Please include "Docket No. FAA-2014-0226; Directorate Identifier 2014-CE-009-AD" at the beginning of your comments.
Unique comments are better, by the way - NPRM comments must be addressed individually. Form letter comments only need one official answer. For example, those who have done the MSI, they should comment accordingly that they should be allowed to follow the guidance in the MSB.
Generally, it seems practical that this issue can be monitored using the MSI items required for the main cabin fuselage and wing spar.
Let's help the FAA get this as right as feasibly possible.
- Chris B
- 5 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 843
- Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 1:52 am
- First Name: Chris
- Aircraft Type: DA40
- Aircraft Registration: N171CB
- Airports: KRHV
- Has thanked: 210 times
- Been thanked: 215 times
Re: New Wing Spar AD
I must be slow...
As far as I can tell, the FAA is using a boatload of words to address aircraft that are past 2000 hrs since new. They are insisting on implementation of Diamond's SB by 2000 hrs, regardless of whether the aircraft already passed a MSI. But otherwise the SB (/AD) does not need to be completed prior to the end of 2022.
Is this correct?
If so, the impact of this AD is fairly narrow (airframes over 2000 hrs). Personally, given the potentially dire consequences vs. relatively low cost, I plan to get this done soon. If my airframe was >2000 hrs, I definitely would get it done RSN(tm).
Chris
As far as I can tell, the FAA is using a boatload of words to address aircraft that are past 2000 hrs since new. They are insisting on implementation of Diamond's SB by 2000 hrs, regardless of whether the aircraft already passed a MSI. But otherwise the SB (/AD) does not need to be completed prior to the end of 2022.
Is this correct?
If so, the impact of this AD is fairly narrow (airframes over 2000 hrs). Personally, given the potentially dire consequences vs. relatively low cost, I plan to get this done soon. If my airframe was >2000 hrs, I definitely would get it done RSN(tm).
Chris