Cessna doorpost AD

Pilawt

Pilawt

Final Approach
Joined
Sep 19, 2005
Messages
9,478
Location
Santa Rosita State Park, under the big 'W'
Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
The final rule was issued yesterday, requiring inspection of the doorpost and wing strut attach areas of certain strut-braced high-wing Cessnas.

http://www.tdatacorp.com/iaprch/20-18-01.htm

Applicability varies by model ... it looks like 182s from 182E (1962 model) through 182Q (1986); all pre-shutdown 205, 206 and 207 models; and 210B (1962) through 210F (1966). None of the narrow-body 180/182/185/210s are listed.

As to the 172 family, it appears that only those of the 1980 model year and newer, up to the 1986 shutdown 172P, are included. "172N" is listed, but only from s/n 17272885 forward. 172Ns from the 1977, 1978 and 1979 model years are not included*. The 1980 172s (including 172N, R172K and 172RG) switched to a "new slim-line front door post [which] means greater visibility for both pilot and passengers." That's likely the culprit.

(*Note that some 1980 model 172Ns were built in late calendar year 1979. Check serial number.)
 
Last edited:
I'm not familiar with the history of this AD. We're there any catastrophic failures driving this inspection?
 
We actually bought the SB kit for our 182 right when this started stirring in the pot, I bet the kits are more than triple the $ now, if there are any in stock at all.
 
bnt83 said:
We actually bought the SB kit for our 182 right when this started stirring in the pot, I bet the kits are more than triple the $ now, if there are any in stock at all.
Click to expand...
Did you discover cracks? The installation of this kit is not trivial. FAA estimates 40 hours labor.
 
George Mohr said:
Did you discover cracks? The installation of this kit is not trivial. FAA estimates 40 hours labor.
Click to expand...

We haven't found any cracking, it was more of a bet and I told dad, buy the kit now while we can.

It looks fairly simple on the whole but I've cut and fabricated a bunch of sheet metal projects before. I'm no expert by any means but there are plenty of career structures guys in my area to consult.
 
Last edited:
IF not cracks, re-inspect every 3 years. or each 1000 hours.
 
George Mohr said:
We're there any catastrophic failures driving this inspection?
Click to expand...
No failures mentioned in the NPRM docket. But over 4 dozen cracking reports noted in 100 and 200 series aircraft with metal fatigue determined to be cause.
 
Interesting... thanks for that. Any reference to the cracking reports you could give?
 
George Mohr said:
I'm not familiar with the history of this AD. We're there any catastrophic failures driving this inspection?
Click to expand...

Haven’t dug further for anything “catastrophic”, but the AD itself says four aircraft were reported to have significant cracks in the area.

Looks like my airplane has a new recurring AD.

Saw some hints elsewhere that at least one vendor of repair stuff submitted what they claimed was a better and cheaper repair method than the currently approved one, and they hoped they could maybe still get it through some process. They didn’t quite make the deadlines.

And by “hints”, I mean comments made elsewhere on social media, under the AD announcement post there, by someone claiming to be from that place.

Who knows on that.

Someone else being snarky joked to wait for whatever McFarlane comes up with and it’ll be far better and cheaper. Ha. Can’t say that sentiment is very far from the truth with Cessnas... pretty funny, but mean to the other commenter, though. :)

Skimming the AD earlier I didn’t see much detail on airframe age of the four or service type or anything really to hint at what really causes it. But I ran out of time when a meeting came up.
 
NordicDave said:
Yea, with wing spar inspections.
Click to expand...

LOL touché dear sir. He did walk right into that one. :D

fwiw, not an AD yet, 2 and half years since....and still going. Some emergency :dunno:. I know people who own an airplane for less time outright. I digress.
 
Here is a doc that shows some diagrams and instructions.
 

Attachments

  • SEB 95-19.pdf
    948.1 KB · Views: 67
denverpilot said:
Yet...

LOL. ;)
Click to expand...

Over time everything falls apart. Entropy. :D

(However, in keeping with it's well deserved "Aztruk" reputation, the spar/wing on the Aztec is built completely differently from those Cherokee derivatives Piper's been flogging since 1961 ;))
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
Could the kit be an owner manufactured part? Is it difficult to machine? Unknown metallurgy?
Click to expand...
It could possibly be such, but would you buy a plane with such a "kit" installed? My venture into "owner-produced parts" began and ended with a yoke bushing.
 
Pilawt said:
The final rule was issued yesterday, requiring inspection of the doorpost and wing strut attach areas of certain strut-braced high-wing Cessnas.

http://www.tdatacorp.com/iaprch/20-18-01.htm

Applicability varies by model ... it looks like 182s from 182E (1962 model) through 182Q (1986); all pre-shutdown 205, 206 and 207 models; and 210B (1962) through 210F (1966). None of the narrow-body 180/182/185/210s are listed.

As to the 172 family, it appears that only those of the 1980 model year and newer, up to the 1986 shutdown 172P, are included. "172N" is listed, but only from s/n 17272885 forward. 172Ns from the 1977, 1978 and 1979 model years are not included*. The 1980 172s (including 172N, R172K and 172RG) switched to a "new slim-line front door post [which] means greater visibility for both pilot and passengers." That's likely the culprit.

(*Note that some 1980 model 172Ns were built in late calendar year 1979. Check serial number.)
Click to expand...

Any idea why the range of affected 172 models stop at the "N"? I've got a 1976 C172M that I think has a similar structure in the affected area of this AD.
 
hindsight2020 said:
LOL touché dear sir. He did walk right into that one. :D

fwiw, not an AD yet, 2 and half years since....and still going. Some emergency :dunno:. I know people who own an airplane for less time outright. I digress.
Click to expand...


correction... AD on the wing walked right into that one...
 
Larry Korona said:
Any idea why the range of affected 172 models stop at the "N"? I've got a 1976 C172M that I think has a similar structure in the affected area of this AD.
Click to expand...
No, it's the other way around. The range of affected 172s starts with the 1980 172N (s/n 17272885). The 1980 model switched to a slimmer front doorpost, which is different from the one on your 172M. The way the strut is attached to the fuselage is different with the new doorpost design, more similar to the post-1961 182, 205, 206, 207 and strut-braced 210, which are also targeted by the AD.
 
Last edited:
Pilawt said:
No, it's the other way around. The range of affected 172s starts with the 1980 172N (s/n 17272885). The 1980 model switched to a slimmer front doorpost, which is different from the one on your 172M.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the explanation, I was wondering if there was a possibility of the AD expanding to cover my plane. I see now that isn't going to happen.
 
Looks like you will lose 1.6 pounds of useful load per side fixed.
Appears my old 172 missed the AD. :)
 
GRG55 said:
However, in keeping with it's well deserved "Aztruk" reputation, the spar/wing on the Aztec is built completely differently from those Cherokee derivatives Piper's been flogging since 1961
Click to expand...
Yes!!

I've been reading the poh and the wing construction overall is very impressive.. the way it is designed the wing is effectively one piece

Context: in a few weeks I'm going to start flying an Aztec as my "go to" plane.. until now our club only had duchess which was not very inspiring, but we have a cross-country only Aztec now.. in my opinion a second engine is better than a chute and having all that load and six seats will really help since I often have four people and enjoy camping trips, etc
 
George Mohr said:
We're there any catastrophic failures driving this inspection
Click to expand...
I don't believe so, but I believe the point of an airworthiness directive is to avoid a potential catastrophic failure
 
Tantalum said:
Yes!!

I've been reading the poh and the wing construction overall is very impressive.. the way it is designed the wing is effectively one piece

Context: in a few weeks I'm going to start flying an Aztec as my "go to" plane.. until now our club only had duchess which was not very inspiring, but we have a cross-country only Aztec now.. in my opinion a second engine is better than a chute and having all that load and six seats will really help since I often have four people and enjoy camping trips, etc
Click to expand...

Look forward to hearing about your experiences with it. It'll be quite different from flying a Cirrus. Not better, not worse, just different. I take mine into grass strips in places people take their Cessna singles, but wouldn't dare take a Cessna twin.

Pictures too please!!
 
George Mohr said:
I'm not familiar with the history of this AD. We're there any catastrophic failures driving this inspection?
Click to expand...
Cracks were apparently found in Cessna 206 and 207 aircraft, that have an added strut attach bracket that extends outside the fuselage skin. Cessna 182 (1962-86), 210 (1962-66) and 172 (1980-86) have a similar bracket.

Screen Shot 2020-10-11 at 11.39.44 AM.png


Screen Shot 2020-10-11 at 11.56.32 AM.jpg

Pre-1980 172s had the wing strut attach directly to the bulkhead inside the fuselage.
 
We scoped it last annual when the SB came out, so I'm good for a while
 
Pilawt said:
Cracks were apparently found in Cessna 206 and 207 aircraft, that have an added strut attach bracket that extends outside the fuselage skin. Cessna 182 (1962-86), 210 (1962-66) and 172 (1980-86) have a similar bracket.

View attachment 90957


View attachment 90958

Pre-1980 172s had the wing strut attach directly to the bulkhead inside the fuselage.
Click to expand...

yikes.
 
I’m kinda surprised the “Cessna is a dumb as a door post...” jokes and memes haven’t started yet. :)
 
GRG55 said:
Look forward to hearing about your experiences with it. It'll be quite different from flying a Cirrus. Not better, not worse, just different. I take mine into grass strips in places people take their Cessna singles, but wouldn't dare take a Cessna twin.

Pictures too please!!
Click to expand...
Thanks! I've only heard great things about the Aztec so I'm looking forward to it! When I lived in Boston I started doing twin training (Seminole) and really enjoyed it. Moving out here started my Cirrus love affair but the load capabilities and second engine will be a good fit for my current mission. As I mentioned, previously we only had Duchess so there was no real advantage to being multi rated. But the last 18 months saw a lot more flights with more than 2 people, a fair amount of gear, and mountains and water.. at least from a W&B perspective this required a lot of careful planning with the Cirrus and left me wanting a true 6 seater, and a second engine! The cockpit of this plane is all round steam gauges, but very clean, (does have a WAAS 530) but steam doesn't really bother me. What I like about the Cirrus is the simplicity, cabin comfort, and relative speed for that much comfort, incidentally though I'm not a glass obsessive, that was just a nice added perk. The majority of my actual IMC time is in a steam gauge Archer anyway..

I will update with my experience and send pics when I have them!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top